Suchergebnisse

Front Matter -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Acknowledgments -- Table of Cases and Treaties -- Reading International Law's Historiographic Turn in Latin America -- The Birth of the Root Doctrine -- Pan-Americanism and Rehabilitated Monroeism -- The Monroe Doctrine and the Standard of Civilization -- The Central American Court of Justice and the Monroe Doctrine -- Conclusion -- Back Matter -- Selected Bibliography.

This powerful book stands on its head the most venerated tradition in international law and discusses the challenges of scarcity, sovereignty, and territorial temptation. Newly emergent resources, accessible through global climate change, discovery, or technological advancement, highlight time-tested problems of sovereignty and challenge liberal internationalism's promise of beneficial or shared solutions. From the High Arctic to the hyper-arid reaches of the Atacama Desert, from the South China Sea to the history of the law of the sea, from doctrinal and scholarly treatments to institutional forms of global governance, the historically recurring problem of territorial temptation in the ageless age of scarcity calls into question the future of the global commons, and illuminates the tendency among states to share resources, but only when necessary

When a claimant demands an interpretation of a right in international law that goes beyond existing conventional, statutory or customary norms, proceedings enter the uncharted area of equity in international law. This original book tackles this complex subject with precision and authority. Evaluating past applications of equity, it contributes to improving the record of judicial performance in controversies for which equity is alleged to be relevant. Any decisionmaker confronted with a claim to apply equity will benefit greatly from this book. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint

Once considered impassable due to icebound conditions of the High Arctic, receding ice attributed to climate change and projections of ice-free polar seasons in coming decades may soon make the Northeast Passage a commercially viable conduit for seafaring traffic. A major stretch of this waterway atop Russia, straddling Eurasia from Providence Bay to Murmansk, passes through important geographic bottlenecks that scantily ever have been traversed by non-Russian ships, until most recently. This stretch, referred to as the Northern Sea Route, is claimed by Russia as historic waters, making its use subject to Russia's complete sovereign decisions. The United States regards the Route as an international strait connecting two high seas, making transit free and open to all ships, military or commercial, in accordance with traditional High Seas freedoms and a newer right of transit passage. This article considers the prospect of a coming clash in the waters of the High Arctic over the legal status of the Northern Sea Route. Through analogous application of the Roman law principle of uti possidetis juris, a principle adapted to international law, but with serious criticism, this article argues that Russia's claim of sovereign control over the Route finds legal support but is pragmatically and strategically weak. Existing lacunae in the governing international law of the sea nevertheless make consideration of the principle valuable, particularly components of the principle that emphasise factual circumstances, called effectivités, which support Russia's claim. The creeping pelagic significance of this principle, historically tethered to terrestrial border delimitations and more recently to factual patterns involving gross human rights abuse, is affirmed, notwithstanding doctrinal criticisms about its topical application.

The Responsibility to Protect is almost fifteen years old and yet opinions diverge widely about its utility as a tool of international humanitarian law. Scholars and diplomats continue to debate its most discussed feature – the secondary responsibility of the international community to aid suffering populations of internal disputes when the host State or United Nations Charter system fails to do the same. This paper argues that much of the current debate is out of focus and at cross purpose and is due to disconnected strands of a plenitudinal mindset in law, found elsewhere as well in humanitarian law, which tend to view humanitarian law either from structural or substantive perspectives, but not from both perspectives. A unified understanding of the plenitudinal mindset re-focuses the discussion around an important common denominator, the need to bridge legal gaps and avoid the appearance of non liquet in the development of international humanitarian law. Disconnected discussions on the Responsibility to Protect are not as disconnected as they appear because opposing views regard as equally odious the silences and gaps of the United Nations Charter system. Borrowing somewhat from social process theory, this paper highlights the need and ability of international humanitarian law to re-forge the broken chain that can strengthen the Responsibility to Protect.