L’intervention est l’acte par lequel un Etat tiers intervient dans une instance pendante pour protéger ses droits. Elle est prévue aux articles 62 et 63 du Statut. La première disposition reconnaît le droit d’intervention à tout Etat tiers justifiant d’un intérêt juridique en cause. En revanche, la seconde accorde aux seuls Etats tiers également partie à une convention dont l’interprétation est en cause la possibilité d’intervenir. La question principale soulevée par l’intervention est de savoir si cette procédure est conforme au principe du consensualisme qui gouverne le Statut de la Cour. Concernant que l’article 62 du Statut, cette question s’explique par la controverse au sein de la doctrine au sujet du statut de l’Etat intervenant. En effet, certains auteurs soutiennent que l’Etat intervenant est partie à l’instance. Dans ce cas, ils considèrent que l’article 62 ne respecte pas le principe du consensualisme. Afin de concilier l’intervention avec ce principe, ils pensent que la Cour ne peut admettre l’intervention sans le consentement des parties. D’autres avancent, au contraire, que l’intervention est conforme au principe du consensualisme parce que l’Etat intervenant n’est pas partie à l’instance. D’autres soutiennent encore que l’article 62 du Statut admet les deux formes d’intervention développées par les précédents auteurs. L’objet de l’étude est de démontrer que l’article 62 du Statut donne lieu à une interprétation large, en ce sens qu’il autorise non seulement une intervention en tant que non partie, mais aussi une intervention en tant que partie et que le principe du consensualisme est respecté dans les deux cas. En effet, cette étude établit que tant les conditions que les effets de l’intervention sont conformes à ce principe. / Intervention is the procedure by which a third State intervenes in a pending proceeding to protect its rights. It is laid down in Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute. The first provision recognizes to every State justifying a legal interest in the case in question the right to intervene. In contrast, the second gives the third States also party to a Multilateral Convention whose interpretation is in question the right to intervene. The main issue raised by the intervention is whether this procedure is consistent with the principle of consent that governs the Statute of the Court. Concerning Article 62, this issue is due to the controversy within the doctrine on the status of the intervening State. Indeed, some authors argue that the intervening State is a party to the proceeding. In this case, they consider that Article 62 does not respect the principle of consent. To reconcile this principle with the intervention, they think that the Court can not accept the intervention without the consent of the parties. Others argue, however, that the intervention is consistent with the principle of consent because the intervening State do not become a party to the proceeding. Others still argue that Article 62 recognizes two forms of intervention as developed by the previous authors. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate that Article 62 gives rise to a broad interpretation, as it allows not only intervention as a non-party, but also as a party and that the principle of consent is respected in both cases. Indeed, this study shows that both the conditions and the effects of the intervention are consistent with this principle.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

The past few decades have seen a veritable explosion of investment treaty and other arbitration claims brought against States. Many of these claims have been heard through ICSID arbitration. In comparison to other arbitration frameworks, the ICSID regime has its own self-contained rules for enforcement. Thus, given the significant increase in arbitration claims against States, on the one hand, and States’ not too seldom invoking of the defence of sovereign immunity, on the other hand, this treatise is timely in addressing various outstanding issues that award-creditors have and will continue to encounter when dealing with defaulting States.   The doctrine of sovereign immunity translates into the conventional wisdom that a State cannot be sued without its consent in foreign courts. This doctrine derives from the practical consequence that the sovereign makes the law, and consequently can break it too. This idea is an extension of primarily the common law doctrine to the international plane, which emerged largely as a result of international comity.[1] This concept is also based upon principles ‘equality’ in terms of ‘equal sovereign status’. Some authors even call it ‘independence’ and ‘dignity’ etc., In this respect, the ICJ has also held that it was equality, that is the basis, i.e. justification for the general rule of immunity.   The theory of immunity has gradually shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity, making it significantly easier for award-creditors to enforce an arbitral award. However, the barrier vis-à-vis immunity from execution makes the last link in ITA vulnerable. This evolution has made substantially an easier task for award-creditors in ITA and ISDS holding an arbitration award against a sovereign State. In view of this relatively at ease syndrome that award-creditors now possess, the immunity protections granted to State and its assets will be accessed albeit the proportionality test of acta jure imperii (i.e. sovereign or government purpose) &amp; acta jure gestionis (i.e. commercial or mixed purpose) and the measurement standard applied to such tests is UNSCI 2004, which are now largely constituting States customary international law.   Ultimately, to the author’s opinion, the value of international arbitration (‘ITA and ISDS’) as a means and ends of solving disputes is dependent upon the extent to which arbitral awards are honoured and enforced. In this light, the author can vociferously say that sovereign immunity remains a significant impediment against award-creditors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against unwilling States. The barrier is not one that will fade away. Thus, outstanding award-creditors could be advised to exercise some pressure through alternate and viable forms of enforcement measures. Therefore, the States should not stand-alone to shield their commercial assets from enforcement, attachment and execution, especially for de minimis sovereign purposes.[2]  [1] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). [2] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). / <p>My thesis opposition was done through virtual presentation in Zoom. </p>

The past few decades have seen a veritable explosion of investment treaty and other arbitration claims brought against States. Many of these claims have been heard through ICSID arbitration. In comparison to other arbitration frameworks, the ICSID regime has its own self-contained rules for enforcement. Thus, given the significant increase in arbitration claims against States, on the one hand, and States’ not too seldom invoking of the defence of sovereign immunity, on the other hand, this treatise is timely in addressing various outstanding issues that award-creditors have and will continue to encounter when dealing with defaulting States.   The doctrine of sovereign immunity translates into the conventional wisdom that a State cannot be sued without its consent in foreign courts. This doctrine derives from the practical consequence that the sovereign makes the law, and consequently can break it too. This idea is an extension of primarily the common law doctrine to the international plane, which emerged largely as a result of international comity.[1] This concept is also based upon principles ‘equality’ in terms of ‘equal sovereign status’. Some authors even call it ‘independence’ and ‘dignity’ etc., In this respect, the ICJ has also held that it was equality, that is the basis, i.e. justification for the general rule of immunity.   The theory of immunity has gradually shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity, making it significantly easier for award-creditors to enforce an arbitral award. However, the barrier vis-à-vis immunity from execution makes the last link in ITA vulnerable. This evolution has made substantially an easier task for award-creditors in ITA and ISDS holding an arbitration award against a sovereign State. In view of this relatively at ease syndrome that award-creditors now possess, the immunity protections granted to State and its assets will be accessed albeit the proportionality test of acta jure imperii (i.e. sovereign or government purpose) &amp; acta jure gestionis (i.e. commercial or mixed purpose) and the measurement standard applied to such tests is UNSCI 2004, which are now largely constituting States customary international law.   Ultimately, to the author’s opinion, the value of international arbitration (‘ITA and ISDS’) as a means and ends of solving disputes is dependent upon the extent to which arbitral awards are honoured and enforced. In this light, the author can vociferously say that sovereign immunity remains a significant impediment against award-creditors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against unwilling States. The barrier is not one that will fade away. Thus, outstanding award-creditors could be advised to exercise some pressure through alternate and viable forms of enforcement measures. Therefore, the States should not stand-alone to shield their commercial assets from enforcement, attachment and execution, especially for de minimis sovereign purposes.[2] [1] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). [2] Bishop (n 1).

Submitted by Caroline Periotto (carol@ufscar.br) on 2016-09-26T18:13:21Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DissMS.pdf: 7587278 bytes, checksum: b78af0b72b6cb2a9f5e605c25bfac1d1 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Marina Freitas (marinapf@ufscar.br) on 2016-09-27T20:12:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DissMS.pdf: 7587278 bytes, checksum: b78af0b72b6cb2a9f5e605c25bfac1d1 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Marina Freitas (marinapf@ufscar.br) on 2016-09-27T20:12:18Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DissMS.pdf: 7587278 bytes, checksum: b78af0b72b6cb2a9f5e605c25bfac1d1 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-09-27T20:12:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DissMS.pdf: 7587278 bytes, checksum: b78af0b72b6cb2a9f5e605c25bfac1d1 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-29 / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa (CNPq) / This master thesis aims to study hybrid joints of polyetherimide (PEI) and aluminum 6082-T6 produced by Friction-based Injection Clinching Joining (FICJ). The influences of the process parameters in the frictional heat and polymer degradation were analyzed through a half factorial design. The degradation of PEI was evaluated by size exclusion chromatography (SEC), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The effect of degradation in the joint microstructure and mechanical properties was also analyzed. The macro and microstructural characteristics were evaluated by optical microscopy and Vickers hardness. The static mechanical properties were determined by lap shear testing and cross tensile testing. It has been shown that the F-ICJ causes degradation through multiple chains scissions. Additionally, a thermomechanically affected zone, with lower hardness, and defects such as pores and weld lines are formed. The mechanical performance, mainly in cross tensile testing, is negatively affected by degradation and presence of defects. These results contribute to the optimization and application of F-ICJ to join hybrid structures. / Nesta dissertação de mestrado fabricou-se juntas híbridas de polieterimida (PEI) e alumínio 6082-T6 por rebitagem por injeção baseada em energia friccional (Friction-based Injection Clinching Joining - F-ICJ). Foi analisada a influência dos parâmetros de processo na geração de calor por fricção e na degradação polimérica através de planejamento de experimentos fatorial fracionário. O nível de degradação do PEI foi avaliado por cromatografia de exclusão por tamanho (SEC), calorimetria exploratória diferencial (DSC) e espectroscopia de infravermelho (FTIR). Estudou-se o efeito da degradação em características macro e microestruturais e nas propriedades mecânicas estáticas das juntas. As características macro e microestruturais foram avaliadas por meio de microscopia ótica e microdureza Vickers. A propriedade mecânica estática foi determinada por ensaio de cisalhamento de juntas sobrepostas e de tração da cabeça do rebite. Mostrou-se que o processo F-ICJ causou degradação por cisão de cadeias múltiplas. Adicionalmente, há criação de uma zona termomecanicamente afetada com menor microdureza e formação de defeitos, como poros e linhas de solda. O desempenho mecânico principalmente, em ensaio de tração da cabeça do rebite é negativamente afetado pela degradação e presença de defeitos. Estes resultados contribuem para a otimização e aplicação da técnica F-ICJ, na união de estruturas híbridas.

Le droit des investissements internationaux est largement présenté au travers de la jurisprudence arbitrale, notamment celle du CIRDI. Une telle approche a paru insuffisante. En effet, dans l'examen des questions touchant le droit des investissements internationaux, la jurisprudence de la CIJ et de sa devancière semble être un passage obligé à certains égards. S'agissant de règles primaires, c’est dans la jurisprudence de la Cour qu’ont émergé et pris forme certaines règles substantielles relatives aux investissements internationaux, et dont la désuétude est loin d'être établie par l'avènement du CIRDI. Par ailleurs, le rôle général de la Cour dans le fonctionnement de l'ordre juridique international à travers les règles juridictionnelles, procédurales, d’interprétation ou encore de responsabilité internationale, est indéniable. Or, certaines de ces règles se présentent comme des chapitres incontournables du droit des investissements internationaux. Ce sont là autant de raisons qui ont conduit à entreprendre une étude sur Le droit des investissements internationaux vu par la CIJ et le CIRDI en l’abordant au travers de la question de savoir si les tribunaux CIRDI puisent dans l’héritage de la Cour sur les problématiques juridiques relatives aux investissements internationaux ou s’en départissent. La confrontation des jurisprudences de la Cour et des tribunaux CIRDI a permis de conclure que le droit des investissements internationaux vu par la CIJ n’est que partiellement le droit des investissements internationaux vu par les tribunaux CIRDI. Globalement, sur une problématique donnée, en même temps que certaines solutions retenues par la jurisprudence des tribunaux CIRDI dénotent un emprunt aux règles et principes posés par la Cour, d’autres s’en départissent, qu'il s'agisse des règles primaires en la matière, ou bien des règles secondaires du droit international dans leur déclinaison dans le cadre du droit des investissements internationaux. Parce qu’elle livre, entre autres, une vue d’ensemble de la jurisprudence de la Cour de la Haye en matière d’investissements internationaux – démarche inédite –, la thèse se présente comme une piste pour les arbitres sur le chemin de l’émergence d’une jurisprudence arbitrale cohérente en droit des investissements internationaux. / To international investment law questions, the ICJ decisions are materials that must be taken into consideration. Indeed, substantive rules in international investment law and their issues are older than the ICSID creation. The legal issues had already been raised in the Court which set rules and principles covering international investment law principles. Thus, it is into the Court’s decisions that some rules relating to international investments was created. From this perspective, the ICJ cases could be seen as a legitimate forerunner for substantive rules in international investment law. In the other hand, the ICJ has a main role in the development and promotion of the rules of international litigation, some of which are of relevance in international investment law. The present work, by using the ICJ cases as guidance precedents, challenges the ICSID decisions to determine if the ICSID follows or not the rules and principles raised by the Court in international investment law. The analysis shows that if some ICSID decisions borrow the principles and rules established by the ICJ, others follow new ways in both primary and secondary rules in international investment law.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Universität, Frankfurt am Main, 2006. / Material type: Dissertations. Includes bibliographical references (p. 283-317).

No description available.

Tous les etats issus du démembrement de l'urss ont dû résoudre, depuis 15 ans, une question fondamentale : celle de la définition et de l'affirmation de leur identité. ayant tous la même aspiration à la liberté, à l'autonomie productive, à l'ouverture au monde, ces pays ont commencé à réformer leurs systèmes juridiques, politiques et économiques. toutefois le droit international soviétique, spécifique, fermé dans son propre système et lié fortement à la politique extérieure de l'urss, continue à persister dans les etats post-soviétiques, malgré leur aspiration aux règles des sociétés occidentales juste après l'indépendance. ainsi, le renouvellement de la doctrine et de la pratique internationale des etats post-soviétiques se passe d'abord dans des conditions de permanence de la conception soviétique du droit international d'un côté et du désir de trouver sa place dans la communauté internationale de l'autre. cette rénovation ayant ses particularités dans chaque etat ex-soviétique, a affecté non seulement la formation de la pensée juridique et la pratique diplomatique de ces etats, mais aussi les rapports entre les droits internes et le droit international. c'est à l'époque de la fin de l'antagonisme des blocs qu'on observe l'intégration des etats issus de l'urss dans le monde de la nouvelle répartition des forces /... / International law is a « common language » but the vision of international law is far from being universal. It is a « multiplicity of particular national, regional, individual, institutional visions of international law. One can speak of the existence of regional American, Latin American, European, Asian, African approaches of law, but what about the geographical region of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? In the XXth century one spoke about the Soviet conception of international law, which was a complex phenomenon, having its roots in the Russian legal school, combining the multiculturalism of the Russian Empire and the Soviet state and causing the division of the world into two blocks : Western and Soviet. For over twenty years that the Soviet Union no longer exists and the former Soviet states became independent and sovereign actors in the international arena. Can we therefore speak today about the existence of national approaches to international law of each state of the former USSR ? The objective of this thesis is to present the current state of doctrine and practice of the post-Soviet international law, considering the renewal of approaches of foreign policies of the post-Soviet states, and doctrinal concepts of international legal scholars. Does the post-Soviet doctrine of international law exist ? The contemporary international law is faced with challenges such as regionalization, globalization and the establishment of the rule of law in international law. Faced with these challenges, the doctrine and practice post-Soviet international law have been renewed. What approaches the post-Soviet states adopt in response to the contemporary challenges of regionalization, globalization and the establishment of the rule of law in international law?