Search result: 370 articles

x

Thea Flem Dethlefsen
LLB and LLM, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Adv. LL.M. Air and Space Law, Leiden University (2018).

Heejeong Vicky Jeong
LLB (Hons.), London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. Adv. LL.M. Air and Space Law, Leiden University (2018).

Antonino Salmeri
LLM (cum laude), University of Catania, LLM (cum laude) Law and Government of the EU, LUISS University, Rome. Adv. LLM Air and Space Law, Leiden University (2018).
Human Rights Practice Review

Serbia

Journal East European Yearbook on Human Rights, Issue 1 2018
Authors Jelena Simić
Author's information

Jelena Simić
Jelena Simić is assistant professor, Union University Law School (Belgrade).

P.J. Blount

Rafael Moro-Aguilar

    Since its inception, space law has been governed by principles and rules established by governments and primarily applicable to government activities. Today we are experiencing policy changes to encourage private sector initiatives to carry out government missions and to expand potential profit-making opportunities. The space treaties allow for nongovernmental activities in space but only under the auspices of a nation. Each nation approaches legal solutions in their own way. These variations in national law may create challenges for all space-faring nations. If there are no international agreements, they may create a more fragmented, unpredictable, and unsustainable environment for all participants, both governments and private companies in outer space.
    The fragmentation of international law is defined by the development of sets of rules pertaining to specific subject areas that may claim autonomy from principles of general international law. Those subject areas reflect the larger global issues that include the environment, energy, resource availability, migration, health, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Space law is unique and may be considered one of the fragmented areas of international law. The principles of the now 50-year old treaties have been formally acknowledged by all space-faring nations. New developments may threaten that.
    At issue are many areas of space law including liability, property rights, and environmental harm. Different on-orbit space activities such as satellite servicing, exploiting resources, and removing debris highlight the types of space activities with many similar legal concerns but which may result in different rules in different nations and even for different rules within a nation. New and growing legal tensions among space-faring nations will arise.
    Solutions to this problem are all suboptimal. Neither top-down oversight nor separate bottom-up rules or guidelines will suffice as stable, predictable, and long-lasting regimes that create a favorable legal environment for future public and private space exploration and use.


Henry R. Hertzfeld
Director and Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC; hhertzfeld@law.gwu.edu.
Article

Normative References to Non-Legally Binding Instruments in National Space Laws

A Risk-Benefit Analysis in the Context of Public International and Domestic Law

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 4 2018
Authors Alexander Soucek and Jenni Tapio
Author's information

Alexander Soucek
European Space Agency (ESA), The Netherlands, alexander.soucek@esa.int.

Jenni Tapio
Bird & Bird Attorneys, University of Helsinki, Finland, jenni.tapio@helsinki.fi.

    International cooperation is the key to the strongest peace in the world, to really constructive relations and the political, economic, cultural and humanistic development among all countries, all peoples and all mankind. There is an “extraordinary danger of the current moment,” the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said on January 25, 2018, when it decided to move the hand of the iconic Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight. The last time the symbolic Clock was this closing to midnight was in 1953, at the height of the First Cold War. (2) Now, 65 years later, we are in a Second Cold War, which propels a new and millionaire arms race into space, preparing a space war of inestimable consequences. The world community is “seriously concerned” about this concrete possibility, that can result in a limitless global collapse.
    The UN General Assembly Resolution 72-77, of December 7, 2017, makes an appeal “to all States Members, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to preventing an arms race in outer space with a view to promoting and strengthening international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes”. This resolution also “requests the Committee [The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space – UNCOPUOS] to continue to consider, as a matter of priority, ways and means of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes.” In its point of view, “the Committee should continue to consider the broader perspective of space security and associated matters that would be instrumental in ensuring the safe and responsible conduct of space activities, including ways to promote international, regional and inter regional cooperation to that end.” (3) As if that were not enough, we are facing an unprecedented climate crisis today. The mainstream media seek to conceal or minimize the fact. But this is part of the problem of the need to maximize international cooperation. Without it, the crisis will continue to spread and threaten the lives of millions of people around the world. In this way, can international space cooperation be carried out effectively “on an equitable and mutually acceptable basis,” as proposed the Declaration on International Cooperation (General Assembly Resolution 51/122, of December 13, 1996)? (4)
    Is it possible to ensure today “an equitable situation” on “a mutually acceptable basis” between developed and developing nations, whose distance increases more and more, mainly in military affairs? The present paper aims to discuss this and other similar issues.


José Monserrat Filho
Brazilian Association of Air and Space Law (SBDA); Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science (SBPC); International Institute of Space Law (IISL).
Article

Big Data Flow from Space to the EU

Open Access and Open Dissemination Policy vs. the Common European Data Space

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 3 2018
Authors Maria Elena De Maestri
Author's information

Maria Elena De Maestri
University of Genoa.
Article

Space Law and International Organizations

10th Nandasiri Jasentuliyana Keynote Lecture on Space Law

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 1 2018
Authors Marco Ferrazzani
Author's information

Marco Ferrazzani
Legal Counsel of the European Space Agency. Director of the International Institute of Space Law.
Article

From the Unilateral Acts of States towards Unilateralism in Space Law

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 1 2018
Keywords Unilateral acts of States, unilateralism, multilateralism, cooperation, space law making
Authors Tugrul Cakir
AbstractAuthor's information

    Unilateralism has generally been considered a concept with negative connotations. It should be underscored that in some cases unilateralism has resulted in changes either to customary law or treaty law, whereas in others it has not. Consequently, not every type of unilateralism can be perceived as a challenge to Space Law. Nevertheless, we can see the risks of unilateralism when not acquiesced to or generally supported by other States. It is obvious that the multilateral process is becoming more complicated than before which complicates finding multilateral solutions in Space Law. This paper argues that a better understanding of unilateral acts is necessary before delving into the matter of the unilateralism in Space Law.


Tugrul Cakir
Centre du Droit des Espaces et des Frontières, Université Jean Moulin Lyon III, France, PhD candidate, tugrul.cakir@etu.univ-lyon3.fr.

    In the light of the recently renovated interest in returning humans to the Moon, this paper addresses the main legal challenges related, with the goal to show practical solutions under the current system of international space law.
    In order to do so, the paper first presents an overview of current lunar exploration programs, arguing that public and private missions raise different challenges and thus require specific models.
    Following, it accordingly assesses possible legal solutions for the regulation of these programs. On the one hand, States’ exploration programs may be governed by a revised version of the Intergovernmental Agreement already concluded for the International Space Station. On the other hand, private activities could be better organized relying on Articles VI-IX OST as integrated by a new UNGA Resolution, ad hoc bilateral agreements and specific provisions in national space legislations.
    Finally, the paper concludes underlining the importance of international cooperation as the key to ensure the peaceful use and exploration of outer space.


Antonino Salmeri
Antonino Salmeri is a Doctoral Candidate in Space Law at the University of Luxembourg, where under the supervision of Prof. Mahulena Hofmann he is writing his dissertation on Enforcement Challenges of Space Mining as Multi-Level Regulatory System. Furthermore, Mr. Salmeri holds an Advanced LL.M. in Air & Space Law (cum laude) from the University of Leiden, an LL.M. in Law and Government of the European Union (cum laude) from the LUISS Guido Carli University and a Master Degree in Law (cum laude) from the University of Catania.
Article

Legal Challenges of Space 4.0

The Framework Conditions of Legal Certainty among States, International Organisations and Private Actors in the Changing Landscape of Space Activities

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 1 2018
Keywords Space 4.0, NewSpace, ESA, Capacity Building, Cyber Security, Legal Challenges
Authors Gina Petrovici and Antonio Carlo
AbstractAuthor's information

    After more than 60 years of space activities, ongoing scientific and technological progress alongside increased international cooperation, Space 4.0 is entering this field, leaving its hallmark on what appears a new era of space activities. The space community is rapidly changing, and the world continues to face a growing need for dedicated space applications. The growing interest in space leads to an increasing participation of numerous new actors. Governments, private actors and international organisations are eager to fill these gaps in securing the global society’s needs. ESA’s efforts in this regard are reflected in the Space 4.0 concept, introduced at ESA’s Ministerial Council in December 2016 by the ESA Director General. This new conception – building on Industry 4.0 – is designed to host a new era of space activities, setting out to tackle global challenges using the advantages deriving from space and technological progress. These challenges range from climate change to shortage of resources, health, demographic development, digital divide and more. ESA is also highly active within UNISPACE and its objectives: space accessibility, economy, security and diplomacy to contribute to Space 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Capacity building reflects the core objective of all international Space 4.0 efforts. This rapid changes and growth are meeting certain needs by bringing space closer to society and inspiring new generations. However, as these developments are taking place in a highly complex net of legal, regulatory and political considerations, they are themselves raising challenges. This paper focuses on the legal challenges raised by the new era Space 4.0 and outlines the framework conditions for legal certainty in this rapidly changing environment. It elaborates on the content of Space 4.0 and its implementation, the legal framework for space activities, and how this is currently challenged by two characteristics of the Space 4.0 development, commercialisation of space activities, along with increasing cyber-security concerns in the context of digital divide and big data.


Gina Petrovici
Master of Laws (LL.M) University of London.

Antonio Carlo
Sapienza University of Rome.
Article

Access_open Legal Legitimacy of Tax Recommendations Delivered by the IMF in the Context of ‘Article IV Consultations’

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2017
Keywords legitimacy, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Article IV Consultations, tax recommendations, global tax governance
Authors Sophia Murillo López
AbstractAuthor's information

    This contribution examines the legal legitimacy of ‘Article IV Consultations’ performed by the IMF as part of its responsibility for surveillance under Article IV of its Articles of Agreement. The analysis focuses on tax recommendations given by the Fund to its member countries in the context of Consultations. This paper determines that these tax recommendations derive from a broad interpretation of the powers and obligations that have been agreed to in the Fund’s Articles of Agreement. Such an interpretation leads to a legitimacy deficit, as member countries of the Fund have not given their state consent to receive recommendations as to which should be the tax policies it should adopt.


Sophia Murillo López
Sophia Murillo López, LL.M, is an external PhD candidate at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and a member of the ‘Fiscal Autonomy and its Boundaries’ research programme.
Article

Access_open The Questionable Legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2017
Keywords base erosion and profit shifting, OECD, G20, legitimacy, international tax reform
Authors Sissie Fung
AbstractAuthor's information

    The global financial crisis of 2008 and the following public uproar over offshore tax evasion and corporate aggressive tax planning scandals gave rise to unprecedented international cooperation on tax information exchange and coordination on corporate tax reforms. At the behest of the G20, the OECD developed a comprehensive package of ‘consensus-based’ policy reform measures aimed to curb base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinationals and to restore fairness and coherence to the international tax system. The legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, however, has been widely challenged. This paper explores the validity of the legitimacy concerns raised by the various stakeholders regarding the OECD/G20 BEPS Project.


Sissie Fung
Ph.D. Candidate at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and independent tax policy consultant to international organisations, including the Asian Development Bank.
Article

Access_open The Peer Review Process of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

A Critical Assessment on Authority and Legitimacy

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2017
Keywords Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, exercise of regulatory authority, due process requirements, peer review reports, legitimacy
Authors Leo E.C. Neve
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Global Forum on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes has undertaken peer reviews on the implementation of the global standard of exchange of information on request, both from the perspective of formalities available and from the perspective of actual implementation. In the review reports Global Forum advises jurisdictions on required amendments of regulations and practices. With these advices, the Global Forum exercises regulatory authority. The article assesses the legitimacy of the exercise of such authority by the Global Forum and concludes that the exercise of such authority is not legitimate for the reason that the rule of law is abused by preventing jurisdictions to adhere to due process rules.


Leo E.C. Neve
Leo Neve is a doctoral student at the Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open Legality of the World Bank’s Informal Decisions to Expand into the Tax Field, and Implications of These Decisions for Its Legitimacy

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2017
Keywords World Bank, legality, legitimacy, global tax governance, tax policy and tax administration reforms
Authors Uyanga Berkel-Dorlig
AbstractAuthor's information

    The emergence of global tax governance was triggered by common tax problems, which are now still being faced by international society of nation-states. In the creation of this framework, international institutions have been playing a major role. One of these institutions is the World Bank (Bank). However, those who write about the virtues and vices of the main creators of the framework usually disregard the Bank. This article, therefore, argues that this disregard is not justified because the Bank has also been playing a prominent role. Since two informal decisions taken in the past have contributed to this position of the Bank, the article gives in addition to it answers to the following two related questions: whether these informal decisions of the Bank were legal and if so, what implications, if any, they have for the Bank’s legitimacy.


Uyanga Berkel-Dorlig
Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Tax Law, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Article

The New World Order in Dispute Resolution

Brexit and the Trump Presidency

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 1 2017
Keywords dispute resolution, Brexit, Donald Trump, technology, trade
Authors Ijeoma Ononogbu
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Brexit vote and Donald J Trump as the leader of the Free world in 2016 brought in a new world order. Two hugely important and unexpected events of 2016. Both have called into question the stability of established international commercial dispute resolution schemes in the United Kingdom and the United States in our tech savvy world. As the impact of both events unfolds, adaptations made to the existing dispute resolution schemes will be negotiated and the role that technology can play in the new approaches to international commercial dispute resolution will be determined. Consequently, there has been the changing face of Western politics after the Cold War, based on traditional group identity giving way to an uncertain landscape in which the political class struggle to define. The impact and disruption of technology in politics has given everyone a voice regardless of social class. Consequently, the EU under Mr Juncker and the UK Prime Minister seem to have mutual respect in their negotiations, given that the UK has made a number of notable concessions in order to move the trade discussions forward.
    Under Donald Trump presidency, the state of North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) seems binary with the probing question will NAFTA survive or not. NAFTA is currently undergoing transformation, a process that incorporates Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).


Ijeoma Ononogbu
Ijeoma Ononogbu is a London-based Solicitor, International Dispute Resolution, Director, Dispute Resolver Ltd and Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Barbara Bazánth
Junior Researcher

Gábor Kajtár
Assistant Professor at the Department of International Law, ELTE Law School (Budapest).

Christine Byron
Lecturer in Law, Cardiff University.
Article

Access_open Evaluating BEPS

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2017
Keywords tax avoidance, tax evasion, benefits principle
Authors Reuven S. Avi-Yonah and Haiyan Xu
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article evaluates the recently completed Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project of the G20 and OECD and offers some alternatives for reform.


Reuven S. Avi-Yonah
Reuven Avi-Yonah is Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law, the University of Michigan.

Haiyan Xu
Haiyan Xu is Professor of Law, University of International Business & Economics, Beijing; SJD candidate, the University of Michigan.

    The OECD BEPS Action 6 report contains a principal purpose test rule (PPT rule) for the purpose of combating abuse of tax treaties. This PPT rule is also included in the OECD Multilateral Instrument.
    The PPT rule is (amongst others) applicable when ‘it is reasonable to conclude’ that a benefit (granted by a tax treaty) was one of the principal purposes of any arrangement/transaction. This requirement contains two elements: the reasonableness test and the principal purpose test.
    In literature it is observed that (i) the reasonableness test of the PPT rule could be contrary to the European Union’s principle of legal certainty; (ii) that the OECD PPT rule gives the tax authorities too much discretion and, therefore, is not in line with EU law and (iii) there is doubt whether the OECD PPT rule contains a genuine economic activity test and therefore is in contravention of the abuse of law case law of the CJEU.
    In this contribution, I defend that none of the above-mentioned reasons the OECD PPT rule is contrary to EU law. The only potential problem I see is that the OECD PPT rule is broader (no artificiality required) compared to the GAARs in Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and the Parent–Subsidiary Directive.


Dennis Weber
Dennis Weber is a professor of European corporate tax law at the University of Amsterdam and director and founder of the Amsterdam Centre for Tax Law (ACTL).
Showing 61 - 80 of 370 results
1 2 4 6 7 8 9 18 19
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.