The Theoretical Framework of the Right of Visit on the High Seas: Mare Liberum v Mare Clausum Revisited

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
The Right ◽  
High Seas

Flag Verification on the High Seas: Understanding Requirements for Masters and Commanders

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angeline Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Objective Evidence ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Enforcement Authority ◽  
The Right ◽  
Proper Balance ◽  
High Seas

Operational reporting from the Middle East indicates that the exercise by warships of a right of visit on the high seas, in order to verify the flag of the boarded vessel, is an important part of contemporary maritime enforcement operations. However, this reliance on ‘flag verification boardings,’ pursuant to Article 110 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, challenges the proper balance of law enforcement authority against the traditional freedom of navigation. It is therefore necessary to establish clearly for both civilian masters and warship commanders where the evidentiary threshold for reasonable doubt as to the nationality of vessels lies, so as to justify non-consensual visit and search by a foreign warship. This article makes an objective, evidence-based assessment of the threshold, concluding with a caution against over-stretching the right of visit to accommodate law enforcement purposes not envisaged in the drafting of Article 110.

scholarly journals Simulation, Control and Desire. Urban Commons and Semi-Public Space Resilience in the Age of Augmented Transductive Territorial Production

2019 ◽  
pp. 179-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfredo Manfredini
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Public Spaces ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
External Control ◽  
The Public ◽  
Spatial Production ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right ◽  
Urban Commons

Considering place-based participation a crucial factor for the development of sustainable and resilient cities in the post-digital turn age, this paper addresses the socio-spatial implications of the recent transformation of relationality networks. To understand the drivers of spatial claims emerged in conditions of digitally augmented spectacle and simulation, it focuses on changes occurring in key nodes of central urban public and semi-public spaces of rapidly developing cities. Firstly, it proposes a theoretical framework for the analysis of problems related to socio-spatial fragmentation, polarisation and segregation of urban commons subject to external control. Secondly, it discusses opportunities and criticalities emerging from a representational paradox depending on the ambivalence in the play of desire found in digitally augmented semi-public spaces. The discussion is structured to shed light on specific socio-spatial relational practices that counteract the dissipation of the “common worlds” caused by sustained processes of urban gentrification and homogenisation. The theoretical framework is developed from a comparative critical urbanism approach inspired by the right to the city and the right to difference, and elaborates on the discourse on sustainable development that informs the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda. The analysis focuses on how digitally augmented geographies reintroduce practices of participation and commoning that reassemble fragmented relational infrastructures and recombine translocal social, cultural and material elements. Empirical studies on the production of advanced simulative and transductive spatialities in places of enhanced consumption found in Auckland, New Zealand, ground the discussion. These provide evidence of the extent to which the agency of the augmented territorialisation forces reconstitutes inclusive and participatory systems of relationality. The concluding notes, speculating on the emancipatory potential found in these social laboratories, are a call for a radical redefinition of the approach to the problem of the urban commons. Such a change would improve the capacity of urbanism disciplines to adequately engage with the digital turn and efficaciously contribute to a maximally different spatial production that enhances and strengthens democracy and pluralism in the public sphere.

Walter Bagehot’s Lombard Street: An Interpretation

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-580
Author(s):  
Laurence Alan Krause
Keyword(s):  
Central Bank ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Foreign Capital ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Credit System ◽  
Policy Regime ◽  
Policy Rules ◽  
Speculative Attack ◽  
The Right ◽  
Jel Classifications

Walter Bagehot’s contribution to macroeconomics in Lombard Street is misunderstood and underappreciated. To remedy this, I reinterpret his work, including his famous policy “rules,” by piecing together his larger theoretical framework. That framework incorporates: (1) a “Lombard Street” economy, consisting of a permissive lending system, capitalists in need of credit, and a financial center which attracts large inflows of foreign capital; (2) a rigid policy regime built on a gold standard; and (3) a central bank with a dual objective of keeping the nation’s currency convertible into gold and backstopping a crisis-prone economy. Bagehot argues that an economy with this structure is vulnerable to two distinct crises. The first is a speculative attack on the gold standard by foreigners, as they seek to convert their money into gold. And the second is a run on the credit system by nervous participants. Guided by the “right principles,” Bagehot insists that an active central bank can both preserve the gold standard and prevent recurrent financial panics. JEL Classifications: B31, E58, N23

Critical Discourse Analysis of Adjectives Used with the Word Multiculturalism in British Print Media

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 185
Author(s):  
Sadok Abcha
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Print Media ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Key Word ◽  
Critical Insight ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insight Into

The present paper critically analyses the ideological uses of the adjectives used to describe multiculturalism in opinion articles published by two British quality newspapers, The Telegraph and The Times, which politically lean to The Right. Methodologically, the sample on which this study is based has been retrieved from the websites of the two dailies by means of the Key Word In Context (KWIC) technique, which has been used to look for comment articles published between July 2005 and December 2015, and in which the search word, multiculturalism used with an adjective featured. Using Fairclough’s theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the study pinpoints the ideological underpinnings of the adjectives used with the word multiculturalism in the editorials. The study found out that all the adjectives are used in a derogative way to describe multiculturalism as being unreasonable, harmful and unsuccessful. Significantly, this paper provides critical insight into the peculiar uses of derogative adjectives in comment articles dealing with multiculturalism and avers that negative adjectives are not simply linguistic elements, but most importantly, ideological tools.

Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, A The Right to Reparation, Principle 32 Reparation Procedures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
d’Argent Pierre ◽  
de Ghellinck Isabelle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Right ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Aspect

Principle 32 deals with the procedural aspect of the right to reparation, that is, the right for victims of human right violations to access remedial procedures. It addresses three issues: the right to access remedial procedures, procedural requirements of national reparation programmes, and regional and international procedures. While the obligation of states to provide effective remedies is enshrined in most of, if not all, the key international human rights treaties, Principle 32 provides for a right to all victims to access remedies. ‘Reparation’ and ‘remedies’ are both envisioned as victims’ rights, but the distinction between them is vague. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 32, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the reparation procedure, judicial or administrative, dealing with gross violations of human rights at national or international level has been implemented.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 29 Restrictions on the Jurisdiction of Military Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoláin Fionnuala Ní
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Military Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

Principle 29 deals with restrictions on the jurisdiction of military courts. Under this Principle, the adjudication of human rights violations by military courts is explicitly excluded, and ordinary domestic courts are mandated as the only appropriate venue of judicial oversight. Nevertheless, military courts remain functionally important for the routine and uncontroversial deployment of military law consistent with international law. The chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 29 before discussing its theoretical framework and how military courts are used in various countries such as Ireland and Turkey. Issues arising when civilians find themselves within the jurisdiction of military courts are also examined, along with the difficulties of ensuring fair trials in military courts. This chapter shows that military courts, while certainly serving important functions within the military forces of states, remain subject to human rights and humanitarian law compliance.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 23 Restrictions on Prescription

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinzauti Giulia
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right

Principle 23 deals with statutory limitations (prescription, in French) aimed at protecting defendants from stale claims that might be difficult to counter. Statutory limitations refer to legal norms that regulate the effects of the passage of time in domestic systems. In criminal law, they provide for a maximum timeframe, or prescription period, within which criminal proceedings can be instituted or sentences enforced. The passage of time makes the gathering of evidence more difficult and may also reduce the effectiveness of criminal prosecution. Significant delays in criminal action may thus impair the accused’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, criminal proceedings tend to lose legitimacy as time passes. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 23, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the statutory limitations have been applied in practice under multilateral treaties, domestic legislation and case-law. It also examines the practice of United Nations organs.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 22 Nature of Restrictive Measures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinzauti Giulia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
The Right ◽  
Restrictive Measures

Principle 22 is an overarching guideline to states on the nature of the safeguards and restrictions that they may need to adopt and enforce in order to counter impunity more effectively. It is an umbrella provision listing certain rules or principles in national legal systems which might impede the criminal prosecution or other scrutiny of human rights violations by domestic courts. These rules and principles include those regulating amnesty, prescription (statutory limitations), extradition, the right to asylum, due obedience, repentance, the jurisdiction of military courts and the irremovability of judges. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 22 before discussing its theoretical framework and how the safeguards or restrictive measures outlined in Principle 22 have been applied in practice.

Part III The Right to Justice, B Distribution of Jurisdiction between National, Foreign, International, and Internationalized Courts, Principle 20 Jurisdiction of International and Internationalized Criminal Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schabas William A
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Justice System ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Final Sentence ◽  
The Right

Principle 20 is concerned with the jurisdiction of international and internationalized criminal tribunals regarding the prosecution of war crimes and other atrocities. The word ‘impunity’, defined at the beginning of the United Nations Updated Set of Principles, implies punishment or some similar sanction. It inexorably directs us towards judicial activity of criminal courts or the lack of it. The first sentence of Principle 20 is addressed to the national justice system, while the second sentence focuses on the international and internationalized criminal tribunals and their relationship to national courts. The final sentence of Principle 20 requires States to ‘fully satisfy their legal obligations’ with respect to international and internationalized criminal tribunals. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 20 before discussing its theoretical framework and how it has been observed in practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document