As in many parts of the world, an anti-investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) discourse has been propagated also in Japan. In the Japanese Diet (Japan’s parliament), ISDS is criticized as infringing State sovereignty; as being incompatible with the Japanese Constitution; as unduly restricting regulatory space and government procurement; as being biased in favor of the United States; and as being acceptable only in relation to developing States. These criticisms are difficult to sustain and in fact ineffective as investment treaties continue to be approved by the Diet by unanimity or by a large majority. An analysis of the rhetoric of these criticisms and of actual voting records suggest that investor-State arbitration itself is not an independent political issue in Japan, but used as a pretext to manifest an anti-American sentiment or to criticize the incumbent government.
The traditional and mainstream conception of international law presupposes a certain ideal type of State. However, each State is situated in a particular context – an
Etat situé – and the universal, impartial and non-discriminatory application of international law to each State often produces unjustifiable results in the real world. International law thus needs to cope with this existential question in order to ensure and maintain the effectiveness of the international legal order, without, however, being trapped by a nihilistic relativism. This approach requires a flexible understanding and reconstruction of the international law-making theory. The present collection of essays gathers contributions written in honour of Professor Ryuichi Ida by his colleagues and former students, inspired by the dédicataire, who places particular emphasis upon the context, effectiveness and purposes of international law. The dédicataire’s perspective finds wide ranging applications and the present collection deals with international economic law, international criminal law, international environmental law, international law-making, the law of State responsibility and the law of international organizations.
Contributors are: Tatsuya Abe, Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Shotaro Hamamoto, Machiko Kanetake, Tomohiko Kobayashi, Tomonori Mizushima, Hironobu Sakai, Akiho Shibata, Mari Takeuchi, Dai Tamada, Sakda Thanitcul, Zhi-an Wang, and Takuhei Yamada.
The obligation of the coastal state to have due regard to the rights and duties of other states (Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) Art 56(2)) did not suddenly appear with the LOSC. It was gradually formed corresponding to the increasing recognition of the rights of the coastal state in adjacent maritime zones. The practice prior to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and the travaux préparatoires of the LOSC indicate that this obligation requires something more than the negative obligation not to interfere with the exercise by the coastal State of its rights and competences, and that the ‘rights and duties’ to which due regard is to be paid are not limited to those explicitly listed in the LOSC, such as the freedoms of navigation, overflight and of laying of submarine cables and pipelines.