Search result: 261 articles

x
Artikel

Access_open International Criminal Law and Constitutionalisation

On Hegemonic Narratives in Progress

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 1 2013
Keywords hegemony, constitutionalism, constitutionalisation, international criminal law
Authors Marjan Ajevski
AbstractAuthor's information

    As we move towards constructing narratives regarding the future outlook of global governance, constitutionalisation among them, the hope is that whatever shape this world order takes it will, somehow, forestall or hinder the possibility of a hegemonic order. This article tries to deconstruct the notion of hegemony and claims that as it currently stands it is useless in doing its critical work since every successful narrative will end up being hegemonic because it will employ the ‘hegemonic technique’ of presenting a particular value (or value system), a particular viewpoint, as universal or at least applying to those who do not share it. The only way for a narrative in this discourse not to be hegemonic would be for it to be either truly universal and find a perspective that stems from nowhere and everywhere – a divine perspective – or purely descriptive; the first being an impossibility for fallible beings and the other not worth engaging with since it has nothing to say about how things should be structured or decided in a specific situation.


Marjan Ajevski
Post-Doctoral research fellow part of the MultiRights project – an ERC Advanced Grant on the Legitimacy of Multi-Level Human Rights Judiciary – <www.MultiRights.net>; and PluriCourts, a Research Council of Norway Centre of Excellence – <www.PluriCourts.net>, Norwegian Centre of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo. I can be contacted at marjan.ajevski@nchr.uio.no.
Article

Access_open Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Treaty-Based Settlement of Terrorism-Related Disputes in the Era of Active United Nations Security Council Involvement

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2013
Keywords Terrorism, inter-state dispute, international treaties, the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice
Authors Nathanael Tilahun Ali LL.M.
AbstractAuthor's information

    The United Nations Security Council has become a crucial actor in international counterterrorism by not only spurring the taking of preventive and suppressive measures against terrorist individuals and groups, but also by taking actions against states that are said to stand in the way. The Security Council's actions against such states invariably arise from accusations by other states, such as accusations of refusal to extradite suspects of terrorism or responsibility for supporting terrorists. Meanwhile, most such issues of dispute are covered under international treaties relating to terrorism, which provide for political (negotiation) and judicial (arbitration and adjudication) mechanisms of dispute settlement. The Security Council's actions against states in connection with terrorism, therefore, involve (explicit or implicit) factual and legal determinations that affect the legal positions of the disputing states under the applicable international treaties relating to terrorism. The point of departure of this paper is that, in this respect, the Security Council effectively becomes an alternative to the treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms. The article centrally contends that the Security Council effectively acts as a more attractive alternative to treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms for pursuing terrorism-related (legal) disputes between states, without providing a meaningful platform of disputation that is based on equality of the parties. And the Security Council's relative attractiveness, arising from the discursive and legal superiority its decisions enjoy and the relative convenience and expediency with which those decisions are delivered, entails the rendering of resort to treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanisms of little legal consequence. The point of concern the article aims to highlight is the lack of platform of disputation some states are faced with, trapped between a hostile Security Council that makes determinations and decisions of legal consequence and an unhelpful treaty-based dispute-settlement mechanism.


Nathanael Tilahun Ali LL.M.
PhD Candidate in public international law, Erasmus School of Law. E: ali@law.eur.nl. I would like to thank Prof. Xandra Kramer and Prof. Ellen Hey for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.
Article

Access_open Introduction: Insurance Law and Evolving Sanctions

About a new balance in the mutual obligations of both parties to a contract of insurance and a new system of sanctions

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 2 2012
Authors Mop van Tiggele-van der Velde
Author's information

Mop van Tiggele-van der Velde
Professor of Insurance Law, Erasmus School of Law; and Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen.

J. Han Wansink
Emeritus Professor of Insurance Law, Erasmus University and Leiden University.

Niels Frenk
Professor of Liability- and Insurance Law, VU University Amsterdam.

Herman Cousy
Director, Centre for Risk and Insurance Studies, K.U. Leuven.

Malcolm Clarke
Emeritus Professor of Commercial Contract Law, University of Cambridge.

Helmut Heiss
Dr. iur. (University of Innsbruck), LL.M. (University of Chicago); Professor of Law (University of Zurich); Chairman of the Project Group on a Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law; of counsel, gbf attorneys-at-law, Zurich.

Xandra Kramer
Professor at Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. This contribution and the editorship of this issue has been made possible with the support of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) within its Innovational Research Incentives Scheme (VIDI).

Isabelle Bambust
Researcher, University of Ghent.

Albert Kruger
Judge of the High Court of South Africa, Professor Extraordinary in Roman Law, History of Law and Comparative Law at the University of the Free State.

Thalia Kruger
Lecturer, University of Antwerp, Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape Town. This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa.

Astrid Stadler
Professor of Law, University of Konstanz, Germany; Chair of Comparative Mass Litigation, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Elena Alina Ontanu
Both authors are doctoral candidates in the Department of Private International and Comparative Law at the Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. The authors wish to thank Prof. Xandra Kramer for her constructive remarks, as well as Laura van Bochove and the peer reviewers for their comments on the first draft of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Ekaterina Pannebakker
Both authors are doctoral candidates in the Department of Private International and Comparative Law at the Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. The authors wish to thank Prof. Xandra Kramer for her constructive remarks, as well as Laura van Bochove and the peer reviewers for their comments on the first draft of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Christoph A. Kern
Dr. Christoph A. Kern, LL.M. (Harvard), professor, chair of Private Law, Private International Law, Comparative Law and Procedural Law at EBS Law School, Wiesbaden. The author wishes to express his gratitude to Maître Anne-Caroline Urbain, LL.M. (Harvard), admitted to the bars of Paris and New York, for her support in researching the current situation in France, as well as PD Dr. Alexander Brunner, Commercial Judge, Zurich, for his support in researching the situation in Switzerland. Remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author.

Simone Glanert
Senior Lecturer in French and European Comparative Law, Kent Law School, Eliot College, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NS, UK; S.Glanert@kent.ac.uk. I presented early formulations of this argument at the RELINE Network for Interdisciplinary Studies in Language and the Law Seminar, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, on 25 October 2011; at the Faculté de Droit, Université de Montréal, on 27 January 2012; at the 4th Annual Meeting of the Irish Society of Comparative Law (ISCL), Faculty of Law, University of Cork, on 2 March 2012; and at the Faculté de Droit, Université de Grenoble, on 22 March 2012. I am grateful to Anne Lise Kjær, Jean-Franois Gaudreault-DesBiens, Bénédicte Fuller-Sage and David Dechenaud for their kind expression of interest in my work and generous invitations.

Marlies Galenkamp
Associate Professor in Legal Philosophy, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: Galenkamp@law.eur.nl.

Wouter de Been
Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence, Erasmus School of Law.

Sanne Taekema
Professor of Jurisprudence, Erasmus School of Law.

Veit Bader
Professor emeritus of Social and Political Philosophy and of Sociology, University of Amsterdam.

Kristin Henrard
Professor of Minority Protection at the Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Ann-Sophie Vandenberghe
Assistant Professor, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics.

Markha Valenta
Markha Valenta is an Assistant Professor in the department of American Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen. Her current research concerns the politics of religion and culture in global cities, international relations and secular democracies, Her work is interdisciplinary and internationally comparative, with a focus on the United States, the Netherlands, and India.
Showing 161 - 180 of 261 found texts
1 2 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 14

Sign up for email alert

If you sign up for the free email alert from Erasmus Law Review, you will automatically receive a message when a new article is published on the website.

Subscribe

You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.