1,720,972 research outputs found
Interpretation in International Law, by Andrea Bianchi, Daniel Peat, Matthew Windsor. Oxford University Press, 2015
No full textSteffen Hindelang and Markus Krajewski (eds). Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pp. 496. £80. ISBN: 9780198738428.
No full textGoing Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
United States—Anti-dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber from Canada
Full text linkThis dispute, brought by Canada against the United States, constitutes another chapter in three separate sagas: the enduring softwood lumber dispute between the two North American nations; the debate over the acceptability of the practice of “zeroing”; and the fight over the value and role of World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body precedent. Notably, the panel departed from established Appellate Body decisions finding, inter alia, that zeroing was permissible under a weighted average-to-transaction (W-T) methodology. This departure is remarkable, not just because it runs counter to prior jurisprudence, but also for the reasoning supporting it and the circumstances in which it occurred. Indeed, the Panel Report was issued in the midst of a crisis of the WTO dispute settlement system arising from the United States’ decision to block the reappointment of Appellate Body members. The United States justified this action, which eventually resulted in the Appellate Body losing its quorum to hear new appeals on December 10, 2019, on the basis of complaints, among others, that the Appellate Body had championed an approach to precedent that the United States found incompatible with the intended role of dispute settlement within the WTO. While members worked feverishly to formulate a compromise that might respond to the United States’ criticisms and soften the effect of the Appellate Body's approach, the Panel suggested its own. Thus, it found room to depart from prior precedent (which the United States argued had been wrongly decided) while paying lip service to the Appellate Body.</jats:p
The Exercise of Diplomatic Protection on Behalf of Refugees
No full textThe underlying assumption in the protection paradigm set out in the 1951 Geneva Convention is that only states can effectively grant protection to refugees, essentially replacing a State of nationality that fails to do so. But what happens when a refugee — who has been granted asylum — finds himself not only outside “the country of his nationality,” but also outside his State of asylum? Once deemed highly theoretical, such cases have in fact occurred, prompting a number of complex issues. Although admittedly still far from being part of customary international law, Article 8 of the 2006 ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection suggests that States could act on behalf of refugees to whom they granted asylum. This paper seeks to set out the conditions for such exercises of diplomatic protection on behalf of non-nationals and the limits of governmental discretion in the exercise of such a power
Rule of Precedent and Rules on Precedent
No full textThe general assessment of the problem of the use of previous decisions in international adjudication usually starts from the many statements to the effect that ‘there is no rule of precedent in international law’. Reliance is mainly placed on specific statutory rules, starting from Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is understood to authoritatively reflect the sources of international law and states that the Court ‘shall apply... judicial decisions’ as ‘subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law’ subject to the operation of Article 59, which appears to rule out any endorsement of a rigid rule (or practice) of stare decisis. These approaches have a common thread: they address the question of the use and authority of previous decisions in international adjudication as one regulated by rules. Yet, they are never found to provide a satisfactory answer to the problem. This chapter offers an alternative to the traditional outlook, challenging the oft-repeated truism that ‘there is no rule of precedent in international adjudication’ by arguing that it is desirable to shift the analysis from an almost mythological rule of precedent—or an equally esoteric belief of a lack thereof—to more tangible rules on precedent. These may include—and do include—rules in which a specific understanding of the question is endorsed by the statutory provisions of a specific international adjudicator, but are not exhausted by them, as other rules of different nature and origin (including, but not limited to, organisational directives, rules on submissions, on evidence and on law- ascertainment, as well as those concerning systems of challenge, appeal, and control) also have an impact—with various degree of directness—on the role, possible uses, and authority of the past. This study is based on the identification of such rules and their treatment. Its overall purpose is to show how, in the absence of one rule of precedent, the many rules on precedent can contribute to shape the use of the past by international adjudicators, and their mindset in doing so. The approach taken in this study is based on the examination of existing or purported rules, and thus is both rule-based and aimed at rule- synthesis. It is not, however, merely descriptive: rather, it also considers the implications, which could found use for the creation of new adjudication mechanisms and provides insights on potential avenues of reform
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
