Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.

The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state. The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LL.D.

Avec la croissance des familles binationales, les divorces et séparations des époux donnent souvent lieu aux problèmes d’enlèvement parental d’enfant : l'un d’eux décide de déplacer l'enfant à l'étranger sans le consentement de l'autre afin de se faire accorder le droit de garde par un juge étranger plus clément. Des instruments juridiques internationaux tendent à résoudre ce problème d’enlèvement international d’enfants par le mécanisme de retour immédiat. La Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l'enlèvement international d'enfants est l'instrument principal qui est ratifié par un grand nombre d'États. Son effectivité dépend de la conformité de l'application par les États. Autrement dit, il est important d'interpréter des termes principaux et des exceptions de la Convention de manière conforme, voire similaire. Pour ce faire, le principe est l'interprétation autonome des notions de la Convention. Outre que la question d'interprétation de la Convention, l'attention est aussi portée sur l'exécution de l'ordonnance de retour. Cette exécution est en effet encadrée par l'obligation de célérité et elle requiert en même temps une forte coopération entre les autorités judiciaires et administratives entre les deux États concernés. Les États sont donc invités à donner effet aux ordonnances de retour à travers les différentes mesures, y compris les mesures coercitives. Cependant, la remise volontaire de l'enfant reste la meilleure solution qui doit être favorisée, notamment à travers le recours à une procédure amiable telle que la médiation familiale internationale. / With the increase of binational families, the divorces and separations between the married couple always give rise to problems of parental child kidnapping: one of them decides to remove the couple's child abroad, without consent of the other, with a view to having the child custody awarded by more clement foreign judges. International legal instruments tend to solve this problem of international child abduction through the summary return mechanism. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as the main instrument, is now ratified by a great number of States. Its effectiveness depends on the compliance of the application of the Convention by member States. In other words, it is important for member States to interpret the Convention terms in the way to comply with the other. In doing so, the proposed principle must be the autonomous interpretation of the Convention terms. In addition to the issue of interpretation, attention must also be placed on the enforcement of return orders. This enforcement must be guided by the celerity obligation. At the same time, the enforcement of return orders requires a strong cooperation between judicial and administrative authorities of the States involved in each abduction case. The States are, thus, invited to give effect to return orders by taking different measures, including coercive ones. However, voluntary return of the abducted child is always the best solution that must be favored, especially through the use of amicable settlement between the parties, such as the international family mediation.

Le droit international encadre l’exercice de la diplomatie des États dans une finalité de prévenir l’insécurité et, par extension, les conflits armés. Le droit de la diplomatie préventive reflète ainsi l’idée que la prévention de risques imminents de dommages matériels graves délimite l’objet d’un principe général de droit international. L’affirmation d’un principe est fondée sur l’analyse inductive des conventions majeures conclues en matière de maintien de la sécurité collective de 1899 à 1945. Elle est vérifiée à la lumière de la pratique de leur application par les Membres de la SdN et, depuis 1945, de l’ONU. Le caractère général de ce principe est déduit d’une étude combinée de la jurisprudence d’un nombre de juridictions internationales dans une variété de domaines du droit international. Les efforts individuels et collectifs de prévention des conflits obéissent donc à un régime juridique général qui organise le système contemporain de maintien de la paix internationale. / International law regulates States’ diplomacy for the purpose of preventing insecurity, and, by extension, armed conflicts. Accordingly, the law of preventive diplomacy reflects, in a sense, the idea that prevention of imminent risks of serious material damages defines a general principle of international law. The assertion of such a principle is based on an inductive analysis of the major treaties on collective security concluded between 1899 and 1945. It is verified in light of their application by Member States of the League of Nations and, since 1945, of the United Nations. The general nature of this principle is deduced from a combined study of the jurisprudence of a number of international courts and tribunals in various fields of international law. Those findings support the idea that individual and collective efforts of conflict prevention are subject to the respect of a general legal regime governing the current international system of peace-maintenance and collective security.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MarianaGama.pdf: 821073 bytes, checksum: 402b9864ba857f81db2e8321d820abb4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005-10-18 / The legal basis of the contract of carriage of goods by sea is the main object of the present work. The choice of this topic was influenced by the great importance that it presents and by the little prominence that the current Brazilian doctrine grants to it. Furthermore, due to the increase of the Brazilian exportation, the subject-matter is each time more appreciated by the national courts. In the present work were considered not only rules of domestic law, mainly represented by the Civil Code of 2002, but also principles of international law represented by two international conventions about the subject: the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (Brussels Convention, of 1924), and the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (the Hamburg Rules, of 1978). Certain rules of comparative law had also been indicated mainly when the subject is not regulated by the domestic legal system. Finally, it was made an analysis of two other kinds of economic exploitation of the ship: the chartering contract (time and voyage charter) and the bare boat charter, comparing them to the contract of carriage of goods by sea, and although they present some contact points with the contract, they differ from it. / O regime jurídico do contrato de transporte de mercadorias por via marítima é o principal objeto de estudo do presente trabalho. A escolha do tema foi influênciada pela grande importância que apresenta e devido ao pouco destaque que a doutrina brasileira atual lhe concede. Ademais, em função do aumento das exportações brasileiras, a matéria é cada vez mais apreciada pelos tribunais nacionais. No presente ensaio foram abordadas não somente as normas de direito interno, representadas principalmente pelo Código Civil de 2002, mas também as normas de direito internacional, consubstanciadas em duas convenções internacionais sobre a matéria: a Convenção Internacional para a Unificação de Certas Regras em Matéria de Conhecimentos (Convenção de Bruxelas, de 1924) e a Convenção das Nações Unidas para o Transporte de Mercadorias por Mar (Regras de Hamburgo, de 1978). Foram também indicados dispositivos de direito comparado, principalmente quando a matéria não for abordada pelo ordenamento jurídico pátrio. Por fim, foi feita uma análise de outras duas formas de exploração econômica do navio: o contrato de afretamento (por tempo e por viagem) e a locação, confrontando-as com o contrato de transporte marítimo de mercadorias, que, embora apresentem alguns pontos de contato, não se confundem com o contrato, objeto de comparação.

The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state. The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL.D.

Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.

LL.M. (International Commercial Law) / This essay seeks to look at the role of express submission to jurisdictjon under the Brussels I Regulation,lthe Brussels I (recast) Regulation2 and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.3 The express submission to jurisdiction under the three instruments mentioned in the previous sentence refers to the situation in which parties to an international commercial contract include in their contract a court of their choice to govern any disputes that may arise between them. This designated court may or may not be situated in a country that is a member of the three instruments mentioned above. The purpose of this thesis is to determine what will occur when the court chosen is from a country that is not a member of either of the three instruments mentioned. We will first look at express submission and the role it plays in determining which court has jurisdiction. This section on express submission will provide the definition of express submission in the context of a contract which incorporates a choice-of-forum agreement between the parties who are engaged in an international commercial transaction. The thesis will view the role of submission in a common-law and civil-law country in light of express submission by contract. Finally, a distinction will be made between an exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. A brief discussion ofthe Brussels Convention4 (The Convention) will be provided in order to present the fact that the Convention only applies when a choice-of-forum agreement in a contract has assoned thejurisdiction to a court of a country which is a member of the Convention. The Convention would not apply when a choice-of-forum agreement in a contract has assigned jurisdiction to the court of a country which is not a member to the Convention. ln order to determine whether the position has changed since the enactment of the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation) with regard to choice-of-forum agreements that designate jurisdiction to the court of a country in a nonmember state of the Regulation, provisions relating to express submission clauses will be discussed. A further discussion will be provided to ascertain whether the enactment of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4412001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement ofjudgments in civil and commercial matters.

The development of joint criminal enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has been controversial since the doctrine was first created in 1997. For the judgments rendered by the ICTY to be perceived as legitimate, the doctrines used to bring charges against defendants must also be perceived as legitimate. The purpose of my thesis is to study the application of joint criminal enterprise at the ICTY and examine how the doctrine has influenced the length of sentences given. I find that joint criminal enterprise may be influencing longer sentences and the three categories of joint criminal enterprise are being used differently on defendants of different power levels. By empirically analyzing the patterns developing at the ICTY, I can see how joint criminal enterprise is influencing sentencing and the fairness of trials.