Suchergebnisse

Without modification of the ABM Treaty, the US would not have been in a position to realize its plans for ballistic missile defenses. Despite allegations to the contrary by the new US administration the Treaty has never become obsolete. Although it always considered the Treaty as a cornerstone of its national security the Russian Federation would probably have consented to a modification. Still, on 13 Dec 2001, by reference to its supreme interests, the US declared its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. According to Article XV, para. 2, this withdrawal is permissible. There exist no legal grounds that would enable the Russian Federation to object to that denunciation. Adapted from the source document.

SOVIET LAW IS INCREASINGLY INFLUENCED BY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES TO WHICH THE SOVIET UNION IS A PARTY. OFTEN THE CONCLUSION OF AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY BRINGS ABOUT A CHANGE IN EXISTING SOVIET LAW. IN 1978 THE SOVIET UNION PASSED THE LAW ON THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CONCLUSION, EXECUTION, AND DENUNCIATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES OF THE USSR, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR FULL CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD FAITH FULFILLMENT BY THE STATE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Challenging nuclearism explores how a deliberate 'normalisation' of nuclear weapons has been constructed, why it has prevailed in international politics for over seventy years and why it is only now being questioned seriously. The book identifies how certain practices have enabled a small group of states to hold vast arsenals of these weapons of mass destruction and how the close control over nuclear decisions by a select group has meant that the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have been disregarded for decades. The recent UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will not bring about quick disarmament. It has been decried by the nuclear weapon states. But by rejecting nuclearism and providing a clear denunciation of nuclear weapons, it will challenge nuclear states in a way that has until now not been possible. Challenging nuclearism analyses the origins and repercussions of this pivotal moment in nuclear politics.

Disregarding the Corporate Veil and Denial of Benefits Clauses : Testing Treaty Language and the Concept of "Investor" Rachel Thorn & Jennifer Doucleff -- Private Enforcement of International Investment Law : Why We Need Investor Standing in BIT Dispute Settlement Stephan W. Schill -- Drawing the Limits of Free Transfer Provisions Alejandro Turyn & Facundo Perez Aznar -- A Comparison of ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration : Areas of Divergence and Concern Stephen Jagusch & Jeffrey Sullivan -- The Issues Raised by Parallel Proceedings and Possible Solutions August Reinisch -- Parallel Proceedings : A Practitioner's Perspective Richard Kreindler -- Annulment and its Role in the Context of Conflicting Awards Christina Knahr -- Compensation for Non-expropriatory Investment Treaty Breaches in the Argentine Gas Sector Cases : Issues and Implications Kathryn Khamsi -- Arbitrator Integrity William Park -- Amicus Curiae : A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration? Nigel Blackaby & Caroline Richard -- Participation of Non-governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae Amokura Kawahru -- Legality of Investments under ICSID Jurisprudence Gabriel Bottini -- Invoking State Defenses in Investment Treaty Arbitration A Martinez -- Backlash to Investment Arbitration : Three Causes Louis T. Wells -- Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and Consent to Arbitration Christoph Schreuer -- Competing for Capital : The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960-2000 Zachary Elkins, Andrew T. Guzman, & Beth Simmons -- The Argentine Financial Crisis : State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System William W. Burke-White -- Perceived Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration? Gus Van Harten -- European Law Challenges to Investment Arbitration Markus Burgstaller -- Out of Order Luke Peterson -- Globalization : The Driving Force in International Investment Law Tillman Rudolf Braun -- A Dispute Systems Design Diagnosis of ICSID Ilija Mitrev Penusliski -- The International Investment Protection Regime through the Lens of Economic Theory Anne van Aaken -- "History Ain't Changed" : Why Investor-State Arbitration Will Survive the "New Revolution" Timothy G. Nelson -- The State, a Perpetual Respondent in Investment Arbitration? : Some Unorthodox Considerations Mehmet Toral & Thomas Schultz

NATO's enlargement into Central East Europe has been a lively debated topic for almost a decade. The highly variegated opinions and positions on this question in Europe and North America have ranged from angry denunciations, solid criticisms, serious doubts, guarded support to enthusiastic accolades. These contrasting attitudes underlined the flux and uncertainties as well as the divisibility of security in the post-Cold War era. Although Slovenia is viewed by a number of observers as a candidate in the best position to be invited by NATO at the next turn, this prospect remains uncertain. The key general problem lies in the large disparity between the desires of the remaining Central-East European candidates, including Slovenia, to join the alliance and NATO's willingness (and some members' clear unwillingness) to expand (it) further to the East and South-East. There is also a number of imponderables: the NATO-EU relations and the development of the European defense identity, the future of Russia; the international policies of the next US administration; the experience with the first Central East European round etc. (SOI : PM: S. 29)

The Russian Federation belongs to the small group of States which have enacted special legislation on the domestic procedures with respect to international treaties. The new Federal Law on International Treaties, which was adopted by the Russian State Duma on 16 June 1995, regulates the procedure for the conclusion, fullfillment, and termination of treaties of the Russian Federation. The 1995 Law replaces the Law on the Procedure for the Conclusion, Execution, and Denunciation of International Treaties of the U.S.S.R of 6 July 1978. The present introduction to the new law draws attention in particular to the fact that, although many rules of the new law are patterned along the model of the old law, the new law has a different significance within the new Russian constitutional framework. This is at least true for those rules which determine the respective powers of the State Duma and the President. Rules, which, under a system of unity of state power, could be considered as having a mere technical character, acquire political significance under a system of separation of powers. Noteworthy are, therefore, in particular those rules which give the State Duma powers which surpass those of the legislatures in most Western countries (power of initiatives and of compulsion to conclude and to terminate a treaty). Since, however, the new law does not possess constitutional rank, it is probable that the Russian Constitutional Court will have to decide upcoming disputes as to whether the law has correctly specified the general rules which are laid down in the constitution. (ZaöRv/SWP)