Suchergebnisse

Orphanage Trafficking in International Law explores the process of orphanage trafficking as a form of child trafficking in international law, examining the contexts in which it occurs and providing a comprehensive, holistic approach to addressing the issue as a form of trafficking. In doing so, this book establishes the method and process of orphanage trafficking as an issue of international concern. It reconceptualises the activity of orphanage tourism as a demand driver for child trafficking and a form of exploitation, and makes recommendations for how countries where orphanage trafficking occurs, as well as countries that contribute to orphanage trafficking via funding and volunteers, should tackle the issue.

International comity is one of the principal foundations of U.S. foreign relations law. The doctrines of American law that mediate the relationship between the U.S. legal system and those of other nations are nearly all manifestations of international comity — from the conflict of laws to the presumption against extraterritoriality; from the recognition of foreign judgments to doctrines limiting adjudicative jurisdiction in international cases; and from a foreign government's privilege of bringing suit in the U.S. courts to the doctrines of foreign sovereign immunity. Yet international comity remains poorly understood. This article provides the first comprehensive account of international comity in American law. It has three goals: (1) to offer a better definition of international comity and an analytic framework for thinking about its manifestations in American law; (2) to explain the relationship between international comity and international law; and (3) to challenge two widespread myths — that international comity doctrines must take the form of standards rather than rules and that international comity determinations should be left to the executive branch.

For almost two decades, the International Red Cross Movement has been engaged in a continuing process of self-examination regarding its contribution to peace and disarmament. At the same time, public attention is being focused on, and sometimes even captivated by, various bilateral and multilateral efforts to achieve progress in nuclear and non-nuclear arms control in fields such as the reduction of strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons, nuclear and chemical weapon-free zones, confidence- and security-building measures, and so on. The two lines of action are usually dealt with individually without proper consideration of the manifold interconnections existing between them. Only recently have efforts been made to clarify the relationship between the two. The purpose of this article is to bring them together and to do so by asking the question: To what extent can the effort to promote and implement international humanitarian law be seen as a contribution in terms of arms control?

Preliminary Material -- Chapter One. The Relationship between International Law and State Behaviour in International Crises Involving the Threat or Use of Force -- Chapter Two. An Alternative Theoretical Approach for Understanding the Relationship between International Law and State Behaviour During International Crises: International Law as Ideology -- Chapter Three. The Place of International Law in State Behaviour During the Korean War -- Chapter Four. The Place of International Law in British and American Foreign Policy Behaviour During the Suez Crisis -- Chapter Five. The Place of International Law in State Behaviour During the Cuban Missile Crisis -- Chapter Six. The Place of International Law in State Behaviour During the Dominican Republic Crisis -- Chapter Seven. Conclusions -- Bibliography -- Index.

This article picks up on a term ('cross-fertilisation') often exploited in debates on the interaction of international laws and legal practices, especially in the context of international criminal law. Two questions are addressed: (1) What is the meaning of 'cross-fertilisation'? (2) What are its conditions? As the article argues, 'cross-fertilisation' pertains to the understanding of legal utterances relative to other such utterances. The concept assumes that if an agent wishes to understand the meaning or significance of a legal utterance, his understanding may profit by bringing the analysis of this utterance to bear on its assumed relationship with other legal utterances. Any assumption of a relationship between two legal utterances requires justification, however, or else it will not meet acceptance in international legal discourse. Consequently, when an agent brings the analysis of a legal utterance to bear on its relationship with some other legal utterance, as this article argues, cross-fertilisation will occur on two conditions. First, there has to be recognition of the relationship between the two utterances by a rule, principle, or informal convention pertinent to international legal discourse. Second, the agent must have grasped the precise nature of this same relationship. Based on this proposition, the article ends with six examples illustrating the kind of problems that might obstruct cross-fertilisation proper.

For lawyers in general, and international lawyers in particular, democracy is a neglected concept. Discourse is dominated by the ideas of human rights for individuals and minority or self-determination rights for groups. Those who seek greater protection for vulnerable members of a community argue for the recognition of new rights, or the more effective implementation of existing rights. They do not argue for more democracy. Indeed, given that claims for human and minority rights are not made only against authoritarian governments, but also democratic ones, there must exist an implied assumption that democracy is, by itself, not capable of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities. Moreover, as the form of government which apparently venerates the will of the majority, democracy might be considered by some as being downright hostile to the interests of individuals and minorities.

Foreign cyberattacks and interferences are becoming more frequent and sophisticated. In the continued absence of a general consensus regarding the applicability of concrete international legal rules in the domain of cybersecurity, individual States are beginning to determine unilaterally their national positions. The article introduces and critically assesses the national strategy of France published in late 2019 in light of current international law and further developments in 2020. France confirms the validity of current international legal norms and raises challenging and innovative legal points for an efficient update such as the right to respond to any unlawful cyberoperation that targets France, right to preemptive self-defence, and violation of the due diligence principle. The mission of the article is to evaluate the document as an important source of impetus and the potential of its impact in international law of cybersecurity.