Suchergebnisse

Sean D. Murphy's in-depth survey of U.S. practice in international law in the period 2002-2004 draws upon the statements and actions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government to examine its involvement across a range of areas. These areas include diplomatic and consular relations, jurisdiction and immunities, state responsibility and liability, international organizations, international economic law, human rights, and international criminal law. This summary of the most salient issues during 2002-2004 (ranging from the treatment of detainees during the Afghan conflict in the spring of 2002 to the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003-2004) was originally published in 2006, and is a central source of information about U.S. practice in international law. Revealing international law in the making, this essential tool for researchers and practitioners is the second in a series of books capturing the international law practice of a global player

Sean D. Murphy's in-depth survey of U.S. practice in international law in the period 2002–2004 draws upon the statements and actions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government to examine its involvement across a range of areas. These areas include diplomatic and consular relations, jurisdiction and immunities, state responsibility and liability, international organizations, international economic law, human rights, and international criminal law. This summary of the most salient issues during 2002–2004 (ranging from the treatment of detainees during the Afghan conflict in the spring of 2002 to the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003-2004) was originally published in 2006, and is a central source of information about U.S. practice in international law. Revealing international law in the making, this essential tool for researchers and practitioners is the second in a series of books capturing the international law practice of a global player

Sean D. Murphy's wide-ranging and in-depth 2002 survey of U.S. practice in international law in the period 1999-2001 draws upon the statements and actions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government to examine its involvement across a range of areas. These areas include diplomatic and consular relations, jurisdiction and immunities, state responsibility and liability, international organizations, international economic law, human rights, and international criminal law. At the time of its first publication this summary of the most salient issues was a central resource on U.S. practice in international law. The volume contains extracts from hard-to-find documents, generous citations to relevant sources, tables of cases and treaties, and a detailed index. Revealing international law in the making, this essential tool for researchers and practitioners was the first in a series of books capturing the international law practice of a global player

Sean D. Murphy's wide-ranging and in-depth 2002 survey of U.S. practice in international law in the period 1999–2001 draws upon the statements and actions of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government to examine its involvement across a range of areas. These areas include diplomatic and consular relations, jurisdiction and immunities, state responsibility and liability, international organizations, international economic law, human rights, and international criminal law. At the time of its first publication this summary of the most salient issues was a central resource on U.S. practice in international law. The volume contains extracts from hard-to-find documents, generous citations to relevant sources, tables of cases and treaties, and a detailed index. Revealing international law in the making, this essential tool for researchers and practitioners was the first in a series of books capturing the international law practice of a global player

The International Law Commission (ILC) held its seventy-third session from April 18 to June 3 and from July 4 to August 5, 2022 in Geneva, under the chairmanship of Dire Tladi (South Africa). This session was the final one of the quinquennium, which originally would have occurred in the summer of 2021. (Since the Commission did not meet in the summer of 2020 due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 and 2021 sessions were postponed to 2021 and 2022 respectively.) Although the pandemic continued in 2022, the members faced fewer health risks and travel difficulties; consequently, the Commission held its session with almost all members physically present in Geneva, and just a few occasionally participating online by means of Zoom.

Abstract
An investor–State tribunal formed under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) may be called upon to determine its jurisdiction ratione temporis based on various 'critical dates' such as: the date of entry into force of the BIT; the date when the investment was made; the date when the investor acquired the requisite nationality; the date of the alleged breach; the date when the investor first acquired knowledge of the alleged breach and of its loss; and/or the date when the dispute arose. When confronted with such temporal issues, tribunals over the past two decades have often reverted to the 'secondary' rules found in the International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and found in the law of treaties. This article identifies a series of propositions that may be extracted from recent investor–State jurisprudence concerning those secondary rules, with particular attention to application of the rule on non-retroactivity. Except in relatively limited situations, tribunals appear disinclined to find temporal jurisdiction over breaches or disputes that are based on pre-BIT acts. Consequently, this article considers as well recent jurisprudence on whether the host State's alleged breach has a continuing or composite character, thus overcoming any temporal bar. While it would be excessive to say that the secondary rules in this area have provided the perfect means for addressing temporal issues, they appear to have generated a comprehensible framework within which investor–State tribunals are successfully operating.