Search

Principles of international environmental law have been entered into international environmental law corpus by case law and international peaceful relations. In international relations, due to different international issues, disputes are commonplace. Today, the international disputes on the rise are the environmental ones, which threat human life and therefore the environment is backed by criminal guarantees in some cases. The scope of international issues in the international environmental area suffers from gaps. So, by referring the disputes to these tribunals, whose decisions are legally binding, one may believe that in addition to settling disputes peacefully, they have played a complementary and declaratorydevelopmental role in identifying important environmental principles in international relations. Among the very important principles of international environmental disputes are the principles of non-harmful use of land, precaution, sustainable development and etc. which, in the form of customary law, play an important role in regulating the relations and preventing the armed conflicts. Perhaps, if countries did not refer to international authorities for settling their disputes, there would not exist any applicable principle in international environmental law. In this article, we will examine and declare these principles by international legal decisions, and recognize the unique position of referring to legal means of settlement of international disputes.

This article proposes a matrix analytical framework (MAF) based on a tri-dimensional analysis of the economic, political, and social implications of investment disputes. It considers that an appreciation of the three dimensions should be the starting point for the design of investment dispute settlement systems or their reform. Different methods of dispute resolution should be applied to the different categories of investment disputes, depending on the level of their involvement in these dimensions. At different historical stages, different emphasis may be placed on certain dimensions. Applying such a matrix analysis, specific control techniques to exclude, economically filter, politically control, or socially monitor the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism are analysed to match the varied needs of different investment disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A strong dispute resolution mechanism is a core component of FTAs which must provide a reliable and stable venue to address meritorious claims and deliver enforceable results and demonstrates the commitments of each government to comply with the contractual obligations. Without this commitment, businesses will be reluctant to risk capital. FTAs require legal foundation incentivizing stability, transparency, and compliance with obligations. In the area of dispute resolution, the U.S. FTAs with Arab countries share some commonalities. However, the US - JO FTA clearly differs from other U.S. FTAs with Arab countries. Areas of difference include treatment of perishable goods, appeal, panel report, and implementation of panel report. The dispute settlement mechanism in the US - JO FTA can be improved in several concrete ways. The purpose of the article is to analyse and assess the dispute settlement mechanism provided for by the US - JO FTA. The article concludes by proposing improvements to the US - JO FTA dispute resolution mechanism and additions to its existing provisions. These improvements will address potential concerns and should contribute to a higher utilization of the FTA as well as serve as a template for a more expansive US-led regional FTA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

US - Upland Cotton (DS267), known as the cotton dispute, revealed the limits of the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Understanding and pitted US agricultural and trade policies against Brazil's comparative advantages in cotton cultivation. More than any other case, this trade dispute exposed the underlying challenges to advancing the Doha Development Agenda. This article explores US compliance with the Dispute Settlement Body's successive rulings from 2005 to 2009 by examining executive compliance efforts in the face of congressional foot dragging, and how such efforts shaped the evolution of this trade conflict and framed its resolution in October of 2014. The examination confirms the pivotal role that congress played in preventing full compliance, but also reveals the importance of executive administrative discretion, legislative advocacy, and trade policy orientation in determining the outcome of the cotton dispute and its eventual impact upon US global trade liberalization leadership, including the US government's strategic withdrawal from the Doha round. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Appellate Body is considered the jewel in the crown of the WTO dispute settlement system. However, since it blocked the re-appointment of Jennifer Hillman to the Appellate Body, the United States has become increasingly assertive in its efforts to control judicial activism at the WTO. This was a hot topic in the corridors at the eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference, in Buenos Aires. This article examines judicial activism in the Appellate Body, and discusses the efforts of the United States to constrain the Appellate Body in this context. It also analyses US actions and proposals regarding the dispute settlement systems of the NAFTA, in order to place the WTO debate in a wider context. It concludes that reforms are necessary to break the negative feedback loop between deadlock in multilateral trade negotiations and judicial activism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critiques of investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) as a neoliberal or neoimperial legal technique frequently pivot on the notion that it entails a 'loss' of sovereignty by states to corporations. This article argues for a critique of international investment law that does not echo regressive 'post-neoliberal' politics which seek reclaimed sovereignty, or equate post-colonial sovereignty with the moment of decolonisation. 'What happens to sovereign power as it drains away from the modern state, to the extent that it does drain away? When it flows out of the nation-state, does it flow into some other container?' 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the circumstances in which cartel damages claims can be arbitrated in the European Union (EU). Also cited are the effectiveness of international arbitration in resolving disputes in international business community, as well as the arbitrability of tortious claims as shown in several cases like the Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV.

Since the 1950s, the international community has increasingly recognized the fragmentation of international law, including of international dispute resolution. Inconsistent interpretations by different dispute settlement mechanisms have led to uncertain and confusing outcomes. In a recent case, Phillip Morris Asia v. Australia, the investor subjected disputes arising under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement to an investor-state arbitral tribunal rather than to the WTO. The investor claimed that the host state, by failing to keep its promise under TRIPS, violated the umbrella clause in the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between it and the investor's home state. An umbrella clause requires a state party to observe any obligation or commitments it enters into with respect to investments of the other state party. Investors frequently use umbrella clauses to bring claims arising outside of the BIT in investorstate arbitral tribunals. The Phillip Morris Asia v. Australia tribunal dismissed the case without answering its jurisdiction over TRIPS claims. Yet the investor's argument here further broadened the scope of the umbrella clause and garnered much attention. This Comment analyzes the validity of this argument and asserts that a broad interpretation may violate the WTO's exclusive and compulsory jurisdiction under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). It also argues the scope of the umbrella clause largely depends on its language and context. The Comment proposes two solutions for this issue: first, states should clarify the scope of the umbrella clause through its drafting; second, the WTO should clarify its jurisdiction over WTO claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outside options can induce bargaining asymmetries that influence the outcome of international negotiations. This article focuses, however, on the impact of a regime-provided inside option on the willingness to cooperate and the distributive outcomes reached. Using a new data set covering 417 maritime boundaries, that fall under the Law of the Sea framework, this article shows that the ability to find agreement is closely linked to the distributional outcomes that states are able to realize. Different potential gains from cooperation result in bargaining asymmetries that influence both the ability to settle a maritime boundary and the distributive outcome reached when cooperation succeeds. Our evidence shows that the opportunity to invest in long-term projects that require legal certainty, such as offshore oil, facilitates cooperation and is associated with smaller distributional adjustments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In establishing the ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN political elites emphasised their commitment to the rule of law. The definition of the rule of law adopted in the ASEAN Charter mirrored UN reforms that recognised the rule of law as interlinked with democracy and human rights. This commitment raises questions, given the various tactics employed by the grouping’s authoritarian and post-authoritarian regimes to silence dissent. This article critically assesses this apparent shift in regional governance. It first maps the inclusion of rule of law rhetoric in agreements since ASEAN’s foundation, and then examines the form and implementation of dispute settlement mechanisms. It finds that dispute settlement mechanisms have consistently retained the scope for protracted political and bureaucratic negotiation between disputing parties, and “opt out” clauses that enable their contingent application. These findings undermine claims regarding the development of a “rules-based community”, and indicate the continuation of rule by law rather than rule of law. The emphasis placed on ASEAN’s rule of law reforms by elites suggests, then, the rebranding of this political project in support of the ASEAN Economic Community so as to create confidence for investors in the region’s juridical environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The growing number of public policy measures challenged through investor‐state dispute settlement has raised critiques that international investment agreements could lead governments to avoid introducing new policy measures out of a fear that these could be challenged by foreign investors, often referred to as ‘regulatory chill’. While the body of work on regulatory chill is still in its infancy, there is a need to interrogate extant studies to better understand the state of the knowledge and the methodological approaches being employed to produce an evidence base. Grounded in a critical review of the existing literature, this paper develops a conceptual framework of regulatory chill, identifying it as one possible policy response wherein investment agreements are internalised by policy makers as considerations during their policy decision‐making. Three distinct bodies of work were identified in the literature which helped to populate this framework, including analysis of investment treaty language and awards, interviews with policy makers to explore internalisation of such treaties, and case studies of suspected regulatory chill policy responses. The conceptual framework is intended to help drive forward a cohesive research agenda on regulatory chill that can underpin the ongoing investment treaty reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The South Asian region, while holding a prominent position in terms of attracting foreign direct investment, has been conspicuously less visible on the radar of international investment law (IIL) scholarship. In the rapidly shifting plane of IIL considering the recent backlash against the investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) system, South Asian countries are certainly set to play a critical role, if not immediately in the near future, in shaping the contours of IIL. This article is an attempt to contribute to the body of emerging IIL scholarship centred on South Asia. These countries, while simultaneously being preferred as an important investment destination by foreign investors, are also marred by an abysmal public health scenario. In light of the increasing interface between IIL and public health, as evidenced by the Philip Morris cases and the Eli Lilly case, this article undertakes an empirical study of the public health-related provisions present in the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and the free trade agreement (FTA) investment chapters of the South Asian countries, in order to assess the regulatory latitude that these countries would have if any public health-related measure were challenged under ISDS. The article concludes by finding that the number of public health-related provisions in the BITs of South Asian countries is considerably low. Thus, these countries should include public health provisions in their BITs and FTA investment chapters so as to enjoy greater control over their public health-related regulatory measures when challenged by foreign investors using ISDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of how disputes arising from Brexit are to be resolved, and by which body, is one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union and the envisaged future relationship between the UK and the EU. The legal issues related to withdrawal are further magnified in complexity due to the nature of the EU itself, which does not neatly fit into the category of a traditional international organization. The UK has repeatedly stated that it will not accept the continued role of the EU Court of Justice in the UK legal system after withdrawal. Any dispute settlement system must also respect the constitutional requirements of the EU legal order, most notably, by not infringing on the autonomy of EU law. This article discusses some of the various models from international dispute settlement that could be used to inspire a dispute settlement system in the Brexit context. It discusses dispute settlement in the withdrawal agreement and the role of the Court of Justice during and after a transition period. It then discusses the challenges of designing a dispute settlement system for the future relationship agreement. While aspects of these various models could be replicated, there is no dispute settlement system that is fully appropriate to deal with the various complexities and challenges of Brexit. The paper proposes the establishment of a standing international tribunal to resolve disputes arising from Brexit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Usak University Journal of Social Sciences / Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi is the property of Usak University Journal of Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have mostly been hostile since 1947. The animosity has grown in complexity from various territorial disputes to frequent allegations of cross-border terrorism in the post-9/11 era. This article first makes a case for involving Jirgas, a traditional dispute resolution mechanism among Pashtuns, for improving peace dialogues between both countries. It presents evidence of the traditional acceptability of Jirgas by Pashtuns on both sides of the border and assesses previous official bilateral attempts of using Jirgas. It then proceeds to propose some new policy recommendations focused on national reconstruction of Afghanistan, which include involvement of the Taliban as an important local stakeholder. The dual key argument then becomes, first, that since Jirgas have long-standing local legitimacy and acceptability both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, using the strength of their social recognition would allow higher-level bilateral negotiations between the neighbours, enhancing the effectiveness of new and locally more credible forms of multi-track diplomacy. Second, reinvigorating the Jirga system would allow the Afghan people themselves to engage in fuller multi-dimensional debates on sustainable modalities for their own future, on terms to be set by them, not outsiders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We develop a model of trade agreements with renegotiation and imperfectly verifiable information. In equilibrium, trade disputes can occur and can be resolved in a variety of ways: Governments may settle “early” or trigger a court ruling, and in the latter case, they may implement the ruling or reach a post‐ruling settlement. The model yields predictions on how the dispute outcome depends on the contracting environment and how it correlates with the optimal contract form. We find support for a key prediction of our model using data on the outcomes of actual trade disputes in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union has gained increasing importance in international mediation over the last decade. Driven by the powerful role assigned to the High Representative and the European External Action Service by the Lisbon treaty, the EU has been facilitating high-level talks between Belgrade and Pristina over their relationship since 2011. Although the signing of the Brussels Agreement in 2013 was a breakthrough, developments in north Kosovo suggest that the process might have significant shortcomings. This paper's guiding research question of how to assess mediation success addresses the existing gap between external and internal perspectives. It introduces a comprehensive analytical framework to assess mediation success that combines several previously suggested ideas into a single framework. The question of how to measure successful mediation contributes not only to theory development but targets the interface between science and policymaking. The framework, as applied to the EU mediation efforts in the Belgrade--Pristina dialogue, has unveiled the in conclusive character of the process. Whilst being a success for the European Union, this paper argues a deficit in local legitimacy exists. Increasing levels of internal violence in Kosovo hint that it failed to fully address the root causes of the dispute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the jurisdictional, procedural and other issues on investment arbitration and settlements in 2017. Topics discussed include cases under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), investment disputes on foreign business filed before the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and debate on system reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS).

The article discusses the functions and activities of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2017 and challenges to its dispute settlement system. Topics discussed include the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, the U.S' imposition of anti-dumping duties on several products and restrictive measures on exports from China, the problem with the selection and appointment process in the Appellate Body and Russia's ban on importation of pig products from the European Union.

The article discusses the structure and judicial activity of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and dispute settlements under the United Nations Conference for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2017. Topics discussed include the election of some judges to the Tribunal including Oscar Cabello, Neeru Chadha and Roman Kolodkin and judgment on the maritime boundary dispute between Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean and settlement between Timor-Leste and Australia.

The determination of the elements, criteria and consequences of I jus cogens i must be based on the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and supported by adequate State practice. On the question of when a forum State should begin to consider the immunity of foreign officials, the Special Rapporteur appeared to believe that if the forum State simply initiated an investigation without taking binding measures against a foreign official, imposing obligations on that person or impeding the proper performance of their functions, there would be no immunity implications and the issue of immunity would therefore not come into the equation at that stage. The question of which State authority had the competence to make a final decision was an internal matter that belonged outside the purview of international law. The model clauses proposed by the Special Rapporteur to be included as an annex to the draft guidelines contained few examples involving Asian States; more could be done to represent the full diversity of State practice in that regard. [Extracted from the article]

In 2013, a suit was lodged before the US District Court in NY, invoking UN responsibility for the outbreak of cholera in Haiti. The outbreak is a tragedy not only because of its catastrophic consequences but because it was caused by the UN peacekeeping operation. To date, however, the merits of the claims have never been examined due to UN immunity. While the UN Charter provides for this immunity in an equivocal manner, the specification by the CPIUN allows for a straightforward determination of its content and scope. In contrast, section 29 of the CPIUN, which stipulates the UN’s obligation to provide alternative means for dispute settlement as a counterpart of its immunity, is an interpretative puzzle. Due to discrepancies over the interpretation of the provision, the Haiti cholera case has resulted in a stalemate. Against this backdrop, the present study aims to clarify the content and scope of the obligation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 12 July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ruled in favour of the Philippines in 14 of its 15 submissions against China's expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. The PCA declared that China's claims - defined by the nine-dash line - violate international law. The arbitral tribunal also asserted that Chinese reclamation and construction projects in the land features of the disputed waters infringe on Philippines' territorial rights. The ruling likewise found China guilty of destroying the maritime environment by building artificial islands and illegally preventing Filipinos from fishing and conducting oil exploration activities in the area. The PCA award to the Philippines illustrates the efficient and impartial dispute resolution mechanism of the UNCLOS as well as the short-term triumph of the Philippines' lawfare over China's realpolitik approach in the dispute. Unfortunately, the Duterte Administration has shelved the PCA ruling saying that enforcing it has a minimal chance of success. Instead, he has adopted an appeasement policy in exchange for China's goodwill and economic largess. The article concludes that the Duterte Administration's course of action lends credence to former State Councilor Dai Bingguo's statement that the PCA award to the Philippines is nothing more than a "piece of trash paper". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China is often portrayed as benign and peaceful. Yet, its assertive disposition on the South China Sea territorial disputes appears to contradict the "peaceful rise" narrative. China's relentless quest in strengthening features under its control and turning them into artificial islands equipped with military facilities have stoke fear of expansionism among the Southeast Asian claimant states and threatened the maritime influence and interests of the US in the region. This paper focuses on China's strategic culture to explain its policy considerations and Malaysia's approach in responding to changing developments following the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Tribunal ruling. The paper argues that firstly, China's strategic stance is two-fold - to neutralize US's regional dominance and to dissuade Southeast Asian states from their reliance on the US; and secondly, Malaysia's preference for a nonconfrontational approach that gives precedence to dialogues and consultations are insufficient in defending its sovereign interests and must therefore be aptly backed up by a more emphatic strategic posture both on the ground and in its diplomatic language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the post-World War II period, China and Vietnam have engaged in a number of territorial disputes between themselves. They can be categorized into two groups. The first group consists of disputes over Sino-Vietnamese borderlands and the Gulf of Tonkin and the second one is concerned with disputes in the South China Sea (SCS). While the former came to an amicable end by December 2000, the latter has continued to date with occasional hikes of tensions and stand-offs. Despite different trajectories that the respective categories have taken, their management appears to reflect what can be termed as the "Sino-Vietnamese Way of conflict management". This paper aims to identify the basic features of this type of conflict management from the standpoint of incompatibility management and, through comparison between the two categories of disputes, find reasons for the different outcomes between them. Major findings of this study are: First, the mutual trust that had been forged through fraternity between the two ruling communist parties and their readiness for mutual accommodation as a result played a crucial role in the successful settlement of the first category of disputes. Second, three issues prevent the full functioning of the Sino-Vietnamese Way of conflict management in the second category of disputes, which are: the exposure of the management process to nationalistic sentiments of the public; the existence of several complicating factors; and the division between the pro- China and pro-U.S. factions within the Vietnamese leadership. Third, several mechanisms to manoeuvre around incompatibilities, prevent crisis and reduce tension have been developed to compensate for the detrimental factors and appear to have been working fairly well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The territory contested in island disputes is often of low intrinsic value from the national security and economic perspectives. This generally implies a stable status quo where both sides prefer peace to war. Yet island disputes commonly produce a variation whereby states engage in some degree of 'hawk-talk'--more or less confrontational rhetoric and related, symbolically important policies. Theoretically, hawk-talk should be more likely when the disputing countries have a strong, nationalistically salient history of conflict and less likely when they have high levels of cooperation in other national security areas or economic relations. Hawk-talk is expected to beget more hawk-talk, thus to increase the ideological and diversionary political value of assertiveness in island disputes, and to limit or reduce cooperation. Nationalistically salient histories of conflict amplified by hawk-talk can most easily be shown to raise the stakes and risks in low intrinsic value disputes. Yet such histories are expected to have an even greater potential impact on high intrinsic value disputes. We illustrate this logic by analysing the low-intrinsic-value dispute between Korea and Japan over the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands. Both the theory and the case study imply that cooperation in other areas does not constitute a reliable antidote to hawk-talk--driven dispute escalation. Countervailing national interest ideologies, which emphasise other objectives imperilled by dispute escalation, are the most promising complement to increased cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Peace. This article examines whether the implementation of the Declaration can likely lead to the realization of the right to peace in a way that elicits sustainable peace within societies. Thus, diverging from earlier studies, it provides conceptual and practical critiques of the Declaration to evaluate the viability of the right. First, following an in-depth analysis of the Declaration, this article draws on peace and conflict studies to explain what sustainable intra-state peace entails. Second, it establishes that the liberal and positive elements of peace and the frameworks prescribed in the Declaration are inadequate to address horizontal inequalities across all relevant identity groups qua groups, which is required to elicit sustainable peace. Third, it proposes guiding principles to direct implementing institutions, particularly UN bodies and frameworks, towards diagnosing and tackling inequalities across collectivities, thereby complementing the prevailing individualistic human rights approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the main features of fast track arbitration by comparing the expedited procedure rules of all the major international institutions. While this is not a new procedure, it has certainly been the subject of much discussion within the arbitral community since the new ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions entered into force on 1 March 2017. Despite its advantages in terms of cost-efficiency and speed, fast track arbitration poses certain risks in terms of party autonomy, due process and public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article raises concerns about the impact of judicial delimitation on private exploratory rights existing in contested waters. These concerns stem from the tendency of judges to disregard any non-geographic factors during the process of maritime delimitation. This practice allows for the reallocation of the private rights in question and eventually creates tension between public international law and private law. This is discussed in the context of the Somali-Kenyan maritime dispute, which is currently under judicial consideration. The article will demonstrate that, insofar as international judges apply the standard doctrines of delimitation, the prospective judgment may cause the reallocation and, ultimately, the frustration of Kenya's private exploratory contracts in the disputed area. It suggests that a unitization agreement entered after delimitation may reverse this outcome. However, inasmuch as state cooperation lacks the cloak of international custom, the interests of private actors operating in contested waters remain at stake. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements establishes uniform rules concerning international jurisdiction founded upon choice of court agreements and the recognition and enforcement of judgments of the chosen court. It will help to facilitate parties' autonomy, enhance certainty and predictability and promote the free movement of judgments. This new litigation mechanism will provide parties an alternative in international dispute resolution in parallel with arbitration. After the Hague Convention's entry into force, it is relevant for China to consider acceding to the Convention. This article thus provides an overall comparison between the Hague Convention and the Chinese law, as well as an assessment on the judicial implications for China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Part XV of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC or the Convention) affords priority to section 1 of Part XV over the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions laid out in section 2. This article examines the jurisprudence that has arisen with respect to Articles 281–283 of section 1 of Part XV. Article 281 allows parties to the Convention by agreement between them to opt out of compulsory and binding dispute resolution. Article 282 is a choice of forum provision that allows parties to prefer binding dispute resolution under the terms of another agreement “or otherwise,” such as by way of optional declarations under the Statute of the International Court. Article 283 requires the parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention to exchange views regarding the appropriate means of settling that dispute before triggering the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions of section 2 of Part XV. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]