Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 17,125 items

  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Edited by Jürgen Basedow, Giesela Rühl, Franco Ferrari and Pedro de Miguel Asensio

This content is available to you

What are international mass claims commissions?

Righting Wrongs after Conflict

Lea Brilmayer, Chiara Giorgetti and Lorraine Charlton

International Mass Claims Commissions (IMCCs) are ad hoc bodies whose structure, jurisdiction, procedure and ability to provide remedy vary considerably. Chapter 1 analyses their common features, including the fact that IMCCs are ad hoc binding dispute resolution mechanisms, which are structured and act like judicial bodies. They are created after an event of international relevance, and are international law instruments which engage the responsibility of states. The chapter clarifies the differences between IMCCs and other similar domestic and international mechanisms that may share some, but not all, of the characteristics of IMCCs. It offers an historical overview of IMCCs and an initial introduction to the most relevant modern examples of IMCCs, including the Iran–US Claims Tribunal, the United Nations Compensation Commission and the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission. List of Keywords: definition of claims commission, characteristics of claims commissions, differences between IMCCs and other similar instruments, historical IMCCs, Iran–US Claims Tribunal, United Nations Compensation Commission and the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission.

This content is available to you

Theoretical background

Challenges and Perspectives

Vassilis Pergantis

Chapter 1 presents the theoretical premises upon which the book is based. It invokes and exploits critical theory by focusing on the binary constructions permeating the law of treaties discourse, such as the tension between individualism and collective interest, the juxtapositions between esoteric and manifested intent and the oscillation between the negotium and the instrumentum. The delineation of the theoretical framework and the discursive techniques employed allows the showcasing of both the binary and transformational characters of those tensions, as well as how they shape the discussion on challenges to the treaty concept and the paradigm of state consent in the cases discussed further down in the book. Keywords: individualism; communitarianism; formalism; negotium; instrumentum; State consent; critical approach

This content is available to you

Table of legislation

A Comparative Analysis of Key Issues

Edited by Michael Littlewood and Craig Elliffe

This content is available to you

Table of cases

A Comparative Analysis of Key Issues

Edited by Michael Littlewood and Craig Elliffe

This content is available to you

Setting the scene

The Case of Individual Victims of Human Rights Violations

Pierre Schmitt

This content is available to you

Bernardo Sordi

This chapter reflects on the history of administrative law against the background of the emergence and evolution of a distinct form of administrative power within the European state over the last two and half centuries. The chapter outlines, in a very general way, answers to several comparative questions: in what ways have the various paths to droit administratif in France, or Verwaltungsrecht in Germany, converged or diverged from the path to administrative law in England (and later America)? Similarly, how have the German or French paths to the Rechtsstaat or the État de droit, respectively, converged or diverged from the Anglo-American path to the Rule of Law? This contribution proceeds on the premise that the particular routes to droit administratif, Verwaltungsrecht, or administrative law must be understood with at least some sensitivity to the various processes of state-formation as well as to the different constitutional histories of the countries concerned. Nevertheless, it would be an error to believe that a comparison of state-building processes could mechanistically provide a clear scale for measuring the intensity of the processes by which a distinct law of administration took shape. The history of state-formation in the various corners of Europe proceeded not merely according to its own specific tempos but also on a different factual level from that of the conceptual and legal representation, which is in fact the focus of our discussion. Thus, it must be stressed that the divergences and convergences we propose to trace are limited to representations within legal orders, and do not extend to the underlying history of state power per se. The analysis confines itself to explaining the different techniques of conceptualization employed at different times and in different national contexts in relation to the identification and execution of public tasks understood as specifically belonging to the administrative sphere. Our aim here is simply to define the different juridical articulations within which the institutional enterprises definable as states emerged historically. A second premise, which is of a chronological nature, flows from the first. The conscious emergence of a power, tasks, or law considered as ‘administrative’ is a relatively recent phenomenon, something reflected in the historical development of languages, lexicons, and concepts. In France, for example, the terms administration publique and bureaucratie did not become widely used before 1750, and droit administratif did not make its first appearance until the early years of the nineteenth century. Moreover, Verwaltungsrecht in Germany, or administrative law in the English-speaking world, did not appear until well into the nineteenth century (and in the English case arguably only came into wide usage in the twentieth). We must therefore be aware that the question of administrative power or administrative law has its own history, which is not necessarily coterminous with history of forms of public authority. Rather, the emergence of a specifically ‘administrative’ power or law is intrinsically a modern phenomenon, dating back no more than 200 years or so. Thus, the questions this chapter seeks to answer only make sense for the past two centuries: for the nineteenth century, in which an identifiably ‘administrative’ space, as well as corresponding understandings of ‘administrative’ power and law, emerged; and for the twentieth century, in which the vast expansion of ‘administrative’ personnel, responsibilities, organizations, and establishments (including, perhaps most importantly, the diffusion of public services and of social administration) became an inescapable feature of modern governance. It is precisely in this time span that the divergences and convergences between the different paths of state-formation become noticeable and measurable.

This content is available to you

Edited by W. J. Morgan, Qing Gu and Fengliang Li

This content is available to you

Preface

Institutions, Public Administration and Transnational Space

Edited by Jarle Trondal

This content is available to you

Preface

A Comparative Analysis of Key Issues

Edited by Michael Littlewood and Craig Elliffe