Suchergebnisse

A new trend in both making and interpreting bilateral investment treaties (BITs) consists in a shift towards the protection of human rights of the host-State population. The authors resort to legal analysis to answer three questions related to this trend. First, how treaties, which are inherently programmed for the protection of investors from host-States, can be used to prevent investors from breaching human rights? Second, are BITs capable to effectively carry out this function? Third, who is the actual beneficiary of the values' change in BITs? The article identifies three ways how human rights standards are included or respected throughout the BITs' drating and application processes. First, human rights norms can be explicitly mentioned in a BIT. Second, an investment tribunal can directly apply international human rights law during dispute settlement. Third, human rights norms can impact the interpretation of a BIT, or, vice versa, the BIT provisions can be taken into account when international judicial or quasi-judicial human rights bodies interpret human rights' conventions. Resorting to one or several of these ways leads to various results of the combination of BITs with human rights standards, that differ by a duty-bearer (a State or an investor) and by the legal mechanism of human rights protection. The authors distinguish four such models. The model analysis reveals restrictions and distortions pertinent to the new way of using BITs. Also, it allows evaluating trends from points of view of different stakeholders — home-States, host-States, and the population of the latter.

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company "Nevsun". By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies' legal status under International Law. The court's approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

Introduction -- Part I Sovereign Immunity from Comparative Perspective: Weak v. Strong Immunity Regimes -- Customary International Law and the U.S. Approach to Foreign Sovereign Immunity -- Sovereign Immunity from a Comparative Perspective: The Case of Germany -- The New 2015 Russian Law on Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States: If You Want Peace, Prepare for War? -- Sovereign Immunity: Perspectives from Sub-Saharan Africa -- State Immunity Regimes in Latin America -- How Absolute is the Absolute State Immunity? Towards Judicialization of State Immunity in China -- The Law of State Immunity and The Role of International Courts: Looking for The Guiding Star -- Part II International Customary Law of Sovereign Immunity, Human Righ.-ts and Counter-terrorism -- Can Human Rights Overcome State Immunity? Critical Assessment of The Role of Domestic Courts in The Customary Law Creating Process -- Shrinking of Jurisdictional Immunities and Victims' Rights: From Separation To Sinergy -- Assessing State Immunity Through the Lenses of The European Court of Human Rights: Embassy Employment Disputes as Test Bench for Restricted Immunity -- Terrorism Exception to State Immunities – an Emerging Customary Norm of International Law? -- The United States Hegemony and Reshaping the Norms of State Immunity for International Crimes -- Part III Sovereign Immunity of States and Their Financial Obligations -- Cross-Influences in Public and Private International Law: On The (New?) EU Interpretation of Heads of Jurisdiction Over The (Traditional?) Understandings of Acta Iure Imperii -- Sovereign Debt and Immunity -- Foreign Central Banks and Immunity from Execution: Too Sovereign To Be Sued? -- Expanding Immunity from Execution Through the Backdoor: The French Example -- Conclusion.