Suchergebnisse

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) pursues a concept of co-operative security which encompasses commitments by participating States in the areas of military security, political co-operation, human rights, economy, culture and the environment. Its priorities are to consolidate common values and build civil societies, prevent local conflicts, restore stability and bring peace to war-torn areas, overcome real and perceived security deficits and avoid the creation of new divisions by promoting a co-operative system of security. The OSCE is the primary instrument for early warning, conflict management and crisis management in the OSCE region, i.e. Europe, Central Asia and North America. Its basic feature is the strict equality of all 55 participating States, which is well reflected in its decision-making process. With a few exceptions, decision-making at meetings within the framework of the OSCE is only possible by consensus, which is considered to be achieved if no State has expressed an objection. States are, however, allowed to make reservations or interpretative statements.

AbstractThis article concerns two aspects of Stone Sweet and Ryan's theory of legal cosmopolitanism: (1) what the Kantian cosmopolitan legal order means for an international court; and (2) what it means for the holders of the rights that flow from the cosmopolitan legal order. The article interrogates the extent to which, in order to be considered a truly cosmopolitan legal order, the European Convention on Human Rights needs at times not only to make non-citizens free of rights equal to those of citizens, but also to give them stronger rights than those enjoyed by citizens. The article concludes by turning to the meaning of the European Convention beyond its European context. The European system for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms may fail or succeed, yet the enthusiasm that the most successful rights-protecting body in the world has created in bystanders, and the very fact that it came into being at all, prove that real progress is possible. From a Kantian perspective, this may well be its greatest accomplishment.

Internationale Schiedsgerichte sind immer öfter mit Fällen konfrontiert, in denen ausländische Investoren durch die Handlungen staatsnaher Entitäten mit eigenständiger Rechtspersönlichkeit geschädigt wurden. Das Werk diskutiert die Zurechnung der Handlungen solcher Entitäten im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht. Ihre Handlungen sind, im Gegensatz zu den Handlungen von Staatsorganen dem Staat, nicht automatisch zurechenbar, sondern nur sofern sich dies aus bestimmten Zurechnungsregeln ergibt. Der Autor analysiert diese Zurechnungsregeln nach allgemeinem Völkerrecht anhand der Articles on State Responsibility der International Law Commission (ILC). Die Entscheidungspraxis wird im Hinblick auf die Anwendung der in den ILC Articles enthaltenen Bestimmungen untersucht. Bislang ist die diesbezügliche Praxis der Schiedsgerichte nicht einheitlich, insbesondere wird häufig nicht ausreichend zwischen verschiedenen Zurechnungsbestimmungen differenziert. Abschließend plädiert der Autor für eine strikte Differenzierung zwischen den verschiedenen Bestimmungen in Anlehnung an die ILC Articles

This open access book focuses on public actors with a role in the settlement of investment disputes. Traditional studies on actors in international investment law have tended to concentrate on arbitrators, claimant investors and respondent states. Yet this focus on the "principal" players in investment dispute settlement has allowed a number of other seminal actors to be neglected. This book seeks to redress this imbalance by turning the spotlight on the latter. From the investor's home state to domestic courts, from sub-national governments to international organisations, and from political risk insurance agencies to legal defence teams in national ministries, the book critically reviews these overlooked public actors in international investment law.

This monograph considers the ramifications of the legal regime that governs transborder capital flows. This regime consists principally of a network of some 3,000 investment treaties, as well as a growing body of arbitral decisions. Professor Alvarez contends that the contemporary international investment regime should no longer be described as aspecies of territorial "empire" imposed by rich capital exporters on capital importers. He examines the evolution of investment treaties and investor-State jurisprudence constante and identifies the connections between these and general trends within public international law, including the increased resort to treaties ("treatification"), growing risks to the law's consistency ("fragmentation"), and the proliferation of forms of international adjudication ("judicialization"). Professor Alvarez also considers whether the regime's efforts to "balance" the needs of non-State investors and sovereigns ought to be characterized as "global administrative law", as a form of "constitutionalization", or as an increasingly human-rights-centred enterprise.

The proliferation in terrorist activity has provoked an increase in the body of law, both at national and international level, which has sought to counter and prevent it. The bodies involved in this process range from the UN Security Council to government legislatures. This book is the first to address, in one volume, the wide variety of responses to terrorism as they exist in both international and domestic contexts. It also represents the first ever comprehensive collection of documents referring to terrorism which are to be found in the laws of the UK and France as well as in international