Conclusion

Legal reforms in early modern France marked a confluence of the crown’s judicial and legislative agenda, aimed at achieving what can be called in modern times judicial economy. They attested to the old-fashioned idea that the law, reinforced by royal authority, afforded better protection for the less-than-mighty subjects. Success in making the kingdom’s laws more systematic and equitable vindicates an important aspect of the meaning that historians and theorists have attached to the idea of a monarchie absolue. Early modern legal history has shown that a robust expression of sovereignty was intrinsically tied with the control of the sources of law. The historical forces behind the French law, long in the making, shed critical light on European legal tradition and jus commune.

Standard Chartered Bank v. United Republic of Tanzania

485Jurisdiction — Dispute — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Whether the dispute concerned an investment of a national or company of one party to the BIT in the territory of the other party — Whether the BIT required merely an ownership interest in an asset or required an association of belonging or contribution of valueInterpretation — Investment “of” a national or company — VCLT, Article 31 — Whether the ordinary meaning and context indicated a requirement of passive ownership or active investment — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT supported a requirement of the claimant taking on an active role of direction or controlInterpretation — Supplementary means of interpretation — VCLT, Article 32 — Whether provisions in other BITs confirmed or determined the meaning of the disputed treaty text — Whether case law confirmed or determined the meaning of the disputed treaty textEvidence — Direction or control — Whether any evidence had been adduced to show that the investment was made at the direction of the claimantProcedure — Judicial economy — ICSID Convention, Article 48(3) — Whether the tribunal dealt with every question submitted — Whether policy considerations weighed against gratuitous resolution of factually and legally complex questions

Finality of Judgments in Civil Cases and Related Considerations: The Experience of Ukraine and Lithuania

Finality of judgments is a concept that puts an end to the trial, prohibiting subsequent appeals, opening of new proceedings and disputing clearly established facts. Despite being promoted by the Council of Europe and its Court of Human Rights and familiar to most if not all states, its application still encounters misunderstanding in some Eastern European Countries. Deeply rooted ideas of substantive truth and public role of the judiciary, a rather idiosyncratic notion of fair trial and the rule of law all lead to underestimation of the role played by finality in a peaceful life of the society. This article addresses the experience of Ukraine (where a major judicial reform has just taken place) and Lithuania – two post-Soviet nations that both, still in their unique way, worked on implementing the principle of finality into their procedural order. The paper also explores an uneasy balance to be found between this notion and other relevant considerations (access to justice, rule of law, judicial economy and some other).

Remarks by Holger Hestermeyer

This question is inextricably connected with the first one. The more you think a judge's or arbitrator's task consists in merely resolving a dispute, the more you will insist on judicial economy. The more you regard a judge as an instrument of the international community in developing international law or elucidating its concepts, the more you will favor her or his straying from what is strictly necessary to resolve the dispute. To some extent, the international judiciary serves both of these functions, which was made explicit with regard to World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement in Article 3.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. It obviously resolves disputes with an important role for judicial economy. But it also elucidates the concepts of international law. That function of adjudication gains some importance in international law, because it is a legal system without legislature, where pressures on legal rules can build over time and only the adjudicator can ensure that the system remains operable in a changing world, straying from the path of judicial economy.