Does the Name of a Case Matter?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-489
Author(s):  
Haris Jamil

Abstract The arbitral award in The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy v. India) brings to the fore the issue of assigning a name to a case. To contextualise India’s contention regarding the name, The “Enrica Lexie” Incident, in this article, I outline the law and practice regarding assigning names to cases by different international judicial bodies (ICJ, ITLOS, WTO and PCA). Examining India’s objection to the name, I argue that the name of the case does not capture the subject matter of the dispute accurately and emanates from the mainstream view of international law. The name prioritises an Italian flagged vessel, owned by a company engaged in international commerce and navigating under the protection of the Italian navy, over a fishing vessel owned by private individuals. The name reinforces a state-centric view of international law in which the victims of the incident do not picture.

Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter examines the distinction between movables and immovables under English private international law. The first task of the court in a private international law case when required to rule on the question of a proprietary or possessory nature is to decide whether the item of property in dispute is movable or immovable. The legal system that will be applicable to the case depends on this preliminary decision. This chapter first considers the classification of the subject matter of ownership into movables and immovables by the law of the situs before looking at some examples relating to mortgages, trusts for sale, and annuities. It also discusses the relevance of the distinction between realty and personalty and concludes by explaining the distinction between tangible and intangible movables.


Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann

The acquisition of an EPUE may be impermissible under competition law only in special exceptional cases. This conceivably might hold true where a recognizable strategy of obstruction (Art 102 TFEU) is pursued by a company holding a dominant position with the aim of walling in competitors, without such patent proprietor having any intention of using the subject matter of patent protection himself. Also conceivably falling under the heading of inadmissible obstruction is the acquisition of a large number of patents by which the acquiring entity pursues the aim not of exploiting them but instead of using such acquisition to its own competitive advantage. The acquisition of such IP rights used merely for blockading purposes may qualify as part of the aforementioned strategy of obstruction and as such violate Art 102 TFEU. This may make it impermissible to invoke the patent: the competitor affected can raise the objection of abuse of a dominant position, which the UPC is in the position to consider (Art 32(1)(a) UPCA). As a general rule, such violation does not give rise to an obligation of cancellation because, if held by others actually using it themselves, it may turn out that the patent is no longer ‘flawed’.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jozef Valuch ◽  
Tomáš Gábriš ◽  
Ondrej Hamuľák

Abstract The aim of this paper is to evaluate and differentiate between the phenomena of cyberwarfare and information warfare, as manifestations of what we perceive as postmodern warfare. We describe and analyse the current examples of the use the postmodern warfare and the reactions of states and international bodies to these phenomena. The subject matter of this paper is the relationship between new types of postmodern conflicts and the law of armed conflicts (law of war). Based on ICJ case law, it is clear that under current legal rules of international law of war, cyber attacks as well as information attacks (often performed in the cyberspace as well) can only be perceived as “war” if executed in addition to classical kinetic warfare, which is often not the case. In most cases perceived “only” as a non-linear warfare (postmodern conflict), this practice nevertheless must be condemned as conduct contrary to the principles of international law and (possibly) a crime under national laws, unless this type of conduct will be recognized by the international community as a “war” proper, in its new, postmodern sense.


1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malgosia Fitzmaurice

The subject-matter of this article are the issues of treaty law as expounded in the Judgment in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case. The following problems are discussed: unilateral suspension and abandonment of obligations deriving from the binding treaty; the principle of fundamental change of circumstances; unilateral termination of a treaty; applicability of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in this case; legal status of so-called ‘provisional solution’; impossibility of performance and material breach of treaty; the application of the principle of ‘approximate application’; and the principle pacta sunt servanda. The issues arc discussed at the background of the Drafts of the International Law Commission.


Author(s):  
R. W. Ianni

To the impressive list of Italian periodicals on international law led by the prestigious Rivista di Diritto Internazionale there has now been added The Italian Yearbook of International Law, published exclusively in English. Italian scholars have made a very significant contribution to doctrinal developments in international law; however, some of their work has gone unnoticed because Italian is not among the languages in widespread use in international law circles. In addition, Italian scholarship has suffered somewhat from what some consider to be an overly theoretical or abstract approach to the subject matter. While it is always a noteworthy occasion to welcome a new member into the family of international law yearbooks, the advent of the Italian yearbook is particularly noteworthy, contributing as it does to the accessibility of a broad range of material and learned comment. It is appropriate, therefore, that the first issues of The Italian Yearbook of International Law receive extended comment in the pages of this Yearbook.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Paweł Majka

<p>The subject of the study is to outline the boundaries within the legislator may sanction the obligations to provide information to tax authorities using tax sanctions. The author analyzes tax sanctions as instruments guaranteeing the effectiveness of legal norms related to information obligations in the light of the protection of the taxpayer’s rights. In the author’s opinion, there is a clear outline of the possible shape of the sanction, which limits the legislator in excessive interference with the rights of taxpayers. These limits, both in national and international law, are determined primarily by the principle of proportionality, which is decisive for the degree of discomfort associated with the application of sanctions. It should be indicated that the shape limits of these sanctions, characterized in this study, guarantee, in turn, the protection of the rights of these entities. At the same time, it should be emphasized that tax sanctions are, in principle, a complementary element of the system of the guarantees of the law effectiveness and the legislator deciding on their wider use should properly balance the degree of “saturation” of tax law with sanctions taking into account its nature.</p>


1942 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 614-620
Author(s):  
William Marion Gibson

In explaining the nature of international law, each of the two major schools of thought draws upon legal philosophy and practice for evidence in support of its interpretation. It is not the purpose of this note to offer any conclusions or proofs as to the validity of the reasoning of one or the other of the two schools. It would require more than the subject-matter here considered to prove the “Monist” position, or to detract from that of the “Dualist.” However, inasmuch as state practice is one of the guides to the resolution of the debate on the nature of international law, it is hoped that an explanation of the attitude of the Colombian Supreme Court concerning the relationship of pacta to the national constitution and legislation of that state may merit mention.


2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 192-192
Author(s):  
Ian Winspur

I enjoyed Alice Brandfonbrener’s editorial “But I Didn’t Ask to Be a Lawyer” in the June 2002 issue of MPPA [MPPA 2002;17(2):57]. I understand and sympathize with her. Many physicians who, like her, are involved in these cases for altruistic reasons rather than pure commercial—-and I believe that this is more common in the world of performing arts medicine—-must find themselves in the same predicament. However, in the words of an eminent English lawyer, who qualified and practiced as a gynecologist before turning to the law, when considering medical and scientific evidence (or in many cases, including performers, non-scientific evidence!): “However scientific the subject matter of the claim and however recondite the evidence and the argument, the legal definitions must apply in a Court of Law; the problem for the lawyer is in making the scientist understand a totally different concept of proof required by the court.” Therefore physicians involved, whether altruistic or not, must understand the basis of these claims.


Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans

Once a European patent has been granted the nature and scope of the protection it confers must be determined. In considering such protection this chapter focuses on four issues of central importance to that end. The first is the effects of a patent, namely, the territories in and term for which it is valid. The second is the object of protection, namely, the subject matter that the public is excluded from using during the term of its protection. The third is the nature of protection, namely, the uses of the subject matter from which the public is excluded. And the fourth is the limitations to protection, namely, the uses of an invention that the law permits notwithstanding its protection by patent grant.


Author(s):  
C. H. Alexandrowicz

This chapter considers problems in the study of the history of the law of nations in Asia. It argues that international lawyers have focused their attention on the legal aspects of contemporary problems of international relations and politics, and on the operation of tribunals and quasi-tribunals and the case law they produce. Writers of present day treatises of international law devote just a few introductory pages to the history of the subject and these short chapters are often based on similar introductions in nineteenth-century treatises. The chapter discusses some of the elements of legal change in which European–Asian relations played a significant role; the gradual elimination of the natural law outlook by growing European positivism; the principle of universality of the law of nations and the principle of identity of de facto and de jure State sovereignty; and the use of capitulations to delay the ‘entry’ of Asian States into the family of nations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document