Access to water and environmental protection represent major challenges of the twenty-first century. Population growth, urbanization and industrialization have triggered a significant increase of water demand and fresh water resources are pushed to their limits in many part of the world. This crisis has raised challenges that have not only local or regional scale but also a global dimension. Fresh water resources have always been understood as belonging to a State or a group of States, and not to the international community as a whole. Fresh water management and protection have so far been undertaken in a context of geographical proximity such as in the case of river basins. The new challenges generated by the global freshwater crisis call for an evolution of international water law. Common Concern and Common Heritage regimes induce an idea of cooperation between States, intergenerational solidarity and help transcend territoriality. The present chapter analyses the applicability of the Common Concern and Common Heritage regimes to fresh water resources.
With the growth in the number of investment treaties and investment treaty arbitrations, criticisms have arisen that the investment treaty regime has an adverse impact on the protection of human rights. It has been argued that it puts States in situations in which they face conflicting international legal obligations under the two regimes. This chapter looks at four constellations to analyse the current relationship between international investment law and human rights law. First, it addresses cases involving allegations that the human rights of the investor have been violated in the context of State interference with an investment. Second, it discusses situations involving allegations that the investor’s actions have violated the human rights of the host State population. Third, it analyses the implications of host States amending their legislation to better comply with human rights obligations. Finally, it analyses cases where the host State invokes human rights to justify non-compliance with investment protection provisions during an economic crisis.
Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel
This chapter identifies and distinguishes four different types of scholarship and policymaking on the relationship between competition law and innovation. Scholarship varies to the extent that it considers innovation to be an exogenous or external value to the competition law protection framework and conversely an endogenous or internal value. In addition, different scholars frame innovation either as a positive or a negative value that needs to be addressed by (competition) law. Distinguishing those different kinds of scholarship, the chapter offers a framework in which the different chapters throughout the volume can be understood better.
IC is of major, if not dominant, importance in advanced economies. Adoption of capitalist institutions and pro-innovation policies worldwide. Intellectual capitalism as a knowledge-based capitalist economy has emerged, promoting a strong (and criticized) IP regime with strong growth of registered IPRs. Sweden, S. Korea, Switzerland and the US rank highest on innovation spiral variables, and these variables were all positively correlated, except for growth, which was uncorrelated. Small and mostly old Western European countries were found to dominate the set of top ten countries regarding entrepreneurship, quality of government, competitiveness, rule of law and democracy, and EU countries dominated among the top ten regarding quantity of government. Quantity of government was statistically disconnected from all innovation spiral variables as well as from quality of government. Strong innovation spirals appeared to be associated with small countries with high quality democratic governments and strong rule of law while large low quality governments were associated with weak innovation spirals.
Steven Blockmans and Panos Koutrakos
The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union has been carried out in a rapidly changing policy and legal context. This book aims to explore a number of threads that underpin this context. In doing so, it will achieve the following objectives. First, it will analyse the intrinsic links (institutional, procedural, substantive) between the EU’s legal rules and procedures and the deeply politicized context within which these are applied in the evolving external action of the Union. Second, it will identify legal challenges to the implementation of an integrated approach to EU external action and to gauge their implications for both the legal and policy frameworks of the CFSP. Third, it will examine the extent to which the legal framework and practice in CFSP is governed by flexibility and contributes to the efficient and effective conduct of the Union’s external action. Finally, it will identify new trends emerging from the practice of CFSP.