Suchergebnisse

In its work to maintain and develop the free mobility of judgments within the European Union, the EU approved on 22 December 2000 a new regulation1 (hereafter the Jurisdiction Regulation) that replaced the Brussels Convention with effect from 1 March 2002.2 Possibly the most discussed and disputed new development in the Jurisdiction Regulation is Section 4, which concerns jurisdiction over consumer contracts. Before the approval of the Regulation, the provisions of Section 4 were heavily debated. The unreserved right of the consumer, under certain circumstances, to sue the other party in the courts of the State where the consumer is domiciled met strong resistance. This was particularly the case in relation to e-commerce, where there was an expressed fear that the provisions would lead to a scenario where anyone doing business through the Internet or by other electronic means could face the risk of being hauled into court in every state in Europe. It was asserted that this would significantly increase the costs of establishing new businesses online, and that, as a result, small and medium size enterprises would be deterred from offering their products online throughout the EU, and restrain the development of e-commerce in Europe.

Considers (86) S. Res. 94. ; Considers S. Res. 94, to require U.S., in effect, to accept jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in legal matters involving breach of treaty or international obligations and questions of international law. ; Record is based on bibliographic data in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index. Reuse except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; Indexed in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index Part VII ; Considers (86) S. Res. 94. ; Considers S. Res. 94, to require U.S., in effect, to accept jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in legal matters involving breach of treaty or international obligations and questions of international law. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The dissertation explores the politics of jurisdiction in international law. In order to do so, it reconstructs jurisdictional projects pursued by scholars and experts particularly in the context of 'humanity's law'. The thesis concentrates on (legal) technicalities and argues for the importance to 'open black boxes' such as interdisciplinarity, expertise – or jurisdiction. In a first part, it primarily focuses on the (inter)disciplinary dimension of studying the politics of international law by mapping different interdisciplinary projects between International Relations and International Law, and highlighting core topics among critical scholars in both disciplines. In a second part, the dissertation moves then to analyse the concept of jurisdiction in world politics. It situates discussions about jurisdiction within the discourse on the politics of international legal expertise and argues, by means of problematization and historical inquiry, to leave the common notion of jurisdiction in international law (as exclusive and territorial) behind and instead to grasp jurisdiction as non-territorial, post-Cartesian, multidimensional and non-exclusive. This becomes particularly visible in the context of 'humanity's law'. Therefore, the dissertation ends with two explorations into the politics of jurisdiction in 'humanity's law': first, it analyses the politics of crimes in international criminal law and how by means of widening the scope of international crimes international legal experts attempt to augment this strand of 'humanity's law'; second, it explores how in the broader discourse on humanitarian intervention within and around the United Nations jurisdictional projects expand, through risk-based forms of governance, through time.

AbstractThis article contributes to an understanding of why autocrats have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Leveraging their ability to obstruct their own prosecution, autocrats have traded off the risk of unwanted prosecutions against the deterrent threat that prosecutions pose to political rivals and patrons of their enemies conspiring to oust them. The risk of unwanted prosecutions and the court's deterrent threat both arise because ICC prosecutions credibly communicate guilt for international crimes to capital-disbursing democracies, which may, insofar as possible, use leader-specific economic statecraft to prevent the administration of foreign states by those whom the court signals are guilty of international crimes. Analysis using fixed effects and matching shows that a greater reliance on capital publicly financed by democracies increased the probability that a state accepted the court's jurisdiction only when it was an autocracy (1998–2017). ICC jurisdiction also lengthened the tenure of autocrats and reduced the severity of civil conflict in autocracies.

The concept of public international law -- Sources of international law -- International law and municipal law -- States -- State jurisdiction -- International organizations -- International dispute settlement -- The rights of individuals-international law of human rights -- The law of armed conflict -- The law of the sea -- Air and space law -- International environmental law -- International criminal law.

This Oxford Handbook provides interdisciplinary perspectives on international adjudication, analysing the proliferation of international courts and tribunals from the perspective of both international law and political science. It presents the different theoretical approaches to these courts, their main functions, and the issues confronting them.