Suchergebnisse

At the foundation of the mainstream, the international criminal justice programme is of the view that there should be no 'outside-of-law': everyone, regardless of nationality or position, should be held accountable for his or her atrocities committed. The establishment of the International Criminal Court ('ICC') is often portrayed as a march toward the rule of law, away from politics and expediency. The idealistic description of international criminal justice may be challenged when considering the actual situations and cases investigated and prosecuted:only rebels, the vanquished and defeated, rogue States and scapegoats appear to be in the crosshairs of international criminal justice.

Many conflicts in Italian politics have focused on migration policy. After the national elections in 2018, this conflict cut across all societal spheres and levels of governance and administration. On the one hand, tightening migration policies and criminalizing pro-migrant civil-society actors created a conflict between the government and many civil-society actors. On the other hand, civil-society and public-sector actors formed new alliances and lines of conflict at the local and national levels. This article analyzes the development of Italian civil society around the migration issue from the 1970s to 2019 from a relational perspective using the strategic action field approach. This approach offers a conceptual framework and an analytical model for studying behaviors and relations among different types of collective actors, including civil-society actors and public authorities.

AbstractThe global community still lacks a regime for sovereign debt restructuring. There is increasing concern that international investment agreements may become a 'court' for sovereign workouts. Are international investment agreements the appropriate place for the global community to resolve sovereign debt restructuring in the event of a financial crisis? It has been often overlooked that the definition of a covered investment within international trade and investment agreements often includes sovereign debt. In lieu of this, this article analyses the extent to which investment provisions in various treaties may hinder the ability of nations and private creditors to comprehensively negotiate sovereign debt restructurings when a debtor nation has defaulted or is close to default on its government debt. It is found that the treatment of sovereign debt varies considerably in terms of strength and applicability across the spectrum of now thousands of trade and investment treaties in the world economy. It is also found that most treaties may restrict the ability to restructure debt in the wake of a financial crisis. These findings could undermine the ability of nations to recover from financial crises and could thus broaden the impact of such crises.Policy Implications
 Exclude sovereign debt from IIAs. The exclusion of sovereign debt from 'covered' investments under future treaties would relegate sovereign debt arbitration to national courts and to international financial bodies. Many IIAs already exclude sovereign debt, such as NAFTA and others.
 Clarify that the essential security exceptions cover financial crises and that sovereign debt restructuring taken by host nations is 'self‐judging' and of 'necessity'. Tribunals have recently acknowledged that nations acts to prevent and mitigate crises are acts of 'essential security', but need to make such decisions on their own (hence, 'self‐judging').
 Create safeguards for Sovereign Debt Restructuring (SDR). A handful of recent IIAs have included explicit provisions regarding SDR. While this is a positive development, such provisions may not prove to be fully adequate.
 State‐to‐state dispute resolution for SDR and crisis related instances may be more prudent given that governments need to weigh a host of issues in such circumstances. States attempt to examine the economy wide or public welfare effects of crises whereas individual firms rationally look out for their own bottom line. Investor‐state tips the cost‐benefit upside down, giving power to the 'losers' even when the gains to the winners of an orderly restructuring may far outweigh the costs to the losers.

This article, which compares the legal monitoring procedures of the judgments of the European and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, states that these regimes were initially thought of in very diverse terms. Indeed the political approach at the European level is opposed to the judicial approach adopted by the Inter-American system. This study demonstrates how through evolution, which has already occurred in Europe but is still in preparation in America, both regional systems are moving closer together towards a mixed system (judicial and political) involving several organs, at the international and national levels. Facing similar cases of noncompliance (for either technical or political reasons), both systems try to reply through non punitive measures. ; Este artículo, que compara el régimen de ejecución de las sentencias de las cortes regionales de derechos humanos, demuestra que el enfoque estuvo concebido inicialmente de manera muy distinta. Al modelo judicial de ejecución de sentencias (modelo interamericano) se opone el modelo europeo de tipo político. Este estudio revela que la evolución, ya realizada a nivel europeo y apenas en gestación a nivel del continente latinoamericano, debería operar hacia un acercamiento en favor de un régimen mixto (cambiando el enfoque judicial con el político) y pluriinstitucional, asociando varios órganos, tanto a nivel regional como nacional. Frente a las resistencias semejantes de los Estados en cuanto a la ejecución de las sentencias (de naturaleza técnica y/o política), la respuesta única dada hasta hoy por todos los modelos ha sido de tipo no coercitivo

Este artículo, que compara el régimen de ejecución de las sentencias de las cortes regionales de derechos humanos, demuestra que el enfoque estuvo concebido inicialmente de manera muy distinta. Al modelo judicial de ejecución de sentencias (modelo interamericano) se opone el modelo europeo de tipo político. Este estudio revela que la evolución, ya realizada a nivel europeo y apenas en gestación a nivel del continente latinoamericano, debería operar hacia un acercamiento en favor de un régimen mixto (cambiando el enfoque judicial con el político) y pluriinstitucional, asociando varios órganos, tanto a nivel regional como nacional. Frente a las resistencias semejantes de los Estados en cuanto a la ejecución de las sentencias (de naturaleza técnica y/o política), la respuesta única dada hasta hoy por todos los modelos ha sido de tipo no coercitivo ; This article, which compares the legal monitoring procedures of the judgments of the European and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, states that these regimes were initially thought of in very diverse terms. Indeed the political approach at the European level is opposed to the judicial approach adopted by the Inter-American system. This study demonstrates how through evolution, which has already occurred in Europe but is still in preparation in America, both regional systems are moving closer together towards a mixed system (judicial and political) involving several organs, at the international and national levels. Facing similar cases of noncompliance (for either technical or political reasons), both systems try to reply through non punitive measures.

How do authoritarian regimes deal with pressure from the international community? China's leaders have been subject to decades of international attention, condemnation, resolutions, boycotts, and sanctions over their treatment of human rights. We assume that hearing about all this pressure will make the public more concerned about human rights, and so regimes like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) should do what they can to prevent this from happening. In Hostile Forces, Jamie Gruffydd-Jones argues that while international pressure may indeed embarrass authoritarian leaders on the international stage, it may, in fact, benefit them at home. The targets of human rights pressure, regimes like the Communist Party, are not merely passive recipients, but actors who can proactively shape and deploy that pressure for their own advantage. Taking us through an exploration of the history of the Communist Party's reactions to foreign pressure, from condemnation of Mao's crackdowns in Tibet to outrage at the outbreak of COVID-19, analysis of a novel database drawn from state media archives, as well as multiple survey experiments and hundreds of interviews, Gruffydd-Jones shows that the CCP uses the most 'hostile' pressure strategically - and successfully - to push citizens to view human rights in terms of international geopolitics rather than domestic injustice, and reduce their support for change. The book shines a light on how regimes have learnt to manage, manipulate, and resist foreign pressure on their human rights, and illustrates how support for authoritarian and nationalist policies might grow in the face of a liberal international system.