<p>Aims of the research paper is to examine the legal framework&nbsp / of implemantation and enforcement of DSB recommendations and rulings and to investigate the trend of non-compliance with BSD recommendations and rulings where complianant&nbsp / &nbsp / is a developing country.</p>

<p>Aims of the research paper is to examine the legal framework&nbsp / of implemantation and enforcement of DSB recommendations and rulings and to investigate the trend of non-compliance with BSD recommendations and rulings where complianant&nbsp / &nbsp / is a developing country.</p>

International Dispute Settlement - selected aspects Abstract This diploma thesis deals with selected aspects of the international dispute settlement not only in current international public law but also in its history. The thesis is divided into five chapters which are also further divided into a number of subchapters depending on the complexity of each topic. The first chapter is dedicated to the definition of international dispute. Apart from that the chapter also deals with the obligation of states to settle their disputes and to settle them by peaceful means. The historical background of the international dispute settlement is described in the second chapter. Important events such as Hague Peace Conferences, founding of the League of Nations, the Briand-Kellog Pact and founding of the United Nations among others are all mentioned in this chapter because of their impact on the course of this field of international relations. The third chapter focuses on the analysis of the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes and its link to other related principles of international law. The fourth chapter is dedicated to individual means of peaceful settlement. Every method is described individually, with a brief historical background, comparison to other methods and analysis of the application on specific...

The thesis is dealing with prorogation and arbitration clauses in international trade, focusing on Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I bis) and on the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. In particular, the thesis aims to describe the procedure of valid negotiation and the formation of clauses, including the analysis of possible interpretation issues. The common objective of the prorogation clauses as a choice of court agreements and arbitration clauses, is to determine who and where should have the jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising between the parties and to reinforce their legal certainty. The outcome of the work is therefore to verify the hypothesis that the conclusion of such clauses really strengthens the legal certainty of the parties. Regarding the prorogation clauses, the theoretical level is supplemented by a practical insight into the whole issue in the form of an analysis of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law. Regarding arbitration clauses, the aim is to provide a certain international overview, to outline generally applicable principles and to point...

This thesis seeks to systematically examine the contributions made by the dispute settlement bodies established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to the development of the law of the sea. The two main research questions to be answered are: (i) what kind of contribution have UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies made to the development of the law of the sea? and (ii) what are the factors that impact the performance of UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies in developing the law of the sea? To that end, Chapter 1 provides a working definition for the concept of 'judicial development of international law' in order to establish a framework for an assessment of the contributions of UNCLOS tribunals. Based on this working definition, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 examine the significance of UNCLOS tribunals' decisions in the development of three main areas of the law of the sea, respectively the law on fisheries, the law on the outer continental shelf and the law on marine environmental protection. Based on the findings of these chapters, Chapter 5 analyses the factors that help explain the contributions of UNCLOS tribunals to the law of the sea as identified in the preceding chapters. These factors include: (i) the jurisdictional scope of UNCLOS tribunals, (ii) the institutional design of UNCLOS, (iii) the interpretative method employed by UNCLOS tribunals in deciding their cases and (iv) the perception that UNCLOS tribunals hold regarding their roles. Chapter 6 concludes by taking stock of the contribution of UNCLOS tribunal in these areas and offering some final observations on the role of UNCLOS tribunals in the development of the law of the sea.

Values matter in both legal decision (lawmaking and lawapplying) and discourse (lawshaping and lawinfluencing). Yet, their purported subjectivity means that gaining or improving knowledge about values (whether they be epistemic, legal, moral, ethical, economic, political, cultural, social, or religious) in the context of analytic legal thought and understanding is often said to be at odds with its goal of objectivity. This phenomenon is amplified at the international level where the infusion of seemingly subjective political values by sovereigns, and the decisionmakers to whom they delegate, can, and does, interfere with an idealized and objective rule of law. The discourse on value subjectivity, and its relation to the purpose and function of the law, is particularly apparent in evolving international legal orders such as investment treaty arbitration. The primary aim of this work is to provide a new method for gaining empirical knowledge about value subjectivity that can help close a weak link in all nonpositivist (value-laden) legal theory: a weakness that has manifest itself as skepticism about the possibility of measuring value objectively enough to permit its incorporation as a necessary component of analytic jurisprudence. This work proposes a theory of configurative fairness for addressing the problem related to the development or evolution of legal regimes, and how legal regimes perceived as subjectively unfair can be remedied. Such a theory accepts the premise that perceptions of fairness matter in directing the way that legal orders develop, and that perceptions of fairness relate to the manner in which values are distributed and maximized in particular legal orders. It is posited that legal orders perceived as fair by their participants are more likely to be endorsed or accepted as legally binding (and are therefore more likely to comply with the processes and outcomes that such laws mandate). The purpose of a theory of configurative fairness is an attempt to provide a methodological bridge for improving knowledge about value in the context of legal inquiry through the employment of a technique called Q methodology: an epistemological and empirical means for the measurement and mapping of human subjectivity. It is a method that was developed in the early twentieth century by physicist-psychologist William Stephenson: the last research student of the inventor of factor analysis, Charles Spearman. What Stephenson did was to create a way for systematically measuring subjective perspectives, and although not previously used in jurisprudential thought, Q methodology will facilitate a means for the description and evaluation of shared subjectivities. In the context of law generally, and in investment treaty arbitration specifically, these are the subjectivities that manifest themselves as the conflicting perspectives about value that are omnipresent in both communicative lawshaping discourse and authoritative and controlling lawmaking and lawapplying decision. Knowledge about these shared value subjectivities among participants in investment treaty arbitration will allow the legal analyst to delineate and clarify points of overlapping consensus about the desired distribution of value as they relate to the regime-building issues of evolving legal orders. The focus for a theory of configurative fairness pertains to the identification of the various value positions that participants hold about a particular legal order and to configure those values, through its rules and principles, in a manner that is acceptable (and perceived as fair) by all of its participants. If such a value consensus can be identified, then particular rules in the legal order can be configured by decisionmakers in a way so as to satisfy participants’ shared value understandings. To engage such a theory, a means for identifying shared value subjectivities must be delineated. This work conducts a Q method study on the issues under debate relating to regime-building questions in investment treaty arbitration. The Q method study asked participants knowledgeable about investment treaty arbitration to rank-order a set of statements about the way that the values embraced by this legal order ought to be configured. The results of the study demonstrate that there is significant overlap about how participants in investment treaty arbitration perceive the desired distribution of values across the regime. The Q method study identified six distinct perspectives that represent shared subjectivities about value in the context of the development of investment treaty arbitration. The Q method study was also able to identify where there is an overlapping consensus about value distribution across the distinct perspectives. It is these areas of overlapping consensus that are most likely to reflect shared value understandings, and it is proposed that it is upon these shared value understandings that the future development of investment treaty arbitration ought to aim.

La sentence internationale est communément réputée obligatoire et non exécutoire et l’exécution est conçue comme une phase « post-adjudicative » relevant de l’imperium de l’Etat. L’étude des mécanismes de surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et décisions des Cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l’homme permet un renversement de ces postulats. Alors que les articles 46§2 de la CEDH et 65 de la CADH prévoient des surveillances de nature politique de l’exécution desdits arrêts et décisions, la pratique a été toute autre. Il s’avère que les procédures de surveillance en question sont respectivement quasi juridictionnelle et juridictionnelle et continuent autrement le procès. Elles sont aussi contentieuses, car les organes de surveillance tranchent des différends relatifs à l’exécution des arrêts et décisions, selon les principes directeurs du procès. Les contentieux de l’exécution européen et interaméricain permettent alors une redéfinition du procès en droit international et attestent que la notion de phase « post-adjudicative » n’existe pas. Ces procédures de surveillance ont en outre une double finalité. La première s’attache au contrôle de deux types de comportements étatiques, des comportements imposés et escomptés. Ces contrôles révélant que l’Etat n’est pas libre de ses moyens d’exécution, visent à aboutir au résultat de l’exécution effective de l’arrêt ou de la décision juridictionnelle telle que cette exécution est conçue par les organes de surveillance. La seconde finalité consiste en des suivis d’actes rendus au cours des surveillances et desquels résulte une chose à exécuter. D’un point de vue procédural, les suivis de cette chose qui émerge des précisions apportées à la chose jugée et aux comportements étatiques, révèlent l’existence de nouveaux types de recours dans le contentieux international. D’un point de vue substantiel, les suivis de la chose sont une contrainte formelle pour l’Etat qui n’est libéré des procédures de surveillance que s’il exécute l’arrêt ou la décision conformément à la chose à exécuter. Ces suivis sont donc des voies d’exécution et attestent alors de la force exécutoire interne des arrêts et décisions des Cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l’homme, que les organes de surveillance garantissent. / In the absence of enforcement mechanisms, an international decision is deemed binding and non-enforceable, and execution is generally perceived as a “post-adjudicative” phase, belonging to the State’s imperium. Study of the supervision of execution of the judgments and decisions of the European and Inter-american Courts of Human Rights reveals that these basic assumptions can be challenged. Whereas articles 46§2 of the ECHR and 65 of the ACHR provide for political modes of supervision of execution of the judgments and decisions of the European and Inter-american Courts of Human Rights, the practice has been completely different. It appears that the said supervision procedures are respectively quasi judicial and judicial and arise in the continuation of the trial. They are also contentious, given that the supervision authorities resolve disputes relating to the execution of judgments and decisions in accordance with due process principles. These procedures contribute to redefining the concept of trial in international law and illustrate that the notion of “post-adjudicative” phase does not exist. They also serve a double purpose. First, they allow control of two types of the State conduct, imposed and expected conduct. Illustrating that the State is not free in choosing its means of execution, such control aspires to achieve the effective execution of the judgment or judicial decision. The second purpose consists in following up on the resolutions and/or orders made in the course of supervision and which result in a res executiva. This res executiva, which would have emerged on the basis of clarifications made to res judicata and State conduct, in turn becomes the subject of the follow-up procedures. The consequences of such follow-up are twofold : from the procedural point of view, it creates new forms of appeals; from the substantive point of view, it formally constraints the State and achieves enforceability of judgments and decisions, guaranteed by the supervision authorities.

Selon une présentation classique, le droit du contentieux international est apprécié à travers les concepts de pouvoir de juger, de compétence et de recevabilité. Force est toutefois de constater qu’il est aujourd’hui souvent fait référence, dans les décisions des juridictions internationales comme dans la doctrine, à la faculté procédurale, notamment des personnes privées. Cet intérêt pour la situation du requérant et sa faculté d’obtenir une décision sur le fond de son différend interroge quant à une possible évolution des concepts juridiques régissant la matière. L’étude de ce « droit » d’action dans le cadre du contentieux des investissements permet de se rendre compte de l’utilité de la notion pour le droit du contentieux international. D’une part, une fois déployé, le concept réalise un ordonnancement efficace des règles déterminant la possibilité d’une décision sur le fond. La pratique arbitrale fait preuve à cet égard d’une certaine confusion entre ces règles et celles encadrant l’existence de l’obligation alléguée que l’étude permet de dissiper. D’autre part, le droit d’agir en justice permet plus généralement d’appréhender les effets juridiques du consentement de l’Etat à la juridiction. L’étude démontre en effet que la faculté procédurale procède de l’invocabilité de ce consentement : celui-ci reconnaît à l’entité visée par l’engagement le droit d’agir en justice. Or cet effet juridique ne peut être valablement saisi par le concept de pouvoir de juger, lequel procède de la réunion des consentements. Puisque le contentieux des investissements s’intéresse à plusieurs égards à cette invocabilité, soit pour la préserver soit pour la remettre en cause, on comprend que le droit d’agir soit devenu un concept incontournable en la matière. Mais la nécessité d’y recourir peut s’exporter au-delà du contentieux des investissements, n’importe quelle branche du contentieux international pouvant être intéressée à régir les effets juridiques du consentement du seul Etat défendeur. / The settlement of international disputes is classically studied thought the concepts of judicial power, jurisdiction and admissibility. However it is now common to find references to the notion of « right of action » or « right of claim » in decisions of international tribunals especially when individuals are involved. One might wonder whether this observation reveals an evolution in the concepts governing disputes settlement in international law. The study of the right of action in international investment law demonstrates the usefulness of the concept in explaining the applicable rules. First, as a key concept, it can be used to identify the rules that determine the possibility to obtain a decision of the tribunal as opposed to the rules governing the State’s responsibility. In practice, it appears that the tribunals do not always respect this distinction. Secondly, the right of action allows taking into account the legal consequences of the State’s consent to arbitration. In this case, the concept of judicial power is partly irrelevant as it is usually based on a consent agreement between the parties. It follows that the concept of right of action is relevant when the applicable rules deal with the possibility to invoke and to rely on the consent to jurisdiction expressed by the respondent State. The fact that it is the case in the settlement of disputes between a State and an investor does not mean that it can not be so in the context of a interstate dispute.

This thesis examines the process applied by international tribunals for delimiting Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf boundaries under international law. Maritime delimitation is governed by articles 74 and 83 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which are customary international law. However, owing to the vagueness of such legal provisions, international tribunals have been developing a standard process for delimiting maritime boundaries. The delimitation process has evolved significantly since the 1969 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in North Sea Continental Shelf. The ICJ re-stated this process in its 2009 Black Sea judgment as being constituted of three stages: first, an equidistance line is provisionally drawn; second, this line is adjusted should relevant circumstances so require; third, the overall equitableness of the boundary is evaluated by assessing the proportionality between the length of the relevant coast and the marine areas appertaining to each state. This thesis analyses each stage of the delimitation process as re-stated in Black Sea. By way of introduction, chapter 1 outlines the relevant legal provisions and the historical evolution of the delimitation process through the jurisprudence of international tribunals. Chapter 2 discusses both the notions of the relevant coast and of the relevant area, and the practical methods for their identification. Since Black Sea, international tribunals have tended to identify the relevant coast and the relevant area prior to establishing a provisional equidistance line. Chapter 3 discusses the issues concerning the drawing of the provisional equidistance line. Chapter 4 examines relevant circumstances and the methods for adjusting an equidistance line. Chapter 5 discusses proportionality. Using doctrinal legal research methodologies, this thesis aims to assess the degree of consistency in the international tribunals’ application of the three-stage delimitation process. It argues that, while great leaps forward have been made since 1969, there is still a number of unresolved issues, in relation to which this thesis endeavours to provide some workable solutions.

Univ., Diss.--Bern, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. [289] - 301.