In spite of occasional references to the “public interest” or the “public good” in legal instruments on foreign investment and in arbitral practice, effective implementation of the concept remains elusive. This is the case first of all due to the fact that arbitrators are faced with the difficulties inherent in performing the delicate function of a quasi “judicial review” of contested host State’s measures. The second factor relates to the fact that the notion of “public good” that emerges from contemporary arbitral practice is confined to the national public interest of the host State and does not include the general interest of the international community as a whole. This article argues that, given the present state of the international economy, the regime of investment protection has to be reconciled not only with the public interest of the host State but also with the emerging concepts of international common goods, which include the global environment, human rights and the cultural heritage of humanity. Given the lack of global institutions responsible for the management of such common goods, this article advocates a functional approach to the exercise of sovereignty that transcends the traditional principles of territoriality and nationality and entails the obligation of both home and host countries to take into account the effects of their investment policies on the general interest of the international community.
From Independence to Interdependence in the Structure of International Environmental Law
Franz Xaver Perrez
The first part of the book traces the history of the principle of sovereignty from the theories of Grotius and Francisco de Vitoria to the modern understanding of the principle in the light of the United Nations system. The second part of the book poses challenges to the traditional concept of sovereignty in the light of the 20th century interdependence, and the third part goes on to formulate a new theory which takes into account the principles of customary law and treaty law. The conclusions drawn on by the author are refreshing, but may also be controversial, and this book will most definitely contribute to the discussion and development of the principle of sovereignty in international law.
This chapter examines a number of theoretical difficulties related to the implementation, in Russia, of the decisions and awards of foreign courts and arbitral tribunals. Along with the normative conditions for recognizing and enforcing foreign decisions, the author draws attention to the educational background of legal professionals— especially judges—in Russia. It is suggested that the statist conception of law inherited from Soviet legal scholarship implicitly leads to the contemporary Russian legal doctrine of negating the obligatory force of decisions from foreign courts. In the opinion of the author, the core of this conception resides in the traditional concept of sovereignty, which excludes the direct effect of legal acts made by foreign states, private arbitration tribunals, and international organizations. Nevertheless, there have been signs of a change in the attitude of the Russian judiciary in several key rulings by commercial courts. The author concludes that one now can observe seeing tendencies indicative of the development of a different concept of law in the mentality of legal professionals in Russia.
This article examines the correlation between the concepts of sovereignty, human rights, and democracy in Russian legal and political debate, analyzing this correlation in the context of Russian philosophical discourse. It argues that sovereignty often is used as a powerful argument which allows the setting aside of international humanitarian standards and the formal constitutional guarantees of human rights. This conflict between sovereignty and human rights also recurs in other countries, and many legal scholars are demanding the revision or even abandonment of the concept of sovereignty. In Russia, this conflict is aggravated by some characteristic features of the traditional mentality frequently favoring statism and collective interests over individual ones, and by the state building a ‘power vertical’ subordinating regional and other particularistic interests to the central power. These features and policies are studied in the context of the Slavophile-Westernizer philosophical divide. This divide reveals the pros and contras put forward by the Russian supporters of the isolationist (conservative) policy throughout contemporary history—especially in the sovereignty debates in recent years. The 1993 Russian Constitution contains many declaratory statements about human rights and democracy, but their formulations are vague and, thus far, have had little concrete effect in court battles where the application of international humanitarian law from time to time has been counterbalanced by the concerns of the protection of sovereignty. These concerns coincide with isolationist and authoritarian policies, which in 2006 led to their amalgamation in the concept of ‘sovereign democracy’. This concept is considered in this article to be a recurrence of the Russian conservative tradition. Even though the concept in its literal meaning has been abandoned by its author and supporters, most of its ideas remain on the cusp of the official political discourse which reproduces the pivotal axes of Russian political philosophy of the XIX century.
“Brother Onas,” i.e. provincial founder William Penn and his successors. But as Lauren Benton has recently reminded us, colonial sovereignty in the early modern period always existed as a patchwork of claims and obligations within a limited spatial reach. If Pennsylvania occupied an exceptional place in
John L. Meloy
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/156852010X539159 Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 53 (2010) 712-738 brill.nl/jesh Money and Sovereignty in Mecca: Issues of the Sharifs in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries John L. Meloy * Abstract The sharifs of
diﬀer- ent and less progressive stance. The principal diﬀerence in the Draft Articles, and one which can be linked to most of the other deviations, is the inclusion of an express reference to the sovereignty of aquifer States in a manner implying that this is the key guiding principle of the instrument
A Critical Commentary on Larry May’s Limiting Leviathan
Larry May’s stated aims in Limiting Leviathan are two-fold. First, May argues that Hobbes is much more amenable to moral and legal limits on sovereignty and lawmaking than traditionally portrayed. (p. 1) Second, May endeavors to show that Hobbes’ theory provides a “solid grounding” for these
Hee Eun Lee
Peninsula … For Koreans, Dokdo is a symbol of the complete recovery of sovereignty. Along with homage by the Japanese leaders to the Yaskuni Shrine and Japanese history textbooks, Dokdo is a touchstone of Japan’s recognition of its past history as well as its determination for Korea-Japan relations of
Concept "Sovereignty" represents a key category of medieval studies in German-speaking countries, where it is customary to speak of royal, episcopal, ecclesiastical, municipal, feudal, juridical, and territorial dominion (or manorialism) when attempting to characterize specifically medieval