This dissertation presents a concept of diversity as an ideal of international economic regulation. The theme of diversity refers to the differentiation of individual competitive strategies. The first advantage of such differentiation is argued to be as a means of stable and adaptive progress; increasing the number of possible techniques with which to meet as yet unforeseen challenges. As the first principle of diversity entails a method for systemic responsiveness, the second principle gives content to this method and states that social goals should serve as the incentives encouraging competitors toward differentiation. The advantage offered by the second principle is that social non-economic goals may be advanced in the present, as individuals attempt new routes to personal reward via the satisfaction of collective objectives that previously may have had little or no economic value. As an ideal of diversity contemplates a method of systemic incentives, rather than mandated outcomes, the location of innovation remains individual competitors. Accordingly, the ideal of diversity is justified and articulated from a basis in individual rights. Diversity is argued to be the optimal set of principles which individuals would select if given the ability to design a new competitive system. In joining a method of differentiation with the added social content of non-economic priority, diversity offers a unique blend of economic efficiency and equity; or of self-interest and concern for the welfare of others. Diversity allows an individual to think of their own pursuit of gain, but also and simultaneously further collective goals by selecting the priorities that should influence competitors toward differentiation. Other’s welfare becomes a route to individual success. The project progresses through three broad conceptual stages. First, international problems of market failure are considered in light of strategies and the economic impulses toward self and system defeating cycles of competition. Second, a redefinition of legal and economic progress is offered to meet conditions of unpredictability, and to arrive at an evolutionary method that encourages constantly competitive variation with which to meet society’s future challenges. Third, an evolutionary approach to international regulation is translated into a priority system of legal rights.

No description available.

This dissertation presents a concept of diversity as an ideal of international economic regulation. The theme of diversity refers to the differentiation of individual competitive strategies. The first advantage of such differentiation is argued to be as a means of stable and adaptive progress; increasing the number of possible techniques with which to meet as yet unforeseen challenges. As the first principle of diversity entails a method for systemic responsiveness, the second principle gives content to this method and states that social goals should serve as the incentives encouraging competitors toward differentiation. The advantage offered by the second principle is that social non-economic goals may be advanced in the present, as individuals attempt new routes to personal reward via the satisfaction of collective objectives that previously may have had little or no economic value. As an ideal of diversity contemplates a method of systemic incentives, rather than mandated outcomes, the location of innovation remains individual competitors. Accordingly, the ideal of diversity is justified and articulated from a basis in individual rights. Diversity is argued to be the optimal set of principles which individuals would select if given the ability to design a new competitive system. In joining a method of differentiation with the added social content of non-economic priority, diversity offers a unique blend of economic efficiency and equity; or of self-interest and concern for the welfare of others. Diversity allows an individual to think of their own pursuit of gain, but also and simultaneously further collective goals by selecting the priorities that should influence competitors toward differentiation. Other’s welfare becomes a route to individual success. The project progresses through three broad conceptual stages. First, international problems of market failure are considered in light of strategies and the economic impulses toward self and system defeating cycles of competition. Second, a redefinition of legal and economic progress is offered to meet conditions of unpredictability, and to arrive at an evolutionary method that encourages constantly competitive variation with which to meet society’s future challenges. Third, an evolutionary approach to international regulation is translated into a priority system of legal rights.

This dissertation presents a concept of diversity as an ideal of international economic regulation. The theme of diversity refers to the differentiation of individual competitive strategies. The first advantage of such differentiation is argued to be as a means of stable and adaptive progress; increasing the number of possible techniques with which to meet as yet unforeseen challenges. As the first principle of diversity entails a method for systemic responsiveness, the second principle gives content to this method and states that social goals should serve as the incentives encouraging competitors toward differentiation. The advantage offered by the second principle is that social non-economic goals may be advanced in the present, as individuals attempt new routes to personal reward via the satisfaction of collective objectives that previously may have had little or no economic value. As an ideal of diversity contemplates a method of systemic incentives, rather than mandated outcomes, the location of innovation remains individual competitors. Accordingly, the ideal of diversity is justified and articulated from a basis in individual rights. Diversity is argued to be the optimal set of principles which individuals would select if given the ability to design a new competitive system. In joining a method of differentiation with the added social content of non-economic priority, diversity offers a unique blend of economic efficiency and equity; or of self-interest and concern for the welfare of others. Diversity allows an individual to think of their own pursuit of gain, but also and simultaneously further collective goals by selecting the priorities that should influence competitors toward differentiation. Other’s welfare becomes a route to individual success. The project progresses through three broad conceptual stages. First, international problems of market failure are considered in light of strategies and the economic impulses toward self and system defeating cycles of competition. Second, a redefinition of legal and economic progress is offered to meet conditions of unpredictability, and to arrive at an evolutionary method that encourages constantly competitive variation with which to meet society’s future challenges. Third, an evolutionary approach to international regulation is translated into a priority system of legal rights. / Law, Faculty of / Graduate

This thesis is concerned with the progressive development of international enforcement. In effect, it explores the normative pull of international law and its influence on compliance with international environmental obligations. Moreover, it looks to the notion of progress in international law and assesses its influence within the sphere of international enforcement. In recent decades, the effect of contemporary environmental challenges on the enjoyment of various values and rights have become more apparent. It is in light of this present situation that this thesis explores the progressive development of international enforcement. Furthermore, it is in light of this situation that the thesis makes a claim for enhanced compliance with international environmental obligations. The thesis main argument is that the normative pull of international law can increase the effectiveness of international enforcement within the context of some international environmental obligations. Furthermore, the thesis posits that looking to the notion of progress in international law can advance an understanding of how the normative pull impacts the authority and legitimacy of international enforcement measures. To that end, it is argued that the notion of progress in international law, by coinciding with authority in international law, justifies coercive enforcement actions; and further, that the notion of progress, by influencing the legitimacy of international enforcement, contributes to the necessity of compliance. In effect the notion of progress in international law, therefore, has the capacity to influence compliance with international environmental obligations. In order to contextualise the theoretical arguments and assumptions made, the thesis looks to two international environmental obligations: The obligation to avert the cause of climate change and the obligation to preserve and protect the marine environment.

This thesis is a socio-legal study of the politics of international law (i.e. the relationship between international law and international politics). There is not necessarily an accepted scope, or even direction, of this relationship but it is widely perceived to be important in international, as well as national, affairs. Still, this relationship needs to be better understood and articulated. This thesis offers a theoretical and empirical account of the phenomenon of the politics of international law, and its implications for the Chechen conflict by exploring how and to what extent one's understanding of the phenomenon is determined by culture, history, political and social context. Part One is an overview of the literature and theoretical approaches to studying the relationship between (international) law and (international) politics, as well as an analysis of sixteen face-to-face semi-structured interviews with practitioners of international law and international politics from different backgrounds and cultures. That leads to a theoretical model which is applied and verified in Part Two, a case study of the Chechen conflict. This focuses specifically on a socio-historical understanding of international law, the humanitarian and human rights movement in Russia, and the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law in the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in the so-called Chechen cases. The findings of this study indicate that international politics is highly influenced by international law just as international law is affected by international politics. They both are integral parts of the international system, nevertheless, remain distinct from each other. It is therefore the politics of international law that allows international relations to take place, where politics provides the means by which the negotiations can take place and law creates specific language and provides a framework within which the debates can take place. It demonstrates that the challenges of modern times make that the two become increasingly influential on one another.

State immunity has undergone major changes over time and is still a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between human rights and the norms governing state immunity. Located in different geological strata of international law, the clashes between the law of state immunity and human rights drew attention to the struggle among competing conceptions of international law. On one hand, being commonly linked to the principle of sovereign equality and to the need for stability in international relations, state immunity operates when a domestic court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute because one of the parties is a foreign state. On the other, human rights have a different logic and require change and the realization of justice. The development of the body of human rights law allowed to call into question the grant of state immunity in cases in which human rights norms were violated. Legal questions arising from the relationship between state immunity and human rights have been put before domestic and international courts. Having examined the various judgments dealing with these issues, this study contends that the answers to the technical and dogmatic questions originating from the encounter between state immunity and human rights reproduce theoretical conflicts which happen - to use Koskenniemi\'s expression - at a \'higher level of abstraction\'. The ICJ\'s judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State may have crystallized a consensus according to which state immunity trumps the individual\'s right to reparation for serious violations of human rights. This consensus, however, is contingent and can be questioned through the language of international law. / A imunidade estatal passou por grandes mudanças através dos tempos e ainda é um tema controverso e bastante debatido. A proposta deste estudo foi investigar a relação entre os direitos humanos e as normas que governam a imunidade estatal. Estando em camadas geológicas diferentes do direito internacional, os choques entre o direito da imunidade estatal e os direitos humanos chamaram atenção para a disputa entre concepções conflitantes de direito internacional. De um lado, sendo comumente relacionada ao princípio da igualdade soberana e à necessidade de estabilidade nas relações internacionais, a imunidade estatal opera quando uma corte não pode exercer jurisdição sobre o objeto de uma disputa em razão de uma das partes ser um estado estrangeiro. De outro, os direitos humanos têm uma lógica diferente e requerem mudança e a realização da justiça. O desenvolvimento do corpo dos direitos humanos permitiu questionar a concessão de imunidade estatal em casos em que normas de direitos humanos foram violadas. Questões jurídicas originadas do relacionamento entre imunidade estatal e direitos humanos foram levadas a várias cortes domésticas e internacionais. Tendo sido realizado o exame dos vários casos lidando com esse assunto, este estudo argumenta que as respostas para as questões técnicas e dogmáticas originadas do encontro entre imunidade de jurisdição e direitos humanos reproduzem conflitos teóricos que ocorrem - na expressão de Koskenniemi - em um \'nível mais elevado de abstração\'. O julgamento da Corte Internacional de Justiça em Imunidades de Jurisdição do Estado pode ter cristalizado um consenso segundo o qual as normas que se relacionam com a imunidade estatal prevalecem sobre o direito individual de reparação por sérias violações de direitos humanos. Tal consenso, no entanto, é contingente e pode ser questionado por meio da linguagem do direito internacional.

State immunity has undergone major changes over time and is still a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between human rights and the norms governing state immunity. Located in different geological strata of international law, the clashes between the law of state immunity and human rights drew attention to the struggle among competing conceptions of international law. On one hand, being commonly linked to the principle of sovereign equality and to the need for stability in international relations, state immunity operates when a domestic court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute because one of the parties is a foreign state. On the other, human rights have a different logic and require change and the realization of justice. The development of the body of human rights law allowed to call into question the grant of state immunity in cases in which human rights norms were violated. Legal questions arising from the relationship between state immunity and human rights have been put before domestic and international courts. Having examined the various judgments dealing with these issues, this study contends that the answers to the technical and dogmatic questions originating from the encounter between state immunity and human rights reproduce theoretical conflicts which happen - to use Koskenniemi\'s expression - at a \'higher level of abstraction\'. The ICJ\'s judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State may have crystallized a consensus according to which state immunity trumps the individual\'s right to reparation for serious violations of human rights. This consensus, however, is contingent and can be questioned through the language of international law. / A imunidade estatal passou por grandes mudanças através dos tempos e ainda é um tema controverso e bastante debatido. A proposta deste estudo foi investigar a relação entre os direitos humanos e as normas que governam a imunidade estatal. Estando em camadas geológicas diferentes do direito internacional, os choques entre o direito da imunidade estatal e os direitos humanos chamaram atenção para a disputa entre concepções conflitantes de direito internacional. De um lado, sendo comumente relacionada ao princípio da igualdade soberana e à necessidade de estabilidade nas relações internacionais, a imunidade estatal opera quando uma corte não pode exercer jurisdição sobre o objeto de uma disputa em razão de uma das partes ser um estado estrangeiro. De outro, os direitos humanos têm uma lógica diferente e requerem mudança e a realização da justiça. O desenvolvimento do corpo dos direitos humanos permitiu questionar a concessão de imunidade estatal em casos em que normas de direitos humanos foram violadas. Questões jurídicas originadas do relacionamento entre imunidade estatal e direitos humanos foram levadas a várias cortes domésticas e internacionais. Tendo sido realizado o exame dos vários casos lidando com esse assunto, este estudo argumenta que as respostas para as questões técnicas e dogmáticas originadas do encontro entre imunidade de jurisdição e direitos humanos reproduzem conflitos teóricos que ocorrem - na expressão de Koskenniemi - em um \'nível mais elevado de abstração\'. O julgamento da Corte Internacional de Justiça em Imunidades de Jurisdição do Estado pode ter cristalizado um consenso segundo o qual as normas que se relacionam com a imunidade estatal prevalecem sobre o direito individual de reparação por sérias violações de direitos humanos. Tal consenso, no entanto, é contingente e pode ser questionado por meio da linguagem do direito internacional.