Practising lawyer and legal academic with teaching experience and publications in a range of areas of international and commercial law and experience as counsel acting for States, companies and high-net-worth individuals in international and local disputes under various systems of law
Shirlow & Nasir Gore, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Investor-State Disputes, 2022
The mode of interpretation of all legal texts can be placed somewhere on the continuum between a ... more The mode of interpretation of all legal texts can be placed somewhere on the continuum between a subjective approach, which emphasises the intentions of the writer, and an objective approach, which emphasises the understanding of the reader. Public international law’s preference for an objective interpretation of treaties was consecrated with the adoption of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Articles 31 and 32 which relegate express mention of intention to supplementary means of interpretation and the exceptional case of special meaning. While many investment tribunals have followed the objective approach mandated by the VCLT and favoured by other international courts and tribunals, a group of relatively recent investment cases addressing the vexed issue at the intersection of most-favourednation clauses and dispute resolution provisions has ventured off in a different direction that privileges elements of subjective treaty interpretation. In all such cases, the heed paid to the drafter’s intentions has resulted from the citation of the principle of contemporaneity, an oft misunderstood principle applicable to the interpretation of treaties through time that in fact takes no position on the subjective/objective interpretation divide. After noting this apparent re-emergence of a subjective approach to treaty interpretation in investment arbitration, the present chapter explores what factors may have led to such a divergence from the interpretation orthodoxy of general international law. It ultimately suggests that this may be a result of the under-recognised influence of investment arbitration counsel on investment law, with many of those counsel being much more accustomed to international commercial arbitration and thus inclined toward the subjective approach to interpretation favoured by many systems of contract law.
Abi-Saab, Keith et al (eds), Evolutionary Interpretation and International Law, 2019
While the topic of this chapter may appear out of place in an edited volume on 'evolutionary inte... more While the topic of this chapter may appear out of place in an edited volume on 'evolutionary interpretation', intertemporal linguistics in fact drills down directly into the epicentre of the evolutionary interpretation debate. In this chapter, I will explain why we need to move beyond what has become a fragmented and confused discussion of evolutionary interpretation to the more refined problem of intertemporal linguistics (section I). I will then demonstrate that teachings from fields outside international law, principally linguistics, are required to resolve the entirely legal problem of how international adjudicators should interpret treaties through time (section II).
b-Arbitra, Belgian Review of Arbitration / Revue belge de l'Arbitrage, 2018
In order to remain competitive vis-à-vis other forms of dispute resolution, international arbitra... more In order to remain competitive vis-à-vis other forms of dispute resolution, international arbitration must constantly monitor its efficiency. By minimising unnecessary battles over procedural issues, international arbitration can ensure that parties avoid having to deal with costly side-issues.
One of the reasons for considerable – and often excessive – attention being paid to procedural issues is the fear that a failure to do so could violate the right to be heard, leading to annulment or hindering enforcement, which itself undermines efficiency. Yet excessively guarding against the possibility of such violations is equally inefficient. To minimize efficiency losses, the authors draw on an emerging line of case law in ICSID annulment proceedings as well as waiver provisions applicable in a range of leges arbitris to propose a strict principle of estoppel. This approach forces parties to raise procedural issues before the instance most capable of resolving them quickly and fully – the arbitral tribunal – and limits both recourse to costly annulment proceedings and enforcement problems. A party should be allowed to invoke a violation of the right to be heard at the annulment or enforcement stage only to the extent that it has specifically raised its concerns and sought corollary relief before the arbitral tribunal.
Giovanni Distefano, Gloria Gaggioli et Aymeric Hêche (eds.), Commentaire à la Convention de Vienne sur la succession d'Etats en matière de traités, Bruylant, Brussels, 2016
La Convention de Vienne de 1978 traite d’un problème intemporel dans la vie internationale des Ét... more La Convention de Vienne de 1978 traite d’un problème intemporel dans la vie internationale des États, à savoir leurs mutations territoriales. Il s’agit là d’une réalité internationale qui survit au phénomène de la décolonisation, mutation territoriale hautement typée et délimitée historiquement. Les exemples sont innombrables. L’on peut mentionner la réunification de l’Allemagne, l’éclatement de l’Union soviétique, le démembrement de la Yougoslavie, la séparation entre la Tchéquie et la Slovaquie, la sécession de l’Erythrée de l’Ethiopie, la séparation du Timor oriental de l’Indonésie, la sécession du Pakistan oriental (Bangladesh) du Pakistan. La pratique récente, relative au Kosovo notamment, qui a déclaré son indépendance le 17 février 2008, met en exergue l’actualité juridique du sujet. Des cas de succession d’États dans un futur proche ou lointain ne sont donc pas à exclure. Les régions sécessionnistes et les pulsions séparatistes sont nombreuses, même si très généralement non reconnues par la communauté internationale. Pourtant, la succession d’États n’est toujours pas dotée d’un régime juridique cohérent complet. Il convient dès lors de s’intéresser à cette lacune juridique en partant du traité-clef en la matière qu’est la Convention de 1978. Un commentaire exhaustif, article par article, de cette Convention se révèle donc être nécessaire. Cet ouvrage contient une analyse serrée des apports et des lacunes de cette Convention à la lumière des travaux préparatoires ainsi que de la pratique récente. Il permet ainsi d’identifier les éléments de codification de la Convention de Vienne de 1978, mais aussi de voir en quoi celle-ci a pu donner naissance à des principes et règles coutumières en la matière. Il a pour ambition de remettre au goût du jour cette Convention et d’offrir aux chercheurs intéressés, mais également aux États et sujets concernés et à la communauté internationale une vue d’ensemble détaillée, analytique et systématique du droit actuel en matière de succession d’États et de découvrir ainsi les éléments de continuité et de rupture qui la caractérisent
The relationship between international environmental law and international humanitarian law, like... more The relationship between international environmental law and international humanitarian law, like relationships between many other subsystems of contemporary international law, has not yet been articulated. The problem of environmental damage in international armed conflict lies at the intersection of these two branches and thus provides an ideal opportunity to investigate this relationship. Rather than simply evaluating the applicable international law rules in their context, we break them into elements that we separately assess from both (international) environmental law and international humanitarian/international criminal law perspectives. By doing so, we identify how international law rules for cross-sectoral problems may appropriately combine the existing expertise and institutional strengths of simultaneously applicable branches of international law, and also discover how an evaluation of the ultimate appropriateness of the cross-sectoral rules adopted may be substantially affected by the different frames of reference that are used by those working within the different fields.
Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], 2014
War reparations involve the transfer of legal rights, goods, property and, typically, money from ... more War reparations involve the transfer of legal rights, goods, property and, typically, money from one State to another in response to the injury caused by the use of armed force. While often considered a sub-category of reparations obligations existing under the classical theory of internationally wrongful acts and State responsibility law, the practice of claiming and paying war reparations in fact dates back to ancient times and presents several specific features.
Journal du droit international (Clunet), Apr 22, 2017
La présente chronique vise à expliquer l'état actuel du droit international privé australien par ... more La présente chronique vise à expliquer l'état actuel du droit international privé australien par le biais d'une analyse de la jurisprudence clé rendue depuis la dernière chronique. Sachant que cette dernière date de 1988 et qu'elle se trouvait davantage dédiée au droit international en général qu'au droit international privé (M. Sornarajah, Chronique de jurisprudence australienne JDI 1988, p. 147 à 163), la contribution de ce numéro présente non seulement une mise à jour de la jurisprudence pertinente, mais aussi une introduction à un système du droit international privé contemporain jamais encore examiné par cet illustre journal. Comme nous allons le voir, le système du droit international privé australien ne peut se réduire à un simple copier-coller du droit anglais, comme on l'imagine souvent. Au contraire, il s'agit d'un système qui exhibe plusieurs caractéristiques uniques et qui peut intéresser une audience internationale.
Johannes Landbrecht & Simon Gabriel (Hrsg.), Konfliktmanagement im internationalen Rechtsverkehr, 2017
Im internationalen Rechtsverkehr ist guter (Rechts-)Rat häufig teuer. Doch wer hier spart, fährt ... more Im internationalen Rechtsverkehr ist guter (Rechts-)Rat häufig teuer. Doch wer hier spart, fährt am Ende nicht unbedingt günstiger.
Angesichts dieses Dilemmas geht das vorliegende Buch einen Mittelweg: es dient vornehmlich der effizienten Ersteinschätzung von Risiken. Ergibt sich dabei Konfliktpotenzial, kann dieses dann mit spezialisierten (Rechts-)Beratern gezielt und daher kostengünstig gemanagt werden.
Alle Autoren verfügen über langjährige Erfahrung mit den behandelten Themen und haben ihre Beiträge, im Hinblick auf diese Erfahrung, konsequent auf die Bedürfnisse der Praxis ausgerichtet.
---
Die Länder Australien, Neuseeland, Singapur und Indien werden hier gemeinsam
behandelt – nicht nur, weil sie geographisch relativ nahe beieinander
liegen, sondern vor allem, weil ihre Rechtsordnungen auf gemeinsame
Ursprünge zurückgehen. Während diese Rechtsordnungen gewisse strukturelle
und praktische Unterschiede aufweisen, von denen einige wesentliche in
diesem Kapitel behandelt werden, gehören sie doch alle zur Common-Law-
Tradition mit einem gemeinsamen Vorvater: dem englischen Recht. Anders
als etwa im US-amerikanischen Recht, haben diese Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen erst vor kurzem volle Unabhängigkeit von der englischen
Rechtsordnung erlangt. Der Privy Council in London war bis 1986 das höchste
Berufungsgericht in Australien, bis 1994 in Singapur und bis 2004 in Neuseeland.
Die Ausnahme stellt Indien dar, wo das Berufungsrecht zum Privy
Council bereits Ende 1949 abgeschafft wurde. Dort bestehen aber bis heute einige andere Verbindungen zur englischen Rechtsordnung, vor allem im
Hinblick auf die Anerkennung gewisser englischer Berufsqualifikationen.
Für Unternehmen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum, die sich mit diesen
Rechtsordnungen befassen, gelten viele Überlegungen entsprechend, die in
den Beiträgen zu den Rechtsordnungen des Vereinigten Königreichs
(Kap. 15), Hongkongs (Kap. 8) und, wenngleich in wesentlich geringerem
Maße, der Vereinigten Staaten (Kap. 14) diskutiert werden. Das vorliegende
Kapitel konzentriert sich daher stärker auf die Besonderheiten der australischen,
neuseeländischen, singapurischen und indischen Rechtsordnungen als
Common-Law-Jurisdiktionen denn auf die Unterschiede von Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen im Vergleich zu den deutschsprachigen Rechtsordnungen.
The field of international trade law, often highlighted for its unity and the strength of its dis... more The field of international trade law, often highlighted for its unity and the strength of its dispute settlement and remedies systems, is itself no stranger to the phenomenon of the so-called ‘proliferation’ of dispute settlement mechanisms. Regional trade agreements (RTAs) are increasingly prevalent and set up more and more solid and far-reaching dispute settlement systems, some of which are likely to come into direct contact with the multilateral system of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article focuses on one particular type of such interaction between RTAs and the WTO: how should we address the issue of a trade countermeasure taken in the context of an RTA when such retaliatory action can be considered a breach of a WTO rule?A proper answer to this question requires an analysis of the flexibilities provided by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and General Agreement on Trade in Services exception provisions allowing Members to maintain certain RTAs and of the nature of countermeasures often explicitly authorized by RTA dispute settlement mechanisms. The range of issues, relevant international law rules and potential solutions discussed are set to become only more pertinent both within the changing field of international trade law and, as international legal regimes become more robust and increasingly come into contact with one another, in contemporary international law in general.
This contribution focuses on Judge Abraham's use of the burden of proof, together with a presumpt... more This contribution focuses on Judge Abraham's use of the burden of proof, together with a presumption of good faith, to dissent from the findings of the Court on the key substantive question at issue in the Whaling in the Antarctic case ('Whaling Case'). It assesses the many claims that Abraham made in this connection including (a) that all allegations of bad faith carry with them a heavy burden of proof (section II); (b) that Australia attracted this burden by relevantly alleging that Japan had acted in bad faith (section III); and (c) that Japan, as a sovereign State, should automatically have been entitled to a presumption of good faith when claiming that its whaling activities came within the scope of a recognised legal right (section IV). The analysis reveals Judge Abraham's approach to be unduly selective yet overly general. He justified how he assigned the burden of proof uniquely on the basis of good faith considerations, ignoring all competing burden of proof presumptions such as those applicable to the invoking of exceptions, yet failed to adduce authority showing how the specific type of bad faith he considered Australia to have implicitly alleged attracts the burden of proof he imposed. His dissenting opinion is also quite inconsistent. At one point it admits that Japan did not have a relevant pouvoir discrétionnaire, but at another it seems to use the combination of a presumption of good faith and the burden of proof to advocate the rehabilitation of the wide notion of sovereign power out-of-step with modern-day international legal thinking. This contribution accordingly shows that judges of the International Court of Justice must take greater care when employing devices common in domestic systems of law, such as the burden of proof, in the quite particular context of state-state dispute resolution.
Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law examines and offers an overdue solution to a speci... more Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law examines and offers an overdue solution to a specific problem central to the resolution of an ever increasing number of international legal disputes: how to interpret a treaty with terms that change in meaning over time.
A wide-ranging review of the relevant international case law and scholarship reveals that no rule, principle or authority of international law – including even the oft-cited evolutionary interpretation doctrine – provides international adjudicators with the firm and practical guidance on this specific question that contemporary international litigants demand.
Using an analytical approach inspired by the comparative method and drawing on specific concepts from external fields including private law, legal theory and, principally, modern-day linguistics, Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law restructures the most relevant international case law around a new conceptual framework that offers fresh insight into the process of treaty interpretation. It demonstrates that by distinguishing between resolving ambiguity and resolving vagueness, and by identifying the temporal sense-intention with which a treaty term is used, international adjudicators can avail themselves of a more predictable and appropriate method for solving this complex and practically important problem of international law.
Shirlow & Nasir Gore, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Investor-State Disputes, 2022
The mode of interpretation of all legal texts can be placed somewhere on the continuum between a ... more The mode of interpretation of all legal texts can be placed somewhere on the continuum between a subjective approach, which emphasises the intentions of the writer, and an objective approach, which emphasises the understanding of the reader. Public international law’s preference for an objective interpretation of treaties was consecrated with the adoption of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Articles 31 and 32 which relegate express mention of intention to supplementary means of interpretation and the exceptional case of special meaning. While many investment tribunals have followed the objective approach mandated by the VCLT and favoured by other international courts and tribunals, a group of relatively recent investment cases addressing the vexed issue at the intersection of most-favourednation clauses and dispute resolution provisions has ventured off in a different direction that privileges elements of subjective treaty interpretation. In all such cases, the heed paid to the drafter’s intentions has resulted from the citation of the principle of contemporaneity, an oft misunderstood principle applicable to the interpretation of treaties through time that in fact takes no position on the subjective/objective interpretation divide. After noting this apparent re-emergence of a subjective approach to treaty interpretation in investment arbitration, the present chapter explores what factors may have led to such a divergence from the interpretation orthodoxy of general international law. It ultimately suggests that this may be a result of the under-recognised influence of investment arbitration counsel on investment law, with many of those counsel being much more accustomed to international commercial arbitration and thus inclined toward the subjective approach to interpretation favoured by many systems of contract law.
Abi-Saab, Keith et al (eds), Evolutionary Interpretation and International Law, 2019
While the topic of this chapter may appear out of place in an edited volume on 'evolutionary inte... more While the topic of this chapter may appear out of place in an edited volume on 'evolutionary interpretation', intertemporal linguistics in fact drills down directly into the epicentre of the evolutionary interpretation debate. In this chapter, I will explain why we need to move beyond what has become a fragmented and confused discussion of evolutionary interpretation to the more refined problem of intertemporal linguistics (section I). I will then demonstrate that teachings from fields outside international law, principally linguistics, are required to resolve the entirely legal problem of how international adjudicators should interpret treaties through time (section II).
b-Arbitra, Belgian Review of Arbitration / Revue belge de l'Arbitrage, 2018
In order to remain competitive vis-à-vis other forms of dispute resolution, international arbitra... more In order to remain competitive vis-à-vis other forms of dispute resolution, international arbitration must constantly monitor its efficiency. By minimising unnecessary battles over procedural issues, international arbitration can ensure that parties avoid having to deal with costly side-issues.
One of the reasons for considerable – and often excessive – attention being paid to procedural issues is the fear that a failure to do so could violate the right to be heard, leading to annulment or hindering enforcement, which itself undermines efficiency. Yet excessively guarding against the possibility of such violations is equally inefficient. To minimize efficiency losses, the authors draw on an emerging line of case law in ICSID annulment proceedings as well as waiver provisions applicable in a range of leges arbitris to propose a strict principle of estoppel. This approach forces parties to raise procedural issues before the instance most capable of resolving them quickly and fully – the arbitral tribunal – and limits both recourse to costly annulment proceedings and enforcement problems. A party should be allowed to invoke a violation of the right to be heard at the annulment or enforcement stage only to the extent that it has specifically raised its concerns and sought corollary relief before the arbitral tribunal.
Giovanni Distefano, Gloria Gaggioli et Aymeric Hêche (eds.), Commentaire à la Convention de Vienne sur la succession d'Etats en matière de traités, Bruylant, Brussels, 2016
La Convention de Vienne de 1978 traite d’un problème intemporel dans la vie internationale des Ét... more La Convention de Vienne de 1978 traite d’un problème intemporel dans la vie internationale des États, à savoir leurs mutations territoriales. Il s’agit là d’une réalité internationale qui survit au phénomène de la décolonisation, mutation territoriale hautement typée et délimitée historiquement. Les exemples sont innombrables. L’on peut mentionner la réunification de l’Allemagne, l’éclatement de l’Union soviétique, le démembrement de la Yougoslavie, la séparation entre la Tchéquie et la Slovaquie, la sécession de l’Erythrée de l’Ethiopie, la séparation du Timor oriental de l’Indonésie, la sécession du Pakistan oriental (Bangladesh) du Pakistan. La pratique récente, relative au Kosovo notamment, qui a déclaré son indépendance le 17 février 2008, met en exergue l’actualité juridique du sujet. Des cas de succession d’États dans un futur proche ou lointain ne sont donc pas à exclure. Les régions sécessionnistes et les pulsions séparatistes sont nombreuses, même si très généralement non reconnues par la communauté internationale. Pourtant, la succession d’États n’est toujours pas dotée d’un régime juridique cohérent complet. Il convient dès lors de s’intéresser à cette lacune juridique en partant du traité-clef en la matière qu’est la Convention de 1978. Un commentaire exhaustif, article par article, de cette Convention se révèle donc être nécessaire. Cet ouvrage contient une analyse serrée des apports et des lacunes de cette Convention à la lumière des travaux préparatoires ainsi que de la pratique récente. Il permet ainsi d’identifier les éléments de codification de la Convention de Vienne de 1978, mais aussi de voir en quoi celle-ci a pu donner naissance à des principes et règles coutumières en la matière. Il a pour ambition de remettre au goût du jour cette Convention et d’offrir aux chercheurs intéressés, mais également aux États et sujets concernés et à la communauté internationale une vue d’ensemble détaillée, analytique et systématique du droit actuel en matière de succession d’États et de découvrir ainsi les éléments de continuité et de rupture qui la caractérisent
The relationship between international environmental law and international humanitarian law, like... more The relationship between international environmental law and international humanitarian law, like relationships between many other subsystems of contemporary international law, has not yet been articulated. The problem of environmental damage in international armed conflict lies at the intersection of these two branches and thus provides an ideal opportunity to investigate this relationship. Rather than simply evaluating the applicable international law rules in their context, we break them into elements that we separately assess from both (international) environmental law and international humanitarian/international criminal law perspectives. By doing so, we identify how international law rules for cross-sectoral problems may appropriately combine the existing expertise and institutional strengths of simultaneously applicable branches of international law, and also discover how an evaluation of the ultimate appropriateness of the cross-sectoral rules adopted may be substantially affected by the different frames of reference that are used by those working within the different fields.
Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], 2014
War reparations involve the transfer of legal rights, goods, property and, typically, money from ... more War reparations involve the transfer of legal rights, goods, property and, typically, money from one State to another in response to the injury caused by the use of armed force. While often considered a sub-category of reparations obligations existing under the classical theory of internationally wrongful acts and State responsibility law, the practice of claiming and paying war reparations in fact dates back to ancient times and presents several specific features.
Journal du droit international (Clunet), Apr 22, 2017
La présente chronique vise à expliquer l'état actuel du droit international privé australien par ... more La présente chronique vise à expliquer l'état actuel du droit international privé australien par le biais d'une analyse de la jurisprudence clé rendue depuis la dernière chronique. Sachant que cette dernière date de 1988 et qu'elle se trouvait davantage dédiée au droit international en général qu'au droit international privé (M. Sornarajah, Chronique de jurisprudence australienne JDI 1988, p. 147 à 163), la contribution de ce numéro présente non seulement une mise à jour de la jurisprudence pertinente, mais aussi une introduction à un système du droit international privé contemporain jamais encore examiné par cet illustre journal. Comme nous allons le voir, le système du droit international privé australien ne peut se réduire à un simple copier-coller du droit anglais, comme on l'imagine souvent. Au contraire, il s'agit d'un système qui exhibe plusieurs caractéristiques uniques et qui peut intéresser une audience internationale.
Johannes Landbrecht & Simon Gabriel (Hrsg.), Konfliktmanagement im internationalen Rechtsverkehr, 2017
Im internationalen Rechtsverkehr ist guter (Rechts-)Rat häufig teuer. Doch wer hier spart, fährt ... more Im internationalen Rechtsverkehr ist guter (Rechts-)Rat häufig teuer. Doch wer hier spart, fährt am Ende nicht unbedingt günstiger.
Angesichts dieses Dilemmas geht das vorliegende Buch einen Mittelweg: es dient vornehmlich der effizienten Ersteinschätzung von Risiken. Ergibt sich dabei Konfliktpotenzial, kann dieses dann mit spezialisierten (Rechts-)Beratern gezielt und daher kostengünstig gemanagt werden.
Alle Autoren verfügen über langjährige Erfahrung mit den behandelten Themen und haben ihre Beiträge, im Hinblick auf diese Erfahrung, konsequent auf die Bedürfnisse der Praxis ausgerichtet.
---
Die Länder Australien, Neuseeland, Singapur und Indien werden hier gemeinsam
behandelt – nicht nur, weil sie geographisch relativ nahe beieinander
liegen, sondern vor allem, weil ihre Rechtsordnungen auf gemeinsame
Ursprünge zurückgehen. Während diese Rechtsordnungen gewisse strukturelle
und praktische Unterschiede aufweisen, von denen einige wesentliche in
diesem Kapitel behandelt werden, gehören sie doch alle zur Common-Law-
Tradition mit einem gemeinsamen Vorvater: dem englischen Recht. Anders
als etwa im US-amerikanischen Recht, haben diese Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen erst vor kurzem volle Unabhängigkeit von der englischen
Rechtsordnung erlangt. Der Privy Council in London war bis 1986 das höchste
Berufungsgericht in Australien, bis 1994 in Singapur und bis 2004 in Neuseeland.
Die Ausnahme stellt Indien dar, wo das Berufungsrecht zum Privy
Council bereits Ende 1949 abgeschafft wurde. Dort bestehen aber bis heute einige andere Verbindungen zur englischen Rechtsordnung, vor allem im
Hinblick auf die Anerkennung gewisser englischer Berufsqualifikationen.
Für Unternehmen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum, die sich mit diesen
Rechtsordnungen befassen, gelten viele Überlegungen entsprechend, die in
den Beiträgen zu den Rechtsordnungen des Vereinigten Königreichs
(Kap. 15), Hongkongs (Kap. 8) und, wenngleich in wesentlich geringerem
Maße, der Vereinigten Staaten (Kap. 14) diskutiert werden. Das vorliegende
Kapitel konzentriert sich daher stärker auf die Besonderheiten der australischen,
neuseeländischen, singapurischen und indischen Rechtsordnungen als
Common-Law-Jurisdiktionen denn auf die Unterschiede von Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen im Vergleich zu den deutschsprachigen Rechtsordnungen.
The field of international trade law, often highlighted for its unity and the strength of its dis... more The field of international trade law, often highlighted for its unity and the strength of its dispute settlement and remedies systems, is itself no stranger to the phenomenon of the so-called ‘proliferation’ of dispute settlement mechanisms. Regional trade agreements (RTAs) are increasingly prevalent and set up more and more solid and far-reaching dispute settlement systems, some of which are likely to come into direct contact with the multilateral system of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This article focuses on one particular type of such interaction between RTAs and the WTO: how should we address the issue of a trade countermeasure taken in the context of an RTA when such retaliatory action can be considered a breach of a WTO rule?A proper answer to this question requires an analysis of the flexibilities provided by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and General Agreement on Trade in Services exception provisions allowing Members to maintain certain RTAs and of the nature of countermeasures often explicitly authorized by RTA dispute settlement mechanisms. The range of issues, relevant international law rules and potential solutions discussed are set to become only more pertinent both within the changing field of international trade law and, as international legal regimes become more robust and increasingly come into contact with one another, in contemporary international law in general.
This contribution focuses on Judge Abraham's use of the burden of proof, together with a presumpt... more This contribution focuses on Judge Abraham's use of the burden of proof, together with a presumption of good faith, to dissent from the findings of the Court on the key substantive question at issue in the Whaling in the Antarctic case ('Whaling Case'). It assesses the many claims that Abraham made in this connection including (a) that all allegations of bad faith carry with them a heavy burden of proof (section II); (b) that Australia attracted this burden by relevantly alleging that Japan had acted in bad faith (section III); and (c) that Japan, as a sovereign State, should automatically have been entitled to a presumption of good faith when claiming that its whaling activities came within the scope of a recognised legal right (section IV). The analysis reveals Judge Abraham's approach to be unduly selective yet overly general. He justified how he assigned the burden of proof uniquely on the basis of good faith considerations, ignoring all competing burden of proof presumptions such as those applicable to the invoking of exceptions, yet failed to adduce authority showing how the specific type of bad faith he considered Australia to have implicitly alleged attracts the burden of proof he imposed. His dissenting opinion is also quite inconsistent. At one point it admits that Japan did not have a relevant pouvoir discrétionnaire, but at another it seems to use the combination of a presumption of good faith and the burden of proof to advocate the rehabilitation of the wide notion of sovereign power out-of-step with modern-day international legal thinking. This contribution accordingly shows that judges of the International Court of Justice must take greater care when employing devices common in domestic systems of law, such as the burden of proof, in the quite particular context of state-state dispute resolution.
Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law examines and offers an overdue solution to a speci... more Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law examines and offers an overdue solution to a specific problem central to the resolution of an ever increasing number of international legal disputes: how to interpret a treaty with terms that change in meaning over time.
A wide-ranging review of the relevant international case law and scholarship reveals that no rule, principle or authority of international law – including even the oft-cited evolutionary interpretation doctrine – provides international adjudicators with the firm and practical guidance on this specific question that contemporary international litigants demand.
Using an analytical approach inspired by the comparative method and drawing on specific concepts from external fields including private law, legal theory and, principally, modern-day linguistics, Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law restructures the most relevant international case law around a new conceptual framework that offers fresh insight into the process of treaty interpretation. It demonstrates that by distinguishing between resolving ambiguity and resolving vagueness, and by identifying the temporal sense-intention with which a treaty term is used, international adjudicators can avail themselves of a more predictable and appropriate method for solving this complex and practically important problem of international law.
Uploads
the under-recognised influence of investment arbitration counsel on investment law, with many of those counsel being much more accustomed to international commercial arbitration and thus inclined toward the subjective approach to interpretation favoured by many systems of contract law.
entirely legal problem of how international adjudicators should interpret treaties through time (section II).
One of the reasons for considerable – and often excessive – attention being paid to procedural issues is the fear that a failure to do so could violate the right to be heard, leading to annulment or hindering enforcement, which itself undermines efficiency. Yet excessively guarding against the possibility of such violations is equally inefficient. To minimize efficiency losses, the authors draw on an emerging line of case law in ICSID annulment proceedings as well as waiver provisions applicable in a range of leges arbitris to propose a strict principle of estoppel. This approach forces parties to raise procedural issues before the instance most capable of resolving
them quickly and fully – the arbitral tribunal – and limits both recourse to costly annulment proceedings and enforcement problems. A party should be allowed to invoke a violation of the right to be heard at the annulment or enforcement stage only to the extent that it has specifically raised its concerns and sought corollary relief before the arbitral tribunal.
of simultaneously applicable branches of international law, and also discover how an evaluation of the ultimate appropriateness of the cross-sectoral rules adopted may be substantially affected by the different frames of reference that are used by those working within the different fields.
Angesichts dieses Dilemmas geht das vorliegende Buch einen Mittelweg: es dient vornehmlich der effizienten Ersteinschätzung von Risiken. Ergibt sich dabei Konfliktpotenzial, kann dieses dann mit spezialisierten (Rechts-)Beratern gezielt und daher kostengünstig gemanagt werden.
Alle Autoren verfügen über langjährige Erfahrung mit den behandelten Themen und haben ihre Beiträge, im Hinblick auf diese Erfahrung, konsequent auf die Bedürfnisse der Praxis ausgerichtet.
---
Die Länder Australien, Neuseeland, Singapur und Indien werden hier gemeinsam
behandelt – nicht nur, weil sie geographisch relativ nahe beieinander
liegen, sondern vor allem, weil ihre Rechtsordnungen auf gemeinsame
Ursprünge zurückgehen. Während diese Rechtsordnungen gewisse strukturelle
und praktische Unterschiede aufweisen, von denen einige wesentliche in
diesem Kapitel behandelt werden, gehören sie doch alle zur Common-Law-
Tradition mit einem gemeinsamen Vorvater: dem englischen Recht. Anders
als etwa im US-amerikanischen Recht, haben diese Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen erst vor kurzem volle Unabhängigkeit von der englischen
Rechtsordnung erlangt. Der Privy Council in London war bis 1986 das höchste
Berufungsgericht in Australien, bis 1994 in Singapur und bis 2004 in Neuseeland.
Die Ausnahme stellt Indien dar, wo das Berufungsrecht zum Privy
Council bereits Ende 1949 abgeschafft wurde. Dort bestehen aber bis heute einige andere Verbindungen zur englischen Rechtsordnung, vor allem im
Hinblick auf die Anerkennung gewisser englischer Berufsqualifikationen.
Für Unternehmen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum, die sich mit diesen
Rechtsordnungen befassen, gelten viele Überlegungen entsprechend, die in
den Beiträgen zu den Rechtsordnungen des Vereinigten Königreichs
(Kap. 15), Hongkongs (Kap. 8) und, wenngleich in wesentlich geringerem
Maße, der Vereinigten Staaten (Kap. 14) diskutiert werden. Das vorliegende
Kapitel konzentriert sich daher stärker auf die Besonderheiten der australischen,
neuseeländischen, singapurischen und indischen Rechtsordnungen als
Common-Law-Jurisdiktionen denn auf die Unterschiede von Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen im Vergleich zu den deutschsprachigen Rechtsordnungen.
A wide-ranging review of the relevant international case law and scholarship reveals that no rule, principle or authority of international law – including even the oft-cited evolutionary interpretation doctrine – provides international adjudicators with the firm and practical guidance on this specific question that contemporary international litigants demand.
Using an analytical approach inspired by the comparative method and drawing on specific concepts from external fields including private law, legal theory and, principally, modern-day linguistics, Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law restructures the most relevant international case law around a new conceptual framework that offers fresh insight into the process of treaty interpretation. It demonstrates that by distinguishing between resolving ambiguity and resolving vagueness, and by identifying the temporal sense-intention with which a treaty term is used, international adjudicators can avail themselves of a more predictable and appropriate method for solving this complex and practically important problem of international law.
the under-recognised influence of investment arbitration counsel on investment law, with many of those counsel being much more accustomed to international commercial arbitration and thus inclined toward the subjective approach to interpretation favoured by many systems of contract law.
entirely legal problem of how international adjudicators should interpret treaties through time (section II).
One of the reasons for considerable – and often excessive – attention being paid to procedural issues is the fear that a failure to do so could violate the right to be heard, leading to annulment or hindering enforcement, which itself undermines efficiency. Yet excessively guarding against the possibility of such violations is equally inefficient. To minimize efficiency losses, the authors draw on an emerging line of case law in ICSID annulment proceedings as well as waiver provisions applicable in a range of leges arbitris to propose a strict principle of estoppel. This approach forces parties to raise procedural issues before the instance most capable of resolving
them quickly and fully – the arbitral tribunal – and limits both recourse to costly annulment proceedings and enforcement problems. A party should be allowed to invoke a violation of the right to be heard at the annulment or enforcement stage only to the extent that it has specifically raised its concerns and sought corollary relief before the arbitral tribunal.
of simultaneously applicable branches of international law, and also discover how an evaluation of the ultimate appropriateness of the cross-sectoral rules adopted may be substantially affected by the different frames of reference that are used by those working within the different fields.
Angesichts dieses Dilemmas geht das vorliegende Buch einen Mittelweg: es dient vornehmlich der effizienten Ersteinschätzung von Risiken. Ergibt sich dabei Konfliktpotenzial, kann dieses dann mit spezialisierten (Rechts-)Beratern gezielt und daher kostengünstig gemanagt werden.
Alle Autoren verfügen über langjährige Erfahrung mit den behandelten Themen und haben ihre Beiträge, im Hinblick auf diese Erfahrung, konsequent auf die Bedürfnisse der Praxis ausgerichtet.
---
Die Länder Australien, Neuseeland, Singapur und Indien werden hier gemeinsam
behandelt – nicht nur, weil sie geographisch relativ nahe beieinander
liegen, sondern vor allem, weil ihre Rechtsordnungen auf gemeinsame
Ursprünge zurückgehen. Während diese Rechtsordnungen gewisse strukturelle
und praktische Unterschiede aufweisen, von denen einige wesentliche in
diesem Kapitel behandelt werden, gehören sie doch alle zur Common-Law-
Tradition mit einem gemeinsamen Vorvater: dem englischen Recht. Anders
als etwa im US-amerikanischen Recht, haben diese Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen erst vor kurzem volle Unabhängigkeit von der englischen
Rechtsordnung erlangt. Der Privy Council in London war bis 1986 das höchste
Berufungsgericht in Australien, bis 1994 in Singapur und bis 2004 in Neuseeland.
Die Ausnahme stellt Indien dar, wo das Berufungsrecht zum Privy
Council bereits Ende 1949 abgeschafft wurde. Dort bestehen aber bis heute einige andere Verbindungen zur englischen Rechtsordnung, vor allem im
Hinblick auf die Anerkennung gewisser englischer Berufsqualifikationen.
Für Unternehmen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum, die sich mit diesen
Rechtsordnungen befassen, gelten viele Überlegungen entsprechend, die in
den Beiträgen zu den Rechtsordnungen des Vereinigten Königreichs
(Kap. 15), Hongkongs (Kap. 8) und, wenngleich in wesentlich geringerem
Maße, der Vereinigten Staaten (Kap. 14) diskutiert werden. Das vorliegende
Kapitel konzentriert sich daher stärker auf die Besonderheiten der australischen,
neuseeländischen, singapurischen und indischen Rechtsordnungen als
Common-Law-Jurisdiktionen denn auf die Unterschiede von Common-Law-
Jurisdiktionen im Vergleich zu den deutschsprachigen Rechtsordnungen.
A wide-ranging review of the relevant international case law and scholarship reveals that no rule, principle or authority of international law – including even the oft-cited evolutionary interpretation doctrine – provides international adjudicators with the firm and practical guidance on this specific question that contemporary international litigants demand.
Using an analytical approach inspired by the comparative method and drawing on specific concepts from external fields including private law, legal theory and, principally, modern-day linguistics, Intertemporal Linguistics in International Law restructures the most relevant international case law around a new conceptual framework that offers fresh insight into the process of treaty interpretation. It demonstrates that by distinguishing between resolving ambiguity and resolving vagueness, and by identifying the temporal sense-intention with which a treaty term is used, international adjudicators can avail themselves of a more predictable and appropriate method for solving this complex and practically important problem of international law.