Search result: 370 articles

x

Yvon Henri
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland, henri@itu.int.

Attila Matas
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland, matas@itu.int.

Juliana Macedo Scavuzzi dos Santos
LLM Thesis Candidate, McGill Institute of Air and Space Law, Montreal, Canada, juliana.scavuzzi@mail.mcgill.ca.
Article

Access_open Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Treaty-Based Settlement of Terrorism-Related Disputes in the Era of Active United Nations Security Council Involvement

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2013
Keywords Terrorism, inter-state dispute, international treaties, the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice
Authors Nathanael Tilahun Ali LL.M.
AbstractAuthor's information

    The United Nations Security Council has become a crucial actor in international counterterrorism by not only spurring the taking of preventive and suppressive measures against terrorist individuals and groups, but also by taking actions against states that are said to stand in the way. The Security Council's actions against such states invariably arise from accusations by other states, such as accusations of refusal to extradite suspects of terrorism or responsibility for supporting terrorists. Meanwhile, most such issues of dispute are covered under international treaties relating to terrorism, which provide for political (negotiation) and judicial (arbitration and adjudication) mechanisms of dispute settlement. The Security Council's actions against states in connection with terrorism, therefore, involve (explicit or implicit) factual and legal determinations that affect the legal positions of the disputing states under the applicable international treaties relating to terrorism. The point of departure of this paper is that, in this respect, the Security Council effectively becomes an alternative to the treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms. The article centrally contends that the Security Council effectively acts as a more attractive alternative to treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms for pursuing terrorism-related (legal) disputes between states, without providing a meaningful platform of disputation that is based on equality of the parties. And the Security Council's relative attractiveness, arising from the discursive and legal superiority its decisions enjoy and the relative convenience and expediency with which those decisions are delivered, entails the rendering of resort to treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms of little legal consequence. The point of concern the article aims to highlight is the lack of platform of disputation some states are faced with, trapped between a hostile Security Council that makes determinations and decisions of legal consequence and an unhelpful treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanism.


Nathanael Tilahun Ali LL.M.
PhD Candidate in public international law, Erasmus School of Law. E: ali@law.eur.nl. I would like to thank Prof. Xandra Kramer and Prof. Ellen Hey for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.

Martin Reynders
German Aerospace Center, DLR e.V., Germany, m.reynders@t-online.de.

Lisa Küpers
Germany, lisa.kuepers@t-online.de.

Tare C. Brisibe
Chairman, Legal Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), for the biennium 2012 to 2014. Director, Regulatory Affairs at SITA / OnAir. Member of the Nigerian Bar and former Deputy Director (Legal Services & International Co-operation), National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA), Federal Republic of Nigeria. The views presented herein are those of the author.
Article

Gender Equality Laws in the Post Socialist States of Central and Eastern Europe

Mainstream Fixture or Fizzer?

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2012
Keywords gender equality laws, enforcement mechanisms, rule of law, post-socialist states, European Union
Authors Christine Forster and Vedna Jivan
AbstractAuthor's information

    In Central and Eastern European countries, the enactment of gender equality laws (GELs), defined as stand-alone national legislation that provide an overarching legislative response to gender discrimination as distinct from the traditional approach of incorporating gender equality provisions into existing legislation or constitutions, has been a marked regional trend since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, rather than being driven by domestic movements for change, GELs seem primarily to have emerged due to pressure from development agencies, potential trading partners and donor organisations which predicate their assistance and business on the establishment of the ‘rule of law’ and of particular relevance in the region the desire to join the European Union (EU), which requires potential members to introduce gender equality legislation as part of the communtaire aquis. Despite the widespread enactment of GELs in the region, research suggests that the implementation of GELs has been slow, inefficient and in some cases non-existent. Reasons posited for this include a lack of judicial familiarity with new concepts contained in the legislation, the use of legislation taken from models in existing member states, lack of information disseminated about the new laws to relevant parties, weak political support and capacity weakness in states that are resource stretched. This article considers a further reason – the weakness of the enforcement and implementation mechanisms in the laws themselves and argues that despite the placement of expansive positive duties on a range of public and private actors in many of the GELs, the implementation and enforcement mechanisms of the fifteen GELs considered are weak. Consequently, despite their remarkable scope the duties created under the GELs are largely symbolic and will continue to be so unless, such legislation is amended to include mechanisms to enable the realization of those duties in practice.


Christine Forster
Christine Forster is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law of the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Vedna Jivan
Vedna Jivan is Senior Lecturer, UTS Faculty of Law, Australia.

Olavo de O. Bittencourt Neto
University of São Paulo, Brazil, olavo.bittencourt@usp.br.

Camilo Guzman Gomez
Sergio Arboleda University, Colombia, camilo.guzman @ usa.edu.co.

Melissa K. Force
B.S. Ch.E., J.D., LLM, email: Force@MKForce.com, Adj. Professor, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Irina Baraliuc
Irina Baraliuc is a PhD researcher at the Research Group Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Sari Depreeuw
Sari Depreeuw is a postdoctoral researcher at the Research Group Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and an attorney-at-law at the Brussels bar.

Serge Gutwirth
Serge Gutwirth is Professor at the Faculty of Law and Criminology of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and director of the Research Group Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS).

Dr. Paul Stephen Dempsey
Tomlinson Professor of Law, and Director, Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, paul.dempsey@mcgill.ca.
Article

Immigration, Religion and Human Rights

State Policy Challenges in Balancing Public and Private Interests

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1 2012
Keywords globalization, religious symbols, reasonable accommodations, comparative law, immigration, burqa, human rights
Authors Eric Tardif
AbstractAuthor's information

    Three regions of the world – Western Europe, North America, and Australia – are probably the most popular options when families of emerging countries decide to emigrate in order to better their economic future. As the flow of immigrants establishing themselves in the receiving societies allows for these countries to get culturally richer, it creates, on the other hand, legal tensions as to the extent religious practice is to be accommodated by the governments of secular societies so as to facilitate the insertion of the newcomers into the workplace, social networks, and education system. In order to eliminate or diminish the effect of legal provisions that cause an indirect harm to religious minorities, several countries have taken steps aimed at “reasonably accommodating” them. This paper looks at these efforts made by receiving States, taking into account both the legislative aspect and the interpretation of the statutes and constitutional provisions by national as well as international tribunals; it also gives a critical appreciation of the results that have been obtained in the societies that have implemented those shifts in their legal system.


Eric Tardif
LL.L. (Ottawa); LL.M., LL.D. (National Autonomous University of Mexico - UNAM). The author is currently a Lecturer at the Faculty of Law of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, in the subjects of International and Comparative Law. This document was initially prepared for presentation at the VIIIth World Congress of the International Association of Constitutional Law, held in Mexico City, 6-10 December, 2010; an earlier version of this article was published in the International Journal of Public Law and Policy in 2011.
Article

The Response of National Law to International Conventions and Community Instruments – the Dutch Example

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1 2012
Keywords Legislative approaches, Private International Law codification, Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code, Implementation of international instruments, Incorporation by reference
Authors Dorothea van Iterson
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper, presented at a colloquium at Barcelona University in 2010, outlines the history of the codification of Private International Law (PIL) in the Netherlands, which was completed in 2011 by the introduction of Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code (conflict of laws). It describes the policy guidelines followed in giving effect to international instruments, i.e. conventions and European legislation. Basically all types of international PIL rules are further regulated at the national level. Moreover, the national PIL codification contains a number of provisions which were borrowed from or inspired by international instruments.


Dorothea van Iterson
Former Counsellor of Legislation, Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands.
Article

Trade in Oil and Export Restrictions

Taking the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to the WTO Court

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1 2012
Keywords WTO, dispute settlement, US, OPEC, oil
Authors Bashar H. Malkawi
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), as seen by observers, resembles a greedy international cartel that preys on the public in defiance of market competition. High oil prices are considered as a principal cause of the US economic woes. Some US congressmen pinpointed OPEC’s alleged inconsistency with the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and called upon the US administration to open dispute settlement proceedings against OPEC. This article discusses the legal issues arising from a US action at the WTO level against OPEC countries. The first sections of the article comprise an institutional review of the WTO and OPEC. The article addresses the interplay between the WTO and OPEC. It then illustrates the central provisions of the WTO that can be used for arguments and counter-arguments concerning such a WTO action. It culminates with a set of concluding thoughts.


Bashar H. Malkawi
Associate Professor of Commercial Law, University of Sharjah, UAE. He received his LL.B from Yarmouk University in 1999, LL.M from University of Arizona College of Law in 2001, S.J.D from American University, Washington College of Law in 2005. The author would especially like to thank the two outside reviewers for their direction, feedback and invaluable insight. He also thanks the law journal editors and staff writers for their hard work in polishing the article.

Setsuko Aoki
Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University, Japan aosets@sfc.keio.ac.jp.

Prof. Henry R. Hertzfeld
Space Policy Institute, The George Washington University, United States of America, hhertzfeld@law.gwu.edu.

Prof. Ram S. Jakhu
LL.M., D.C.L. (McGill); Associate Professor, Institute of Air and Space Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada; Member of Space Security Council of the World Economic Forum; Member of the Board of Directors, International Institute of Space Law, the Netherlands.

Prof. Steven Freeland
Professor of International Law, University of Western Sydney, Australia and Visiting Professor of International Law, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Member of the Space Law Committee, International Law Association, London; Member of the Board of Directors, International Institute of Space Law, the Netherlands; Member of Faculty, London Institute of Space Policy and Law.

Nie Jingjing
School of Law, Civil Aviation University of China, PHD Candidate of School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law.

Yang Hui
Professor of Law, School of Law, Civil Aviation University of China.

Prof. Sergio Marchisio
Sergio Marchisio, full professor of international law at the Sapienza University of Rome, chaired the five sessions of the UNIDROIT Committee of Governmental Experts entrusted to negotiate the Protocol on Space Assets, and the Committee of the Whole of the 2012 Berlin Diplomatic Conference which successfully adopted the draft and opened it for signature.

Sergio Marchisio
Full Professor of International Law, National Research Council of Italy and Sapienza University of Rome
Showing 161 - 180 of 370 results
1 2 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 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.