Browse results
A côté de la célèbre collection reliée des cours de l’Académie de droit international, le Curatorium de l’Académie a souhaité publier chaque année quelques cours des sessions de droit international privé et public, en anglais et en français, sous la forme de « livres de poche » et donc à un prix extrêmement réduit. Ces cours délivrés aux étudiants de l’Académie par des spécialistes éminents portent sur des sujets dont l’intérêt est particulièrement marqué, en particulier du point de vue pédagogique, pour la formation des étudiants et, de manière plus générale, pour l’information de tous ceux qui s’intéressent aux grandes questions du droit international. Avec cette nouvelle réalisation l’Académie a le souci de pleinement remplir son rôle en matière de diffusion et de promotion du droit international ainsi rendu accessible à tous.
“Mutual Trust”: A Suitable Foundation for Private International Law in Regional Integration Communities and Beyond?, by M. WELLER, Professor, Universität Bonn.
“Mutual trust” has become the central justification of the EU to drive its private international law forward – the reason why this Course undertakes to explore the theoretical potential of a trust perspective on private international law. In a first step, the opaque term of trust is deconstructed in an interdisciplinary analysis. The results are connected with fundamentals of private international law. The central finding is that private international law builds on the dichotomy of trust and control: how far should foreign judgments, foreign law and other foreign judicial acts be integrated – “trusted” – within the domestic administration of justice? This question must be answered by each and every legislator and each and every court, in particular by those that strive for economic and complementing judicial integration. Recurring tools of trust management can be identified. How do regional integration communities use and fine-tune these tools for their private international law and what are potential explanations from their history, their economics and their legal cultures? Four communities, selected from different parts of the world, are presented under this perspective, ordered in a series towards growing intensities of mutual trust: the ASEAN, the CEMAC, the MERCOSUR, and the EU. The Course comes to the conclusion that trust is, must, and can be managed and dosed according to the respective conditions and contexts, but no matter where we are: to trust or not to trust – that is the question of private international law, for regional integration communities and beyond.
“Mutual Trust”: A Suitable Foundation for Private International Law in Regional Integration Communities and Beyond?, by M. WELLER, Professor, Universität Bonn.
“Mutual trust” has become the central justification of the EU to drive its private international law forward – the reason why this Course undertakes to explore the theoretical potential of a trust perspective on private international law. In a first step, the opaque term of trust is deconstructed in an interdisciplinary analysis. The results are connected with fundamentals of private international law. The central finding is that private international law builds on the dichotomy of trust and control: how far should foreign judgments, foreign law and other foreign judicial acts be integrated – “trusted” – within the domestic administration of justice? This question must be answered by each and every legislator and each and every court, in particular by those that strive for economic and complementing judicial integration. Recurring tools of trust management can be identified. How do regional integration communities use and fine-tune these tools for their private international law and what are potential explanations from their history, their economics and their legal cultures? Four communities, selected from different parts of the world, are presented under this perspective, ordered in a series towards growing intensities of mutual trust: the ASEAN, the CEMAC, the MERCOSUR, and the EU. The Course comes to the conclusion that trust is, must, and can be managed and dosed according to the respective conditions and contexts, but no matter where we are: to trust or not to trust – that is the question of private international law, for regional integration communities and beyond.
This volume is the product of collaborative work conducted between August 2020 and April 2021 as part of the Centre for Studies and Research on Epidemics and International Law.
This volume is the product of collaborative work conducted between August 2020 and April 2021 as part of the Centre for Studies and Research on Epidemics and International Law.
La protection des biens culturels religieux comporte généralement trois dimensions : la conservation et la préservation physique des biens ; les mesures visant à garantir l’accès aux biens culturels et à garder leur fonction cultuelle ; et finalement leur rattachement territorial. Le droit international des conflits armés et le droit pénal international, ainsi que le droit du patrimoine culturel universel et les droits humains, offrent des niveaux variables de protection des biens culturels d’intérêt religieux par des mesures préventives et répressives, auxquelles s’ajoutent des normes de droit privé régissant les conditions de la circulation de ces biens. Le cours aborde certains aspects du traitement juridique des biens culturels dans ces différents domaines du droit ayant des implications particulières pour les biens culturels d’intérêt religieux, tant au niveau international que national, et la manière dont les domaines pertinents du droit prennent en considération les règles et besoins propres des communautés religieuses.
La protection des biens culturels religieux comporte généralement trois dimensions : la conservation et la préservation physique des biens ; les mesures visant à garantir l’accès aux biens culturels et à garder leur fonction cultuelle ; et finalement leur rattachement territorial. Le droit international des conflits armés et le droit pénal international, ainsi que le droit du patrimoine culturel universel et les droits humains, offrent des niveaux variables de protection des biens culturels d’intérêt religieux par des mesures préventives et répressives, auxquelles s’ajoutent des normes de droit privé régissant les conditions de la circulation de ces biens. Le cours aborde certains aspects du traitement juridique des biens culturels dans ces différents domaines du droit ayant des implications particulières pour les biens culturels d’intérêt religieux, tant au niveau international que national, et la manière dont les domaines pertinents du droit prennent en considération les règles et besoins propres des communautés religieuses.
A transnational class action raises fundamental questions in regards of the class action court’s jurisdiction over the defendant and the class members, on how to choose the applicable law, and ultimately on how to deal with the judgment if and when it comes up for enforcement or recognition before a foreign court. At times these questions and the complications they give rise to, become part and parcel of the class action court’s consideration whether to certify the class action as such. In these lectures, I will identify the major private international problems that are endemic to transnational class actions and how these were handled, principally by courts in the US, Canada and Israel. I will also offer an analytical legal framework that can better assist us in dealing with the private international law questions pertaining to transnational class action and that so by identifying three different categories of class actions, with each category demanding a separate and more surgical treatment.
Self-Defence and “Unwilling or Unable” States, by Said Mahmoudi.
A frequently debated question in international law after the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 has been whether the right to self-defence is available for a victim state when the non-state actor responsible for the attack is located in and operates from another state, which is unwilling or unable to forestall the attack. The ICJ has established that the right to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter can be invoked against non-state actors' armed attacks provided the attacks are attributable to the state hosting such actors.
The purpose of the ‘unwilling or unable’ standard is to do away with the attribution requirement. It is thus claimed that the mere fact that an armed attack is carried out by a non-state actor active in the territory of another state should entitle the victim to use of force in self-defence against that actor within the territorial state.
The present text discusses whether state practice, the jurisprudence of the courts and the doctrine of international law in the past two decades indicate any change in the scope of the right to self-defence and its application against armed attacks by non-state actors. Its conclusion is that there has not yet been any change and the ‘unwilling or unable’ standard remains as controversial as when it gained currency in the aftermath of the 9/11 events.
A transnational class action raises fundamental questions in regards of the class action court’s jurisdiction over the defendant and the class members, on how to choose the applicable law, and ultimately on how to deal with the judgment if and when it comes up for enforcement or recognition before a foreign court. At times these questions and the complications they give rise to, become part and parcel of the class action court’s consideration whether to certify the class action as such. In these lectures, I will identify the major private international problems that are endemic to transnational class actions and how these were handled, principally by courts in the US, Canada and Israel. I will also offer an analytical legal framework that can better assist us in dealing with the private international law questions pertaining to transnational class action and that so by identifying three different categories of class actions, with each category demanding a separate and more surgical treatment.
Self-Defence and “Unwilling or Unable” States, by Said Mahmoudi.
A frequently debated question in international law after the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 has been whether the right to self-defence is available for a victim state when the non-state actor responsible for the attack is located in and operates from another state, which is unwilling or unable to forestall the attack. The ICJ has established that the right to self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter can be invoked against non-state actors' armed attacks provided the attacks are attributable to the state hosting such actors.
The purpose of the ‘unwilling or unable’ standard is to do away with the attribution requirement. It is thus claimed that the mere fact that an armed attack is carried out by a non-state actor active in the territory of another state should entitle the victim to use of force in self-defence against that actor within the territorial state.
The present text discusses whether state practice, the jurisprudence of the courts and the doctrine of international law in the past two decades indicate any change in the scope of the right to self-defence and its application against armed attacks by non-state actors. Its conclusion is that there has not yet been any change and the ‘unwilling or unable’ standard remains as controversial as when it gained currency in the aftermath of the 9/11 events.