reconciling party autonomy and the international rule of law

This paper focuses on one particular issue which has arisen in the course of the ongoing debate on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), namely that of the appointment of arbitrators. Taking as its starting point that there now exists tentative consensus that the present system for the appointment of arbitrators either causes or exacerbates certain problematic aspects of the current ISDS system, the paper explores one option for reform, namely the introduction of an independent panel for the selection of investment arbitrators. In doing so, it is argued that a shift in the normative basis of the rules governing appointments is required in order to accommodate the principles of party autonomy and the international rule of law. Such reform, while not completely removing the initiative that parties presently enjoy, is the most efficient way to introduce rule of law considerations such as a measure of judicial independence into the current appointments system. This, it is argued, would in turn help to address some of the problematic features of the appointment of arbitrators in ISDS

Zealots, victims and captives: maintaining adequate protection of human shields in contemporary international humanitarian law

No abstract available

An independent panel for the scrutiny of investment arbitrators: an idea whose time has come?

This article focuses on one particular issue which has arisen in the course of the ongoing debate on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), namely that of the appointment of arbitrators. Taking as its starting point that there now exists a tentative consensus that the present system for the appointment of arbitrators either causes or exacerbates certain problematic aspects of the current ISDS system, the article explores one option for reform: the creation of an independent panel for the scrutiny of arbitral appointments. Such a body is the most desirable way to introduce necessary scrutiny into the current appointments system, which will in turn help to address some of the criticisms levelled at ISDS more generally, while at the same time not removing completely the initiative that parties currently have to put individuals forward as their candidates to become an arbitrator

Clinical Review: Gene-based therapies for ALI/ARDS: where are we now?

Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) confer substantial morbidity and mortality, and have no specific therapy. The accessibility of the distal lung epithelium via the airway route, and the relatively transient nature of ALI/ARDS, suggest that the disease may be amenable to gene-based therapies. Ongoing advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of ALI/ARDS have revealed multiple therapeutic targets for gene-based approaches. Strategies to enhance or restore lung epithelial and/or endothelial cell function, to strengthen lung defense mechanisms against injury, to speed clearance of infection and to enhance the repair process following ALI/ARDS have all demonstrated promise in preclinical models. Despite three decades of gene therapy research, however, the clinical potential for gene-based approaches to lung diseases including ALI/ARDS remains to be realized. Multiple barriers to effective pulmonary gene therapy exist, including the pulmonary architecture, pulmonary defense mechanisms against inhaled particles, the immunogenicity of viral vectors and the poor transfection efficiency of nonviral delivery methods. Deficits remain in our knowledge regarding the optimal molecular targets for gene-based approaches. Encouragingly, recent progress in overcoming these barriers offers hope for the successful translation of gene-based approaches for ALI/ARDS to the clinical setting

Chapter 4- Advancing an Approach of Resilient Design for Learning by Designing for Extensibility, Flexibility, and Redundancy

The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on educational systems requires actors across those systems to develop adaptive capacity and embed resilient thinking into approaches and frameworks for decision-making and design (DeVaney & Quintana, 2020). Events surrounding the COVID-19 crisis have set off a period of rapid adaptation across the higher-education ecosystem and have necessitated that educators consider new pedagogical approaches and frameworks that are responsive to the changes we are witnessing in our contexts of teaching and learning (Chraa et al., 2020; Donovan, 2020; Moorhouse, 2020; Quintana & Quintana, 2020; Zhu & Liu, 2020)

The role of precedent in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: a constructive interpretation

In cases that come before the International Court of Justice (‘the ICJ’, or ‘the Court’), its own jurisprudence looms large. This is despite the fact that no rule of stare decisis operates before the ICJ. The juxtaposition of the facts expressed in these two statements has generated significant doctrinal and theoretical debate. In this article I propose a novel theoretical framework for understanding the role that precedent has traditionally played in proceedings before the Court, and that which it should play in the future. This theoretical framework rests upon a constructive interpretation of the doctrine of stare decisis. I examine the historical institutional practice of the Court in order to determine the range of possible versions of the doctrine which, in Dworkin’s words, ‘fit’ this practice. Noting that there is more than one potential version of stare decisis which fits the Court’s practice, I next consider which is justified as the version which best reflects the value of this doctrine. Having shown that the value that stare decisis strives to achieve is contextual justice, I argue that only a weak version of horizontal stare decisis can justify this doctrine. My ultimate claim is that the Court’s principal concern when considering whether to follow or depart from its own jurisprudence should be that of achieving justice in the context of that particular case, and not merely ensuring consistency, predictability or efficiency

The law and practice of fact-finding before the International Court of Justice

Defence date: 28 November 2014Examining Board: Professor Martin Scheinin, EUI; Professor Francesco Francioni, EUI; Judge Giorgio Gaja, International Court of Justice; Professor Geir Ulfstein, University of Oslo.This thesis takes as its starting point a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the International Court of Justice (the Court) deals with facts. After examining the Court's substantial fact-finding powers as set out in its Statute and Rules, it is noted that the Court has not made significant use of the fact-finding powers that it possesses, instead preferring to take a reactive approach to fact-finding. It is this reactive approach, largely relying on the parties to put evidence before the Court, which is the subject of recent criticisms both from within the Court itself and from international legal scholarship. Having assessed the merits of these arguments, the thesis takes the position that such criticisms are indeed warranted and that the Court's reactive approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts and in those cases involving a scarcity of facts, such as cases of non-appearance. Subsequently, the thesis undertakes a comparative exercise in order to examine how other relevant inter-state tribunals conduct fact-finding. Drawing on the practice of other tribunals, namely the adjudicative bodies of the World Trade Organization and a number of recent inter-state arbitrations, the thesis then makes a number of select proposals for reform which, it is argued, will enable the Court to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach to fact-finding and better ensure factual determinations that are as accurate as they can possibly be within the judicial process. Such proposals include (but are not limited to) the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence

The role of science and expert evidence in the ICJ’s Silala judgment: How Bolivia’s incoherent claims ran up against reality

No abstract available