A jurisdição internacional expande-se com a criação, a partir da segunda metade do século XX, de um grande número de entes jurisdicionais internacionais. Tais entes são usualmente criados com especialização em determinado segmento do direito internacional, o que de certa forma fragmenta a unidade do direito internacional. Paralelamente, o incremento na freqüência de casos processados perante os diversos tribunais internacionais multiplica a ocorrência de hipóteses em que a atuação de uma das cortes interfere na atuação das demais. Ainda não se criaram regras capazes de minimizar esta sobreposição de atuações. No campo mais restrito das jurisdições afetas ao comércio internacional, o problema de certa forma se repete. Atuam nesta área, sobretudo, o sistema de solução de controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), os diversos sistemas de solução de controvérsias dos diversos acordos regionais de integração (como é o caso do MERCOSUL), além dos próprios judiciários nacionais. Há vários episódios em que decisões judiciais nacionais geraram repercussões em litígios regionais e em litígios perante o sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC. O mesmo ocorre na via inversa, ou seja, também há casos em que as decisões proferidas na OMC e nos sistemas regionais interferem na esfera nacional. De qualquer sorte, em função da capacidade da OMC fixar os principais parâmetros que hoje pautam o comércio internacional, o relacionamento entre os três diferentes níveis jurisdicionais OMC, regional e nacional acaba apresentando-se, concretamente, mais hierarquizado quando comparado aos demais segmentos da jurisdição internacional. Os litígios acerca do regime brasileiro de importação de pneus usados e reformados são representativos dos dilemas hoje existentes no relacionamento entre os diversos níveis de jurisdição e o desfecho dos casos, até o presente momento, aponta uma certa tentativa de adequação, por parte do judiciário brasileiro, de suas decisões aos entendimentos e recomendações advindos das esferas internacionais. / The international jurisdiction expands with the creation, from the second half of the twentieth century, of a large number of international judicial entities. Such entities are usually designed with specialization in a particular segment of international law, that somehow breaks the its unity. In parallel, the increase in the frequency of cases prosecuted before the various tribunals multiplies the occurrence in which the performance of one of the courts interferes in the actions of others. There are not yet rules to minimize this overlap. In the more restricted field of jurisdictions concerned with international trade, the problem repeats itself somehow. The adjudication in this area is especially offered by the WTO dispute settlement system, the correlates regional systems of dispute settlement (such as MERCOSUR), and the national judiciaries. There are several episodes in which national judgments echoed in regional disputes and in disputes before the dispute settlement system of WTO. The same occurs in the reverse path, ie, there are also cases in which decisions taken in the WTO and in regional systems interfered in the national sphere. Anyhow, in the capacity of the WTO to set the main parameters that guided international trade today, the relationship between the three different jurisdictional levels - WTO, regional and national - just show up more hierarchical when compared to other segments of international jurisdiction. Disputes about the Brazilian import regime for used and retreaded tires are representative of the dilemmas that exist today in the relationship between different levels of jurisdiction and the outcome of cases to date, indicates a certain attempt of adaptation, by the Brazilian judiciary, of its decisions to the understandings and recommendations of international spheres.

While international arbitration offers the prominent scheme for resolution of transnational disputes, the arbitration community must constantly examine areas of concern. Any system of justice, including the arbitration system, is not meant for abuse. Thus, it would be paradoxical to support a mischief that the arbitration system seeks to obviate. This could cast doubts as to the system's efficiency and induce distrust in a system formed to accommodate parties' interests and uphold their common intentions. In recent years, international arbitration has been plagued by different forms of procedural abuse. Abusive practices developed by parties may undermine the fair resolution of disputes and frustrate the administration of arbitral justice. There are pre-existing tools and legal rules at the disposal of arbitrators that can be utilised to prevent abuse and administer arbitral justice. However, these tools are inherently rigid in their application. The thesis introduces the principle of abuse of rights in international arbitration and argues for its application as a general principle of law to prevent the transmogrification of international arbitration into a process profoundly tainted with abuse. The virtue and efficacy of a single theory with a wide scope of application and an overarching premise, is that it can be used to address different abusive behaviours, and equally enjoys the flexibility of general principles of law.

A jurisdição internacional expande-se com a criação, a partir da segunda metade do século XX, de um grande número de entes jurisdicionais internacionais. Tais entes são usualmente criados com especialização em determinado segmento do direito internacional, o que de certa forma fragmenta a unidade do direito internacional. Paralelamente, o incremento na freqüência de casos processados perante os diversos tribunais internacionais multiplica a ocorrência de hipóteses em que a atuação de uma das cortes interfere na atuação das demais. Ainda não se criaram regras capazes de minimizar esta sobreposição de atuações. No campo mais restrito das jurisdições afetas ao comércio internacional, o problema de certa forma se repete. Atuam nesta área, sobretudo, o sistema de solução de controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), os diversos sistemas de solução de controvérsias dos diversos acordos regionais de integração (como é o caso do MERCOSUL), além dos próprios judiciários nacionais. Há vários episódios em que decisões judiciais nacionais geraram repercussões em litígios regionais e em litígios perante o sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC. O mesmo ocorre na via inversa, ou seja, também há casos em que as decisões proferidas na OMC e nos sistemas regionais interferem na esfera nacional. De qualquer sorte, em função da capacidade da OMC fixar os principais parâmetros que hoje pautam o comércio internacional, o relacionamento entre os três diferentes níveis jurisdicionais OMC, regional e nacional acaba apresentando-se, concretamente, mais hierarquizado quando comparado aos demais segmentos da jurisdição internacional. Os litígios acerca do regime brasileiro de importação de pneus usados e reformados são representativos dos dilemas hoje existentes no relacionamento entre os diversos níveis de jurisdição e o desfecho dos casos, até o presente momento, aponta uma certa tentativa de adequação, por parte do judiciário brasileiro, de suas decisões aos entendimentos e recomendações advindos das esferas internacionais. / The international jurisdiction expands with the creation, from the second half of the twentieth century, of a large number of international judicial entities. Such entities are usually designed with specialization in a particular segment of international law, that somehow breaks the its unity. In parallel, the increase in the frequency of cases prosecuted before the various tribunals multiplies the occurrence in which the performance of one of the courts interferes in the actions of others. There are not yet rules to minimize this overlap. In the more restricted field of jurisdictions concerned with international trade, the problem repeats itself somehow. The adjudication in this area is especially offered by the WTO dispute settlement system, the correlates regional systems of dispute settlement (such as MERCOSUR), and the national judiciaries. There are several episodes in which national judgments echoed in regional disputes and in disputes before the dispute settlement system of WTO. The same occurs in the reverse path, ie, there are also cases in which decisions taken in the WTO and in regional systems interfered in the national sphere. Anyhow, in the capacity of the WTO to set the main parameters that guided international trade today, the relationship between the three different jurisdictional levels - WTO, regional and national - just show up more hierarchical when compared to other segments of international jurisdiction. Disputes about the Brazilian import regime for used and retreaded tires are representative of the dilemmas that exist today in the relationship between different levels of jurisdiction and the outcome of cases to date, indicates a certain attempt of adaptation, by the Brazilian judiciary, of its decisions to the understandings and recommendations of international spheres.

International environmental law is one of the most dynamic fields of public international law, and has rapidly acquired great breadth and sophistication. Yet the rate of global environmental decline has also increased and is accelerating. Halting and reversing this process is a challenge of effective governance, requiring institutions that can ensure that the now impressive body of environmental norms is faithfully implemented. This thesis explores whether and to what extent international courts and tribunals can play a useful role in international environmental regimes. Consideration is given to the threefold function of adjudication in resolving environmental disputes, in promoting compliance with environmental standards, and in developing environmental rules. The thesis is divided into three Parts. The first Part examines the spectrum of adjudicative bodies that have been involved in the resolution of environmental disputes, situates these within the evolution of institutions for compliance control, and offers a reassessment of their relevance in contemporary environmental governance. The second Part critically assesses the contribution that arbitral awards and judicial decisions have made to the development of norms and principles of environmental law, examining case law relating to transboundary pollution, shared freshwater resources and marine environmental protection. In the third Part of the thesis consideration is given to three looming challenges for international environmental litigation: accommodating greater levels of public participation in adjudicative processes, resolving practical problems stemming from the interaction among multiple jurisdictions, and ensuring that specialised courts and tribunals do not apply environmental norms in a parochial manner that privileges the policy objectives of issue-specific regimes.

This dissertation evaluates the applicability and effectiveness of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a settlement mechanism for addressing the South China Sea (SCS) dispute, the most complex and challenging ocean-related regional conflict in East Asia. This dissertation answers these broad questions: Does UNCLOS create a constitution for the ocean? Is UNCLOS successful in preventing or managing conflicts pertaining to marine resources? Hoes does the SCS dispute settlement bridge the gap of International Relations (IR) and International Law (IL)? Since 1980s, the regime concept came to be used as one vehicle to cross the disciplinary divide between IL and IR. This dissertation seeks to foster dialogue between political scientists and international lawyers by viewing UNCLOS as an international regime and exploring its internal coherence and its external relationship with other international regimes and institutions in this region. I argue that there can be little doubt about the centrality of UNCLOS in the legal framework for ocean management, albeit it may be perceived to have certain shortcomings. The most pervasive threats to the SCS stability and obstacles to solve the dispute are caused by the lack of political will to implement the dispute settlement mechanism of UNCLOS. This paper proposes a pragmatic settlement regime of five dimensions to solve the SCS dispute and accelerate ocean governance in this region.

<p>The purpose of this thesis is to examine if there is a problem with compliance in the World Trade Organization, to investigate the validity of the managerial and the political economy approaches to compliance and to analyze reform proposals that tackle the issue of compliance, pursuing improvement of the system.</p><p>Drawing on the scenario of increasing legalization and cooperation in trade, the first question is examined by way of interviewing trade experts and officials as well as analyzing case studies that are pertinent to the research at hand. The second question – if management is preferred to enforcement as to induce compliance – is answered by analyzing official WTO Dispute Settlement reports, interviews, case reviews and articles on retaliation and compliance written by different authors. The third question is answered as a reflection of the findings of the first two questions.</p><p>Analysis on the managerial theory of compliance examine whether enforcement plays a minor role in inducing compliance in the WTO, if there is a propensity to comply amongst states and if noncompliance is inadvertent rather than a result of calculation of interests. In the other hand, tests conducted on the enforcement approach to compliance investigate the importance of retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, the necessity of an enforcement tool and the claim that noncompliance is a political decision.</p><p>Tests conducted suggest that the enforcement school of compliance is correct when stating that noncompliance is a political decision, resulted from careful calculation of interests. The research indicates that the WTO Dispute Settlement presents a dual facet of compliance, in which the enforcement tool is responsible for allowing the managerial effects to take place. In this regard, the enforcement tool alone is seen as inappropriate, especially if economic asymmetries are present. An approach that accommodates both enforcement and managerial aspects is prescribed.</p><p>The research has indicated that successful reform proposals should aim at increasing the credibility of the threat of retaliation as to follow the diagnosis verified by the tests conducted.</p>

No description available.

International environmental law is one of the most dynamic fields of public international law, and has rapidly acquired great breadth and sophistication. Yet the rate of global environmental decline has also increased and is accelerating. Halting and reversing this process is a challenge of effective governance, requiring institutions that can ensure that the now impressive body of environmental norms is faithfully implemented. This thesis explores whether and to what extent international courts and tribunals can play a useful role in international environmental regimes. Consideration is given to the threefold function of adjudication in resolving environmental disputes, in promoting compliance with environmental standards, and in developing environmental rules. The thesis is divided into three Parts. The first Part examines the spectrum of adjudicative bodies that have been involved in the resolution of environmental disputes, situates these within the evolution of institutions for compliance control, and offers a reassessment of their relevance in contemporary environmental governance. The second Part critically assesses the contribution that arbitral awards and judicial decisions have made to the development of norms and principles of environmental law, examining case law relating to transboundary pollution, shared freshwater resources and marine environmental protection. In the third Part of the thesis consideration is given to three looming challenges for international environmental litigation: accommodating greater levels of public participation in adjudicative processes, resolving practical problems stemming from the interaction among multiple jurisdictions, and ensuring that specialised courts and tribunals do not apply environmental norms in a parochial manner that privileges the policy objectives of issue-specific regimes.

L’étude du sort des exceptions environnementales et sanitaires à l’OMC permet de mettre en lumière l’équilibre qu’assurent les organes de règlement des différends entre les valeurs commerciales et non-commerciales. Ces exceptions sont pourtant vouées à une ineffectivité systémique au sein du droit de l’OMC. Les organes de règlement des différends fonctionnent comme des régulateurs exclusivement portés par et pour les intérêts commerciaux. En refusant d’infléchir les principes du libre-échange au nom des exceptions inscrites dans les textes, ils appliquent un droit rigide, vecteur d’insécurité environnementale, sanitaire et alimentaire. Une première approche linéaire de la jurisprudence révèle que les organes de règlement des différends cultivent l’apparence d’une régulation équilibrée dans ces domaines. Cet équilibre de façade est néanmoins contredit par une recherche approfondie sur le véritable sort réservé aux exceptions environnementales et sanitaires. La présente étude démontre que les organes de règlement des différends ont en réalité interprété ces exceptions de manière tellement restrictive qu’elles en sont devenues ineffectives. Une seconde approche, plus transversale, révèle que la rigidité du multilatéralisme commercial est ancrée jusque dans les mécanismes juridiques et techniques du droit de l’OMC. Ainsi en va-t-il du droit de la preuve et de la reconnaissance des normes externes au droit de l’OMC qui neutralisent les exceptions environnementales et sanitaires. Pourtant, ces verrous actuels représentent les clefs potentielles de demain, à même de relever les défis contemporains. / The use of the environmental and sanitary exceptions’ study highlights the balance between commercial and non-commercial values provided by the WTO’s dispute settlement organs. Yet, these exceptions turn out to be mere decoys, since they are doomed to ineffectiveness in the WTO’s law. The dispute settlement organs appear to be exclusively motivated by and for commercial interests. By refusing to inflect the free trade’s principles on behalf of the textual exceptions, they turn WTO in a rigid law, vector of environmental, sanitary and alimentary insecurity. A first linear perspective shows that the dispute settlement organs claim to ensure a balanced regulatory activity in these areas. Nevertheless, a deeper study of what happens to the environmental and sanitary exceptions contradicts this apparent balance. As a matter of fact, the dispute settlement organs have adopted such a restrictiv interpretation of these exceptions, that they have become ineffective. A second cross perspective shows that the rigidity of the comercial multilateralism is deeply rooted into the technical juridical mechanisms of the dispute settlement. Such is the case of the rules on proof and the recognition of external norms: these locks in the present could be keys in the future that would enable the WTO’s law to meet the contemporary challenges.

Yes