DOCSLIB.ORG

Pavla Křístková

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pavla Křístková A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS IN RELATION TO INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PAVLA KŘÍSTKOVÁ A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO August 2019 © Pavla Křístková, 2019 Abstract ISDS is a relatively young and dynamic regime. It faces challenges for which other adjudicative systems, after centuries of development, have found solutions. In ISDS, fair rules and procedures are essential since ISDS is an adjudicative regime said to be based on the rule of law. The importance of complex and carefully crafted rules and procedural safeguards is underscored by the impact of ISDS on a wide array of parties and interests and by its encroachment on the powers of sovereign states affecting their populations. Yet ISDS is criticized as unfair and open to unacceptable appearances of bias due to a lack of institutional safeguards. In this thesis, I assess whether these criticisms are compelling. Considering their prevalence in the debates about ISDS, I focus on issues of neutrality and fairness and, in particular, on two core values: (1) adjudicative independence and impartiality; and (2) the right of standing. I do so by examining institutional measures adopted to safeguard these values. These include: a) methods of appointment and case assignment; b) protections of the independence of individual adjudicators in the form of tenure and financial security; and c) guaranteed standing for parties with a legal interest. The goal of the thesis is to evaluate institutional safeguards of these values in ISDS through the method of a comparative study of adjudicative bodies in various contexts and to map the spectrum of safeguards used by other forums based on their common comparisons and similarities with ISDS. The results of the research highlight that, although ISDS has been lauded for its perceived neutrality and as a system superior to domestic courts, it is the regime with the weakest safeguards among all comparators, while domestic courts employ the strongest institutional safeguards. The central conclusion is that ISDS has systemic flaws and failures because it lacks mechanisms to safeguard the examined values, thus substantiating the relevant concerns about the institutional design of ISDS. To safeguard these essential values, it appears unavoidable that ISDS must be rejected in its current form. ii Acknowledgments I want to thank my family, especially my husband, Svatopluk, and daughter, Anna, who have supported me morally and emotionally along the way and without whom I could not have done this. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Van Harten for his continuous support, advice, supervision and assistance throughout my research and the writing of this thesis. A very special gratitude goes out to Osgoode community and also to the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) for helping, providing resources and the funding for the work to concentrate on my research. iii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii Table of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1: Introduction* ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: ISDS and Shared Values ....................................................................................................... 14 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 14 1. Values ............................................................................................................................................. 16 a) Shared Values ............................................................................................................................. 18 b) Values and the Not so Strictly Private Law ................................................................................ 22 c) Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 27 2. Party Autonomy .............................................................................................................................. 28 a) Limits to Party Autonomy........................................................................................................... 32 b) Party Autonomy versus Sovereignty ........................................................................................... 36 c) Party Autonomy and Shared Values ........................................................................................... 42 3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 3: Analytical Framework and Methodology - Comparative Study ....................................... 61 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 61 1. Institutional Design and Procedures ............................................................................................... 61 2. A Comparative Study ...................................................................................................................... 67 3. Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 71 4. Comparators .................................................................................................................................... 73 a) Selecting Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 73 b) Structure ...................................................................................................................................... 85 5. Framework - Document Survey ...................................................................................................... 86 6. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 88 Chapter 4: Significance of Methods of Adjudicative Appointment and Case Assignment ................ 89 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 89 1. Domestic Courts .............................................................................................................................. 94 a) UK Superior Courts (laws specific to England and Wales) ........................................................ 94 b) US Supreme Court ...................................................................................................................... 99 c) Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 102 2. European Courts ............................................................................................................................ 103 a) ECHR ........................................................................................................................................ 103 b) CJEU ......................................................................................................................................... 106 c) Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 112 3. International Judicial and Quasi-judicial Bodies .......................................................................... 113 a) ICJ ............................................................................................................................................. 113 b) WTO ......................................................................................................................................... 116 c) Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 119 4. Domestic and International Tribunals ........................................................................................... 121 a) FINRA....................................................................................................................................... 121 b) WIPO ........................................................................................................................................ 123 c) Analysis....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Traineeship Brochure 2020
    TRAINEESHIP BROCHURE 2020 Matrix is ‘the future of the Bar.’ Chambers and Partners TRAINEESHIP BROCHURE CONTENTS • Introduction to Matrix- page 2 • Why choose Matrix?- page 2 • Glossary - plain words- page 2 • Becoming a barrister - page 3 • Areas of work - page 3 • Training schedule - page 3 • Life as a trainee - page 4 • Application procedure- page 6 • Deferred applications- page 6 • Third six- page 6 • Training awards- page 6 • Visa requirements- page 6 • Information for applicants who have a disability- page 6 • Traineeship supervisors- page 7 • Matrix selection procedure - page 10 • Stage 1- page 9 • Stage 2- page 110 • Stage 3- page 11 • Notes regarding the application form- page 11 • Equal opportunities- page 11 • Useful contacts- page 11 • Matrix core values- page 12 • Members- page 13 1 INTRODUCTION TO MATRIX Matrix is a barristers’ chambers located in hierarchies and attitudes demonstrated by our London, Geneva and Brussels. We are a members – all these elements make Matrix a collection of lawyers specialising in a wide really great place to train and to work. range of practice areas throughout the UK and Matrix is committed to providing a stimulating, internationally. Described as “professional and balanced and comprehensive training forward thinking”, we are an approachable schedule. As a junior member of Matrix, the set that are proud of our record of innovation. expectation is that you will be in court regularly Our core values govern the way we work and on a wide range of cases and practice areas outline our commitment to operating within an as this is a very important part of continuing environment where diversity, accessibility and training to be a fully-rounded barrister.
    [Show full text]
  • Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons from British Press Reform Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2015 Taming the "Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons From British Press Reform Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, Taming the "Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons From British Press Reform, 55 Santa Clara L. Rev. 323 (2015). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAMING THE "FERAL BEAST"1 : CAUTIONARY LESSONS FROM BRITISH PRESS REFORM Lili Levi* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introdu ction ............................................................................ 324 I. British Press Reform, in Context ....................................... 328 A. Overview of the British Press Sector .................... 328 B. The British Approach to Newspaper Regulation.. 330 C. Phone-Hacking and the Leveson Inquiry Into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press ..... 331 D. Where Things Stand Now ...................................... 337 1. The Royal Charter ............................................. 339 2. IPSO and IM
    [Show full text]
  • MIND the GAP Private Power, Online Information Flows and EU Law
    MIND THE GAP Private Power, Online Information Flows and EU Law Angela Daly Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Florence, February 2015 (submission) European University Institute Department of Law Mind the Gap: Private Power, Online Information Flows and EU Law V Angela Daly Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Examining Board Professor Giorgio Monti, European University Institute (EUI Supervisor) Professor Giovanni Sartor, European University Institute Professor Lilian Edwards, University of Strathclyde Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex © Angela Daly, 2015 No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author SUMMARY This thesis examines how European Union law and regulation address concentrations of private economic power which impede free information flows on the Internet to the detriment of Internet users’ autonomy. In particular, competition law, sector specific regulation (if it exists), data protection and human rights law are considered and assessed to the extent they can tackle such concentrations of power for the benefit of users. Illustrative case studies - of Internet provision, search, mobile devices and app stores, and the cloud – are chosen to demonstrate the gaps that exist in current EU law and regulation when applied to concentrations of private power online. It is argued that these gaps exist due, in part, to current overarching trends guiding the regulation of economic power, namely neoliberalism, by which only the situation of market failures can invite ex ante rules, buoyed by the lobbying of regulators and legislators by those in possession of such economic power to achieve outcomes which favour their businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Hart Publishing 2015 Good Books for Lawyers
    Hart Publishing 2015 Good Books for Lawyers iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial ISBN 978-1-78225-696-0 9 781782 256960 iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial Hart Publishing Ltd. is an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing plc www.hartpub.co.uk iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial ISBN 978-1-78225-696-0 9 iBarcoder781782 256960 Trial iBarcoder Trial iBarcoder Trial Welcome 2014 saw the departure from Hart Publishing of its founder Richard Hart whose ambition for what a publisher should be and instinct for the highest quality scholarship over a 17 year period resulted in a treasure trove of good books for lawyers. It is my privilege, together with the Hart and the wider Bloomsbury team, to take the list forward and build on his rich legacy. I am very grateful for the warm and generous welcome which has been extended to me by Hart authors and I very much look forward to working with you in the future. Hart authors’ great tradition of prize winning scholarship continued unabated in 2014. In particular, I am delighted to congratulate James Goudkamp, author of Tort Law Defences and Jure Vidmar, author of Democratic Statehood in International Law who were awarded the 2014 SLS Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship (Joint Second Prize). Warm congratulations also go to Brian Sloan: his title Informal Carers and Private Law was awarded the University of Cambridge’s Yorke Prize. The prestigious American Society of International Law’s Francis Lieber Society Book Prize 2014 was awarded to Russell Buchan’s International Law and the Construction of the Liberal Peace.
    [Show full text]
  • A.C. Pigou and the 'Marshallian' Thought Style
    A.C. PIGOU AND THE ‘MARSHALLIAN’ THOUGHT STYLE A STUDY IN THE PHILOSOPHY AND MATHEMATICS UNDERLYING CAMBRIDGE ECONOMICS Karen Lovejoy Knight PALGRAVE STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought Series Editors Avi J. Cohen Department of Economics York University and University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada G.C. Harcourt School of Economics University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia Peter Kriesler School of Economics University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, Australia Jan Toporowski Economics Department SOAS, University of London London, UK Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought publishes contri- butions by leading scholars, illuminating key events, theories and indi- viduals that have had a lasting impact on the development of modern-day economics. The topics covered include the development of economies, institutions and theories. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14585 Karen Lovejoy Knight A.C. Pigou and the ‘Marshallian’ Thought Style A Study in the Philosophy and Mathematics Underlying Cambridge Economics Karen Lovejoy Knight Independent Scholar Duncraig, WA, Australia Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought ISBN 978-3-030-01017-1 ISBN 978-3-030-01018-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01018-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018959362 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans- mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Immediation II
    Immediation II Edited by Erin Manning, Anna Munster, Bodil Marie Stavning Thomsen Immediation II Immediations Series Editor: SenseLab “Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains” – A.N. Whitehead The aim of the Immediations book series is to prolong the wonder sustaining philosophic thought into transdisciplinary encounters. Its premise is that concepts are for the enacting: they must be experienced. Thought is lived, else it expires. It is most intensely lived at the crossroads of practices, and in the in-between of individuals and their singular endeavors: enlivened in the weave of a relational fabric. Co-composition. “The smile spreads over the face, as the face fits itself onto the smile” – A. N. Whitehead Which practices enter into co-composition will be left an open question, to be answered by the Series authors. Art practice, aesthetic theory, political theory, movement practice, media theory, maker culture, science studies, architecture, philosophy … the range is free. We invite you to roam it. Immediation II Edited by Erin Manning, Anna Munster, Bodil Marie Stavning Thomsen OPEN HUMANITIES PRESS London 2019 First edition published by Open Humanities Press 2019. Copyright © 2019, Erin Manning, Anna Munster, Bodil Marie Stavning Thomsen. Chapters copyright their respective authors unless otherwise noted. This is an open access book, licensed under Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license. Under this license, authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy their work so long as the authors and source are cited and resulting derivative works are licensed under the same or similar license.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Wide Open’ Is the Third Set of Working Papers in a Series from the Centre for Law Justice and Journalism at City University London
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 0 provided by City Research Online &HQWUHIRU/DZ-XVWLFH DQG-RXUQDOLVP &/-- -867,&(:,'(23(1 :25.,1*3$3(56 (GLWRU-XGLWK7RZQHQG $XWKRUV(PLO\$OOERQ'DYLG%DQLVDU+HDWKHU%URRNH3URIHVVRU,DQ&UDP0LNH'RGG 'U'DYLG*ROGEHUJ1LFN+ROPHV'U/DZUHQFH0F1DPDUD/RUG1HXEHUJHU:LOOLDP3HUULQ *HRIIUH\5REHUWVRQ4&/XF\6HULHV+XJK7RPOLQVRQ4&3URIHVVRU+RZDUG7XPEHU $GDP:DJQHU Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ) The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism is the first major interdisciplinary centre in the UK to develop a broad, yet focused, interface between law, justice and journalism in society. The centre aims to harness and maximise opportunities for research collaboration, knowledge transfer and teaching to become an international centre of excellence and brings together expertise in the disciplines of Law, Criminology and Journalism at City University London. CLJJ Working Papers: ‘Justice Wide Open’ is the third set of working papers in a series from the Centre for Law Justice and Journalism at City University London. This publication by leading lawyers, academics and journalists is part of the CLJJ’s new ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project, launched at an event at City University London on 29 February 2012. Leadership and Expertise: The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ) is directed by three of City University London’s leading academics, as well as being supported by a number of specialists from the university. Professor Howard Tumber, CLJJ Director (Journalism) is Professor of Journalism and Communication within the Graduate School of Journalism, City University London, and has published widely in the field of the sociology of news and journalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Highlights 2019
    ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS 2018-19 ANNUAL HIGHLIGHTS Click to navigate CONTENTS 1. Highlights of the Year 10. Events and Conferences 18. Student Fellowship Programme 3. Thank You 11. Eleanor Roosevelt Statue Unveiling 20. Bonavero Research 4. Institutional Structure 12. Human Rights Network events 21. Research Seminars and Roundtable Discussions 5. Benefactors 13. Confronting Illiberalism 22. Staff Activities 5. Advisory Council 15. Book Launches 25. Global Reach 6. Founding Principles 16. Price Media Law Moot Court Competition 24. Contact details 7. Staffing 17. Programmes, Community & Student 8. Social Media Enrichment 9. Kofi Annan’s Visit HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR The Bonavero Institute has been a busy place in its second year of operation. The year started with Secretary Hillary Clinton unveiling Penelope Jencks’ magnificent statue of Eleanor Roosevelt in the gardens of Mansfield just outside the Institute. Eleanor Roosevelt was the chairperson of Speakers included Adam Bodnar, the Polish the committee that drafted the Universal Ombud, Nic Dawes, Deputy Executive Director Declaration of Human Rights and guided for Media at Human Rights Watch, Michael Baroness Helena Kennedy QC its adoption by the United Nations General Ignatieff, the Rector of the Central European The Founding Fellow of the Bonavero Institute of Human Assembly in December 1948. She is an University, and Louise Richardson, the Vice- Rights and Principal of Mansfield College (2010-2018). inspirational historical figure: a woman with Chancellor of the University of Oxford. This little formal learning who became a global conference was the first of several important Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, former Principal of leader, striving untiringly with compassion and conferences hosted by the Bonavero Institute Mansfield College, was the driving force behind the commitment to promote and protect human during the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday 5 October Herbert Smith Freehills Exchange House Primrose Street London Ec2a 2Hs 9.30 – 17.30
    MONDAY 5 OCTOBER HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS EXCHANGE HOUSE PRIMROSE STREET LONDON EC2A 2HS 9.30 – 17.30 EARN 6 CPD POINTS SRA/BSB/ILEX Speakers: DAVID ANDERSON QC, TIM BULEY, JAMIE BURTON, SARAH CLARKE, SIMON CREIGHTON, DEBA DAS, TOM DE LA MARE QC, MARIE DEMETRIOU QC, MICHAEL DRURY CMG, MIKE FORDHAM QC, PROF CONOR GEARTY, RICHARD GORDON QC, JOHN HALFORD, RICHARD HERMER QC, PHILLIPPA KAUFMANN QC, ERIC KING, LORD JUSTICE LAWS, ANDREW LIDBETTER, DAVID LOCK QC, JOANNA LUDLAM, NICOLA MACKINTOSH QC (HONS), RAVI MEHTA, TIM OTTY QC, NAINA PATEL, JASVEER RANDHAWA, JENNI RICHARDS QC, ALICE ROSS, TOM SNELLING, MICHAEL SPENCER, IAIN STEELE, KATE STONE, ADAM STRAW, HUGH TOMLINSON QC, HEATHER WILLIAMS QC Programme: TOP CASES OF THE YEAR, PARLIAMENTARY VANDALISM AND NEW HUMAN RIGHTS, INFORMATION PROCESSING AND DISCLOSUE BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, SURVEILLANCE AND THE LAW, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LITIGATION AND POLICY, HENRY VIII CLAUSES, THE IMPACT OF TERRORISM POLICY ON FREE SPEECH, EU LAW IN DOMESTIC JUDICIAL REVIEW, PROPORTIONALITY - WHAT LIES BENEATH THE LABEL?, VICTIMS, SUSPECTS AND CONVICTS, CHALLENGING NHS DECISIONS, PUBLIC LAW AND THE REGULATORS, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN DOMESTIC COURTS, SOCIAL SECURITY SALAMI SLICING MORNING SESSION PLENARY CHAIR: JENNI RICHARDS QC, 39 ESSEX STREET CHAMBERS 9.00 COFFEE AND REGISTRATION MORNING BREAKOUT SESSIONS Each session is scheduled to last one hour. 9.30 INTRODUCTION FROM THE CHAIR OF Please choose one of the following THE PUBLIC LAW PROJECT 1. EU law in domestic judicial review • Relying on EU law in domestic proceedings 9.35 OPENING ADDRESS: LORD JUSTICE LAWS • Charter: status and horizontal effect • Securing a reference and interveners 10.00 TOP PUBLIC LAW CASES OF THE YEAR: • Practical points for Luxembourg Naina Patel and Iain Steele, Blackstone Chambers & Joanna Ludlam, Partner, Baker McKenzie LLP Deba Das, Senior Associate, Freshfields, Tom Snelling, Partner, Freshfields & Marie Demetriou QC, Brick Court Chambers 10.45 PARLIAMENTARY VANDALISM AND NEW HUMAN RIGHTS 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveson's Illiberal Legacy
    LEVESON’S ILLIBERAL LEGACY AUTHORS HELEN ANTHONY MIKE HARRIS BREAKING SASHY NATHAN PADRAIG REIDY NEWS FOREWORD BY PROFESSOR TIM LUCKHURST PRESS FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. WHY IS THE FREE PRESS IMPORTANT? 2. THE LEVESON INQUIRY, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 A background to Leveson: previous inquiries and press complaints bodies 2.2 The Leveson Inquiry’s Limits • Skewed analysis • Participatory blind spots 2.3 Arbitration 2.4 Exemplary Damages 2.5 Police whistleblowers and press contact 2.6 Data Protection 2.7 Online Press 2.8 Public Interest 3. THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK – A LEGAL ANALYSIS 3.1 A rushed and unconstitutional regime 3.2 The use of statute to regulate the press 3.3 The Royal Charter and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 • The use of a Royal Charter • Reporting to Parliament • Arbitration • Apologies • Fines 3.4 The Crime and Courts Act 2013 • Freedom of expression • ‘Provided for by law’ • ‘Outrageous’ • ‘Relevant publisher’ • Exemplary damages and proportionality • Punitive costs and the chilling effect • Right to a fair trial • Right to not be discriminated against 3.5 The Press Recognition Panel 4. THE WIDER IMPACT 4.1 Self-regulation: the international norm 4.2 International response 4.3 The international impact on press freedom 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 6. CONCLUSION 3 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY 4 , LEVESON S ILLIBERAL LEGACY FOREWORD BY TIM LUCKHURST PRESS FREEDOM: RESTORING BRITAIN’S REPUTATION n January 2014 I felt honour bound to participate in a meeting, the very ‘Our liberty cannot existence of which left me saddened be guarded but by the and ashamed.
    [Show full text]
  • From Perception to Recollection: a Spatio-Temporal Mediated Interaction George Themistokleous*
    Studies in Visual Arts and Communication: an international journal Vol 5, No 2 (2018) on-line ISSN 2393 - 1221 From Perception to Recollection: a spatio-temporal mediated interaction George Themistokleous* Abstract This paper will consider how a media installation called the diplorasis, aims at rethinking understandings of the body in space and time. Through the diplorasis there is an attempt to reconsider the scientific view on the human eyes in relation to art historical accounts of the representational image and to revise these from the perspective of philosophical texts on the image and its relation to an embodied and a disembodied perception (Deleuze, Bergson, Merleau-Ponty). Through this mediated visuality, the prosthetic body becomes re-articulated via a re-framing of the relations between perception and recollection. Keywords: visual media, body and space-time, digital stereoscope, media installation, time-image Introduction an-other understanding of the body, the prosthetic body as we interpret it today. This article begins by re-considering linear Diplorasis derives from the Greek diplo and perspectival representation and the divide this orasi, and is translated as doubled sight. assumes between body and space, in The understanding of the cognitive comparison to alternative modes such as functioning of this “other” body begins by re- stereoscopic representation, where this considering the notion of duration through the distinction is absent. In Hubert Damisch’s A diplorasis and in relation to the understanding Theory of /Cloud/ (2002), the cloud, due to its of duration by Henri Bergson in Matter and very nature of being a ‘body without a surface’ Memory (first published in 1896) and by Gilles (2002: 127), provides a useful prompt to re-think Deleuze in Bergsonism (first published in 1968).
    [Show full text]
  • W. G. Hart Legal Workshop 2013
    W G HART LEGAL WORKSHOP 2013 The Constitution of the Public Sphere: the post-Leveson Landscape Venue: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5DR Monday 24 June – Tuesday 25 June, 2013 Provisional Programme (please note this programme remains subject to change) Monday 24 June Coffee and reception 0900 Welcome 0930 IALS Director Opening Address 0945-1045 Chair: Professor Eric Barendt, UCL; Speaker: Geoffrey Robertson QC Parallel Panels 1045-1205 Panel 1A Panel 5B Lunch Plenary Session: Media Plurality and Media Influence 1315-1435 Chair: tbc Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex; Professor Lorna Woods, City University London Parallel Panels 1435-1555 Panel 1B Panel 2B Coffee Plenary Session: Media, Law and the Judiciary 1610-1730 Chair: tbc (judge) Professor Tom Gibbons, University of Manchester; Professor Leslie Moran, Birkbeck, University of London Workshop Dinner Tuesday 25 June Coffee 0900 Plenary Session: Constraining Journalism? - Newsgathering and Data Protection 0930-1050 Chair: tbc Gill Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services, Guardian News and Media Ltd; Philip Coppel QC, Landmark Chambers Parallel Panels 1050-1210 Panel 4 Panel 5A Lunch Plenary Session: Libel and Privacy in the Emerging Regulatory Matrix 1315-1435 Chair: tbc Professor Alastair Mullis, University of East Anglia; Professor Gavin Phillipson, University of Durham Parallel Panels 1435-1555 Panel 2A Panel 3 Coffee Plenary Session: The Future Shape, Operation and Coherence of Media Regulation 1610-1800 Chair: tbc Professor
    [Show full text]