Search

An “ethics explosion” is emerging in the international investment arena in many different ways. Along with the EU’s strong desire to regulate the ethical aspects of adjudicators’ duties in its latest generation of IIAs, whether already in force or still under negotiation, a growing number of non-European IIAs and Model Agreements also contain provisions that include references to ethics and sometimes additionally provide a code of conduct for investment adjudicators. As a logical consequence of this, ICSID, hitherto the heavyweight par excellence in the investment resolution field, has also underlined the growing importance of ethical issues in the course of its on-going rule amendment process. In the same vein, since 2017, the UNCITRALWorking Group III has been reflecting on the need for and potential content of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform and has devoted special attention to ISDS court members. As the winds of change are pointing towards the creation of a Multilateral Investment Tribunal, the need to count on an all-embracing code of conduct with a vocation for universality is becoming more evident. ICSID has responded to these global perspectives by partnering with UNCITRAL to present a 2020 Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. In spite of the fact that the Code of Conduct is still at draft stage, it is worth devoting this chapter to analyzing its content and paying attention to the justifications and clarifications provided by its institutional authors. This also entails indirectly analyzing other recent codes of conduct, which are compared with the new ICSID-UNCITRAL proposal.

The side effect of relentless industrialization has come up in the form of environmental degradation. Environment related issues have been steadily going up especially in the developing countries like India where the awareness about environmental sustainability and environmental governance is at its lowest. Thus, the state of environment is in a very pitiable condition. Though there are numerous environment related enactments which have endorsed the concept of sustainability and environmental protection, the preservation of the environment is in the state of a big question mark. Though the legal implications for non-compliance under the enactments namely, Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (Water Act), Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 (Air Act), Environment (Protection) Act 1986, Public Liability Insurance Act 1991, Biological Diversity Act 2002, National Green Tribunal Act 2010 (Jawaid et al. 2018) etc., are stringent still the environment related issues are increasing manifold. This paper analyses the legal implication for non-compliance under 8 specific environment related enactments and suggest measures in the form of environmental tax to be imposed on the pollutant industries to deter the environmental degradation.

The demand for judicial attention will continue to exceed the supply of judicial time. Various solutions have been suggested to counter the rising caseload. Examples are a reduction of the number of court applications, an increase in the number of judges, and improving the efficiency of the courts with the introduction of appropriate case and court management instruments. Court management and case management are critical components within an efficient judicial system. They depend on the court structure and arrangements within and between the courts both from a horizontal and from a vertical point of view. The structural design of a judicial system depends on multiple factors, including legal culture and policy. This contribution explores, from a comparative perspective, the theories of case management, the role of managerial judges, and the interrelations between court structure, court management and case management. It is evident that case management is dependent on the structural arrangement of courts. In particular, the availability of specialized courts, the flexible composition of the tribunal that corresponds to the complexity and the importance of the case, and the interplay between superior and inferior courts are all critical in ensuring effective case management.

Although jurisdictional fact is a ground of judicial review in both England and Australia, its doctrinal approaches are different in these legal systems, as will be demonstrated in this chapter. In terms of the English law, the status and application of the ground are shown to fluctuate in the legal reasoning of cases such as R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Khawaja [1984] AC 74 (HL), E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49, R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8 and R (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal [2013] UKSC 19. The analysed distinctive elements of English legal culture were reflected in the pattern of flexible doctrinal approaches and legal reasoning applied in these cases. Conversely, the ground is far more entrenched with a relatively clear application in defining an issue as jurisdictional error in Australia. This is because the approach functions well within the Australian landscape. This was mainly demonstrated by the legal reasoning in Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc. v Ross Mining NL & Ors (1999) 46 NSW LR 55 and Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135.

This chapter discusses Mischief Reef developments since the late 1990s. First, it examines China’s decision to reinforce its position on the reef in 1998 and of how the shifting regional balance of power in favor of China impacted approaches to the dispute. It considers fluctuations in Manila’s relationship with both the US and China. It also discusses the strategic context behind “Mischief Reef II” in 1998. The chapter looks at the factors that contributed to a relatively peaceful period of stability from the late 1990s until the late 2000s. The cautious optimism that followed an ASEAN-led “Declaration on a Code of Conduct” for maritime disputes in 2002 and progress on joint resource exploration is then examined. It shows how potentially dangerous incidents, “salami slicing” strategies and “cabbage tactics” by China in particular, and behaviour designed to emphasize and exaggerate claims continued to complicate this dispute. The chapter also examines the China’s extensive construction work on the reef, creating “facts in the water”, especially between 2013 and 2016. The import of a ruling against China’s legal claims and activities by an international arbitral tribunal in July 2016 also receives attention, illustrating the challenges involved in finding a legal resolution.

The Chapter covers contributions from the Asian region to the development of the Law of the Sea, such as the notion of archipelagic States, rules concerning international straits, concern for landlocked states, the challenge of exploitation of deep sea bed resources and related technology transfer, and principles concerning maritime delimitation as linked with equidistance and equity. It analyses key cases involving Asian countries on the issue. Not all is convergent, however, In particular, with the competition for resources and overlapping claims. While some maritime disputes have lent themselves to dispute settlement, others are intractable and difficult to resolve. A case is point is the heavily contested fate of the Spratly Islands which has been addressed by an international tribunal.

This chapter contains an analysis of the influence of the English and Australian legal cultures on error of law and jurisdictional error, particularly in a judicial review of the decision of a tribunal or inferior court, a body with a restrictive clause according to the legislature. The section devoted to the English law begins with an examination of the flexibility accorded to the courts when applying the jurisdictional fact doctrine before turning to the contemporary approaches in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL), Regina (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28 and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22. It is demonstrated that the English courts determined the grounds of judicial review based on various justifications and doctrines. This was different from Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 and Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531, in which the determination of the scope of judicial review was confined to jurisdictional error based on the framework of separation of powers prescribed in the written Constitution and statutory construction. It is pointed out that these different doctrinal approaches were driven by the different English and Australian legal cultures.

India is a groundwater economy and is the biggest user of groundwater in the world. We use 25% of all the groundwater that is extracted globally, much ahead of the United States and China, other major groundwater users. River water disputes are common in India, and one of the most significant disputes that has dominated the life and politics in Southern India is the Cauvery river water dispute. The Central Government constituted the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 1990 to apportion the waters equitably between the competing riparians. In calculating the available water resource in the river basin, the Tribunal excluded groundwater as an apportionable resource. Ten years later, the Supreme Court passed a judgment to reapportion the waters, and it reversed the finding of the Tribunal concerning groundwater. The Supreme Court considered groundwater as a relevant factor in apportioning the Cauvery surface water. This Chapter examines the factors that influenced the Supreme Court’s decision to include groundwater as a relevant factor in effectuating equitable apportionment to resolve an interstate river water dispute. It does so in the backdrop of some developments regarding equitable apportionment as applied in India and in the United States.

Recognition is reciprocal and through treatiesit secures an extant Indigenous political authority. From this perspective, the colonial presumption of sovereignty as an hegemonic authority that the state exercises over Indigenous peoples is illegitimised. A reconsideration of the nature of Indigenous citizenship must logically follow. The idea that citizenship carries meaningful political capacities for Indigenous people, just as it is a worthwhile political status for others, raises questions about the workings of public institutions and whose interests they should be structured to serve. Neither citizenship nor sovereignty are static expressions of political authority or political possibility. They reflect who belongs and who does not. This chapter shows that in New Zealand, the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that the Treaty of Waitangi was not a cession of Maori sovereignty to the British Crown, requires more expansive thinking on the meaning of political authority and what unceded authority means for the nature of contemporary sovereignty and citizenship.

The primary purpose of adopting plea bargaining at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was to save judicial resources and promote efficiency. The prosecution could amend the indictment after the defendant pleaded guilty as a result of plea bargaining. Although the accuracy of such a plea was not subject to substantial review, the ICTY having to hold a full trial could be avoided, and a sentencing hearing would follow. From the perspective of conventional procedural theory, this practice impeded the process of establishing the truth. The ICTY jurisprudence shows that the truth is not independent and that different forms of truth serve different purposes. Thus, the truth can be further divided into two forms: case facts and the historical record. Plea bargaining improved the quality of the historical record, which was expected to provide a consensus basis for reconciliation while not undermining case facts regarding individual responsibility. In this sense, truth can be negotiated. However, there is no guarantee that this multifold truth will be widely accepted; thus, the goal of implementing international humanitarian law and promoting reconciliation cannot be fully achieved. The ignorance of some details due to negotiation will not undermine the acceptance of the relevant truth; however, the misinterpretation of sentence reductions and the restricted range of participants in the process of plea bargaining will do so. The truth should be negotiated among a larger group to promote its acceptance. Historians may be in a better position to lead such a negotiation. However, it is much harder to reach a consensus basis than a plea agreement.

This chapter first describes the historical background and establishment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the ‘Tokyo Tribunal’). By comparing this effort with the failed attempt after World War I and discussing the lessons learned therefrom, the author commends the act of allowing major war criminals to appear at international trials after World War II as a pioneering undertaking in human history. He elaborates on what preparatory efforts were made during World War II, and how the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals were established step by step. In the latter part of this chapter, the author provides a thorough legal analysis on the question of jurisdiction of the two tribunals, mainly in terms of the three categories of war crimes and with an emphasis on the Crimes against Peace, which leads to a discussion of individual responsibility and other legal questions. The chapter ends with a clarification of ‘Class-A War Criminals’.

Following a general description of the Tokyo Tribunal in Chap. 1, in Chap. 2 the Tokyo Charter and the organizing of the Tokyo Tribunal are introduced, showing us where the Trial takes place and the physical circumstances, who the judges and the President of the Tribunal were, how they were selected, and what the International Prosecution Section was and what their responsibilities were. However, the author’s criticism is not hidden regarding the arrangements of Japanese and American counsels for each war criminal and of their unscrupulous behaviors before the Tribunal. The author then continues to introduce the Tribunal’s administrative personnel and their responsibilities during the Trial, such as the Clerk, the Language Section, Language Arbitration Board, the Administrative Management Department, Marshal of the Court, and the Provost Marshal. All his narrations are reinforced by his understanding of the charters and the discrepancies between the civil law and common law traditions.

In 2016, when the National Green Tribunal suspended the environmental clearance for the mega-hydropower projects on Nyamjang Chu and Tawang Chu, it became one of the most important judgments won by the Monpas. The judgment took into consideration the concerns of the local population. However, beyond the socio-religious importance, this chapter attempts to address the major concern of flooding that is deemed to be caused by the building of dam projects on the Nyamjang Chu and Tawang Chu rivers in the Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh. Estimation of the proximity of the inhabited places from the proposed dam site was carried out. The altitude has been observed to see if any natural and regular conditions can raise the water levels of the rivers up to these villages and towns, causing floods. The chapter has then sought to provide visual interpretation and inference analysis using standard geospatial methods of digitisation to gauge the extent of the human–environment impact that the dam projects would incur. Cross-sectional maps were generated to identify and analyse certain relevant aspects of topography and its suitability for building of dams while carrying out the analysis in the chapter. The chapter is an attempt to support the comprehensive ethnographic study carried out for the project, but it has limitations due to the constraints of resources and methodology. It is a preliminary level assessment which has vast scope to be augmented with detailed study.

Despite China’s silence, the Tribunal examined two jurisdictional issues: whether preconditions to compulsory dispute settlement had been fulfilled and whether automatic limitations and optional military activities and law enforcement activities exceptions to jurisdiction applied. The preconditions refer to the absence of other agreements between the Philippines and China to settle disputes relating to the Convention and to the exchange of views regarding the settlement of the dispute. The Tribunal concluded that both preconditions had been fulfilled. The CBD was not an agreement to resolve disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention, nor did it involve compulsory dispute settlement entailing binding decisions. The diplomatic documents submitted by the Philippines proved that exchanges of views had taken place. The Tribunal found that the automatic limitation referring to the coastal State’s sovereign rights in the EEZ did not in fact constitute a limitation; that the military activities exception was not applicable, given China’s declarations that its construction activities were for civilian purposes only; and that the law enforcement exceptions only referred to certain disputes over marine scientific research.

The Tribunal, agreeing with the Philippines, interpreted Article 192 in such a way as to encompass the protection and preservation of endangered species and fragile ecosystems, particularly coral reefs. In examining Philippine Submissions No. 11 and 12(b), the Tribunal drew on other provisions of Part XII, notably Article 194(5), and on the CBD and CITES. It concluded that China had failed to comply with its due diligence obligation to prevent the harvesting of endangered species, but not that China had failed to prevent dynamite and cyanide fishing. The Tribunal, after examining the reports of independent experts, concluded that China’s construction activities in the Spratly Islands caused devastating and irreversible damage to the marine environment and that China had breached Article 192. China had also breached the obligation to cooperate with other States bordering the South China Sea under Articles 197 and 123 by ignoring their protests at China’s construction activities. The Tribunal, unable to ascertain whether China had carried out an EIA, under Article 206, concluded that China had breached Article 205 by failing to communicate the results of any such assessment.

How adjudicators write their decisions can be enormously important in achieving credibility and acceptance for a tribunal’s decisions. International tribunals, such as the WTO panels and Appellate Body, face greater difficulties than domestic tribunals in developing an individual style. The DSU influences the judicial style of the AB, but does not mandate a particular stylistic approach. The AB’s approach to interpretation under Article 31 of the VCLT and its reliance on the dictionary in its interpretation seems to have contributed to the development of a formalistic writing style and, over time, longer and more complex reports. In addition, the AB has generally eschewed any rhetorical or dramatic flourishes in its writing. The chapter also discusses various factors affecting the style of the AB, includes the textualist approach of the VCLT, differences in spoken languages, differences in legal tradition, the requirement of collegiality, the importance of candour, and the personalities of the adjudicators. Ultimately, the style of a tribunal like the AB may depend mostly on the individual styles of its members.

I was at a friend’s wedding in Hyderabad. Amidst the food and frolic, sarees and jewelry, I noticed a teenage girl loitering on the periphery of the celebrations. She was neatly dressed, yet looked poor. She was not a child- as she did not run around with other kids. She was not a guest- she did not chat or eat sweets. She was not a family member, nor a servant of the family- she did not seem busy. Who is this girl? I asked. I was told she has come to ‘help’ in the wedding. “It is a tradition in our village that the Golla (Shepherd) community send one person to assist in celebrations in the homes of Reddy landlords. Since no adult was available or could be off work, this girl was sent. She goes to school, to 7th standard.” An archaic caste practice had turned a school going girl into a domestic servant for the weekend. What was this girl’s legal status? She was not labour as she has no labour contract, terms of work, modes of payment. She was hoisted into an alien environment as ‘something that has no name’. It is this obscure location in which caste connects to domestic labour. The ambiguity of status and location makes it impossible to position it within the legal system. This paper will find the connection between caste and domestic labour: not only do they both exist in the sphere of social normativity and are underrepresented in law but also caste normativity, entitlements, labour relations inform and influence the domestic laour situation in India. The theoretical framework will expound on the concept of ‘caste as extraction of labour’, use of free labour as an upper caste entitlement that has continued into the market and urban sphere. The last section will review how this reality gets reflected in law. I shall visit the Indian case law to analyze how law has dealt with domestic labour and compared them with the UK Employment Tribunal Judgement in 2014 that decreed caste as ‘ethnicity’ under the Equality Act 2010.

Babovic argues that the judgement did not represent the end of the Tokyo Tribunal but its transition into the post-institutional phase of the Tribunal. This chapter observes the majority judgement and dissenting opinions as instances that offer legal and historical narratives for each stakeholder in the process. After the judgement is rendered, the window of opportunity opens for the review of the sentences which provokes the controversy regarding the international character of the Tribunal. The chapter looks at MacArthur’s decision not to review the sentences of Class A war criminals sentenced to death and correct the injustices in sentencing. Already in 1948, the US foreign policy towards Japan started to shift, but it failed to be reflected in the looser policies regarding war criminals.

This chapter discusses the regulatory provisions to be adhered by a firm entering into an M&A deal, which is majorly governed by but not limited to Companies Act 2013 and SEBI Takeover Regulations, 2011. As per Companies Act 2013, a new regulatory entity National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has been established for handling the M&A cases. The provisions of Companies Act are also explained through real-life case of Sun Pharma and Ranbaxy scheme of Amalgamation to help readers understand the regulatory aspects of M&A. The SEBI Takeover Regulations framework has been explained in detail to explain the meaning and role of various parties related to M&A, provisions related to triggering of open offer and disclosure requirements. The pricing of open offer based on SEBI prescribed methods has been explained with the help of numerical examples.

Babovic shows the internal struggles within the US administration when it comes to the degree of its leadership within the IMTFE. This chapter analyzes the establishment of the Tribunal through the prism of the inter-Allied rivalry that skillfully challenges US supremacy. The Commonwealth nations and their personnel play a crucial role in making the prosecutorial machine finally work and considerably contribute to the quality of the prosecutorial work. This particular moment in the Tribunal’s history is important for the ubiquitous imperative of speeding up the opening of the trial until public interest is still high. Another important topic in this chapter is the analysis of institutional mechanisms that are at the disposal of the Allies allowing them to influence occupation policies in Japan.

This chapter shows the rise of preeminence of the international law in the first decade of the twentieth century and in what way it is important for advancing foreign policy of the Great Powers at that time, with focus on the US and Japan. Babovic shows the nexus between the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference and subsequent institutional and contractual instruments adopted in the interwar period to limit war. The chapter focuses on the contested idea that war is an illegal and a criminal act upon which the new post-World War II international order is established and its relation with IMT Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunal.

In the concluding chapter, Babovic discusses limitations and few successes of the Tokyo Tribunal when it comes to legal, strategic, and political goals it intends to fulfill. It also analyzes the deep-rooted repercussions the Trial has upon the way in which the Japanese approach their past and war guilt. This chapter puts into perspective the expectations states can place into these judicial instruments of peace when used in post-conflict societies. Babovic concludes that international criminal tribunals remain mostly beneficial to hegemonic states and states they tend to patronize and to a lesser degree to states whose leaders they put on trial.

This chapter reveals the motives behind the omission of the mass atrocity committed against the population in the former colonies by the Japanese from the indictment despite the fact that the evidence was available during the Trial. Instances of rape, bacteriological warfare, human experimenting, and sexual slavery are unaddressed which comes with serious repercussions both legally and historically speaking. Babovic observes what was the purpose of partially including some of these crimes in the Indictment. The chapter also looks at the instances of Allied atrocity against Japan and shows in what way they have complicated Japan’s understanding of its own guilt.

International human rights law does not demand lay participation in criminal trials. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law” but it does not dictate the composition of the tribunal. In recent years, Taiwan has tussled with the extent to which public access to observing trials should be transformed into direct public participation in the outcome of those trials. To date, however, the role that lay people will serve in the adjudication process remains contested. As Taiwan moves towards formulating a specific plan for lay participation, this chapter questions whether proponents of lay participation are expecting too much of the proposed reforms and encourages greater focus on how lay participation might impact the rights of the accused.

After the war, the Allied Forces established a series of military tribunals in Asia to indict and prosecute Japanese war criminals. The United States tried Japanese war criminals at Shanghai, Manila and Guam; Australia conducted trials at Morotai, Wewak, Labuan, Rabaul, Darwin, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Maunus Island; Great Britain had trials at Singapore, Malaya, North Borneo, Burma, and Hong Kong; China had military tribunals at Beijing, Shenyang, Nanjing, Shanghai, Ji’nan, Guangzhou, Hankou, Taiyuan, Xuzhou and Taipei; the Netherlands tried Japanese criminals at Batavia (Jakarta); France established a military tribunal at Saigon; and the Soviet Union did their trials at Khabarovsk. The most significant and prominent of all the military tribunals, however, is undoubtedly the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, primarily because all the Class A war criminals were prosecuted at Tokyo. All the other tribunals tried only Class B and Class C war criminals. Of all the tribunals, only the Tokyo Trial and the Nanjing Trial indicted and prosecuted Japanese war criminals in connection with the Nanjing Massacre.

This chapter looks at the nature of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its provisions when it comes to war criminals which are source of contradiction. Babovic introduces the concepts of clemency and parole and their meaning for the war criminal program in Japan. The analysis of the US institutional disputes points out at the deep discrepancies when it comes to the approach towards the character of the war criminal program. Lastly, the chapter looks at the connectedness between the German and Japanese war criminal programs even in the post-institutional phase of the Tribunal.

The chapter introduces the Tokyo Trial and looks at its relationship with larger political, legal, and historical goals of the postwar international order. Babovic introduces the concept of international criminal justice and legal-based international order in relation to which the Tokyo Tribunal is analyzed. Babovic observes the Tribunal in two distinct moments of its activity—establishment and execution of sentences to show the evolution of the goals and the nature of justice and how these interact to give new interpretation of the Tribunal in relation to its utility to the parties involved. The chapter further delves into the central questions of the book and its main findings.

The Tokyo tribunal was the only court established by the Allies in Asia after WWII to try Class A war criminals. There were also a “quasi-Class A” court and a number of courts spread over the Asia-Pacific region trying Class B and C war crimes. The trials in these courts lasted much longer than the Tokyo Trials (1945–1952), but they were perhaps more complete than those carried out by the Allies in the Far East. This chapter focuses on those Asian Class B and C trials.

The issue of political stability, socio-political circumstances in host developing countries and the social, political and economic transitory nature of countries in transition are vital aspects for creating an investor-friendly atmosphere in those developing countries. A critical examination of some selected arbitral awards discussed in this chapter demonstrates that these particular political, socio-political and transitory status of these host developing countries form a significant contextual background for the investor-state dispute against these countries. However, a close examination of these arbitral awards covering the wide range of approaches that these tribunals have adopted will reveal that, in dealing with these political, socio-political and transitory issues, the current investment tribunal has largely been inconsistent and inadequate in their approaches. These contextual background of the host developing countries had both direct and indirect effects that led to the disputes in questions and the tribunals on several occasions have acknowledged and addressed the difficulties of these countries due to those political, socio-political and transitory circumstances in relation FET obligation of the host developing country, and it is concluded that, overall, the current tribunals give minimal importance to the political, socio-political and transitory circumstances in relation to the alleged breach of the FET standard against those host developing countries.

The Radclife Commission created a boundary between East and West Bengal. However many territories remained non-demarcated. The enclaves presented a confused picture where some of them were territorially belonging to one country while were under the sovereign rule of the other. A few sea border related issues too remain disputed. To address a few of their border related issue Bagge tribunal was set up but it could not resolved many of the major disputes in East between India and Pakistan. After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 India and Bangladesh promised to resolve their border related issues, however, it has taken forty one years for the two countries to accept the agreement on enclaves and adverse possessions.

Agents of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran have attempted to influence change from both the top-down (through policy, programming and law reform) and the bottom-up (through projects, campaigns and grassroots movements). Both approaches have significant limitations. Vandenhole et al. have argued that top-down/inside-track and bottom-up/outside-track approaches to change are not mutually exclusive and indeed may be more powerful in combination. Yet this idea raises difficult questions about prioritisation of objectives, design and sequencing of strategies, division of roles and the formation of optimal alliances (relationships) between different actors. In this chapter, the authors synthesise lessons learned from a number of case studies on human rights work in Iran, including President Rouhani’s drives for modernisation and internet freedom; the Iran People’s Tribunal; the Defenders of Human Rights Center; and a number of grassroots initiatives, including the women’s movement, the student movement and the environmental movement. After discussing what does and doesn’t seem to work so well, the authors put forward three prepositions to support human rights progress in Iran: 1. On strategies—couple values and interests with evidence, research, and analysis; 2. On targets—go beyond the ‘activist’ niche to empower everyday people in everyday life; and 3. On roles and relationships—break out of silos and build common ground.

What happens when the institutions responsible for doing justice fail the victims of mass atrocities? While global justice is now a popular demand, it remains a fledgling venture, at the margins of power realities. It is especially challenged in situations where the politically neglected and weak International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction to intervene. In contexts of impunity, the proponents of justice are forced either to abandon hope or to explore creative, informal alternatives that are not dependent on the narrow political whims and fortunes of decision-makers. A notable instance of such accountability entrepreneurship is the grassroots initiative that became known as the Iran People’s Tribunal (Iran Tribunal). The tribunal was a grassroots initiative inspired by the demands for justice by the ‘Mothers of Khavaran’, an organisation formed by women who had lost their children in the mass executions following the first decade of the 1979 ‘Islamic’ revolution in Iran. This chapter, written by the prosecutor of the tribunal, explores this unprecedented victim-driven initiative and its implications for global accountability, conceptions of power and the discourse of healing and reconciliation in the wake of mass atrocities.

Tribunals resolve millions of disputes each year, using final binding decision-making, and dispute resolution processes such as mediation. This chapter explores practical ways in which tribunals can be responsive to participants in the process. This includes being responsive to the materials presented by participants. Strategies are canvassed, such as appropriately using discretion; weighing and balancing information; encouraging agreement; and empowering participants without prejudicing others. Process design is discussed as an important aspect of responsiveness, as well as the effects of good communication, exploring participant interests, and clarifying facts and the law. Providing opportunities for participants to resolve their dispute by agreement and the factors to consider in dispute resolution processes are outlined. Case studies are provided that illustrate real world examples. The authors argue a tribunal can generate a robust process, which is not only fair and delivers timely outcomes but also satisfies participants’ needs by paying attention to the factors discussed.

Here, we examine two caricatures of Wittgenstein in order to show in relief a more accurate portrait of his later philosophy and its significance for education. Curry’s attempt to appropriate Wittgenstein to Philosophy of Geography backfires but gives occasion to explore his geographic metaphors in relation to his ambling method of philosophical investigation. Learning is shown to be the gradual absorption of rich cultural surroundings or background for going on as others do, knowing one’s way about but also sharing in the genius loci of one’s place. Friesen’s attempt to portray Wittgenstein as a ‘tragic Philosopher of Education’ based on a ‘German-first reading’ of his use of the word Abrichtung (training) also dissembles under closer scrutiny. Friesen’s apparent tribunal of Wittgenstein makes it seem like philosophers drawing on him for progressive purposes in education are somehow naive or duped in overlooking the dictionary definition of Abrichtung. Exonerating colleagues from disparagement, we show how closer reading of Wittgenstein’s remarks on training, teaching and learning take us not into pedagogy but into deeper aspects of post-foundational epistemology, where meaning no longer hinges on correspondence with an external reality.

In this chapter, 19 relevant case reports from the Lands Tribunal for Scotland are analysed using the method of qualitative content analysis. These cases present detailed discussion on functionings lost by affected landowners due to either compulsory acquisition or injurious affection caused to their lands. The chapter concludes by presenting a list of 15 subjectively valuable functionings derived together from all 19 case reports.

Amici curiae are individuals or organisations who do not have the right to participate in the dispute as parties but want to intervene because the outcome of the proceedings may affect their interests. The participation of amici in investor-state arbitration has been justified as a useful tool to pursue different interests, inter alia, the promotion of greater transparency, accountability, and openness of this dispute settlement mechanism. However, opening up investment arbitration to the participation of non-disputing parties may raise several concerns, namely as regards the identity and interests pursued by the so-called ‘friends of the tribunal’. This chapter analyses the provisions of TPP’s Chap. 9 on amicus curiae intervention and discusses to what extent they balance the perceived benefits and potential drawbacks of this mechanism of public participation in investor-state arbitral proceedings. The social acceptance of the TPP will depend, to a large extent, on whether it offers solutions that effectively tackle the criticisms that have been thrown at investor-state arbitration, especially those that relate to a perceived lack of transparency and public participation. However, this goal can only be truly achieved if amicus curiae participation creates added value and does not undermine the purpose of peaceful and orderly settlement of investment disputes.

It is proposed to consider in this chapter in some detail, issues relating to jurisdiction, choice of law, and the enforcement in Sri Lanka of foreign arbitral awards. It is noteworthy that the Arbitration Act No. 11 of 1995, which is currently in force in Sri Lanka, applies uniformly to the conduct of purely domestic arbitration proceedings as well as to arbitration proceedings conducted in Sri Lanka involving one or more foreign parties and to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Decisions of the courts in Sri Lanka have emphasized the consensual nature of arbitration and adopted a policy of minimum judicial intervention into arbitration proceedings. The courts also have been supportive of arbitration and endeavoured to assist and safeguard the arbitral process. The chapter will examine the provisions of the Arbitration Act that attempt to deal with certain issues involving conflicts of jurisdiction and the doctrine of Kompetenz-kompetez which seeks to empower the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. In particular, an effort will be made to examine in some detail, questions involving jurisdiction that arise in the context of section 5 of the Arbitration Act, in comparison with the law and practice that exist in other South Asian jurisdictions. The choice of applicable law has always been a problem that has confounded arbitral tribunals when dealing with cases that have cross-border connections and connotations, and it is noteworthy that the Sri Lankan Arbitration Act recognizes the concept of party autonomy in regard to choice of law. An attempt will be made in the chapter to show how Sri Lankan arbitral tribunals and courts have dealt with issues arising from competing norms of national law as well as foreign law. Prior to the enactment of the Arbitration Act in 1995, there were many issues pertaining to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. While the Arbitration Act has resolved most procedural issues regarding enforcement of foreign awards, there remain many grey areas, particularly in regard to the concepts of arbitrability and public policy, and the interpretation of the enforcement provisions of the Sri Lankan Act, which seek to give effect to the international obligations that arise from Sri Lanka’s ratification of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards without any reservations. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka have dealt with some of these issues, which will be examined, in detail in this chapter. An attempt will be made in the chapter to explain how Sri Lankan arbitral tribunals and courts have dealt with issues arising from competing norms of national law as well as foreign law.