POPULARITY
2 episodes with permanent court
3 episodes with permanent court
4 episodes with permanent court
3 episodes with permanent court
3 episodes with permanent court
3 episodes with permanent court
2 episodes with permanent court
2 episodes with permanent court
2 episodes with permanent court
A challenge to Britain's ban on commercial fishing for sandeels in the North Sea has been partially upheld. The ban was introduced by both the English and Scottish governments in March last year because of concerns that so many sandeels were being fished that seabirds along the UK's East coastline were losing out. But Danish commercial sandeel boats said it threatened their future, and that claimed the move was discriminatory and disproportionate. They then took the case to the EU's Permanent Court of Arbitration, which upheld the ban in Scottish waters, but not the English one. The British Veterinary Association and the Pig Veterinary Society have issued a new joint statement calling for farrowing crates to be banned. Farrowing crates are the small pens that 60% of sows in the UK are kept in around the time they give birth to ensure they don't roll on and crush their piglets. New research published this week suggests that a spray, which boosts the equivalent of a plant's blood sugar, could improve wheat yields by 12%.Conservation groups in Scotland are urging ministers to reject plans for an offshore windfarm which the developer predicts will kill tens of thousands of seabirds.We grow some pulses in the UK and most go into animal feed for the high protein, things like beans and peas and even lupins. There is a drive to grow more pulses for feed here in the UK to replace imported soya, and research into the best options for British farmers is underway.Presented by Charlotte Smith and produced by Beatrice Fenton.
Oh Thursday 6th February 2025 Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered his 1973 Professor Inaugural Lecture: 'On the Interface between Public and Private International Law'.The lecture begins at 05:18Abstract: Our understanding of the operation of law beyond the nation State has been deeply shaped by two great disciplines: public and private international law. Yet surprisingly little systematic attention has been devoted to the relationship between the two. In his inaugural lecture as Professor of International Dispute Resolution in the University of Cambridge, McLachlan argues that the neglect of this interface is highly consequential for our understanding of law's capacity to control the State and the corporation, which are, respectively, the principal holders of public/political and private/economic power in the world.Campbell McLachlan is elected as Professor of Law (1973) in the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Trinity Hall. He took up his chair in July 2024, specialising in International Dispute Resolution. A New Zealander, his career has spanned scholarship and practice in private and public international law. His principal works include: Foreign Relations Law (CUP 2014), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (2nd ed, OUP 2017) and The Principle of Systemic Integration in International Law (2024). He is a Specialist Editor of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. He gave the General Course at The Hague Academy of International Law in January 2024. He is a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.Photographs of the event are available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgelawfaculty/albums/72177720323668326
Oh Thursday 6th February 2025 Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered his 1973 Professor Inaugural Lecture: 'On the Interface between Public and Private International Law'.The lecture begins at 05:18Abstract: Our understanding of the operation of law beyond the nation State has been deeply shaped by two great disciplines: public and private international law. Yet surprisingly little systematic attention has been devoted to the relationship between the two. In his inaugural lecture as Professor of International Dispute Resolution in the University of Cambridge, McLachlan argues that the neglect of this interface is highly consequential for our understanding of law's capacity to control the State and the corporation, which are, respectively, the principal holders of public/political and private/economic power in the world.Campbell McLachlan is elected as Professor of Law (1973) in the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Trinity Hall. He took up his chair in July 2024, specialising in International Dispute Resolution. A New Zealander, his career has spanned scholarship and practice in private and public international law. His principal works include: Foreign Relations Law (CUP 2014), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (2nd ed, OUP 2017) and The Principle of Systemic Integration in International Law (2024). He is a Specialist Editor of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. He gave the General Course at The Hague Academy of International Law in January 2024. He is a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.Photographs of the event are available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgelawfaculty/albums/72177720323668326
This Day in Legal History: Permanent Court of Arbitration EstablishedOn February 6, 1900, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was officially established following the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This marked a major step toward institutionalizing peaceful dispute resolution between nations. The PCA, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, became the first international tribunal designed to arbitrate conflicts between states, offering an alternative to war. While not a court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support for arbitral tribunals, helping resolve territorial, trade, and investment disputes. Recognizing the need for improvement, the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes refined its procedures, further solidifying arbitration as a legitimate mechanism for international law. Over the years, the PCA's role expanded beyond state-to-state disputes to include cases involving international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. Today, it operates out of the Peace Palace, home to other key legal institutions like the International Court of Justice. With 109 member states, the PCA continues to handle complex cases, from border conflicts to environmental agreements. Its existence laid the groundwork for later international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court and various UN tribunals. By promoting arbitration over conflict, the PCA has helped shape a more structured and rule-based international legal order.Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a major shift in the Justice Department's white-collar enforcement priorities, scaling back efforts in foreign lobbying transparency and foreign bribery cases. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit will now focus on bribery cases tied to transnational crime, such as those facilitating human smuggling, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. Other FCPA investigations with no such connection will be deprioritized.Similarly, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enforcement will be limited to cases resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The Justice Department's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section will focus more on civil enforcement and regulatory guidance rather than aggressive criminal prosecutions. These changes mark a significant pullback from the increased enforcement seen over the past decade, particularly under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division's corporate enforcement unit, an initiative championed by Biden-era Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It's unclear if the division will continue prioritizing corporate crime linked to adversarial nations like China and Iran. These policy shifts were part of a broader series of announcements as Bondi took charge as the nation's top law enforcement official following her confirmation on Tuesday night.Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement (1)Google is ending its diversity-based hiring targets and reviewing its broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, aligning with a broader corporate trend of scaling back such efforts. The company previously set a goal in 2020 to increase leadership representation from underrepresented groups by 30% by 2025, but Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that Google would no longer pursue aspirational hiring goals.This shift follows years of public DEI commitments, especially after the 2020 protests over police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans. Google had also begun evaluating executives on diversity metrics, but recent SEC filings show it removed language reaffirming its DEI commitments.The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) criticized the move, calling it part of a broader anti-worker trend in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Google cited legal considerations as a federal contractor, stating it is reviewing compliance with court decisions and executive orders affecting DEI policies.Google will maintain internal employee groups such as “Black Googler Network” and “Trans at Google.” The company's decision follows similar DEI cutbacks at Meta and Amazon, amid increasing conservative pushback and legal challenges after the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ruling.Google scraps diversity-based hiring targets | ReutersMore than 40,000 federal employees have signed up for the Trump administration's buyout offer, which promises pay through September if they resign by the end of February. This represents about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, with officials expecting a surge in applications before the Thursday deadline.The initiative is part of President Trump's second-term effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency. The White House initially projected that 5% to 10% of federal workers might accept the offer.Federal employee unions oppose the plan, questioning its legality and enforceability. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has warned workers that job cuts are likely, with agency restructurings and layoffs expected. However, key employees in defense, immigration, law enforcement, and postal services are exempt from the deal.With nearly 298,000 federal employees eligible for retirement in the next two years, the administration's strategy could significantly reshape the workforce. Union leaders, like Everett Kelley of the American Federation of Government Employees, have urged workers to reject the offer, calling it misleading and driven by unelected billionaires.Musk ‘Buyout' Taken by 40,000 Federal Workers as Deadline Nears - BloombergOn her first day as U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi issued a directive stating that Justice Department lawyers who refuse to advance legal arguments on behalf of the Trump administration could face termination. The memo warns that attorneys who decline to sign briefs, delay cases, or impede the department's mission may be disciplined or fired.The move is part of a broader effort by Trump appointees to assert control over the Justice Department, which has already seen firings and reassignments of career lawyers. Bondi also announced a review of criminal and civil cases brought against Trump and his supporters, including prosecutions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. This "Weaponization Working Group" will scrutinize cases Republicans claim were politically motivated under the Biden administration.Additionally, Bondi scaled back enforcement of foreign influence laws, stating that criminal cases will only be pursued in instances resembling “traditional espionage”, shifting the focus to civil enforcement. These laws, which require individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register as foreign agents, were previously used to prosecute several Trump associates.Bondi's directive reflects Trump allies' long-standing complaints that career DOJ attorneys obstructed his policies, such as resisting lawsuits against Yale's admissions practices and refusing to defend the 2017 travel ban. The memo asserts that DOJ lawyers cannot substitute their personal views for the administration's legal agenda.Trump's attorney general says lawyers who refuse orders could be fired | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Dr. Keanu Sai is back by popular demand for a continuation of his first episode last month. Dr. Sai is a Ph.D. in Political Science specializing in International Relations and law from the island of O'ahu. He is a founding member of the Hawaiian Society of Law & Politics. He also served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, Netherlands, from November 1999-February 2001. He is also the head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry and is a senior lecturer of political science and Hawaiian studies at windward community college and affiliate faculty member at university of Hawaii college of education graduate program as well as the chairman of Hawaiian council of regency. In this episode we talk about joining the military, learning about his genealogy, Hawaiian sovereignty, independence, the illegal occupation of Hawai'i, and so much more. Enjoy! Find Dr. Sai's website and other resources here: Blog: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/Letter:https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Hawaiian_Royal_Commission_of_Inquiry_(2020).pdf Book review: https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Book_Review_RCI_book_(Budziszewska).pdf Other videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF6CaLAMh98https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A Buy our merch on: Official website: https://keepitaloha.com/ Support us on: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/kamakadias Follow us on: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/keepitalohapod/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/keepitalohapod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@keepitalohapod Listen to us on: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keep-it-aloha/id1592266675 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S4albn4TaWiwqcLVSnHNb?si=88d056857a5b41f2
Dr. Keanu Sai is a Ph.D. in Political Science specializing in International Relations and law from the island of O'ahu. He is a founding member of the Hawaiian Society of Law & Politics. He also served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, Netherlands, from November 1999-February 2001. He is also the head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry and is a senior lecturer of political science and Hawaiian studies at windward community college and affiliate faculty member at university of Hawaii college of education graduate program as well as the chairman of Hawaiian council of regency. In this episode we talk about joining the military, learning about his genealogy, Hawaiian sovereignty, independence, the illegal occupation of Hawai'i, and so much more. Enjoy! Find Dr. Sai's website here: hhttps://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/ Buy our merch on: Official website: https://keepitaloha.com/ Support us on: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/kamakadias Follow us on: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/keepitalohapod/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/keepitalohapod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@keepitalohapod Listen to us on: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/keep-it-aloha/id1592266675 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S4albn4TaWiwqcLVSnHNb?si=88d056857a5b41f2
Zimbabwean former Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay and Australian Justice Michael Kirby have joined Freedom Under Law's (FUL's) international advisory board to fill the vacancies following the deaths of founding members Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Lord Johan van Zijl Steyn. Both retired judges, Gubbay and Kirby are internationally regarded for being vocal on the rule of law, judicial independence and the protection of human rights. "The lives of the two prominent Commonwealth judges have intersected in many ways. They were both strong proponents (with later Chief Justice Mahomed of South Africa) of the application of international rights instruments in domestic law, beginning with the Bangalore Principles and Harare Declaration. Both attended the ground-breaking Bloemfontein Colloquium in 1993 chaired by former Chief Justice Corbett, in which some senior South African judges and counsel also participated. Both have been recipients of the Gruber Prize for Justice, other decorations and honorary doctorates," said FUL. In 1959, two years after joining the Bar in Zimbabwe, Cambridge alum Gubbay defended 100 members of the African National Congress of Southern Rhodesia against detention without a trial. He headed up the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal and the Patents Tribunal before joining the High Court in Bulawayo and then the Appellate Division in Harare. Post democracy, he held the Acting Chief Justice position for five terms before being appointed Chief Justice in 1990, where he presided over cases relating to human rights, such as freedom of speech, arbitrary arrests, decriminalising homosexuality and asserting land rights. "In 2001 he was forced from office. The Supreme Court was allowed to be invaded, and he was threatened. He was replaced by a High Court judge, Godfrey Chidyausiku, who had served as a deputy minister, acting attorney-general and member of the Politburo of the ruling party. Gubbay has received wide international recognition. He is an Honorary Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, a patron of the Association of Commonwealth Judges and Magistrates and was appointed to the Permanent Court of Arbitration," FUL said. Beginning as a barrister in industrial relations, Kirby was the president of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and first chair of the Australian Law Reform Commission. He was a judge of Australia's highest court for 13 years, until 2009. He is known notably for his judgments in the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights. "FUL records its gratitude for the willingness of these eminent figures to contribute their moral leadership and wisdom," said the nonprofit organisation.
This Day in Legal History: The Permanent Court of Arbitration is EstablishedOn this day, February 6, 1900, a pivotal moment in the realm of international law unfolded with the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), marking the inception of the first international tribunal dedicated to resolving disputes among nations. This historic event was precipitated by the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, setting a cornerstone in The Hague, Netherlands. The PCA's creation underscored a global aspiration towards peaceful resolution of conflicts, departing from the traditional reliance on military force and diplomatic pressure.In the years that followed, the PCA's foundational principles and structure were further refined and strengthened by the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. These conventions collectively laid down the legal framework and procedural norms for international arbitration that continue to guide the PCA's operations.Now, more than a century later, the PCA stands as a testament to the enduring commitment of the international community to the principles of justice, peace, and cooperation. Housed in the iconic Peace Palace in The Hague, the PCA has grown to include 109 member countries, each pledging to resolve their disputes through arbitration rather than warfare.Throughout its history, the PCA has played a crucial role in mediating conflicts that span a wide range of issues, from territorial disputes to environmental concerns, and from maritime law to international investment. Its proceedings and rulings have not only resolved conflicts but have also contributed significantly to the development of international law.Today, as we commemorate the founding of the PCA, it serves as a reminder of the power of diplomacy and the potential for international law to foster a more peaceful and just world. The legacy of the PCA continues to influence contemporary legal thought and practice, reinforcing the importance of dialogue, understanding, and legal arbitration in the international arena.The federal government has notably refrained from commenting on Donald Trump's legal battle to remain on Colorado's 2024 primary ballot, despite previously engaging in Supreme Court cases concerning major political and legal issues. This silence, particularly from the Solicitor General's Office, seems to reflect a cautious approach to avoid involvement in disputes directly affecting presidential election outcomes. Trump's legal team is set to argue that the Colorado Supreme Court incorrectly ruled him disqualified from office due to his actions during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, a decision with significant implications for his eligibility in upcoming primaries.Historically, the federal government's stance in similar high-stakes election cases, such as Bush v. Gore, has been to abstain from taking a position, suggesting a consistent strategy to steer clear of cases with direct political ramifications. Observers and legal experts speculate that the decision to remain silent in Trump's case, like past instances, is driven by the political sensitivity of the matter and the desire to maintain the perception of impartiality in election-related legal challenges. The Solicitor General's role as an educator and policy explainer to the court, coupled with their selective involvement in cases, highlights the nuanced considerations behind the government's engagement in Supreme Court litigation.This careful positioning underscores the complexities of navigating legal disputes that intersect with political dynamics and the constitutional implications of election law. The absence of federal input in Trump's case reflects a broader trend of cautious engagement by the Solicitor General in politically charged cases, emphasizing the delicate balance between legal principles and political considerations in the administration's approach to Supreme Court litigation.US Silence on Trump Ballot Battle Signals Caution Over ElectionThe recent licensing dispute between Universal Music Group and TikTok Inc. highlights the growing complexities introduced by AI-generated music in the music and social media industries. Universal's decision to remove its artists' music from TikTok, citing concerns over AI-generated recordings diluting royalties for human artists, marks a significant standoff that could reshape future negotiations and the use of AI in content creation. This conflict reflects broader industry challenges with AI, mirroring disputes in other creative sectors over copyright infringement and the impact of technology on traditional revenue models.Both Universal and TikTok benefit from their partnership, with TikTok serving as a promotional platform for Universal's artists and music. However, the disagreement over AI-generated music's role and its potential to reduce reliance on licensed content brings to light the strategic and financial implications for both parties. Legal experts and industry observers are closely watching the dispute, recognizing its potential to set precedents for how AI-generated content is managed and compensated across platforms.The public nature of this dispute is unusual in an industry where such negotiations often occur behind closed doors, indicating the high stakes involved. Artists signed with Universal, such as Noah Kahan and Yungblud, have voiced their perspectives, highlighting the personal and professional impacts of the standoff. The debate extends to songwriters and music publishers, who advocate for fair compensation and protections against the devaluation of human creativity by AI.This standoff between Universal and TikTok underscores the ongoing negotiation between leveraging new technologies for innovation and ensuring artists and creators are fairly compensated. As AI continues to evolve, its integration into creative industries will necessitate careful consideration of legal, ethical, and economic factors to balance innovation with the rights and livelihoods of human creators.AI Fight Complicates TikTok, Universal Music Licensing StandoffThe 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California can continue enforcing its law that mandates background checks for ammunition purchases, temporarily suspending a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez that declared the law unconstitutional. This decision came from a divided panel, with a 2-1 vote in favor of maintaining the law while the state appeals Judge Benitez's ruling, which he argued violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Judges Richard Clifton and Holly Thomas, both Democratic appointees, supported the stay, whereas U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, a Republican appointee, dissented.California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the decision, highlighting the importance of the state's ammunition laws in saving lives and ensuring they remain in effect during the ongoing legal defense. The law, which was challenged by individuals including Olympic gold medalist shooter Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, requires gun owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition and pay for a four-year ammunition permit. This measure, initially approved by California voters in 2016 and later amended by legislators to require background checks for each ammunition purchase starting in 2019, faces continued opposition from gun rights advocates.The legal battle reflects wider national debates on gun control, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized an individual's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense and set a new standard for evaluating firearm laws. Judge Benitez's rejection of California's ammunition background check law cited a lack of historical precedent for such regulations, a point of contention that underscores the ongoing struggle between state efforts to regulate firearms and ammunition and the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment.California ammunition background check law can remain in effect, court rules | ReutersThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is poised to implement a new rule requiring proprietary traders and firms frequently dealing in U.S. government bonds to register as broker-dealers, introducing them to a regime of enhanced scrutiny. This initiative is part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at addressing structural deficiencies in the $26 trillion Treasury market, which have been identified as contributing to liquidity issues. By mandating registration for entities trading over $25 billion in Treasuries across a majority of the past six months, the rule intends to impose capital, liquidity, and other regulatory requirements on a sector that has become increasingly vital for market liquidity.Scheduled for a vote by the SEC's commissioners, the rule targets up to 46 proprietary trading firms, seeking to integrate them more closely into the regulatory framework governing Treasury market dealers. Critics, including prominent investors and industry groups, have expressed concerns that the rule's broad criteria may inadvertently ensnare corporations, insurers, and pension funds, potentially exacerbating liquidity challenges rather than alleviating them. Despite these criticisms and calls for moderation in the rule's application, the SEC has highlighted the value of industry feedback without committing to specific adjustments.The adoption of this rule marks a significant step in what is described as the most substantial renovation of the Treasury market in decades, with the potential to alter trading behaviors and the operational landscape for a wide range of market participants. The outcome of the final rule's wording remains closely watched, as it could dictate a pivotal shift in how entities engage with the Treasury market, balancing the push for transparency and stability against the risk of unintended consequences on market liquidity.In other words, in plain English, this new rule is a big deal because it's part of the biggest changes to the Treasury market we've seen in years. It could really change how people trade and work within this market. Everyone is keeping an eye on the exact language of the rule because it will play a key role in shaping the future of trading in government securities. The goal is to make trading more open and stable, but there's a bit of worry about whether this might make it harder to buy and sell quickly, which could shake things up for everyone involved.US SEC set to adopt Treasury market dealer rule as part of market overhaul | ReutersIn my column this week, I explore the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in enhancing transfer pricing tax transparency. By way of very brief background, transfer pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, and intellectual property when these are exchanged between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies within the same multinational enterprise. For example, if the Coca-Cola Company owns a subsidiary in Country A that develops the secret recipe for Coca-Cola and another subsidiary in Country B that manufactures the drink, the price set for transferring the recipe (an intangible asset) from Country A to Country B is subject to transfer pricing regulations. This practice is crucial for determining the income and expenses of each entity, thereby affecting the taxable income reported in different countries with different tax rates. Transfer pricing is closely regulated by tax authorities worldwide to prevent tax avoidance, ensuring that transactions between related parties are conducted at arm's length—that is, under conditions and prices that would apply if the entities were unrelated. The complexity of transfer pricing lies in its need for meticulous documentation and compliance with international guidelines, such as those set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), to justify the prices set for these internal transactions. In other words, using the above Coca-Cola example, ideally acting as Coke I would want to shift income from a high-tax country to a lower-tax country. One way to do that would be to “charge” the subsidiary that manufactures the soda a very high cost for the recipe, assuming I want to move income out of the manufacturing country by way of expensing the cost of the recipe. There are myriad issues to be concerned about when related entities are setting prices for things like intangible assets which are very hard to place a real world market value on–there is always the risk of shenanigans. Transfer pricing, a critical yet contentious aspect of global taxation, is prone to manipulation as multinationals navigate the complexities of international tax law. I argue for the adoption of an open-source, public-facing AI model that can offer consistent and reliable valuations, providing a safe harbor for compliant taxpayers.AI's prowess lies in its ability to simulate market conditions and assign value to transfers between controlled entities, including intangible assets. This technology promises to bridge the gap where no market repository exists, offering a novel approach to assessing arm's-length transactions. The significance of precise valuation is underscored in transfer pricing, where the crux of compliance hinges on mutual understanding between taxpayers and regulators regarding valuation factors.By analyzing vast datasets and applying sophisticated algorithms, AI can deliver precise, consistent valuations with reduced administrative burdens. Such an approach not only fosters transparency but also mitigates the risk of non-compliance and associated penalties. As I emphasize, this is a critical juncture for regulators to incentivize adoption through the provision of benefits, alongside the traditional enforcement measures.The complexity of international transfer pricing regulations has escalated following initiatives like the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project. This backdrop makes the case for AI even stronger, as it aligns with efforts to combat tax avoidance and ensure that income correlates with the economic activities generating it. AI models, if properly developed and utilized, could revolutionize the practice by making compliance more manageable and equitable, particularly for developing countries.Looking ahead, the integration of AI into the tax domain appears inevitable. The challenge lies in who will dominate the development and application of these models. With strategic investment, AI tools could be made universally accessible, dramatically reducing compliance costs and promoting tax justice. This vision for the future leverages AI to encourage transparent compliance, potentially reshaping international trade and taxation for the better.Using AI Would Provide Greater Transfer Pricing Tax Transparency Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: The Court of International Justice at The Hague is EstablishedOn December 13, 1920, a sea change milestone in international law was marked as the League of Nations Assembly, convening in Geneva, ratified the statute establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. This historical event symbolized a global endeavor towards the pursuit of international justice and legal order.The creation of the Permanent Court of International Justice was a response to the world's urgent need for a systematic approach to resolving international disputes. In the wake of the devastating First World War, there was a heightened desire among nations to prevent future conflicts through legal means rather than through military force. The League of Nations, an intergovernmental organization formed to maintain world peace, took the initiative to set up this court.The statute of the court outlined its composition and competencies. It was designed to handle cases between states and provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the League of Nations. The court comprised judges from various member countries, ensuring a diverse representation of legal traditions and systems.This groundbreaking development in international law was not just a diplomatic achievement but also a legal one. It laid the foundation for the development of international law as we know it today. The court's decisions and advisory opinions played a pivotal role in shaping key principles of international law, influencing subsequent international legal frameworks.The Permanent Court of International Justice operated until 1946, when it was replaced by the International Court of Justice after the establishment of the United Nations. The legacy of the court, however, remains profound. It demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of a permanent judicial body in resolving international disputes and interpreting international law.The establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice marked the beginning of a new era in international relations, where law and legal mechanisms began to take precedence over power politics in resolving disputes. This shift had a lasting impact on how nations interact and resolve conflicts, paving the way for a more orderly and legally driven international system.December 13, 1920, thus stands as a landmark date in legal history, commemorating the collective aspiration of nations towards peace, justice, and the rule of law at an international level. The establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice not only addressed the immediate need for a post-war legal order but also sowed the seeds for the contemporary international legal regime that continues to evolve and address global challenges.On December 13, 2023, the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote on formalizing an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden. This move, expected as early as Wednesday, is driven by allegations that Biden and his family, particularly his son Hunter Biden, improperly benefited from his actions while serving as vice president from 2009 to 2017. The inquiry closely scrutinizes Hunter Biden's business activities.The White House has refuted these allegations, labeling the investigation as politically motivated, especially in the context of the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Former President Donald Trump, who has been impeached twice and acquitted both times, is seen as Biden's main rival in the election.The House plans to proceed with the vote before their three-week holiday break, despite other pending legislative matters like border security, foreign aid, and government funding.The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Hunter Biden, 53, for a private testimony on November 8. Hunter Biden proposed a public testimony instead, but House Republicans insisted on a closed-door session first, threatening him with contempt of Congress if he did not comply.Hunter Biden's legal troubles extend beyond this inquiry. He was charged in September for illegal drug use while purchasing a firearm, and recently, he was indicted by a grand jury for tax offenses.His deposition is scheduled one day after the House Rules Committee's hearing on the resolution to authorize the inquiry. During this hearing, Democrats heavily criticized the inquiry, questioning its credibility and integrity. They argued that the inquiry was a distraction from the Republicans' failure to pass significant legislation.US House Republicans ready vote to formalize Biden impeachment inquiry | ReutersOn December 12, a U.S. district court rejected Elon Musk's bid to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Twitter investors. These investors accused Musk of negatively impacting Twitter's stock price in the months preceding his acquisition of the company in October 2022. The lawsuit revolves around Musk's public statements during the acquisition process, particularly his tweet stating that the deal was "temporarily on hold."The court, situated in the Northern District of California, decided to allow certain claims made by the investors to proceed. However, it did dismiss some portions of their claims. The specific details of the allowed claims and the dismissed ones were not detailed in the report.Elon Musk, who led the $44 billion acquisition of Twitter and subsequently rebranded it as 'X', has not yet responded to this court decision through his legal representatives, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.This legal development marks a significant moment in the ongoing saga surrounding Musk's high-profile acquisition of Twitter, highlighting the complex legal challenges associated with such large-scale corporate transactions. The refusal to dismiss the case suggests that the court finds merit in some of the investors' allegations regarding Musk's conduct during the acquisition process.US court denies Musk's request to dismiss investor suit on Twitter buyout | ReutersNew York legislators are set to consider a bill next year that would mandate social media platforms to provide free data to third-party apps designed to block hate speech. This legislation, if passed, would be the first in the U.S. to require social media companies to offer such data at no cost. The move follows the state's previous initiative to allow third-party access to digital information for repairing smart devices.The proposal comes in response to the rise in online hate speech, including antisemitism and Islamophobia. Proponents argue that third-party apps are more effective at filtering out harmful content than social media platforms themselves, allowing users more control over their online experience.The bill was introduced in response to platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter) and Reddit starting to charge for access to their Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), which are essential for third-party apps to function. These charges have led to the shutdown of apps like Block Party and Apollo for Reddit, which were instrumental in combating online harassment and trolling.Tracy Chou, founder of Block Party, emphasizes the need for third-party involvement in moderating content, as platforms themselves lack the incentive to fully address the issue. The bill, sponsored by state Senate Judiciary Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal, aims to empower users to filter the content they see without infringing on others' freedom of speech.Exemptions in the bill would apply to smaller social media companies with less than $100,000 in annual gross revenue and allow platforms to deny access in cases posing a security risk. The bill would take effect 180 days after being signed into law and is part of a broader legislative effort in New York focusing on online privacy and digital rights.New York to Target Social Media Firms That Charge for InterfaceTesla Inc. has announced a recall of over 2 million vehicles due to issues with its Autopilot driver-assistance system, following findings by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA's investigation, which remains ongoing, concluded that Autopilot's measures to ensure driver engagement were insufficient. This recall is part of Tesla's efforts to address safety concerns and prevent misuse of the Autopilot system.The company plans to deploy a software update to introduce additional controls and alerts, aiming to enhance safety measures. This recall has impacted Tesla's stock, with shares dropping by up to 1.6%.This action represents the second recall this year related to Tesla's automated-driving technology, amidst increasing scrutiny after numerous crashes involving the system, some of which were fatal. Despite claims of nearing full autonomy by CEO Elon Musk, Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta still require active driver supervision.The FSD Beta suite, which offers higher-level functionality, was previously recalled in February after NHTSA concerns about its operation, including speed limit violations and failure to stop completely. NHTSA's involvement with Tesla's Autopilot dates back to a 2016 investigation following a fatal crash, though the system was initially cleared the following year. Currently, over 50 special crash investigations involving Tesla's Autopilot are underway, with increased activity under the Biden administration.Additionally, Tesla faces scrutiny from the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its self-driving technology and related claims.Tesla Recalls 2 Million Cars to Fix Autopilot Safety Flaws (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
President Cyril Ramaphosa extended his congratulations to University of Pretoria Professor Dire Tladi for being selected by the United Nations (UN) to be a judge in the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the UN and one of its six principal bodies. Tladi is the newest member of a law fraternity of South Africans globally who are in positions of service to the international community. The President hopes "he will make important contributions to the better world we seek to build". Tladi is Professor of International Law at the University of Pretoria and serves as President of the South African Branch of the International Law Association and Executive Member of the International Law Association. In May, Cabinet endorsed Tladi's nomination by the South African Government, together with South Africa's membership on the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Court's role is to settle legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised UN organs and specialised agencies. Commenting on Tladi's appointment, University of Pretoria pan-African collaborative research platform Future Africa director Dr Heide Hackmann said his appointment is a milestone in the pursuit of global peace and justice. She said Tladi being the first South African judge at the International Court of Justice, will undoubtedly raise the important voice of Africa and contribute to shaping a safer and more equitable world for all. "We look forward to witnessing the positive influence his expertise will have and commit our support to him in taking on this important international role," she said. Reflecting on his election which she said was intense and humbling, Hackmann said she was overwhelmed with gratitude because "so many people played a role in this journey".
This week we talk about China's standard map, the nine-dash line, and shoals.We also discuss WWIII, undersea minerals, and realities on the ground.Recommended Book: Outlive by Peter AttiaShow Notes* https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202308/28/WS64ec91c2a31035260b81ea5b.html* https://www.uscc.gov/research/south-china-sea-arbitration-ruling-what-happened-and-whats-next* https://amti.csis.org/island-tracker/china/* https://globalvoices.org/2023/09/05/the-chinese-2023-map-has-nothing-new-but-why-are-chinas-neighbours-mad-about-it/* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_China* https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philippines-taiwan-malaysia-reject-chinas-latest-south-china-sea-map-2023-08-31/* https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-nine-dash-line-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-the-barbie-movie-209043* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%931949)* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line* https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-nine-dash-line-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-the-barbie-movie-209043* https://hir.harvard.edu/vietnam-and-china-conflicting-neighbors-stuck-in-nationalism-and-memory/TranscriptIn the wake of some stunning defeats to European powers in the 19th century, and its place on the winning side of WWII, the Chinese government saw quite a lot of territory disappear, but then gained a fair bit back, following that global conflict, and this necessitated the redrawing of many maps, most of which were substantially outdated, because of the relative rapidity with which their territory was changing during this period—they lost Vietnam as a supplicant state, for instance, but also added a fair number of former Japanese islands to their collection, including Taiwan, which it took from Japan in 1945, and where the former Chinese government fled following Mao's revolution, which is what led to modern day Taiwan as a separate state, by their reckoning, at least, from that of Mainland China, which doesn't agree.And as is the case with Taiwan, not everyone in the area agrees about which other islands and bodies of water belong to whom, and the huge number of islands of varying sizes in the South China Sea are especially fraught, in terms of ownership claims, as many of them are worthless for the purpose of building real-deal settlements, but could be useful in terms of military infrastructure, allowing ships to dock and refuel, serving as weapons platforms for missiles and anti-aircraft equipment; that sort of thing.These island-related controversies have sparked or been components of several recent conflicts in the region, including clashes between the Chinese and Vietnamese militaries in 1974 and 1988, and as an apparent effort to lock-in their claim to some of these territories, the Chinese government, in December of 1947, published a map called the Location Map of South Sea Islands, which showed the South China Sea, along with an eleven-dash line that encompassed a huge, u-shaped portion of the region, with the implication that everything within that line belonged to China, though the Chinese government never outright said "all of this is ours, stay out."Beginning in the early 1950s, this line used only nine dashes, and had changed shape a bit, no longer including the Gulf of Tonkin as a concession to the now-independent North Vietnamese government.But the former Chinese government, the one that was now occupying and governing from Taiwan, continued to use an eleven-dash line on their official map, the implication being that they don't recognize the changes to Chinese territory made by the successor Chinese government that usurped them back in the mid-20th century.However many dashes are used, and whatever the specific expanse of them, though, the significance of this line on what's become known as the Chinese standard maps released at a regular cadence by the government have become the topic of furious debate, as the Chinese government has never really clarified what they're saying when they publish these things, allowing the implication to be that this is their home turf, their islands and ocean, but never taking the next step that would be required to formalize that claim.The implication of any territorial barrier is the violence required to defend it, so the presumed rationale here is that, like Taiwan's status, which is in an official sort of superposition right now, the Chinese government claiming it as their own, the Taiwanese government claiming independence, and everyone else just kind of making positive or negative noises while seldom taking a firm stance one way or the other, allows everyone involved to be unhappy and to hold their own opinions, but to not feel like they need to go to war over the issue, because no hands have been forced in that regard; a stronger stance and a more formal declaration of independence by Taiwan, supported by other nations, would presumably necessitate military action from China, while the same sort of concrete move by China to retake the island by force would probably trigger action from its opposition, as well.Leaving things flexible and vague, though, keeps everything nebulous enough that nothing needs to be blown up and no one has to die.The same seems to be true with this larger pseudo-claim of territory from the Chinese government, these maps showing an area that looks a lot like it belongs to China, but the Chinese government never formally saying "this is ours, and thus, if you want to go to these islands, travel these waters, you'll need our permission, and we'll blast you to kingdom come if you step over the line we've drawn here."What I'd like to talk about today are the implications of this sort of intentional geographic uncertainty, and the response to a new standard map the Chinese government recently released.—The 2023 edition of China's standard map, which usually displays its now-famous nine-dash line alongside other information about the country, like its territorial delineations, capitol cities, and the like, has created a moderate uproar throughout the area in part due to the addition of a tenth dash, and in part because it seems to have added to its collection of territory at the expense of many of its neighbors.Among those who are upset about these new visual claims is the Russian government, which has become increasingly close with the Chinese government following its invasion of Ukraine, which has left it a bit of a pariah, globally, and it's been in many ways propped up and sustained economically by trade with China; but even they made a statement of distaste about this map, which seems to show that an island which was previously divided between Chinese and Russian control, is now just China's.India is also pissed that highly disputed areas along its border with China have seemingly been folded into its neighbor's official collection of territories with the advent of this new map, and Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and of course, Taiwan, have also spoken out against what this new map implies—the latter of which, Taiwan, perhaps more than most, as that additional tenth dash seems to more firmly embrace it than previous maps, implying that Taiwan is becoming more China's than ever before, which in the current geopolitical context represents a potential military threat.But those other nations are also pretty peeved, as islands they claim as their own have been looped into this large u-shaped area, portrayed as being China's and China's alone; and although in many cases that's been true of previous versions of the map, as well, the context surrounding this version's release is substantially different than the context in previous years.So in response to this hubbub of outcries, the Chinese government has said, basically, calm down, this is the same map, what are you all so upset about?And to some degree that's largely true: most of these claims were on previous maps as well, but that additional dash does seem pretty aggressive in a world in which the Chinese government has made pretty clear that it both intends to retake Taiwan at some point, and that it's willing and able to do so, militarily, and in which the government has been feverishly investing in more guns, ships, jets, and missiles, and rapidly building out its military presence in these contested areas, including military bases high in the mountains along its border with India, in territory both nations claim as their own, and the construction of ship docks and turrets and missile launchers on tiny little islands in the middle of the ocean, which other nations claim, as well, but which China is physically occupying, punctuating their map-based claims with real-world threats toward anyone who challenges them; realities on the ground, to use the defense world parlance for building military assets of this kind in contested territory.In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China's nine-dash line didn't have any basis in international law, and that this region is mostly international waters, usable by anyone, anytime, for any reasons, more or less.China dismissed this ruling and said it would ignore it, basically, so while other nations in the area, like the Philippines, have continued to fish in traditional areas, like the shoals surrounding the Spratly Islands, located between them and Malaysia and Vietnam in the South China Sea, China has been building artificial islands atop coral reefs on this island chain, dredging sand onto the reefs and then pouring concrete over that sand, allowing it to build permanent military structures and install radar systems, missile silos, and aircraft hangers, where it also now bases military aircraft.This has been a huge investment and a lot of work for the Chinese government, but it's allowing them to convert the soft, vague claims printed on their maps into hard realities in the real-world; the international arbitrators in The Hague would not honor what they considered to be their historic, national territorial claims, so they went out and made them real; the equivalent of putting up fences around land with unclear ownership on a parcel near your home—it might still be legally debatable who owns that land, but it becomes very clear who has control over it and access to it and who can use it after a fence is put up; and that's even more the case when you begin to deny others access and imply that you are willing and able to defend it if someone decides to step into what is now, on a very practical level, your turf.This carving out of new territory from international waters and in contested regions by the Chinese government has become an even more substantial issue over the past decade or so as the race to claim and develop undersea resources has become more frantic, with governments around the world scrambling to secure the minerals and other raw materials that will inform the next, post-fossil fuel paradigm, and many of these resources, from lithium to nickel to cobalt, are contained in hard-to-reach areas, like, in some cases, underwater continental shelves.So just as the Arctic has become a hotbed for exploration and infrastructural development, everyone with borders touching the Arctic Ocean doing what they can to build-out their ship-based capacity, military bases, and knowledge of what's underneath all that water, for if and when they can eventually justify stepping in to start building and harvesting those raw materials, the South China Sea is also rich with such assets, and this line on this map, and all this real-world building and hardening of military defenses in the area, is meant to allow China, if and when it wants, to start claiming these resources as its own, as it will have already established clear ownership of the territory surrounding these stockpiles, and the ability to defend these assets if anyone else challenges their claim.Physical conflict related to such claims has already broken out a few times, mostly related to fishing at the moment—the Chinese Coast Guard shooting high-powered water cannons at vessels owned by Philippines-based companies and Vietnamese fishing boats in order to drive them away and again, implicitly, partition-off these rich areas, over time redefining them as being for exclusive Chinese use.But the big concern is that at some point these measures might become more serious and deadly, and this type of conflict, if it escalates, could spiral into something truly global.The disagreement between China and Taiwan about who owns the island and whether the Taiwanese government is legit or not is generally seen as one of the most volatile hot-spots on the planet, in terms of the potential to accidentally set off WWIII, because of who's allied with whom, and what everyone involved has to gain or lose by engaging in such a conflict.It's possible, though, that something seemingly lower-level, like a scuffle over fishing grounds, or the development of undersea mineral extraction infrastructure could be what sets off such a fight, as China defending international waters as if they are their own, putting up a fence on public property, basically, and then shooting anyone who approaches, becomes a test of the international system, and that could lead to a direct conflict between China and let's say the Philippines, and that could pull other regional entities like Vietnam and Indonesia, and maybe even India into the fight, which in turn would potentially bring the US and EU into the conflict, directly or indirectly, alongside Russia and Iran on China's side, again, directly or indirectly.All of which could compound into something incredibly devastating, all because China is attempting to expand in a manner that is considered illegal by international bodies, because what we might think of as the Western bloc, the US and EU and India and its allies, are trying to box China in, as a response, which China doesn't like and which is probably amplifying their efforts in this regard, and because all of that is making this area a potential tinderbox for conflict—no one wanting to give ground, everyone aware the world is changing around them, economically, climactically, and so on, and everyone trying to set themselves up to be in the best possible position mid-century or so, doing the math and maybe even deciding a big conflict would be worth it, so long as that would make them a bigwig in the rapidly impending, next-step geopolitical paradigm. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe
Welcome to the first of a three-part series on Pedagogy in the Hawai'ian Islands, where we explore history, philosophy, and progressive developments in Hawai'ian Pedagogy. My name is Noah Ranz-Lind, and I am a student at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst, interning at the Human Restoration Project.In this episode, we delve into the history of education in the Hawai'ian Kingdom, the impact of occupation and colonialism, and the link between Hawai'ian sovereignty and pedagogical practice here in Hawai'i. Today I'm joined by Dr. Keanu Sai. Dr. Sai is a political scientist and senior lecturer at the University of Hawai‘i Windward Community College, Political Science and Hawai'ian Studies Departments, and affiliate graduate faculty member at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa College of Education. He also served as Agent for the Hawai'ian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. His research focuses on the continued existence of the Hawai'ian Kingdom as a State under international law that has been under military occupation by the United States of America since January 17, 1893. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Taiwan's Foxconn has pulled out of its pact with Vedanta to build India's first semiconductor plant in Gujarat. The deal -- which was announced about ten months ago -- was on shaky ground as both the firms had no chip-making experience. And the joint venture was struggling to find a technology partner. So what does it mean for India's ambitious chip-making plan? A broken deal should not chip away at India's ambition to become a global semiconductor player. Meanwhile, an about-turn by the country's telecom regulator has taken many by surprise. Last week, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India came out with a consultation paper, seeking suggestions on regulating over-the-top-players like WhatsApp and Telegram. It comes three years after the regulator had spoken against creating such a regulatory framework. So why has TRAI changed its stance on OTT regulations? OTT players and the regulator should find a common ground, which will be in the interest of both. Moving on, benchmark indices have been shooting through the roof for a while now. In fact, markets saw positive movement in the entire first half of the calendar year 2023. But, some sectors like oil and gas, metal, and power underperformed the indices. So, why did stocks in these segments lagg behind? And will they regain momentum in the second half of 2023? After the markets, let us turn our gaze to a rather sensitive subject: The India-Pakistan relations. Last week, New Delhi decided to boycott proceedings started by Islamabad at the Permanent Court of Arbitration against two hydropower projects in Kashmir. India said that a neutral expert was already examining the issue and the Indus Water Treaty prohibits parallel proceedings. But what exactly is the Indus Water Treaty? Listen to this episode of the podcast for answers.
On this day, June 26th, in legal history, the Statute of the International Court of Justice was signed, establishing the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The history of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can be traced back to its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which was established under the League of Nations in accordance with Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Council of the League of Nations was responsible for developing the idea of the PCIJ and formed an Advisory Committee of Jurists in 1920 to prepare a report on its establishment. A draft scheme was subsequently presented to the League's Assembly and was unanimously adopted as the Statute of the PCIJ in 1920.While the PCIJ operated independently from the League of Nations, it played a crucial role in resolving contentious cases and providing advisory opinions from 1922 to 1940. In 1946, the ICJ was established with its own Statute, building upon the foundations of the PCIJ's Statute. This process involved redrafting the statute with adjustments based on historical experience. The United Nations Committee of Jurists and the Fourth Committee of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO) in San Francisco in 1945 were responsible for finalizing the ICJ Statute.One significant innovation introduced by the ICJ Statute was its close relationship with the United Nations Charter, which provided a structural interrelationship between the ICJ and the broader framework of the United Nations. Significantly, the ICJ defines its role in the judicial settlement of international disputes, as the judicial organ of the legal order of the international community as a whole, and not only of the contending parties appearing before it.Here is kind of a mini-column Tuesday, on a Monday. I wrote in the Week in Insights for Bloomberg on a recent study that had some interesting implications for where the IRS should be directing its influx of capital under the Inflation Reduction Act.Recent research from Harvard University reveals that auditing high-income individuals yields a higher return, with a $1 investment in audits of the top 10% income bracket resulting in a $12 return, compared to $5 for those below the median income. These findings hopefully have policy implications for the IRS and will impact tax practitioners and taxpayers.Week in Insights: Harvard Study Shows Auditing the Rich Pays OffThe US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Coinbase Global Inc., affirming the company's ability to direct customer and employee disputes into arbitration. The decision, with a 5-4 vote, states that lawsuits filed in federal court must be paused while the defendant pursues an appeal to send the case to arbitration. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, argued that allowing district courts to proceed with pre-trial and trial proceedings during an ongoing appeal would undermine the advantages of arbitration. Business groups supported Coinbase, claiming that permitting litigation to continue would impose unnecessary costs, while consumer advocates argued that judges should have discretion in deciding which claims can proceed during an appeal. The case involved claims against Coinbase by Abraham Bielski regarding losses due to a scammer and allegations of inadequate disclosure in a Dogecoin sweepstakes. The ruling reinforces the power of companies to enforce arbitration clauses and the benefits associated with arbitration agreements in various industries, including the cryptocurrency sector.Coinbase Wins at Supreme Court as Ruling Backs Arbitration (1)U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested a delay in the start of former President Donald Trump's trial on charges of willful retention of classified government records and obstruction of justice. Smith asked the federal judge to push the trial start date from August 14 to December 11, citing the need for reasonable time for effective preparation. Trump, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential election, pleaded not guilty to the charges in a federal court in Miami. The trial will adhere to the Classified Information Procedures Act, which governs the handling and disclosure of classified evidence. Smith stated that the delay is necessary to allow Trump's lawyers to obtain security clearances and review classified documents. While Trump's lawyers do not oppose scrapping the August 14 start date, they are expected to file a motion opposing the proposed schedule.US special counsel seeks delay to start of Trump documents trial until December | ReutersU.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has denied allegations made by an Internal Revenue Service whistleblower that the investigation into Hunter Biden's tax affairs was impeded by the Justice Department. Garland stated that U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who was appointed by former President Trump, had complete authority to make charging decisions on his own regarding Hunter Biden's case. Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of willfully failing to pay income taxes. The charges were revealed in a court filing by Weiss's office, and Hunter Biden has agreed to plead guilty to the charges. Republicans have criticized the plea deal, claiming it is a lenient arrangement. A transcript of an interview with an IRS agent involved in the probe, Gary Shapley, was released, alleging that the Justice Department delayed the case. Shapley claimed that Weiss sought permission to bring charges from anywhere in the country but was denied by Garland. Garland denied the claim, stating that Weiss never made such a request, and emphasized that Weiss had more authority than a special counsel. Hunter Biden's attorney also defended the thoroughness of the investigation.U.S. attorney general denies allegations that Hunter Biden tax probe was stymied | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has filed criminal charges against four Chinese chemical manufacturing companies and eight individuals for allegedly trafficking the chemicals used to produce fentanyl, a highly addictive painkiller that has contributed to the opioid crisis in the United States. This marks the first time the U.S. has sought to prosecute Chinese companies involved in manufacturing precursor chemicals for fentanyl. China's foreign ministry responded by urging the U.S. to stop using fentanyl-related pretexts to sanction and prosecute Chinese entities, demanding the release of those "illegally arrested." The move comes after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visit to China, where he emphasized the need for Chinese cooperation to address the fentanyl trade. The indicted companies are accused of supplying precursor chemicals to Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, which has flooded the U.S. with fentanyl. The cases aim to disrupt the fentanyl supply chain and highlight the unique threat posed by the synthetic drug. In addition, Blinken announced plans to convene a virtual ministerial meeting to establish a Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats.US files first-ever charges against Chinese fentanyl manufacturers | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
1. 1815 – Congress of Vienna – Series of international diplomatic meetings to discuss a new European order post the downfall of Napoleon that led to agreements on national boundaries within Europe, Neutrality Pacts, freedom of navigation. 2. 1823 – Monroe Doctrine by James Monroe, then President of US - Any intervention by external powers in the politics of the Americas is a potentially hostile act against the US. 3. 1824 – Calvo Doctrine – Jurisdiction in international investment disputes lies with the country in which the investment is located. (Carlos Calvo, Argentine Jurist). Used mostly in International Investment Law. 4. 1842 – Treaty of Nanking – Ended the First Opium War between Britain and Qing Dynasty – Its provisions involved cession of Hong Kong to the crown. Was considered an unequal treaty. 5. 1864 – First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. 6. 1865 – Establishment of International Telegraph Union to deal with international interconnection, standardization of equipment, tariffs etc. 7. 1871 – Sino-Japanese Friendship and Trade Treaty – Mutual pledge for friendship and cooperation, exchange of ambassadors, trade related provisions. 8. 1899 – First Hague Peace Conference – Establishment of Permanent Court of Arbitration. 9. 1914-1918 – First World War10. 1919 – Treaty of Versailles – Disarmament of Germany, payment of reparations by Germany, territorial concessions etc. 11. 1920 – Paris Peace Conference – Establishment of League of Nations – a worldwide intergovernmental organization to maintain world peace. 12. 1920 - Establishment of Permanent Court of International Justice. 13. 1923 - Establishment of the Hague Academy of International Law 14. 1928 – Kellogg-Briand Pact – International Agreement on peace – was aimed at preventing the second world war. 15. 1939-1945 – Second World War16. 26.06.1945 – Signing of Charter of United Nations 17. 18.04.1946 – Replacement of Permanent Court of International Justice by International Court of Justice. 18. 10.12.1948 – Adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights by UN GA.
Travelnews Online | Rebuilding Travel | Trending | eTurboNews
Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered the Goodhart Lecture on Monday 6 February 2023 at the Faculty of Law on the topic 'The legal science of the international'. Professor Campbell McLachlan was the 2022-23 Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science in the University of Cambridge and a visiting fellow of Trinity Hall. He is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington; a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and an associate member of Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor McLachlan asks what light the idea of law as a science can shed on the capacity of international law to respond to the many disintegrative pressures that it faces. The lecture begins at 02:43 For information about the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professorship in Legal Science see https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive/arthur-goodhart-visiting-professor-legal-science
Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered the Goodhart Lecture on Monday 6 February 2023 at the Faculty of Law on the topic 'The legal science of the international'. Professor Campbell McLachlan was the 2022-23 Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science in the University of Cambridge and a visiting fellow of Trinity Hall. He is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington; a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and an associate member of Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor McLachlan asks what light the idea of law as a science can shed on the capacity of international law to respond to the many disintegrative pressures that it faces. The lecture begins at 02:43 For information about the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professorship in Legal Science see https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive/arthur-goodhart-visiting-professor-legal-science This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered the Goodhart Lecture on Monday 6 February 2023 at the Faculty of Law on the topic 'The legal science of the international'. Professor Campbell McLachlan was the 2022-23 Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science in the University of Cambridge and a visiting fellow of Trinity Hall. He is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington; a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and an associate member of Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor McLachlan asks what light the idea of law as a science can shed on the capacity of international law to respond to the many disintegrative pressures that it faces. The lecture begins at 02:43 For information about the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professorship in Legal Science see https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive/arthur-goodhart-visiting-professor-legal-science
Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered the Goodhart Lecture on Monday 6 February 2023 at the Faculty of Law on the topic 'The legal science of the international'. Professor Campbell McLachlan was the 2022-23 Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science in the University of Cambridge and a visiting fellow of Trinity Hall. He is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington; a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and an associate member of Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor McLachlan asks what light the idea of law as a science can shed on the capacity of international law to respond to the many disintegrative pressures that it faces. The lecture begins at 02:43 For information about the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professorship in Legal Science see https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive/arthur-goodhart-visiting-professor-legal-science
Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered the Goodhart Lecture on Monday 6 February 2023 at the Faculty of Law on the topic 'The legal science of the international'. Professor Campbell McLachlan was the 2022-23 Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science in the University of Cambridge and a visiting fellow of Trinity Hall. He is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington; a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and an associate member of Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor McLachlan asks what light the idea of law as a science can shed on the capacity of international law to respond to the many disintegrative pressures that it faces. The lecture begins at 02:43 For information about the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professorship in Legal Science see https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive/arthur-goodhart-visiting-professor-legal-science
Professor Campbell McLachlan KC delivered the Goodhart Lecture on Monday 6 February 2023 at the Faculty of Law on the topic 'The legal science of the international'. Professor Campbell McLachlan was the 2022-23 Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor of Legal Science in the University of Cambridge and a visiting fellow of Trinity Hall. He is Professor of Law at Victoria University of Wellington; a member of the Institut de Droit International and of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and an associate member of Essex Court Chambers, London. Professor McLachlan asks what light the idea of law as a science can shed on the capacity of international law to respond to the many disintegrative pressures that it faces. The lecture begins at 02:43 For information about the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professorship in Legal Science see https://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent-scholars-archive/arthur-goodhart-visiting-professor-legal-science This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is an intergovernmental organization in the area of private international law (also known as conflict of laws), that administers several international conventions, protocols and soft law instruments. The Hague Conference was first convened by Tobias Asser in 1893 in The Hague. In 1911, Asser received the Nobel Prize for Peace for his work in the field of private international law, and in particular for his achievements with respect to the HCCH. After World War II, the Hague Conference was established as an international organization. History. A permanent diplomatic conference. On the initiative of Tobias Asser, the First Diplomatic Session of the HCCH was convened in 1893. Its aim was, and remains, to "work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law", including by creating, and assisting in the implementation of, multilateral conventions that promote the harmonization of the rules and principles of private international law (or conflict of laws). The First to Fourth Diplomatic Session of the HCCH took place in 1893, 1894, 1900 and 1904 respectively. They resulted in a number of multilateral treaties, the Hague Conventions, that unified the rules of private international law in the areas of Marriage (1902), Divorce (1902), Guardianship (1902), Civil procedure (1905), Effects of Marriage (1905), and Deprivation of Civil Rights (1905). After World War I, the Fifth and Sixth Diplomatic Sessions took place in 1925 and 1928 respectively. The result of those Diplomatic Sessions was the Protocol to recognize the competence of the Permanent Court of International Justice to interpret the Hague Conventions on Private International Law. Intergovernmental organization. After World War II, steps were taken to establish the HCCH as an intergovernmental organization, governed by its member states and administered by a secretariat, the Permanent Bureau. The treaty establishing the HCCH, the "Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law", was adopted during the Seventh Diplomatic Session of the HCCH in 1951, and entered into force on 15 July 1955. The acronym "HCCH" is derived from using the respective capitals of the phrases "Hague Conference" and "Conférence de La Haye". It represents the bilingual nature of the HCCH, which has both English and French as its working languages. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support
In this episode Shayan Ahmed is joined by Ashwita Ambast, Legal Counsel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, to discuss the organization's role and significance in the administration of inter-state Commissions of Inquiry and Conciliations. Our Socials: Twitter: @JCLawPodcast Blog: https://juscogens.law.blog/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JCLawPodcast
Photo: Seal of the Permanent Court of International Justice (not the relevant court here) #Ukraine: Prosecuting Putin in absentia. @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-10/putin-must-face-a-war-crimes-tribunal-for-ukraine-war?sref=5g4GmFHo
EU and other countries expressed support for the Philippines and ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague after China Coast Guard ships' blockade and water cannon attack on Philippine resupply boats at the Ayungin Shoal - Ikinabahala ng maraming bansa ang naganap na insidente sa Ayungin Shoal kung saan dapat umanong kilalanin at igalang ang 2016 arbitral victory ng Pilipinas
Vai trò trung tâm của ASEAN, chủ nhân của vùng chiến lược địa chính trị Đông Nam Á, là chủ đề thu hút sự quan tâm của giới phân tích trong thời gian qua, đặc biệt khi ASEAN đứng trước một Trung Quốc bạo quyền và các quốc gia dân chủ trở lại mạnh mẽ trong cuộc đối đầu với Trung Quốc; cùng các vấn đề như đại dịch COVID-19, khủng hoảng chính trị Miến Điện, hay biến đổi khí hậu. Trong bối cảnh đó, ASEAN có thật sự tồn tại dưới một thể thống nhất; giữ vững được vai trò trung tâm? Những cơ hội cũng như thách thức nào cho ASEAN trước sự cạnh tranh gay gắt giữa các cường quốc? Xin mời quý vị nghe nhận định của Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang trong cuộc trả lời phỏng vấn đài RFI Tiếng Việt*. RFI: Thưa ông, nói về Hiệp hội các Quốc gia Đông Nam Á (ASEAN), có lẽ chúng ta bắt đầu từ tôn chỉ hoạt động của nó. Thực tế, các quốc gia thành viên có thống nhất thực hiện đúng như những gì đã đề ra nhằm khẳng định vai trò trung tâm và lợi ích của khối này trong khu vực Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương? Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang: Đọc qua hầu hết những phát biểu của các Chủ tịch luân phiên ASEAN (Chairman's Statement) trong nhiều năm qua, chúng ta thường thấy một chi tiết quen thuộc, đó là vai trò trung tâm của ASEAN (ASEAN centrality). Với tư cách Chủ tịch ASEAN năm 2020, ông Nguyễn Xuân Phúc đã nói: “Chúng tôi - tức là những trưởng nhiệm hành pháp của 10 nước hội viên, xác nhận lại sự quan trọng của việc duy trì vị thế trung tâm của ASEAN, tính nhất quán trong nỗ lực xây dựng cộng đồng, tiếp cận với các đối tác nước ngoài và cấu trúc khu vực” (“We reaffirmed the importance of maintaining ASEAN centrality and unity in our community-building efforts, engagement with external partners and the regional architecture”). Cũng như những chủ tịch tiền nhiệm và kế nhiệm, thủ tướng Nguyễn Xuân Phúc không hề định nghĩa vai trò trung tâm của ASEAN là gì. Nhìn qua những phát biểu, chúng ta có thể hình dung bối cảnh mà vai trò trung tâm được coi là thiết yếu, đó là tiến trình xây dựng cộng đồng ASEAN (thành phần cốt lõi trong sinh hoạt nội bộ ASEAN), giao tiếp với các đối tác nước ngoài, và tổ chức khu vực. Thành công lớn nhất của ASEAN là đã biến một tổ chức nguyên thủy chống cộng (1967) thành một tổ chức mở rộng phát triển kinh tế và có một thế đứng nhất định về chính trị, ngoại giao khu vực. Hiện nay, ASEAN là một thị trường gồm 650 triệu dân với tổng sản lượng nội địa chung là 2.8 tỷ Mỹ kim. ASEAN tự đặt cho mình hai nguyên tắc sinh hoạt, đó là quyết định trên căn bản đồng thuận và không can thiệp vào chính trị nội bộ của nhau. Cả hai nguyên tắc này có thể thích hợp với hai thập niên trước đây. Tuy nhiên, hiện nay, chính nó có thể đẩy ASEAN vào tình trạng bị động, thậm chí bất lực và gây chia rẽ nội bộ mà một đại cường khu vực dễ dàng khai thác. Thí dụ điển hình: Vì nguyên tắc không can thiệp nội bộ (và phần nào vì lý do quyền lợi đầu tư như Singapore và Việt Nam), mà ASEAN bất động đối với hai cuộc khủng hoảng tại Miến Điện dưới thời hai chính quyền quân phiệt. Một thí dụ khác: Vào năm 2012, khi Cam Bốt làm Chủ tịch, Hội nghị Thượng đỉnh ASEAN đã không thể phổ biến Thông cáo chung, vì thủ tướng Hun Sen không đồng ý với đoạn nói về tranh chấp Biển Đông mà giới quan sát coi là không làm vừa lòng Bắc Kinh. RFI: Có thể nói, Đông Nam Á là sàn đầu tư đem lại lợi nhuận tương đối an toàn cho sáng kiến “Vành đai và Con đường” của Bắc Kinh, nhưng khu vực này cũng là sân chơi lý tưởng mà các nước dân chủ sử dụng để đối kháng Trung Quốc. Đó cũng là một trong những nguyên nhân chính yếu thành lập Bộ tứ An ninh (The Quad). Diễn đàn đối thoại này chủ trương hành động dựa trên sự tự do và mở rộng của “Khung Chiến lược Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương” (2007) và Tuyên bố chung ("The Spirit of the Quad", 03/2021). Vậy, hai sách lược này có gì khác nhau và tác động thế nào lên khu vực Đông Nam Á? Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang: Khởi thủy của The Quad là sáng kiến của Thủ tướng Nhật Bản Shinzo Abe khi ông đọc diễn văn tại New Delhi năm 2007 về giao thoa giữa Ấn Độ Dương và Thái Bình Dương. Từ đó, nảy sinh ra khái niệm một tập hợp thân hữu giữa 4 quốc gia dân chủ: Ấn, Mỹ, Nhật, Úc, mà tổng thống Mỹ George W Bush đã từng gợi ý. Theo đó, bất cứ sự hợp tác nào giữa các quốc gia dân chủ trong vùng Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương đều bị Trung Quốc phản đối. Bắc Kinh xem đây là một nỗ lực bao vây Trung Quốc theo tư duy của một cuộc chiến tranh lạnh mới. The Quad phiên bản 1-0 này chết yểu sau khi tại Úc có sự thay đổi chính trị. Thủ tướng Đảng Lao Động Kevin Rudd tuyên bố Úc sẽ không tiếp tục tham dự “The Quad” trong năm 2008. Lý do là vì Bắc Kinh đã tạo áp lực lên thủ tướng mới của nước Úc, mặc dầu ông Kevin Rudd đã phủ nhận việc này. Với sự rút lui của Úc, The Quad đã phải ngưng hoạt động cho đến năm 2017, khi tổng thống Philippines Rodrigo Duterte tổ chức Hội nghị Thượng đỉnh Đông Á (EAS) tại Manila. Với sự có mặt đầy đủ lãnh đạo của 4 nước, The Quad phiên bản 2-0 được chính thức ra đời. Về mặt tổng thể, chủ đích của “The Quad 1.0” (2007) và “The Quad 2.0” (2021) hầu như tương đồng. “Khung chiến lược Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương” là chỉ vùng không gian địa lý và “The Spirit of the Quad” là nói về nội dung, về tinh thần hợp tác để duy trì vùng địa lý này được tự do, rộng mở và hòa bình. Điểm khác biết rõ rệt nhất trong khoảng cách 10 năm này là Trung Quốc. Dưới thời chủ tịch Hồ Cẩm Đào (2003 – 2013) có rất nhiều khác biệt so với Trung Quốc dưới thời Tổng Bí Thư - Chủ tịch Tập Cận Bình. Dưới thời Ông Hồ Cẩm Đào, Trung Quốc chưa đủ mạnh về quân sự và kinh tế, chưa xác quyết chủ quyền đường Lưỡi Bò 9 đoạn, và chưa quân sự hoá quần đảo Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa. Và, có lẽ quan trọng hơn cả về mặt chiến lược toàn cầu là chưa có Sáng kiến “Vành đai và Con đường” (BRI, 2013). Nhóm Tứ Cường Kim Cương cũng đã có một bước tiến cụ thể gọi là The Quad Plus (The Quad +) khi Việt Nam, New Zealand và Nam Hàn được mời tham dự thảo luận kế hoạch phòng chống đại dịch COVID-19 vào tháng 3/2021. Trong số các nước khu vực Đông Nam Á, có lẽ Việt Nam gặp nhiều khó khăn để đáp ứng, vì Việt Nam đã công bố theo đuổi chính sách Bốn Không (trước kia gọi là Ba Không). Theo ý tôi, đây là chính sách mà Việt Nam không thể tự do lựa chọn, vì áp lực từ phía Bắc Kinh. Cũng vì lý do đó, Việt Nam chưa dám đồng ý nâng cấp bang giao với Mỹ từ mức “Đối tác Toàn diện” lên mức “Đối tác Chiến lược”. Trong khi đó, mối bang giao giữa Hà Nội và Bắc Kinh đã ở mức “Đối tác Chiến lược Toàn diện” từ nhiều năm qua. Trong bối cảnh mới của thập niên thứ 3, thế kỷ 21, khu vực Đông Nam Á, nếu không phải là tổ chức ASEAN, vì ASEAN chia rẽ và không có tầm nhìn chiến lược chung, còn có vai trò quan trọng hơn đối với The Quad. Chúng ta có thể nhìn thấy phần nào sự phân biệt giữa khu vực địa lý Đông Nam Á và tổ chức ASEAN, căn cứ vào những sinh hoạt ngoại giao dồn dập từ Washington và New Delhi trong thời gian gần đây. RFI: Nhìn chung, Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương là khu vực lý tưởng cho sự đối đầu giữa các quốc gia dân chủ và Trung Quốc nhằm tranh quyền ảnh hưởng lên các quốc gia sở tại. Các quốc gia thành viên của khối ASEAN được hưởng lợi gì từ sự cạnh tranh giữa hai thái cực địa chính trị này? Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang: Trong ngắn hạn, cuộc thương chiến giữa Washington và Bắc Kinh, đặc biệt là dưới thời tổng thống Donald Trump, có thể tạo cơ hội thuận lợi cho các nước ASEAN. Thuận lợi chính thức và không vi phạm quy luật của Tổ chức Thương Mại Quốc Tế (WTO), đó là sự di chuyển cơ sở công nghệ, nguồn đầu tư từ Trung Quốc sang các nước Đông Nam Á, vì nhân công rẻ hơn và để tránh sự trừng phạt kinh tế của Mỹ. Đồng thời, cũng có các cơ hội thuận lợi không chính thức, thậm chí mang tính bất hợp pháp, đó là khi hàng hoá sản xuất tại Hoa lục được sửa đổi nhãn hiệu và gán nhãn mác xuất xứ tại các nước trung chuyển. Chính phủ Mỹ đã từng phát hiện những trường hợp này và đã có biện pháp chế tài thích hợp. Tuy vậy, đây không phải là lợi nhuận lâu dài. Trong bối cảnh toàn cầu hóa ngày nay, nền kinh tế thế giới tùy thuộc vào sự phát triển thương mại của nhiều nước, đặc biệt là của Mỹ và Trung Quốc. Nếu vì cuộc thương chiến giữa Washington và Bắc Kinh nói riêng, hay vì cuộc tranh chấp lãnh đạo giữa Mỹ và Hoa Lục, mà sinh hoạt kinh tế tại hai cường bị trì trệ, toàn cầu sẽ bị ảnh hưởng tiêu cực. Tình trạng tốt nhất là nếu cuộc tranh chấp có thể được giải quyết mà không có chiến tranh và trật tự thế giới pháp quyền tồn tại. Có như vậy, các quốc gia Đông Nam Á mới giữ được tình trạng khá tốt đẹp hiện nay, như được thể hiện qua các dữ liệu thống kê. Trong năm 2019, trị giá thương mại hai chiều giữa ASEAN và Hoa Kỳ là 206.3 tỷ Mỹ kim. Trong số này, Mỹ bán cho ASEAN 86.1 tỷ Mỹ kim và nhập siêu từ ASEAN là 120.2 tỷ Mỹ kim. ASEAN là đối tác thương mại lớn thứ 10 của Mỹ. Đối với Trung Quốc, khi ASEAN có quan hệ Hiệp định Thương mại Tự do FTA, trong năm 2020, trị giá giao thương hai chiều là 731.9 tỷ Mỹ kim. Hai bên trở thành đối tác thương mại lớn nhất của nhau, nhưng Bắc Kinh thường là bên nhập siêu. Riêng đối với Việt Nam, giao thương hai chiều với Trung Quốc trong năm 2020 là 100 tỷ Mỹ Kim, mà Việt Nam là nước nhập siêu (mua 65.6 tỷ Mỹ kim từ Trung Quốc). Ngược lại, Việt Nam lợi nhuận nhiều hơn trong giao thương với Mỹ, có trị giá hai chiều là 90 tỷ Mỹ kim, khi Mỹ là nước nhập siêu với 79.6 tỷ Mỹ kim. RFI: Khi đề cập ASEAN, vấn đề biển Đông được coi là một mặt trận gay cấn và lôi kéo nhiều sự quan tâm nhất, khi mà Trung Quốc bất chấp luật pháp quốc tế, trật tự chung của an ninh hàng hải, ngang nhiên xâm lấn, tăng cường các hoạt động quân sự tại đây. Cuộc đối đầu của các khối nước mà dẫn đầu là Mỹ và Trung Quốc diễn ra ngày càng mạnh mẽ và quyết đoán trên vùng biển Đông. Vậy ASEAN thể hiện phản ứng thế nào trước sự xung đột leo thang của các cường quốc bên ngoài khu vực? Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang: Trên lập trường cơ bản, Bắc Kinh chủ trương giải quyết tranh chấp song phương và không chấp nhận sự can thiệp của bất cứ quốc gia nào ngoài khu vực, cụ thể là Hoa Kỳ. Trong khi đó, quan điểm của Washington là Mỹ có thể làm bất cứ điều gì tại Biển Đông mà luật quốc tế cho phép, kể cả quyền tự do lưu thông hàng hải và hàng không. Nước Anh, nước Pháp (cũng như nước Đức và Ấn Độ) gần đây cũng đã quyết định đưa nhóm tàu chiến hàng không mẫu hạm HMS Queen Elizabeth và Charles de Gaulle đến Biển Đông mà Bắc Kinh đã lên tiếng phản đối. Ngược lại, nhìn chung, ASEAN với tư cách là một tổ chức, đã không có phản ứng chính thức. Nếu chúng ta có thể rút ngắn tiến trình lịch sử rất dài về chủ quyền của Việt Nam tại Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa, thì mốc điểm đương đại quan trọng có thể là Công ước Liên Hiệp Quốc về Luật Biển (UNCLOS, 1982), mà tất cả các quốc gia có tranh chấp tại Biển Đông đều là thành viên kết ước (ngoại trừ Đài Loan). Phán quyết cụ thể dựa vào UNCLOS là quyết định của Tòa Trọng tài Quốc tế (Permanent Court of Arbitration, PCA) ngày 12/07/2016 trong vụ Philippines kiện Trung Quốc (The Philippines vs The People's Republic of China). PCA đã bác bỏ lập luận của Bắc Kinh về quyền lịch sử (historic rights) và xác quyết chủ quyền của Bắc Kinh về Đường Lưỡi Bò 9 đoạn là không có cơ sở pháp lý. Tuy phán quyết này là sau cùng, có tính cách cưỡng hành, nhưng Bắc Kinh đã từ chối chấp nhận. Và phán quyết PCA được ủng hộ mạnh mẽ nhất không phải bởi ASEAN, mà từ 4 thành viên của nhóm Tứ Cường Kim Cương. Một diễn tiến khác mà tổ chức ASEAN đã góp phần đáng kể, ít nhất về mặt tiến trình, là cuộc thương thuyết kéo dài nhiều năm với Bắc Kinh về bộ Quy tắc Ứng xử (Code of Conduct, COC) để thay thế cho bản Tuyên bố Ứng xử (Declaration of Conduct, DOC, 2002). Ngoại trưởng Trung Quốc Vương Nghị loan báo triệu tập phiên họp vào tháng 7/2021, nhưng cho đến nay vẫn chưa thấy tiến triển gì. Trong bối cảnh địa lý chính trị, Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương và trong tình trạng căng thẳng giữa Hoa Kỳ và Trung Quốc, 10 nước ASEAN có vẻ không công khai ngả về đại cường nào. Nhưng thực tế, nhất là trong vấn đề Biển Đông, ASEAN là một tổ chức bị chia rẽ. Cam Bốt và Lào ủng hộ lập trường của Bắc Kinh, trong khi Thái Lan và Miến Điện ít nhiều cũng có thiện cảm hơn với Trung Quốc. Cả 4 nước này đều không có tranh chấp tại Biển Đông. Do đó, họ không quan tâm đến tiến trình thương thuyết bộ Quy tắc Ứng xử (Code of Conduct – COC) mà Bắc Kinh đang nắm thế chủ động. Vấn đề cốt lõi nhất là từ quan điểm của Việt Nam, COC phải có tính ràng buộc và áp dụng cho tranh chấp quần đảo Hoàng Sa mà Bắc Kinh đã chiếm đóng bất hợp pháp bằng vũ lực hồi tháng 01/1974 sau một cuộc hải chiến với Việt Nam Cộng Hòa. Tuy nhiên, theo ý tôi, thà không có một COC, hơn là có một COC mà Việt Nam bị mất vĩnh viễn Hoàng Sa và Trường Sa. Tôi không tin một tổ chức ASEAN chia rẽ như hiện nay có thể đạt được một COC thuận lợi cho đất nước Việt Nam. RFI: Theo giới phân tích, trước sự bành trướng bất chấp luật lệ của Trung Quốc và sự trở lại mạnh mẽ của Bộ tứ Kim cương (QUAD), đã xuất hiện làn sóng hoài nghi về tính trung tâm của ASEAN trong khu vực Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương. Liệu rằng, một ASEAN còn thể hiện những yếu kém tương đối, thiếu sự đồng nhất và nhất quán giữa các quốc gia thành viên có bảo vệ được cột mốc thành trì trung tâm; trong khi phải chống chọi trước những thách thức lớn như đương đầu ứng phó đại dịch COVID-19 và những hệ lụy của nó, tàn dư của cuộc khủng hoảng chính trị ở Miến Điện, trật tự an ninh hàng hải qua vùng biển Đông, hay vấn đề biến đổi khí hậu? Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang: Như là một kết luận tạm thời, tôi tin rằng Tổ chức ASEAN sẽ tồn tại khi chứng tỏ khả năng tự diễn tiến để thích nghi với những thay đổi lớn từ năm 1967 đến nay. Tuy nhiên, đề xướng và phát huy vai trò ‘trung tâm' có thể là một tham vọng quá lớn, nhất là trong bối cảnh trỗi dậy không hòa bình của Trung Quốc. Có thể là một nghịch lý, dù thiếu vắng tính nhất quán, nhưng ASEAN chưa bị sẻ làm đôi. Từ một tổ chức chống cộng với 5 thành viên ban đầu, 10 thành viên ngày nay rất thực tế. Họ hợp tác với nhau trong phạm vi có thể được, tuy vậy lúc nào cũng sẵn sàng đi theo hướng quyền lợi riêng. Cụ thể, trường hợp Cam Bốt hợp tác quân sự với Bắc Kinh (mặc dù Thủ tướng Hun Sen luôn phủ nhận) tại các quân cảng vùng Sihanoukville ở bờ biển phía Nam; hay nước Lào nhỏ bé xây dựng hàng chục đập thủy điện trên dòng chính sông Mekong; và ASEAN đã không giải quyết được hai cuộc khủng hoảng tại Miến Điện. Ngoài ra, trong vấn đề biến đổi khí hậu hay sách lược đối phó với đại dịch COVID-19, ASEAN cũng có cơ cấu nghiên cứu, phối hợp kế hoạch, nhưng trong thực tế, các nước tự lo cho quyền lợi của chính mình. Những ai lạc quan có thể nghĩ rằng ASEAN vào một lúc nào đó có thể trở thành một Liên Âu thu nhỏ tại Đông Nam Á. Viễn tượng này còn rất xa vời, không những bởi sự khác biệt giữa 10 thành viên về lịch sử, văn hóa, ngôn ngữ, nền kinh tế cạnh tranh thay vì bổ túc cho nhau; mà còn vì áp lực từ cường quốc bên ngoài. Trong thực tế, ASEAN có thể không còn là một tổ chức thuần nhất. RFI Tiếng Việt cảm ơn Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang. ********** * Ghi chú: Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang có mối quan tâm đặc biệt đến các vấn đề chính trị, ngoại giao tại Úc và các nước trong khu vực Châu Á Thái Bình Dương. Ông là cựu Trưởng nhiệm SBS Radio (Head of SBS Radio), một Cơ quan Truyền thông Văn hóa Đa nguyên của Úc Châu.
In 1893 the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown. However, that does not mean that it simply disappeared. In fact, in 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands verified the continued existence of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. But why is this? Didn't the United States annex Hawaii? Isn't Hawaii a state? How can it be that the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists even though the country doesn't? On this final installment of Insurrection--a three part mini-series by Transmissions from Hawaii--Dr. Keanu Sai answers all these questions and more. Guests & Links Dr.KeanuSai Official Website of the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom The Blog of the Acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom Further Information For more information on the work of Dr. Sai and the Council of Regency of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, please see the links below. Investigating War Crimes: Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from Occupied to Restored State Facts Necessary to Understanding the Hawaiian Situation To learn more, you can also watch the videos below. The Acting Hawaiian Council of Regency; Exposing the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom Larsen VS Hawaiian Kingdom World Court Webinar on War Crimes and the U.S. Occupation of Hawai‘i with Dr. Keanu Sai and Professor Federico Lenzerini To listen to parts one and two of Insurrection--a mini-series by Transmissions from Hawaii--see the links below. Insurrection Part 1: Congressman Ed Case Discusses the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Captiol | Transmissions from Hawaii 04 Insurrection Part 2: How the Hawaiian Kingdom Government Was Overthrown | Transmissions from Hawaii 05 Credits Editing and sound design: Tony Vega Transcript: Milabeats.go Transmissions from Hawaii logo: fikrihidajat (Based on concept sketch by Tony Vega) Featured image: Shutterstock Follow Us on Social Media Transmissions from Hawaii on Instagram Transmissions from Hawaii on Facebook Transmissions from Hawaii on Twitter Transcript You can view the PDF transcript of this episode here.
To read more about it, please visit our Blog http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/06/law-podcast-show-enrica-lexie-italian-ship-massimiliano-latorre-salvatore-girone-fisherman.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Stay tuned for more updates. Thanks for listening! On today's show, we will discuss a latest judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, namely, Massimilano Latorre and Others versus Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 428, wherein an unfortunate incident that took place in the year 2012, leading to death of two Indian fishermen due to firing from an Italian vessel M.V. Enrica Lexie, will be discussed. BACKGROUND The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 15.02.2012, M.V. Enrica Lexie was sailing from Singapore to Egypt and while it was around 20.50 Nautical Miles off the Indian coast, within the Contiguous Zone of India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), some shots were fired from the said Italian Vessel, leading to death of two Indian Fisherman, aboard the Indian boat, St. Antony. In this regard, two Italian Special Corps/Marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, aboard M.V. Enrica Lexie were arrested by the Indian authorities on the charges of Murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in both the Indian Courts and the International forums, the Italian Government claimed that India has no jurisdiction to try the matter or conduct investigation in the case, since the incident had occurred on the international waters that is beyond the territory of India. Subsequently, the matter came up before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, located in the Hague, Netherlands under the Convention accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Permanent Court of Arbitration held in the year 2020 that the Italian Marines are entitled to immunity in relation to the acts committed by them during the incident, and India is precluded from exercising its jurisdiction over the marines. Further, it was also held that the India is entitled to payment of compensation in connection with loss of life, physical harm, material damage to property and moral harm suffered. The said Arbitral Tribunal pronounced its Award on 21.05.2020 wherein Italy's commitment of resuming criminal investigation against the marines in their country was recorded and a total compensation of ₹10 Crores would be given to the family members of the deceased fishermen and the owner of the boat, St. Antony. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT The Indian Courts continued to exercise jurisdiction and ultimately, the matter came up before the Supreme Court in relation to maintainability of proceedings. The Italian Marines argued that India and Italy are signatories to UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and had agreed to resolve the dispute in terms of binding dispute resolution mechanism provided in Annexure VII to the UNCLOS, before an Arbitral Tribunal that is the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This Tribunal has duly pronounced its Award. The legal heirs and the owner of the boat also gave their consent to accept the amount of compensation offered and it was prayed that the criminal proceedings against the Italian Marines be quashed in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that the amount of ₹10 Crores as compensation is over and above to what has been paid as ex gratia sum to the kith and kin of the deceased fishermen. The Court observed that the Union of India, relatives of the deceased, owner of the boat, government of Italy, all seem to have accepted the Award dated 21.05.2020 and the amount of compensation seems to be satisfactory. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the present case is a fit case to close all the proceedings in India including criminal proceedings and quashed the same. CONCLUDING REMARKS Many people are saying that in this case, the Supreme Court has introduced the concept of blood money in India and any foreigner can kill any Indian and later on, get exonerated by paying handsome compensation. I beg to differ with such a reasoning because, the Permanent Court of Arbitration categorically observed that piracy at sea constitutes an international crime and it specifically stated that “the Marines did not target the “St. Antony” as a fishing vessel, but on the suspicion that it was a pirate vessel intending to board the “Enrica Lexie”.” In order to substantiate this finding, the Permanent Court of Arbitration determined that the action of the Marines to protect Enrica Lexie did not result in a breach of Italy's obligation of ‘due regard' for the sovereign rights of India; however, the same did result into “St. Antony” being prevented from navigating its intended course. My point in explaining all this is that the dispute at hand involved elements of International Law as well and to say that it is pure and simple ‘blood money' approach, is something entirely wrong and misconceived in my humble opinion. We must not forget Article 73 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India that provides that the Central Government has the power to exercise rights and authority that are provided under a treaty to which we are a signatory. We are a signatory to the UNCLOS. Similarly, Article 253 of the Constitution of India provides power to the Parliament to make laws for giving effect to international covenants. Under such laws and others, India is bound by many principles of customary international law. Therefore, to contend that India should not have left the Italian Marines is a misplaced argument. India, like other countries, is bound by the International Treaties. And lastly, it is not the case that the Italian Marines have been left scot-free. They will face trial in their respective country based on the laws that apply to them. Further, though compensation is never sufficient to replace a deceased person, yet it serves as a mark of gratitude and compassion to the legal heirs of the deceased. Thus, I feel that the Supreme Court rightly interpreted the obligations of India in relation to the UNCLOS and other international treaties. The incident that took place in the year 2012 was an unfortunate one but there is no point in dragging the same in contravention of the established tenets of International Law. Those were my views on this case. Please do not forget to like and subscribe us. And if you have any comments, please make them in the comments section.
The One Take Show is honored to host Mr. Zafar Khurshid. Mr. Khurshid is the Senior Partner at TKC Partners. In this episode, Sir talks about his Co-Authored Essay with Mr. Salman Khurshid, "State-State Arbitration and its Role in Entrenching the Rule of Law in the International Legal Community" published in the incredible book by Permanent Court of Arbitration, "International Arbitration and the Rule of Law - A Collection of Essays in Honour of the Incomparable Mr. Fali S. Nariman". Details for the Book: International Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of Mr. Fali S. Nariman Publisher: Permanent Court of Arbitration ISBN: 978-94-91021-17-6 Hardcover, 495 pages, 2021 EUR 30.00 (+ shipping) https://pca-cpa.org/en/documents/publications/other-publications/
Ten years ago France banned the niqab, but now the government has taken legislative steps toward banning the hijab as well. Earlier this year the Senate voted in favour of a ban on girls under the age of 18 from wearing the headscarf in public. It's part of an anti-separatism bill the Macron government says aims to reinforce France's secular identity. But is it actually a law against Islam? And we ask a former UN prosecutor if there is a better way to hold the perpetrators of the world's gravest human rights violation to account. Guests: Patricia Chagnon National Rally Municipal Councilor in Abbeville Ayisha Siddiqa Racial Justice and Environmental Activist Yasser Louati Co-founder of the Justice and Liberties For All Committee Payam Akhavan Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague
Professor James T. Gathii, Wing-Tat Lee Chair in International Law and Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, gives a talk for the Oxford Public International Law seminar series. This talk will present the findings of an empirical study that sought to establish two primary data points. First, the nationalities of the lawyers who argued cases before the International Court of Justice between 1998 and 2019. Second, the share of time lawyers from different countries had audience before the Court. The assumption underlying this study was that the more diverse the set of nationals who appear before the Court, the more international it is and vice versa. To find out the share of time lawyers from different countries had audience before the Court, the lawyers were divided into two groups. Those with the nationality of member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), were categorized as originating in or based in Western States. Those with non-OECD nationality were designated as originating or based in non-Western States. After presenting the findings of the empirical study, the talk will advance several hypothesis to account for the results. James T. Gathii is the Wing-Tat Lee Chair in International Law and Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law since July 2012. He is a graduate of the University of Nairobi, Kenya, and Harvard Law School. He sits on the board of editors of the American Journal of International Law, the Journal of African Law and the Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, among others. He is co-editor in Chief of the African Journal of International Economic Law. He was the Grotius Lecturer at the 2020 American Society of International Law Virtual Annual Meeting. His research and teaching interests are in Public International Law, International Trade Law, Third World Approaches to International Law, (TWAIL), Comparative Constitutional Law and Human Rights. Professor Gathii served an Independent Expert of the Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment, and Human Rights Violations in Africa formed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights between 2012 to 2020. He is also an expert member of the Working Group on Agricultural Land Investment Contracts of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, (UNIDRIOT), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the International Fund for Agriculture (IFAD). He has sat as an arbitrator in two international commercial arbitrations hosted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. He is a founding member of the TWAIL network. He is an elected member of the International Academy of International Law. He has consulted for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, (OHCHR), and the Economic Commission for Africa, (ECA), among others. Professor Gathii is a founding Editor of Afronomicslaw.org, the blog on international economic law issues relating to Africa and Global South. His books include African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes (Cambridge University Press, 2011, Paperback 2013); War, Commerce and International Law (Oxford University Press, 2010); and The Contested Empowerment of Kenya's Judiciary, 2010-2015: A Historical Institutional Analysis, (Sheria Publishing House, 2016). His latest edited book is The Performance of Africa's International Courts: Using Litigation for Political, Legal, and Social Change, (Oxford University Press in 2020). In addition to his books, Professor Gathii has authored over 90 articles and book chapters. __ The PIL Discussion Group hosts a weekly speaker event and is a key focal point for PIL@Oxford. Due to the current public health emergency, the PIL Discussion Group series will be held remotely for Hilary 2021. Speakers include distinguished international law practitioners, academics, and legal advisers from around the world. Topics involve contemporary and challenging issues in international law.
Following the unprecedented horrors of the Second World War, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. What is the historical and moral significance of this Declaration in the Global Age? What does it mean to say that dignity is "inherent" to human nature, and how can this assertion be reconciled with the greed and aggression that characterizes politics? How can humankind transcend divisive ideologies and religious conflicts in order to build a just and unified world order? In the shadow of catastrophic climate change, do we need to go beyond human rights to save our civilization from collapse? These and other themes will be explored in this talk by Payam Akhavan. Payam Akhavan is an UN prosecutor, human rights scholar, international lawyer, professor at University of Toronto, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, 2017 CBC Massey Lecturer, author of the bestselling "In Search of a Better World".
Power & Politics for Tuesday, February 9th with Employment & Workforce Development Minister Carla Qualtrough, New Brunswick Health Minister Dorothy Shephard, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague & Former UN prosecutor Payam Akhavan, and the Power Panel.
This episode we take a look at the role of customary international law in Public International Law & the changes we are slowly starting to see in this young system if we are to consider its current form, post the creation of the United Nations. The past is not far behind, however, as we discuss the founding of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) along with the evolution we see in the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement regime, with some hot topics under discussion in the UNCITRAL Working Group III being touched on as well. We are pleased to have Mr Jean-Rémi de Maistre, Founder & CEO of Jus Mundi joining us for this discussion. Jus Mundi is the world's most comprehensive, reliable & quality data for international law and arbitration on one platform. Jus Mundi strives to make international law and arbitration easily accessible and understandable, using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect and structure global legal data. Global legal professionals use Jus Mundi to efficiently deliver thorough legal research and due diligence with full confidence. --------
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter found in a section (Chapter VI) titled “Pacific Settlement of Disputes”, enumerates a number of non-violent means by which to secure international peace: among them "arbitration" and "judicial settlement." But what is "arbitration" and how does it differ from "judicial settlement"? In this final show of 2020, we welcome special guest Steven van Hoogstraten, former Director of the Carnegie Foundation of the Netherlands (CF), which has a profound connection to both "arbitration" and "judicial settlement". Located in The Hague, The Netherlands, the CF was established in 1903, and was an important outcome of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference. In this show, we discuss this history and draw attention to one of its most significant outcomes: The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This 1899 Treaty established the first permanent international court, The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). One of the goals of the organized Peace through Law Movement, The PCA was seen by peace activists such as Bertha von Suttner as heralding a new age in which power pays tribute to Reason and Conscience. Were they correct? This question is also discussed.
Ethics-Talk: The Greatest Good of Man is Daily to Converse About Virtue
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter found in a section (Chapter VI) titled “Pacific Settlement of Disputes”, enumerates a number of non-violent means by which to secure international peace: among them "arbitration" and "judicial settlement." But what is "arbitration" and how does it differ from "judicial settlement"? In this final show of 2020, we welcome special guest Steven van Hoogstraten, former Director of the Carnegie Foundation of the Netherlands (CF), which has a profound connection to both "arbitration" and "judicial settlement". Located in The Hague, The Netherlands, the CF was established in 1903, and was an important outcome of the 1899 Hague Peace Conference. In this show, we discuss this history and draw attention to one of its most significant outcomes: The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This 1899 Treaty established the first permanent international court, The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). One of the goals of the organized Peace through Law Movement, The PCA was seen by peace activists such as Bertha von Suttner as heralding a new age in which power pays tribute to Reason and Conscience. Were they correct? This question is also discussed.
Today on The Leaders' Brief - China recently launched an antitrust investigation into the Jack Ma owned Alibaba Group for monopolistic practices.T he Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation's announcement comes three months after Beijing introduced new regulatory rules for Financial Holding Companies that brought Alibaba's Ant Group affiliate under the Chinese regulatory authority's scanner. Moldova's Ion Chicu resigned as Prime Minister to ensure “normalcy” to the country. The pro-Russian Prime Minister's resignation comes a day before pro-EU candidate Maia Sandu, who defeated Igor Dodon, was to take office as Moldovian President. India has reportedly challenged a verdict by The Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague over a $2 billion tax claim involving Vodafone. The international court had held that that the retrospective legislation was in breach of the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment guaranteed under the Bilateral Investment Treaty. The tribunal had also asked the government to cease such breaches of the international treaty. About egomonk: Website | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedInegomonk is a global intelligence platform delivering asymmetric outcomes by bringing organizations closer to the communities they want to serve and the leaders they wish to influence. If you wish to collaborate with us then email us at contact@egomonk.com.
Payam Akhavan has encountered the grim realities of contemporary genocide throughout his life and career. He argues that deceptive utopias, political cynicism, and public apathy have given rise to major human rights abuses: from the religious persecution of Iranian Bahá'ís that shaped his personal life, to the horrors of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, the genocide in Rwanda, and the rise of contemporary phenomena such as the Islamic State. In the context of the current pandemic, Payam Akhavan will share examples of the inspiring resilience of the human spirit in times of suffering and how embracing the reality of our inextricable interdependence can liberate us from past dogmas so we can imagine a different future. He will also reflect on how the vision of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i teachings on the oneness of humankind have shaped his perspectives and work. Payam Akhavan is a UN prosecutor, human rights scholar, international lawyer, professor at McGill University, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, 2017 CBC Massey Lecturer, and author of the bestselling "In Search of a Better World". To view the video visit the YouTube channel https://youtu.be/8HJtyvvMRxI
WEBINARS/EVENTS/COURSE:YSIAC Webinar: In a Fishbowl with Crina and Deborah | 17 September 2020. Here.Delos Dispute Resolution, Conversations with Neil: Here.New Jersey City University & The International Mediation Institute (IMI) Presents Building the Future of Global Business: Enhancing Growth and Investment Through MediationSeptember 17 (Thursday), 11:00 AM-12:30 PMFind out more Here.Tag Time with Kabir Duggal & Amanda Lee, Here.Bali International Arbitration and Mediation Center in collaboration with the Transnational Dispute Management and Oil Gas and Energy Law continues its weekly series of tips for your practitioners. Find out more Here."Meet the female African Arbitrator" a 7-Part series from the African Subcommittee of the Arbitration Pledge. Find out more Here Canada Arbitration Week running from September 21 to September 25. Find out more Here.Canada ArbitrationWeek Presents Quantification of Damages Panel: Expert-Led Damages Assessments in International ArbitrationSeptember 21 (Monday), 4:00 PM-5:00 PM;Find out more Here.The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Presents Institute Training on Oral Advocacy in International ArbitrationSeptember 22 (Tuesday), 12:00 PM-2:00 PMFind out more Here.The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Presents 15th New York Conference on International ArbitrationSeptember 23 (Wednesday), 12:00 PM-2:35 PMFind out more Here. OPPORTUNITIES:The Medici Law Firm is recruiting a Jr. or Intermediate -Level Intl. Arbitration Associate, applicants must be fluent in English and Italian. Here.The Singapore International Arbitration Centre is seeking an Associate Counsel that ideally has 2-3 Experience to be based in Singapore. Here.CMS Munich is recruiting a German Speaking person for its Legal Clerkship with its intl. arbitration team. Here.The ICC is Recruiting a Deputy Counsel with 2-3 Years Experience to join its case management team in New York City. https://www.talent.com/view?id=ec8faeaff460&source=linkedin Norton Rose Fullbright's Sydney Office is recruiting for both a Senior Associate and Associate to work with their "Class Action", "Intl. Arbitration" and "Commissions" matters. For Senior Associate, +5 years is preferred, and for the Associate position 3 to 5 years PQE is listed. The Journal of Transnational Dispute Management has a call for papers on topics relating to the "Future of Investment Law in Latin America”. Here.Then on September 4, the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) announced that it has launched a research project to investigate “whether a right to a physical hearing exists in international arbitration” and is calling for contributions on this topic. See its site for more details. Here. NEWS:The Australian Federal Government announced that it is reviewing all of Australia’s bilateral investment treaties. Here.Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on arbitration agreements in an employee handbook. Here. Permanent Court of Arbitration announcement regarding “partial in-person hearings” at the Peace Palace in the Hague.AFSA Announcement. Here.Ruling from Switzerland regarding Olympian Caster Semenya. Here. SIAC MoU with THAC. Here.Malaysia High Court decision on Insolvency. Here. Here.The Singapore Convention. Here.
Public international law's turn to judicialisation in the last three decades has led to more attention paid to remedies including of monetary character, in inter-State dispute settlement as well as in tribunals open to non-State actors. In the last five years or so, a more discreet phenomenon of successful 1+ billion USD claims has emerged. I will address it under the rubric of ‘mega-awards', in line with the terminology reportedly used by States in the UNCITRAL Working Group III meeting this October. A few recent examples from different international tribunals will illustrate my point. Last September, Albania allocated 1.2 billion EUR for execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This July, an investor-State dispute settlement tribunal rendered a 6 billion USD award against Pakistan, the second mega-award against the particular respondent since 2017. In the International Court of Justice, it seems likely that the claim for compensation in Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (DRC v Uganda), which was scheduled to be argued in the week of 18 November (now postponed), could involve comparable amounts, in light of the Court's findings on the merits. In short, mega-awards are, if not quite mundane, certainly not exceptional in contemporary international law, generated in different fields of international law as part of general dispute settlement practice and with very significant effects on many respondent States. I propose to discuss their place in the framework of rules and institutions of international law, with an eye to whether it is helpful to treat them as a separate juridical category that calls for particularly attuned legal solutions. Dr Martins Paparinskis is Reader in Public International Law at UCL Laws. He is a generalist international lawyer with a particular interest in international dispute settlement, State responsibility, and international investment law. Martins' publications include a monograph with OUP, articles with British Year Book of International Law and European Journal of International Law, and a co-authored chapter on State responsibility in the forthcoming 10th edition of OUP's Oppenheim: Peace. Martins is the book review editor of Journal of World Investment and Trade, a co-editor of Current Legal Problems, and a member of the editorial board of UCL Press. His appointments include ICSID Panel of Arbitrators, Permanent Court of Arbitration, management board of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, implementation committee of the UNECE Water Convention, and the OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.
Joining us to discuss her work towards peace on the Korean Peninsula - and ending the Korean War - is activist-scholar-teacher Christine Ahn, founder of Women Cross DMZ, a global movement of women mobilizing for peace on the Korean Peninsula. This show is the sixth show in a series focused on looking at the Korean War – we have used Bertha von Suttner's 1912 essay, The Barbarization of the Sky, as a focal point for this discussion - and we have focused on how the the Sky was used in that war. From the aerial bombardment with napalm to leaflet filled propaganda bombs used in the PsyWar campaign, we have discussed how the US Airforce used the Korean Sky. For this show, we turn to another thread connected to Bertha von Suttner's work, the role of women in securing peace. This work began well over 100 years ago when Bertha and other women organized to support the creation of non-violent dispute mechanisms such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Today, this work continues as a group of international women organized by Christine Ahn are laboring to end the Korean War. An important moment of this work occurred 5 years ago in 2015, when Christine's organization, WomenCross DMZ, crossed the DMZ - the most heavily fortified border in the world - in attempt to restart peace talks and to bring awareness to issues on the Korean Peninsula through people to people diplomacy. Special guest Christine Ahn joins us today to discuss this moment and her subsequent work towards peace in Korea.
Ethics-Talk: The Greatest Good of Man is Daily to Converse About Virtue
Joining us to discuss her work towards peace on the Korean Peninsula - and ending the Korean War - is activist-scholar-teacher Christine Ahn, founder of Women Cross DMZ, a global movement of women mobilizing for peace on the Korean Peninsula. This show is the sixth show in a series focused on looking at the Korean War – we have used Bertha von Suttner’s 1912 essay, The Barbarization of the Sky, as a focal point for this discussion - and we have focused on how the the Sky was used in that war. From the aerial bombardment with napalm to leaflet filled propaganda bombs used in the PsyWar campaign, we have discussed how the US Airforce used the Korean Sky. For this show, we turn to another thread connected to Bertha von Suttner’s work, the role of women in securing peace. This work began well over 100 years ago when Bertha and other women organized to support the creation of non-violent dispute mechanisms such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Today, this work continues as a group of international women organized by Christine Ahn are laboring to end the Korean War. An important moment of this work occurred 5 years ago in 2015, when Christine’s organization, WomenCross DMZ, crossed the DMZ - the most heavily fortified border in the world - in attempt to restart peace talks and to bring awareness to issues on the Korean Peninsula through people to people diplomacy. Special guest Christine Ahn joins us today to discuss this moment and her subsequent work towards peace in Korea.
A clash within the South China Sea is now almost inevitable. The US has declared China's territorial grab "illegal". It wants its "bullied" neighbours to stand their ground."We are making clear: Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," a US statement issued earlier this week asserts.It's not a change of opinion. But it is a loud declaration of intent to establish a "line in the sand" that Beijing should not cross."The United States is now explicitly declaring it illegal for China to engage in fishing, oil and gas exploration, or other economic activities in those areas, or to interfere with its neighbours' rights to do so," Asia Maritime Initiative senior fellow Gregory Poling says."The next time China does engage in illegal harassment of its neighbours within their EEZs [exclusive economic zones], a more forceful US response might lead China to double down out of a sense of nationalism," he added.China's "wolf-warrior" rhetoric has given it little wiggle room to back down."Perhaps now Beijing feels like it's pushed up against a wall," Australian National University School of International Relations doctoral candidate Hunter Marston told news.com.au."All these countries are now more or less affirming the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision. Perhaps they [Beijing] say what else do they have to lose? You know, the gloves are off."And that lays the groundwork for open confrontation.It's a fear echoed in a report by Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor Oriana Skylar Mastro: "China could see military action as its only recourse if it loses the diplomatic option to assert its sovereignty claims. The continued downward spiral in US-China relations could also encourage Xi to adopt a now-or-never approach to the South China Sea.US navy sailors conduct pre-flight checks on an MH-60R Sea Hawk in drills in the South China Sea.Wounded wolvesBeijing is getting irritated. The Chinese Communist Party has called Washington a "spoiler, saboteur and disrupter"."Although Washington doesn't want to start a real war with China, there is the possibility of the unfolding of miscalculations if it continues to try and stir up trouble in the South China Sea," declares the editor of the Communist Party's China Daily.Beijing's diplomats are racing to re-establish dominance over the narrative."China's position on the South China Sea issue has been consistent and clear-cut. While firmly safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China has been committed to resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly involved, managing differences through rules and mechanisms, and achieving win-win results through mutually beneficial co-operation," a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US said.The embassy declares the South China Sea has "remained peaceful and stable and is still improving", ignoring a recent spate of rammings of fishing vessels, high-seas stand-offs over sea exploration efforts and its arbitrary construction of military bases on artificial islands."Under the pretext of endorsing rules, it is using UNCLOS to attack China while refusing to ratify the Convention itself. Under the pretext of upholding freedom of navigation and overflight, it is recklessly infringing on other countries' territorial sea and airspace and throwing its weight around in every sea of the world," the spokesperson added.Beijing is a signatory to the UN's law of the sea (UNCLOS) but has declared all rulings against its interests as being irrelevant or invalid.Washington is not a signatory of UNCLOS but is seeking to enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute. But, Marston points out, the US has been conforming to law where Beijing has not."I think Washington's really got international law at its back here, and so it's hopefully welcomed as a legally defensibl...
A clash within the South China Sea is now almost inevitable. The US has declared China's territorial grab "illegal". It wants its "bullied" neighbours to stand their ground."We are making clear: Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," a US statement issued earlier this week asserts.It's not a change of opinion. But it is a loud declaration of intent to establish a "line in the sand" that Beijing should not cross."The United States is now explicitly declaring it illegal for China to engage in fishing, oil and gas exploration, or other economic activities in those areas, or to interfere with its neighbours' rights to do so," Asia Maritime Initiative senior fellow Gregory Poling says."The next time China does engage in illegal harassment of its neighbours within their EEZs [exclusive economic zones], a more forceful US response might lead China to double down out of a sense of nationalism," he added.China's "wolf-warrior" rhetoric has given it little wiggle room to back down."Perhaps now Beijing feels like it's pushed up against a wall," Australian National University School of International Relations doctoral candidate Hunter Marston told news.com.au."All these countries are now more or less affirming the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision. Perhaps they [Beijing] say what else do they have to lose? You know, the gloves are off."And that lays the groundwork for open confrontation.It's a fear echoed in a report by Council on Foreign Relations assistant professor Oriana Skylar Mastro: "China could see military action as its only recourse if it loses the diplomatic option to assert its sovereignty claims. The continued downward spiral in US-China relations could also encourage Xi to adopt a now-or-never approach to the South China Sea.US navy sailors conduct pre-flight checks on an MH-60R Sea Hawk in drills in the South China Sea.Wounded wolvesBeijing is getting irritated. The Chinese Communist Party has called Washington a "spoiler, saboteur and disrupter"."Although Washington doesn't want to start a real war with China, there is the possibility of the unfolding of miscalculations if it continues to try and stir up trouble in the South China Sea," declares the editor of the Communist Party's China Daily.Beijing's diplomats are racing to re-establish dominance over the narrative."China's position on the South China Sea issue has been consistent and clear-cut. While firmly safeguarding its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, China has been committed to resolving disputes through negotiation and consultation with countries directly involved, managing differences through rules and mechanisms, and achieving win-win results through mutually beneficial co-operation," a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US said.The embassy declares the South China Sea has "remained peaceful and stable and is still improving", ignoring a recent spate of rammings of fishing vessels, high-seas stand-offs over sea exploration efforts and its arbitrary construction of military bases on artificial islands."Under the pretext of endorsing rules, it is using UNCLOS to attack China while refusing to ratify the Convention itself. Under the pretext of upholding freedom of navigation and overflight, it is recklessly infringing on other countries' territorial sea and airspace and throwing its weight around in every sea of the world," the spokesperson added.Beijing is a signatory to the UN's law of the sea (UNCLOS) but has declared all rulings against its interests as being irrelevant or invalid.Washington is not a signatory of UNCLOS but is seeking to enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute. But, Marston points out, the US has been conforming to law where Beijing has not."I think Washington's really got international law at its back here, and so it's hopefully welcomed as a legally defensibl...
Links:1. Law as a Battlefield2. http://www.jillgoldenziel.com3. The U.S. Navy's Shifting View of China's Coast Guard and Maritime Militia4. Permanent Court of Arbitration Republic of The Philippines vs. People's Republic of China
Prior to the U.S. entry into World War I (on April 6, 1917), ordinary citizens all over the world - many of them women - agitated to pressure states to create a court that allowed for the non-violent settlement of disputes. This court, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, was the result of the historic 1899 Hague Peace Conference that opened on May 18, 1899. The creation of this court was so monumental that May 18 was celebrated, mainly in the U.S. as "Peace Day". The purpose of Peace Day? to provide a means to educate the public about the new court, and the New World Order, one that replaced the "law of force" with the "force of law". With the U.S. entry into WW1, Peace Day began to fade from the public's memory, as did the important "Peace Through Law" movement. In this show, we discuss this forgotten history and some of the persons behind it, why they should be remembered and known, and how to implement their lesson and example today. Show Resources: Brochure of the International Banner of Peace (peace flag) The Universal Peace Badge (designed in 1897 by Cora di Brazzà). Pamphlet on the History of Peace Day (originally published in 1915). Blog post on Peace Day by Hope Elizabeth May Elihu Root's 1912 Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech Trailer for 'A Taxi Driver' (May 18, 1980, Republic of Korea)
Ethics-Talk: The Greatest Good of Man is Daily to Converse About Virtue
Prior to the U.S. entry into World War I (on April 6, 1917), ordinary citizens all over the world - many of them women - agitated to pressure states to create a court that allowed for the non-violent settlement of disputes. This court, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, was the result of the historic 1899 Hague Peace Conference that opened on May 18, 1899. The creation of this court was so monumental that May 18 was celebrated, mainly in the U.S. as "Peace Day". The purpose of Peace Day? to provide a means to educate the public about the new court, and the New World Order, one that replaced the "law of force" with the "force of law". With the U.S. entry into WW1, Peace Day began to fade from the public's memory, as did the important "Peace Through Law" movement. In this show, we discuss this forgotten history and some of the persons behind it, why they should be remembered and known, and how to implement their lesson and example today. Show Resources: Brochure of the International Banner of Peace (peace flag) The Universal Peace Badge (designed in 1897 by Cora di Brazzà). Pamphlet on the History of Peace Day (originally published in 1915). Blog post on Peace Day by Hope Elizabeth May Elihu Root's 1912 Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech Trailer for 'A Taxi Driver' (May 18, 1980, Republic of Korea)
Ethics-Talk: The Greatest Good of Man is Daily to Converse About Virtue
Prior to the U.S. entry into World War I (on April 6, 1917), ordinary citizens all over the world - many of them women - agitated to pressure states to create a court that allowed for the non-violent settlement of disputes. This court, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, was the result of the historic 1899 Hague Peace Conference that opened on May 18, 1899. The creation of this court was so monumental that May 18 was celebrated, mainly in the U.S. as "Peace Day". The purpose of Peace Day? to provide a means to educate the public about the new court, and the New World Order, one that replaced the "law of force" with the "force of law". With the U.S. entry into WW1, Peace Day began to fade from the public's memory, as did the important "Peace Through Law" movement. In this show, we discuss this forgotten history and some of the persons behind it, why they should be remembered and known, and how to implement their lesson and example today. Show Resources: Brochure of the International Banner of Peace (peace flag) The Universal Peace Badge (designed in 1897 by Cora di Brazzà). Pamphlet on the History of Peace Day (originally published in 1915). Blog post on Peace Day by Hope Elizabeth May Elihu Root's 1912 Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech Trailer for 'A Taxi Driver' (May 18, 1980, Republic of Korea)
This is an episode in a series about Munk second-year students recounting their experiences during their global internships. Each podcast broadcasts their unique experiences at their workplaces, culture shock, and advice for first-year Munk students who are about the embark on their own internship journey.In this episode, Emily Tsui discusses her time with the Permanent court of arbitration at the Singapore office. Emily shares her thoughts on applying, what her work involved, and daily life in Singapore.
From Keanu Sai's blog https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/ In the summer of 1842, Kamehameha III moved forward to secure the position of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a recognized independent state under international law. He sought the formal recognition of Hawaiian independence from the three naval powers of the world at the time—Great Britain, France, and the United States. To accomplish this, Kamehameha III commissioned three envoys, Timoteo Ha‘alilio, William Richards, who at the time was still an American Citizen, and Sir George Simpson, a British subject. Of all three powers, it was the British that had a legal claim over the Hawaiian Islands through cession by Kamehameha I, but for political reasons the British could not openly exert its claim over the other two naval powers. Due to the islands prime economic and strategic location in the middle of the north Pacific, the political interest of all three powers was to ensure that none would have a greater interest than the other. This caused Kamehameha III “considerable embarrassment in managing his foreign relations, and…awakened the very strong desire that his Kingdom shall be formally acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sovereign and independent State.” While the envoys were on their diplomatic mission, a British Naval ship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843, making outrageous demands on the Hawaiian government. Basing his actions on complaints made to him in letters from the British Consul, Richard Charlton, who was absent from the kingdom at the time, Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25, 1843, after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom, but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats in Europe. News of Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in the islands on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto. The envoys eventually succeeded in getting formal international recognition of the Hawaiian Islands “as a sovereign and independent State.” Great Britain and France formally recognized Hawaiian sovereignty on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation at the Court of London, and the United States followed on July 6, 1844 by a letter of Secretary of State John C. Calhoun. The Hawaiian Islands became the first Polynesian nation to be recognized as an independent and sovereign State. The ceremony that took place on July 31 occurred at a place we know today as “Thomas Square” park, which honors Admiral Thomas, and the roads that run along Thomas Square today are “Beretania,” which is Hawaiian for “Britain,” and “Victoria,” in honor of Queen Victoria who was the reigning British Monarch at the time the restoration of the government and recognition of Hawaiian independence took place. About Keanu Sai found here: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/ Keanu has a Ph.D. in Political Science specializing in Hawaiian Constitutionalism and International Relations, and a founding member of the Hawaiian Society of Law & Politics. I served as lead Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, Netherlands, from November 1999-February 2001. I also served as Agent in a Complaint against the United States of America concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingd...
This talk will examine the legal nature of due diligence, namely whether it is a free-standing obligation under customary international law or a standard by which compliance with specific obligations may be assessed. It will be shown that there is a significant number of common elements in the analysis of due diligence as it is performed by international courts and tribunals, notwithstanding the specificities of the underlying subject matter. In doing so, this presentation will bring into question the validity of the recurring assumption that the content of due diligence differs fundamentally across various branches of international law. Dr Vladyslav Lanovoy is an Associate Legal Officer at the International Court of Justice. He is also a Lecturer at Lille Catholic University and a Teaching Fellow at Queen Mary University of London. He holds a PhD in international law from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and is the author of Complicity and its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility (Hart 2016), which was awarded the 2017 Paul Guggenheim Prize in International Law. He has previously worked at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He has also consulted for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Environment Programme. His research interests include the law of international responsibility, dispute settlement, the law of the sea, human rights law and international economic law.
The presentation will discuss the approaches to writing such reference works (based on the speaker's experience with the Update of the ICRC Commentaries to the 1949 Conventions, and the Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law). The presentation will discuss the approaches to writing such reference works (based on the speaker’s experience with the Update of the ICRC Commentaries to the 1949 Conventions, and the Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law). Then a reflection will follow on how we - as researchers - use these reference works. Are references to reference works allowed in an academic paper? Are they objective, are they pointing us to existing debate, or do they make us all lazy? Reference works are an everyday presence in academic work, but should we reflect more about them? Liesbeth Lijnzaad is judge at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Hamburg) since 2017. She is a former Legal Adviser of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and head of its international law department (2006 - 2017). She is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and of the San Remo Institute of International Humanitarian Law. Professor dr E.Lijnzaad is also endowed professor Practice of International Law at Maastricht University. She studied law and history, receiving master’s degrees in international law (1985) and Dutch law (1987) from the University of Amsterdam, and holds a PhD in international law from Maastricht University in 1994.
Lecture summary: The problem confronting the users of international law, whether academic or professional, is very often not whether a rule of customary law has come into existence (as has recently been handled with such success by the ILC), but rather, granted that a rule of customary law on a given subject does exist, how to establish what its specific content is, for the purpose of then applying it to a particular situation. This applies not only to reasoned judicial decision but should also inform the processes of legal advice and decision-making based upon it. Ultimately what this may amount to is the assessment and weighing of the opinions of others. Rule of law considerations dictate that this can’t be a matter of subjective preference but must be based on known principles, i.e. to determine which opinions carry authority. The talk will investigate some of the issues involved, in the light, particularly, of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Sir Franklin (Frank) Berman joined HM Diplomatic Service in 1965 and was the Legal Adviser to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office from 1991-99. For the past 17 years he has been in practice in Essex Court Chambers specializing in international arbitration and advisory work in international law. He is Visiting Professor of International Law at Oxford and the University of Cape Town, and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the British Institute of International & Comparative Law. His career in international law and diplomacy has spanned a wide and varied field, including settlement of disputes; the law of treaties; State responsibility; diplomatic and State immunity; maritime delimitation; the law of the Continental shelf; outer space and nuclear energy; the law of international organisations; the UN Security Council; the laws of war and neutrality; international criminal tribunals; and numerous other areas. He is a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a former Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, and was the Legal Member of the Court of Arbitration between Pakistan and India under the Indus Waters Treaty. He has sat on numerous ICSID arbitral and annulment proceedings. He is the general editor of the Oxford International Law Library.
Professor Akhavan will speak about his recent book In Search of a Better World: A Human Rights Odyssey, the 2017 CBC Massey Lectures which became the best-selling non-fiction book in Canada. Professor Akhavan will speak about his recent book In Search of a Better World: A Human Rights Odyssey, the 2017 CBC Massey Lectures which became the best-selling non-fiction book in Canada. Part memoir, part manifesto, it is a "powerful survey of some of the major human rights struggle of our times." More information on the book can be found http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-2017-cbc-massey-lectures-in-search-of-a-better-world-1.4222812 Payam Akhavan is Professor of International Law at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and former Legal Advisor to the Prosecutor's Office of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague.
On a map, it is little more than a grouping of rocks, shoals and islands. To China and the Philippines the South China sea is much, much more. To a host of different regional players the area represents a wealth of natural resources, and an important geopolitical flashpoint for the region's security. A year ago, Hague's Permanent Court of Arbitration, ruled that China had no historical right over the South China Sea, recognizing instead that Beijing violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone. Hailed as a defining moment for the Asia Pacific, the South China sea ruling was predicted to become a lynchpin for accelerated tensions and potential conflict. Instead, the ruling has lead to increased dialogue and debate on the disputed area. But a year on, what does the ruling mean today, has its presence changed anything and is a greater military clash for the sea completely out of the cards? Here to help us answer these questions and shed a light onto this issue is CIGI expert Benoit Hardy Chartrand.
On Today’s episode of The World In My Eyes we’re looking at possible global conflict. That’s right boys and girls, we’re talking full-on World War III and the possibility that we’re in the beginning stages of a new global war between the US and its allies in the West versus Russia and its allies in the East. There is currently a dispute on the South China Sea which has severely damaged the United States relations with the People’s Republic of China. After the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China’s nine-dash-line claim in the South China Sea, and its land reclamation activities on islets are invalid and unlawful, the United States has been preparing to sail in the area under a so-called Freedom of Navigation principle. This has angered the Chinese. In August, the Chinese Defense Minister, Chang Wanquan told his country’s citizens to prepare for, what he described as the people’s war at sea. Mr Wanquan was referring directly to the United States planned provocation under the pretext of FON. China has since vowed to take all necessary measures available to protect its sovereignty over the South China Sea, revealing that it had the right to set up an air defense zone on the sea. China has also since been positioning and testing its nuclear weapons, and planning military drills on its waters with Russia. Even the United States has confirmed that China has tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, which is capable of striking everywhere in the world within half an hour. Moving away from the South China Sea, towards Syria. It’s no secret the civil war in Syria is a proxy war between the United States and Russia. Russia has even intervened physically at the behest of the Syrian government. The United States, unable to get an invitation to the party, has been secretly arming many rebel groups in the country, with plans to overthrow the Syrian government. Of course, since Russia is an invitee of the Syrian government since last year, the war has been turning in favor of the Syrian government, which was falling before Russia’s intervention.
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and the Chinese government have denounced the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague’s recent ruling. According to The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provisions, island-building activity and territorial claims in the South China Sea violated international and environmental law. Was China bound by this ruling, although China objects to The Hague Arbitration Court’s jurisdiction, and claims that consent was not given? When international law, agreements, and norms are summarily voided by a losing nation, what should be the international legal and political response? Regarding international agreements specifically, does this case provide warnings for signatories to treaties and agreements? Are there lessons for the United States in the consideration of potential reservations, opt-outs, alternate venues, or waivers, and whether they were given proper regard by the Court? -- Featuring: Prof. James Kraska, Howard S. Levie Professor in the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and Prof. Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, Hofstra University School of Law.
In this episode of the Takshashila Podcast, Guru Aiyar and Hamsini Hariharan, discuss the implications of the verdict by the Permanent Court of Arbitration initiated by the Philippines against China in the South China Sea. Guru Aiyar and Hamsini Hariharan are research scholars at the Takshashila Institution Further Readings: 1. The Award of the Permanent Court of Arbitration: http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/PH-CN%20-%2020160712%20-%20Award.pdf 2. Nitin Pai on India's response to the verdict: http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/china-proves-it-cannot-be-compelled-to-follow-rules-1430842 3. Nitin Pai and Pranay Kotasthane explain the South China Verdict in GCPP Primetime 23: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLEX6IJkuAA 4. Guru Aiyar on India's stance in the South China Sea dispute: http://logos.nationalinterest.in/2016/07/indias-stand-on-the-south-china-sea-ruling-between-china-philippines/
South China Sea Topic Week By Sally DeBoer As a part of CIMSEC’s South China Sea topic week and our regular Sea Control Podcast, we bring you a discussion on the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling on territorial disputes in the South China Sea with one of the China-watching community’s best known, most respected, … Continue reading Sea Control 122 – The PCA Ruling with CAPT James Fanell →
Brussels to Beijing: Commodity Policy in Europe and Asia Podcast
On July 12, Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration declared that China's nine-dash line and claims to historic rights in the South China Sea have no validity under international law. China, meanwhile, refused to participate in the procedure and neither accepted nor recognized the decision.The...
Stratfor Vice President of East Asia Analysis Rodger Baker explains the Permanent Court of Arbitration's recent ruling on the South China Sea and what it means for maritime law.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled in favour of the Philippines in its dispute with China over the South China Sea. It's a historic ruling and one that will be a game-changer in one of the region's flashpoints. In this Policy Forum Pod extra, two experts discuss the ruling, what it means for China and the region, and what comes next for the Philippines. In conversation with Policy Forum Editor Martyn Pearce are: - Professor Don Rothwell, an international law expert from the Australian National University College of Law - Dr John Blaxland, a Senior Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the ANU Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
AMTI Director Greg Poling sits down with Ben Bland, Nigel Li, and Dustin Wang to discuss recent trips by journalists to Itu Aba (Taiping Island), Taiwan's only occupied feature in the Spratlys, and the amicus curiae brief about Itu Aba that a group of Taiwanese legal scholars recently filed with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Ben Bland is the South China correspondent for the Financial Times and visited Itu Aba in March. Nigel Li is president of the Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law and Dustin Wang is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University. Both were authors of the amicus curiae brief.
That court, located in the Hague, resolved a long and bitter dispute between the United States and Great Britain. The example of two heavily militarized and war-prone nations submitting to the rule of an international body and peacefully settling their dispute was widely seen as an encouraging example for the world, and remains such to this day, despite the outbreak four years later of World War I. Within weeks of the settlement, a number of nations submitted cases for arbitration to the Permanent Court, including a dispute between the United States and Venezuela. The actual settlement of the Newfoundland Fisheries case gave both the United States and Britain some of what they had wanted. It allowed Britain to create reasonable regulations for fishing in the waters of Newfoundland, but gave the power to determine what was reasonable to an impartial authority. Would the United States and Great Britain have gone to war in the absence of this arbitration? Likely not, at least not right away, and not over the question of fishing. But had one or both nations desired war for other reasons, fishing rights might have served as a justification. Less than a century earlier, in 1812, somewhat similar disputes had served to justify a U.S. invasion of Canada in the War of 1812. Just over a century later, in 2015, disputes over trade agreements in Eastern Europe were leading to talk of war from the Russian and U.S. governments.
Lady Justice Arden sits on the Court of Appeal and is the UK's second most senior female judge. Twenty years ago she was the first woman to be appointed to the High Court’s Chancery Division, then the first woman to chair the Law Commission. In 2000 she became only the third woman to join the judicial ranks in the Court of Appeal. However women still represent just 16% of Appeal Court judges, with only one female out of twelve justices on the UK Supreme Court. Mary Arden is currently Head of International Judicial Relations for England and Wales and is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Earlier this year she was named in the Woman's Hour Power List.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
