Suchergebnisse

Does international law provide a basis for use of military force against Iraq? The article summarizes the UN Security Council's handling of the Iraq issue from the Kuwait invasion in Aug 1990 to late Feb 2003. The authors conclude that any US led-military action without explicit UN authorization will be in breach of the UN Charter. Adapted from the source document.

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.

International courts and tribunals now operate globally and in several world regions, playing significant roles in international law and global governance. However, these courts vary significantly in terms of their practices, procedures, and the outcomes they produce. Why do some international courts perform better than others? Which factors affect the outcome of these courts and tribunals? The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals is an interdisciplinary study featuring approaches, methods and authorship from law and political science, which proposes the concept of performance to describe the processes and outcomes of international courts. It develops a framework for evaluating and explaining performance by offering a broad comparative analysis of international courts, covering several world regions and the areas of trade, investment, the environment, human rights and criminal law, and offers interdisciplinary accounts to explain how and why international court performance varies.

One of the most noted developments in international law over the past twenty years is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. They decide who has the right to exploit natural resources, define the scope of human rights, delimit international boundaries and determine when the use of force is prohibited. As the number and influence of international courts grow, so too do challenges to their legitimacy. This volume provides new interdisciplinary insights into international courts' legitimacy: what drives and undermines the legitimacy of these bodies? How do drivers change depending on the court concerned? What is the link between legitimacy, democracy, effectiveness and justice? Top international experts analyse legitimacy for specific international courts, as well as the links between legitimacy and cross-cutting themes. Failure to understand and respond to legitimacy concerns can endanger both the courts and the law they interpret and apply.