Der diplomatische Schutz der Aktionäre im Völkerrecht. Eine Untersuchung zur Schutzbefugnis des Heimatstaates im allgemeinen Völkerrecht und in Kapitalschutzverträgen (The Diplomatic Protection of Shareholders in Public International Law. An Analysis of the Right of Protection of the Home State under General International Law and in virtue of Investment Protection Treaties). By Sigurd Beyer. Vol. 25 of Series Völkerrecht und Auβenpolitik (Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1977. Pp. 214. DM54.)

1978 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-447
Author(s):  
I. Seidl-Hohenveldern
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Home State ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
The Right ◽  
In Virtue Of

scholarly journals Crimean conflict – from the perspectives of Russia, Ukraine, and public international law

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-45
Author(s):  
Milena Ingelevič-Citak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Crimean Crisis ◽  
Secessionist Movement

Abstract The article presents the Crimean conflict from Russian and Ukrainian standpoints, confronting them with international law analysis. It is worth to mention, that Crimean crisis is still extremely controversial, since both parties are justifying their actions with norms of international law. This article starts with brief introduction of historical background of the Crimean crisis. Second chapter assesses the Crimean secessionist movement claiming the right of self-determination, and its compliance with Ukrainian law. Third chapter examines Russia’s position and its actions on the basis of Russian law. Fourth chapter presents the international law analysis of events in Crimea and its current legal status. Results of the analysis are presented in a conclusion.

Investment Contracts and International Law: Charting a Research Agenda

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-368
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Cotula
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Regulatory Powers

Abstract Investment contracts are an important part of the web of legal relations that underpin investment processes. They raise complex doctrinal issues, including with regard to their interface with public international law. The two books under review are part of a new surge in academic writing about investment contracts, in a field that is currently dominated by concerns about investment treaties and treaty-based arbitration. In this review essay, I explore the intersections between investment contracts and international law, engaging with the arguments presented in the two books and developing reflections based on trends in the wider literature. After situating the contract in academic and policy debates about international investment law, I compare the different approaches the two books embody – in relation to their scope, focus and format as well as the ways in which they conceptualize and piece together the multiple commercial and public interests at stake in investment contracting. I then discuss one theme that features prominently in both books – namely, the legal contours of investment protection, particularly in connection with stabilization clauses – and I examine its articulation with public regulatory powers. I conclude by outlining areas that deserve further exploration in scholarly work on investment contracts and international law.

Allegiance, Diplomatic Protection and Criminal Jurisdiction Over Aliens

1947 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Lauterpacht
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Considerable Importance ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
The Right

The cause célèbre of King v. William Joyce, subsequently reported as Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions, was concerned to a large extent with matters of interest for international law, and it is mainly from this point of view that it is proposed to discuss it in the present article. Obviously the case is also of considerable importance both for criminal law, in so far as it is concerned with the crime of treason, and for constitutional law inasmuch as it bears directly on the question of the nature and the obligations of allegiance. However, it is probable that the case books which will claim it most insistently will be those of international law. For the decision in Rex v. Joyce is not only an authority on certain aspects of allegiance owed by aliens and of the right of a State to assume jurisdiction over acts committed by aliens abroad. It sheds light on such questions as the nature of diplomatic protection of citizens, the right of a State to protect diplomatically persons who are not its citizens, the obligation of allegiance of so-called protected persons, and some others. Not all these questions were judicially answered, but they loomed large in argument and imparted to the proceedings the complexion of a case concerned predominantly with international law. In view of this it may be pertinent to preface this article by drawing attention to a point which appears to be a mere matter of terminology but which, it is believed, raises an issue of wider significance.

I. Diplomatic Representations and Diplomatic Protection

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 723-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The European Court of Human Rights has decided in the last three years five cases dealing with state or international immunities.1 Although the facts differed, the arguments of the applicants were much the same. They contended that allowing a foreign State or an international organisation to claim immunity in a civil action in proceedings in the defendant State violated the applicants' rights to access to a court for the determination of a civil right.2 The European Court accepted the claims in principle but concluded in each case that the limitation imposed on the right of access was for a legitimate reason (the protection of State or international immunities, a condition for effective co-operation between States or with international organisations) and was proportionate to this aim, because in each case, the grant of immunity was required by international law and that in each case there was the possibility of the applicant using another procedure to try to assert his rights, action in the courts of the foreign State or under the special staff regime of the international organisation.

THE EVOLUTION IN SPANISH LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY LEADING TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESTRICTIVE THEORY

1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-81
Author(s):  
Alberto Soria Jiménez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Spanish Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The Right

SUMMARY Judgment 107/1992 of the Spanish Constitutional Court has not only cleared up any possible doubts about the alleged unconstitutionality of State immunities and it has discarded any possible contradictions that these immunities might have with art. 24.1 of the Spanish Constitution.. Judgment 107/1992 has also directly linked the right to due process of law with the correct jurisdictional application of the international rules to which art. 21.2 of the LOPJ remits. The Constitutional Court feels that extending immunity from enforcement to foreign State property beyond the provisions of Public International Law violates the right to due process because it limits the right to enforcement of judgments without any legal support. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court points out that when the rules of Public International Law impose absolute immunity from enforcement, the aforementioned right is not violated. That in these cases, this right might be guaranteed by diplomatic protection or, as a last resort, by an assumption by the forum State of its duty to satisfy judicially mandated obligations when the absence of enforcement of these might imply undue sacrifice for an individual contrary to the principle of equality before public burdens. Therefore it seems wise for the Spanish State to establish some procedure which would prevent the recognition of immunity would also be highly recommendable for Spain to enact a statute containing a list of exceptions to State immunity as soon as possible. It is the executive branch, therefore, that should resolve this situation by proposing a bill on this issue and perhaps, as a complementary measure, by ratifying the European Convention on State Immunity.

The Legal Personality of Individuals in International Claims

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Right ◽  
Second World

Chapter 4 discusses international claims, that is, claims arising out of injury inflicted upon an individual by a foreign State in violation of international law. Such claims may be enforced either through diplomatic protection or by granting the injured individual himself the right to bring a case against the foreign State before an international dispute settlement body. The common idea is that claims of individuals against foreign States were solely asserted through diplomatic protection before the Second World War, whereas the right of individuals to petition international courts independently is a post-1945 phenomenon. By studying international claims practice in three historical periods (before the First World War, the interwar period, and after the Second World War), the present chapter tests this account against positive international law, and inquires whether the concept of international legal personality played a role in the contracting States’ choice of one method of dispute resolution over the other.

Apotex Inc. v. United States: Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (NAFTA Arb.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Bettauer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The North ◽  
The Right

The North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994. Chapter Eleven of NAFTA contains provisions governing investment protection and investor-state arbitration. In general, NAFTA provides investors of one of the parties protections for their investments in another NAFTA party, guaranteeing: treatment at least as good as that of host or third country investors (NAFTA articles 1102-1104); treatment in accordance with the minimum standards of customary international law (NAFTA article 1105); and compensation for expropriation (NAFTA article 1110). NAFTA article 1139 defines “investment” broadly but excludes contracts for the sale of goods or services. After meeting specified threshold requirements, such an investor has the right to international arbitration against the host state to vindicate these protections.

scholarly journals The Expulsion of Resident Colombian Nationals during the Colombia-Venezuela Border Dispute: An “Under the Radar” Case for Diplomatic Protection of Human Rights?

Vniversitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (138) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Joseph-Blaise MacLean ◽  
Walter Arévalo Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Border Dispute ◽  
Colombian Government ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

While International Humanitarian, Refugee and Human Rights Law are frequently resorted to in the search for remedies for human rights violations, the Public International Law remedy of Diplomatic Protection is often forgotten, perhaps because there are few cases fitting the legal requirements for that remedy. The Venezuelan expulsions and property confiscations in 2015 and 2017 of Colombian residents without due process and, frequently, with violence may provide a useful example of an appropriate case for Diplomatic Protection arising within the context of a forced expulsion of an identifiable nationality. The following article, result of a research project regarding international law enforceability, reviews the current law on Diplomatic Protection and, within the context of a factual survey of the treatment of Colombian nationals by Venezuela, undertakes an analysis as to whether the facts of the case in fact give rise to a remedy of Diplomatic Protection. Effectively, the article argues in favour of the availability of this remedy as an option for the Colombian government.

scholarly journals The relationship between public international law and petroleum law: Study of the case between Timor-Leste and Australia

2019 ◽  
pp. 31-51
Author(s):  
Jeremias Pereira ◽  
Lívia Haygert Pithan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Timor Leste ◽  
Oil And Natural Gas ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Maritime Territory

This article aims to analyze the Law of the Sea and Petroleum to understand the reasons that generated, for more than a decade, the conflict between Timor-Leste and Australia regarding the definition of definitive maritime borders. Timor-Leste has already been exploited and invaded by several nations. Because of the abundance of oil and natural gas, it suffered to gain independence in 2002, as well as struggled to enjoy its maritime territory until 2018, from this new context of the maritime border treaty signed between Timor-Leste and the Australia. The median equidistance line was the parameter used to define the definitive Timorese borders, granting the right to enjoy their maritime territory. The definitive pact on borders has contributed greatly to the development of Timor-Leste, due to the exploitation of sea riches, in addition to recognizing the country’s need for oil companies to assist in the evolution of Timor-Leste in a specific and punctual way. This now needs to be ratified by the national parliaments of both countries. The ratification process is due to be completed in 2019. Timor-Leste is currently seeking to negotiate its maritime borders with Indonesia, but these have been suspended during the mandatory conciliation process with Australia. Now that this process is over, the two countries can resume their discussions aga

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document