The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018

The 2018 edition of The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute settlement procedures. The contents of this part have been enriched with the inclusion of a new section devoted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the oldest global institution for the settlement of international disputes. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: whether the Paris Declaration of 2017 and the Oslo Recommendation of 2018 deals with enhancing their institutions’ legitimacy; how to reconcile human rights, trade law, intellectual property, investment and health law with the WTO dispute settlement panel upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure; Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood contingent upon prior Palestinian “demilitarization” is potentially contrary to pertinent international law; and a proposal to strengthen cooperation between the ECJ and National Courts in light of the failure of the dialogue between the ECJ and the Italian Constitutional Court on the interpretation of Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.

The 2019 edition of the Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (MICT), to international courts of human rights (ECtHR, IACtHR, ACtHPR), to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute Resolution panel. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: a judicial knowledge-sharing process as a tool for courts working together in a universal constitutional structure; the key insights emerging from the Global Environment Outlook-6, and the progress that has been made in international environmental law; the role of human rights treaty monitoring bodies in the international legal order; and an examination of the consequences of the UN Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration on international law. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.


The 2017 edition both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook has established itself as an authoritative resource for research and guidance on the jurisprudence of both UN-based tribunals and regional courts. The 2017 edition continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute Resolution panel. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists. It also includes expert introductory essays by prominent scholars in the realm of international law, on topics as diverse and current as the erosion of the postwar liberal global order by national populism and the accompanying disorder in global politics, a bifurcated global nuclear order due to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty, and the expansion of the principle of no-impunity and its application to serious violations of social and economic rights. New to the 2017 edition, the author of the article in Recent Lines of Internationalist Thought will now talk about their own work as a Scholar/Judge. In addition, this edition memorializes the late M. Cherif Bassiouni. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals and a section focusing on the thought of leading international law scholars on the subject of the globalization.


The 2016 edition updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook has established itself as an authoritative resource for research and guidance on the jurisprudence of UN-based tribunals and regional courts. The 2016 edition continues to provide expert coverage of the EU Court of Justice and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute Resolution panel, to human rights courts such as ECtHR and IACtHR. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists, such as the Editorial focusing on a new remedy for the violation of the jus cogens principle concerning the imprescriptibility of torture. This edition also includes expert introductory essays by prominent scholars in the realm of international law, on topics as diverse and current as the role of the WTO’s Appellate Body in interpreting the TRIPS Agreement and an examination of the EU Court of Justice data protection framework in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Researchers will find detailed guidance on a rich diversity of legal topics, from an examination of the processes under which transnational criminal law norms have been adopted and the process under which these norms have been globally implemented, to the impact post-conviction DNA testing has had on the criminal justice system in the United States. This edition also provides students, scholars, and practitioners a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals and a section focusing on the thought of leading international law scholars on the subject of the globalization.


Author(s):  
Salvatore Caserta ◽  
Pola Cebulak

Abstract International courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate socially divisive disputes. They are therefore exposed to a heightened risk of backlash that questions their authority and impedes the implementation of their judgments. This article puts forward an analytical framework for mapping the resilience techniques used by international courts to counter this growing resistance. Case studies involve the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has been cautious in its stance regarding democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and the Caribbean Court of Justice, which has engaged in legal diplomacy while adjudicating both on the land rights of indigenous groups and on Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) rights. It is argued that, in order to effectively avoid and mitigate backlash, international courts should deploy resilience techniques that go beyond merely exercising their judicial function. The successful deployment of resilience techniques can allow international courts to become significant actors in global governance during a time of crisis for the international liberal order.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-497
Author(s):  
Sophia PAULINI

This contribution analyses whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provides clarifications on the normative implications that the precautionary principle entails in the context of Regulation 1107/2009, laying out the EU authorisation procedure for pesticides, in its recent judgement in Case C-616/17. In this judgement, which is a response to a request for a preliminary ruling by a French criminal court on the compatibility of certain aspects of Regulation 1107/2009 with the precautionary principle, the CJEU concludes that the questions of the referring court reveal nothing capable of affecting the validity of the regulation. According to the CJEU, to ensure conformity with the precautionary principle, the EU legislature must establish a normative framework that makes available to competent authorities sufficient information to adequately assess the risks to health resulting from the pesticide in question. However, the CJEU’s substantive analysis of the compatibility of the different aspects of Regulation 1107/2009 with the precautionary principle is not conducted concretely in light of this legal standard, but constitutes a mere testing of the general adequacy of Regulation 1107/2009. Furthermore, the CJEU’s judgement examines Regulation 1107/2009 in a vacuum without considering problems that have occurred in its implementation or application.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document