Suchergebnisse

'Veiled Power' conducts a thorough historical study of the relationship between international law and business corporations. It chronicles the emergence of the contemporary legal architecture for corporations in international law between 1886 and 1981. Doreen Lustig traces the relationship between two legal 'veils': the sovereign veil of the state and the corporate veil of the company. The interplay between these two veils constitutes the conceptual framework this book offers for the legal analysis of corporations in international law.

Abstract
We are very grateful to Professor von Bernstorff for taking the trouble to read and comment on our article,1 which is a segment of a larger research project. His feedback will be invaluable in taking this project successfully to its next stage. While we could not address each and every aspect of his critique, the following response addresses four elements: the assertion that we argued that international humanitarian law (IHL) is merely a sham; his description of our historical approach as focused on the domestic; the ramifications of our historical analysis for future interpretation of IHL; and the challenge of one's Vorverständnis to historical research.

Abstract
In this article, we challenge the canonical narrative about civil society's efforts to discipline warfare during the mid-19th century – a narrative of progressive evolution of Enlightenment-inspired laws of war, later to be termed international humanitarian law. Conversely, our historical account shows how the debate over participation in international law-making and the content of the law reflected social and political tensions within and between European states. While the multifaceted influence of civil society was an important catalyst for the inter-governmental codification of the laws of war, the content of that codification did not simply reflect humanitarian sensibilities. Rather, as civil society posed a threat to the governmental monopoly over the regulation of war, the turn to inter-state codification of IHL also assisted governments in securing their authority as the sole regulators in the international terrain. We argue that, in codifying the laws of war, the main concern of key European governments was not to protect civilians from combatants' fire, but rather to protect combatants from civilians eager to take up arms to defend their nation – even against their own governments' wishes. We further argue that the concern with placing 'a gun on the shoulder of every socialist' extended far beyond the battlefield. Monarchs and emperors turned to international law to put the dreaded nationalist and revolutionary genies back in the bottle. These concerns were brought to the fore most forcefully in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871 and the subsequent short-lived, but violent, rise of the Paris Commune. These events formed the backdrop to the Brussels Declaration of 1874, the first comprehensive text on the laws of war. This Declaration exposed civilians to war's harms and supported the growing capitalist economy by ensuring that market interests would be protected from the scourge of war and the consequences of defeat.

Our purpose in this Foreword article is to revisit, update, and theoretically revise Mauro Cappelletti's path-breaking work Judicial Review in the Contemporary World. Our main cartographical device, in homage to Cappelletti, is the wave metaphor. We map three sequential and overlapping worldwide, global waves of judicial review within a constitutional order. The first wave is the series of "constitutional revolutions" within national legal orders. The second wave is the emergence of international law as the source of the higher law which courts use in their exercise of their power of judicial review. The third wave is a response and reaction to the first and second waves: one dimension of the third wave is the attempt of domestic courts to make up for the rule of law, democratic and identitarian lacunae in transnational governance (voice). Another dimension—exit—is the set of instances in which courts (and states) seek to exit the first and/or the second wave. The interplay between the waves and their dialectical features constitute the explanatory framework we offer in this article. By highlighting the dialectical relations within and between waves we hope to challenge a dominant narrative on constitutionalization processes as progressive and evolutionary. ; Nuestro propósito en este artículo es retomar, actualizar y revisar teóricamente Judicial Review in the Contemporary World, de Mauro Cappelletti, una obra que fue pionera en su tratamiento del control constitucional. El principal recurso cartográfico, en homenaje a Cappelletti, es la metáfora de la ola. Trazamos un mapa de tres olas globales de control constitucional dentro de un mismo orden constitucional, las cuales son secuenciales y están superpuestas geográficamente a nivel mundial. La primera ola es la serie de "revoluciones constitucionales" al interior de los ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales. La segunda ola es la aparición del derecho internacional como fuente de derecho superior que los tribunales utilizan en el ejercicio de su poder de control constitucional. La tercera ola es una respuesta y reacción a la primera y segunda olas: por un lado, el intento de los tribunales nacionales de suplir las lagunas democráticas e identitarias del Estado de derecho en el marco de la gobernanza transnacional (tener una voz). Por el otro, es el conjunto de casos en los que los tribunales (y los Estados) tratan de escapar de la primera o la segunda ola (el escape). La interacción entre las olas y sus características dialécticas constituyen el marco explicativo que ofrecemos en este artículo. Al destacar las relaciones dialécticas dentro de las olas y entre ellas, esperamos desafiar la narrativa dominante sobre los procesos de constitucionalización como algo progresivo y evolutivo. ; O objetivo deste artigo é retomar, atualizar e revisar teoricamente a Judicial Review in the Contemporary World, de Mauro Cappelletti, uma obra que foi pioneira em seu tratamento do controle constitucional. Nosso principal recurso cartográfico, em homenagem a Cappelletti, é a metáfora da onda. Traçamos um mapa de três ondas globais de controle constitucional dentro de uma mesma ordem constitucional, as quais são sequenciais e estão sobrepostas geograficamente no mundo. A primeira onda é a série de "revoluções constitucionais" no interior dos ordenamentos jurídicos nacionais. A segunda onda é o surgimento do direito internacional como fonte de direito superior que os tribunais utilizam no exercício de seu poder de controle constitucional. A terceira onda é uma resposta e reação à primeira e à segunda ondas: por um lado, a tentativa dos tribunais nacionais de preencher as lacunas democráticas e identitárias do Estado de direito no âmbito da governança transnacional (ter uma voz). Por outro, é o conjunto de casos nos quais os tribunais (e os Estados) tentam escapar da primeira ou da segunda (a fuga). A interação entre as ondas e suas características dialéticas constituem o referencial explicativo que oferecemos neste artigo. Ao destacar as relações dialéticas dentro das ondas e entre elas, esperamos desafiar a narrativa dominante sobre os processos de constitucionalização como algo progressivo e evolutivo.