Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
2774672 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2017) vol. 1
SSRN
In: Indian journal of international law, Band 55, Heft 3, S. 299-328
ISSN: 2199-7411
CCSI prepared a Scoping Study for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. Also available are: A summary version of the study (33 pages) A webinar (March 24, 2020), hosted by CCSI and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, discussed the Scoping Study and its findings (see also accompanying slides with speaking notes). A webinar organized by UNCITRAL (April 21, 2020). CCSI presented the Scoping Study. A video link of the webinar along with CCSI's slides are available in English (with speaking notes) and French at that link. CCSI Senior Fellow Karl Sauvant also presented his UNCITRAL Academic Forum Concept paper, available at that link. The primary research question that the Scoping Study was requested to address is: How can adequate legal defense for parties in proceedings under International Investment Agreements (IIAs) be better secured? The Scoping Study provides a broad and inclusive overview of issues, concerns, empirical evidence, opinions, lessons learned, and proposed solutions as they relate to potential or expanded Assistance Mechanisms for international investment law. This Scoping Study reflects input received on a confidential basis from: government officials (of all World Bank Group economic development levels); individuals who have experience establishing or working for existing or attempted Assistance Mechanisms; individuals who have experience working for an arbitral institution; academics who have written on and/or advised states with respect to international investment law; private practitioners; representatives of non-governmental organizations; and representatives of private sector foreign investors. Concerns about IIAs and ISDS are much more fundamental than only the financial costs of participation in this system. The Scoping Study considers the range of problems that states and other actors have in engaging with and benefiting from international investment law and in participating effectively in investor-state dispute settlement processes related to: investment policy-making IIA negotiation implementation and management of their IIAs and associated policies dispute prevention pre-dispute management and consultations case staffing anticipating, and potentially resolving, ISDS cases at an early phase appointing arbitrators dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity working with experts engaging in discovery of and managing information. The Scoping Study surveys a wide variety of models that Assistance Mechanisms, both with respect to international investment law as well as those employed in other legal fields, have taken and may take to address various concerns. Various cross-cutting issues emerged from analysis of and experience with existing Assistance Mechanisms. These cross-cutting issues should be considered by policy-makers as they consider the breadth and depth of services as well as the model(s) that an Assistance Mechanism could follow. The cross-cutting issues that are explored in depth in the Scoping Study include: Quality, reliability, reputation, and trust; Funding of an Assistance Mechanism and scope of services; Costs of support and who bears them; Stakeholder tensions; Identifying the client/beneficiary; Location, staffing, and remuneration; Institutionalized vs. ad hoc mechanisms; "Politics" surrounding the role of an Assistance Mechanism; and Intersection with other reforms.
BASE
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 103, S. 1-1
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: The Canadian yearbook of international law: Annuaire canadien de droit international, Band 32, S. 243-257
ISSN: 1925-0169
SommaireL'autodétermination des peuples autochtones suscite la controverse en droit international contemporain depuis que le processus de décolonisation s'est achevé, à la fin des années 1960. Parce qu'ils craignaient avant tout des désordres nationaux, de nombreux pays ont refusé de reconnaître que les peuples autochtones ont le droit de se séparer du territoire national et d'obtenir leur indépendance. Cependant, même la reconnaissance d'un droit moins vaste, soit un droit de recevoir un statut spécial et d'obtenir l'autonomie politique dans le cadre des frontières étatiques existantes, demeure une question litigieuse, car aucune définition claire des bénéficiaires et de la substance de ces droits ne peut être établie. De toute façon, la disparité des conditions politiques, économiques, sociales et climatiques dans lesquelles vivent les peuples autochtones du monde entier rend futile la création d'un seul et unique concept d'autodétermination qui s'appliquerait au monde entier. Pour sortir de cette impasse, on propose d'adopter une approche procédurale, au lieu d'essayer de fixer ces questions dans des termes juridiques stricts.Le fait de qualifier le concept d'autodétermination de processus, au lieu de le décrire comme étant une série de règles exactes et préétablies, a pour avantage d'apporter un élément de flexibilité, car il permet aux deux parties, c'est-à-dire les États et les peuples autochtones, de trouver des appuis pour défendre leurs intérêts et d'imaginer une solution viable qui tienne compte des circonstances particulières de chaque cas. Mais toutes les parties concernées devraient tout d'abord accepter trois conditions préalables:(1) Le droit de sécession immédiate et d'indépendance complète, en tant qu'aspect du droit à l'autodétermination, devrait être réservé aux peuples autochtones des territoires d'outre-mer.(2) Les États ont le devoir de favoriser l'autonomie de leurs peuples autochtones et le fardeau de prouver qu 'ih offrent la plus grande autonomie possible aux peuples autochtones vivant sur leurs territoires.(3) Une fois que des ententes relatives à l'autonomie ont été conclues, les États ne peuvent pas les révoquer, les abréger ou les modifier unilatéralement.L'auteur de cette note examine ensuite le régime d'autonomie du Groenland et conclut que ce régime semble satisfaire aux critères énoncés, bien que la question du statut actuel du Groenland (et des îles Faroe) au sein du royaume danois demeure incertaine sur le plan constitutionnel. Le régime d'autonomie implique un transfert irrévocable des pouvoirs législatifs et administratifs des autorités danoùes aux autorités du Groenland, ce qui a pour effet de créer un régime juridique indépendant au Groenland. Par ailleurs, il est entendu que le régime d'autonomie du Groenland permet d'établir un système judiciaire indépendant, si les tribunaux danois du Groenland ne reconnaissent pas la validité de la Loi d'autonomie du Groenland.
In: International Trade Law, Textbook published by The Federation Press, Sydney (Australia), 2018
SSRN
Diplomacy is a series of crises, and the navigational beacon for a nation is international law. This book is a collection of articles on six selected international legal issues concerning Japan. It addresses various issues, including self-defence, post-war legal issues, chemical weapons, the law of the sea, consular immunities, and hijacking. It is a legal documentary through which the reader can look into the minds of Japanese officials challenged by one crisis after another. As a coherent whole, this book ably represents 'Japan's Practice of International Law' and portrays international law in action from a Japanese practitioner's perspective.
In: Oxford international law library
In: Oxford scholarly authorities on international law
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 35, Heft 4, S. 605-617
ISSN: 2161-7953
The problem of recognition of states and governments has neither in theory nor in practice been solved satisfactorily. Hardly any other question is more controversial, or leads in the practice of states to such paradoxical situations.The reason for this lies in the fact that the term recognition points to twoentirely different acts, not clearly separated either in theory or in practice. A codificationof the norms of general (common) international law concerning recognition must above all furnish a clear distinction between the two functions known as recognition.
SSRN
Working paper
In: The yearbook of world affairs, Band 27, S. 417-433
ISSN: 0084-408X
In: Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 55 , No. 2 , March 2019, p.205 © 2019 Thomson Reuters/West.
SSRN
Morten Bergsmo and SONG Tianying (editors), "Military Self-Interest in Accountability for Core International Crimes", FICHL Publication Series No. 25 (2015)
BASE