Blogs

An Arbitral Tribunal Awards Yukos Shareholders 50 Billion USD in Damages Against the Russian Federation

This is a blog post detailing some of the more important aspects of the Yukos shareholders arbitration and the challenges facing the winning party in enforcing their award against the Russian state in the coming years. Read more »

Some thoughts on the ECJ hearing on the Draft EU-ECHR Accession Agreement (Part 2 of 2)

I was in Luxembourg 5-6 May 2014, attending the hearing at the European Court of Justice concerning the Draft Agreement for the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. In these two posts (click here for part 1) I summarize the main arguments presented at the hearing, and provide some initial analysis and thoughts. Finally, I would not be a lawyer if I did not point out that some caveats apply: I am writing based on my own notes and recollection, and thus there might be inaccuracies, omissions and misattributions. If you come across any, feel free to point them out in the comments section below. I would also greatly appreciate any other comments or thoughts you might have in relation to this case.

(Cross-posted at my personal blog.)

The second and final day of oral argument at the ECJ in the case concerning the validity of the Draft Agreement for the Accession of the EU to the ECHR (hereinafter: the DAA) focused on the questions put to the parties by the judges yesterday. Those questions are summarized at the end of yesterday’s blog post. Moreover, some of the judges, as well as the Advocate General, asked further questions towards the end of the hearing. Read more »

Some thoughts on the ECJ hearing on the Draft EU-ECHR accession agreement (Part 1 of 2)

I was in Luxembourg 5-6 May 2014, attending the hearing at the European Court of Justice concerning the Draft Agreement for the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. In these two posts(click here for part 2)I summarize the main arguments presented at the hearing, and provide some initial analysis and thoughts. Finally, I would not be a lawyer if I did not point out that some caveats apply: I am writing based on my own notes and recollection, and thus there might be inaccuracies, omissions and misattributions. If you come across any, feel free to point them out in the comments section below. I would also greatly appreciate any other comments or thoughts you might have in relation to this case.

(Cross-posted at my personal blog)

Monday May 5th was the opening day for the case concerning the Draft Agreement for the Accession of the EU to the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter: the DAA). The case is brought under the procedure provided for in TFEU article 218(11) by the Commission, which is asking the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the question of whether the DAA is compatible with the constituent treaties of the European Union. Much could be (and has been) written about this question, this case, and the spectacle that is an ECJ hearing before the full court. In these couple of posts I will, however, focus on the submissions of the parties. I will give you what I perceived as the highlights of the hearing, and provide some initial commentary. Read more »

The Chevron – Lago Agrio Litigation Saga: The Beginning of the End?

Yesterday, Chevron was handed a victory in relation to its long running environmental tort suit in Ecuador. But it was a victory in US courts and so many may be asking what is the relation between this US court judgment and the Ecuadorian judgment upon which the US case is based. Read more »

Towards An International Human Rights Judiciary?

Towards An International Human Rights Judiciary?

 

Matthew Saul, MultiRights

  Read more »

Upcoming decision of the Inter American Court of Human Rights on access to therapeutic abortion?

Author: PluriCourts Researcher Camila Gianella Malca
 
Last August the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights- IACHR received a new petition on behalf of a Costa Rican woman who was denied the therapeutic abortion she requested.

The negotiations on the European Union’s accession to the ECHR have resumed

The Agora building of the Council of Europe, where the negotiations are taking place.A couple of weeks ago, between June 19 and 22, the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights (french acronym: CDDH) held its 75th meeting. Two topics of particular interest for the MultiRights project were key points on the agenda: the follow-up of the Brighton declaration, and the European Union’s accession to the ECHR. As the title already suggests, this blog post will deal with only the fact that negotiations on the latter has in fact restarted. Read more »

Correlations, Statistics and Judicial Politics Studies – A MultiRights Morning Coffee Impromptu

One of the great things about working on the MultiRights project is the 10 a.m. morning coffee discussion, which can range from the mundane of the Norwegian system of inspection of public transport “cheats” (while resisting the urge to go into a discussion of Foucault’s Governmentality concept) to the more on-topic discussion, like this morning’s statistical analysis of judicial politics studies and patterns of voting. The discussion started with our sharing of experiences with citation reference managers and how best to use them, at which point we all agreed that the best one would be the one who, upon imputing the bibliography of the paper would proceed to writing it (Google please get the hint) which then migrated to voting patterns of judges and their correlation to the right-left political divide where the judge’s political leanings are discerned from the fact of which political party was in power at the time of the judge’s appointment.

The Trouble with Persuasion – Courts and Legitimacy

 

Recently I attended two conferences (pdf) devoted to the same topic, the legitimacy of the international judiciary, a collection of variable who’s-who in the field of international judicial studies. As always when there is an intersection of lawyers, philosophers and political scientists one gets the impression that the points of the discussion somehow manage to go over or under the radar of one group or another and there is a happy confusion of comments or which I myself am surely guilty of. But this is not the reason for this post for if the communication between the disciplines was so easy, if they had shared language, methodology, tradition of inquiry then they would not be different disciplines at all (but different subgroups of the same discipline) which is not to say that talking with each other is impossible. No, the reason for this post is the almost unequivocal difference drawn between the legitimacy of a court and its persuasive power a difference drawn from the start, in the definition of legitimacy.

 

  Read more »

Syndicate content