As the investment treaty arbitration regime matures, consensus is emerging as to the need for public interest considerations to be taken into account in resolving disputes under international investment agreements (IIAs). However, the question of how such considerations should be reflected remains contentious. This thesis proposes that the remedies stage of the process can, and should, play a role in taking account of public interest considerations and so in easing the tension between host state regulatory sovereignty and investment protection that lies at the heart of the investment treaty regime. Thus, this thesis argues that, while, on the one hand, there is a need to introduce an element of reciprocity into the investment treaty arbitration process in order to ensure continuing state co-operation and to reflect the broader underlying purposes of IIAs, on the other, the primary object of the system remains the protection of foreign investors. These competing imperatives can lead to difficulties in taking account of public interest considerations at the merits stage of the arbitration process. Therefore, in order to reconcile these competing imperatives and to achieve an optimal balance between host state regulatory sovereignty and investment protection, this thesis proposes that public interest considerations should be recognised at the remedies stage where such considerations cannot be taken into account either sufficiently or at all at the merits stage and identifies a number of situations in which this approach would be appropriate. Potential doctrinal bases for implementation of this approach are also examined and the conclusion reached that, given the significant degree of discretion afforded to tribunals in applying the full reparation principle and the role that equity can permissibly play in quantifying damages, this approach can, save in the case of lawful expropriations, be implemented within the parameters of existing legal principles.

一九七九年中共「十一屆三中全會」確定了「鄧小平路線」, 由於對外來 資金與技術的需求, 間接影響其世界觀與對外政策; 在馬列毛思維體系中 本就是趨從於政治的法律, 也產生了變化。條約法是國際法的一個專門領 域, 也是國際法學中發展較為完善的一門。中共自認為一九七九年 (尤其 是八○年) 之後, 應以發展「有中國特色的條約法學」為重心; 據其所 稱, 這是一種馬克思主義、列寧主義、毛澤東思想及「新中國」實踐的總 合。儘管「有中國特色的條約法學」具有濃厚的宣傳意味, 但一九七九年 之後, 中共關於條約法的理論、研究與官方行為, 確實有極大的轉變 : 制定詳細的條約締結程序法、派遣國際法學家參與國際法院法官的選舉參 與相關的條約法公約的制定、出版條約法專書、他與西方國家締結條約數 目大增、降低條約法的鬥爭性......等等。除上所述, 本論文也從國際條 約法的角度, 觀察、分析中共在「香港問題」上所產生的種種問題, 並藉 以究討台海兩岸間協議的性質、效力。

The aim of the thesis is to analyse asylum law of the European Union with focus on the changes, which introduced the Treaty of Lisbon. The paper describes development of the EU asylum law, establishing of the Common European Asylum System (CAES) and changes that Lisbon Treaty introduced in comparison with the former regulation. The text also deals with the right to asylum, which is established in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The thesis is divided into 7 chapters. In the first part of the paper the author follows historical development of the asylum law of the European Union and beginning of the harmonization until adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty. The second chapter is dedicated to the establishment of the CAES, which more than 10 years ago became main priority of the asylum policy of the EU and which aims to harmonize asylum laws of the Member States and therefore ensure a unified application not only of international, but also of European legislation from this area. Recent major changes in the structure and functioning of the European Union, which were introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, are in general outlined in the third chapter of this paper. Detailed description of changes is presented in the next chapter, which is divided into section according to the institutions. Each...

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 tesi dottorale indaga l'articolato sistema di interferenze che la normativa dell'Unione europea esercita sul diritto penale interno, di cui il settore ambientale è parso emblematico. Dal punto di vista sistematico, la tesi può idealmente essere suddivisa in due parti. La prima di queste è dedicata al più generale interrogativo circa l’atteggiarsi del dialogo tra ordinamento interno e sovranazionale alla luce delle novità determinatesi con la riforma dei Trattati del 2009 (e segnatamente; l'eliminazione della divisione in pilastri dell'Unione, la previsione di una competenza penale indiretta dell'Unione, l'attribuzione di valore giuridicamente vincolante alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali e la prevista adesione alla CEDU) in una prospettiva critica “costituzionalmente orientata”. La seconda è più specificamente rivolta alla materia ambientale, quale banco di verifica del funzionamento della nuova potestà punitiva sovranazionale, nonché della competenza redazionale del legislatore comunitario. / The enquiry aims to explore the relationships between European Legislation and National Criminal Law. The thesis is composed of two parts: the first one relates to questions pertaining to the National Criminal Law in light of the innovations of the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the abolition of the three-pillar structure of the EU, the EU Criminal Law Competence, the Charter of Fundamental Rights that was given binding legal effect equal to the Treaties, the legal basis for the accession of the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights). The analysis is done assuming a constitutional-oriented approach. The second part relates to Environmental Law as a test case for the EU Criminal Competences.