The Time Has Come for a Universal Water Tribunal

Since its inception in 1981, the International Water Tribunal has emerged as a non-governmental body with a multidisciplinary composition and a mandate based on conventional and customary international water law, which holds public hearings in order to address water-related complaints. This Article describes the historical background of the proposed Universal Water Tribunal (“UWT”) and significant difficulties on the horizon facing the proposed Tribunal (including political, practical, and legal-technical considerations). It then summarizes the key factors of such Tribunal and, finally, touches upon the proposed model based on an expanded concept of jurisdiction. The main underlying thesis is that, whereas the traditional model for interstate dispute settlement offers only limited possibilities of redress to non-state actors, the UWT provides them with the opportunity to present their demands before an environmental justice forum

Breaching international law to ensure its enforcement: the reliance by the ICTY on illegal capture

n an address to the United Nations General Assembly on 7 November 1995, Antonio Cassese, then President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), highlighted the difficulty of enforcing international criminal justice in the absence of state cooperation. To emphasise his point, Cassese offered an apt — if somewhat inelegant — analogy: he likened the Tribunal to a limbless giant, dependent on the ‘artificial limbs’ of the enforcement agencies of UN Member States. First among the various areas cited by Cassese where the Tribunal depended upon state cooperation was the arrest of suspected criminals living within the borders of those states. Over nine years later the problem remained acute. In a 23 November 2004 address to the Security Council, the Prosecutor of the ICTY, Carla Del Ponte, highlighted failures on the part of the governments of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina to arrest indictees and turn them over to the Tribunal. In particular, she mentioned the lack of cooperation by Belgrade as ‘the single most important obstacle faced by the Tribunal’ in the implementation of its strategy to complete its trials by the end of 2008

Drawing the boundaries of mens rea in the jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Even though more than a decade has passed since the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the law of the most fundamental concept in international criminal law – mens rea - remains unsettled. Through its jurisprudence, the Yugoslavia Tribunal has made enormous efforts to assign different degrees of mens rea for different categories of crimes under its Statute. The present study is an attempt to clarify several issues with regard to the law of mens rea as developed in the case law of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. Among these issues are the following: what precisely is to be understood by the terms “specific intent”, “special intent”, “dolus specialis”, or “surplus intent”? Similarly, what are the precise meanings of the terms “deliberately”, “intention”, “intent”, “intentionally”, “wilful or wilfully”, “knowledge”, and “wanton” as provided for in the ICTY Statute or as employed by the Chambers within its judgments

The remuneration of Commonwealth departmental secretaries

In 2012 new arrangements regarding the remuneration of Commonwealth departmental secretaries came into effect. This paper sets out the new system and notes the previous arrangements.ConclusionThe 2011 amendments to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 changed longstanding arrangements for the setting of secretaries’ remuneration and other conditions of employment. Under the amendments the Remuneration Tribunal and the Secretary of DPMC have joint responsibility for determining secretaries’ remuneration, and the Tribunal also determines a classification structure for secretaries and other conditions of employment. The Tribunal has taken the opportunity to recast the classification of secretaries for remuneration purposes and to significantly increase secretaries’ remuneration profile

Comments on the current developments concerning the Polish Constitutional Tribunal

Nowelizacja ustawy o Trybunale Konstytucyjnym uchwalona 22 grudnia 2015 r. budzi liczne wątpliwości krajowych i zagranicznych ośrodków naukowych, medialnych i politycznych. Obawy wywołuje zwłaszcza to, że nie mieści się ona w granicach określonych w art. 197 Konstytucji RP. Wbrew pozorom wykracza bowiem poza sprawy organizacyjne i proceduralne. Przepisy narzucające zasadę orzekania w 13-osobowym składzie, w kolejności wyznaczanej datami wpływu spraw oraz brak vacatio legis uniemożliwiają w praktyce normalną działalność orzeczniczą Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. W szczególności blokują możliwość zbadania w rozsądnym terminie konstytucyjności ustawy z 22 grudnia 2015 r., co z kolei rodzi niebezpieczeństwo powstania absurdalnych sytuacji prawnych. Może to oznaczać ingerencję w kompetencje orzecznicze Trybunału Konstytucyjnego zagwarantowane w art. 188 Konstytucji RP. Do niego też powinno należeć ostateczne rozstrzygnięcie wszystkich dylematów związanych z wymienioną wyżej ustawą.The Amendment to the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal passed on 22 December 2015 has raised serious doubts in Polish and foreign academic and political institutions and the media. Of particular concern is the fact that the amendment does not correspond to the limitations of Article 197 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Contrary to appearances the amendment exceeds organisational and procedural questions. The amendment imposing a rule that 13 judges must rule on cases in the  chronological order of their submission and the lack of vacatio legis makes it impossible for the Constitutional Tribunal to continue in practice its normal judicial function. In particular it makes it impossible for the Constitutional Tribunal to decide on the constitutional legality of the Amendment of 22 December 2015 within a reasonable time scale which in itself could result in dangerous and absurd legal situations. This could be tantamount to an interference in the judicial competences of the Constitutional Tribunal guaranteed by Article 188 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. It is the Constitutional Tribunal itself that should rule on all dilemmas concerning this amendment

THE SECRET TRIBUNAL OR, THE COURT OF WINCESLAUS A MYSTERIOUS TALE [Transcript]

Set in Bavaria, The Secret Tribunal, follows the young maiden Mira, who is being raised by her two parents, Old Lindhom and Ms. Lindholm and is pursued by the young Lipstolf. Lipstolf, a member of the Court of Wenceslaus, is told to leave as he and Mira can never be together due to a family secret. He leaves and becomes a knight. Mira gains entry to the Court of Wenceslaus as an attendant to Wenceslaus’ wife Sophia. Mira ingratiates herself to Sophia, much to the chagrin of the Countess Ormsberg who wishes for her daughter to be a favorite in the court. Mira plays her harp for Sophia in order to help Sophia deliver a male heir to Wenceslaus, who then gives birth to a stillborn baby girl. Seizing the opportunity, Duchess Ormsberg charges Mira with sorcery. Mira is summoned to a secret tribunal. During the proceedings Lipstolf appears and helps to exonerate her as well as revealing Mira’s true aristocratic lineage. Mira now goes off to reside with her father, a Count. However, she is pursued by the secret tribunal and goes into hiding in a convent. News reaches her that Lipstolf has now been accused of murder and will face the same tribunal. Lipstolf is acquitted by the tribunal and finds Mira in the convent. Mira is reunited with Listolf and Lindholm and all live well knowing the secret tribunal is now under the authority of a friend and will no longer pursue them.https://epublications.marquette.edu/english_gothic/1017/thumbnail.jp

New perspectives for the Clean Clothes Campaign after the verdict of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal

The Clean Clothes Campaign comments on the results of the the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal session held during the International Forum on Clean Clothes on May 2 and 3rd 1998

Authority of United States Bankruptcy Courts to Stay International Arbitral Proceedings

Part I analyzes the decision of a U.S. bankruptcy court in Springer Penguin that stayed an international arbitration proceeding. Part II examines the Tribunal\u27s denial of the stay in the Behring award. Part III suggests that the Tribunal\u27s reasoning in deying applicability of the stay is consistent with recent U.S. policy favoring international arbitration of commercial disputes. This Note concludes that the interests involved in fostering international commercial arbitration mandate that once an arbitration clause is found to be enforceable, the arbitration should not be stayed by a petition in a U.S. bankruptcy court