Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article examines the legality of the options that may be open to a State that is unwilling to accept a legal obligation created by a human rights treaty it has already ratified. It briefly addresses the subject of 'derogation' from human rights treaties before looking in detail at denunciation of the same. It proceeds to examine the legality of strategies such as entering a late reservation to a human rights treaty and of denouncing the treaty with the sole purpose of entering a new reservation to it.

International Law — Relation to Municipal Law — Subordination of Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts to Treaty Obligations — Revised Convention of Mannheim, 1868.164International Rivers — Freedom of Navigation — Rhine Navigation Convention — Jurisdiction of Courts of Riparian States — Refusal of Jurisdiction — Denunciation of Rhine Navigation Convention by Germany — Restoration of Regime after the Second World War.

For decades, following the views of the Argentine legal scholar Carlos Calvo, Latin American countries avoided adopting international investment treaties. The Calvo doctrine established that disputes between foreign investors and the state should only be settled by national courts, to the exclusion of international jurisdictions. This position eroded as numerous bilateral investment treaties (BITs) were signed during the 1980s and 1990s, exposing the countries of the region to investment lawsuits. Recently, a crisis of the investment treaty regime has been noticed in the region, with the denunciation of both BITs and the ICSID Convention, the non-recognition of arbitral awards, and the negotiation of a new model of investment treaties. The analysis of the historical process of rise and crisis of the investment regime in the region, through the review of documents and data on its effects, demonstrate that countries have taken measures to restrict the possibility of investor-State arbitration. In this sense, the region seems to be experiencing a return to Calvo's doctrine on the need to guarantee countries' decision-making autonomy in strategic policies. ; Por décadas, os países da América Latina evitaram adotar tratados de investimento seguindo os pensamentos do jurista argentino Carlos Calvo. A doutrina Calvo estabelecia que as disputas entre investidores estrangeiros e o Estado deveriam ser resolvidas pelos tribunais nacionais, à exclusão de jurisdições internacionais. Essa posição se erodiu à medida que um número crescente de tratados bilaterais de investimento (BITs) foi assinado nas décadas de 1980 e 1990, expondo os países da região a ações arbitrais de investimento. Recentemente, percebe-se uma crise do regime de investimentos na região, com a denúncia de BITs e da Convenção ICSID, o não reconhecimento de sentenças arbitrais e a negociação de um novo modelo de tratados de investimentos. Da análise do processo histórico de ascensão e crise do regime de investimento, através da análise de documentos e dados sobre os efeitos dos acordos de investimento, pode-se dizer que os países da região têm tomado medidas para restringir a possibilidade de arbitragens Investidor-Estado. Nesse sentido, estaríamos experimentando um retorno à doutrina de Calvo sobre a necessidade de garantir autonomia decisória sobre políticas públicas estratégicas na região.

International law in general — Subjects of international law International organizations — Status in international law — Limited capacities — Power to make and denounce treaties — Reasons for actingState territory — In general — Nature of territorial sovereignty — Office of international organization situated in territory of State — Relationship between organization and territorial sovereignJurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Exemptions from and restrictions upon territorial jurisdiction — International organizations — Agreements between organizations and host States regarding privileges and immunitiesDiplomatic and consular intercourse and privileges — Right of other persons to privileges and Immurriries — Officials of international organizations — Agreements between international organizations and host States regulating privileges and immunities of organization and its officialsTreaties — In general — Forms of international agreements — Informal agreements — Whether series of acts by parties evincing intention to create legal regime can give rise to legal obligationsTreaties — Conclusion and operation of treaties — Parties to treaties — Right to conclude treaties — International organizations — Treaties between international organizations and States — Host agreementsTreaties — Termination — By act of party — In general — Right of denunciation — Circumstances in which right of denunciation may be implied in treaty — Whether right subject to conditions concerning consultation and notice — Agreement between international organization and State concerning regional office of organization on territory of contracting State — Right of organization to transfer office — Mutual obligations of partiesTreaties — Termination — By act of party — Mutual consent — Revision of treaties — Agreement between international organization and State concerning regional office of organization — Whether provision for revision of agreement applicable in case where one party wishes to transfer office or terminate agreementTreaties — Termination — By act of party — Unilateral denunciation — Whether right of unilateral denunciation may be implied in treaty — Provisions of treaty — General international law — Agreement between international organization and State concerning regional office of organization — Right of unilateral denunciation — Whether subject to conditions regarding consultation and noticeTreaties — Interpretation — Consideration of preparatory work — Provision of treaty based upon similar provision in earlier treaty between different parties — Examination of preparatory work of earlier treaty — Agreements between international organizations and host StatesTreaties — Special kinds of treaties — Agreements between international organizations and host States — Legal status — Interpretation — DenunciationInternational organization and administration — International organization in general — Status of an international organization as a subject of international law — Limited nature of its capacities — Treaties between international organizations and States — Host agreements — Relationship between international organization and host State — Rights and duties of each party — Power of international organization to determine location of its regional offices Decision to transfer office to another State — Whether duty to consult — Whether notice to be given — Applicable legal principlesInternational organization and administration — The United Nations — Other organs of the United Nations — International Court of — Justice — Function of the advisory jurisdiction of the Court as part of the United Nations system — Duty of Court to assist other organs and agencies of the United NationsDisputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction Competence — Request for advisory opinion allegedly made for political reasons — Argument not advanced before Court — Whether Court should take cognizance of argument — Relevance of motives for making request — Whether Court should decline to give advisory opinion on questions forming part of wider political dispute — Distinction between political character of problem giving rise to request and legal character of subject-matter of request — Formulation of questions to examine wider legal issues relevant to the case — Whether Court entitled to re-phrase questionsDisputes — The International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Opinion — Reasons for opinion — Opinion as lowest common denominator of the views of the concurring judges — Role of separate opinionsInternational organization and administration — Specialized agencies of the United Nations — World Health Organization — Arrangements between WHO and host State concerning regional office of WHO — Legal nature of arrangements — Legal relationship between international organization and host State — Whether subject to a contractual regime — Whether agreement between WHO and host State regulating privileges, immunities and facilities a "host agreement" — Right of WH0 to transfer regional office to another State — Whether involving denunciation of agreement — Whether provisions regulating revision of agreement applicable to transfer of office Legal principles governing transfer of office — Duty of consultation — Reasonable period of notice — Concept of 'establishment' of regional office — Legal concept — Establishment resulting from series of acts based on mutual understanding and from formal agreementTreaties — In general — Conception and function — Agreement between international organization and host State — Legal status and function — Forms of international agreements — Whether series of acts by parties evincing intention to create legal regime capable of giving rise to legal obligations — Right to conclude treaties International organizationsTreaties — Termination — By act of party — In general — Right of denunciation — Circumstances in which right of denunciation may be implied in treaty — Whether right subject to conditions concerning consultation and notice — Agreement between international organization and host State — Right of organization to transfer office — Whether involving denunciation of agreement — Whether governed by provision concerning revision of agreement — Interpretation — Consideration of preparatory work — Provision based upon similar clause in earlier treaty — Examination of preparatory work of earlier treatyDisputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Competence — Request for advisory opinion allegedly made for political reasons — Argument not advanced before Court — Whether Court should take cognizance of argument — Relevance of motives for making request — Whether Court should decline to give advisory opinion on questions forming part of wider political dispute Distinction between political character of problem giving rise to request and legal character of subject — matter of request — Formulation 451of questions in request — Whether Court entitled to go behind formulation of questions to examine wider legal issues relevant to the case — Whether Court entitled to re — phrase questions — Advisory opinion — Reasons for opinion — Opinion as lowest common denominator of the views of the concurringjudges — Role of separate opinionsInternational law in general — Subjects of international law — International organizations — Status in international law — Limited international legal capacity — Power to make and denounce treaties — Whether obliged to act only to further objectives laid down in constitution of organizationState territory — In general — Nature of territorial sovereignty — Office of international organization situated in territory of State — Relationship between organization and territorial sovereign — Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Privileges and immunities of international organizations

On April 3, 2015, the ICSID tribunal in Venoklim Holding B. V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela issued the first public decision to consider the effect of a state's denunciation of the ICSID Convention (Convention). The tribunal decided that Venezuela's denunciation on January 24, 2012, did not preclude jurisdiction over a claim submitted in the period after notification of the denunciation but before its effective date. Yet the tribunal also held that Venezuela's domestic statute was insufficient as an autonomous offer of consent to ICSID arbitration, and that the conjunction of the statute with an investment treaty did not confer such consent where the conditions in the statute were not fulfilled. The award was notable too because of the majority's holding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction owing to the Venezuelan nationality of the underlying beneficial owners of the Dutch corporation that was the claimant in the ICSID arbitration. The Tribunal held that, because the claimant was effectively owned by Venezuelan nationals, the requirement of foreign ownership or control was not satisfied for the purposes of the applicable Venezuelan investment statute and the ICSID Convention.

Treaties — Termination of — By act of party — Mutual consent — Tacit — Subsequent treaty dealing with similar subject-matter — Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, 1905 — Provision exempting nationals of signatory States from giving security for costs before courts of other signatory States — France and Russia both signatory States — Agreement between France and Soviet Union suspending operation of Franco — Russian agreements — Subsequent agreements providing for freedom of access to courts by restricted categories of nationals — Whether implied denunciation of Hague Convention — The law of France.The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Treatment by and responsibilities of receiving State — Access to courts on same terms as nationals — Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, 1905 — Security for costs — France and Russia both signatory States — Agreement between France and Soviet Union suspending operation of Franco-Russian Agreements — Subsequent agreements providing for freedom of access to courts of restricted categories of nationals — Whether implied denunciation of Hague Convention — Reciprocity — Exemption of foreign nationals in U.S.S.R. from giving security for costs — Whether Soviet national exempt from giving security for costs — The law of France.

When the German government announced on March 16 of this year that it no longer deemed itself bound by the disarmament provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, a great step was taken toward the realization of the demand forGleichberechtigungwhich has been the main objective of National Socialist foreign policy. In view of the forthcoming conversations which had been scheduled to take place at Berlin, the time chosen for this decision was unexpected. The act of denunciation itself had been foreshadowed, however, by the withdrawal of Germany from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations, and by her actual rearming in defiance of the limitations of the Treaty. It involved no sudden innovation in policy, but was merely a public acknowledgment of thefait accompli; it marked the final stroke in one stage of a long and bitter campaign against the "Diktat" of Versailles.

The moral reason of our war, by G. del Vecchio.--The national ideal and the duty of Italy; by P. Fedozzi.--The political reasons of our war, by P. Bonfante.--The rights of Italy over the Alps and the Adriatic, by C. Errere.--The unredeemed provinces in the history of Italy, by P. S. Leicht.--The national struggle in the unreddemed provinces, by L. Bianchi.--Denunciation of the treaty of the Triple alliance, by P. Fedozzi.--Italy's war and Italy's wealth, by G. Arias.--Necessity and reason for the present war with Turkey, by A. Solmi.--Artes et arma, by G. Albini. ; Mode of access: Internet.

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Treaty — Pact of Bogotá — Effect of denunciation — Whether termination of Pact by Colombia precluding the Court from having jurisdiction over claim filed before expiry of one year from denunciation — Articles XXXI and LVI of Pact — Requirement of dispute — Whether there existed a dispute on subject-matter of claim brought by Nicaragua — Dispute over alleged violation by Colombia of sovereign rights — Dispute over alleged violation by Colombia of prohibition of use of force — Whether precondition under Article II of Pact satisfied — Prospect of negotiated settlement — Inherent jurisdiction of the Court — Whether Nicaragua's claim was an attempt to enforce 2012 judgmentInternational Court of Justice — Counterclaims — Jurisdiction in respect of counterclaims — Requirement of connection between counterclaim and main claim — Article 80 of Rules of Court — Admissibility of counterclaims — Direct connection — Direct connection in fact — Direct connection in law — Whether Colombia's counterclaims directly connected with Nicaragua's original claim — Jurisdiction — Whether lapse of a title of jurisdiction affecting Court's jurisdiction over Colombia's counterclaims — Whether there existed a dispute concerning subject-matter of Colombia's third and fourth counterclaims — Whether precondition under Article II of Pact was met in relation to the third and fourth counterclaims

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.

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 ("Pact of Bogotá"), Article XXXI — Nicaragua instituting proceedings against Colombia — Nicaragua's First Request concerning delimitation of continental shelf between Parties in area beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaraguan coast — Nicaragua's Second Request requesting Court to determine principles and rules of international law governing right and duties of two States in relevant area pending delimitation — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain application — Colombia raising preliminary objections — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction ratione temporis — Pact of Bogotá — Denunciation by Colombia — Interpretation of Pact of Bogotá — Whether Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá remaining in force on date of application — Effect of second paragraph of Article LVI — Whether effet utile principle applicable — Travaux préparatoires — Whether Court having "continuing jurisdiction" — Whether Court having already fully dealt with Nicaragua's claims regarding delimitation of continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles of Nicaraguan coast — 2012 Judgment — Whether Nicaragua's claim barred by way of res judicata — Issue concerning Article 76(8) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether application attempt to revise 2012 Judgment — Admissibility of applicationTreaties — Denunciation — Effect — Interpretation — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 ("Pact of Bogotá") — Whether Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá remaining in force on date of application — Effect of second paragraph of Article LVI — Transmission of notification — One-year period between denunciation and termination of Pact — Institution of proceedings during one-year period — Object and purpose of Pact — A contrario interpretation — Effet utile principle — Whether applicable — Travaux préparatoires — Whether Court having jurisdiction by means of Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá — Whether necessary for Court to consider other bases of jurisdictionGeneral principles of international law — Res judicata — Identity between parties, object and legal ground — Final and definitive determination of Nicaragua's extended continental shelf claim — Scope of 2012 Judgment — Meaning of operative clause established by reference to reasoning of Judgment — Nicaragua's obligation to submit information on limits of extended continental 2shelf to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf ("CLCS") — Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ("UNCLOS") — Whether Nicaragua's claim to a continental shelf barred by res judicataSea — Maritime delimitation — Delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Role and function of Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf ("CLCS") — Delineation not delimitation — Article 76 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ("UNCLOS") — Delimitation of continental shelf governed by Article 83 of UNCLOS — Whether obligation to obtain recommendation by CLCS before International Court of Justice could delimit continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles

This research aims to analyze normatively about the nature of the act of the ratification of international treaties and outlines the act of constitutional review to the ratification of international treaties. The results of research shows: 1) the standing of international treaties is dependent on the scores of international law who espoused a country. Ratification of a treaty embodied through the two phases namely: the phases of the national law and of international law; 2) the meaning of "DPR approval" must be viewed in the context of internal procedures meanwhile ratification must be vied of external procedure. 3) Constitutional review may results in wide and problematic decision. If it is declared void then execution of the decision will face obstacles. If there is a denunciation, Government is in the difficult position and even can trigger dispute to the international Court of Justice.Keywords: ratification, international agreement, legislation

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

Three momentous events of the 1960's—the war in Vietnam, the steady worsening of the Sino-Soviet dispute, and the Chinese acquisition of nuclear weapons—portend a shift in the political center of gravity from Europe to Asia in the last third of this century. The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia only temporarily ruffled Europe's political terrain, and, while it damaged Moscow's international prestige, it never threatened to'escalate into superpower confrontation on the continent. The United States and its North Adantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, in fact, went out of their way to avoid provoking the Soviet Union; the ritualistic tone of their denunciations of the invasion indicated that, as after Hungary in 1956, the West was resignedtoMoscow's freedom of action in its Eastern European "sphere of influence". Emboldened by the Western response, the Soviet Union reiterated with increased vigor its proposal for a European security conference to freeze the status quo in Europe.