DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of Proceedings Dialogues Between International and Public Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of Proceedings Dialogues Between International and Public Law Dialogues between International and Public Law A conference organised by BIICL and Melbourne Law School, 30 June – 1 July 2016, London Report of Proceedings Dialogues between International and Public Law A conference organised by BIICL and Melbourne Law School, 30 June – 1 July 2016, London Report of Proceedings Contents Page Introduction 3 Summary Report of Proceedings 4 Conference Opening: How the Dialogues Began 4 Keynote Address by Lord Peter Goldsmith QC PC, Debevoise & Plimpton: Dialogues Between International and Public Law 6 Panel 1: The relationship between public international law and public Law – why is it important in practice and in theory? 10 • Chair: Sir Bernard Rix QC, 20 Essex St Chambers 10 • Sir Frank Berman, KCMG QC, BIICL: “International and Public Law: Perspectives from Government and Private Legal Practice” 10 • Professor Cheryl Saunders, Melbourne Law School: “Public law and Public International Law: a Public Law Perspective on Interdependence” 13 • Professor Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics and Melbourne Law School: “International Law as Public Law” 17 Panel 2: Impacts of public international law on public law 22 • Chair: Professor Robert McCorquodale, BIICL 22 • Dr Veronica Fikfak, Homerton College, Cambridge University: “English courts’ ‘internalisation’ of the European Convention on Human Rights? – Between Theory and Practice” 22 • Professor Michael Crommelin, Melbourne Law School: “The Pacific ‘Solution’ to the Refugee Crisis: A Case Study” 26 • Professor Dapo Akande, Oxford University: “Non-justiciability and the Foreign Act of State Doctrine” 30 Panel 3: Public law influences on public international law 34 • Chair: Professor Dan Sarooshi, Oxford University and Essex Court Chambers 34 • Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, Blackstone Chambers: ”The Internationalisation of the Right to Administrative Justice” 34 • Aimee-Jane Lee, Debevoise & Plimpton: ”The Role of Public Law Notions of Proportionality in Investment Arbitration and in Contemporary Treaty Practice” 37 • Ben Juratowitch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer: “Individual Rights in Disputes Between States” 42 1 Panel 4: Concepts of ”public” in “public” international and “public” law 47 • Chair: Jill Barrett, BIICL 47 • Professor David Feldman QC, Cambridge University: “The Varying Meaning of ‘Public’ in Public Law and Public International Law” 48 • Professor Dr Armin von Bogdandy, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg; and University of Frankfurt “From Public International to International Public Law. Translating World Public Opinion into International Public Authority” 50 • Dr Jason Varuhas, Melbourne Law School: “Against the Public–Private Law Divide: Pluralism and Public Law” 53 Panel 5: Complications of Pluralism 59 • Chair: Professor Dawn Oliver, University College London 59 • Alistair McGlone, International Environmental Law Consultant: “Case Study on Compliance by EU Institutions with International Obligations Arising Under the Aarhus Convention” 59 • Dr Jarrod Hepburn, Melbourne Law School: “Parallel Expropriation Norms in International Law and Australian Law” 63 Panel 6: Future directions 68 • Chair: Rt Hon Sir Stanley Burnton QC, One Essex Court Chambers 68 • Tim Eicke QC, Essex Court Chambers: “The Future Potential for Human Rights and Public Law Issues to Feature in Investment Treaty Negotiations and Arbitrations” 68 • Douglas Wilson, Foreign & Commonwealth Office: “Issues on the Horizon: International Law Positions as an Act of Foreign Policy?” 71 • Professor Thomas Poole, London School of Economics: “Future Narratives on State Sovereignty: Where are we Heading?” 72 • Dr Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Oxford University: “What Can we Take Away From These Dialogues?” 74 Annex 1: Speaker biographies 78 Annex 2: Conference programme 87 2 Introduction This two-day conference brought together for the first time leading academic and practising lawyers to pool knowledge and share perspectives on the changing relationship between public international law and domestic public law in different jurisdictions. Organised by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the Melbourne Law School (MLS), the aim of the conference was to generate constructive dialogue on how national public law and public international law and practice should, and must, co-exist, combining theory with case studies and the experience of practitioners. The conference was attended by 97 people, including prominent academics in international law and public law fields from a number of countries, experienced practitioners from private practice and government legal practice, and serving and retired members of the senior British and Australian judiciary. It took place at Woburn House Conference Centre, 20–24 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HQ. This report summarises the proceedings.1 1 This report was written by Yvonne Yue Wang and Zoe Hough, Students of Melbourne Law School and Research Interns on the Watts Public International Law Programme, BIICL, under the supervision of Jill Barrett. The authors are grateful to the conference speakers for reviewing the summaries of their remarks in draft. 3 Summary Report of Conference Proceedings Conference opening remarks: how the Dialogues began Jill Barrett opening the conference Jill Barrett, the Arthur Watts Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law at BIICL opened the conference by describing it as the high point of the first five years of collaboration between BIICL and MLS. Developing this relationship has been an important part of the Arthur Watts public international law programme from its inception, so visiting MLS to initiate the programme was one of her first and most enjoyable duties. Ms Barrett recounted her first meeting with Professor Cheryl Saunders in her Melbourne University office in 2012, during which they discovered a common interest in a range of issues at the interface of their two fields of specialisation – international law and public law. For example, they had both been involved in implementing reforms on parliamentary control of treaties. The idea of a joint conference which brings together people from both public law and international law fields was thus conceived, in the realm of fantasy, or so it then seemed. Meanwhile, other elements of the Arthur Watts collaborative programme proceeded, and in total ten students from MLS have worked at BIICL as research interns on the Watts programme. 4 The ninth and tenth are with us today: Zoe Hough and Yvonne Yue Wang, and they are part of the team that has been working hard to prepare for the conference. In addition, members of MLS staff have come to BIICL to conduct research and collaborate on seminars. By way of example, Dr Jason Varuhas is currently in residence pursuing his research on “Mapping Public Law”, as a Visiting Fellow at BIICL. Ms Barrett stated that gradually her fantasy of working with Professor Saunders to convene a conference on the international law/public law interface became a reality, with the help of a number of people at BIICL and MLS, and in particular the sponsors for the conference: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Debevoise & Plimpton. She also thanked Essex Court Chambers for sponsoring the refreshments and the speakers’ dinner. Ms Barrett remarked that it brought her enormous pleasure to see Professor Saunders and her colleagues present at the conference, including Professor Michael Crommelin and Dr Jarrod Hepburn who came to London specially for this event. She then introduced Sir Bernard Rix, former Lord Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, and now a practising arbitrator at 20 Essex St, as Chair for the keynote address and panel one discussions. Sir Bernard Rix remarked that, on a personal note, he had visited Melbourne around Christmas time last year and found it to be a fine city. He then introduced the keynote speaker, Lord Peter Goldsmith, who was the UK’s Attorney General from 2001–2007, and before that, a most distinguished barrister. Lord Goldsmith is now the Co-Managing Partner and Chair of European and Asian Litigation at Debevoise & Plimpton. Lord Goldsmith also founded the Bar of England and Wales’s Pro Bono Unit, of which he is now President. 5 Keynote address: Dialogues between International and Public Law Lord Peter Goldsmith QC PC Lord Peter Goldsmith QC PC, Debevoise & Plimpton The “Dialogues between International and Public Law” conference was opened with a keynote address delivered by Lord Peter Goldsmith QC PC, described afterwards by the Chair, Sir Bernard Rix, as an “up to date, topical, comprehensive, informative and challenging address.” Lord Goldsmith opened by remarking that the Brexit referendum result of the previous week had thrown the importance of dialogues between international and public law into sharp relief. This was demonstrated by the fact that one of the key themes of the referendum debate was the nature and extent of the powers exercised by the European Union and the locus, or place, where decisions on matters related to the public interest across a spectrum of issues should be taken. He stated that for many voters, the delegation of certain public powers from the UK to the EU was a determinative factor. Lord Goldsmith went on to say that, although the EU was born out of international law, having been established by international treaties, the Member States expressly agreed in those treaties to pool their sovereign powers in the EU in the belief that the common good was better achieved by States working in concert.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sir Bernard Rix Date of Birth
    Name : Sir Bernard Rix Date of Birth : 08/12/1944 Nationality : British Country of Residence: United Kingdom Language(s) : Spoken English Language(s) : Written English Email: [email protected] Telephone: +44 207 842 1201 Profession : Arbitrator, Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, Judge of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands Professor of International Commercial Law, QMUL (Queen Mary University of London) Academic & Professional Qualification(s) : BA (Oxon) 1966 Literae Humaniores BA (Oxon) 1968 Jurisprudence LLM (Harvard Law School) 1969 Called to the Bar of England and Wales 1970 Queen’s Counsel 1981 High Court Judge 1993 Judge of the Court of Appeal 2000 (retired 2013) Professional Membership(s): FCIArb (1999) Former Chairman of COMBAR (1992-1993) President of Harvard Law School Association UK (2002-) Trustee for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2003-2012) Chairman Advisory Council of the Centre for Commercial Law Studies QMUL (2003-) Treasurer of the Inner Temple (2005) President of the British Insurance Law Association (2007) Honorary Fellow of New College, Oxford Honorary Fellow of Queen Mary, University of London Director of the London Philharmonic Orchestra (1986 – 2014) Career & Professional Experience: 1970-1993 Counsel, 3 Essex Court Chambers, London, specialising in international commercial law and arbitration 1993-2000 Judge of the Commercial Court, London 1998-1999 Judge in charge of the Commercial Court, London 2000-2013 Lord Justice of Appeal 2013 – Arbitrator Legal Knowledge relating to Shipping, Arbitration Practice and Procedure: Sir Bernard Rix has over 40 years of experience specialising in shipping, international commercial law and arbitration at the Bar and Bench.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stakes Are High: a Review of the Financial Costs of Investment Treaty Arbitration
    The Stakes Are High: A review of the financial costs of investment treaty arbitration Diana Rosert July 2014 www.iisd.org/gsiwww.iisd.org/ © 2014 The International Institute for Sustainable Development www.iisd.org © 2014 The International Institute for Sustainable Development Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) contributes to sustainable development by advancing policy recommendations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change and energy, and management of natural and social capital, as well as the enabling role of communication technologies in these areas. We report on international negotiations and disseminate knowledge gained through collaborative projects, resulting in more rigorous research, capacity building in developing countries, better networks spanning the North and the South, and better global connections among researchers, practitioners, citizens and policy-makers. IISD’s vision is better living for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States. IISD receives core operating support from the Government of Canada, provided through the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and from the Province of Manitoba. The Institute receives project funding
    [Show full text]
  • Seventy Years of the International Law Commission
    The Working Methods of the International Law Commission: Adherence to Methodology, Commentaries and Decision- Making Danae Azaria i Introduction In the twenty- first century, the International Law Commission has increasingly moved away from its “codification by convention” paradigm to the prepara- tion of instruments that remain non- binding.1 A combination of factors may encourage governments, national courts and international courts and tribu- nals to rely on the Commission’s non-binding outputs.2 The Commission’s composition is geographically representative of the world’s legal systems; the Commission is institutionally required to interact with governments, whose comments find reflection in the Commission’s final output; and the quality of the Commission’s work addresses a frequent challenge that governments and national and international courts face: collecting and assessing State practice for the purpose of interpreting treaties or identifying rules of customary inter- national law. This last aspect, the quality of the Commission’s work, is inextricably linked with its working methods. Today, the Commission faces numerous challeng- es that are different from those that existed at the time when the Commis- sion was established. The number of States has almost tripled compared to 70 years ago. The Commission’s composition has been enlarged.3 More multi- lateral treaties have been concluded, covering many areas of international law. International courts and tribunals have proliferated and often apply rules of 1 See also Jacob Katz Cogan, ‘The Changing Form of the International Law Commission’s Work’ in Robert Virzo and Ivan Ingravallo (eds), Evolutions in The Law of International Organizations (Martinus Nijhoff 2015), 275; Frank Berman, ‘The ILC within the UN’s Legal Framework: Its Relationship with the Sixth Committee’ (2006) 49 GYIL 107; David D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barbican Centre Silk Street, London EC2Y 8DS. 3Rd-4Th October 2019
    The Barbican Centre Silk Street, London EC2Y 8DS. 3rd-4th October 2019 2nd October Welcome Reception Locarno Suite, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH. Address by The Rt Hon Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett DAY 1 THE BARBICAN CENTRE 3RD OCTOBER 08.30-09.15 Registration 09.15- 09.30 Introduction: Rt Hon Baroness Hale of Richmond DBE, President of The Supreme Court 09.30-10.30 Keynote: His Excellency President Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, International Court of Justice 10.30- 11.00 Tea/Coffee 11.00- 12.30 Panels I. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CONFLICT – ADDRESSING VULNERABILITIES THROUGH INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE, HUMANITARIAN AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Environmental pressures stemming from climate change are increasingly a driver of conflict and an additional source of vulnerability for affected communities. Such pressures may also contribute to the displacement of individuals both within their own country and across borders. What protections are offered by international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international human rights law for victims of conflict who are contending with environmental degradation, disasters and damage? And, in respect to international refugee law, how do debates about its relevance to climate change sit within broader developments on global governance for displacement and migration, in particular the recently adopted UN Global Compacts for refugees and for migration? Chair: Dr Chaloka Beyani, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Associate Professor LSE. Panel: o Ms Catherine Lune, ICRC, Head of climate change policy. o Ms Madeline Garlick, Chief, Policy and Law, UN High Commissioner for Refugees o Professor Francoise Hampson, Emeritus Professor, University of Essex II.
    [Show full text]
  • Lord Justice of English Court of Appeal Gives Seminar -Grace Chen 7 December 2011
    Lord Justice of English Court of Appeal Gives Seminar -Grace Chen 7 December 2011 On December 7, 2011, The Rt Hon Lord Justice Sir Bernard Rix of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales gave a seminar to the Law School staff and students on The Role of Judge and Counsel in the Common Law System. Also present at the seminar was Neil Kaplan, CBE, QC, SBS, a distinguished Hong Kong arbitrator, who also made some insightful comments during the seminar. Sir Bernard Rix The Lord Justice started the seminar by illustrating the duties and role of counsel or advocates. He emphasized that courage is an essential quality of the advocate. He added the advocate is required to do substantial groundwork in order to be fully prepared for the case. He observed that this preparation required counsel to focus on analysis, clarity and simplicity and explained the importance of these points for preparation as well as presentation of the case. Researching the law was also noted as being a significant duty of counsel. As for their performance in court, he noted that counsel should be able to engage the bench (e.g. by looking into the eyes of the judge) and be chronological when explaining the facts of the case. The Lord Justice indicated that a judge should be polite and courteous, be a patient listener, and decide cases on the basis of law. He urged that judges should deal with the case before them and not fear what an appeals court would think about the decisions they make.
    [Show full text]
  • Panelist Brochure
    SUNDAY MAY 7 WELCOME RECEPTION AND OPENING REMARKS: 5:30-7:00 PM (BROWNS HOTEL) WELCOMING REMARKS BY: HIS HONOUR JUDGE BRIAN JOHN BARKER CBE QC Judge Brian John Barker QC CBE is a British judge and the former Common Serjeant of London, the second most senior judge at the Old Bailey. From February 2013 to January 2015 he served as the Recorder of London, the presiding judge at the world’s most famous criminal court. Barker is a Governor of Sir John Cass's Foundation, one of London's oldest and largest education charities, which was founded in 1748. Judge Barker is a Freeman of the City of London, a Past Master of the Worshipful Company of Coopers and an Honorary Liveryman of the Curriers' Company. Brian Barker was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2015 New Year Honours for services to the administration of justice and to charity. Judge Barker has been involved with “A Week in Legal London” since 2004 and has often served as the “presenter” for the Lord Chief Justice at the Monday session at the Royal Courts of Justice. Judge Barker is married to the Right Honourable Lady Justice Anne Rafferty DBE PC QC, who is a Lady Justice of Appeal and the Chancellor of the University of Sheffield. INTRODUCTION OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS BRADLEY A. PATTERSON DONALD W. BARBER Brad Patterson is the chair of “A Week in Donald W. Barber is a civil litigator Legal London” and has been involved who practiced with the firm of Wells & with the program for almost 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • China's and India's Differing Investment Treaty and Dispute Settlement Experiences and Implications for Africa
    China’s and India’s Differing Investment Treaty and Dispute Settlement Experiences and Implications for Africa Won Kidane* This Article examines China’s and India’s differing investment treaty and dispute settlement experiences and the resulting implications for Africa. It attempts to answer the question of whether there is evidence of China’s and India’s attempt to take advantage of the default structural imbalance enabled by centuries of international investment laws and institutions that favor the investor. The Article begins by presenting the background of the current economic reality and trends that necessitate the evaluation of the existing rules and institutions. It then presents a detailed assessment of this phenomenon by focusing on the investment cases brought against India for context, followed by a critical appraisal of India’s reaction to the perceived deficiencies of the existing system as evidenced by its new BIT Model Text and the text’s implications for Africa. Next, the Article evaluates the most important body of evidence that comes in the form of bilateral investment treaties, i.e., China’s and India’s investment treaties with African states. Finally, it offers a summary of conclusions. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 406 I. CHINA, INDIA, AND AFRICA: THE POLITICAL RHETORIC, THE ECONOMIC REALITY, AND THE LEGAL INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 410 A. Political Rhetoric ......................................................... 412 B. Economic Reality ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeal Judgment Template
    Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 1490 Case No: C4/2013/2473 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION MR C M G OCKLETON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE) CO/7378/2011 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 20/11/2014 Before : LORD JUSTICE DAVIS LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE and SIR BERNARD RIX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : The Queen on the application of GE (Eritrea) Appellant - and - (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Bedford Borough Council Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hugh Southey QC and Joshua Dubin (instructed by Scott Moncrieff & Associates Ltd) for the Appellant Paul Greatorex (instructed by Bedford Borough Council) for the Respondent (Bedford Borough Council) Hearing date: 8th October 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. GE (Eritrea) v SSHD LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE : The background 1. The claimant – GE – is a national of Eritrea. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 24 May 2011. At her screening interview she said that she was born on 27 September 1994. If so, she was just over 16 ½. She claimed asylum, saying that she feared persecution if she returned to Eritrea. The Secretary of State’s officials decided that her physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggested that she was 18 years of age or over. So she was detained at Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre. On 11 July 2011 her asylum claim was refused. The Secretary of State proposed to remove her to Italy under Dublin II arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialogues Between International and Public Law
    Dialogues between International and Public Law Speaker Biographies Thursday 30 June – Friday 1 July 2016 Woburn House Conference Centre, 20-24 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HQ Sponsored by: Speaker dinner and conference lunches sponsored by Professor Dapo Akande Dapo Akande is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford, where he is also Yamani Fellow at St Peter’s College and Co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict & the Oxford Martin Programme on Human Rights for Future Generations. Dapo has held visiting professorships at Yale Law School (where he was also Robinna Foundation International Fellow); the University of Miami School of Law, and Catolica Global Law School, Lisbon. He is a member of the Editorial Boards of the American Journal of International Law and the European Journal of International Law; of the Advisory Council of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law; and the International Advisory Panel for the American Law Institute’s project on the Restatement Fourth, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States. He is founding editor of the scholarly blog: EJIL:Talk! Dapo has advised States, international organizations and non-governmental organizations on matters of international law. He has advised and assisted counsel or provided expert opinions in cases before several international tribunals and national courts. He has worked with the United Nations organs, the African Union Commission and the Commonwealth Secretariat on issues relating to international humanitarian law, human rights law, international criminal law and terrorism. Jill Barrett Jill Barrett is the Arthur Watts Senior Research Fellow in Public International Law at BIICL, where she leads the Watts programme of international law research and events.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations University Press Is the Publishing Arm of the United Nations University. UNU Press Publishes Scholarly and Policy
    United Nations University Press is the publishing arm of the United Nations University. UNU Press publishes scholarly and policy-oriented books and periodicals on the issues facing the United Nations and its people and member states, with particular emphasis upon international, regional and trans-boundary policies. The United Nations University is an organ of the United Nations estab- lished by the General Assembly in 1972 to be an international community of scholars engaged in research, advanced training, and the dissemination of knowledge related to the pressing global problems of human survi- val, development, and welfare. Its activities focus mainly on the areas of peace and governance, environment and sustainable development, and science and technology in relation to human welfare. The University op- erates through a worldwide network of research and postgraduate train- ing centres, with its planning and coordinating headquarters in Tokyo. The Iraq crisis and world order This is a joint project of the United Nations University (UNU) and the International Peace Academy (IPA), in partnership with King Prajadhipok’s Institute The Iraq crisis and world order: Structural, institutional and normative challenges Edited by Ramesh Thakur and Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu United Nations a University Press TOKYO u NEW YORK u PARIS 6 United Nations University, 2006 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not nec- essarily reflect the views of the United Nations University. United Nations University Press United Nations University, 53-70, Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 150-8925, Japan Tel: þ81-3-3499-2811 Fax: þ81-3-3406-7345 E-mail: [email protected] general enquiries: [email protected] http://www.unu.edu United Nations University Office at the United Nations, New York 2 United Nations Plaza, Room DC2-2062, New York, NY 10017, USA Tel: þ1-212-963-6387 Fax: þ1-212-371-9454 E-mail: [email protected] United Nations University Press is the publishing division of the United Nations University.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law and Practice of Fact-Finding Before the International Court of Justice
    The Law and Practice of Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice James Gerard Devaney Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Florence, August, 2014 (submission) European University Institute Department of Law The Law and Practice of Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice James Gerard Devaney Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Examining Board Professor Martin Scheinin, EUI Professor Francesco Francioni, EUI Judge Giorgio Gaja, International Court of Justice Professor Geir Ulfstein, University of Oslo © James Gerard Devaney, 2014 No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author 4 Thesis Summary This thesis takes as its starting point a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the International Court of Justice (the Court) deals with facts. After examining the Court’s substantial fact-finding powers as set out in its Statute and Rules, it is noted that the Court has not made significant use of the fact-finding powers that it possesses, instead preferring to take a reactive approach to fact-finding. It is this reactive approach, largely relying on the parties to put evidence before the Court, which is the subject of recent criticisms both from within the Court itself and from international legal scholarship. Having assessed the merits of these arguments, the thesis takes the position that such criticisms are indeed warranted and that the Court’s reactive approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts and in those cases involving a scarcity of evidence, such as cases of non-appearance.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Law Constraints on Intra-EU Investment Arbitration?
    The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 16 (2017) 71–86 brill.com/lape EU Law Constraints on Intra-EU Investment Arbitration? Eirik Bjorge University of Bristol [email protected] Abstract This article questions whether the law of the European Union (EU) can impose juris- dictional constraints on so-called intra-EU investment arbitration proceedings. Would an arbitral tribunal hearing an intra-EU case under either a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) or under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) have to declare itself incompetent to conduct the case proceedings owing to the operation of EU law? This article subjects that proposition to criticism, finding that, for a number of reasons, connected either with the drafting of the BIT or the ECT or the operation of general principles of inter- national law, it does not withstand scrutiny. An arbitral tribunal seized of a treaty claim under a BIT or the ECT cannot rely on EU law to negate rights expressly granted under the instrument providing for its jurisdiction. Keywords investment arbitration – jurisdiction – admissibility – EU law – Energy Charter Treaty – Bilateral Investment Treaties – treaty interpretation 1 Introduction The law of the European Union (EU) “constitutes a new legal order of inter- national law”;1 it is its “own legal system”,2 representing a “constitutional 1 Case 26–62 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1. 2 Case 6–64 Costa v. Enel [1964] ECR 585. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2�17 | doi 10.1163/15718034-12341342Downloaded
    [Show full text]