Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Series TitleSeries Title
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersContent TypeItem TypeDegree TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectCountry Of PublicationPublisherSourceGranting InstitutionTarget AudienceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
59,368
result(s) for
"International jurisdiction"
Sort by:
National Courts and the International Rule of Law
by
Nollkaemper, André
in
Courts
,
International and municipal law
,
Jurisdiction (International law)
2011,2012
Domestic courts contribute to the maintenance of the rule of international law by providing judicial control over the exercises of public powers that may conflict with international law. This book comprehensively explores this issue and focuses mainly on judicial control of exercise of public powers by states.
The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law
2008
The principle of complementarity is the corner stone for the operation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It organizes the functional relationship between domestic courts and the ICC. This is the first careful study of the historical antecedents of the principle of complementarity, which has become so central to the operation of contemporary international criminal law. The study draws upon the first efforts at international prosecution, after the First World War, and then traces the evolution of the concept through the drafting of the 1937 treaty on terrorism, and the post-Second World War tribunals. It examines in an exhaustive manner the work of the International Law Commission that led to the drafting of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, up to the deposit of the draft statute with the UN General Assembly in 1994. It considers the travaux préparatoires of the Rome Statute itself, in a most thorough manner. It also examines the post-Rome developments, particularly the original interpretations of the relevant provisions of the Statute by both the Office of the Prosecutor and the Pre-Trial Chambers. This is a study that is of intrinsic historical interest, but also one that may help to guide interpreters of the Statute in the years to come.\"The concept of complementarity lies at the heart not only of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it is in many respects the underlying paradigm of international criminal justice as a whole. In this important study, Mohamed El Zeidy has drawn on historical sources, tracing the evolution of the concept and then showing how it has become operationalised in the first cases before the International Criminal Court. This book belongs in the library of every international criminal lawyer\".Prof. William A. Schabas, OC MRIANational University of Ireland, Galway.
International court authority
International Court Authority challenges fundamental preconceptions about when, why, and how international courts become important and authoritative actors in national, regional and international politics. Examining global and regional bodies, this volume investigates how political and social contexts shape the authority of international courts.
Corporations and Transnational Human Rights Litigation
2004
Since the mid-1980s, beginning with the unsuccessful Union Carbide litigation in the USA, litigants have been exploring ways of holding multinational corporations [MNCs] liable for offshore human rights abuses in the courts of the companies’ home States. The highest profile cases have been the human rights claims brought against MNCs (such as Unocal, Shell, Rio Tinto, Coca Cola, and Talisman) under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States. Such claims also raise issues under customary international law (which may be directly applicable in US federal law) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations [RICO] statute. Another legal front is found in the USA, England and Australia, where courts have become more willing to exercise jurisdiction over transnational common law tort claims against home corporations. Furthermore, a corporation’s human rights practices were indirectly targeted under trade practices law in groundbreaking litigation in California against sportsgoods manufacturer Nike. This new study examines these developments and the procedural arguments (eg regarding personal jurisdiction and especially forum non conveniens) which have been used to block litigation, as well as the principles which can be gleaned from cases which have settled. The analysis is important for human rights victims in order to know the boundaries of possible available legal redress. It is also important for MNCs, which must now take human rights into account in managing the legal risks (as well as moral and reputation risks) associated with offshore projects.
Legitimacy of unseen actors in international adjudication
\"'Unseen actors' are vital to the functioning of international courts and tribunals, exercising varying levels of influence on the adjudicatory process and its outcome. The last few decades have witnessed an expansion in the number of international judicial bodies. Although these bodies differ in their institutional make-up and functions, a characteristic shared among them is their reliance on the contribution of individuals or entities other than the judicial decision-makers themselves. Unseen actors may take the form of registries, secretariats, law clerks and legal officers, but they also include non-lawyers such as translators, members of the medical profession and scientific experts. Some of these actors may be 'more unseen' than others but most remain nameless in the written decisions, and the extent of their contribution is generally unclear. The opaqueness of their role, combined with the significance of the judicial decision for the parties involved as well as for a wider range of stakeholders, raises questions about the impact of these unseen actors on the legitimacy of international adjudication as such. For example, an unseen actor's influence has formed a ground upon which an arbitral award was challenged, as substantial parts had allegedly been written by a legal assistant rather than the arbitrators themselves. The domestic court adjudicating the dispute in first instance set aside the award on a different ground, so it did not address this point; the case is currently pending on appeal. This book aims to answer such legitimacy questions and identify 'best practices', where feasible, through a multifaceted enquiry into possible common connections and patterns in the institutional makeup and daily practice of international courts and tribunals\"-- Provided by publisher.
The Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
by
García-Revillo, Miguel García
in
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
,
Jurisdiction (International law)
,
Law of the sea
2015
In The Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Miguel García García-Revillo offers an in depth examination of both the contentious and advisory jurisdiction of this major international judicial institution.
The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement
2009,2010
This book examines the application of treaties by domestic courts in twelve countries. The central question is whether domestic courts actually provide remedies to private parties who are harmed by a violation of their treaty-based rights. The analysis shows that domestic courts in eight of the twelve countries - Australia, Canada, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Poland, South Africa, and the United Kingdom - generally do enforce treaty-based rights on behalf of private parties. On the other hand, the evidence is mixed for the other four countries: China, Israel, Russia, and the United States. In China, Israel, and Russia, the trends are moving in the direction of greater judicial enforcement of treaties on behalf of private parties. The United States is the only country surveyed where the trend is moving in the opposite direction. US courts' reluctance to enforce treaty-based rights undermines efforts to develop a more cooperative global order.