Human Rights and the Anti-Doping Lex Sportiva—The Relationship of Public and Private International Law, ‘Law Beyond the State’ and the Laws of Nation States

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 001
Author(s):  
Juan Sebastián Villamil Rodriguez

The internationalization of adjudication in the Colombian high court refers to the growing importance that the American Convention on Human Rights has gained among the judicial forums of this country, but especially to the phenomenon that occurs when national judiciaries implement and appropriate the doctrine of the control of conventionality. The Convention has claimed a high ground in the Colombian constitutional system due to the appropriation of international law by national courts decisions, and to the process of the internationalization of the law. By consistently applying the control of conventionality doctrine, courts like the State Council have reaffirmed the binding nature and the effectiveness of the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the Colombian legal system. In contrast to a much more regressive posture assumed by the Constitutional Court in recent decisions, the State Council, drawing on the legal contents of international law, has broadened the range of legal sources for rights interpretation in Colombia. By this action, as it will be further stated in this article, the State Council has contributed to a move away from a paradigm of a legalism based solely on the state sovereignty and national constitutionalism, towards one that endorses the pluralist structure of post-national law. Against this background, this article aims to discuss how the relationship of national judiciaries with international law is best understood as reflecting the development of a pluralist legal dynamic, sometimes referred to as jurisprudential dialogue, that involves the broadening of the normative horizon and the internationalization of the sources available for national judges in their reasoning; particularly in the cases that involve human rights violations.


2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL JOYCE

AbstractThis article considers the relationship of international law and the media through the prism of human rights. In the first section the international regulation of the media is examined and visions of good, bad, and new media emerge. In the second section, the enquiry is reversed and the article explores the ways in which the media is shaping international legal forms and processes in the field of human rights. This is termed the ‘mediatization of international law’. Yet despite hopes for new media and the Internet to transform international law, the theoretical work of Jodi Dean warns of the danger to democracy of commodification through the spread of ‘communicative capitalism’.


1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted L. Stein

On November 5, 1982, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal decided a series of nine cases presenting issues of the greatest significance for the future course of that Tribunal’s work. The issue for decision in each case was the effect of a contractual choice-of-forum clause on the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction, an issue likely to arise in a great many cases. Squarely presented were issues pertaining to the relationship between public and private international law, the content of a state’s obligation under international law to maintain an adequate and effective system of local remedies, and the scope of “changed circumstances” as a ground for release from contractual obligations.


2020 ◽  
pp. 159-181
Author(s):  
Lea Raible

The very term ‘extraterritoriality’ implies that territory is significant. So far, however, my argument focuses on jurisdiction rather than territory. This chapter adds clarifications in this area. It examines the relationship of jurisdiction in international human rights law, whether understood as political power or not, and title to territory in international law. To this end, I start by looking at what international law has to say about jurisdiction as understood in international human rights law, and territory, respectively. The conclusion of the survey is that the two concepts serve different normative purposes, are underpinned by different values, and that they are thus not the same. Accordingly, an account of their relationship should be approached with conceptual care.


1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier

Historically, public international law and private international law have been treated as two different legal systems that function more or less independently. Public international law regulates activity among human beings operating in groups called, nation-states, while private international law regulates the activities of smaller subgroups or of individuals as they interact with each other. Since the public international legal system coordinates the interaction of collective human interests through decentralized mechanisms and private international law coordinates the interaction of individual or subgroup interests primarily through centralized mechanisms, these coordinating functions are usually carried out in different forums, each appropriate to the task. The differences between the processes by which sanctions for violation of community norms are applied in the two systems and the differences in the nature of the units making up the communities that establish those norms tend to obscure the fact that both the public and the private international systems coordinate human behavior, and that thus the values that inform both systems must necessarily be the same.


2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Bisping

AbstractThis article analyses the relationship of the proposed Common European Sales Law (CESL) and the rules on mandatory and overriding provisions in private international law. The author argues that the CESL will not achieve its stated aim of taking precedence over these provisions of national law and therefore not lead to an increase in cross-border trade. It is pointed out how slight changes in drafting can overcome the collision with mandatory provisions. The clash with overriding mandatory provisions, the author argues, should be taken as an opportunity to rethink the definition of these provisions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (88) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Aleksandrs Baikovs ◽  
Ilona Bulgakova

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the interplay between international public and private law and national law, and to provide an assessment of the theory of public and private law and its interrelationship.Private international law is closely linked to public international law. However, if public international law is an autonomous system of law, then private international law is an integral part of national law, since it governs cross-border private law relations.The objectives of the study stem from its purpose, namely:to clarify the nature and understanding of international public and private law; to clarify the relationship between international public and private law and national (internal) law. The object of the research is the problems of the relation and interrelation of international public and private law.As a result of the study, several conclusions were drawn, which are as follows: 1) public international law is an independent legal system, but private international law is an integral part of national law; 2) there is a relationship between public international law and private international law; 3) general theoretical categories and concepts are partly incompatible with the nature of both international public and private international law; 4) the value, validity, and credibility of contemporary theoretical research in international law largely depends on the inclusion of relevant categories andThe following methods have been used in the research: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, abstracting, generalization, analogy, idealization, formalization, axiomatic method, systematic and historical research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document