scholarly journals Fragmentation or Coherence? Does International Dispute Settlement Achieve Comprehensive Justice?

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Simon A. Benson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cohesive Forces ◽  
International Dispute

The debate about whether international law is fragmented or coherent is no arid discussion. If fragmentation is in the ascendancy, many commentators argue that something needs to be done. It is, of course, vital for the success of any legal system to achieve some level of predictability and certainty and to consistently deliver comprehensive justice. A legal system must, first and foremost, be a justice system, if there is any point to its existence. If it is not, then there may be another debate about whether it may be called a ‘legal’ system or a ‘justice’ system at all. I will review the debate between various leading commentators and analyse their proposals. My review of a number of different aspects and areas of international law shows that although fragmentation is apparent, the level of coherence in international law is far more surprising than fragmentation, which is inevitable, just as it is in the development of national law in, say, a federal polity. Just when international law seems to be fragmented somewhere, coherence is being achieved elsewhere. The result may be characterised as a kind of ‘equilibrium’ in which antagonistic and cohesive forces in international law keep one another in check, somehow balancing the other out. International law is capable of delivering comprehensive justice even if, at times, it may seem unlikely or elusive.

Not Like the Others? The Position of Associated States and Dependent Territories in Fishing Disputes

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 471-486
Author(s):  
Marco Benatar
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The One ◽  
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations ◽  
Law Making

Abstract Fisheries are of vital concern to associated states and dependent territories located in diverse regions ranging from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The special characteristics of these actors have led to innovative international law-making, including the terms that have been agreed within regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements to facilitate representation of non-metropolitan territories’ interests. The question may be raised whether similar innovations can be found in the field of international dispute resolution. The aim of this brief article is to consider some linkages between associated states and dependent territories on the one hand and international dispute settlement concerning fishing on the other. Four such connections will be examined in turn: access to court, representation in proceedings, applicable law in proceedings, and the territorial exclusion of disputes.

scholarly journals The Legal Status of Archipelagos in the International Law of the Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. p189
Author(s):  
Maher Gamil Aboukhewat
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Marine Areas ◽  
New System

The archipelagic States, which attempt to extend their control over the waters surrounding their islands, are demanding the establishment of a legal system for archipelagos in order to preserve their interests, their maritime wealth and their regional security. On the other hand, there are the great maritime States that hold on to the freedom of the sea and international navigation.The problems raised by the islands constituting the archipelago did not stand at the end of sovereignty disputes and their right to their own maritime areas, but many other problems were associated with the presence of archipelagic islands. The measurement of marine areas of archipelagic islands requires a description of how the baselines from which these areas are measured are to be drawn. Also, the measurement of marine areas of the islands of individual problems is different from those raised by the presence of the islands in the form of an archipelago. Drawing baselines also varies according to the archipelagic islands site, and whether they are located in front of the coast regions or at the entrances to the bays in these coasts, or were located in the sea or ocean.These problems remained subject to international controversy and tension until a new system of archipelagic State was adopted under Part IV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, which represents a very important renewal of the international law of the sea.

Domestic Jurisdiction over International Financial Institutions for Injuries to Project-Affected Individuals

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-136
Author(s):  
Clemens Treichl ◽  
August Reinisch
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Project Finance ◽  
International Financial Institutions ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction

Project-affected individuals are increasingly bringing tort claims against international financial institutions in domestic courts. In the US, such plaintiffs such plaintiffs have regularly failed to overcome the obstacle of the defendant institutions’ jurisdictional immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act. In pending litigation, the US Supreme Court has resolved a long-standing debate as to its scope. This paper examines the issue of jurisdictional immunity in the context of international project finance. It focuses on the specific frameworks established in treaties, analyses the interplay between international and domestic US norms and looks at possible implications of the exercise of domestic jurisdiction. A key finding is that US courts, at least previously, used to grant more extensive immunities than international law required. While doubts persist as to whether domestic courts are a suitable venue for claims brought by project-affected people, existing means of international dispute settlement should be strengthened.

The Scarborough Shoal Dispute: An Analysis of the Dispute Resolution Mechanisms under International Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
RODEL A. TATON
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Choice Of Procedure ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Status ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Unclos

This comes at a time when the stand-off over the Scarborough Shoal has matured to the status of an international dispute. It involves rivaling claims on points of law or fact between the People’s Republic China (PRC) and the Republic of the Philippines (RP). PRC calls the shoal as Huangyan island while RP refers to it as Bajo de Masinloc or Panatag Shoal as advanced and published in their respective governmental positions, albeit their claims for de facto sovereignty and territory. Employing mainly descriptive, historical, documentary and content analyses techniques, this dwells on (a) the character of Scarborough Shoal in the perspective of international law, (b) the conflicting claims of the PRC and RP with their respective governmental positions, (c) the mechanisms for settlement of an international dispute as provided for by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and (d) whether or not the Philippines can avail of the said remedies and how can the Scarborough Shoal be settled employing international law, rules and principles. The UNCLOS provides for a mechanism in Part XV, for settlement of disputes, ranging from the pacific modes of dispute settlement to resort to compulsory mechanisms entailing binding decisions. It is also provided that sans a choice of procedure, only Arbitration under Annex VII, the Hamburg Tribunal, is available, and this, the Philippines followed when it submitted its notification and statement of claims. Based on the international jurisprudence on related issues, there are rarely a winner and a loser. However, having studied the current situation principally in the light of the UNCLOS III, which favors the position of the Philippines, one is forced to recognize that oceans and their basic rules - droit de la mer- existed before UNCLOS. Certainly, the final settlement of the issues hereinbefore presented will go beyond the confines of UNCLOS.Keywords: Social Sciences, International disputes, Law of the Sea, descriptive design,Philippine-China Relations, UNCLOS, Philippines, Southeast Asia

English Legal System Concentrate

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Thomas ◽  
Claire McGourlay
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Justice ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Civil Justice System

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. English Legal Systems Concentrate starts with an introduction to the English legal system (ELS). It then looks at sources of law: domestic legislation, case law, and the effect of EU and international law. The text also examines the court structure. It then looks at personnel of the ELS. It moves on to consider the criminal justice system and the civil justice system. After that, it looks at funding access to the ELS. Finally, it looks to the future of the ELS.

Treaties on Transit of Energy via Pipelines and Countermeasures

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azaria Danae
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The One ◽  
Bilateral Treaties ◽  
The Relationship

This monograph examines the relationship between treaties providing for uninterrupted energy transit and countermeasures under the law of international responsibility. It analyses the obligations governing energy transit through pipelines in multilateral and bilateral treaties, looking at the WTO Agreement, the Energy Charter Treaty, and sixteen bespoke pipeline treaties. It argues that a number of transit obligations under these treaties are indivisible, reflecting the collective interests of states parties. The analysis is placed in the historical and normative landscape of freedom of transit in international law. After setting out the content and scope of obligations concerning transit of energy, it distinguishes countermeasures from treaty law responses, and examines the dispute settlement and compliance supervision provisions in these treaties. Building on these findings, the work discusses the availability and lawfulness of countermeasures as, on the one hand, a means of implementing the transit state’s responsibility for interruptions of energy transit via pipelines; and, on the other hand, circumstances that preclude the wrongfulness of the transit state’s interruptions of transit. The competing interests of the transit state and those of the states dependent on the pipeline make this question one of the most controversial aspects of modern international law.

Dispute Settlement in International Law

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loris Marotti ◽  
Paolo Palchetti
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Interstate Disputes ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
Recent Trends

The basic principles and methods governing the settlement of international disputes today—particularly interstate disputes—are substantially the same as those that were identified and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. Parties to a dispute are under a duty to settle it in a peaceful way (Article 2, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter). While barred from resorting to armed force, the parties remain however, at least in principle, “masters” of the procedure for dispute settlement, and of the outcome. In the absence of a precise treaty obligation, they are free to decide the particular means of dispute settlement they prefer (Article 33 of the UN Charter). More broadly, any settlement will inevitably depend, directly or indirectly, on the agreement of the parties. Thus, the whole edifice of dispute settlement at the international level is characterized by an inherent tension between a legal duty to settle disputes in a peaceful way and the absence of any real compulsory mechanism that may render such obligation effective. Against this legal background, the notion of dispute settlement covers a great variety of different settlement devices. Such procedures can be distinguished one from the other on the basis of different criteria, such as whether they contemplate the intervention of a third party, whether the settlement is based on the application of rules of international law, or whether the final outcome of the procedure has a binding or nonbinding character. The classification of these different procedures; the identification of their respective merits and shortcomings, in absolute or comparative terms; their suitability in relation to different categories of disputes—these are all issues that have been traditionally the object of a vast body of literature. On a broader perspective, recent trends, which have brought some changes in the field of the international dispute settlement, have also attracted the attention of doctrine. These trends include the progressive institutionalization of the procedures, thanks also to the growing role of international organizations in this area, the multiplication of settlement mechanisms and the ensuing problem of the possible interaction or conflict between them, the creation of new courts and tribunals, and the rise of adjudication as a means of dispute settlement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document