Brown offers an examination of the jurisprudence of a range of international courts and tribunals relating to issues of procedure and remedies, and assessment whether there are emerging commonalities regarding these issues which could make up a unified law of international adjudication.
This work provides a comprehensive theory of the system of legal norms that are developed partly in the internal written (constitutional) law of intergovernmental organizations and partly through their consistent practice, and that are therefore common to intergovernmental organizations. The legal construction presented in this volume consists of the following main elements: As for all other self-governing communities all intergovernmental organizations possess their own internal law governing their relations with 1) the organs of the organization, 2) the officials and 3) the member states in their capacity as members of the organization. Some organizations exercise in addition extended (delegated) jurisdiction over states, other organizations and/or individuals. Secondly, as for other self-governing communities all intergovernmental organizations are subjects of public international law in their relations with other self-governing communities (states and other intergovernmental organizations), and in the case of extended jurisdiction, also in relations with individuals and private entities. Thirdly, as for all other self-governing communities possessing its own internal law (its distinct lex personalis), intergovernmental organizations enter into relations of a private law nature with both public and private entities. Governed by the rules on conflict of laws, these relations must be determined by assessing relevant 1) personal, 2) territorial and 3) organic connecting factors. Thus Common Law of Intergovernmental Organizations brings together all those elements pertaining to the theory of objective legal personality that have been presented in a scattered fashion, in bits and pieces. Common Law of Intergovernmental Organizations, starting out from the position of objective legal personality, is fully compatible with modern requirements of good governance and accountability of international organizations, and particularly adaptable to the ideal of “systemic integration” of legal regimes constituting internal law of the organization.
In A Nascent Common Law: The Process of Decisionmaking in International Legal Disputes Between States and Foreign Investors Frédéric Gilles Sourgens submits that investor-state dispute resolution relies upon an inductive, common law decisionmaking process, which reveals a necessary plurality of first principles within investor-state dispute resolution. Relying upon, amongst others, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, the book explains how this plurality of first principles does not devolve into arbitrary indeterminacy. A Nascent Common Law provides an alternative account to current theoretical conceptions of investor-state arbitration. It explains that these theories cannot adequately resolve a key empirical challenge: tribunals frequently reach facially inconsistent results on similar questions of law. Sourgens makes an inductive approach, focused on the manner of decisionmaking by tribunals in the context of specific records that can explain this inconsistency.
It adopts an approach which explains the historical development of the common law institutions and procedures whilst also setting them in perspective through a comparative outlook. Aspects of the common law are contrasted on occasions with structural o
Should judges in United States courts be permitted to cite foreign laws in their rulings? In this book Jeremy Waldron explores some ideas in jurisprudence and legal theory that could underlie the Supreme Court's occasional recourse to foreign law, especially in constitutional cases. He argues that every society is governed not only by its own laws but partly also by laws common to all mankind (ius gentium). But he takes the unique step of arguing that this common law is not natural law but a grounded consensus among all nations. The idea of such a consensus will become increasingly important in jurisprudence and public affairs as the world becomes more globalized.
As people, business, and information cross borders, so too do legal disputes. Globalisation means that courts need to apply principles of private international law with increasing frequency. Thus, as the Law Society of New South Wales recognised in its 2017 report The Future of Law and Innovation in the Profession, knowledge of private international law is increasingly important to legal practice. In particular, it is essential to the modern practice of commercial law. This book considers key issues at the intersection of commercial law and private international law. The authors include judges, academics and practising lawyers, from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom. They bring a common law perspective to contemporary problems concerning the key issues in private international law: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The book also addresses issues of evidence and procedure in cross-border litigation, and the impact of recent developments at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, including the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements on common law principles of private international law.
This book explores how courts decide, or ought to decide, in situations of uncertainty. A Court must always decide the case before it, even if the relevant facts remain unclear. The question then arises which party benefits and which party is burdened by that uncertainty. In these cases, the Court must apply the rules on the burden of proof or, more precisely, the burden of persuasion. Their importance for the individual claimant is obvious. The comparison of two domestic systems (one based on common law and the other a traditional code-based legal order) with regard to the issue of burden of proof helps to clarify the terminology and lays the ground for dealing with the burden of proof in international human rights law. Without knowing what can be understood by the term `burden of proof' under domestic law, international lawyers with different domestic law backgrounds are in danger of misunderstanding each other. This may lead to obscuring the problems connected with court decisions involving uncertainty. The study also deals with uncertainties with regard to legislative (general) in contrast to adjudicative (individual) facts and with uncertainties in the framework of predictions in contrast to uncertainties relating to historic facts. It attempts to prepare the ground for dealing more consciously and more consistently with problems of uncertainty in international human rights law. International courts, due to their geographical and cultural distance from the case, usually have less access to the underlying facts. Nevertheless, in order to protect human rights effectively, international courts and tribunals cannot always restrict themselves to reviewing the law, but may also have to decide on the facts. Thus issues relating to decision-making on the basis of uncertain facts, including the burden of persuasion, are even more important in international than in domestic human rights law.
In the increasingly international world of family law, this book addresses what happens when multiple jurisdictions come into play in a case, and how that conflict is resolved. With country-specific analysis for nine of the main European jurisdictions, this book is of key practical importance for any lawyer with a cross-border practice and is a must read for any international practitioner.