Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1936. / Bibliography: p. [174]-184.

Thèse--Univ. de Paris. / At head of title: Université de Paris--Faculté de droit. "Bibliography": [209]-215.

The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement established the principle of compatibility envisaging that conservation and management measures adopted within national Exclusive Economic Zones and those adopted on the adjacent high seas should be compatible. However, the aforementioned principle has been regarded as representing one of the most contentious elements in the new law of the sea régime. The ambiguity lies in the existent legal uncertainty about the measures which shall be regarded as the referential basis for international regulatory schemes. The above controversy becomes more acute in the shade of the doubtful application that the available disputes settlement provisions under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea might have on this kind of disputes. The present disquisition studies the rationale behind an obscure system of clausal construction which was conceived by, and for first time emerged from the drafts of, the UN International Law Commission in early 1950s. This clausal construction refers to the peculiar pattern of legal drafting wherein procedural clauses are amalgamated into articles of substantive law. It is argued that treaty articles containing such clauses are predisposed to establish an inextricable connection between the substantive provisions and the provisions of procedure for the settlement of disputes. This kind of blended provisions represents a sui generis law, the peculiarity of which derives from its own insusceptibility to State auto-interpretation. The purpose of this analysis is to argue in favour of the compulsory application of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement's settlement procedures on compatibility disputes in remaining unaffected by the operation of the procedural limitation. In advancing this argument the present thesis aims at developing a theory over the functional role of the procedural clauses which initially seem that for no obvious reason have been extracted from Part VIII of the Agreement and been embedded into the substantive article of compatibility. By analysing thus the textual formation of embedded clauses the present thesis constructs its argument upon – and further advances – an existing proposition in the literature that views compulsory dispute settlement procedures as indispensable element of the substantive principle insofar as compatibility is vaguely construed in neutral terms; i.e., without a predetermined orientation in its geographical scope.

Delay in marine adventure is an important and frequent phenomenon of maritime transport and it affects various parties and their interests under several types of marine insurance policies, including but not limited to hull and machinery, cargo, freight and loss of hire. Losses arising from delay are almost always excluded under the standard forms of these policies and under the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA). This thesis traces back the common law origins of the exclusion, identifies the motivations behind the exclusion and submits that the risk of delay and some types of losses arising therefrom were not always excluded under the common law. By introducing distinctions among the types of delay, the work argues that the judgments in favour of the exclusion of delay losses shall be interpreted according to the type of delay and shall not be authority for all types of delay. The findings of the work accordingly clarify and considerably restrict the scope of the exclusion. The thesis also tackles the MIA provisions pertaining to the impact of delay on voyage policies. It argues that the relevant provisions are not clear and do not entirely reflect their common law background. On the ground that they have not been litigated since the enactment of the MIA, the research assesses whether they are obsolete and proposes that the provisions should be retained subject to reforms.

Most often in an investment agreement between a State entity and a foreign investor the arbitral tribunal is faced with the question of the liability of the State for the conduct of its entities. To make it precise the crucial findings of this research is whether or to what extend the States hall be liable for the commercial conduct of its entities? State affiliates in general includes, ‘state organ, ‘state agency’, ‘instrumentality’, ‘state-owned entity’, ‘state-owned company’, ‘publicly owned corporation’, ‘government business enterprise’, ‘public sector undertaking’ and ‘parastatal entity’. ‘State entities’ with separate legal personality do not include the ‘state organ’, ‘agency’ and ‘political subdivision’ for which a State is responsible under the principle of customary international law. The main highlights of this research is whether the State shall be liable for the commercial, non-governmental activities of ‘State entities’ with separate legal personality having substantial structural and functional government control over them while they enter into investment agreements with foreign investors. This leads to the critical arguments to establish in the first place whether the State is a party to the investment agreements of its separate legal entities with foreign investors. To respond this, findings of this research leads to the point that has been highlighted in relation to the true separation of these State entities from the government. It is that the significance of structural and functional control by the governmental over the habitual affairs of these entities. For this purposes two significant reasons are taken into consideration. First, whether the government officials or members of the cabinet preside as the head of the corporations or entities? Second, whether they administer the daily affairs of the entities such as participating in the negotiation and decision making process while entering into the agreement with foreign investors. If that is satisfied then the requirement for a State to be a party to the investment agreement of its entities is considered fulfilled. The most striking point of this research is then whether the State and its entities are entitled to immunity both from jurisdiction and execution. However, following the greater participation of State through State entities in the international trade and foreign investment the restrictive approach of immunity has seen a resultant raise in relation to the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal. As regard to immunity from the enforcement measure the final stumbling block is the process of identification of public assets which are held by the State to perform its sovereign non-commercial functions often mixed with the assets allocated for commercial purpose against which enforcement can be done, is continued to be an issue at large. The emphasis of this research has been extended to have a closer look at the State immunity laws internationally in relation to the limitations of various conventions and codifications and judicial precedent that address the issue of enforcement in investment arbitration.

International systems change; integration or disintegration? Homo sapiens seek stabilisation and tend toward a state of equilibrium in life and in times of rapid change, attempt even more to achieve a relative condition approaching a normative status quo. International systems tend also to focus on stabilising behaviour in a like manner as a quantitative enlargement of the Individual phenomenon. Within the European context, expansion (integration) as an attempt to maintain stability may not be achieving the hoped for success because of the do ut des phenomenon. Single collectivities attempt a best possible relationship based on particularistic motives. Theories have yet to focus on the social dimension of integration and tend to selectively single out the more readily available economic and political aspects. Effective, expanded society is the product of mutual feelings, often unarticulated with higher degrees of consonance more prone to integrate, given the extensive range of compatibilities than non-European society's exhibiting dissonance. Individuals, fundamentally motivated by needs, respond to needs in similar fashions, developing linkages. But how can authority shift if the authoritarian state is unwilling to relinquish same? The opposite of authoritarian prejudicial subjectiveness is objective humanistic liberalism, a product highly correlated with education and exposure. Collectivities grow organically from within, through cognition, and during rapid change, International accommodation may develop most effectively only on this basis. An adequate assessment and projection of European Integration may be possible only by determining the causation and degree of the individual commitment.

This research was done against the background of the failure of the Hague negotiations for a ‘broad' global jurisdiction and judgments convention. Two of the most important jurisdiction issues upon which the two main players (the U.S. and EU) disagreed with each other were chosen to be studied i.e. the issue of whether a jurisdiction system should be one composed o f loose jurisdiction rules, even some general principles w ith b road discretion being g iven to judges or one composed of predictable hard-and-fast rules with no discretion being given to judges and the issue of what nexus should be qualified for general jurisdiction, to what extent such a nexus should be relied on and what nexus is the proper one for special (specific) jurisdiction regarding commercial contract and tort cases. The aim of this research is to seek the ideal models dealing with the two issues, find out how the two issues fared at The Hague and what could be done for the future if there is a ‘third' chance. Chapters Two and Three critically examine the jurisdiction scheme in the U.S.A. and EU (under the Brussels regime) with particular attentions being drawn to the two issues. Chapters Four and Five bring the two systems together to make a comparison from the perspective o f legal tradition and fundamental approach between them, assess and reflect upon the different approaches in the two systems, and find that as far as the first issue is concerned, an ideal personal jurisdiction system should adopt a predictable-rule-based approach with moderate discretion being given to judges; as far as the second issue is concerned, the ideal model is that general jurisdiction should be only based on the habitual residence of the defendant, special (specific) jurisdiction regarding commercial contract and tort cases should be based on the nexus between the dispute and the forum and general jurisdiction should stand at the equal footing with special (specific) jurisdiction. Chapter Six examines what had actually happened to the two issues at The Hague and analyses whether the ideal models should and could be accepted by the two sides if they have a ‘third' chance. Chapter Seven will conclude this thesis by looking to the future.

Since the end of the Cold War, much has been written on the various overseas military adventures of Western powers, with significant focus being placed on the legality and legitimacy of these interventions. Despite the volume of work produced on the topic, this thesis argues that much of it has been framed incorrectly, allowing for a conflation of the concepts of legality and legitimacy to distract from the true source of international legitimacy and the true role of international law. Over this period of time, through a combination of selective application and lack of genuine understanding of its role, statutory international law has steadily lost traction and credibility. Through an analysis of a range of case studies from the post-Cold War era, this thesis argues that international legitimacy emanates not from the international legal order (as represented and overseen by the UN) but from consensus amongst kin countries. There are various potential avenues available to achieve consensus, but which is chosen depends on the circumstances of each individual case. National interest underpins state decision-making and, if significant enough, can, on its own, provide a route to consensus. Additionally, a shared national security concern - the pre-eminent catalyst for consensus during the Cold War - remains a powerful option. Furthermore, in the post-Cold War world, a new, norms-based justification, often classified as “humanitarian intervention” has also developed. Demonstrating compliance with international law can, depending on circumstances, be potentially available to strengthen the case for consensus but is not necessarily always an appropriate or productive choice and plays a secondary role to other, more powerful considerations. By focusing on key case studies it is possible to identify trends in approach to the use of international law and identify the nature of the role it plays in international power politics. Through close analysis of a wide variety of primary and secondary sources, it is possible to identify key drivers for decision-makers and detect the impact of past experience on the use of international law in the quest for legitimacy ahead of launching military action. The trends in approach and in relations between close Western allies (in particular the UK and US) have been identified from the Gulf War in 1990 through to the ongoing crisis engulfing Syria, and potentially hold valuable lessons for future strategic decision-making.

abstract: In this discussion I will state fundamental principles of Kelsen's Legal Positivism in International Law and explain four problems with his theory. I will then propose two suggestions in the light of which Kelsen's theory is modified in this discussion and explain how these two suggestions address the four problems and help the theory account for regime change. Finally, I will address possible objections to the view advanced in this discussion. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Philosophy 2012

The Right to Information (RTI) – a right every individual has to access public information held by governments – is now established in more than 100 countries. RTI laws set up a new logic in government: availability of public information is the principle and secrecy the exception. RTI laws create new public information arenas where several actors request, release and use public information for several purposes. In this work, I seek to explore why RTI arenas based on similar principles, work differently leading to different outputs. My explanation is based on a historical- institutionalist perspective arguing that origins of these laws and previous institutional structures matter. I argue that three factors help to shape these arenas: the level of participation in the policy-making process, the professionalisation of state bureaucracy and RTI enforcement institutions. The combination of these factors gives us three different kinds of arenas: functional, mixed and contested. I develop a conceptual framework, operating at a middle-range theory level, to analyse the role RTI laws, requesters, the state, and the existence of RTI enforcement institutions play in each configuration. I show how these arenas evolve and work, running a structured and focused comparison of three case studies: Uruguay, Chile and New Zealand. This work shows how these arenas ended up differing in outputs such as availability of public information and efficiency in processing RTI requests, as well as the existence of effective accountability mechanisms to resolve disputes about public information.