Search

The modern phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has lasted for over three decades. Since the independent republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan emerged in 1991, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh has been at the centre of these countries' foreign and domestic policies. Using Robert Entman's theory, this article examines speeches about possible remedies to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey between 2002 and 2022 and identifies frames that these leaders create over the conflict's resolution. By enhancing our understanding of how state leaders frame their perspectives on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for external audiences, this article demonstrates the complex challenges in achieving a peaceful resolution. Understanding these framing strategies is crucial for comprehending the underlying motivations and interests of the involved parties and sheds light on the challenges faced in resolving the conflict through peaceful means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the use of international arbitration as a mechanism for resolving cross-border intellectual property disputes. It discusses the rise of arbitration in resolving global commercial and investor-state disputes, as well as its application to intellectual property disputes. The article highlights the benefits of arbitration in intellectual property disputes, such as confidentiality, flexibility, and cost-efficiency. It emphasizes the importance of having an effective and efficient method to resolve intellectual property disputes in the increasingly interconnected global economy. The text also discusses the role of international institutions, treaties, and bilateral investment treaties in shaping the resolution of these disputes. It mentions the rise of arbitration as a preferred method for resolving global disputes and the impact of national law on investor-state dispute resolution. The text concludes by mentioning the increasing use of arbitration in resolving international intellectual property disputes and the benefits it offers compared to traditional litigation. [Extracted from the article]

Peacekeeping is helpful in resolving civil wars, but there is little chance of peacekeeping operations or other international peace-building interventions for many conflicts. How do internal wars stabilize in the absence of meaningful international involvement? Two key factors, the government's political space for bargaining and the relative power of armed groups, help to explain when it is possible to reach either stable cooperation between states and armed groups or negotiated settlements. We analyze three conflict trajectories—"long-term limited cooperation" arrangements, state incorporation or disarmament, and ongoing conflict—to show that the paths to stabilization are often ethically fraught and empirically complicated but exist even when international involvement is off the table. We use quantitative and qualitative data to study the relationships between armed groups and governments in much of post-colonial South Asia, including during periods of little or no violence. Understanding these trajectories provides policymakers, analysts, and scholars with useful tools for identifying policy options and political trade-offs as they seek to reduce the human costs of war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research of wartime diplomacy is becoming increasingly important under the influence of global challenges that threaten international security and stability. This study is devoted to the investigation of wartime diplomacy as a tool for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The article provides a theoretical and legal research of wartime diplomacy in the context of pacific settlement of international disputes. The fundamental international legal acts that enshrine the basic principles of pacific settlement of international disputes are processed and their content is characterized. The main criteria for distinguishing between diplomatic and judicial means of resolving international disputes are proposed: the legal framework, the form of implementation, the subjects of influence and the nature of the result achieved. A brief historical discourse on the formation of the institution of diplomacy is formed and approaches to the definition of the concept of “diplomacy” are detailed. By using general scientific and special, empirical and theoretical, quantitative and qualitative methods of scientific research, the phenomenon of wartime diplomacy is detailed through the prism of the proposed criterias, in particular, identifies the features of this category through its legal framework, forms of implementation, subjects of influence and the nature of the achieved results. The purpose of wartime diplomacy is formulated. The goals, forms and methods of wartime diplomacy in the context of the issues under study are highlighted. The research also examines the wartime diplomatic tools aimed at preventing or resolving international conflicts, in particular: diplomatic conferences, сonsultations, congresses, meetings. Particular attention is paid to “peace conferences” as means of implementing military diplomacy, and three types of peace conferences aimed at resolving conflicts are distinguished: a conference that either follows a “major” conflict or is held to negotiate the termination of one of them; a conference to promote “general” world peace or to mitigate and resolve the outbreak of a conflict; global conferences [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investment arbitration, with its unique demands for transparency due to the public interest, is an especially promising arena for AI technologies. This transparency push and the judicialization of processes make investment arbitration increasingly amenable to technological innovations. However, the full potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in streamlining international investment arbitration case management remains largely untapped. The key to unlocking this potential lies in digitalization of data and procedures, and inter-institutional collaboration to share data. The literature regarding the use of technology in international arbitration mainly focuses on AI and its potential use in international arbitration in the future. While much of this literature speculates about the future, a holistic understanding of the present state of technology in international investment arbitration is crucial. This article spotlights the advancements achievable in case management in international investment arbitration using today's available technologies. The current state of AI technology is primed for handling straightforward procedural tasks. Yet, these modest tasks occupy significant bandwidth in the agendas of arbitral institutions and tribunals. Once comprehensive digitalization is achieved, and AI technologies are integrated into international investment arbitration case management adeptly, that will be a significant step towards more expeditious and cost-effective arbitration procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The duty to give reasons in arbitral awards has a mixed history. While it can be traced back to the second part of the 20th century in England, it has been part of accepted practice in civil law countries for a long period. It has become the norm in international arbitration, both in commercial disputes and in investment disputes. While the duty to give reasons is, in general, positive, this article suggests that many international awards tend to be too long. This prolongs the arbitration proceedings and increases costs—both in terms of the arbitrators' fees and the costs that the parties to dispute must bear while waiting for the award to be issued. To tackle this problem, the article examines the required scope of reasoning in international awards; it then discusses why many international awards tend to be too long. Finally, it suggests ways in which awards can and should be shorter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the idea of creating a fair and balanced multipolar world, highlighting the shift away from unipolarity and bipolarity. It acknowledges the rise of the Global South as a driving force behind this trend, leading to a decentralized distribution of power in the international system. The article emphasizes the challenges of inequality and the erosion of sovereign equality in global development and international relations. It stresses the importance of international law and cooperation in establishing a just and equitable international order. The text also discusses China's advocacy for an equal and orderly multipolar world based on principles of mutual respect, fairness, and justice. China believes that an international order grounded in international law is crucial for stability and progress. The article concludes by calling for the upholding of the UN Charter and the promotion of the rule of law in international relations to achieve an equal and orderly multipolar world. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the potential implications of the use of national security arguments in international trade to justify the race to subsidize microchip production. Topics discussed include role of international law in regulating state economic behavior, Article XXI security exception, potential for a World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) dispute on semiconductor subsidies, and recommended approach for handling Article XXI.

Standard-essential patent royalty disputes have typically been litigated in U.S. federal district courts, but patent owners have recently started to file suit in courts across the globe, leading to issues of comity, anti-suit injunctions, and increased litigation costs. International arbitration provides a unique forum for parties to litigate these royalty disputes and avoid, or at least lessen the burden, of these issues. This Article explores the advantages and disadvantages of using international arbitration to resolve standard-essential patent royalty disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In September 2023, the United Kingdom passed the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act ("Legacy Act"), which grants amnesty to anyone who discloses information regarding murders, disappearances, or other unsolved crimes during the period known as "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. The Legacy Act's amnesty provision is expected to hinder the peace process in Northern Ireland and in turn, avert accountability for serious international crimes. This Comment considers to what extent the Legacy Act's amnesty provision violates the Good Friday Agreement, the peace accord ending decades of conflict in Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention's humanitarian law provisions. Further, this Comment analyzes an emerging international human rights custom prohibiting amnesty laws in peace agreements and the Legacy Act's position within that paradigm. Finally, this Comment contemplates how the European Court of Human Rights may rule in the case lodged by the Republic of Ireland against the United Kingdom. It also considers the possibility of an individual complaint against the United Kingdom to ensure that accountability is enshrined in the peace process. Alternatively, the United Kingdom should consider drafting a new law or amend the Legacy Act to exclude the existing amnesty provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of international arbitration in maintaining world peace and security has been largely through the peaceful settlement of international disputes as well as the development of arbitration precedents regarding international law governing the settlement of international disputes. Today, the growing role of non-state actors as new subjects of international law has become increasingly important. In addition, international and non-governmental organizations have played a constructive role in the gradual development of international law. In this study, by examining some important international arbitration cases, we seek to answer the question of How the International Arbitration has been influential in resolving disputes between governments and non-governmental actors and non-governmental actors with each other, in maintaining world peace and security and in developing international law. After analyzing the practice of international arbitration, the author comes to the general conclusion that when diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes are fruitless, the best and most effective solution is to refer to arbitration. In fact, the arbitration can resolve the dispute at an early stage and prevent it from escalating into hostilities. Accordingly, at the end of this research, suggestions addressed to the diplomatic system are also presented.

"China's Approach to Addressing International Hotspot Issues: Concepts, Principles and Practices" explores China's role in resolving global hotspot issues. The article discusses China's motives and strategies in conflict resolution, emphasizing its desire to enhance global influence and its adherence to traditional Chinese culture. China's approach is based on principles such as impartiality, non-interference, and constructive engagement. It seeks to harmonize differences, maintain inclusiveness, and promote cooperation. China's practices have been widely supported and applauded, and its approach is seen as a fundamental change from previous military approaches. China advocates for dialogue, consultation, and improved relations among countries to foster peace and stability. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores the current system of international investment law and dispute resolution focusing on their asymmetric nature and calls for rebalancing. Topics include the prisoner's dilemma in international investment law, the reason for sovereign states' defection in setting regulatory standards for foreign investors after signing an investment treaty and the key aspects of reforms of international investment law such as reforms at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

The fundamental principles of international law are initially imprinted at the abstract level of the legal experiences of nations, as guiding ideas of a social nature which, as time goes by and their viability is proven, require normative protection at the international level through appropriate regulation. This article analyses the content of each of the ten fundamental principles of international law which are fully established in the United Nations General Assembly Declaration (UNO) no. 2625 (XXV)/1970 ”on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter”, and in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) adopted in Helsinki in 1975, respectively: the principle of the sovereign equality of States, the principle of self-determination, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes, the principle of good faith fulfilment of international obligations (pacta sunt servanda), the principle of cooperation, the principle of the inviolability of frontiers, the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, on the premise that the general principles of law, by virtue of their generality, applicability and binding force, are also fundamental not only to national systems of law but also to international law, in whose sphere of application they are used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In scientific literature the issues of legality of Russian Federation succession in the UN, excluding of RF from the UN or suspension of its membership are considered separately or in context of the general question of the UN reformation. On the other hand, from the practical standpoint these issues are not divided and are raised as one request for the limitation or termination of RF activity within the UN. Besides almost always specialists mention that this issue is political one and, respectively, existence of political will shall be sufficient ground for the termination/ suspension of RF membership in the UN. However, participation of state in the UN or suspension of its membership is not completely a political question and seriously depends on legal instruments of this organisation. The purpose of this article is consideration of legal aspects of the issue of RF termination/ suspension of membership in the UN and investigation of all variants of achieving this goal, considering statutory documents and practice of the organisation, and specification of the most successive approaches in limitation of RF participation within the UN. Considering statutory documents of the UN and situation in question there are three possible ways of influence of RF participation in the UN: i) excluding of RF from the UN; ii) rising of issue of legality of RF succession of USSR membership in the UN; and iii) suspension of RF membership in the UN. Termination or suspension of RF membership in the UN taking into account its veto right in the Security Council to date is impossible. However, these actions may be taken if scenario which was implemented to SAR in 1974 would be implemented - namely non-acceptance of RF delegation credentials and non-admission for it to participate in the activity of the General Assembly session. In this case it will be possible to raise within the Security Council of the issue of RF suspension or termination of membership with further transference of respective recommendation to the General Assembly. However, this route largely depends on political reasons for instance possibility of GA Credentials Committee to give respective recommendations on non-acceptance of RF delegation credentials. The scenario which minimize political factor is request of the General Assembly to the International Court of Justice to give advisory opinion on legal grounds and conditions of state succession of membership in the UN. Depending on the ICJ answer it may be possible to raise within the legal dimension issue of RF illegal succession of USSR seat in the UN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (LPICT) is a journal that focuses on the settlement of international disputes. It covers the procedural aspects of international adjudication, which is an under-researched area of public international law. The journal has been a valuable resource for academics and practitioners in the field. The current issue includes articles on various topics related to international dispute settlement, such as the extinction of disputes in international law, the validity of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and the role of the European Court of Human Rights in shaping a general principle on the exercise of the international judicial function. The issue also includes book reviews. The Co-Editor-in-Chief, Chester Brown, expresses confidence that readers will find the issue to be of great interest. [Extracted from the article]

Material reconstruction after the First World War was closely linked to German reparations, yet it is curiously underrepresented in the historiography of the Treaty of Versailles as well as in studies on interwar Germany. In the Weimar Republic, political leaders, economic actors and large parts of the population supported the idea of sending building material and even labourers to neighbouring countries. This far-reaching planning process began before and continued after the signing of the peace treaty, as the Allies remained hesitant but not fully hostile to the German proposals. Material reparation potentially mobilized a wide range of goods and labour, and it was thus particularly prone to expectation, but also to disappointment in a broad segment of the population. Against the backdrop of war destruction and the international peace negotiations in 1919, this article investigates the way in which European reconstruction was discussed formally and informally in Weimar Germany. By focusing on the communicative channels and media that promoted German participation in building work abroad, it discusses how expectations were raised, managed and disappointed at the intersection of foreign and domestic policies. While there had only been minor destruction in German territory between 1914 and 1918, the republic's political culture proved to be deeply affected by the material reconstruction on the European continent, even though most of the far-reaching plans did not result in building sites on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the arbitration of disputes with international organizations and access to justice issues. Topics discussed include settlement of international disputes by arbitration such as the case between France and UNESCO, arbitration between international organizations and private parties that are mostly contractors, arbitration as an alternative remedy to satisfy the right of access to justice, and the affordability, transparency and enforceability of arbitration.

The disputes in the South China Sea have been at an impasse for decades. Phases of escalation and de-escalation alternate, but there has been little significant progress towards a sustainable solution. This is surprising since resolution mechanisms exist, most notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) but also a number of other options including some developed by lawyers, political scientists and historians. The question is not whether the conflict is resolvable, but whether the various actors have the will to resolve it. This article argues that the willingness to resolve the disputes through compromise varies depending upon the type of nationalist narrative that prevails in the claimant country and how closely that narrative is linked to the system of rule. To this end, the nationalisms of the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and the People's Republic of China are contrasted. It follows from the analysis that the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, insofar as they are unable to obtain their maximal claims, have an interest in maintaining the conflict, as it can be a useful, albeit risky, tool for legitimizing their one-party political systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the role of the Astana International Financial Centre's (AIFC) common-law judiciary in the evolution of commercial laws in the former Soviet republics and around the world. Other topics include the evolution of corporate and securities laws, securities market regulation, and the role of the AIFC court in resolving civil and commercial disputes in the Commonwealth of Independent States.

This article reviews international tax policy, treaties, and the nature of disputes to challenge common beliefs as to what states want in international taxation and what the interests are in tax disputes. It argues that states are implicitly part of all tax disputes on both sides of the dispute and that the taxpayer versus revenue conceptualisation is inadequate. It calls for a reconsideration of thought in these areas if progress is to be made in justice in international taxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China attaches great importance to and actively participates in the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Action Plan, revising bilateral tax treaties with other countries multiple times to proactively address tax dispute cases. However, since 2016, there has been a significant increase in new tax dispute cases, highlighting the urgent need for China to enhance its capacity in resolving international tax disputes and establish a comprehensive and efficient dispute resolution system. This article analyses the current operation of China's international tax dispute resolution mechanism, identifying issues such as the need for optimisation of bilateral tax treaties, inefficiencies in the operation of the mutual agreement procedure, and inadequate taxpayer participation. Additionally, the necessity and feasibility of introducing a mandatory arbitration mechanism in bilateral tax treaties are addressed, providing specific design recommendations for such mechanism. Furthermore, alternative tax dispute resolution mechanisms are also explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Foco (Interdisciplinary Studies Journal) is the property of Revista Foco 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.)

This paper aims to describe and assess the dispute settlement mechanisms available to States in the context of space and telecommunications activities. Disputes either between private actors or between private actors and States are beyond the scope of this research. The choice to examine mechanisms and procedures for the settlement of international disputes in these specific areas stems from an elective affinity between these sectors, given the existing interaction between them. At a first level, the paper highlights the importance of mechanisms to prevent the creation of international disputes, both in the field of space law (mainly through Art. IX of the Outer Space Treaty) and in the field of international telecommunications (Arts. 45 para. 3, 48 of the ITU Constitution). Further, the general scheme of peaceful settlement of international disputes, as enshrined in the UN Charter not only applies to the disputes in question but is further specified in the context of space and telecommunications law (Liability Convention, Art. 56 of the ITU Constitution), with a clear orientation towards the use of diplomatic rather than judicial means of resolution. Last but not least, if the settlement of disputes through diplomatic means fails, the preferred judicial mechanism is that of arbitration, as it is clearly demonstrated by the Claims Commission of Art. XIV LIAB, the PCA "Optional Rules for Arbitration" of space disputes, the mechanism of Art. 41 of the ITU Convention as well as the relevant "Optional Protocol". The specific options for dispute settlement show that, in view of the common interest of States in "international goods" of a technical nature, the actors involved are mainly interested in the non-occurrence of disputes rather than in their resolution through judicial means. And when they do so, they choose to resort to flexible resolution mechanisms (arbitration) rather than to ordinary international courts. • There is an elective affinity between telecommunications and space activities. • States are mainly interested in preventing disputes than to resolve those arising. • States opt for diplomatic resolution mechanisms instead of jurisdictional ones. • Ιf diplomatic settlement fails, the preferred judicial mechanism is arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution re-describes the work of the Rio Committee in international law concerning dispute settlement in the Americas between 1942 and 1947. The work of the Rio Committee constitutes a crucial doctrinal and institutional experience that underpins the fundamental transformations experienced in Pan-Americanism considering the meeting of the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogota, Colombia, in 1948, which led to the creation of the Organization of the American States. As an antecedent to the adoption of the Pact of Bogota in 1948, the doctrinal work of the Rio Committee and its draft treaties allow for a substantive interrogation of the complex relationship between regionalism and universalism in international law. More specifically, this article assesses the ways in which mechanisms of peaceful settlement of disputes in the Americas were accommodated under the universal legal framework of the United Nations, opening space for regional cooperation to continue evolving in the continent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the China-Philippines dispute over the South China Sea and its implications for the region's stability, highlighting the escalating tensions fueled by China's assertive actions and rejection of international court rulings. Topics include the strategic importance of the South China Sea, competing territorial claims, and the role of the U.S. in maintaining maritime order and freedom of navigation.

Negotiations with organized crime groups occur more often than realized, and raise complex questions of ethics, practice and policy. Currently, law provides few incentives for States to choose the path of negotiation, and thus the political costs and moral hazards remain very high and a mano dura ("firm hand") approach prevails. This paper examines some of the challenges faced by those who in good faith might initiate or participate in negotiations with such groups, offering an assessment of how those challenges can be mitigated and an inquiry, in particular, into how law and policy might be improved or reimagined to make such negotiation more feasible and effective in contexts of armed conflict or other situations of violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With regard to the position of States, some States commented on Article 54 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility. 1. The book under review is LI Yongsheng, I Lun Shouhaiguo Yiwaide Guojia Caiqu Fancuoshi Wenti [On Countermeasures Taken by a State Other Than an Injured State] i , Law Press, 2012, VI+323 pp.; preface; introduction; references and appendix; ISBN978-7-5118-4152-0. The practice of distinguishing the injured State from the State with legal interests other than the injured State was generally recognized by the Commission as a major progress on the issue of the injured State. [Extracted from the article]

Dispute settlement procedures under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) can be a great laboratory for observing judicial processes of exploring and testing the acceptability of multiple solutions to issues of interpretation through a battle of ideas among LOSC adjudicators. The analysis observes that LOSC tribunals tend towards two jurisprudential patterns when battling their ideas: (1) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) takes an implicit approach of deviating from previous case law of other LOSC tribunals; and (2) Annex VII arbitral tribunals have been quite straightforward when facing a diverging interpretative discourse. This article explains the institutional dynamics underpinning these two jurisprudential patterns. Calibrating judicial reasoning of the ITLOS is proposed, which would hopefully stimulate a vibrant battle of ideas facilitating coherent development of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

First, in terms of the definition as to whom the Code applies, the second Draft of the Code specifies that "adjudicators" means "Arbitrator and Judge". Counsel, members of secretariats, experts and others who are involved in ISDS proceedings face a similar ethical uncertainties and conundrums as adjudicators.[28] Separate codification will be required to regulate their conduct as the process of ISDS reform continues. The Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is one of the most promising reform proposals presently discussed in Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).[1] In a short period of time, the draft has already gained substantial interest and support among stakeholders, and adoption is likely in 2022.[2] In this article, I first put the Code in the larger context of the ISDS reform process, then explain its general content and highlight some of the main issues and related policy choices. Indeed, the absence of a common ISDS Code of Conduct is notable, as many domestic and international arbitral institutions and international courts have drafted their own ethical rules and specific codes for judges, counsel and other actors in international proceedings. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Public & Private International Law Bulletin is the property of Public & Private International Law Bulletin 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.)

Following a coup d'état or during times of internal conflict, multiple entities may emerge, each claiming to be the putative government of the State and competing for international recognition to that effect. However, only one government can be competent to represent the State in its foreign affairs. This anomaly raises issues for the international dispute settlement system, requiring international courts and tribunals to determine the government entitled to represent the State in active legal proceedings. This Article considers how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should approach these questions of recognition and representation. It first establishes that the Court has the jurisdiction to make procedural decisions as to the entity competent to represent the State in ICJ proceedings. However, not with standing this established power to decide, a survey of practice demonstrates that international courts and tribunals, including the ICJ, have developed a series of judicial avoidance techniques to avoid answering questions of recognition and representation, likely out of an awareness of the adverse normative implications that may arise from such a decision. The adoption of such techniques, while warranted in some specific circumstances, is not an approach the Court will be able to adopt indefinitely. In circumstances where the use of avoidance techniques is unfavorable or has gone on for too long, the Court should proceed to apply the substantive law of recognition--namely, the effective control test--to determine the government competent to represent the State in the proceedings. It concludes that the Court should not avoid applying established law, nor should it avoid exercising its power to render procedural orders on the representation of States with rival governments to the extent necessary to facilitate the administration of justice and to prevent the frustration of its jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Court and arbitration are the two most common dispute resolution methods, and they play an important role in international commercial dispute resolution, prompting research into the relationship between judicature and arbitration. This paper mainly focuses on the cross procedure between judicature and arbitration, studies the influence of judicature on arbitration, pays attention to the two-way interaction between them, clarifies the limits and boundaries of arbitration and judicature, analyzes the relationship between them within the cross scope, and clarifies the fact and legal scope of the two-way interaction between arbitration and judicature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The success of the New York Convention has made arbitration a preferred means of dispute resolution for international commercial transactions. Success in arbitration often depends on the extent to which a party may secure assets, evidence, or the status quo between parties prior to the completion of the arbitration process. This makes the availability of provisional measures granted by either arbitral tribunals or by courts fundamental to the arbitration process. In this Article, I consider the existing legal framework for provisional measures in aid of arbitration, with particular attention to the sources of the rules providing for such measures. Those sources include the New York Convention, the applicable lex arbitri, the institutional arbitration rules, and the arbitration agreement. I consider whether these sources provide a comprehensive and coherent framework for the availability of provisional measures. I then consider some of the ways in which the arbitration clause may be drafted to specifically take into account the often unanticipated, but always possible, need for provisional measures, providing ten rules for consideration of provisional measures when drafting an arbitration agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the implications and challenges of Brazil-China cooperation over Arctic affairs and effects of climate change over the Arctic region have attracted manifold interests in the last decades from several state and non-state actors. It mentions initiative can create strategic synergies for both countries and contribute to their common agenda of geopolitical rebalance of international order. It also mentions institutional reform of the Arctic Council.

In the world constantly from antiquity to the present day international conflicts are occurring and is leaving room for numerous discussions to access the study of these phenomena in different ways and also the same require solutions and one of the ways of resolving the different conflicts taking place in the world is the peaceful resolution of international disputes. International law, though in modern times, has a universal extension in some cases perhaps that not even coming to prevent different conflicts around the world, so we can say that the main postulate of the UN Charter which is the peaceful resolution of international disputes in some cases is not being achieved successfully such examples in recent years have been in the countries of the Middle Eastern region, Ukraine, etc. The international community even in the most modern times is essentially the Westfalian system. A special moment is when the states go to the international arena, here they interact with each other. But the problem is that there is no sovereign between them to lead them and create rules between them. In international relations all countries are aimed at realizing maximum interests. Maybe here is the source or cause of many international disputes. International disputes, in addition to occurring between states, can also occur among international organizations. All international conflicts are divided into legal and politics from here the means and principles of resolving international disputes even among international organizations are diplomatic and legal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the war in Ukraine and its implications for the international legal order. It examines the legal justifications put forth by Russia for its military intervention in Ukraine and the legal stance taken by Ukraine in response. The article also discusses the reactions of third states, including the provision of logistical assistance and military materials to Ukraine, and the impact of these reactions within the international community. The text also discusses the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, highlighting its responsibility for peaceful dispute settlement. The ICJ's binding decision to stop armed force in Ukraine is seen as a significant outcome, although there are limitations to its actions. [Extracted from the article]

With the universal architecture for peace and security centred upon the UN Charter of 1945 and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 being built on great power foundations, there are manifest problems when there is no consensus amongst those great powers in the face of existential threats to peace and security. The question considered in this article is whether the European Security Architecture (ESA), consisting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU), can forge a different and distinct path that can provide security for States and individuals while remaining within the international rule of law. In contrast to the executive-dominated universal collective security system, power and authority in the ESA are much more diffuse, fluid and overlapping, with a mixture of foundational documents ranging from the constitutional/supranational (the EU), contractual (NATO) and political (the OSCE), as well as a range of overlapping competences, powers and practice in: peaceful settlement; the promotion of human rights and democracy; the enforcement of fundamental rules of international law by non-forcible measures; collective defence commitments; crisis management; and nuclear deterrence. The ESA, though less constitutional in a hierarchical sense when compared to the UN/NPT system, promises greater connection between security and law, but is it capable of deterring and confronting naked aggression and other egregious violations of international law? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Debreceni Jogi Műhely is the property of University of Debrecen 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.)

The interpretation of "disputes concerning military activities" under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) rests on a sensitive balance between the protection of strategic interests of States and the need for peaceful settlement of international disputes. There, an essential issue arises how an adjudicative body acting under Part XV UNCLOS should assess the nature of conducts of State for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b). This issue was vividly raised in the dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation with regard to the detention of Ukrainian naval vessels and servicemen. In this regard, both the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the arbitral tribunal set out in accordance with Annex VII UNCLOS wrestled with this issue. This article examines the manner of the interpretation of the concept of the military activities for the purposes of Article 298(1)(b) by comparing the approaches taken by ITLOS and the Annex VII arbitral tribunal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite pervasive judicialization along the lines of public-court litigation, arbitration has largely missed the 'managerial turn' in judging that since the 1970s has pushed judicial systems worldwide to shift focus from adjudication to settlement facilitation. Over the past two decades, a transnational consensus appears to have emerged that settlement facilitation is not only compatible with the arbitrator's mandate but can actually sharpen arbitration's promise of efficient dispute resolution. But recent statistics continue to confirm anecdotal evidence of a gap in settlement rates between commercial litigation and arbitration, suggesting that arbitrators still fall more into the mould of a passive umpire than a proactive settlement facilitator. This article sheds light on structural barriers to settlement facilitation in the procedural architecture of institutional arbitration rules, explores causes for the lingering underdevelopment of settlement culture in the community of arbitrators and investigates arbitration's impact on the parties' settlement negotiation dynamics when 'bargaining in the shadow of the law'. Informed by insights from behavioural economics, the author develops a blueprint for building settlement facilitation more explicitly into institutional rules and makes the case for switching the default from requiring parties' express consent to providing for settlement facilitation by arbitrators on an opt-out basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cessation of violent conflict offers crucial opportunities to increase the likelihood that children's rights are respected, protected and realized in the post-conflict state. Peace processes—which include peace negotiations, peace agreement(s) and the implementation of peace agreement provisions—can be central to the realization of this objective. This article examines the concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child through the lens of process-based performance. The objective is to demonstrate contributions that the Committee can make to advancing children's rights at different stages of a peace process, often in combination with other actors and mechanisms seeking to do the same. After identifying some of the challenges associated with translating this potential into practice, suggestions are made to help bridge the chasm between potential and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What public pressures do leaders face in international disputes? Leaders often denounce foreign actions as provocations, triggering public anger and demands for restitution. Rather than generating a reflexive rally around the flag, we argue that leaders who invoke foreign provocations—whether hypothetical, remembered, exaggerated, or real—face heightened public disapproval if they fail to take tough action in the present. Across two survey experiments and a quasi-experiment involving US naval patrols in the South China Sea, we find that incidents construed as provocative increase public pressure on the Chinese government to respond or incur public disapproval. We discuss possible explanations, how government elites seek to mitigate public disapproval, and how such events can change the logic of coercion and deterrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the emergence of investor obligations in the international dispute resolution system (ISDS). Topics mentioned include the definition of responsibilities and its distinction in ISDS from burden, accountability, and corporate social responsibility, the common way of imposing obligations on investors, the analysis of relational responsibility and home state responsibility, and values that are linked with investor responsibilities.