Suchergebnisse

My subject today is "International Organizations and Customary International Law"--that is, the role of international organizations in relation to the formation and determination of rules of customary international law. Charney devoted a good part of his well-known article on "Universal International Law" to what he termed "contemporary international law-making." By that, he meant chiefly law-making within "international forums"--that is, within organs of international organizations and at international conferences. He starts the discussion from the somewhat heretical position that "[w]hile customary law is still created in the traditional way, that process has increasingly given way in recent years to a more structured method, especially in the case of important normative developments. Rather than state practice and "opinio juris," multilateral forums often play a central role in the creation and shaping of contemporary international law." Charney's conclusions, however, are perhaps not as radical as his premise. He acknowledged that "[s]ome may question the authority to legislate universally, even in the face of some dissent, because it appears to be inconsistent with the sovereignty and autonomy of states. Such apprehension is not unreasonable. The international legal system, however, will invoke this authority sparingly."

Cet article a pour objectif de proposer une étude sur le concept de gouvernance internationale. Ce dernier fait partie de nouveaux paradigmes utilisés en politique internationale dans le cadre de la mondialisation des droits de l'homme et de la démocratie. Dans un premier temps, nous étudions le terme de gouvernance et ses nuances avec le terme de gouvernement. Dans un deuxième temps, nous nous penchons sur l'usage du concept de gouvernance internationale. Enfin, dans un troisième temps, nous évoquons la question de savoir comment concevoir une bonne gouvernance internationale.

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 ...

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 revêt un caractère sui generis de fait que l'arbitrage international a reconnu un système de preuve qui a utilisé les avantages des divers systèmes juridiques. Ainsi, on retrouve que la preuve écrite, qu'elle soit sur support papier ou sur support électronique, est administrée selon le model civiliste qui donne la primauté à une preuve préconstituée à l'avance. Mais, en ce qui concerne la preuve par témoin, l'influence des droits de Common Law paraît claire surtout que dans la plupart des cas, le pouvoir de nommer et d'interroger les témoins revient aux plaideurs qui utilisent la méthode d'Examination lors de l'interrogation des témoins. C'est aussi le cas de l'expertise qui est souvent considérée comme une preuve orale dans laquelle il revient aux parties le pouvoir de désigner les experts et de les interroger suivant l'interrogatoire direct et le contre interrogatoire tout comme des témoins. Ainsi, les preuves dans l'arbitrage international peuvent être reparties en preuves écrites et preuves orales dont les premières sont constituées de l'écrit sur support papier ou sur support électronique et les secondes sont formées par la preuve par témoin et la preuve par expertise.

International terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon considering the age of terrorism. Terrorism has been used for over 2,000 years, but international terrorism as we know it today was made possible by technological advances. This entry begins by reviewing pivotal historical events that led to terrorism's use, as well as the underlying reasons for terrorism today. The article then discusses the influence of political stability and culture on international terrorism. Finally, a brief discussion of counter-terrorism strategies highlights the means by which terrorism is prevented.

1 Introduction – An Empirical-Normative Turn in Research on Legalization 2 Legalizing International Relations 3 Democratic Participation in International Institutions 4 Legalization, Democracy, and Politics – A Harmonious or Tension-Ridden Relationship? 5 Methodology 6 Biotechnological Patents – Regulation, Interests, and Affectedness 7 Empirical Analysis of Legalization across International Institutions – Selective Expansion with the Handbrake On 8 Empirical Analysis of Democratic Participation in International Institutions – Undemocratic Trends to Different Extents 9 Legalization's (Un)Democratic Forces at Work 10 Conclusion – Laying Down the Law Appendix Bibliography ; A deeper understanding of international legalization's effect on democratic participation in international institutions is urgently needed. Policies that were formerly regulated within the domestic context have been subjected to international law (IL). This has resulted in a growing number of international agreements and bodies. Some of these institutions gained new legal quality in terms of their legal obligations, procedural rules, and dispute settlement. With this trend of growing international legalization, also the normative expectations of IL have increased. In particular the key standard of democratic participation has to be met by international institutions to be considered legitimate in the long run. This crucial relationship between international legalization and democratic participation has been neither systematically theorized nor empirically researched so far. The project forms part of a larger research strand on the interplay between law, politics, and democracy. By introducing a model of legalization's structure-inherent and actor-dependent effects, I demonstrate that legalization's costs cause powerful actors to restrict democratic participation in highly legalized international institutions. Only a formalization of membership rules tends to have a positive impact on democratic access. Biotechnological patents serve as field of ...

A critical intervention in international communications, in which an array of eminent scholars challenge the Western-dominated conceptions of the field

To what extent does the Erie doctrine apply in an international context? In his article When Erie Goes International, Professor Childress argues that a federal court choosing between state law and the law of a foreign nation should often (or perhaps always) ignore Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. and use federal choice of law rules rather than the rules of the state where the federal court is located. In this Essay, I have three points to make in response. The first is that Childress's article, even if successful, leaves the bulk of the Erie doctrine unchanged in an international context. His arguments are directed solely to Klaxon and choice of law. The second point is that most of his arguments fail to give us a reason to question Klaxon's applicability in an international context. The only argument that has any success is based on the idea that the choice between state and foreign law implicates federal interests in foreign relations. The third point is that even this argument has only very limited success. Federal interests in foreign relations will rarely override Klaxon's command.

The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors. ; The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors.

The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors. ; The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors.

First l will explain a brief definition of what is meant by international law, this is the set of judicial and legislative rules whose primary objective is contribute to re|ations between states are as orderly and consistent manner possible to work with the maintenance of solidarity and peace. ; Öncelikle uluslararası hukukun kısa bir açıklamasını yapacağım. Uluslararası hukuk ülkeler arasında dayanışma ve barışı temin edecek amacı düzenli ve tutarlı ilişkiler kurulmasına katkı sağlayacak kanunlar bütünüdür. uluslararası hukuk devletlerin diğer ülkeler ile ve kendi sınırları içinde yaşayan insanlarla ilişkilerindeki yasal sorumluluklarını tanımlar.

Eigentlich war für die deutsche Politik der NSA-Spionageskandal ja schon fast erledigt. Doch dann wurde öffentlich, dass Angela Merkels Handy abgehört wurde. Dies resultierte zum Beispiel in verärgerten Anrufen und der Idee eines No-Spy-Abkommen,welches aber inzwischen vom Tisch ist, sowie einer Entschuldigungsabordnung aus den USA, die allerdings einen kalten Empfang in Berlin hatte. Aber nun tut sich auch etwas auf internationaler Ebene: Zusammen mit Brasilien bereitete Deutschland eine Resolution in der UNO Generalversammlung vor, die ein internationales Recht auf Privatsphäre etablieren soll. Inzwischen ist eine,wenn auch abgeschwächte Version, dieser Resolution vom Dritten Komitee verabschiedet worden und wird im Dezember der Generalversammlung vorgelegt. Was bedeutet das für ein mögliches internationales Recht auf Privatsphäre?

Zwei legislative Umbruchphasen geben Aufschluss über Entstehung und Entwicklung des japanischen Internationalen Gesellschaftsrechts, über die dahinter stehenden Grundgedanken und die Bezüge zu anderen Rechtsmaterien: Während der Meiji-Restauration setzte sich die japanische Rechtswissenschaft erstmals damit auseinander, wie der Umgang mit Gesellschaften aus anderen Ländern rechtlich zu regeln sei. Gut hundert Jahre später wurden die Probleme in den übergreifenden Reformen der Heisei-Ära unter völlig anderen Voraussetzungen erneut aufgegriffen. Zum einen war der japanische Gesetzeskanon im letzten Jahrhundert ausdifferenziert und methodisch unterfüttert sowie nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in ein anderes politisches Umfeld übertragen worden. Zum anderen war Japan nicht mehr bedrohter Außenseiter, sondern entschied als einer der größten Wirtschaftsakteure darüber, wie es sich auf dem globalen Weltmarkt positioniert.Bei den Kodifikationsprojekten der Meiji-Restauration wurde das Problem des Umgangs mit ausländischen juristischen Personen im Schwerpunkt bei Schaffung des ZG diskutiert. Dem lag die Auffassung zugrunde, dass die Problematik primär eine Frage der Anerkennung sei. Die Gründungstheorie diente in Japan allein zur Unterscheidung zwischen aus- und inländischen Gesellschaften bei der Entscheidung über die Anerkennung. Es ging also um eine materiellrechtliche, nicht um eine kollisionsrechtliche Fragestellung. Daher behandelte der für das Kollisionsrecht Verantwortliche Nobushige Hozumi die Problematik nicht bei Erlass des Hōrei. Vielmehr wurde unter seiner sowie der Leitung von Masa'akira Tomii und Kenjirō Ume eine Anerkennungsvorschrift ins ZG eingefügt. Die Regelungen zum Internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht sind exemplarisch für die eklektische Rechtsrezeption, die für die Entstehung des modernen japanischen Rechts charakteristisch ist. So wurde die Anerkennungsvorschrift in dem ansonsten vom deutschen und französischen Recht geprägten ZG maßgeblich durch den belgischen Gesetzesentwurf François Laurents von 1882 beeinflusst. Da die Regelung auf die Gründung der juristischen Person abstellte, sahen die Gesetzesväter im Bereich des Handelsrechts die Gefahr der Entstehung von Scheinauslandsgesellschaften. Daher wurde eine aus dem italienischen Recht rezipierte Vorschrift zum Schutz vor Scheinauslandsgesellschaften in das unter Federführung von Ume und Okano konzipierte und etwas später verabschiedete HG aufgenommen. Die Abstimmung bei dieser für das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht erforderlichen kodifikationsübergreifenden Regelung war dadurch gesichert, dass Persönlichkeiten wie Hozumi und Ume am Entwurf mehrerer Gesetze – Hōrei und ZG bzw. ZG und HG – beteiligt waren.Im übergreifenden Reformprogramm der heutigen Heisei-Ära stand das Internationale Gesellschaftsrecht auf der Agenda beim 2006 neu gefassten Kollisionsrecht. Denn seit Erlass der Vorschriften in der Meiji-Zeit hat sich das Verständnis des Umgangs mit ausländischen Unternehmen grundlegend verändert. Im Vordergrund steht seit einem dogmatischen Umbruch, der spätestens mit Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs abgeschlossen war, die Entscheidung über das anwendbare Recht. Die Gründungstheorie ist seit Jahrzehnten herrschende Meinung, wird allerdings durch die fremdenrechtliche Vorschrift zu Scheinauslandsgesellschaften erheblich eingeschränkt. Die Fortentwicklung des japanischen internationalen Gesellschaftsrechts geschah eigenständig und losgelöst vom belgischen und italienischen Vorbild, jedoch eingebettet in die fortlaufende Auseinandersetzung mit verschiedenen Rechtsordnungen. Insbesondere die Reform des Kollisionsrechts von 2006 wurde durch intensive rechtsvergleichende Studien vorbereitet. Herausgebildet hat sich über die Jahrzehnte eine eigenständige Form der Gründungstheorie. Angeknüpft wird wie im common law an das Recht des Ortes, an dem die Gesellschaft ursprünglich gegründet wurde – nicht wie etwa in der Schweiz an das Recht des Ortes der aktuellen Registrierung oder Organisation der Gesellschaft. Im Unterschied zu den Ländern des common law und auch zu Deutschland wird wie im romanischen Rechtskreis der – heute fremdenrechtlich eingeordneten – Anerkennung noch immer eine (wenn auch geringe) Bedeutung zugesprochen.Die Liberalität der Gründungstheorie wird durch die Vorschrift gegen Scheinauslandsgesellschaften erheblich eingeschränkt. Vor Erlass des GesG 2005 wurde eine Streichung dieser Vorschrift erwogen. Dies wäre international bemerkenswert gewesen, wie ein Vergleich zu Deutschland zeigt. Dort wurde die unbeschränkte Geltung der Gründungstheorie nur widerstrebend durch äußeren Druck und bisher auch nur für den relativ sicheren Raum des EWR zugelassen. Schließlich wurde die japanische Vorschrift in überarbeiteter Form beibehalten – gegen den Protest mehrerer ausländischer Wertpapierhäuser sowie unter Kritik seitens der USA und der EU. Um diesen Widerstand zu besänftigen, sicherte die Regierung in Stellungnahmen und das Oberhaus in einem ergänzenden Beschluss eine extrem enge Auslegung der Tatbestandsvoraussetzungen zu. So kam es zu einer – kritisch zu beurteilenden – Kompromisslösung.Bei der Reform des Kollisionsrechts im Jahr 2006 hätte die Tatsache, dass die Ausprägung der japanischen Gründungstheorie schon länger weitgehend gefestigt ist, eine gesetzliche Verankerung des Gesellschaftskollisionsrechts eigentlich erleichtern sollen. Dennoch wurde die Schaffung einer solchen Vorschrift noch vor Veröffentlichung des Zwischenberichts aufgegeben. Die Gründe dafür sind vielschichtig. Zum einen wurde keine Einigung über die Art der Regelung – abschließende Auflistung der zum Regelungsbereich gehörenden Tatbestände oder abstrakte Formulierung des Anwendungsbereichs – erzielt. Dass eine Löschung der Vorschrift über Scheinauslandsgesellschaften in der Diskussion war, rief zusätzliche Unsicherheit hervor. Zum anderen war die Reform nicht speziell auf das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht ausgerichtet. Vielmehr wurde das gesamte wirtschaftsrelevante Kollisionsrecht reformiert. Da die Gründungstheorie schon seit Jahrzehnten herrschende Meinung war, fehlte ein unmittelbarer Anlass für die Kodifikation des Gesellschaftskollisionsrechts. Der Schwerpunkt der Reform lag im internationalen Vertrags- und Deliktsrecht, wo das Bedürfnis für eine gesetzgeberische Klarstellung aufgrund der fortschreitenden Internationalisierung des japanischen Wirtschaftsverkehrs groß war. Auch wollte der japanische Gesetzgeber die Entwicklung des Gesellschaftskollisionsrechts in Europa, namentlich in Deutschland, weiter beobachten.Dennoch: Die Reformen im Kollisions- und Gesellschaftsrecht haben die Entwicklung des japanischen internationalen Gesellschaftsrechts vorangebracht. Sie waren Anlass für zahlreiche Symposien und Veröffentlichungen, häufig mit fachübergreifendem Ansatz. Ob sich dies in Zukunft fortsetzt und möglicherweise gar im geschriebenen Recht Ausdruck findet, ist schwer abzuschätzen. Angesichts nur mäßig steigender Zahlen von ausländischen Unternehmen in Japan ist die rechtspolitische Relevanz gegenüber anderen, drängenderen Themen eher gering. Zudem waren die meisten Reformen bisher auf einzelne Gesetze zugeschnitten. Schnittstellenthemen wie das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht haben dabei, wie gezeigt, einen schweren Stand. Andererseits könnten gesetzgeberische Aktivitäten auf der Ebene der EU angesichts des Augenmerks des japanischen Gesetzgebers auf das europäische Gemeinschaftsrecht das Interesse für das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht erneut entfachen. ; Two periods of legislative upheaval shed light on the formation and development of the Japanese international corporate law, its fundamental ideas and its relations to other legal matters: During the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese jurisprudence dealt for the first time with the question how foreign companies should be handled legally. More than a century later, these problems were picked up again under completely different conditions during the comprehensive reforms of the Heisei era. On the one hand, the Japanese legal canon had become more differentiated and substantiated methodically and had been transferred to a different political environment after the Second World War. On the other hand, Japan was not anymore a threatened outsider, but rather decided as one of the biggest economic players about how to position herself on the global market.During the codification projects of the Meiji Restoration, the problem of how to deal with foreign juridical persons was discussed mainly when making the Civil Code. The reason was that the problem was mainly seen as one of admission of foreign legal persons. The foundation theory served as a method to distinguish between foreign and domestic companies when deciding about their admission. This was a question of substantial law, not one of conflict of laws. Nobushige Hozumi, who was in charge of the conflict of laws provisions, did not deal with this problem when drafting the Hōrei. Rather, a provision on admission of foreign juridical persons was inserted into the Civil Code under the direction of Hozumi, Masa'akira Tomii and Kenjirō Ume. The international company law provisions are exemplary for the eclectic law reception that is characteristic for the formation of the modern Japanese law. I.e. the provision on admission of foreign juridical persons in the Civil Code, which was in great parts modeled on German and French law, was influenced by a draft law of the Belgian François Laurent. As the provision named the foundation of the juridical person as relevant, the drafters feared the emergence of pseudo-foreign companies. They therefore inserted a provision against pseudo-foreign companies received from Italian law into the Commercial Code, that was drafted under the auspices of Ume and Okano and was passed a bit later. The coordination of the insertion of provisions into different codifications was ensured due to the fact that personalities like Hozumi and Ume were involved in the drafting of several laws – Hōrei and Civil Code, and Civil code and Commercial Code, respectively.During the comprehensive reform program of the current Heisei era, the international company law was on the agenda when redrafting of the conflict of laws provisions in 2006. For since the enactment of the provisions in the Meiji era, the conception of how to deal with foreign companies had changed fundamentally. Since a dogmatic change that was concluded at the latest with the end of the Second World War, the main question is what law should be applicable. The foundation theory has been the prevailing opinion for decades, though restricted considerably by the alien law provisions on pseudo-foreign companies. The development of the Japanese international company law was independent from the Belgian and Italian models, but embedded into the constant analysis of a variety of legal orders. Especially the reform of the conflict of laws provisions in 2006 was prepared by intense comparative law research. Over the years, a distinct form of the foundation theory has evolved. Like in common law, the law of the place of the original foundation is the relevant connecting factor – not the place of the current registration or organization of the company as e.g. in Switzerland. In contrast to the common law jurisdictions and also to Germany, the admission – which is classified as alien law today – still is of (albeit small) significance. The liberality of the foundation theory is restricted considerably by the provision against pseudo-foreign companies. During the drafting of the Company Code of 2005, a deletion of this provision was considered. The comparison to Germany shows that this would have been remarkable internationally. In Germany, the unconfined application of the foundation theory was only given up reluctantly due to external pressure, and limited to the relatively secure European economic area. The Japanese provision was finally kept in a revised version – against the protest of a number of foreign securities companies and against the criticism of the US and the EU. In order to quieten this resistance, the Minister of Justice and the House of Councillors promised that the provision would be interpreted in an extremely narrow sense. That way, a – disputable – compromise was reached.The fact that the foundation theory has been the prevailing opinion in Japan for a long time should have made a codification of the conflict of laws of companies easier. However, during the reform of the conflict of laws provisions of 2006, the creation of a provision on the law applicable to companies was abandoned even before the publication of the interim report. There were several reasons for that. On the one hand, there was no consensus on the kind of provision – enumeration of the company law matters or abstract formulation of the scope of application. The discussion on the deletion of the provision against pseudo-foreign companies brought further insecurity about the appropriate codification. On the other hand, the reform was not directed towards the international company law. Rather, it included the entire conflict of laws that was economically relevant. As the foundation theory had been prevailing for decades, there was no immediate reason for the codification of the conflict of laws for companies. The focus of reform was on the international contract law and law of torts, where the necessity for a legislative clarification was pressing. Also, the Japanese legislator wanted to further await the development of international company law issues in Europe, e.g. in Germany.However – the reforms of the conflict of laws provisions and of the company law have contributed to the development and differentiation of the Japanese international company law. They gave reason for the arrangement of several symposia and publications, often with interdisciplinary approach. Whether this will advance in the future and might even be reflected in written law is an open question. Given the slow growth of the number of foreign companies in Japan, from the point of view of legal policy, there are more pressing issues. Also, most of the reforms have so far been directed to the redrafting of single law codes. Topics relating to several law codes – e.g. Hōrei, Company Code and Civil Code such as the international company law – are thus put at a disadvantage. However, legislative efforts in the EU could again spark the interest of the Japanese legislator, who takes interest in the European Community Law.

Die Zivilgesellschaft hat dazu beigetragen, dass die Klimakonferenz in Kopenhagen zu einem Medienereignis wurde. Fernab großer Demonstrationen haben Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NRO) seit Jahren einen guten Zugang zu den internationalen Klimaverhandlungen. Am Beispiel von Chile wird gezeigt, wie Nichtregierungsorganisationen durch professionellen Lobbyismus ihre Positionen in politische Prozesse einspeisen. Sie befinden sich in einem Spannungsfeld von Kooperation und Instrumentalisierung durch politische Entscheidungsträger.

As an introduction to this special issue this article deals firstly with defining and clarifying terms and concepts which are used in the context of international media assistance. Secondly, the themes of the different articles in this collection are enumerated: these are broadly the how to of media assistance, evaluation and the ongoing debate about proving impact of media assistance project; negotiating the tensions between the state and the media and finally, the fundamental question of why and to what purpose is assistance to the media sector given in the first place. The first two of these themes are developed in slightly more depth. The piece is rounded off with some further reflections on the history both of the idea of media assistance and of the way it has been practiced in recent decades. It finally looks at the ways research in this field may develop in the future.