Suchergebnisse

The link between Ebola disease and international law is not obvious. The answer to the actual crisis in West Africa is at first a medical answer. However international law has a strong role to play in such international sanitary crisis in order to provide a strong legal structure for the fight against Ebola. This very specific crisis may prefigure solutions for other sanitary crisis if, and only if, different actors (States, international organizations, non-state organizations, enterprises) have the common will to address the issue together. This study aims to better understand the role of each actor and their interplays. It could be the starting point for a real international sanitary system based on the rule of law.

This, the first volume in the new series Melbourne Studies in Comparative and International Law , contains the revised and updated versions of papers presented to the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, held at The University of Melbourne, to commemorate the centenary of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference and the 50th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Within the context of the Asia-Pacific region, the collection, by a wealth of international scholars and expert practitioners, explores the major issues addressed at the Conference in 1899, including the peaceful settlement of disputes, international humanitarian law, and arms control and disarmament

Abstract
Academic literature and policy papers have suggested that the principle of non-refoulement can address the protection gap that exists for people displaced across international borders in the context of disasters and climate change. This article analyses whether non-refoulement under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and subsidiary protection under article 15(b) of the European Union (EU) Qualification Directive could meet this expectation. It assesses their applicability to the cases of individuals who would face difficult living conditions due to the impacts of disasters upon return to their State of origin. This analysis lays the groundwork for a case study focusing on Austria, which as a Council of Europe and an EU Member State has obligations under the ECHR and the Qualification Directive. The case study discusses whether the principle of non-refoulement under article 3 ECHR and the eligibility criteria of subsidiary protection – as incorporated in Austrian law and as interpreted by Austrian courts – address the protection gap at the national level. To this end, the results of a qualitative analysis of 646 decisions on international protection decided by the Austrian appellate court are presented. The article concludes that the 'livelihood' approach used by the Austrian courts opens up the possibility of taking disasters and their impacts into account when conducting a real risk assessment under article 3 ECHR. However, the European Court of Human Rights' suggestion of applying the 'medical cases' approach in cases relating to 'naturally occurring phenomena' is not adequate to address the protection gap. Against this backdrop, the article reflects on a possible way forward.

AbstractOver a decade ago, an important debate began concerning the proper role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in an international legal universe characterized by a large and rapidly increasing number of specialized courts and tribunals. What functions can and should the Court perform in response to the fragmentation of international law, and the proliferation of international tribunals? Initial proposals, especially those emerging in the late 1990s, were hierarchical and centralist in their orientation, and have justifiably fallen out of favour. This article uses the current international legal disputes about Australia's plain packaging tobacco legislation as the basis for an exploration of the possibilities for an alternative, non-centralist vision for the ICJ, which is sensitive both to the institutional limits of the international judiciary, and to the benefits of a fundamentally pluralist international legal order.

AbstractIncreased policy harmonization on refugee matters in the European Union (EU), namely the creation of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), has created the imperative for a transnational judicial comparative dialogue between national courts. This article is based on a structured, focused comparison approach to examining a key element of a transnational European legal dialogue, namely, the use of foreign law by national judges when making their own decisions on asylum. It does so by examining two countries, France and Britain, as representative of the difference in legal tradition and culture within the EU in terms of the civil–common law divide. Both case studies are structured around a common set of empirical and jurisprudential research questions. The empirical findings reveal a surprising lack of transnational use of national jurisprudence on asylum between judges. Nonetheless, a slight but noticeable increase in the use of transnational asylum jurisprudence in the British and French courts must be noted. Two broad accounts—one rational, the other cultural—are applied in each of the case studies to explain this empirical finding. This article concludes on the broader implications of these findings for the establishment of a CEAS by 2012.

AbstractThe recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons raises several policy issues. Reason-giving is perceived by the European Court of Human Rights as critical to ensure an effective access to justice. Yet, foreign judgments often lack reasons because the defendant failed to appear before the foreign court, and it may be right to sanction this strategy of foreign court avoidance. Finally, the European Union has begun to implement its policy of efficiency of cross-border enforcement, which commands states to recognize such judgments irrespective of any other consideration. This article explores whether these conflicting issues can be reconciled.

Sustainable development : concept, principles, and practice -- The concept of sustainable development : its evolution on the international plane -- Sustainable development : contest and debate of meaning -- Sustainable development : legal context and application -- Precautionary principle -- The polluter pays principle -- Public participation -- The international context of sustainable development -- Sustainable development and general principles of EU law -- Principled-based sustainable development in EU law -- General principles in EU law and sustainable development -- Subsidiarity as a general principle in EU law -- Proportionality as a general principle in EU law -- EU sustainable development in subsidiarity and proportionality : legal procedural impact -- The legal effect of EU principle-based sustainable development -- Sustainability in subsidiarity and proportionality : procedural impact -- The precautionary principle and sustainability in EU environmental protection -- Precautionary approach to environmental protection -- EU environmental protection and precaution - law, policy, and practice -- The polluter pays principle : economic aspects of sustainability the EU -- The polluter pays principle and sustainable development -- The polluter pays and economic regulation in EU law, policy, and practice -- The polluter pays in EU law and policy -- The polluter pays principle and economic regulation in practice -- Transport policy -- Common agricultural policy -- Competition and state aid -- Critical review of polluter pays approaches to policy -- Public participation and access rights in EU law -- Public participation principle and sustainable development -- The Arhus Convention on Public Participation and Social Justice -- Right to information - Pillar I -- Procedural rights - Pillar 2 -- Access to justice - Pillar 3 -- Arhus' access rights in EU law, policy, and practice -- Application of 'access to justice' rights in the EU -- Access to justice case law -- Critical review of access rights approach to EU sustainability policy -- Sustainable development in EU external relations -- Sustainable development as an international issue for the EU -- The EU's presence in the international arena : on climate change -- EU promoting sustainable development -- Sustainable development and key actors on the international stage -- The World Trade Organization (WTO) -- Other key actors' role in sustainable development -- The United States -- China -- Russia -- India -- Brazil

Cover title. ; Brief on the facts for the petitioner.--Memorandum for petitioner as to application of international law.--Memorandum for petitioner on proximate cause.--Memorandum for petitioner as to application of Law of Great Britain.--Memorandum for petitioner in reply. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The arbitration is a method of resolving disputes through an arbitration tribunal composed of one or several arbitrators. He allows resolving a dispute under a sentence delivered after an arbitration procedure in which all parties have to prove what they adduce to convince the tribunal. It is by using various modes of proof inspired specially from the system of Common Law and the system of Civil Law that parties can achieve this purpose.On the other hand, because the international arbitration has neither a territory nor legislation, it was created a system which combines between best practices of Common Law and Civil Law. So, the written evidence is produced according to the practice of Civil Law which gives primacy to a proof written in advance. But for the oral testimony, it is the common Law which dominates the administration of this proof by giving parties the right to nominate and interrogate witnesses. This is also what happens when arbitrators decide to use an expertise in which the parties have the power to nominate experts and interrogate them as witnesses. So, the evidence in international arbitration can be divided into written evidence made up by the writing on paper medium and electronic medium and oral evidence formed by proof by witness and proof by expertise. ; L'arbitrage est un mode de résolution des litiges par l'intermédiaire d'un tribunal arbitral composé d'un ou plusieurs arbitres. Il permet, comme devant les tribunaux étatiques, de régler un litige en vertu d'une sentence rendue à l'issue d'une procédure arbitrale dans laquelle chacune des parties doit prouver ce qu'elle allègue afin d'établir la conviction des arbitres. C'est par le recours aux divers modes de preuve inspirés des différents systèmes juridiques notamment du système de Common Law et du système de droit civil que les plaideurs pourront atteindre cette finalité.En revanche, parce que l'arbitrage international ne possède ni for ni législation spéciaux, l'administration des preuves dans une instance arbitrale internationale ...