The book seeks to investigate problems relating to the increased interaction between national and international courts, which have resulted in the litigation of the same legal issues before national and international judicial bodies: What is the proper order of the proceedings? Should national and international proceedings take place concurrently? What effect, if any, should be given to decisions of national court in proceedings before an international court and vice versa? In particular, the book advocates the use of judicial comity as a method for mitigating jurisdictional tensions between national and international courts.
Presenting an operational 'tool box' of jurisdiction regulating measures, which practitioners can apply in litigation, this book offers an innovative theoretical discussion of interactions between international and national jurisdiction offering important insights on current judicial policy.
Recent years have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of international courts and tribunals (WTO, NAFTA, ITLOS, ICC, etc.) and greater willingness on the part of states and other international actors to subject themselves to the compulsory jurisdiction of international adjudicative mechanisms. However, because of the uncoordinated nature of these developments, overlaps between the jurisdictional ambits of the different judicial bodies might occur, i.e., the same dispute could fall under the jurisdiction of more than one forum. This raises both theoretical and practical issues of coordination between the various jurisdictions. The purpose of this book is to explore the implications of jurisdictional competition and to identify standards that may alleviate problems associated with the phenomenon, which arguably threatens the unity of international law. The first part of the book examines the jurisdictional ambits of the principal international courts and tribunals and delineates areas of overlap between their respective jurisdictions. There follows a discussion of some of the potential systematic and practical problems that arise out of jurisdictional competition (such as forum shopping and multiple proceedings) and a consideration of the expediency of mitigating them. The book concludes by identifying existing rules of international law, which govern inter-jurisdictional competition, and by considering the desirability of introducing additional norms and arrangements.
The 2007 volume of Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation - The Fordham Papers is a collection of important works in international arbitration and mediation written by the prominent speakers at the 2007 Fordham Law School Conference on International Arbitration and Mediation. The 24 papers are organized into the following five parts:Part I: Investor-State ArbitrationPart II: Conduct of International Arbitration and Jurisdictional IssuesPart III: Remedies and DefensesPart IV: Ethics Issues in International ArbitrationPart V: Mediation
This fully updated second edition of Jurisdiction in International Law examines the international law of jurisdiction, focusing on the areas of law where jurisdiction is most contentious: criminal, antitrust, securities, discovery, and international humanitarian and human rights law. Since F.A. Mann's work in the 1980s, no analytical overview has been attempted of this crucial topic in international law: prescribing the admissible geographical reach of a State's laws. This new edition includes new material on personal jurisdiction in the U.S., extraterritorial applications of human rights treaties, discussions on cyberspace, the Morrison case. Jurisdiction in International Law has been updated covering developments in sanction and tax laws, and includes further exploration on transnational tort litigation and universal civil jurisdiction. The need for such an overview has grown more pressing in recent years as the traditional framework of the law of jurisdiction, grounded in the principles of sovereignty and territoriality, has been undermined by piecemeal developments. Antitrust jurisdiction is heading in new directions, influenced by law and economics approaches; new EC rules are reshaping jurisdiction in securities law; the U.S. is arguably overreaching in the field of corporate governance law; and the universality principle has gained ground in European criminal law and U.S. tort law. Such developments have given rise to conflicts over competency that struggle to be resolved within traditional jurisdiction theory. This study proposes an innovative approach that departs from the classical solutions and advocates a general principle of international subsidiary jurisdiction. Under the new proposed rule, States would be entitled, and at times even obliged, to exercise subsidiary jurisdiction over internationally relevant situations in the interest of the international community if the State having primary jurisdiction fails to assume its responsibility.
During the last 20 years the world has experienced a sharp rise in the number of international courts and tribunals, and a correlative expansion of their jurisdictions. This book draws on social sciences to provide a clear, goal-orientated assessment of their effectiveness, and a critical evaluation of the quality of their performance.
The Oxford ILDC online database, an online collection of domestic court decisions which apply international law, has been providing scholars with insights for many years. This ILDC Casebook is the perfect companion, introducing key court decisions with brief introductory and connecting texts. An ideal text for practitioners, judged, government officials, as well as for students on international law courses, the ILDC Casebook explains the theories and doctrines underlying the use by domestic courts of international law, and illustrates the key importance of domestic courts in the development of international law.
In recent decades there has been a considerable growth in the activities of international tribunals and the establishment of new tribunals. Furthermore, supervisory bodies established to control compliance with treaty obligations have adopted decisions in an increasing number of cases. National courts further add to the practice of adjudication of claims based on international law. While this increasing practice of courts and supervisory bodies strengthens the adjudicatory process in international law, it also poses challenges to the unity of international law. Most of these courts operate within their own special regime (functional, regional, or national) and will primarily interpret and apply international law within the framework of that particular regime. The role of domestic courts poses special challenges, as the powers of such courts to give effect to international law, as well as their actual practice in applying such law, largely will be determined by national law. At the same time, both international and national courts have recognised that they do not operate in isolation from the larger international legal system, and have found various ways to counteract the process of fragmentation that may result from their jurisdictional limitations. This book explores how international and national courts can, and do, mitigate fragmentation of international law. It contains case studies from international regimes (including the WTO, the IMF, investment arbitration and the ECtHR) and from various national jurisdictions (including Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the UK), providing a basis for conclusions to be drawn in the final chapter.
International courts and tribunals are often asked to review decisions originally made by domestic decision-makers. This can often be a source of tension, as the international courts and tribunals need to judge how far to defer to the original decisions of the national bodies. As international courts and tribunals have proliferated, different courts have applied differing levels of deference to those originial decisions, which can lead to a fragmentation in international law. International courts in such positions rely on two key doctrines: the standard of review and the margin of appreciation. The standard of review establishes the extent to which national decisions relating to factual, legal, or political issues arising in the case are re-examined in the international court. The margin of appreciation is the extent to which national legislative, executive, and judicial decision-makers are allowed to reflect diversity in their interpretation of human rights obligations. The book begins by providing an overview of the margin of appreciation and standard of review, recognising that while the margin of appreciation explicitly acknowledges the existence of such deference, the standard of review does not: it is rather a procedural mechanism. It looks in-depth at how the public policy exception has been assessed by the European Court of Justice and the WTO dispute settlement bodies. It examines how the European Court of Human Rights has taken an evidence-based approach towards the margin of appreciation, as well as how it has addressed issues of hate speech. The Inter-American system is also investigated, and it is established how far deference is possible within that legal organisation. Finally, the book studies how a range of other international courts, such as the International Criminal Court, and the Law of the Sea Tribunal, have approached these two core doctrines.
