The Crisis over the Imia Rocks and the Aegean Sea Regime: International Law as a Language of Common Interest

1997 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos Raftopoulos
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
Abstract Notion ◽  
Pragmatic Dimension

AbstractSovereignty is a concept of international public interest. In the case of the Imia Rocks, the public interest nature of territorial sovereignty may be found in the undisputed treaty delimitation of the archipelagic entity of the Dodecanese Islands between Italy and Turkey, 1932, and the Peace Treaty of Paris, 1947. Turkey's subsequent conduct, its signature without reservation of the Helsinki Final Act and its claim for the bilateralisation of the Aegean Sea Dispute Agenda on the basis of a geo-political equity are all evidence of the acceptance of the delimitation regime of the Aegean Sea. The public interest regime of the LOS Convention makes questionable Turkey's recourse to the abstract notion of a "semi-enclosed" sea and provides the basis for understanding the pragmatic dimension of the Imia Rocks crisis in the light of the protection and promotion of international common interest.

scholarly journals L'action d'intérêt collectif

2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-578
Author(s):  
Pierre Verge
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Personal Interest ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Pluralistic Society ◽  
Collective Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

Group action is inherent to a pluralistic society. In various fields, numerous bodies purport to defend and promote the common interest of their members which is also the raison d'être of the group. How receptive is the judicial system to attempts by such groups to legally defend the common aim ? « Collective actions » are brought to assure the legal protection of a collective value which is not of a general societal nature as is the public interest. However, their purpose is not to defend the subjective patrimonial interest of the members of the group or even of the group itself. The underlying collective interest is first to be objectively identified in order not to unduly curtail the reception of the collective action; then it is for the Court to establish whether there is a sufficient relationship between the collective interest and the general objects of the group, as officially defined, in order to allow the latter to act. This analysis of the « sufficient interest », as required by Sec. 55 C.C.P., it is suggested, appears to be more adapted to the nature of the collective action than the immediate requirement of a « direct and personal » interest from the group, at least if this notion is to be understood as involving some form of patrimonial interest, as in most trials.

Disintegration and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-429
Author(s):  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Abstract Resistance to the law made through expansionist interpretation of investment treaties by arbitral tribunals has led to the disintegration of the resulting structure of investment protection. The creation of an inflexible system of investment protection through arbitral interpretation undermines the exercise of power of states to take measures to protect the public interest. The process of disintegration of this unjust system must be hastened through the creation of new norms that ensure that obligatory rules deter the misconduct of multinational investors. If investment treaties are necessary, the regulatory power of states to promote the public interest should be given priority over investment protection.

scholarly journals Constitutional measurements of public interest, protected in the performance of executive activity

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-30
Author(s):  
Raina Nikolova
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

The public interest in carrying out enforcement activities in a constitutional sense is to provide guarantees for compliance with the fundamental principles. In order to exercise the fundamental rights of citizens in the performance of their enforcement activities, the common interest can be formulated by imposing restrictions on them.

scholarly journals Through the looking glass: The UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency and what they reveal about theories of investment treaty arbitration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Johanna McDavitt
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Theoretical Conception ◽  
Looking Glass ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

<p>This paper aims to use the transparency debate within investment arbitration, and specifically the discussions of Working Group II when preparing the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, as a lens to examine how the international community conceptualises investment arbitration. It will argue that investment arbitration is no longer viewed as a private system of dispute resolution akin to international commercial arbitration. Rather, the public interest, public international law, and regulatory nature of investment arbitration is increasingly coming to the fore. Accordingly, the consent of the parties is no longer at the heart of arbitral authority. This paper aims to identify what alternate theoretical conception of investment arbitration is driving transparency initiatives in investment arbitration.</p>

scholarly journals An Analysis of Principle of Erga Omnes Partes with Special Reference to the Case of Belgium v. Senegal, 2012

2018 ◽  
pp. 193-198
Author(s):  
Prajwol Bickram Rana
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
International Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Consequences

In the Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal case), the International Court of Justice for the very fi rst time declared the country's standing before the court on the basis of erga omnes partes as admissible. The court found that Belgium had the standing to claim the responsibility of Senegal for the alleged breach under the Convention against Torture on the basis of being a party of the same convention. The court described erga omnes partes as the obligation that the state party has to all the other state parties of the convention, the court further stated that it arises due to the common interest of the state parties of a convention. Many sitting judges of the court rejected the reasoning of the majority decision and some gave a dissenting opinion. The present paper assesses the concept of erga omnes partes in the public international law and the legal consequences of erga omnes partes in the future development of public international law. The scope of the present paper is limited within the issue of admissibility of the case with the specifi c focus on the concept of erga omnes partes and does not deal with the merits or other issues raised before the court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document