Suchergebnisse

"There are many variables of territoriality available to national courts under contemporary international law. Does the same apply to the International Criminal Court? And if so, what are the limits to the teleological expansion of the Court's territorial jurisdiction as regards, for example, partial commission of a crime in State not Party territory, crimes committed over the internet or crimes committed in occupied territories? Michael Vagias's analysis of the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court examines issues such as the application of localisation theories of territoriality and the means of interpretation for article 12(2)(a); the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and human rights law for the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions; compe;tence de la compe;tence; crimes committed over the internet; and the procedure for jurisdictional objections"--

Drawing on the essential premises of the Law of the Sea Convention as constitution of the oceans, this book looks into the ways it can be evolved to accommodate challenges to its regulatory scheme. It is suitable for those interested in the law of the sea and the structure of international law

Cover -- Half Title -- Series -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface -- List of Abbreviations -- Table of Cases -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Arbitral Jurisdiction in Private International Law and Arbitration -- 1.1.1 Jurisdiction as Adjudicatory Competence in Cross-Border Disputes -- 1.1.2 Jurisdiction, Arbitration, and Party Autonomy -- 1.2 Recurring Themes -- 1.2.1 Arbitral Jurisdiction and Parallel Proceedings in International Commercial Disputes -- 1.2.2 Private International Law Analysis of Arbitral Jurisdiction: Comparison, Parallels, and Transposition -- 1.2.3 Economic Globalisation, Global Law, and Arbitral Jurisdiction -- 1.2.4 Jurisdictional Focus: Arbitral Jurisdiction in England and Wales -- 1.3 The Enquiry -- 1.3.1 Research Question -- 1.3.2 Contribution to Knowledge -- 1.3.3 Scope -- 1.3.4 Structure -- 2 Globalisation and Commercial Disputes -- 2.1 Globalisation and the Rise of Private Actors in International Commerce -- 2.2 State Interests in Private Commercial Disputes -- 2.3 Private Interests and Risks in International Commercial Transactions and Disputes -- 2.4 Arbitration, Merchants, and International Commercial Disputes -- 2.4.1 Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Method for Merchants -- 2.4.2 Arbitral Jurisdiction in the Context of International Commercial Disputes -- 3 Cross-Border Jurisdiction in Commercial Disputes -- 3.1 Jurisdictional Issues in International Commercial Disputes -- 3.1.1 Jurisdictional Disputes and Private International Law -- 3.1.2 Tactical Nature of Jurisdictional Disputes -- 3.1.3 Party Autonomy and Jurisdiction -- 3.2 Jurisdictional Issues in International Arbitration -- 3.2.1 Traditional Doctrinal Approach to Arbitral Jurisdiction -- 3.2.2 Jurisdictional Intersections -- 4 Party Autonomy in Private International Law and Arbitration.

There are many variables of territoriality available to national courts under contemporary international law. Does the same apply to the International Criminal Court? And if so, what are the limits to the teleological expansion of the Court's territorial jurisdiction as regards, for example, partial commission of a crime in State not Party territory, crimes committed over the internet or crimes committed in occupied territories? Michael Vagias's analysis of the law and procedure surrounding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court examines issues such as the application of localisation theories of territoriality and the means of interpretation for article 12(2)(a); the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and human rights law for the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions; compétence de la compétence; crimes committed over the internet; and the procedure for jurisdictional objections

"International commercial arbitration and litigation are often seen as competing fora, fields of law, or markets. This intersection is at its highest at the forefront of any proceedings, at the jurisdictional stage. The analysis of jurisdictional issues at the forefront of an arbitration has been confined in a descriptive analysis of the law and jurisprudence, dealing with jurisdictional intersections almost in a mechanistic manner. These are not, however, issues which can be treated as mere mechanical rules. They are issues pertaining to core notions of authority, sovereignty, their origins and their allocation. At the same time, the pragmatic and practical domination of party autonomy is a fact which cannot be disregarded when one considers the normative and theoretical foundations of any model of dealing with these issues. This book moves beyond an analysis of arbitration and jurisdiction clauses to reconcile theory and practice, and provides an underlying theoretical model to explain and regulate jurisdictional intersections at the early stages of an arbitration from a private international law perspective. It combines both an in-depth engagement with the theoretical literature as well as a close examination and analysis of its practical consequences in the form of a restatement of the law of England and Wales. From a methodological perspective, it utilises contemporary theories in private international law to propose a coherent model of regulating arbitral jurisdictions which promotes autonomy and freedom of the parties at this stage. Demonstrating how the theoretical model can be applied in practice and second to provide a basis for a potential future top-down or bottom-up approach of adopting the proposed model, it includes a succinct and practical codification of the current state of affairs in relation to the whole spectrum of jurisdictional issues in England and Wales to serve as a useful tool for practitioners considering jurisdictional issues both from the perspective of State courts and from the perspective of arbitral tribunals, as well as academics researching in these areas"--

"This examination of the jurisdiction of international courts and the admissibility of cases before them analyses jurisdictional and admissibility rules in light of the roles assumed by international courts in international life and in light of the roles that jurisdictional and admissibility rules play in promoting the effectiveness and legitimacy of international courts. The theory pursued views jurisdiction as a form of delegation of power (the power to exercise judicial power and decide the law) and regards admissibility as a framework for deciding upon the propriety of exercising such power. On the basis of this theoretical framework, the author critically evaluates the exercise of judicial discretion in the existing case law of a variety of international courts, distinguishing between the category-based case selection implicit in jurisdictional rules and the case-by-case analysis and selection implicit in rules on admissibility"--

In this chapter, the concept of jurisdiction as exercised by states (or regional organizations such as the European Union) is analysed. Such jurisdiction is concerned with the reach of a state's law: what link, if any, is required for a state to apply its laws to situations and persons? Jurisdiction is an aspect of a state's sovereignty, as the right to prescribe and enforce laws is an essential component of statehood. In the classic Westphalian understanding, this right has been limited to a state's territory, a limitation that at the same time ensures that no state intervenes in another state's affairs (2.1). This idea is no longer strictly applied, if it ever was. Exceptions that allow for limited extra-territorial jurisdiction have been carved out, and, moreover, the territoriality principle has been construed rather liberally (2.2). To be true, some states employ a rather strict presumption that the legislature does not normally intend to apply its laws extra-territorially, but such a presumption does not limit the discretion of the legislature to do just that if it so desires (2.3). The overlapping assertions that result from multiple states' invocation of permissive principles of jurisdiction may almost unavoidably result in international friction. This friction may be mitigated by a 'rule of reason', which instructs courts and regulators to balance the interests and connections of the case with the different states involved (2.4).