Search Results

Nikolaos Lavranos

Abstract

This article analyses the way UN sanctions are implemented in the European legal order. As a basis for the analysis, the European Court of First Instance's (CFI) rulings in the Yusuf/Kadi/Ayadi 1 cases and the European Court of Human Rights's (ECrtHR) judgment in the Bosphorus 2 case are applied. The main critique of the author is that the CFI misconstrued the hierarchy of norms within the Community legal order when it argued that the EC/EU (European Community/European Union) is bound by UN Security Council resolutions in the same way as the Member States. Moreover, the conclusion drawn from this by the CFI that UN law enjoys supremacy over primary EC law is also rejected by the author. Finally, it appears that European courts are unwilling to provide judicial review against UN sanctions, which results in a lacuna concerning fundamental rights protection for affected individuals and organisations.

Nikolaos Lavranos

Abstract

With its Kadi-judgment, the European Court of Justice firmly rejected the Kadi/Yusuf-judgments of the Court of First Instance. The Court of Justice made unambiguously clear that Community law, in particular its basic, core fundamental rights values prevail over any international law obligations of the EC and its Member States, including UN Security Council Resolutions and the UN Charter. As a consequence thereof, individuals targeted by UN sanctions must have access to full judicial review in order to be able to ensure the effective protection of their fundamental rights, including procedural rights as guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). As a result, the Court of Justice proved that the Community is indeed based on the rule of law and that the fight against terrorism – how important it may be – cannot be used as a justification for completely abrogating European constitutional law values as guaranteed within the Community and its Member States.

Nikolaos Lavranos

Abstract

In the judgment in Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland, the ECJ for the first time explicitly determined the scope of its exclusive jurisdiction based on Article 292 EC. The ECJ interpreted its jurisdiction very expansively in order to protect its exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply Community law. Accordingly, EU Member States involved in a dispute that potentially raises issues of Community law are not allowed to bring the case before a dispute settlement body other than the ECJ. Furthermore, Member States have the duty to inform and consult the Community institutions prior of bringing a case before another dispute settlement body. Otherwise, the ECJ claims, the danger arises that the autonomy of the Community legal order and its exclusive jurisdiction may adversely be affected by rulings of other international courts or tribunals in disputes that also touch on EC law. With this judgment the ECJ substantially restricted the right of the EU Member States to select a dispute settlement system of their choice. Moreover, this expansive interpretation by the ECJ of its exclusive jurisdiction limits the exercise of the jurisdiction of other international courts and tribunals that are called upon to adjudicate on a dispute that possibly involves Community law.It is submitted that with this extensive understanding of its exclusive jurisdiction, the ECJ is unduly restricting the sovereign right of the Member States to select the dispute settlement system of their choice as well as interfering in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the other international courts and tribunals.

Nikolaos Lavranos and Nicolas Vielliard

Abstract

The wider issues raised by the Brazilian Tyres case are discussed in this contribution. Regarding the institutional aspects, this case examines the difficulties between regional dispute settlement systems and the global WTO dispute settlement system. In particular, the WTO Appellate Body showed no deference towards the prior report of the MERCOSUR Arbitral Tribunal. Indeed, the WTO Appellate Body is espousing a supremacy of WTO law – not only vis-à-vis regional dispute settlement bodies, but also regarding WTO panels. It is argued that this attitude is not sustainable in the light of the increasing proliferation of international courts and tribunals, which inevitably results into disputes being adjudicated by different courts and tribunals at different levels. Regarding the substantive aspects, this case is a prime example of the difficulties of balancing non-trade interests and trade interests. At the end, trade interests superseded the nontrade interests. It is argued that the way Article XX GATT has been interpreted and applied by the WTO Appellate Body leaves states insufficient room to address urgent environmental and health problems by restricting trade. It is argued that in this case Brazil's non-trade interests should have been given preference over the trade interests of the EC and Uruguay.

Series:

Edited by Nikolaos Lavranos and Ruth A. Kok

The title of the Hague Yearbook of International Law reflects the close ties which have always existed between the AAA and the City of The Hague with its international law institutions, and indicates the Yearbook’s aim of devoting attention to developments taking place in the international law institutions based in The Hague. However, the Yearbook has a broader scope as well: to offer a platform for review of new developments in the field of international law. As of the 2010 Volume, the Yearbook will be compiled by a new and expanded Editorial Board, offering fresh ideas and a new approach. A newly established Advisory Board has also been added, including ICJ Judge Bruno Simma, Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-van Hof, advocate (advocaat) at HaersolteHof and arbitrator (The Netherlands) and Professor Peter Hilpold, Innsbruck University (Austria). Sections have been created on public international law, private international law, international investment law and international criminal law, containing in-depth articles on current issues. The breadth of the Yearbook’s content thus offers an interesting and valuable illustration of the dynamic developments in the various sub-areas of international law.

Series:

Edited by Nikolaos Lavranos and Ruth A. Kok

The title of the Hague Yearbook of International Law reflects the close ties which have always existed between the AAA and the City of The Hague with its international law institutions, and indicates the Yearbook’s aim of devoting attention to developments taking place in the international law institutions based in The Hague. However, the Yearbook has a broader scope as well: to offer a platform for review of new developments in the field of international law. As of the 2010 Volume, the Yearbook has been compiled by a new and expanded Editorial Board, offering fresh ideas and a new approach. A newly established Advisory Board has also been added, including ICJ Judge Bruno Simma, Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-van Hof, advocate (advocaat) at HaersolteHof and arbitrator (The Netherlands) and Professor Peter Hilpold, Innsbruck University (Austria). Sections have been created on public international law, private international law, international investment law and international criminal law, containing in-depth articles on current issues. The breadth of the Yearbook’s content thus offers an interesting and valuable illustration of the dynamic developments in the various sub-areas of international law.

Series:

Edited by Nikolaos Lavranos and Ruth A. Kok

The title of the Hague Yearbook of International Law reflects the close ties which have always existed between the AAA and the City of The Hague with its international law institutions, and indicates the Yearbook’s aim of devoting attention to developments taking place in the international law institutions based in The Hague. However, the Yearbook has a broader scope as well: to offer a platform for review of new developments in the field of international law. As of the 2010 Volume, the Yearbook has been compiled by a new and expanded Editorial Board, offering fresh ideas and a new approach. A newly established Advisory Board has also been added, including ICJ Judge Bruno Simma, Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-van Hof, advocate (advocaat) at HaersolteHof and arbitrator (The Netherlands) and Professor Peter Hilpold, Innsbruck University (Austria). Sections have been created on public international law, private international law, international investment law and international criminal law, containing in-depth articles on current issues. The breadth of the Yearbook’s content thus offers an interesting and valuable illustration of the dynamic developments in the various sub-areas of international law.

Edited by Marise Cremona, Peter Hilpold, Nikolaos Lavranos, Stefan Staiger Schneider and Andreas Ziegler

This book collects a large number of essays written in honour of Professor Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann by his friends, colleagues and former students. The respective contributions cover the fields of international economic law, international constitutional law/transnational constitutionalism, EU law and human rights. The broad thematic scope of this book mirrors the extremely large field of interests of the jubilarian. Paying tribute to a particular trait of Professor Petersmann´s character who was always both a dogmatic thinker and a curious researcher, the authors try to cover both structural issues of law as well as most recent developments, in particular in the field of international economic law. “Construing” the constitution of international economic law, in both senses of this activity, was an aim throughout Professor Petersmann´s academic career and this goal stands also at the heart of this book.