The Thesis takes the approach of a critique of the current international environmental lawmaking processes and the systemic shortcomings and aims to redesign parts of the international environmental lawmaking system on new terms. Through case studies and doctrinal analyses, an array of initial questions guides the research through a variety of factors influencing the International Environmental Law. The Thesis mainly tests and finds the following hypotheses positive; some of the decisive factors that would create an optimized lawmaking framework and advance the purposes of I.E.L. include, but are not limited to, the adoption of: (a) progressive voting processes, including the majority rule and opting-out procedures as means of adopting primary and, most importantly, secondary legislation resulting in legally binding rules upon the States without requiring prior ratification by the states within the framework of International Organizations or Multilateral Environmental Agreements; (b) science-based secondary legislation, defined by specific criteria and boundaries that primary laws pose on them, that is more detailed than primary laws and of a more technical nature, promulgated by expert bodies alone, without the intervention of political bodies, and is binding upon States, unless the latter object with reason; and (c) new procedural rules, related to the pre- and post-lawmaking stages that enhance participation in the lawmaking process by both experts and the public and review the implementation, compliance and validity of science and technology of the laws, while at the same time guarantee all forms of legitimacy. The Thesis does not aim to produce a countervailing lawmaking model. It rather attempts to optimize some of the lawmaking processes based on an enhanced science-base in order to better protect our global natural environment and public health.

Canada, the United States and Mexico offer a very interesting microcosm. On one side these three countries have strong economic, commercial and cultural ties with each other, but on the other hand there are significant and contrasting differences among each one of them. Differences in paradigms, approach, concepts, structures, procedures, et cetera While Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentarian form of government, the U.S. and Mexico are Republics with a Presidential system. These three countries are known to be federal States, but their actual practice of federalism is very different in each one of them Furthermore, while Mexico's legal system belongs to the Romano-Germanic Tradition; most of the U.S. and Canada belong to the tradition of the Common Law. And yet there is even more, at different levels Puerto Rico and Louisiana in the United States, as well as Quebec in Canada are rooted in the Romano-Germanic Tradition. Accordingly, the Common Law and the Romano-Germanic traditions have to coexist harmoniously in the interaction that the domestic systems of Puerto Rico, Lousiana and Quebec have with the federal sphere of their respective counties This is the legal context in which our three countries have to coexist, interact and work together, and I think that these goals may only be achieved successfully if we understand and respect our respective legal identities in terms of that which is unique to each other, in terms of that which is different in each other, in terms of the goals that we do not have in common, in terms of the common goals that we have in common, in terms of that which we may want to achieve together, and also in terms of that what we can and should learn from each other Still, I truly believe that there are many important lessons that Mexico and world have to learn from these functional coexistences. At least in Canada this situation has driven to produce important developments in that what today is known as the Canadian Bijuralism. And even more, in my opinion---without having conscience of it---Canadians are developing the model that will frame supra-national law and global legal interaction in the twenty-first century In this sense, it would be ideal---and even desirable---to count with a broader and comprehensive view of the interaction between globalization the Law, as well as its actual effects and implications, but my goal is rather monographic This work aims to discuss one specific issue, the correlation between the assumption of personal jurisdiction by the issuing court over non-resident defendants (when the defendant has not appeared before the court, has challenged its jurisdiction or has not expressly submitted to such jurisdiction) and the enforcement of foreign judgments in the three countries of the North American subcontinent, namely Canada, the United States and Mexico / acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the Mexican experience with respect to the application of one of the most controversial standards in international investment law: the obligation to provide a fair and equitable treatment (FET) to foreign investors. A hypothesis of this paper is that it is not appropriate to define a normative content of the FET standard by only discussing the host country measures taken, allegedly, against a foreign investor. Rather, in the analysis of different cases involving Mexico, the perceived conduct of the foreign investor could be used by the host country as a defense in allegations of FET violations. According with this thesis, this is the only approach that seeks to find a balance between the investors' rights and the legitimate domestic public policies of the host country This thesis - after discussing the historical, institutional, and doctrinal framework of the FET standard - analyzes the factual circumstances and legal allegations marshaled by the parties in those cases involving Mexico. In the NAFTA context, this paper highlights the differences in the construction of the FET standard made by the tribunals in the cases resolved before the Free Trade Commission issued the 2001 Notes of Interpretation, and the interpretation in those cases settled after these Notes were issued. Also, there is a remarkable difference in some aspects of the normative content of the standard in the cases settled in the framework of the Bilateral Investment Treaties In addition, this thesis concludes that the concept of FET as part of a minimum standard of treatment of customary international law is continuously evolving; that exhaustive jurisprudential analyses demonstrate that is possible to define a normative content of the FET standard. In any event, the threshold for finding a violation of any of the elements of this normative content remains high; and that the lack of an appellate review in investor---State disputes largely contributes to the lack of a clear understanding of the meaning of the FET standard / acase@tulane.edu

This Dissertation analyses the viability of Chapter 11, of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in the context of expanding trade and investment agreements. This mechanism, which was created to safeguard NAFTA foreign direct investment (FDI), is at a cross-roads where it will either continue its evolution as a cutting edge investment protection protocol, or fade into obscurity as a tried, but failed relic of the Twentieth Century. This Dissertation makes the case that while it has served the interests of stakeholders, it is timely to rethink some its controversial aspects The notion that Chapter 11 is misplaced, in the modern regulatory era, is refuted. As the NAFTA does not define expropriation, police powers or property concepts, Chapter 11 tribunals, guided by amorphous international standards, have been tasked with defining the delicate societal burden sharing, which is implicit in the expropriation analysis. Chapter 11 litigation has highlighted troubling questions, in the context of indirect expropriation, relating to the intersection of international law and tribunals with the competing values placed on domestic regulation and court decisions. Notwithstanding these troubling concerns, this Dissertation argues that, with few exceptions, Chapter 11 has usefully advanced FDI protocols This Dissertation rejects the often-heard arguments that Chapter 11 should be replaced by another existing framework. It argues that a quick fix to the problem does not exist and urges patience with the development of a mature jurisprudence. In exploring the potential solutions, it calls for the Parties to approach Chapter 11's perceived shortcomings on a holistic basis, commensurate with the existing political will, through thoughtful recalibration of its substantive provisions and enhancement of its procedural provisions. Specifically, a three-part test is proffered, which is aimed at drawing the appropriate linkages between expropriation, the State's police powers and evolving property principles. As well, the enhancement of public scrutiny, through improved transparency and increased public participation, is sure to facilitate efficiency and legitimacy in the process, while removing the impetus to usurp Chapter 11. Such an approach would also be more effective in striking a balance between the FDI concerns of investors abroad with the domestic needs of regulators / acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

This dissertation is an in-depth study of the underlying characteristics of the eight nation-states bordering the Persian Gulf--Behrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--and of their behavioral interactions (the 'structure of relations') between and among them over a period of approximately a dozen years spanning the decade of the 1970s The study proceeds from the hypothesis that the Persian Gulf area constitutes an incipient, and indeed already emerging 'core' of the long-conceived Middle East subsystem of the global political system--i.e., an emerging 'focus of international politics' in the Middle East. Both the concept of a core and the basic research strategy for testing its existence were derived from the writings of Louis J. Cantori and Stephen L. Spiegel and their 'empirical systems' approach to the study of the international politics of regions Through successive evaluations of the hypothesized core in terms of Cantori's and Speigel's 'pattern variables,' it is concluded that the analytical core has a concrete analog--that it 'exists' in the real world of international politics. Not only is a Persian Gulf core substantiated, but three transformations in the structure of the core are discerned during the period under study In addition to testing the hypothesis of an emerging core, this dissertation also seeks to evaluate the efficacy of the subsystemic approach to the study of regional political relationships. Several improvements to the Cantori-Spiegel framework are proposed and employed, including a number derived from the scholarly literature of political geography and geopolitics, long neglected by political scientists. It is a major objective of this dissertation to help remedy that oversight and to determine the uses and usefulness of geography-based concepts in the study of regional subsystems / acase@tulane.edu

In order to enforce copyrights efficiently in the international field, only a modest step is needed. There is a need for an international mechanism for the enforcement of existing rights. As it has become easier to infringe upon copyright, it has to become easier to enforce copyright as well This mechanism will include rules about its applicability, questions of jurisdiction, applicable law, problems with preliminary injunctions, and finally, grounds for non recognition The scope of the proposed mechanism covers all the questions arising from an infringement action, succession of rights, or ownership if it is necessary. There are two basis for jurisdiction: (1) Persons domiciled in a member state can be sued in that member state; (2) Non residents conducting actions with consequences in the forum can be sued in that forum, providing that U.S. principles of minimum contacts are applied. It is recommended to have those principles codified for the proposed mechanism For preliminary injunctions, it is recommended following the European Union approach, consisting of the application of the preliminary injunction in the court where the infringement is taking place The applicable law would be the law of the place where the infringement is taking place. However, it is going to be proposed that courts should have wide discretion to determine the place of infringement and consequently the applicable law The proposed mechanism also will contain grounds of non recognition I will propose another two alternative paths, in case that the main proposal fails in international negotiations. The paper includes philosophical justifications for copyrights around the globe, and it also includes an explanation of major international treaties regulating copyrights and neighboring rights / acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu