Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
In: OXFORD HANDBOOK OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Oxford University Press, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of Global Constitutionalism, 1 (1) (2012): 53-90.
SSRN
In: Journal of European Public Policy, Band 19, Heft 1, S. 92-108
SSRN
In: Law and Ethics of Human Rights, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 47-76
SSRN
In: Living Reviews in EU Governance, 2010
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of European Public Policy, Band 13, S. 627-46
SSRN
In: Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Band 16, S. 621-45
SSRN
In: Living reviews in European governance: LREG, Band 5
ISSN: 1813-856X
In: Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l'Homme, Band 80, S. 923-944
SSRN
In: The German Law Journal, Band 8, S. 947-54
SSRN
In: Comparative Political Studies, Band 31, S. 147-84
SSRN
In: Law & ethics of human rights, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 48-76
ISSN: 1938-2545
The arbitral world is at a crucial point in its historical development, poised between two conflicting conceptions of its nature, purpose, and political legitimacy. Formally, the arbitrator is an agent of the contracting parties in dispute, a creature of a discrete contract gone wrong. Yet, increasingly, arbitrators are treated as agents of a larger global community, and arbitration houses concern themselves with the general and prospective impact of important awards. In this paper, I address these questions, first, from the standpoint of delegation theory. In Part I, I introduce the basic "Principal-Agent" framework [P-A] used by social scientists to explain why actors create new institutions, and then briefly discuss how P-A has been applied to the study of courts. Part II uses delegation theory to frame discussion of arbitration as a mode of governance for transnational business and investment. In Part III, I argue that the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is presently in the throes of judicialization, indicators of which include the enhanced use of precedent-based argumentation and justification, the acceptance of third-party briefs, and a flirtation with proportionality balancing. Part IV focuses on the first wave of awards rendered by ICSID tribunals pursuant to Argentina's response to the crushing economic crisis of 2000-02, wherein proportionality emerged, adapted from the jurisprudence of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization.
This title examines the process through which the European Convention on Human Rights, along with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, has been interpreted and applied in the Member States, and how this has impacted upon their domestic legal orders