The editors and other authors of the studies contained in this volume have chosen to focus attention on the problem of the broad concept of judicial dialogue, defined as the communication between various judicial authorities. The studies included consider the problem of institutional relations in the field of human rights protection from a national and international perspective. The issue of judicial dialogue in the field of human rights after the civil war in Rwanda is assessed. Next, the issue of the legal responsibility for placing hyperlinks in the context of the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of protecting human rights on the internet is raised. Finally, the question of whether private or public legal entities can find direct protection under the Inter-American System of Human Rights is analysed. The academic value of the analytical considerations presented in this volume is very high and this should lead to considerable readers’ interest. This is because intellectual considerations of judicial dialogue in the field of human rights protection undoubtedly bring an interesting and significant new dimension not only to the theory but also to the practice of applying the law.
The question of how disputes arising from Brexit are to be resolved, and by which body, is one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations on the uk’s withdrawal from the European Union and the envisaged future relationship between the uk and the eu. The legal issues related to withdrawal are further magnified in complexity due to the nature of the eu itself, which does not neatly fit into the category of a traditional international organization. The uk has repeatedly stated that it will not accept the continued role of the eu Court of Justice in the uk legal system after withdrawal. Any dispute settlement system must also respect the constitutional requirements of the eu legal order, most notably, by not infringing on the autonomy of eu law. This article discusses some of the various models from international dispute settlement that could be used to inspire a dispute settlement system in the Brexit context. It discusses dispute settlement in the withdrawal agreement and the role of the Court of Justice during and after a transition period. It then discusses the challenges of designing a dispute settlement system for the future relationship agreement. While aspects of these various models could be replicated, there is no dispute settlement system that is fully appropriate to deal with the various complexities and challenges of Brexit. The paper proposes the establishment of a standing international tribunal to resolve disputes arising from Brexit.
Little attention has been given to understanding how international courts feature in legitimacy assessments. How should the performance of international courts be evaluated in terms of their effect on a democratic deficit in international lawmaking? This article takes an initial step toward understanding how international courts improve or weaken the presence of democratic values in international lawmaking. In particular, this article focuses on one aspect of international courts—access for transnational actors. This article argues that TNA access to international courts provides an institutional mechanism to advance participation and transparency in international lawmaking. Normative and empirical analysis are combined to illustrate the extent to which access applies to international courts. Based on the empirical findings, which show a marked increase in TNA access to international courts, I argue that the increased participation and transparency made available through TNA access have democratizing effects on international lawmaking.
There are differing views on the strengths and weaknesses of faith-based organizations relative to secular international nongovernmental organizations. This article argues that the theory of comparative advantage and the theory of organizational alignment are inadequate in helping to assess these strengths and weaknesses. The article offers a different perspective, called conduit engagement theory. It holds that humanitarian organizations naturally have specific relationships, organizational linkages, affiliations, or shared philosophies (referred to in the article as conduits) that enable certain programmatic interventions. Maximum effectiveness within the humanitarian marketplace is a function of the robustness of engagement of conduits with high-priority initiatives that have adequate funding over the necessary length of time. A new kind of tool for strategic planning within specific countries and for auditing at an organizational level are proposed.