List price
EUR €154.00USD $185.00
Browse results
Towards Interdisciplinary Synergies
The originality of this volume lies in the interdisciplinary synergies that emerge through the issues it explores and the approaches it adopts. It offers legal and ethical reflections on the criminal qualification of a series of conducts ranging from human experimentation and non-consensual medical interventions to organ transplant trafficking and marketing of human body parts. It also considers procedural matters, notably related to psychiatric and medical evidence. In so doing, it combines legal and other types of conceptualizations to examine such contemporary issues as rights of the LGBTIQ population, access to medical care, corporate criminal liability, rights of children and Islamic jurisprudence.
Towards Interdisciplinary Synergies
The originality of this volume lies in the interdisciplinary synergies that emerge through the issues it explores and the approaches it adopts. It offers legal and ethical reflections on the criminal qualification of a series of conducts ranging from human experimentation and non-consensual medical interventions to organ transplant trafficking and marketing of human body parts. It also considers procedural matters, notably related to psychiatric and medical evidence. In so doing, it combines legal and other types of conceptualizations to examine such contemporary issues as rights of the LGBTIQ population, access to medical care, corporate criminal liability, rights of children and Islamic jurisprudence.
Dispute Resolution in the Law of International Watercourses and the Law of the Sea
Dispute Resolution in the Law of International Watercourses and the Law of the Sea
Which Way Forward?
Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In
Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim’s claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the
Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.
Which Way Forward?
Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In
Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim’s claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the
Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.
Problems, Theories and Methods
Problems, Theories and Methods
The Law and Practice of Facultative Mixity
Despite the Lisbon Treaty reforming the EU Treaty provisions on external relations, it was argued at the time of the Treaty’s entry into force that ‘mixity was here to stay’. While this has indeed proven to be the case, the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence has nonetheless redrawn the contours within which mixity can thrive and for the first time has confirmed the existence of ‘facultative mixity’. In light of these significant post-Lisbon developments the volume aims to clarify the law and policy of facultative mixed agreements in the EU’s treaty practice and this not only from the perspective of EU (constitutional) law itself but also from the perspective of the EU Member States’ legal systems, that of the EU’s third country treaty partners and that of public international law itself.
The Law and Practice of Facultative Mixity
Despite the Lisbon Treaty reforming the EU Treaty provisions on external relations, it was argued at the time of the Treaty’s entry into force that ‘mixity was here to stay’. While this has indeed proven to be the case, the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence has nonetheless redrawn the contours within which mixity can thrive and for the first time has confirmed the existence of ‘facultative mixity’. In light of these significant post-Lisbon developments the volume aims to clarify the law and policy of facultative mixed agreements in the EU’s treaty practice and this not only from the perspective of EU (constitutional) law itself but also from the perspective of the EU Member States’ legal systems, that of the EU’s third country treaty partners and that of public international law itself.
The Tale of Two Citadels
This volume in the Brill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law addresses intersectionality from the lens of comparative antidiscrimination law. The term ‘intersectionality’ was coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989. As a field, intersectionality has a longer history, of nearly two hundred years. Meanwhile, comparative antidiscrimination law as a field may be just over a few decades old. Thus, intersectionality’s tryst with antidiscrimination law is a fairly recent one. Developed as a critique of antidiscrimination law, intersectionality has had a significant influence on it. Yet, intersectionality’s logic does not seem to have infiltrated the logic of antidiscrimination law completely. Comparative antidiscrimination law continues to develop with intersectionality in sight, but rarely, in step. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Crenshaw’s seminal article that coined the term in the context of antidiscrimination law, Shreya Atrey explores this irony. Her article provides a meta-narrative of the development of the two fields with the purpose of showing what appear to be orthogonal trajectories.
The Tale of Two Citadels
This volume in the Brill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law addresses intersectionality from the lens of comparative antidiscrimination law. The term ‘intersectionality’ was coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989. As a field, intersectionality has a longer history, of nearly two hundred years. Meanwhile, comparative antidiscrimination law as a field may be just over a few decades old. Thus, intersectionality’s tryst with antidiscrimination law is a fairly recent one. Developed as a critique of antidiscrimination law, intersectionality has had a significant influence on it. Yet, intersectionality’s logic does not seem to have infiltrated the logic of antidiscrimination law completely. Comparative antidiscrimination law continues to develop with intersectionality in sight, but rarely, in step. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Crenshaw’s seminal article that coined the term in the context of antidiscrimination law, Shreya Atrey explores this irony. Her article provides a meta-narrative of the development of the two fields with the purpose of showing what appear to be orthogonal trajectories.
