Traditionally, the enforcement of competition rules in Europe has been predominantly via public enforcement. Following the European Court of Justice’s ruling in 2001 in which was established the right for compensation of harms suffered by any victim of antitrust infringements, the European Commission has made proposals to create a private antitrust enforcement regime. While compensation of victims is the first and foremost guiding principle, the regime thus created, should, according to the Commission, also deliver overall better compliance with competition rules whilst creating and sustaining a competitive European economy. In designing the system the Commission contends that it should not be grounded on similar features to that of the United States private enforcement mechanism as it has resulted in abuses of the system by private parties for private interests. A deconstructive reading of the Commission proposals, however, reveals that the envisaged regime contains more characteristics of the United States system than is explicitly presented. Furthermore, a direct comparison of common prohibitions in both systems exposes a significant lack of safeguards against misuse of the rules by private parties in the European system. This thesis also compares the envisaged European regime with the Canadian public enforcement regime. Despite the restricted cause of action accorded to private parties, the Canadian system is not immune from exploitation of the rules by private parties for self-interest. These findings call into question whether the proposed system will deliver the stated aims. This thesis concludes that considering the costs of private enforcement, European competition law should be solely the competence of public officials. It is argued that although not formally recognised either in the literature nor in the case law of the EU courts, the Commission is already legally empowered to award compensation to victims of antitrust violations. This thesis presents suggestions for an enhancement of the current public enforcement framework.

This thesis brings a focusing lens on one of history’s most intractable and protracted territorial disputes, that between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the non-self-governing territory known as the Falklands (Malvinas), an archipelago of 200 islands, some 480 miles north-east of Cape Horn, Argentina. For Argentina, the ‘Malvinas are a constantly bleeding wound, flesh torn from the body that is Argentina’. To the United Kingdom, the territory represents one of the last vestiges of its once vast empire, having held effective control of the territory since 1833, other than for a short period in 1982 following an Argentine use of military force. The facts, history, law, and politics of this dispute all act in concert to create a picture that is so highly nebulous that a clear view as to which State should hold territorial sovereignty has yet to emerge, with there being legitimately argued positions in favour of both disputing States. At the heart of this thesis is a critical analysis of the history, the legal arguments, and the methodologies of international lawyers in order to examine the effectiveness of international law as a dispute settlement mechanism. In doing so, this thesis ascertains whether international law has a role to play in resolving this most entrenched of international disputes. This re-evaluation of the value of international law, through a critical lens, argues that international law does have the potential to assist in the resolution of the dispute. However, this is only possible if political leaders are ready to grasp on to that opportunity, and to make use of diplomatic means of dispute settlement, at the critical moment when the dispute becomes ripe, at times of significant political change. It is in these moments that international law could prove to be the guiding hand that may assist with the normalisation of relations between Argentina and the UK.

The title of this thesis is Freedom of Association and Trade Union Rights in Europe, Comparative Analysis of the ECJ and ECtHR Case Law. There are several issues that the thesis will try to shed light on. Firstly, it will identify what level of freedom of association as a trade union right is deemed acceptable at the international and European levels. At the international level the ILO and ESC standards will be looked at, while at the regional level I will research the case law of the two European Courts – CJEU and ECtHR. Secondly, the standards of the CJEU and ECtHR will be compared to each other. This way, we will know which of the two protects trade union rights better and where there might be flaws. Thirdly, after comparing the CJEU and ECtHR standards with each other, they will be compared to the international standards of the ILO and ESC. This way I will check how the regional standards are in concert with the international standards that are respected worldwide. Finally, the prospects of EU accession to the ECHR will be looked at. Here I will investigate whether the accession might affect the protection of trade union freedoms in Europe, and if so, in what way.

Only two Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries have ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute, and this number is unlikely to change dramatically in the near future. This research thus considers how international criminal justice (ICrimJ) can be advanced through the regionalisation of international criminal law (ICL), whilst also serving the interests of ASEAN Member States. The theoretical appeal, practical viability, and political acceptability of regional ICrimJ mechanisms are accordingly examined. Given that the establishment of the ICC has challenged the absolute sovereignty of States over the prosecution of international crimes, regional initiatives have added political allure as they not only better reflect local legal norms and political considerations, but also place the selection of ‘regional crimes’ and enforcement measures primarily in the hands of regional countries. In recognition of the 'ASEAN way' of making decisions, regional initiatives to further ICrimJ in Southeast Asia should be implemented gradually and driven internally through consultation and consensus. Moreover, to achieve the overarching ASEAN goal of maintaining regional peace and security, the modalities and practical effects of ICrimJ may require greater emphasis on deterrence and reconciliation, instead of punishment. The prospect and efficacy of a regional ICrimJ mechanism however also depends, inter alia, on the availability of institutional infrastructure and resources, and will understandably differ between regions. Nevertheless, some general conclusions about the value and attractiveness of a regional approach to ICrimJ can be drawn. Despite variations on what may constitute justice in different geographic areas, these generalisations are useful because they reveal the incentives and favourable conditions for efforts at the regional level. The research therefore proffers a basic framework to assess the costs and benefits of regional solutions against domestic or international methods of enforcing ICL, and determine which may best serve ICrimJ in each unique situation and circumstance.

This thesis seeks to determine the most effective jurisdiction for criminal accountability for UN peacekeeping personnel who engage in sexual exploitation and abuse of women, and other conduct amounting to violence against women. As criminalisation is sought as the appropriate method of prevention and punishment of such conduct, it is first examined why criminalisation is necessary. The impact of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) on women in the territories in which peace operations are located is detailed as harms in the form of violations of the rights of these women. Alternatives to criminal sanctions are then considered, in particular the actions of the UN towards prevention and prohibition of SEA. While such regulations are necessary, they are ultimately inadequate in preventing and punishing SEA. Included is an assessment of the Draft Convention on Criminal Accountability of UN Officials and Experts on Mission, the adoption of which would support criminalisation. However, the UN itself is unable to exercise criminal jurisdiction, and thus it is essential to examine which jurisdictions would be most effective in undertaking criminal prosecution of peacekeeping personnel. The choice between national jurisdictions and international criminal justice is debated. Which jurisdiction offers a more effectual forum for ensuring accountability? What potential impediments exist and how can such hindrances can be overcome? This thesis argues that gender-based crimes by UN peacekeepers should be criminalised, and that, while the International Criminal Court should not be discounted as a potential forum for prosecuting perpetrators, domestic prosecutions are far more likely and far more effective.

Rising levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment have spurred governments around the world to engage in cooperative action on a global scale to control those chemicals that pose significant threats to human health and the environment. Political efforts to mitigate the risks posed by these chemicals are impeded by the technical complexity associated with POPs pollution, and are thus predicated on the scientific assessments of experts in fields such as chemistry and toxicology. Policymakers’ reliance on scientific expertise for guidance on risk assessment and management has reduced their control over policy and has given scientists authority to determine socially acceptable levels of risk, thus blurring the boundaries between science and politics. Conversely, the implications of science-based decision-making have increased the interest and involvement of political actors in a phase of evaluation that is often seen as objective, fact-based, and free of political interest. This thesis analyzes the ways in which various actors with scientific expertise – representatives of governments, industry, and environmental/public health NGOs – working under the auspices of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants have used strategic issue framing tactics to promote predetermined policy agendas during the scientific review of chemicals proposed for regulation. This research breaks new ground by analyzing the ways elite decision-makers strategically frame issues in order to influence the policy preferences of other elites, and by evaluating the role of issue framing in the context of live policy negotiations. Key findings include the following: 1) the formation of epistemic communities of technical experts is precluded by political pressure on scientists to represent government/organizational interests, and 2) scientists strategically frame issues in ways that support the social, economic or political interests of the governments or organizations with which they are affiliated, thus contributing to the politicization of science-based decision-making.

This thesis addresses the legitimacy discourse of the ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, by focusing on a particular case study: the Interlocutory Motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the Dusko Tadi6 case. This, the first ever International Criminal Tribunal established by the United Nations Security Council, faced in the initial proceedings with the first indictee to be present in the Chambers a challenge as to the lawfulness of its own establishment, and therefore as to its legitimacy. The lack of historical precedents for this novel jurisdiction, and the context of the more multicultural-driven international relations of the 1990s, that is, because of the collapse of the superpowers and the temporary suspension of the logic of a bipolar world, were all expected to validate a complex discourse of legitimacy, namely, through recourse to extra-legal references. In fact, the acceptance, and therefore the legitimacy, of the new jurisdiction depended on the recognition of a shared historical, cultural and political context, or, at least, of recognizable politicocultural references beyond the legalistic self-contained judicial speech. After extensively reviewing the initial materials of the challenge presented before the court, the thesis focuses its research on the Tribunal's Decisions, both at Trial and Appeal levels, identifying the attempts to break a self-referential legal discourse. The uncertainty of the historical moment, together with the hesitation on the use of politico-cultural references on the part of the Tribunal, sustains the conclusion of this thesis that no coherent legitimacy discourse is here attained.

The United Nations was established in the belief that working together states could curb the use of force and the damage to states and individuals associated with it. Upon its creation the United Nations Security Council became the global policeman enforcing the rules of the Charter aided by the weapons contained in Chapter V11. One of those weapons was the recourse to economic sanctions. In theory, if the economic lifeblood of a state is cut off it will be forced to modify its behaviour without the need for military intervention. As such, economic sanctions are an attractive resource for an institution seeking to avoid recourse to the use of force. In practice, however, economic sanctions have proven to be a complex tool, which have caused significant damage to those targeted by them. They have caused significant humanitarian difficulties, have been widely breached and have, in some instances, only served as a prelude to the use of force. Literature in this field to date has concentrated on single sanctions regimes or particular aspects of sanctions. It has, therefore, failed to get to the heart of the issue, which is: what has caused these problems, are they being appropriately addressed and how should they be resolved going forward. This thesis focuses on these issues. By tracing the development of economic sanctions from the establishment of the United Nations to date it offers a unique perspective on how they have evolved. It uses case studies and illustrative examples supported by a wide range of legal, political, historical and economic material to show the context in which economic sanctions are taken. It also critically analyses the difficulties that have arisen with sanctions regimes and the attempts that have been made to resolve them. Aligned to the consideration of economic sanctions is a reflection on the extent to which the power of the United Nations Security Council has developed during this time period. It suggests that the United Nations use of economic sanctions, in light of recent judicial decisions, is under threat and offers a solution in the form of a proposal for two new institutions, which would support the United Nations in its use of economic sanctions.

This thesis is about identifying valid self-defence claims in the UN collective security system. The thesis suggests a fresh theoretical approach to balancing the imperative for adaptation of the right of self-defence with the danger that too broad a right could be exploited by states wishing to justify national policy. The starting point for the thesis is the twin realist criticisms that the right of self- defence is either too narrowly drawn and therefore not fit for the purpose of protecting states‘ interests, or too broadly drawn and therefore hostage to the subjective interpretation of states using force. These problems were intensified during the Administration of former President G.W. Bush in the USA. In this work, these two criticisms are dubbed 'esotericism' and 'exploitation' respectively. The problem of self-defence, as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force, is often phrased in terms of a choice between the is of state practice and the ought of abstract norms. In this thesis, it is suggested that no such choice needs to be made. In order to identify a valid self-defence claim, the is of evaluative state practice is harnessed and constrained by a process of argumentation grounded in mutual understanding of the facts of a given case. Two strands of social theory are used to accomplish this. One of them questions whether states have to be conceived as rationally self-interested actors and suggests that the key to the identification of valid self-defence claims is for states to take responsibility for their claims and evaluations of the right. The other strand of theory expands on Habermas‘ idea of the criticizable validity claim. The report that self-defence has been used should act as a starting point for argumentation and not the last word in national process of decision.

At the end of the Cold War some scholars argued that democracy is the only legitimate political system and that this needs to be acknowledged even by international law. This thesis rejects such arguments and takes the position that attributes of statehood are not dependent on type of government. As far as existing states are concerned, democracy is not an ongoing requirement for statehood. The end of the Cold War also coincided with the dissolutions of two multiethnic federations, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia followed shortly afterwards and subsequently Eritrea, East Timor and Montenegro also became independent states. Most recently, independence was declared by Kosovo. Some of these post-Cold War state creations were subject to significant international involvement, which might have had effects of (informal) collective state creations. This thesis argues that in such circumstances international efforts to create a new state were associated with attempts to implement a democratic political system. On the other hand, where the emergence of a new state was merely a fact (and the international community was not involved in producing this fact), recognition was normally universally granted without an enquiry into the (non-) democratic methods of governments of the newly-emerged states. Apart from democracy as a political system, this thesis is also concerned with the operation of democratic principles in the process of state creation, most notably through the exercise of the right of self-determination. An argument is made that the will of the people within the right of self-determination has a narrower scope than is the case within democratic political theory. Further, while the operation of the right of self-determination requires consent of the people before the legal status of a territory may be altered, a democratic expression of the will of a people will not necessarily create a state. Limits on the will of the people in the context of the right of selfdetermination stem from the principle of territorial integrity of states, protection of rights of other peoples and minorities, and even from the previously existing internal boundary arrangement. In the context of the latter it is concluded that the uti possidetis principle probably does not apply outside of the process of decolonisation. However, this does not mean that existing internal boundaries are not capable of limiting the democratically-expressed will of the people, especially where boundaries of strong historical pedigree are in question.