This article provides new insight to regime shifting and regime complexes through one of the first detailed analysis of the regime shift in intellectual property law making and enforcement from the World Trade Organization to international investment law. Unlike prior cases of regime shifting that have predominantly focused on the efforts of States and NGOs creating counter-norms viz-a-viz those of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, the current regime shift is primarily engineered by multinational corporations seeking to destabilize TRIPS flexibilities through investor-state arbitration. Since defending these cases costs countries millions of dollars, this regime shift to investor state arbitration has a significant chilling effect on the regulatory authority of states. We argue and show that by bringing or threatening to bring investor-state litigation to protect their IP rights against countries seeking to protect public health, pharmaceutical and tobacco companies pose a serious threat to the sovereignty of countries to implement the TRIPS Agreement in a manner that balances IP rights against values such as access to affordable medicine. As a consequence this Article argues that this regime shift is significant not only for developing countries, but for developed countries, such as Canada, Australia, and members of the European Union as well. The last part of the article proposes solutions to the challenges that this regime shifting raises. The first set of proposals recommend defining and clarifying key terms in investment treaties to minimize harm to domestic sovereignty as well as to maximize flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement. The second set of proposals recommend improving the investment dispute process through a variety of reforms.
Recent rulings in the ongoing litigation over the pari passu clause in Argentinian sovereign debt instruments have generated considerable controversy. Some official-sector participants and academic articles have suggested that the rulings will disrupt or impede future sovereign debt restructurings by encouraging holdout creditors to litigate for full payment instead of participating in negotiated exchange offers. This paper critically examines this claim by evaluating market reactions to litigation using an event study methodology. We analyze the effect on sovereign bonds from litigation events, with particular emphasis on Argentina for the period, 1993-2014. We find evidence that the market reacts differently to Argentina than in other countries.
Although domestic law plays an important role in investment treaty arbitration, this issue is little discussed or analysed. When should investment treaty tribunals engage with domestic law? How should investment treaty tribunals resolve matters of domestic law? These questions have significant ramifications for both the legitimacy of the investment treaty system and the arbitral mandate of the tribunal members. Drawing on case law, international law principles, and comparative analysis, this book addresses these important issues.
Part I of the book examines three areas of investment law-the 'fair and equitable treatment' standard, expropriation, and remedies-in which the role of domestic law has so far been under-appreciated. It argues that tribunals are justified in drawing on domestic law as a relevant factor in their rulings on these three issues. Part II of the book examines how questions of domestic law should be resolved in investment arbitration. It proposes a normative framework for use by tribunals in ascertaining the contents of the domestic law to be applied. It then considers counter-arguments, exemptions, and exceptions to applying this framework, and it evaluates how tribunals have ruled on questions of domestic law to date.
Investment treaty arbitration has endured much criticism in recent times, partly over fears of its encroachment on sovereignty. The book ultimately contends that closer attention by tribunals to one of the principal expressions of a state's sovereignty-the elaboration of its domestic law-will reduce criticism of the field.
This book explores how international organizations (IOs) have expanded their powers over time without formally amending their founding treaties. IOs intervene in military, financial, economic, political, social, and cultural affairs, and increasingly take on roles not explicitly assigned to them by law. Sinclair contends that this 'mission creep' has allowed IOs to intervene internationally in a way that has allowed them to recast institutions within and interactions among states, societies, and peoples on a broadly Western, liberal model. Adopting a historical and interdisciplinary, socio-legal approach, Sinclair supports this claim through detailed investigations of historical episodes involving three very different organizations: the International Labour Organization in the interwar period; the United Nations in the two decades following the Second World War; and the World Bank from the 1950s through to the 1990s.
The book draws on a wide range of original institutional and archival materials, bringing to light little-known aspects of each organization's activities, identifying continuities in the ideas and practices of international governance across the twentieth century, and speaking to a range of pressing theoretical questions in present-day international law and international relations.
In 2015, the International Court of Justice ruled that Bolivia’s claim against Chile could proceed to the merit stage, setting up this Article’s discussion of perhaps the most intractable border dispute in South American history – Bolivia’s attempt to reclaim from Chile a ‘sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean’. This Article investigates the international law and deeply commingled regional history pertaining to the Atacama Desert region, the hyperarid yet resource-rich region through which Bolivia seeks to secure its long-lost access to the sea. Investigating the factual circumstances (effectivités), the post-colonial international legal principle of uti possidetis, territorial temptations arising from resource discoveries, and the duty to negotiate based on a pactum de contrahendo, a pactum de negotiando, or unilateral declarations, this Article concludes this case is less suited for adjudicative settlement than resolution by the principal three parties involved in the region – Bolivia, Chile, and Peru – primarily because the parties have, over the course of this protracted dispute, constructed intersubjective modalities for a shared sovereignty arrangement facilitated by sub-regional economic growth relations. A regional reconstruction of sovereignty in the northern Atacama region presents the better prospect for resolution than is possible through the limited outcomes presented by formal third party dispute settlement.
Recent revelations, by Edward Snowden and others, of the vast network of government spying enabled by modern technology have raised major concerns both in the European Union and the United States on how to protect privacy in the face of increasing governmental surveillance. This book brings together some of the leading experts in the fields of constitutional law, criminal law and human rights from the US and the EU to examine the protection of privacy in the digital era, as well as the challenges that counter-terrorism cooperation between governments pose to human rights. It examines the state of privacy protections on both sides of the Atlantic, the best mechanisms for preserving privacy, and whether the EU and the US should develop joint transnational mechanisms to protect privacy on a reciprocal basis. As technology enables governments to know more and more about their citizens, and about the citizens of other nations, this volume offers critical perspectives on how best to respond to one of the most challenging developments of the twenty-first century. - See more at: http://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/surveillance-privacy-and-trans-atlantic-relations-9781509905416/#sthash.n180UYkQ.dpuf
In einer Zeit rapider Urbanisierung werden Städte und Gemeinden zunehmend zu international relevanten Akteuren. Ob in Fragen der nachhaltigen Entwicklung und des Klimaschutzes, der Gewährleistung von Sicherheit oder zur Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten: Städte und Gemeinden haben zahlreiche internationale Netzwerke gegründet, kooperieren mit internationalen Organisationen und verschreiben sich der Durchsetzung völkerrechtlicher Normen. Helmut Philipp Aust untersucht diese Entwicklung und ordnet sie in die verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechtlichen Zusammenhänge ebenso ein wie in die völker- und europarechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen. Der Autor formuliert zugleich einen Beitrag zu einer zeitgemäßen Auslegung des Grundsatzes der kommunalen Selbstverwaltung, die diese internationale Bedingtheit städtischen und gemeindlichen Handelns rezipiert.
In times of rapid urbanization, municipalities have become increasingly relevant actors on the world stage, setting up networks, cooperating with international organisations and implementing international law. Helmut Philipp Aust analyses this development in light of constitutional and administrative law aspects as well as applicable international and EU law frameworks.
This article asks why the dispute settlement provisions of the multilateral trading system underwent significant reforms during the negotiations that led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Why did the leading trading powers accept a highly legalized system that departed from established political–diplomatic forms of settling disputes? The contribution of this article is threefold. First, it complements existing accounts that exclusively focus on the United States with a novel explanation that takes account of contextual factors. Second, it offers an in-depth empirical case study based on interviews with negotiators who were involved and novel archival evidence on the creation of the new WTO dispute settlement system. Third, by unpacking the long-standing puzzle of why states designed a highly legalized system, it addresses selected blind spots of the legalization and the rational design literatures with the aim of providing a better understanding about potential paths leading toward significant changes in legalization.
In Prosecuting Human Rights Offences: Rethinking the Sword Function of Human Rights Law the author explores and explains the extent to which the features of the procedural obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish criminal attacks on human rights determine the contemporary understanding of the function of criminal prosecution. The author provides an innovative and thought-provoking account of the highly topical and largely unexplored topic of the sword function of human rights law. The book contains the first comprehensive and holistic analysis of the procedural obligation to investigate and prosecute human rights offences in the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the author puts in the general perspectives of human rights law and criminal procedure.
The paper focuses on arbitral lawmaking (the development of precedent-based frameworks of argumentation and justification), and state responses to that lawmaking (as registered in subsequent treaty-making). We compiled and analyzed information on: (i) all publicly-available awards (n=159) in which tribunals resolved disputes under the headings of expropriation and fair and equitable treatment, and under an umbrella clause; and (ii) investment treaties signed between 2002 and 2015 (n=398), when available in English. The paper reports three main findings. First, in most disputes, investors do not challenge general state measures; when they do, they are far less to prevail than when they contest acts specifically targeting their investments. Second, the evidence does not support the view that arbitral doctrine produces outcomes that are biased against states. In the vast majority of awards, tribunals take seriously the respondent state’s ‘right to regulate’ in the public interest. Third, the regime has not generated strong ‘backlash’ in any systemic sense. States continue to sign investment treaties; the mix of treaty protections on offer has remained remarkably stable; and new treaties have largely consolidated the case law that the most influential tribunals had already developed.
This unique volume looks at international peace treaties, at their results, effects and failures. It reflects the outcome of an international conference held in the Peace Palace (The Hague) on the occasion of the Centenary of this institution, which opened its doors on the eve of World War I.
The volume offers the reflections of the leading experts attending the conference and the open debate which followed. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919, the mother of all peace treaties, is the first to be critically discussed. How should this treaty be viewed with the knowledge of today? What are the lessons learned in the light of historic developments? Subsequently, the Dayton Agreement, which sealed the end to the bloody conflict in the former Yougoslavia (1992-1995), and the Sudan Agreement, which came into being after lengthy negotiations in 2005, are analysed in the same way. Finally, the situations which arose in relation to the devastating wars between Iran and Iraq (1980-1988) and between Kuwait and Iraq are discussed. As these states could not reach a settlement themselves, the United Nations Security Council imposed the terms of the ceasefire and peaceful cooperation in important and innovative resolutions.
The book offers additional perspective by looking at the role of judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, vis-a-vis the instrument of political mediation between states with the help of a third party. Mediation can be very effective, but certain conditions are required for it to be successful, conditions which are not easy to bring about in today’s world. Dispute settlement under international law is and continues to be the core business in the Peace Palace.
The latest issue of the Rivista di Diritto Internazionale (Vol. 99, no. 4, 2016) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of the Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (Vol. 69, no. 1, 2017) is out. Contents include:
This book explores the intended and unintended impact of international criminal justice on the legitimacy of quasi-state entities (QSEs). In order to do so, the concept of ‘quasi-state entity’ is introduced to distinguish actors in statehood conflicts that aspire to statehood, and fulfil statehood functions to a greater or lesser degree, including the capacity and willingness to deploy armed force, but lack the status of sovereign statehood. This work explores the ability of QSEs to create and maintain legitimacy for their actions, institutions and statehood projects in various constituencies simultaneously. It looks at how legitimacy is a prerequisite for success of QSEs and, using critical legitimacy theory, assesses the legitimating narratives of QSEs and their statehood adversaries. The book links international criminal justice to statehood projects of QSEs and their success and legitimacy. It looks at the effects of international criminal justice on the ability to create and maintain legitimacy of QSEs, an approach that leads to new insights regarding international courts and tribunals as entities competing with states over statehood functions that increasingly have to take the legal implications of their actions into consideration. Most important, a close assessment of the legitimising narratives of QSEs, counter narratives, and the messages sent by international criminal justice with which QSEs have to deal, and their ability to overcome legitimacy crises, provides insight on QSEs and the complex processes of legitimation.
The latest volume of the African Yearbook on International Humanitarian Law (Vol. 2015) is out. Contents include:
The latest issue of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (Vol. 49, no. 5, November 2016) is out. Contents include:
26th Annual SLS-BIICL Conference
on Theory and International Law
3 May 2017, 14:00-19:00
British Institute of International and Comparative Law,
Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP
INSIDE THE MIND OF INTERNATIONAL DECISION-MAKERSThe 2017 Conference on Theory and International Law seeks to understand better the behaviour of those who shape international law - international and domestic judges, arbitrators, and state officials. Inspired by ground-breaking research that opens the “black box” of international decision-making, this Conference invites participants to theorise, experiment and speculate.
Some of the questions we will explore are: Do decision-makers behave rationally? Do they behave predictably? What factors may influence their decision-making? What are the roles of cognitive skills, intuition, and background, including education and political persuasion? What are the implications of these insights for choosing a method of dispute settlement for a particular case or designing a dispute settlement mechanism for future disputes? What are the implications for the conduct and procedures of international negotiations?
We are pleased to announce that the keynote address will be delivered by Professor Anne van Aaken, Professor of Law and Economics, Legal Theory, Public International Law and European Law at the University of St. Gallen and Vice-President of the European Society of International Law. She has coauthored an article, Inside the Arbitrator’s Mind, which is the first-ever experimentally conducted psychological study of international arbitrators.
The closing address will be given by Dr Charlotte Peevers of the University of Glasgow who will speak on ‘Prospects of truth seeking: the Chilcot Inquiry and the decision to go to war’.
The convenors welcome contributions that:
APPLICATION PROCESS
- Draw on different disciplines, such as economics or psychology;
- Employ experimental or empirical methods;
- See to look behind a judgment or award to the factors that influence and motivate decisions;
- Consider the process of decision making; and/or
- Examine implications for dispute settlement strategies and institutions.
Submission of abstracts is open to academics, including graduate students, and to legal practitioners. Please submit an abstract in Word or PDF of no more than one page to Dr Philippa Webb (philippa.webb@kcl.ac.uk) and Professor Christian Henderson (C.M.Henderson@sussex.ac.uk). The following information should also be provided with each abstract:
The deadline for submission of abstracts is 20 March 2017. Applicants will be informed by 31 March 2017. Regrettably, we are unable to provide funding for travel to and attendance at the conference, but there will be a reception at the end of the conference.
- The author’s name and affiliation
- The author’s CV, including a list of relevant publications
- The author’s contact details, including email address
Philippa Webb and Christian Henderson
The latest issue of Transnational Environmental Law (Vol. 6, no. 1, March 2017) is out. Contents include:
Attorney-client privilege is often invoked as a defence in international arbitration proceedings however the participants often have very different expectations regarding the applicable privilege standard, as national attorney-client privilege laws vary widely between jurisdictions. This is complicated by the fact that institutional arbitral rules do not include provisions on the scope of attorney-client privilege, nor do they outline the conflict of laws issues determining the applicable national privilege law. The applicable level of privilege is therefore left to the discretion of the arbitral tribunal.
Drawing on interviews with more than thirty leading international arbitration practitioners and extensive academic research, this book is the first of its kind to provide clear guidance to arbitral tribunals regarding the determination of the applicable attorney-client privilege standard. It compares attorney-client privilege in key common and civil law jurisdictions, analyses precedent from previous tribunals, and finally sets out proposed changes to the legal framework governing this area.
With the sensational arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, the rise to prominence of universal jurisdiction over crimes against international law seemed to be assured. The arrest of Pinochet and the ensuing proceedings before the UK courts brought universal jurisdiction into the foreground of the "fight against impunity" and the principle was read as an important complementary mechanism for international justice –one that could offer justice to victims denied an avenue by the limited jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. Yet by the time of the International Court of Justice’s Arrest Warrant judgment four years later, the picture looked much bleaker and the principle was being read as a potential tool for politically motivated trials.
This book explores the debate over universal jurisdiction in international criminal law, aiming to unpack a practice in which international lawyers continue to disagree over the concept of universal jurisdiction. Using Martti Koskenniemi’s work as a foil, this book exposes the argumentative techniques in operation in national and international adjudication since the 1990s. Drawing on overarching patterns within the debate, Aisling O’Sullivan argues that it is bounded by a tension between contrasting political preferences or positions, labelled as moralist ("ending impunity") and formalist ("avoiding abuse") and she reads the debate as a movement of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic positions that struggle for hegemonic control. However, she draws out how these positions (moralist/formalist) merge into one another and this produces a tendency towards a "middle" position that continues to prefer a particular preference (moralist or formalist). Aisling O’Sullivan then traces the transformation towards this tendency that reflects an internal split among international lawyers between building a utopia ("court of humanity") and recognizing its impossibility of being realized.
Call for papers
THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE SEA
4-5 May 2017
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
The law of the sea governs the repression of criminality at sea only to a limited extent. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), for example, is almost silent on the matter. It does not, for instance, sufficiently address issues such as drug trafficking or migrant smuggling, while its provisions are sometimes out-dated and refer to issues such as the slave trade, piracy and unauthorised broadcasting. Sectoral treaties (such as the Palermo Protocol, the Vienna Convention and SUA Convention) complement the UNCLOS regime as regards the repression of criminality at sea, but they are of a limited scope and insufficient in various respects.
The fundamental question raised by the Conference at hand is as follows: in cases where the law of the sea regime does not offer the necessary legal tools to address criminality at sea, does having recourse to the UN Security Council constitute an effective alternative to the fight against criminality at sea? The aim is to assess whether recourse to the UN Security Council offers possible legal solutions, especially in terms of authorization of interventions for States where the law of the sea does not contain them.
More broadly, the Conference will address issues related to the mutual influence and interplay between UN Security Council practice and the law of the sea. To this end, contributions on the UN Security Council’s practice (such as in the nuclear field, piracy, etc.) and its impact on other relevant international organisations (WMI, NATO, EU, etc.) are most welcome.
We invite you to send an abstract (two pages maximum) in French or English by 15 March 2017 to kiara.neri@univ-lyon3.fr together with a short CV. Notification of acceptance will be sent on 31 March 2017. Presentations at the Conference can be given in either French or English.
*****
Appel à contributions
LE CONSEIL DE SÉCURITÉ DES NATIONS UNIES ET LA MER
4-5 mai 2017
Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Le droit de la mer est souvent limité en matière de lutte contre la criminalité. La Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer (CNUDM) est presque muette à ce sujet. Elle ne traite par exemple que trop peu des problématiques liées au trafic de drogue ou de migrants. Les seuls éléments sont assez anciens et ont trait au transport d’esclaves à la piraterie ou aux émissions non autorisées. Certains traités sectoriels viennent compléter la CNUDM, mais ils restent quand même assez limités (Protocole de Palerme, Convention de Vienne, Convention SUA, etc.).
Toutefois, la question fondamentale que le Colloque se proposer de traiter est la suivante : lorsque le droit de la mer est limité et ne fournit pas les outils juridiques nécessaires, le recours au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies peut-il être une alternative efficace pour combattre la criminalité en mer ? Il s’agira alors d’évaluer la pertinence du recours à cet organe comme solution juridique, notamment en ce qu’il permet d’offrir aux États un titre d’intervention lorsque le droit de la mer ne le fait pas.
Plus largement le Colloque abordera la question de l’influence de la pratique du Conseil de sécurité sur l’évolution du droit de la mer et inversement. À cette fin des contributions tant sur la pratique maritime du Conseil (en matière nucléaire ou de piraterie notamment) que sur son impact sur les autres organisations internationales compétentes (OMI, OTAN, UE, etc.) sont les bienvenues.
Les propositions sont à envoyer en français ou en anglais (2 pages maximum) à l’adresse suivante : kiara.neri@univ-lyon3.fr avant le 15 mars 2017 accompagnées d’un bref CV. Les résultats de la sélection seront connus le 31 mars 2017. Les interventions lors de la Conférence peuvent être faites en français ou en anglais.
The latest issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (Vol. 61, no. 3, March 2017) is out. Contents include:
Institutions and International Law in Eastern Europe
Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO)
Date: 28–29 September 2017, Leipzig
International law is enjoying increasing popularity among historians of global and international affairs, due to a re-reading of legal norms and rules that questions a state-centered approach. Instead of seeing law as an outcome of state behavior, recent scholarship has examined the transnational character of law and legal communities, and the oftentimes complex negotiation processes that precede the codification and subsequent ratification of international conventions. This perspective aligns with the focus on border-crossing relations and on professional and nonstate actors and institutions that has become essential to global and international history. Moreover, connections forged between the history of international law and discussions of the limits of legal universalism have increased the legal dimension’s relevance for historians of empire and decolonization. Encircling notions of hegemony, imperialism, and civilization, and scrutinizing the role of international law in imperial and civilizing missions, this strand of research has given rise to regional histories of international law. Scholars have begun to explore the relationship between legal and regional developments by asking how international law has been tailored to serve specific regional interests, problems, or conflicts. This approach complements the focus on the law’s imperial bias and acknowledges the entanglement of legal and political agendas while also emphasizing the agency of regional actors. It also concedes that regional appropriations of international law could serve these actors’ own agendas or be a vehicle for emancipation.
The workshop unites research on the history of international law with studies on Eastern Europe to investigate the controversial role of international law in the complex and contentious reordering of the region since the Congress of Vienna. The workshop proposes that the extraordinary density of political, social and ethnic conflicts and the decades-long struggles over territorial boundaries in Eastern Europe have left clear traces in international law. More specifically, the workshop addresses these issues through the lens of international institutions, which offer a starting point from which to identify topics; single out involved states, groups, and transnational actors from East Central and Eastern Europe; and reveal how regional constellations were universalized in the process of negotiating and implementing international norms and rules.
The workshop stems from a research project at the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO) that deals with processes of juridification in international relations. The project advances the argument that the history of conflict in Eastern Europe has shaped modern international law to a significant degree. This contention holds for the results of the Crimean War (1854–1856) and the regulations formulated by the Congress of Berlin (1878), as well as for minority protections after World War I and the status of the Free City of Danzig, to mention a few examples. The main output of the research group will be “Law and History in Eastern Europe,” a three-part handbook to be published by de Gruyter in 2020. The handbook’s second part seeks to illuminate the relationship between law and international institutions from an Eastern Europe perspective. To this end, workshop participants might contribute chapters to the handbook.
The workshop welcomes contributions that cover the 19th and 20th centuries. Papers should focus either on legal issues in international institutions in Eastern Europe, or on the representation of Eastern Europeans in international institutions concerned with international law. Regarding subject matter, we invite papers presenting case studies from within the region that also connect to the wider topic of the legal transformation of international relations. Inter-regional comparisons are particularly welcome.
Participants are asked to submit their papers no later than two weeks before the start of the workshop. The workshop will be held on 28 and 29 September 2017 at the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO) in Leipzig, Germany. Travel and accommodation costs will be covered. Please send your proposal (max. 750 words) and a short CV by 10 March 2017 to Isabella.loehr@leibniz-gwzo.de.
This chapter examines a postcard which is readily available at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. As an object of international criminal law, the postcard reveals a great deal about the aims of international criminal law, and the concomitant image of international criminal law. I argue that the postcard demonstrates international criminal law’s particular preoccupation with two aims: ending impunity, and providing a meaningful voice for victims. I also examine the postcard as an object that is used in the branding and marketing of international criminal law. In particular, I examine the claims to end impunity and to provide a place for victims as statements to market the ICTY and international criminal law. But why does an object designed to ‘market’ an international criminal tribunal use language and imagery that suggests guilt? What is the effect of this? And what does the placement of the victim’s handcuffs and the accused’s handcuffs tell us about the place of the victim and the accused in these trials? I argue that these aspects of the postcard are problematic. As a marketing technique, this postcard succeeds in promoting particular aspects of international criminal law – but in doing so, it also manipulates (and reinforces) unhelpful tropes of good versus evil, of ‘deserving’ victimhood, and of conviction as a core component of international criminal law. The postcard and the handcuffs provide a place to critically analyse the system of international criminal law, and the stories it tells about its aspirations and operations.
In this paper, it is argued that Spinoza is far from being a ‘denier’ of international law. Instead, it is shown that Spinoza offers a nuanced argument for why states are compelled to cooperate with one another in the form of international law. The argument is developed as follows: Part II outlines Spinoza’s realist starting point which can be called the ‘international state of nature’. Part III reconstructs – drawing on his ethical and ontological theory outlined in the Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata (Ethics, E) and in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Theological-Political Treatise, TTP) – Spinoza’s international legal argument, i.e. the conditions that must be fulfilled for international law to exist. Part IV condenses and generalizes Spinoza’s international legal argument in the form of three analytical concepts (normativity of international law, being a State sui iuris and the concept of international cooperation). Part V concludes by outlining Spinoza’s lasting contribution to the theory of international relations and law.
The Eleventh Annual Juris Conferences’ Investment Treaty Arbitration Conference will tackle the complex developments raised by investor-state arbitration and its intersection with international investments in the technology sector. Although there have only been a few investment cases touching on issues related to the technology sector, with continued international integration and the rise of product piracy, counterfeiting, issues related to IP rights, cybersecurity, and the internet of things, international trade and investment disputes may be inevitable in the years to come. Our group of eight authors again take contrary positions and grapple with the dramatic developments of investment arbitration as it relates to technology, intellectual property and investor-State arbitration. Our expert faculty will then continue the debate following the original contributions from our authors for what always proves to be highly entertaining. This conference will be of great value to practitioners, industry counsel, and academics alike who are interested in these important cutting-edge issues.
