Suchergebnisse

Preliminary Material -- Introduction -- The Doctrine of Necessity in Municipal and International Legal Orders -- The Historical Genesis of Necessity Doctrine: -- Substantive and Methodological Issues in Interpreting Necessity Clauses in Treaties: -- Economic and National Security Emergencies: -- States of Emergency in International Human Rights Treaties -- Misapplying Necessity: -- Conclusion: -- Selected Bibliography -- Subject Index.

Unveiling the complex dynamic between State sovereignty and necessity doctrine as historically practiced in international political relations, this book proposes analytical criteria to assess the lawfulness and legitimacy of interpretations of necessity and national emergency clauses in specialized treaty regimes.

Abstract
International law has always had a dual significance to the Philippine constitutional system. On the one hand, the frequent articulation of international law principles within modern Philippine constitutional norms, statutes, and administrative rules demonstrate an outward-looking normative ethos – one I have described in other scholarship to be consistent with the 1987 Philippine Constitution's 'universalist history'. On the other hand, the considerable volume of Philippine jurisprudence applying international law norms to date overwhelmingly illustrate how Philippine litigants have strategically deployed international law (most especially international human rights law) over the years, as an acceptable external legal basis to hold Philippine government leaders to account under the vastly expanded judicial review doctrine in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This active individual and group resort to adjudication and legislation could explain why international law has flourished under the postcolonial and post-dictatorship 1987 Philippine Constitution. This comprehensive jurisprudential, statutory, and constitutional analysis aims to show how, and to what degree, Philippine legal culture and history reflect a continuing deep engagement with international law, in ways that are certainly unique to the Philippines' evolving political ideologies, colonial and postcolonial history, treatment, and implementation of international treaties within the Philippine constitutional system. Most importantly, the absence of explicit methodology for the breadth of constitutional interpretation of the Incorporation Clause under the 1987 Philippine Constitution warrants normative rethinking, so as not to uniformly open the floodgates to hard international law sources (eg treaties, customs, general principles) as well as softer international instruments lacking the requisite State consent to the binding quality of such sources within the Philippine legal system. To this end, I make three proposals on how the Philippine Supreme Court could define an explicit methodology for use and interpretation of the Incorporation Clause, transparently refer to other foreign and international sources, and openly reassess its ideological bases for recognition of international law in the Philippine constitutional system, as part of the Court's distinct judicial function.

This article argues that the discipline and profession of international economic law has undergone a significant architectural change to focus on human rights law as both the premise and promise of the international economic system. Contrary to prevailing currents that focus on the irrelevance of the global economic system to realize human rights, this article argues that international economic law tools have already been converging within the last decade to authentically realize the Right to Development of individuals, groups, and populations. The Draft Convention on the Right to Development defines the right as the enjoyment, participation, and contribution of individuals, groups, and populations towards their civil, economic, political, social, and cultural development, in a manner that is based on and consistent with all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The tools of treaty reform, accountability processes and mechanisms, adjudication innovations, civil society engagement, and the pedagogic transformation of international economic law critique the realization and implementation of human rights. All are converging to place human rights at the center of global economic decision-making. The global COVID-19 pandemic and its associated economic, social, and political crises sharpen the necessity for international economic law to evolve towards the definition of the right to development as development that is "based on and consistent with all human rights and fundamental freedoms."

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States' preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction "on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955."

Southeast Asia attracts foreign investment more rapidly than elsewhere in the world, including China. Southeast Asia's evolving regional strategies, norms, institutions, and politics for investment governance should be of considerable interest to global decision-makers. This Article compares evolving investment treaty strategies and norms between the regional investment treaties of: (1) the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ("ASEAN"); (2) the latest draft investment chapter of the China-led sixteen-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership ("RCEP"), to which all ten ASEAN Member States are also negotiating parties; and (3) some features of the current draft investment chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (now renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership ("CPTPP")).

On June 12, 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal in Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan, composed of Professor Julian D.M. Lew (President), Professor Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (Arbitrator), and Professor Bernard Hanotiau (President), issued its Procedural Order No. 3, ordering claimants to confirmwhether its claims in this arbitration are being funded by a third-party funder, and if so, shall, advise Respondent and the Tribunal of the name or names and details of the third-party funder(s), and the nature of the arrangements concluded with the third-party funder(s), including whether and to what extent it/they will share in any successes that Claimants may achieve in this arbitration.This is the first publicly available written order issued by an arbitral tribunal constituted under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) that compels claimants to disclose information about any third-party funding arrangements.