Browse ORBilu by Open Access
- What it is and what it isn't
- Green Road / Gold Road?
- Ready to Publish. Now What?
- How can I support the OA movement?
- Where can I learn more?
ORBilu is a project developed by
   Book review - Adrian Briggs Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments and A conflict of Laws CompanionCuniberti, Gilles  in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2022) Detailed reference viewed: 110 (1 UL) Recalibrating the International Investment Regime through Narrowed JurisdictionGarcia Olmedo, Javier in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2020) The legitimacy crisis confronting the international investment regime has called for reforms to eliminate the asymmetric and troubled nature of investment treaties. These instruments grant extensive ... [more ▼] The legitimacy crisis confronting the international investment regime has called for reforms to eliminate the asymmetric and troubled nature of investment treaties. These instruments grant extensive investor protections without offering reciprocal safeguards for host States wishing to preserve regulatory space. This article argues that any reform designed to redress imbalances in the existing regime should first aim at narrowing the personal jurisdiction of investment tribunals. Problematically, access to most investment treaties depends on broad nationality requirements, which have enabled investors to use corporations or passports of convenience to obtain treaty protection. This practice exacerbates the unbalanced relationship between host States and investors. It increases host States’ exposure to investment treaty claims and allows investors to circumvent newer, more State-oriented investment treaties. Using as an example the novel anti-nationality planning approach embraced in the 2019 Dutch Model BIT, this article suggests effective treaty mechanisms that States can adopt to restrict the range of investors that are entitled to claim. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 121 (1 UL) The Human Rights Defence in International Investment Arbitration: Exploring the Limtis of Systemic Integration; Happold, Matthew in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2019), 68(3), 741-759 In a variety of investment arbitration cases, respondent States have argued that the measure complained of by the investor was mandated by the State’s human rights obligations. This defence raises ... [more ▼] In a variety of investment arbitration cases, respondent States have argued that the measure complained of by the investor was mandated by the State’s human rights obligations. This defence raises intricate questions concerning the relationship between international investment law and human rights law. Tribunals have generally been reluctant to engage with the argument and to interpret the relationship between investment law and human rights in a straightforward manner. This article discusses two other possibilities: harmonious interpretation and prioritisation. Harmonious interpretation seeks to read provisions from investment treaties and human rights treaties together, whereas prioritisation gives normative superiority to one provision over another. We conclude that harmonious interpretation is facilitated by the discretionary character of common treaty standards in both human rights and investment law, but that the final result is not likely to be very different from prioritisation, because even harmonious interpretation requires that one provision is read in the light of, and thereby subjugated to, another provision. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 283 (8 UL)The Recognition of Judgments Lacking Reasons in Europe: Access to Justice, Foreign Court Avoidance and EfficiencyCuniberti, Gilles in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2008), 57 The recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons raises several policy issues. Reason-giving is perceived by the European Court of Human Rights as critical to ensure an effective access to justice ... [more ▼] The recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons raises several policy issues. Reason-giving is perceived by the European Court of Human Rights as critical to ensure an effective access to justice. Yet, foreign judgments often lack reasons because the defendant failed to appear before the foreign court, and it may be right to sanction this strategy of foreign court avoidance. Finally, the European Union has begun to implement its policy of efficiency of cross-border enforcement, which commands states to recognize such judgments irrespective of any other consideration. This article explores whether these conflicting issues can be reconciled [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 110 (3 UL)Case Comment: Prosecutor v LubangaHappold, Matthew in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2007), 56 Detailed reference viewed: 212 (6 UL)The Liberalization of the French Law of Foreign JudgmentsCuniberti, Gilles in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2007) Detailed reference viewed: 133 (4 UL)II. Darfur, the Security Council, and the International Criminal CourtHappold, Matthew in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006), 55(1), 226-236 [No abstract available] Detailed reference viewed: 208 (0 UL)Darfur, the Security Council and the International Criminal CourtHappold, Matthew in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006), 55 Detailed reference viewed: 315 (1 UL)Fourteen against One: EU Member States’ Response to Freedom Party Participation in the Austrian GovernmentHappold, Matthew in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2000), 49 Detailed reference viewed: 208 (0 UL)Independence: In or Out of Europe? An Independent Scotland and the European UnionHappold, Matthew in International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2000), 49 Detailed reference viewed: 204 (2 UL) |
||
