The treatment of international commercial arbitration in the EU judicial area has been intensely debated, particularly in relation to the scope of the arbitration exclusion contained in the 'Brussels I Regime,' the three EU Brussels instruments on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The original Brussels Convention was replaced by the Brussels I Regulation, which was in turn replaced by the Brussels I Recast, the current EU legislative framework on jurisdiction. Arbitration was excluded from the scope of the Brussels Convention by virtue of Art 1(4), and the same arbitration exclusion is retained in Art 1(2)(d) of the Brussels I Regulation and the Brussels I Recast. Yet, the interaction of commercial arbitration with the Brussels I Regime in the EU remains controversial despite the arbitration exclusion. The controversy is largely based on the unregulated interface between commercial arbitration and the Brussels I Regime, which is created by the fact that neither the Brussels I Regime nor the New York Convention provide mechanisms to properly address the situation in which matters that are ordinarily addressed in international commercial arbitration may also fall within the material scope of the Brussels I Regime. It follows that international commercial arbitration based on the New York Convention and international commercial litigation based on the Brussels I Regime may interact in the process of the arbitral tribunals and courts of Member States exercising jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, as both instruments in any such interaction each require respect and obedience, but do not otherwise regulate their potential conflict, this can lead to an undesirable degree of uncertainty between the two regimes. The Brussels I Recast contains a new Recital 12 that provides greater clarity in relation to the scope of the arbitration exclusion in Art 1(2)(d). However, the Recital does not entirely resolve all the questions concerning the arbitration/litigation interface. Therefore, in view of the remaining problems which the Brussels I Recast did not specifically address, it is suggested in this thesis that: (1) the wording of the Treaties relating to the exclusive external competence of the EU should be made clearer; (2) specific rules that will allow the Member State court with jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regime the possibility of staying the litigation at the request of the arbitral tribunal should be included in the future revision of the Brussels I Regime. The proposed solution would not undermine the operation of the New York Convention; neither would it create exclusive external competence of the EU in aspects of international commercial arbitration, which is the main political concern of some Member States with regard to partially including arbitration within the scope of the Brussels I Regime.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) came into being due to a perceived need for international judicial settlement, whereas the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created for the purpose of specifically promoting international trade by reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade. Alternative structures for each institution are also considered, as is the older dispute settlement process of arbitration, by means of cases. It is a voluntary submission by both parties to a dispute, when they have agreed on the issues, but need external assistance to proceed further. As a type of judicial settlement, it is binding, can permit third party or non-state involvement, and is a precursor of international tribunals. In the WTO, one aim is to use cases to test conceptual points. The specific aspects of dispute settlement including the application of rules and procedures, and implementation and processes, will be discussed. The working procedures of the Appellate Body (AB) will be analysed in detail. Another aim is to compare with the ICJ, wherever possible. Legal concepts such as jurisdiction, judicial aspects of reasoning, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof will be discussed. The Appellate Body’s (AB’s) standard of review of panel recommendations and rulings will be analysed. Compliance and enforcement are compared between the two organisations. Economic and political considerations will also be touched on when relevant to this study. In the ICJ, the application of concepts such as judicial restraint and activism will be assessed, including the degree of inconsistency found in different cases. The implications of the different types of agreements between states that can lead to or have led to the ICJ’s jurisdiction will be examined, and the impacts assessed. The ambiguity involving provisional measures will be studied in detail. The ICJ’s relationship to the UN Security Council will also be assessed. The lack of monitoring or enforcement, and of no stated compliance timeframe are considered. The thesis will end with various future recommendations.

International arbitration, as an essential part of any modern legal system, needs provisional measures to protect the rights and interests of the arbitration parties while they are awaiting the final decision of the tribunal. The existence of a legal framework enabling cross-border enforcement of such measures is of great importance in the EU, which allows free movement of citizens, assets and trade within its single European market. However, the enforcement of such measures within the EU lacks a legal framework. This is due, primarily, to two interrelated reasons. The first is the failure of international conventions to address the issue of the cross-border enforcement of provisional measures and to resolve jurisdictional uncertainties between arbitral tribunals and national courts. The second reason is that the EU's attempts to remedy the shortcomings created by international conventions -via the Judgment Regulation ("The Recast") and decisions of the CJEU- have ultimately subverted the very system it sought to enhance. The aggregate effect of this failure has been overall increased complexity. This thesis will try to answer three questions: 1) Is it possible to find a solution to deal with the uncertain positions of arbitration agreements and proceedings within the EU, and can the suggested solution be utilised to help the regulation and use of provisional measures?; 2) Is it possible to harmonise the different approaches taken by Member States’ arbitration rules on the jurisdictions of national courts and arbitral tribunals in respect of granting provisional measures?; 3) Is it possible to achieve a cross-border enforcement mechanism for tribunal-ordered and court–ordered provisional measures (in support of arbitration proceedings) in the EU?In order to answer these questions, the thesis proposes the following: (1) Recognising an exclusive jurisdiction for the seat court to decide on the existence of the arbitration agreement; (2) Providing an exclusive jurisdiction for the arbitral tribunal to rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement after its formation; (3) Recognition of a supervisory role for the seat court in granting provisional measures and (4) Enforcement of tribunal-ordered measures in the form of awards. It is hoped that these suggestions will help determine the jurisdictions of arbitration tribunals and national courts in respect of provisional measures and arbitration agreements. It will also create a viable framework for cross-border enforcement of tribunal-ordered and court–ordered provisional measures. It is hoped that these suggestions will consequently help improve the efficiency of arbitration as a valuable form of alternative dispute resolution.

The ultimate aim of this thesis is to examine the legitimacy and procedural fairness of the asset-freezing legal systems1 as a counter-terrorism measure, in order to offer recommendations on how to reform the law in Jordan. To that end, it is argued that counter-terrorism measures generally undermine procedural fairness and relevant human rights. This thesis explores how sophisticated legal orders deal with the adverse effects of lack of legitimacy and procedural fairness in the asset-freezing counter-terrorism, in order to form a model that can resolve the defects in the application of the asset-freezing systems. To achieve this end, the thesis is divided into seven chapters. It starts with a brief introduction. Chapter 1, seeks to explore the development of the asset-freezing in the United Nations (hereinafter ‘UN’), the changes in its nature, and determines if the United Nations Security Council (hereinafter ‘UNSC’) is empowered to impose such asset-freezing obligations. Chapter 2, inspects the decision-making procedures involved in the asset-freezing against designated persons such as UNSCR.1267, and its descendants, and the observation of procedural fairness in the UN legal order. Chapter 3, examines the application of the UNSC asset-freezing systems by the European Union (hereinafter ‘EU’) and its procedures, and the observation of procedural fairness in order to explore its inconsistencies and flaws. Chapter 4, looks at the legal challenge to the UN and EU legal orders, the lack of judicial protection in the UN, and the possibility of compensating for this lack by the EU Judiciary based on the autonomy of the EU legal order to see if the EU courts have the capability to provide effective judicial protection and the extent of such judicial protection . Chapter 5 deals with the approaches followed in applying the UN, EU and national asset-freezing systems and their procedure in the UK legal order, also the observance of procedural fairness in these contexts. Chapter 6 examines the right to effective judicial protection and the approach followed to accommodate the security considerations in proceedings before the UK court. Chapter 7 explores the application of the asset-freezing systems in Jordan, the lack of procedural fairness and the limited judicial protection offered. Finally, the thesis presents concluding remarks and recommendations for law reform in Jordan.

This thesis investigates the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping in UN Peace Operations. On the one hand, GIS use has been assumed to increase the efficiency and coordination of multi-dimensional peace missions. On the other, the Western universalist epistemology underlying GIS is thought to render its application, particularly in non-Western contexts neo-colonialist. These two framings of GIS as either inherently scientifically progressive or politically oppressive are over-deterministic. I argue that the politics of GIS use is contingent upon the ways in which understandings of the map are negotiated in practice. As an ethnographic study of three UN GIS mapping sites (a field mission in Timor-Leste, the Cartographic Section at the UN headquarters, and the GIS Center at the UN Logistics Base), drawing on interviews with practitioners, the thesis gives an account of a) the role of GIS in the field mission, b) GIS practitioners’ management of the technology and their everyday interaction with their clients, and c) its organization within the United Nations. In the thesis I conceptualize an epistemological fault between the professional communities of mappers and their clients which organizes GIS use. This fault separates those who understand the map as political abstract model from those who see it as a mere image of the world. As a consequence, it also separates those who understand mapping as a political practice from those who see it as mere matter of logistics. The meaning and organization of GIS use is thus contingent upon how these different understandings are contested or affirmed in the interaction between mappers and clients. Overall, this thesis emphasizes the role of understanding technology, space and logistics in the context of the politics of Peace Operations.

Face aux nouveaux conflits armés en Afrique, généralement à caractèreinterne, même si le caractère international ou internationalisé n'est jamaiséloigné, l'internationalisation de leur règlement affecte tout naturellement lemodèle de reconstruction proposé.Les Accords de paix sont devenus les vecteurs, sinon, l'expression de cetteinternationalisation sans s'écarter de leur fonction d'instrument dereconstruction du pacte national. Le modèle de reconstructioninternationalisé qui en découle postule la mise sur pied d'un État de droitinternationalisé comme référant lequel s'appuie sur la justice internationalecomme garde-fou.Si ce modèle dans la pratique des États du panel sous examen dans cette étudereste globalement théorique faute de substantialité, il n'en demeure pas moinsla seule voie perfectible dans un monde aux intérêts aussi antagonistes avecune telle perméabilité des normes et ordres juridiques qui reflètentl'effritement de l'État classique et sa souveraineté.De telle sorte que dans les processus de paix, l'ordre international pénètre lenoyau dur de l'ordre interne pour pallier à ses défaillances structurelles, lerestaurer, non sans lui imposer un modèle de sortie de crise. Cette étudedémontre la nécessité d'enrichir ce modèle en fonction de paramètres internessans renoncer à l'universalité de ses valeurs et principes. / The latest armed conflicts in Africa are generally local, though potentiallyinternational or internationalised, white the internationalisation of theirresolution naturally impacts on the proposed models of reconstruction.Peace agreements have become the vector, if not the very expression, of thisinternationalisation, white still acting as instruments of the reconstruction ofthe national pact.The basic premise of the ensuing model of internationalised reconstruction isthe implementation of an internationalised rule of law that will act as a pointofreference while relying on the international criminaljustice system.This model is mostly theoretical in the panel of countries under study. Yet it isalso the only perfectible solution in a world based on such antagonisticinterests, and porous norms and legal orders leading to the erosion of thestandard model of state. As part of these peace processes, international orderthus supports failing states to restore them while imposing a way out of thecrisis.

The thesis critically analyses the legal problems associated with the recognition and enforcement of domestic and foreign arbitral awards in Saudi Arabia. The aim is to illuminate whether or not the new Saudi Arbitration Law 2012 (SAL) and the new Enforcement Law 2012 (SEL) will be able to resolve these problems. In the thesis, we investigate the reasons for the problems with regard to the SAL 1983, and then discuss the SAL 2012 in terms of the possibility of resolving such problems. Moreover, the study includes a semi-comparative study in the light of Sharia Law and international practice. The thesis deals with Saudi judicial practices by looking at a significant number of Saudi judicial cases that relate to the enforcement of arbitral awards. This is what enhances the view that the thesis will make an effective contribution to the field of arbitration. A number of legal problems, such as the lack of identification of the limited grounds for a challenge, the competent court to decide such a challenge, the arbitration having the authority of res judicata, and the potency of the competent court to review the merits of the dispute, should all be considered due to their negative impact on the enforcement process. In this thesis, we have concluded that the new SAL 2012 and SEL 2012 can cope with and resolve many of the legal dilemmas associated with the matter of the enforcement of arbitral awards. These new pieces of legislation will be able, to some extent, to reassure and comfort national and international parties without violating Sharia law. However, some potential legal obstacles may emerge in terms of the enforcement process as it relates to arbitral awards. Therefore, the author of the thesis believes that the level of satisfaction may not be as much as is hoped for.

This thesis seeks to provide an account of the role played by ideologies in acts of mass violence against civilians, such as genocides, murderous state repression, war crimes, and other ‘atrocities’. Mass violence of this kind has already received extensive study, with scholars frequently emphasising their belief that ideology is important. Until now, however, discussions of ideology have been held back by a lack of conceptual and theoretical development, leading to narrow portrayals of ideology’s role, vagueness over its relevance, and dubious assumptions about its theoretical implications. This thesis addresses these problems by building a more focused and integrative theoretical framework for analysing the ideological dynamics of atrocities. I engage in an extensive conceptual and methodological discussion, to establish the best way of defining and utilising the concept of ideology. In doing so, I emphasise how ideology can be important even for that majority of atrocity perpetrators who do not meet classic but misleading stereotypes of fanatical killers driven by burning hatred. I then detail my actual account of the ideological dynamics of deadly atrocities, which centres around the identification of six ‘justificatory mechanisms’: dehumanisation, guilt-attribution, threat-construction, deagentification, virtuetalk, and future-bias. These justificatory mechanisms describe sets of ideological processes that recur across different cases of violence against civilians, and which make that violence look permissible or even desirable to those who, in a variety of roles, carry it out. I then substantiate this account through three case studies: of Nazi atrocities, Stalinist oppression, and Allied area bombing in World War II. These cases demonstrate the cross-case applicability of the six justificatory mechanisms, and illustrate how the framework I offer allows us to construct more causally explicit, psychologically plausible, and comprehensive pictures of the way key ideologies feed in to the most destructive campaigns of violence against civilians.

The thesis explores the extent to which the UN post-conflict administrations are accountable towards the populations of the territories they administer. The post-conflict administrations temporarily assume legislative and administrative powers to support the peace processes, to help to resolve the sovereignty issues or to establish administrative structures that might be non-existent in these territories. The thesis argues that, while the exercise of these extensive powers entails the accountability of the UN, in practice this accountability is not effectively engaged. As opposed to other forms of accountability, the focus is on the international legal responsibility of the UN as the prominent and most meaningful form of accountability, in the accountability relationship between the administrator and the administered, which gives the populations of the administered territories the opportunity to challenge the acts of international administrations and seek redress. In exploring the legal responsibility of the UN and in line with Article 4 of the ILC Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, which states only an act of an international organization that constitutes a breach of an international obligation entails its responsibility, this thesis initially explores the extent of international obligations arising from, and the extent of applicability of, three bodies of law. First, the thesis discusses the applicability of international humanitarian law, the fundamental principles of which have traditionally been part of UN peace operations practice. Next, it considers the applicability of the law of occupation, which shares stark factual similarities with the UN post-conflict administrations. Finally, the applicability of international human rights law, which is consistently part of the applicable law in post-conflict territories, and the protection and promotion of which is consistently included in the mandates of post-conflict administrations is examined. The thesis argues that the simultaneous application these bodies of law would help to create a legal framework to engage the accountability of UN post-conflict administrations and this legal framework should be complemented by effective accountability mechanisms.

Interim Measures are viewed as an essential means to protect parties‘ rights in international commercial arbitration disputes. Most Arbitration Laws and Rules have recognised the arbitral tribunal‘s power to grant such measures. The success of this system relies on the court‘s assistance of the tribunal during the process. This relationship between the tribunal and the court is something vague under Egyptian Law, since there are no clear rules addressing the matter. Hence, this research examines the theories that explain the tribunal‘s authority and the relationship with the authority of the court. This study uses a comparative analytical approach in terms of analyzing relevant legal texts to determine the optimal legal approach to the issue. The purpose of the study is to address deficiencies in the Egyptian law – the Code of Civil Procedure and Egyptian Arbitration Law – and compare it with English, Scottish Arbitration Acts and international arbitration systems, laws, and practices. The findings of this research offer several recommendations that could help achieve a successful and smooth arbitration process. This study identifies and explains types of interim measures and explores the international practice of every type. It gives some important recommendations for future development and improvement of the Egyptian law. It also makes general recommendations that would help improve the efficiency of the English and Scottish laws.