Treaty Signature

This chapter is a contribution to The Oxford Guide to Treaties (Duncan Hollis, ed., Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2012). Under international law, in order for a State to become a party to a treaty, it must express its consent to be bound by the treaty. Such consent can be expressed in a variety of ways, including through signature of the treaty by a proper representative of the State. Under modern treaty practice, however, States often express their consent to be bound by a separate act of ratification that is carried out after signature. When a treaty is subject to discretionary ratification after signature, the signature is referred to as a \u27simple signature,\u27 whereas a signature that indicates consent to be bound is referred to as a \u27definitive signature\u27. Part I of the chapter considers why States often prefer simple signature subject to ratification in lieu of other methods of joining a treaty. Part II discusses the international legal consequences of a simple signature. Part III reviews the process by which a State can terminate its signatory obligations. The chapter concludes with a brief consideration of the strategic issues raised by the ability of States to decide not to ratify a treaty after signature

Corrections to Laurel S. Terry, GATS\u27 Applicability to Transnational Lawyering

In October 2001, the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law published an article I wrote entitled GATS\u27 Applicability to Transnational Lawyering and its Potential Impact on U.S. State Regulation of Lawyers, 34 Vand. J. Transnat\u27l L. 989 (2001). (This article was part of an April 2001 Symposium on Lawyer Ethics in the 21st Century: Global Legal Practice.) After my article was published, I came to discover several mistakes in it. The pages that follow are my corrections to that October 2001 article. I am very grateful to the editors of the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law for the opportunity to publish these corrections. Since my Vanderbilt article was first published, significant events have occurred with respect to the GATS and legal services. I would like my article to serve as a resource during this important time period

Uncertain opportunities: Chinese investors establishing investments in New Zealand

Abstract: Despite the signing of a comprehensive free trade agreement between New Zealand and China and significantly deepening trade relations, there exists a discernable lag in the investment relationship between the two countries. This paper identifies that the operation and interaction of the two legal instruments governing the conditions of entry of Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) into New Zealand – the New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement (NZCFTA) and the New Zealand Overseas Investment Act 2005 – partially explain this disparity. These legal instruments offer an interesting illustration of the way in which international investment agreements (IIAs) interact with domestic law, managing the contention between investor rights and host state public interests. However, it is clear that the rights and obligations created by these legal instruments are not well understood by Chinese investors and New Zealand commentators alike, as illustrated by the recent Crafar farms saga. This paper seeks to clarify those rights and obligations, arguing that greater transparency and predictability in the operation of the legal instruments is necessary in order to encourage higher levels of Chinese FDI in New Zealand. This is particularly important in the New Zealand– China relationship as Chinese investors are still relative newcomers in the establishment of overseas investments and face in New Zealand a culturally different regulatory scheme from that operating in China

The Cold War and the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: A Comment

I agree with what I understand to be Professor Katz\u27s main thesis: that cold war disputes are presently nonjusticiable. But I dissent from his conclusion that these disputes should be considered as entirely outside the mainstream of international adjudicatory developments. His position flows, I believe, from his willingness to attribute to the differences between the main powers a uniqueness which they do not, in any general appraisal, deserve

Extraterritoriality by Other Means: How Labor Law Sneaks Across Borders, Conquers Minds, and Controls Workplaces Abroad

This Article challenges the state-centered description of labor law and impoverished view of extraterritoriality. It suggests that transnational flows of technology and capital, goods and services, and ideas and information have brought in their wake changes in political economy and social relations that have transformed regimes of public and workplace governance in all countries. It proposes that the extraterritoriality doctrine operates, if at all, only in the formal sense of not allowing one state to overtly project its law into the territory of another. But extraterritoriality does little to prevent the rules governing employment relations in one country from taking root elsewhere, from shaping foreign labor market norms, institutions, and practices, and from being reproduced, in their original or mutant forms, in foreign systems of labor law. The result is the extraterritorial projection “by other means” of labor law and policy - a form of extraterritoriality that has the potential to enhance as well as undermine labor standards in global enterprises

The Taint of Torture: The Roles of Law and Policy in Our Descent to the Dark Side

Was the Bush administration’s decision to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques” a mistake of policy, a violation of law, or both? This essay responds to Philip Zelikow’s insider account of how the decision to use these techniques was reached. The author suggests that while Zelikow makes a strong case that the decision to authorize the CIA to use coercive interrogation tactics was a mistaken policy judgment, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it was also illegal. The latter conclusion demands a different response than the former. In particular, it underscores the necessity for accountability. The author of this essay makes the case that the policy was in fact illegal, and that the nation must hold the architects of the plan accountable. He also offers brief thoughts on the legal and policy issues surrounding detention and targeted killing in the ongoing conflict with Al Qaeda, stressing that while neither is flatly impermissible in an armed conflict, accountability and democracy concerns demand greater transparency