When the organizers of this symposium invited me to come to Columbus, Ohio and speak about the Am... more When the organizers of this symposium invited me to come to Columbus, Ohio and speak about the Americanization of international dispute resolution, my first instinct was to ask myself whether such a phenomenon is actually taking place. I soon realized that I could not answer the question without asking myself first what the term "Americanization" means and whether there is a universal understanding of it. This is a problem particularly acute in my case, being a European who works in the United States, as, I am afraid, I have developed a peculiar form of "intellectual strabismus," where I am simultaneously a censorious witness and a bemused accessory of American global cultural ascendancy. If what is meant by "Americanization" is the spreading, by sheer appreciation, persuasion, awe, blackmail, or brute force, of U.S. styles, concepts, ideas, practices, and preferences to the rest of the world,2 then it should be obvious that, while Americanization of th...
LSN: International Governmental Organizations (Topic), 2007
On May 30, 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) ruled on Case C-459/03, C... more On May 30, 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) ruled on Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland, brought by the European Commission and alleging Ireland's failure to fulfill obligations under the Treaty Establishing the European Community. In 2001, Ireland had initiated proceedings against the United Kingdom before an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal, pursuant to the Annex VII dispute settlement procedures of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the present case, the Commission alleged, first, that Ireland breached Article 292 of the EC Treaty and Article 193 of the EURATOM Treaty (EA Treaty) because, by submitting the dispute to Annex VII arbitration, Ireland failed to respect the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction on the interpretation and application of EC law. Second, the Commission claimed that Ireland had violated Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Article 192 of the EA Treaty because, by not consulting with the Commission before initiating arbitral pr...
Today, four international judicial bodies have, potentially, worldwide jurisdiction. They are the... more Today, four international judicial bodies have, potentially, worldwide jurisdiction. They are the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, and the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization. While each of these bodies and mechanisms has its own peculiarities and limitations worthy of investigation, a discussion of these matters is beyond the scope of this chapter. Suffice to say, the jurisdiction of these bodies is not, per se , restricted geographically. Any state in the world can become a party to treaties that created them and thereby be subject to their jurisdiction. Thus, it is clear, there is trend towards treating acceptance of international courts jurisdiction as part and parcel of participation in the legal systems in which those judicial bodies are embedded. It is also clear, this is a trend that is stronger at the regional level and within specialized regimes. Keywords: international jurisdiction; specialized regimes; World Trade Organizatio
Despite the plethora of international adjudicative bodies created over time and across regions, i... more Despite the plethora of international adjudicative bodies created over time and across regions, international judicialization is still remarkably uneven. First, while some regions of the globe contain multiple, overlapping, international adjudicative bodies, others have none. Second, patterns of utilization are inconsistent. Even where international adjudicative bodies exist, certain actors use them more frequently than others. Third, certain areas of international relations have been judicialized significantly more than others. This chapter describes the current state of judicialization along these three main dimensions, highlighting the areas and issues where judicialization has not arrived, and advances some possible explanations for this puzzle.
... They also suggest some important fundamental normative questions: Is the process of judicial ... more ... They also suggest some important fundamental normative questions: Is the process of judicial dialogue legitimate? ... Court of Justice); Michal Balcerzak, The Doctrine of Precedent in the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, 27 POLISH YB INT'L ...
When the organizers of this symposium invited me to come to Columbus, Ohio and speak about the Am... more When the organizers of this symposium invited me to come to Columbus, Ohio and speak about the Americanization of international dispute resolution, my first instinct was to ask myself whether such a phenomenon is actually taking place. I soon realized that I could not answer the question without asking myself first what the term "Americanization" means and whether there is a universal understanding of it. This is a problem particularly acute in my case, being a European who works in the United States, as, I am afraid, I have developed a peculiar form of "intellectual strabismus," where I am simultaneously a censorious witness and a bemused accessory of American global cultural ascendancy. If what is meant by "Americanization" is the spreading, by sheer appreciation, persuasion, awe, blackmail, or brute force, of U.S. styles, concepts, ideas, practices, and preferences to the rest of the world,2 then it should be obvious that, while Americanization of th...
LSN: International Governmental Organizations (Topic), 2007
On May 30, 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) ruled on Case C-459/03, C... more On May 30, 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) ruled on Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland, brought by the European Commission and alleging Ireland's failure to fulfill obligations under the Treaty Establishing the European Community. In 2001, Ireland had initiated proceedings against the United Kingdom before an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal, pursuant to the Annex VII dispute settlement procedures of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the present case, the Commission alleged, first, that Ireland breached Article 292 of the EC Treaty and Article 193 of the EURATOM Treaty (EA Treaty) because, by submitting the dispute to Annex VII arbitration, Ireland failed to respect the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction on the interpretation and application of EC law. Second, the Commission claimed that Ireland had violated Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Article 192 of the EA Treaty because, by not consulting with the Commission before initiating arbitral pr...
Today, four international judicial bodies have, potentially, worldwide jurisdiction. They are the... more Today, four international judicial bodies have, potentially, worldwide jurisdiction. They are the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, and the dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization. While each of these bodies and mechanisms has its own peculiarities and limitations worthy of investigation, a discussion of these matters is beyond the scope of this chapter. Suffice to say, the jurisdiction of these bodies is not, per se , restricted geographically. Any state in the world can become a party to treaties that created them and thereby be subject to their jurisdiction. Thus, it is clear, there is trend towards treating acceptance of international courts jurisdiction as part and parcel of participation in the legal systems in which those judicial bodies are embedded. It is also clear, this is a trend that is stronger at the regional level and within specialized regimes. Keywords: international jurisdiction; specialized regimes; World Trade Organizatio
Despite the plethora of international adjudicative bodies created over time and across regions, i... more Despite the plethora of international adjudicative bodies created over time and across regions, international judicialization is still remarkably uneven. First, while some regions of the globe contain multiple, overlapping, international adjudicative bodies, others have none. Second, patterns of utilization are inconsistent. Even where international adjudicative bodies exist, certain actors use them more frequently than others. Third, certain areas of international relations have been judicialized significantly more than others. This chapter describes the current state of judicialization along these three main dimensions, highlighting the areas and issues where judicialization has not arrived, and advances some possible explanations for this puzzle.
... They also suggest some important fundamental normative questions: Is the process of judicial ... more ... They also suggest some important fundamental normative questions: Is the process of judicial dialogue legitimate? ... Court of Justice); Michal Balcerzak, The Doctrine of Precedent in the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, 27 POLISH YB INT'L ...
Uploads
Papers