Search results

The inspiration for this book comes from negotiations that are taking place under the auspices of the United Nations by an intergovernmental conference for a new International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). The proposed ILBI is attempting to fill existing gaps under international law over marine biodiversity and Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) in ABNJ. One way it is attempting to do this is by having an Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) schema over these resources in ABNJ that the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol (NP) do not currently cover. These existing frameworks that regulate genetic resources are grounded in the notion of sovereignty. Effectively, States have sovereign rights over their biological resources. The ILBI, however, is attempting to regulate marine biodiversity and MGR in ABNJ. Thus, the notion that negotiators representing nation States under the auspices of the United Nations can regulate ABNJ is paradoxical - are these areas beyond nation States' jurisdiction or not? Implicitly, the negotiators are acting as though they have sovereignty over resources located in what has been historically a sovereign-free space. Thus, the purpose of this book is to investigate this paradox. Essentially, this book critiques the notion that ABNJ can actually be regulated under the auspices of the United Nations by nation-State negotiators.

This article will review the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC) under the Rome Statute of 17 July 1998. Jurisdiction will be examinedratione personaeandratione materiae, including in each case its scoperatione temporis, concentrating on two separate aspects of jurisdiction as they appear in the Statute. These are jurisdiction to bring charges against an alleged offender and to bring that person to trial, and as a corollary, jurisdiction to detain or arrest an accused or suspected person. Given that it is early in the history of the Rome Statute, some consideration of other issues raised by the Statute is also necessary.

"In recent decades, the rise in cross-border law violations has harmed numerous victims around the globe. The damages are often dispersed and low-level. As a result, the private enforcement gap has deepened and collective redress represents an interesting procedural instrument that is able to provide effective access to justice. This book analyses thoroughly the dominant collective redress models adopted in the EU. Data from 13 Member States has been catalogued and categorised. The research mainly focuses on the consumer law field but frequent references to financial and data protection-related cases are made. The dominant collective redress models are then studied from a private international law perspective. In particular, the book highlights the current mismatch between collective redress on the one hand, and rules on international jurisdiction on the other. Additionally, it notes that barriers to cross-border litigation remain significant for victims and their representatives. The unprecedented empirical study included in this book confirms that statement. Observing that EU measures have not satisfactorily lowered those barriers, the author proposes the creation of a new head of jurisdiction for cases of international collective redress. This book will be of interest to private international law scholars, researchers, students, legal practitioners, judges and policy-makers. It is a reference point for those with an interest in cross-border collective redress in particular, and private international law in general."--Bloomsbury Publishing