Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper aims to investigate the application of foreign law in higher courts practice. The process of determining a foreign law raises practical difficulties, as a judge must apply not just foreign law acts, but also the case law and interpretation with which it is applied in another State. In private international law process the effectiveness of the application of foreign law depends on how correctly and delicately can the higher courts review decisions made by the first instances. In some countries, higher courts have the power to control the correct application or non-application of foreign law by judges, but in some cases, such courts lack this ability. In spite of the development of comparative jurisprudence and modern information technologies, none of the countries' judge can have a claim on exact knowing of relevant standards of the law of foreign countries. Consequently, the danger of making a mistake is more greater when it comes to interpreting and applying foreign law. Thus, it cannot be expected that the higher court should be able to review interpretation of foreign law acts applied by the lower courts and to provide that this interpretation is relevant to that which the practice of the foreign country would adopt on the same question. There is an opinion that the higher courts should refrain from control the wrong application of foreign law in order to guard their own authority, as there is a high risk of misinterpretation of a foreign rule. The different aspects of this problem will be examined in this article.

This article aims to offer a definition of the international rule of law. It does this through clarifying the core objectives of a rule of law and examining whether the international system could include them. It demonstrates that there can be a definition of the international rule of law that can be applied to the international system. This definition of the international rule of law is not dependent on a simplistic application of a national rule of law, as it takes into account the significant differences between national and international legal systems. It seeks to show that the international rule of law is relative, rather than absolute, in its application, is not tied to the operation of the substance of international law itself, and it can apply to states, international organizations and non-state actors. It goes further to show that the international rule of law does exist and can be applied internationally, even if it is not yet fully actualized.

So-called ‘Magnitsky laws’ in various jurisdictions are turning unilateral sanctions into normalised instruments for the international promotion of the rule of law. However, the considerable regulatory and executive flexibility introduced by these laws is at strain with the fundamental requirements of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Despite a growing literature on sanctions, a systematic and comparative assessment of Magnitsky laws against both the national and international requirements of the rule of law is still lacking. This paper offers a first comparative analysis of the compatibility of US, Canadian, UK, and Australian unilateral sanctions laws with the formal and procedural principles of the rule of law that constitute the common core of both its national and international notions. By analysing the formal aspects of the legal basis, design and application of these laws, our study identifies and conceptualises the legislative techniques that enable the normalisation of Magnitsky sanctions. We find that these techniques, which we name the ‘generalisation’ of sanctions laws, are not inherently incompatible with the rule of law, but so far national legislators have failed to ensure the right balance between the flexibility introduced by such techniques and the rigorous requirements of legality. The principled recommendations we propose based on our findings seek to help lawmakers around the world to strike the right balance between form and flexibility.

The UK proudly describes its longstanding commitment to the International Court of Justice as a sign of its broader commitment to international adjudication and, in turn, the international rule of law. This article calls into question this narrative suggesting that, despite official pledges and rhetoric to the contrary, the UK cannot be said to have truly accepted the authority of the Court to scrutinize its conduct, nor to have consistently acted in a manner that is respectful of that institution. To the extent that the UK wishes to present itself as a genuine supporter of the international rule of law, this article posits that it should reformulate its approach to the Court with regard to both its contentious and advisory jurisdictions.

Advancing the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs in a coordinated manner constitutes one of the core tenets of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. Its profound implications are primarily reflected in the dialectical relationship between the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs, as well as the fundamental requirements and guiding principles for their coordinated advancement. This proposition draws upon multiple intellectual foundations, including the theory of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, the theory of major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics, progressive concepts of modern international law, and the fine traditional Chinese culture. It resonates with the current era, aligns with the overall balance between domestic and international situations, and demonstrates the path to building a human community with a shared future through the rule of law while providing legal support for the realization of key national strategic goals. It is of great overall contemporary significance both internationally and strategically. At present, the focus should be on advancing the rule of law in foreign-related affairs through the following pathways: properly handling the relationship between the two “pairs of rule of law,” strengthening the strategic framework for the rule of law in foreign-related affairs, enhancing the development of foreign-related rule of law systems, deepening the study and application of international law, and bolstering the development of a talent pool for the rule of law in foreign related affairs so as to advance the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs in a coordinated manner.Advancing the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs in a coordinated manner constitutes one of the core tenets of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. Its profound implications are primarily reflected in the dialectical relationship between the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs, as well as the fundamental requirements and guiding principles for their coordinated advancement. This proposition draws upon multiple intellectual foundations, including the theory of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, the theory of major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics, progressive concepts of modern international law, and the fine traditional Chinese culture. It resonates with the current era, aligns with the overall balance between domestic and international situations, and demonstrates the path to building a human community with a shared future through the rule of law while providing legal support for the realization of key national strategic goals. It is of great overall contemporary significance both internationally and strategically. At present, the focus should be on advancing the rule of law in foreign-related affairs through the following pathways: properly handling the relationship between the two “pairs of rule of law,” strengthening the strategic framework for the rule of law in foreign-related affairs, enhancing the development of foreign-related rule of law systems, deepening the study and application of international law, and bolstering the development of a talent pool for the rule of law in foreign related affairs so as to advance the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs in a coordinated manner.Advancing the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs in a coordinated manner constitutes one of the core tenets of XI Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. Its profound implications are primarily reflected in the dialectical relationship between the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs, as well as the fundamental requirements and guiding principles for their coordinated advancement. This proposition draws upon multiple intellectual foundations, including the theory of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics, the theory of major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics, progressive concepts of modern international law, and the fine traditional Chinese culture. It resonates with the current era, aligns with the overall balance between domestic and international situations, and demonstrates the path to building a human community with a shared future through the rule of law while providing legal support for the realization of key national strategic goals. It is of great overall contemporary significance both internationally and strategically. At present, the focus should be on advancing the rule of law in foreign-related affairs through the following pathways: properly handling the relationship between the two “pairs of rule of law,” strengthening the strategic framework for the rule of law in foreign-related affairs, enhancing the development of foreign-related rule of law systems, deepening the study and application of international law, and bolstering the development of a talent pool for the rule of law in foreign related affairs so as to advance the rule of law in domestic and foreign-related affairs in a coordinated manner.