scholarly journals Forum Selection Clauses, Non-Signatories, and Personal Jurisdiction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Coyle ◽  
Robin Effron
Keyword(s):  
Personal Jurisdiction

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

scholarly journals RECALIBRATING THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT REGIME THROUGH NARROWED JURISDICTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 301-334
Author(s):  
Javier García Olmedo
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Planning Approach ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Investor Protections ◽  
Legitimacy Crisis ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Dutch Model

AbstractThe legitimacy crisis confronting the international investment regime has called for reforms to eliminate the asymmetric and troubled nature of investment treaties. These instruments grant extensive investor protections without offering reciprocal safeguards for host States wishing to preserve regulatory space. This article argues that any reform designed to redress imbalances in the existing regime should first aim at narrowing the personal jurisdiction of investment tribunals. Problematically, access to most investment treaties depends on broad nationality requirements, which have enabled investors to use corporations or passports of convenience to obtain treaty protection. This practice exacerbates the unbalanced relationship between host States and investors. It increases host States’ exposure to investment treaty claims and allows investors to circumvent newer, more State-oriented investment treaties. Using as an example the novel anti-nationality planning approach embraced in the 2019 Dutch Model BIT, this article suggests effective treaty mechanisms that States can adopt to restrict the range of investors that are entitled to claim.

scholarly journals Grading AG Szpunar's Opinion in Case C-18/18 – A Caution against Worldwide Content Blocking as Default

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Geographical Scope ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 4th of June 2019, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-18/18 between Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek (an Austrian politician) and Facebook Ireland Limited. The politician had sought to have certain current and future content – argued to be defamatory – blocked by Facebook with worldwide effect. This is arguably the most important Internet speech-related case currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and will doubtlessly influence court reasoning far beyond Europe.This Comment analyses AG Szpunar’s interesting, but problematic, Opinion with particular emphasis on his reasoning in relation to the question of scope of jurisdiction; that is, what is the appropriate geographical scope of orders in these circumstances, rendered by a court that has personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document