IN ENGLISH Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the Czech Republic's BITs The purpose of this work is to assess whether the high number of investment cases the Czech Republic had to face was partially prompted by wordings of Czech Republic's BITs. The work focuses on clauses that pertain to jurisdiction of tribunal and admissibility of claim, as these are the first questions that are raised in every proceedings. The work consists of six Chapters. The first Chapter is introductory and outlines the issues that will be examined. The second Chapter defines the terms 'jurisdiction' and 'admissibility' and explains how the concepts relate to provisions of BITs. The third Chapter is dedicated to topic of treaty shopping. It explores cases against the Czech Republic where the issue of treaty shopping was raised, analyses the argumentation and provisions that were used in each case together with similar provisions contained in other Czech BITs, and suggests changes that should be made in order to make the clauses more effective against treaty shopping. The fourth Chapter examines the instance of parallel proceedings commenced against the Czech Republic. In a structure similar to the previous Chapter, it firstly analyses the awards and the BITs that were used together with the rest of the Czech BITs. Finally it...

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing “junk” science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts’ CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts’ credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise. Legal professionals’ (N = 150) and undergraduate students’ (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants’ decision making processes. Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.

Concrete domains have been introduced in the area of Description Logic (DL) to enable reference to concrete objects (such as numbers) and predefined predicates on these objects (such as numerical comparisons) when defining concepts. Unfortunately, in the presence of general concept inclusions (GCIs), which are supported by all modern DL systems, adding concrete domains may easily lead to undecidability. To regain decidability of the DL ALC in the presence of GCIs, quite strong restrictions, called ω-admissibility, were imposed on the concrete domain. On the one hand, we generalize the notion of ω-admissibility from concrete domains with only binary predicates to concrete domains with predicates of arbitrary arity. On the other hand, we relate ω-admissibility to well-known notions from model theory. In particular, we show that finitely bounded homogeneous structures yield ω-admissible concrete domains. This allows us to show ω-admissibility of concrete domains using existing results from model theory. When integrating concrete domains into lightweight DLs of the EL family, achieving decidability of reasoning is not enough. One wants the resulting DL to be tractable. This can be achieved by using so-called p-admissible concrete domains and restricting the interaction between the DL and the concrete domain. We investigate p-admissibility from an algebraic point of view. Again, this yields strong algebraic tools for demonstrating p-admissibility. In particular, we obtain an expressive numerical p-admissible concrete domain based on the rational numbers. Although ω-admissibility and p-admissibility are orthogonal conditions that are almost exclusive, our algebraic characterizations of these two properties allow us to locate an infinite class of p-admissible concrete domains whose integration into ALC yields decidable DLs. DL systems that can handle concrete domains allow their users to employ a fixed set of predicates of one or more fixed concrete domains when modelling concepts. They do not provide their users with means for defining new predicates, let alone new concrete domains. The good news is that finitely bounded homogeneous structures offer precisely that. We show that integrating concrete domains based on finitely bounded homogeneous structures into ALC yields decidable DLs even if we allow predicates specified by first-order formulas. This class of structures also provides effective means for defining new ω-admissible concrete domains with at most binary predicates. The bad news is that defining ω-admissible concrete domains with predicates of higher arities is computationally hard. We obtain two new lower bounds for this meta-problem, but leave its decidability open. In contrast, we prove that there is no algorithm that would facilitate defining p-admissible concrete domains already for binary signatures.:1. Introduction . . . 1 2. Preliminaries . . . 5 3. Description Logics with Concrete Domains . . . 9 3.1. Basic definitions and undecidability results . . . 9 3.2. Decidable and tractable DLs with concrete domains . . . 16 4. A Model-Theoretic Analysis of ω-Admissibility . . . 23 4.1. Homomorphism ω-compactness via ω-categoricity . . . 23 4.2. Patchworks via homogeneity . . . 24 4.3. JDJEPD via decomposition into orbits . . . 27 4.4. Upper bounds via finite boundedness . . . 28 4.5. ω-admissible finitely bounded homogeneous structures . . . 32 4.6. ω-admissible homogeneous cores with a decidable CSP . . . 34 4.7. Coverage of the developed sufficient conditions . . . 36 4.8. Closure properties: homogeneity & finite boundedness . . . 39 5. A Model-Theoretic Analysis of p-Admissibility . . . 47 5.1. Convexity via square embeddings . . . 47 5.2. Convex ω-categorical structures . . . 50 5.3. Convex numerical structures . . . 52 5.4. Ages defined by forbidden substructures . . . 54 5.5. Ages defined by forbidden homomorphic images . . . 56 5.6. (Non-)closure properties of convexity . . . 59 6. Towards user-definable concrete domains . . . 61 6.1. A proof-theoretic perspective . . . 65 6.2. Universal Horn sentences and the JEP . . . 66 6.3. Universal sentences and the AP: the Horn case . . . 77 6.4. Universal sentences and the AP: the general case . . . 90 7. Conclusion . . . 99 7.1. Contributions and future outlook . . . 99 A. Concrete Domains without Equality . . . 103 Bibliography . . . 107 List of figures . . . 115 Alphabetical Index . . . 117

For an investment treaty tribunal to proceed to adjudge the merits of claims arising out of an investment, it must have jurisdiction over the parties and the claims, and the claims submitted to the tribunal must be admissible. Inconsistent interpretations of substantive and procedural principles of international investment law that govern the existence and exercise of the arbitral tribunal’s supremacy to adjudge an investment dispute have caused incoherence in investment treaty arbitration. The thesis is an in-depth study of article 25 of the 1965 Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which articulates the Material, Personal and Consensual requirements for establishing the existence of the adjudicative power (Jurisdiction) for dispute resolution and to exercise that adjudicative power (Admissibility) under the aegis of ICSID. The main findings of the research are as follows: 1) ICSID’s double-filtering nature, which has been largely overlooked in ICSID jurisprudence, is fundamental to correct decision-making by arbitral tribunals when deciding on admissibility and jurisdiction issues. 2) ‘Fraudulent intent’ criterion, which borrows its rationale from the concurrent themes in international law jurisprudence, is instrumental to test compliance as required in the upper jurisdictional threshold. 3) ‘Bona fide investor’ test used to measure compliance with the objective requirements of article 25 of the ICSID runs counter to the object and purpose of the Convention. 4) ‘Dynamic’ test, rather than plain ‘objective’ test, would be the adequate pattern to ensure compliance with article 25 of the ICSID Convention for the contemplated investment due to evolving meaning of such generic term. 5) ‘Lex Juridictio’ or set of rules, principals and mechanisms governing jurisdictional and admissibility issues is required as foundation for legal unification and harmonization.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The success of any human rights system at the domestic, regional or international level requires an adequate development of the normative, institutional and jurisprudential frameworks. With regard to the African Commission, its approach on the normative and jurisprudential framework on evidence obtained through human rights violations is critiqued. The study is guided by three research questions on the African Commission’s normative and jurisprudential framework, and interrogates the need for improvement. While other human rights bodies like the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee have developed jurisprudence, their experiences can only be useful to Africa where they are subjected to a framework that speaks to an accused, in Africa in light of his or her peculiar situation. An evaluation of the African Commission’s mode of dealing with evidence obtained through human rights violations, followed by an evaluation of the mode engaged by other human rights bodies offers a platform to selectively, and with necessary adoption recommend a framework that the Africa Commission can use to improve its jurisprudence. In this regard, the study draws on the experiences of other human rights bodies to aid, the development of a framework to improve the jurisprudence of the African Commission. The study situates theoretical underpinnings that inform the decisions of the African Commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee. This is followed by an evaluation of the normative and jurisprudential frameworks of the three human rights bodies. The study proposes a framework based on a victim-centred approach to improve the jurisprudence of the African Commission on evidence obtained through human rights violations.

This thesis examines legislation that creates a “safe habour” for apologies by making them inadmissible as evidence of liability in a civil action. In recent years, jurisdictions across North America and Australia have enacted such “apology legislation” in an effort to encourage apologies. This is allegedly done to assist victims, who often benefit from full and sincere apologies. Legislators are also motivated, however, by the perception that apologies can induce victims to settle or forgo legal action, thereby reducing litigation rates. Whether such a correlation exists, particularly for apologies given under apology legislation, has not been firmly established, and attempting to use apologies in this manner may prove harmful to victims and the state. Apologies are powerful, and if legislators are not careful, they may enact legislation that alters apologies so that they become a source of harm to victims, the legal system, and even society as a whole.

This thesis examines legislation that creates a “safe habour” for apologies by making them inadmissible as evidence of liability in a civil action. In recent years, jurisdictions across North America and Australia have enacted such “apology legislation” in an effort to encourage apologies. This is allegedly done to assist victims, who often benefit from full and sincere apologies. Legislators are also motivated, however, by the perception that apologies can induce victims to settle or forgo legal action, thereby reducing litigation rates. Whether such a correlation exists, particularly for apologies given under apology legislation, has not been firmly established, and attempting to use apologies in this manner may prove harmful to victims and the state. Apologies are powerful, and if legislators are not careful, they may enact legislation that alters apologies so that they become a source of harm to victims, the legal system, and even society as a whole.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The main contributor of situations before the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC) has been state parties that have referred situations on their own territory to the ICC through “self-referral”. This study examines the concept of self-referral tracing the history of voluntary deferral by states of their jurisdiction over international crimes up to the enactment of the Rome Statute. The study finds that states were historically reluctant to have international crimes committed on their territory handled by other bodies or states. The self-referrals under the ICC regime are therefore a novelty in international criminal law. The legality of the act of self-referral under the Rome Statute is also examined and it is concluded that self-referrals are provided for within the Statute, although their legality has been questioned. The study establishes that self-referrals have seen unprecedented cooperation by territorial states but have also been selective in nature, targeting only non-state actors (rebel groups) .The study further compares the ICC’s handling of two other situations (Kenya and Darfur) which were triggered by antagonistic proprio motu and UN Security Council referrals respectively. The ultimate collapse of cases arising out of the Kenyan situation plus the suspension of investigations in Darfur due to non-cooperation is significant when compared with the relative successes registered with self-referred situations. The study concludes that whereas self-referrals may involve concessions to the territorial state like non-prosecution of state actors, this is a necessary evil to ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of international crimes. I recommend at the end of the study that in order to shield the office of the ICC Prosecutor from the diplomacy, dirty international politics and compromises at play in securing referrals as well as cooperation during the entire prosecution process, there should be a separate organ of the ICC handling investigations and interactions with states.

No description available.