Inter-State Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 215-232
Author(s):  
V. V. Veeder
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Recent History ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
History Of ◽  
Inter State

This chapter explores inter-state arbitration, which is largely influenced by two different traditions, drawn from diplomacy and commerce under public and private international law respectively. The recent history of state–state and also, in part, of investor–state arbitration is the history of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). As intended by the two Hague Conferences more than a century ago, arbitrations under treaties are still marked by the necessity for the parties’ consent, including a state’s limitation as to the categories of dispute referable to arbitration; a neutral appointing or administering authority; a settled procedure subject to party autonomy; the parties’ involvement in the appointment of the tribunal; and the absence of any appeal from an award for an error of law or fact. For inter-state arbitration and (notwithstanding the ICSID and New York Conventions) investor–state arbitration also, the recognition of the award by the losing party is usually made voluntarily. It is the parties’ arbitration, the award is the product of their consent and, accordingly, the award has a moral binding force for the parties often absent from non-consensual mechanisms.

Part 2 National and Regional Reports, Part 2.2 Asia: Coordinated by Yuko Nishitani and Béligh Elbalti, 35 Singapore: Singaporean Perspectives on the Hague Principles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeo Tiong Min
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Important Principle ◽  
Settlement Agreements ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Model Law ◽  
New York Convention

This chapter describes Singaporean perspectives on the Hague Principles. Party autonomy is recognized as a very important principle in the private international law of Singapore. The primacy given to the role of party autonomy is evidenced by the adoption of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law for international arbitration, the adoption of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements for international litigation, and the palpable support of the UNCITRAL Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation. Most of private international law in Singapore is sourced in judge-made law. In the absence of direct Singapore authority, Singapore courts have traditionally looked to English case law for guidance, but increasingly, the courts have looked to the laws of other jurisdictions, and indeed international instruments which do not have binding force in Singapore law. Given the level of sophistication of existing common law contract choice of law rules, it is unlikely that Singapore will engage in radical law reform. However, it is likely that the Singapore courts will continue to look to the Hague Principles for guidance in areas where the common law is unclear or where there is a gap or strong imperative for change.

Mosul Four and Iran Six

2018 ◽  
pp. 284-293
Author(s):  
Alex Mills
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Commercial Aircraft ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
History Of

This chapter explores the practical entanglement of questions of public and private international law through an examination of the history of ten commercial aircraft belonging to Kuwait Airways Corporation. The aircraft were seized by Iraq after the unlawful 1990 invasion of Kuwait, flown to Baghdad, and handed over to Iraqi Airways. Proceedings seeking return of the aircraft and damages were commenced by Kuwait Airways against Iraqi Airways in the English courts, a further saga which led to more than thirty reported cases, including a remarkable five decisions of the House of Lords. The dispute raised a range of issues, including questions of jurisdiction, state immunity, and perhaps most significantly the potential for public international law to be given effect through domestic private law proceedings, in this case as a source of public policy denying effect to acts of Iraqi law which were contrary to UN Security Council resolutions.

Andreas (Andy) Lowenfeld (1930–2014)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-67
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Economic ◽  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
International Economic Law

Andy Lowenfeld, a member of the Board of Editors of this journal from 1978 to 1995, and an honorary editor thereafter, died on June 9, 2014, a few days after his eighty-fourth birthday, in New York City.Everyone who knew him, as friend, or colleague, or student, or client, wondered at his sparkling intellect, infectious humor, imagination, and boundless curiosity. He always questioned. He never took anything for granted. He was no narrow specialist. His interests included aviation law, international economic law, private international law, public international law, and procedural law. More than any other author or practitioner in the United States, he decried “the unconvincing separation between public and private international law” and practiced what he preached.

Nineteenth Century Perspectives on Private International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxana Banu
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
International Law ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Analytical Foundation ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Individual

This book seeks to demonstrate that contrary to conventional histories of the discipline, various nineteenth-century writings on Private International Law (PrIL), which focused on the individual, rather than the state, adopted an account of the individual as social and relationally constituted. The book dispels two common assumptions about the nineteenth-century intellectual history of the field: first all individual- and private-law-centered perspectives were overly liberal and individualistic; and second, the association between public and private international law enabled the latter to focus on global public goods and global justice generally. By contrast, the book shows that while many nineteenth-century theories focused on the relationship between public and private international law injected much of the formalism and alleged neutrality of today’s private international law, several individual-centered perspectives adopted a relational, rather than individualistic image of the individual. By recovering academic debates in private international law between the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, the book traces how this “relational internationalist” perspective was misunderstood and eventually disappeared from the memory of the field. Through a detailed analysis of the writings of the three main protagonists of the “relational internationalist” perspective, namely Joseph Story, Carl von Savigny, and Josephus Jitta, the book recovers the analytical foundation of this theoretical perspective with respect to rights, legitimate authority, and the cosmopolitan dimensions of private international law.

The Private History of International Law

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Mills
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of International Law ◽  
Domestic Law

The purpose of this article is to address two related false assumptions, or myths. The first is an assumption of public international law. It is the myth that the history of international law is one of progressive expansion, of increasing concern in public international law with matters traditionally considered private or internal to States, and that this expansion is a relatively recent phenomenon.1 The second is an assumption of private international law. It is the myth that private international law is not actually international, as it is essentially and necessarily a part of the domestic law of States.2 These assumptions, taken together, constitute the myth that public and private international law are discrete, distinct disciplines, with independent, parallel histories. This article addresses these myths through an analysis of the role played by international law theory in the history of private international law.

Solving the Internet Jurisdiction Puzzle

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Modern World ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Reform Initiatives ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
History Of

Internet jurisdiction has emerged as one of the greatest and most urgent challenges online, severely affecting areas as diverse as e-commerce, data privacy, law enforcement, content take-downs, cloud computing, e-health, Cyber security, intellectual property, freedom of speech, and Cyberwar. In this innovative book, Professor Svantesson presents a vision for a new approach to Internet jurisdiction––for both private international law and public international law––based on sixteen years of research dedicated specifically to the topic. The book demonstrates that our current paradigm remains attached to a territorial thinking that is out of sync with our modern world, especially, but not only, online. Having made the claim that our adherence to the territoriality principle is based more on habit than on any clear and universally accepted legal principles, Professor Svantesson advances a new jurisprudential framework for how we approach jurisdiction. He also proposes several other reform initiatives such as the concept of ‘investigative jurisdiction’ and an approach to geo-blocking, aimed at equipping us to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. In addition, the book provides a history of Internet jurisdiction, and challenges our traditional categorisation of different types of jurisdiction. It places Internet jurisdiction in a broader context and outlines methods for how properly to understand and work with rules of Internet jurisdiction. While Solving the Internet Puzzle paints a clear picture of the concerns involved and the problems that needs to be overcome, this book is distinctly aimed at finding practical solutions anchored in a solid theoretical framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document