Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe analytical tension between legal norms, moral values, and national interests seems no uncharted territory in political science, but has found very little interest in legal academia. For lawyers, moral values and national interests are largely "unknowns," dealt with by other disciplines. Looking a bit deeper, the picture becomes more nuanced, however. As part of a roundtable on "Balancing Legal Norms, Moral Values, and National Interests," this essay argues that norms, values, and interests are not different universes of legal normativity, morality, and specific interests, but are interrelated concepts. Values clearly influence norms and often underpin them, while seemingly concrete norms (rules) are themselves often fragile constructs trying to balance competing interests. Value systems are quite diverse within societies, and this is even truer for interests; each society is a dynamic system of social interaction where conflicting interests are constantly playing out. In a way, underlying conflicts of values and interests are constantly being renegotiated in the legal system, with the norms enshrined in the text of statutes and treaties serving to constitute transitory reference points.

"Die heute notwendig einzunehmende weltgesellschaftliche Perspektive hilft, die Konstitution und Zuschreibung von Verantwortung auch in lokalen und regionalen Lebenswelten grundsätzlich besser zu verstehen. Gleichwohl darf nicht außer Acht gelassen werden, dass die kulturelle und geschichtliche Prägung der Nationalstaaten eine gewisse Beharrungskraft aufweist und noch immer als wichtiger Faktor der Verantwortungsgenerierung zu gelten hat. Auf der Ebene des Rechts stellt sich dieses Problem in besonderem Maße. Die zentrale Frage ist, ob die unterschiedlichen nationalen und kulturell geprägten Rechtssysteme als eigenständige Kommunikationssysteme oder als ein einziges globales Informationssystem zu betrachten sind. Fest steht, dass es zur Zeit keinen Weltstaat und dementsprechend kein Weltrecht gibt. Der Prozess einer wachsenden Globalisierung des Rechts ist allerdings nicht mehr aufzuhalten und bedarf neuer interkultureller Kompetenzen, die eine besondere Einsicht in die Vernetzung und Integration der verschiedenen Rechtskulturen sowie eine verantwortungsbewusste Rechtspraxis erfordern." (Autorenreferat)

Rethinking the relevance of customary international law to issues of nationality in investment treaty arbitration / Javier García Olmedo -- Investment claims and annexation of territory : where general international law and investment law collide / Sebastian Wuschka -- General exception clauses in international investment agreements: a case for systemic integration? / Tobias Ackermann -- International norms, a defense in investment treaty arbitration? / Dafina Atanasova -- Towards a new regulatory paradigm under recent fta investment chapters? / Elsa Sardinha -- Let's get it right : a comparative law approach as a technique for solving conflicts between EU law and investment arbitration / Blerina Xheraj -- The energy charter treaty and European Union law : mutually supportive instruments for economic cooperation or schizophrenia in the "acquis" / Cees Verburg -- The structural need for intra-EU bit protection / Emily Sipiorski -- Is one permanent instance enough? : a comparison between the WTO appellate body and the proposed investment court system / Marcus Weiler -- The appropriate use of bifurcation as a means for increasing efficiency in investment arbitration / Jola Gjuzi -- Effective management of mass claims arbitration : what could be learnt from international tribunals? / Katarzyna Szczudlik -- The impact of the economic and political situation prevailing in the host state on compensation under international investment law / Sven Lange -- The impact of third party funding on an ICSID tribunal's decision on security for costs / Alexander Hoffmann -- Rationalising costs in international arbitration : a tall order? / speech by Neil Kaplan QC CBE SBS

In April 2017, the foreign ministers of the G7 countries approved a 'Declaration on Responsible States Behaviour in Cyberspace' (G7 Declaration 2017). The Declaration addresses a mounting concern about international stability and the security of our societies after the fast-pace escalation of cyber attacks occurred during the past decade. In the opening statement, the G7 ministers stress their concern […] about the risk of escalation and retaliation in cyberspace […]. Such activities could have a destabilizing effect on international peace and security. We stress that the risk of interstate conflict as a result of ICT incidents has emerged as a pressing issue for consideration. […], (G7 Declaration 2017, 1). Paradoxically, state actors often play a central role in the escalation of cyber attacks. State-run cyber attacks have been launched for espionage and sabotage purposes since 2003. Well-known examples include Titan Rain (2003), the Russian attack against Estonia (2006) and Georgia (2008), Red October targeting mostly Russia and Eastern European Countries (2007), Stuxnet and Operation Olympic Game against Iran (2006–2012). In 2016, a new wave of state-run (or state-sponsored) cyber attacks ranged from the Russian cyber attack against Ukraine power plant,1 to the Chinese and Russian infiltrations US Federal Offices,2 to the Shamoon/Greenbag cyber-attacks on government infrastructures in Saudi Arabia.3 This trend will continue. The relatively low entry-cost and the high chances of success mean that states will keep developing, relying on, and deploying cyber attacks. At the same time, the ever more likely AI leap of cyber capabilities (Cath et al. 2017)—the use of AI and Machine Learning techniques for cyber offence and defence—indicates that cyber attacks will escalate in frequency, impact, and sophistication. Historically, escalation of interstate conflicts has been arrested using offensive or political strategies, sometimes in combination. Both have been deployed in cyberspace. The first failed; the second ...

"The governing international space law regime has been locked in a norm-creation stalemate for over 40 years. This stalemate endangers the preservation of established, guiding legal principles, as well as the sustainability of the parts of outer space that humans utilize. The discrepancy between norm creation, technological advancement and the ecosystem of novel actors could generate serious consequences for future space activities and the nature of international relations. Besides the return of old rivalries in a New Cold War, new activities and actors emerging amidst a legal void emphasizes the risks of the stalemate: unstable peace, fragile cooperation, uneven technological development and uncertain eco-sustainability. Therefore, the prolonged legal stalemate cannot be treated simply as an academic question for it has broader political and economic implications of growing strategic relevance. Unresolved issues in international space law could threaten the survival of space as a global common, thus it is essential that the ability of the norm-creation mechanism of UN COPUOS is equipped to address the ongoing changes and provide for adequate global governance. This book conducts an evaluation of the current legal state and sheds light on potential future prospects, offering an overview of the political context within which it developed, providing an assessment of the selected successful examples in international law, analysing lessons learned and makes recommendations for how the UN COPUOS legal apparatus should be modified in order to ensure that future space activities are possible beyond anarchy, greed, ecological irresponsibility, and to ensure that the principle of the peaceful uses of outer space remains the governing norm"--

AbstractLeast-developed countries (LDCs) have been included in the multilateral trade regime since the days of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), with the majority joining during the 1960s and 1970s following their independence. The Doha Round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has focused significant attention on the role and impact of LDCs that are currently WTO members as well as the process of accession for those remaining outside the organization. This article examines the accession experiences of LDCs joining both the GATT and the WTO with regard to international development norms, and demonstrates that the manner in which the majority of LDCs acceded to the multilateral trade regime has enabled them to have a greater impact on the multilateral trade organization than would otherwise have been possible.

In Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights addressed the petition of a person detained by U.K. occupation forces in Iraq pursuant to United Nations Security Council authorization. One issue before the court in Al-Jedda—whether the petitioner's rights against the U.K. government under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms might disapply the Security Council authorization—illustrates the problem of norm conflict between intergovernmental regimes. The Al-Jedda court avoided directly pitting the differing norms at issue (Security Council resolutions versus European human rights treaty provisions), but in doing so left open such a conflict for where one such norm explicitly requires violation of the other. When this question arises, the court should not hold that the applicability of European treaty norms disapplies Security Council resolutions or other United Nations acts, because so holding would further fragment the international system and leave states in positions where they will be bound to violate at least some of their international obligations.