This thesis seeks to establish the concept of jurisdiction as an analytical framework for conceptualising the powers of international organizations. The basic claim is that a distinction ought to be drawn between the types of actions an organization can take and the legal relationship between the organization and the persons, objects and scenarios where it is empowered to act. Existing scholarship focuses solely on the former dimension whereas the latter, referred to as jurisdiction, is underexplored. The thesis develops an analytical framework comprised of elements which are essential components of international jurisdiction. This framework is derived from the reasoning of the PCIJ and the ICJ on international organizations. It identifies three foundational elements which are essential and incommensurable: state consent, techniques of delimiting jurisdiction and the compétence de la compétence principle. The framework seeks to examine each of these elements individually, but also to capture the dynamic between them. It is not claimed that the distinction between the types of action and the relationship between institution and objects; between jurisdiction and legal powers, is always watertight. However, it is argued that reconceptualising the ‘powers’ of organizations along the lines advanced by this thesis is beneficial in two ways. First, it is argued that the introduction of the concept into existing constructions concerning legal powers adds nuance and subtlety, therefore enhancing the ability of law to act as an effective constraint upon international organizations. Second, the concept of jurisdiction offers fresh insights into complex questions of contemporary global governance, in particular, the overlapping competences of organizations.

Thesis (M.A.)--George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., 2001. / "August 31,2001." Includes bibliographical references. Also available via the Internet.

Thèse--Paris. / Published also as Brazil. Departamento Administrativo do Serviço Publico. Serviço de Documentação. Publicação avulsa. n.488. Bibliography: p. [245]-249.

No description available.

The thesis deals with the rules governing questions of jurisdiction and choice of law on the Internet. First, European Union law will be presented followed by the law of England and that of Germany. Second, the law of the United States and that of the two Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec will be discussed. / While business-to-business contracts will easily retain the biggest volume share of international trade, the number of international business-to-individuals contracts will increase manifold thanks to the Internet. It is therefore important to take into account what impact consumer protection rules have on the private international law of contracts on the Internet. / In this paper, relevant law of North American and European jurisdictions will be examined with regards to issues of contract formation, choice of jurisdiction and choice of law. On the basis of the findings, the thesis will finish with some suggestions as to what commercial entities have to pay attention to when they want to sell on the Internet. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

The conduct of military forces is not limited to their territory. They are typically sent on missions that potentially affect civilians beyond the borders of the sending State. Under the European Convention, the linking factor bringing its protection into play is that of jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR. What is the reach of the European Convention in the context of participation by Contracting Parties in military operations abroad? The interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction has evolved from its territorial beginnings. After a detailed analysis of the case-law on the interpretation of jurisdiction, including the latest landmark cases of Al-Jedda and Al-Skeini, I conclude that the current case-law lacks coherence. The search for a more coherent approach to determining questions of jurisdiction, in situations involving military conduct abroad has steered this thesis into considering the unsatisfactory interplay between humanitarian law and human rights law and the way in which the two systems apply to civilians caught in military operations. An analysis of the case-law under the European Convention in situations where Contracting Parties send troops as part of multi-national forces has indicated the benefits of considering dual or multiple attribution rather than a separation of jurisdiction. I propose a more coherent approach to jurisdiction replacing the present uncertainty in the context of applicability of the European Convention to military operations abroad. I argue, in all situations, for a test requiring a direct and immediate link between the conduct of Contracting Parties and the violation of Convention rights as offering better protection of human rights for individuals trapped in conflicts. In this way the supervisory effect of the European Convention is enhanced.

Indigenous Nations, like the Secwepemc, look to their Creation Story to describe how we came to be on our land. The Creation Stories describe and define who we are as Indigenous Peoples living with laws which guide our conduct among each other and with others. The Creation Stories of each of the Indigenous Nations, and the Secwepemc Nation, is our Constitution. These Constitutions speak to the powers and authorities that are exercisable by those within the Secwepemc Nation, like the St’exelcemc. The family units are the foundation of the St’exelcemc. For the purposes of this thesis, these family units, individually and collectively, exercise the powers and authorities over St’exelcemc child safety. For a long time now, the St’exelcemc child safety laws have been eroded by federal and provincial authority to make it seem like the St’exelcemc abide only by state child welfare law. This thesis sets aside this Canadian legal mythology and demonstrates the continued exercise of St’exelcemc child safety laws despite their erosion by state law. And, this thesis is also about the necessity of reviving and revitalizing the customs, traditions and practices of the St’exelcemc in every area of our lives as a nation-building movement. In order to achieve this vision it is important to draw on the ‘living sources’ to help identify and define these laws. In this thesis, the St’exelcemc child safety laws are drawn from the stories and memories of St’exelcemc living sources, the Elders and Junior Elders, who are transmitting their knowledge for the benefit of the stsmémelt and im7imts of future generations. The legal concepts and principles of structure, observation, discipline, stories, listening, respect, sharing, helping, spirituality and silence are captured in the Secwepemc term ctk’wenme7iple7ten which means law or rule. The literal translation of ctk’wenme7iple7ten is “all the law, all the power one might have.” Custom adoption is one special area of St’exelcemc family law which is a familiar and demonstrable exercise of St’exelcemc jurisdiction in the area of child safety. St’exelcemc custom adoption ensured the safety of children: by tradition where they were placed with grandparents as a form of old age security, endurance of the traditional economy, and transmission of cultural and traditional knowledge; in the event of a marital breakdown, neglect, or abandonment; and where a couple may have been unable to conceive, or where the birth father gave up his parental responsibilities. Custom adoption also played a major role in maintaining the hereditary lineage for the governance of the St’exelcemc, which continued until 1958. The St’exelcemc law of banishment for the safety of children and families is implemented today by deliberation at general band meetings and band councils meetings, and formally recorded in band council resolutions. This revival and revitalization of child safety law is essential for St’exelcemc individuals, family and government to ‘put things right’ for the health and well-being future generations – like Coyote and Old One did in the Secwepemc Creation Story. / Graduate

This dissertation analyzes tensions between Indigenous and Canadian authority over land and governance through a critical inquiry into jurisdiction. I examine jurisdiction in the context of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake’s territory, located about three hours north of Ottawa in the northernmost boreal region of Quebec. To undertake this study of overlapping jurisdiction, I analyze the struggle over resource management across the past thirty years on the territory and their struggle against the federal land claims policy. I map the ways in which space is differentiated under competing legal orders, where on the one hand, jurisdiction is produced by the sovereign territorial state through operations of economic and political calculation, and on the other, by the Algonquin nation through a kinship nexus of allocated hunting and trapping grounds, and by the daily caretaking practices associated with Anishnabe life on the territory. I raise questions as to how simultaneous operations of law may take place in a single area, across distinctive epistemological and ontological frameworks, and how jurisdictions are produced in this context. My dissertation examines how the Algonquins of Barriere Lake have contested the socio-spatial production of state sovereignty claims through the exercise of jurisdiction over their lands. My focus on jurisdiction in this dissertation turns our attention to the practices of settler colonial sovereignty in Canada, and especially to the role Indigenous law plays in resisting intervention on their lands. I examine the role Indigenous law plays in shaping the political economy of this country, seeking to identify whether a “distinct form of accumulation” emerges in the dialectic of settler colonialism and Canada’s staple state economy. The interpretive framework of jurisdiction allows us to examine the overlapping authority claims between Indigenous, state, regional, and private interests, and to parse out the ways in which these jurisdictional claims produce different kinds of political space.

This dissertation analyzes tensions between Indigenous and Canadian authority over land and governance through a critical inquiry into jurisdiction. I examine jurisdiction in the context of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake’s territory, located about three hours north of Ottawa in the northernmost boreal region of Quebec. To undertake this study of overlapping jurisdiction, I analyze the struggle over resource management across the past thirty years on the territory and their struggle against the federal land claims policy. I map the ways in which space is differentiated under competing legal orders, where on the one hand, jurisdiction is produced by the sovereign territorial state through operations of economic and political calculation, and on the other, by the Algonquin nation through a kinship nexus of allocated hunting and trapping grounds, and by the daily caretaking practices associated with Anishnabe life on the territory. I raise questions as to how simultaneous operations of law may take place in a single area, across distinctive epistemological and ontological frameworks, and how jurisdictions are produced in this context. My dissertation examines how the Algonquins of Barriere Lake have contested the socio-spatial production of state sovereignty claims through the exercise of jurisdiction over their lands. My focus on jurisdiction in this dissertation turns our attention to the practices of settler colonial sovereignty in Canada, and especially to the role Indigenous law plays in resisting intervention on their lands. I examine the role Indigenous law plays in shaping the political economy of this country, seeking to identify whether a “distinct form of accumulation” emerges in the dialectic of settler colonialism and Canada’s staple state economy. The interpretive framework of jurisdiction allows us to examine the overlapping authority claims between Indigenous, state, regional, and private interests, and to parse out the ways in which these jurisdictional claims produce different kinds of political space.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, 1965. / "April 1965." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [179]-183). Also issued in microfiche.