Search result: 21 articles

x
Year 2013 x
Article

Donors without Borders

A Comparative Study of Tax Law Frameworks for Individual Cross-Border Philanthropy

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 4 2013
Keywords comparative, philanthropy, tax, deduction, international
Authors Joseph E. Miller, Jr.
AbstractAuthor's information

    Under current United States tax law, individual gifts to foreign charities generally are not deductible from federal income tax as charitable contributions. A comparative study of analogous tax laws in Switzerland and the United Kingdom demonstrates that the Swiss approach generally reflects the same prohibition against tax deductions for individual gifts to foreign charities, while British law permits such deductibility for gifts to qualified charities in other EU member states, Norway, and Iceland.
    All three countries’ legal frameworks demonstrate that their respective notions of the ‘public interest’ significantly affect their approaches to deductibility for gifts to foreign charities. The British conception of public interest, enlarged by participation in the European Union and the nondiscrimination requirements of the EU treaties, is embodied in its more expansive deductibility rules. Swiss non-participation in the EU, by contrast, reflects a more isolationist notion of public interest and may inform its prohibition on deductions for gifts to foreign charities. The narrower Swiss approach parallels the United States’ approach, and it suggests that an American expansion of deductibility for foreign charitable gifts could be encouraged by American participation in the proposed TPP, TTIP, or other multilateral trade agreements or economic unions.


Joseph E. Miller, Jr.
Joseph E. Miller is partner at Faegre Baker Daniels.
Article

Access_open A Turn to Legal Pluralism in Rule of Law Promotion?

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 3/4 2013
Keywords legal pluralism, rule of law promotion, legal reform, customary law, non-state legal systems, donor policy
Authors Dr.mr Ronald Janse
AbstractAuthor's information

    Over the past 25 years, international organizations, NGOs and (mostly Western) states have spent considerable energy and resources on strengthening and reforming legal systems in developing countries. The results of these efforts have generally been disappointing, despite occasional successes. Among donors, one of most popular explanations of this failure in recent years is that rule of law promotion has wrongly focused almost exclusively on strengthening the formal legal system. Donors have therefore decided to 'engage' with informal justice systems. The turn to legal plu‍ra‍lism is to be welcomed for various reasons. But it is also surprising and worrisome. It is surprising because legal pluralism in developing countries was a fact of life before rule of law promotion began. What made donors pursuing legal reform blind to this reality for so long? It is worrisome because it is not self-evident that the factors which have contributed to such cognitive blindness have disappeared overnight. Are donors really ready to refocus their efforts on legal pluralism and 'engage' with informal justice systems? This paper, which is based on a review of the literature on donor engamenet with legal pluralism in so-called conflict affected and fragile states, is about these questions. It argues that 7 factors have been responsible for donor blindness regarding legal pluralism. It questions whether these factors have been addressed.


Dr.mr Ronald Janse
Ronald Janse is Associate Professor of Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ottavio Quirico
Lecturer, School of Law, University of New England, New South Wales, Australia.

Tamas Vince Ádány
Ph.D., senior lecturer in international law, Peter Pazmany Catholic University, Budapest.
Article

State Acts and Responsibility in the Hungarian-Azeri-Armenian Triangle of the Safarov Case

A Legal Analysis of the Transfer and Liberation of the Notorious Convict in the Hungarian-Azeri-Armenian Triangle

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2013
Authors Csaba Törő
Author's information

Csaba Törő
Associate professor, Faculty of Law, Karoli Gaspar Protestant University and senior research fellow, Hungarian Institute of International Affairs.

Penelope Nevill
Barrister at 20 Essex Street, London and Visiting Tutor in Public International Law, King’s College, London, and Affiliated Lecturer, University of Cambridge.
Article

Access_open Human Rights Courts Interpreting Sustainable Development: Balancing Individual Rights and the Collective Interest

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2013
Keywords Operationalizing sustainable development, human rights, individual rights/interests, collective rights/interests, human rights courts
Authors Emelie Folkesson MA
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article uses a generally accepted conceptualisation of sustainable development that can be operationalized in a judicial context. It focuses on the individual and collective dimensions of the environmental, economic and social pillars, as well as the consideration of inter-generational and intra-generational equity. Case law from the European, African and American systems is analysed to reveal if the elements of sustainable development have been incorporated in their jurisprudence. The analysis reveals that the human rights bodies have used different interpretative methods, some more progressive than others, in order to incorporate the elements of sustainable development in the scope of their mandate, even if they do not mention the concept as such. The overall conclusion is that sustainable development has been operationalized through human rights courts to a certain extent. Sometimes, however, a purely individualised approach to human rights creates a hurdle to further advance sustainable development. The conclusion creates the impression that sustainable development is not just a concept on paper, but that it in fact can be operationalized, also in other courts and quasi-courts. Moreover, it shows that the institutional structure of human rights courts has been used in other areas than pure human rights protection, which means that other areas of law might make use of it to fill the gap of a non-existing court structure.


Emelie Folkesson MA
PhD Candidate in public international law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. The author would like to thank Prof. Ellen Hey, Prof. Klaus Heine and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable insights and constructive comments on the drafts of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.

Jan Wouters
Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium, Jan.Wouters@ ggs.kuleuven.be.

Rik Hansen
Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium, Rik.Hansen@ ggs.kuleuven.be.
Article

Treaties X Human Rights Treaties

A Critical Analysis of the Dual Stance on Treaties in the Brazilian Legal System

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2013
Keywords human rights, international treaties, hierarchy of the treaties
Authors Gustavo Ferreira Santos
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil provides two procedures for incorporating treaties into domestic law. Human rights treaties must be approved by a special quorum: it is necessary that of three-fifths of the members of each legislative house vote in favour, with two rounds in each chamber. This proceeding is similar to a constitutional amendment. Treaties on other subjects need only the approval of the majority. This system has been in place since 2004. The Brazilian Supreme Court decided that human rights treaties incorporated after 2004 have the same hierarchical level of constitutional provisions but human rights treaties enacted before that have the same hierarchical position of ordinary statutory laws. This system needs to be reformed in order to allow an easier integration with international law. All human rights treaties should have the same position as constitutional provisions.


Gustavo Ferreira Santos
Professor of Constitutional Law at the Federal University of Pernambuco and the Catholic University of Pernambuco. Holder of a scholarship awarded by CNPq (Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development for Research Productivity).
Article

Brazil and International Agreements

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2013
Keywords international agreements, Brazil, international scenario
Authors Eugênia Cristina Nilsen Ribeiro Barza
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article brings together an analysis about international agreements, highlighting their importance to States, either separately or in groups, considering aspects of the universal nature of their content, as well as regional aspects, stressing some particularities of the Brazilian legal system. It is based on the assumption that it is interesting for nation-States to participate in the elaboration of international agreements, although it is not always possible to implement them, their validity is not refuted or their efficacy denied. It is also relevant to reflect upon the international commitments internally, even more so when we see that the State will have to deal with a series of variables to validate such international commitments. At times when States are interdependent, the study about the participation of the State in the elaboration of international agreements is more than relevant, and is divided here in three perspectives. First, the participation of the State in regional agreements, highlighting the European experience of integration. Then, the Latin-American attempts at integration, from which MERCOSUL stands out, and, finally, matters unique to Brazil in light of international and regional challenges. At the end of this study, some answers as to how and why Brazil incorporates and implements its international agreements will be presented as final considerations.


Eugênia Cristina Nilsen Ribeiro Barza
Ph.D. in Law and Associate Professor of the Recife Law School, Legal Sciences Centre at the Federal University of Pernambuco, where she teaches Private International Law. Research Group: Regional integration, globalisation and International Law. E-mail: ecnrbarza@terra.com.br.
Article

Access_open Through the Looking Glass of Global Constitutionalism and Global Administrative Law

Different Stories About the Crisis in Global Water Governance?

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords global water governance, global constitutionalism, global administrative law, water crisis, integrated water resources management
Authors Mónika Ambrus
AbstractAuthor's information

    In addition to (or sometimes rather than primarily) attributing it to water scarcity, water crisis has been described as a ‘crisis of governance’; with the word ‘crisis’ also indicating that water governance lacks (full) legitimacy. The article undertakes the task to analyse the current status of global water governance (GWG) from the perspective of two competing theories relating to the legitimacy of global governance, namely global constitutionalism (GC) and global administrative law (GAL). Having mapped the current legal framework of GWG from these two perspectives, it is discussed how these theories might shape GWG and how this shaping could contribute to solving the water crisis. In addition, it is also explored whether reading one of the most accepted proposals for legitimising global water governance, the concept of ‘integrated water resources management’ (IWRM), through the lenses of either GC or GAL would have an impact on how this concept is interpreted, and whether it can be a useful mechanism to address the water crisis. The use of two theories analysing the same subject matter provides interesting insights into global water governance and the nature of the water crisis as well as the relationship between these two theories.


Mónika Ambrus
Assistant professor of public international law at the Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open The Value of Narratives

The India-USA Nuclear Deal in Terms of Fragmentation, Pluralism, Constitutionalisation and Global Administrative Law

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords India-US Nuclear Deal, Nuclear Energy Cooperation, Non-Proliferation Treaty, Fragmentation, Constitutionalisation, Pluralism, Global Administrative Law
Authors Surabhi Ranganathan
AbstractAuthor's information

    ‘Fragmentation’, ‘pluralism’, ‘constitutionalisation’ and ‘global administrative law’ are among the most dominant narratives of international legal order at present. Each narrative makes a descriptive claim about the current state of the international legal order, and outlines a normative vision for this order. Yet we must not lose sight of the conflicts between, and the contingency of these, and other narratives. This article seeks to recover both conflicts and contingency by showing how each may be used to explain a given event: the inauguration of a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation between the United State and India, better known as the ‘India-US nuclear deal’. I explain how the four narratives may be, and were, co-opted at different times to justify or critique the ‘deal’. This exercise serve two purposes: the application of four narratives reveal the various facets of the deal, and by its example the deal illuminates the stakes attached to each of the four narratives. In a final section, I reflect on why these four narratives enjoy their influential status in international legal scholarship.


Surabhi Ranganathan
Junior Research Fellow, King’s College/Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge.
Article

Access_open Revisiting the Humanisation of International Law: Limits and Potential

Obligations Erga Omnes, Hierarchy of Rules and the Principle of Due Diligence as the Basis for Further Humanisation

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords humanisation, constitutionalism, legal positivism, human rights, erga omnes, due diligence, positive obligations, normative hierarchy, proportionality
Authors Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos
AbstractAuthor's information

    The article critically evaluates the theory of the humanisation of international law. First, it argues that despite human rights having impact on (other areas of) international law, this trend has in the past been somewhat inflated. A number of examples are given where human rights have been tested against other objectives pursued by international law, with humanisation revealing its limits and actual dimensions. The second argument consists in identifying and highlighting obligations erga omnes (partes) and the principle of due diligence as two ‘systemic’ tools, that are central to the humanisation of international law. Both these tools form part of modern positive law, but may also make a positive contribution towards the direction of deeper humanisation in international law, having the potential, inter alia, to limit state will, establish occasional material normative hierarchy consisting in conditional priority in the fulfilment of human rights, give a communitarian tone to international law and invite states to be pro-active in the collective protection of their common interests and values. In its conclusions, the article offers a plausible explanation about the paradox it identifies of the limits of the humanisation on the one hand, and its potential for further development on the other. For, it is inherent in international law that the line separating the law from deontology is thin. The process of humanisation needs to be balanced with the other objectives of international law as well as reconciled with the decentralised and sovereignist origins of the pluralistic international legal system.


Dr. Vassilis P. Tzevelekos
Lecturer in Public International Law, University of Hull Law School; Attorney, Athens’ Bar. PhD and M.Res, European University Institute; MA, European Political and Administrative Studies, College of Europe; DEA Droit international public et organisations internationales, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne; LLB, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

Xiaodan Wu
Law School, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China: unimixiaodanwu@gmail.com.

Mahulena Hofmann
Prof. Dr., SES Chair in Satellite Communications and Media Law, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, mahulena.hofmann@uni.lu.

Larry F. Martinez
Department of Political Science, California State University, Long Beach USA, Larry. Martinez@csulb.edu.

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.
Showing 1 - 20 of 21 results
« 1
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.