Suchergebnisse

The objective of this paper is to analyse the regulation of jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes in the Proposal to Reform the International Civil Procedure Law submitted to the Diet of Japan in March 2010. For this purpose, the regulation in the Proposal is compared with the solutions provided in Europe (Regulation 44/2001) and in four academic proposals recently published. The article is divided into five sections. After an introduction, section II explains the differences that exist in the principles that shape the systems of jurisdiction in Europe and Japan and the consequences that these differences entail for international IPR disputes. In section III, a comparison of regulation of jurisdiction for actions on the registration and validity of IPR is given. Particular attention is paid to the fact that, contrary to the solution in Europe, Japanese case law does not consider that exclusive jurisdiction exists when questions of validity of an IPR are raised as a defence in the proceeding. Section IV focuses on some selected questions concerning jurisdiction in actions on IPR infringement: the existence of a forum rei sitae, the jurisdiction to hear about actions for declaration of non-infringement, and jurisdiction to hear about actions for IPR infringement in multiple states. Section V analyses the problems surrounding jurisdiction in actions of infringement against multiple defendants. After the analysis of all these questions, it can be affirmed that the Proposal does not improve the regulation of jurisdiction in IP matters in Japan. While many of the uncertainties that the Proposal leaves open can be solved by applying the existing case law, others cannot. Because of that it is argued that the Japanese legislator should have gone further. Hopefully, Japanese courts will follow the solutions provided by the ECJ and the existing academic proposals to tackle the remaining uncertainties.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Consideration of preparatory work — Agreement on German External Debts, 1953.Treaties — Special kinds of — Debt arrangements — Agreement on German External Debts, 1953 — Disputes as to interpretation arising between private debtors and creditors — Mixed Commission set up by Agreement — Competence of — Difference on interpretation of Annex IV to Agreement — Reference to travaux préparatoires.

The climate and other characteristics of the polar regions have been major factors in shaping the legal regime applicable to the polar oceans. In Antarctica, states have had to grapple with the question of how to account for developments in the law of the sea, while preserving the compromise over sovereignty contained in the Antarctic Treaty. The Arctic also has presented challenges for the law of the sea, as illustrated by the continued attention given to special rules for polar shipping. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has led to substantial agreement on the legal regime of ocean spaces. The present volume explores the impact the Convention has had on the polar regions in this respect, including after its entry into force in 1994. To this end, it looks at a number of issue areas in the field of maritime delimitation (baselines, maritime zones, delimitation of maritime zones between neighboring states) and jurisdiction (environmental protection, navigation and fisheries) from a bipolar perspective. It is strongly suggested that the legal regime of the polar oceans will be further elaborated to more effectively deal with existing activities or to accommodate new activities. It is likely that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will continue to provide the basic legal framework for this exercise and that states will be careful not to unravel the delicate balance contained in it

The trust is a common law invention, the product of experience over many years. But the more it is reduced to legislation, the more formalistic it becomes, and the less able it will be to respond to new situations and challenges. The quasi-code approach--and, to a much lesser extent, the targeted approach--also results in a fragmenting of the trust law. The trust has benefited immensely from the relative uniformity of most general principles throughout the Commonwealth and other common law countries. This has enabled developments, in the form of judicial pronouncements, in one country to be freely adopted in others. With the imposition of the quasi-codes, the concern is that in the future there will exist a multiplicity of trust systems, many of which will be unable to contribute to, or benefit from, the general development of trust law.

In recent years, the Congress of the United States has enacted a series of laws criminalizing certain activities committed outside the territory of the United States, even by persons who are not nationals of the United States. The international lawyer would doubtless characterize those laws as assertions by the United States of authority to exercise jurisdiction to prescribe laws on the basis of the principle of "passive personality"—to punish actions directed at the state's nationals—or perhaps as new applications of principles of universal jurisdiction; one might then examine those laws in the light of recent developments in the international law governing state jurisdiction to prescribe.

Introduction : non-state actors, changing actors, and subjects of international law / Charles-Emmanuel Côté -- Sovereignty's accommodations : quasi-states as international lawmakers / Kathleen Claussen -- Quasi-States and sport : building a case for statehood / Ryan Gauthier -- Self-determination claimant groups and the creation of international norms / Amy Maguire -- Indigenous peoples as actors in international law-making : focusing on international environmental law / Yuko Osakada -- Legally sculpting a melting arctic : states, indigenous peoples and justice in multilateralism / Sabaa Ahmad Khan -- Legitimacy, participation, and international law-making : 'fixing' the restitution of cultural property to indigenous peoples / Shea Elizabeth Esterling -- Procedural barriers to indigenous peoples' participation in international lawmaking : extended continental shelf delimitation in Inuit Nunaat / Zhannah Voukitchevitch -- Non-state actors as invisible law makers? Domestic Implementation of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Standards / Mari Takeuchi -- Reorienting the role of nonstate actors in global climate governance / Jason MacLean -- The influence of the individual and the corporation on the state's exercise of jurisdiction under international law : the case of business and human rights arbitration / Sarah Castles -- Beyond the state : individual civil responsibility for violations of international law / Miriam Cohen -- Asymmetrical legal conflicts / Shiri Krebs -- Reconsidering the classification of extraterritorial conflict with armed groups in international humanitarian law / Shin Kawagishi -- The status of rebels in non-international armed conflict : do they have the right to life? / Kentaro Wani -- Non-state actors in international dispute settlement : the case of domestic investment statutes / Jarrod Hepburn.

This volume explores the relationship between the jurisdictional immunities of states and international organisations, in an attempt to bring clarity and predictability to the law of international immunities. Embracing a holistic approach, this text charts the history, purpose, scope, competing norms and exceptions and waivers for the jurisdictional immunities related to states and then international organisations, respectively. Finally, it focuses on the relationship between the two areas analysing in detail the differences and commonalities between the two.

"Forum shopping, which consists of strategic forum selection, parallel litigation and serial litigation, is a phenomenon of growing importance in international adjudication. Preliminary objections (or a party's placement of conditions on the existence and development of the adjudicatory process) have been traditionally conceived as barriers to adjudication before single forums. This book discusses how adjudicators and parties may refer to questions of jurisdiction and admissibility in order to avoid conflicting decisions on overlapping cases, excessive exercises of jurisdiction and the proliferation of litigation. It highlights an emerging, overlooked function of preliminary objections: transmission belts of procedure-regulating rules across the 'international judiciary'. Activating this often dormant, managerial function of preliminary objections would nurture coordination of otherwise independent and autonomous tribunals"--