A Note on Nonlinear Xing Codes

Shany, Yaron; Be'ery, Y.

doi:10.1109/tit.2004.825038

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Academia is beginning to realign around several iterations of broader understandings of effectiveness as goal attainment, as impact or as authority. Shany, for example, constructs international court effectiveness around the ability of the court in question to attain the goals set for it by those that provided the court with its mandate 31 . While this notion is broader than that of state compliance with rulings, it still only looks at the interests of limited stakeholders, and because international courts are set up by states -or international organizations that are made up of states -it remains a state-centric theory in that it ignores the ways in which international courts can influence other stakeholders.…”

Section: Impact Beyond Compliance In Human Rights Adjudication a New Approaches To International Court Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging Inter-American Human Rights: The Riddle of Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Zuloaga¹

2020

Human Rights Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of compliance studies to evaluate the effectiveness of international human rights courts can produce misleading results because a focus on compliance considers the behaviour of only one stakeholder in the dynamic that is human rights adjudication: the state. A survey of petitioners in cases before the IACtHR, together with a review of literature surrounding strategic litigation before the Inter-American system, demonstrate how civil society organisations value the declarative justice provided by the Court, how they mobilise around human rights litigation and how adept they are at deploying rulings in such a way as to produce impact beyond compliance and even in the absence of any compliance at all.

show abstract

Section: Impact Beyond Compliance In Human Rights Adjudication a New Approaches To International Court Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judging Inter-American Human Rights: The Riddle of Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Zuloaga¹

2020

Human Rights Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Yuval Shany argues that some norms are 'open-ended or unsettled', allowing for a margin of appreciation to be applied. 120 In these cases, according to Shany, 'different national authorities, in distinct states, could conceivably reach different, yet lawful decisions regarding the application of the same international norm'. 121 Furthermore, the idea of reasonable interpretive pluralism resonates with the recent philosophical criticism of 'ideal theories' on justice: as Amartya Sen writes, '[t]here can be serious differences between competing principles of justice that survive critical scrutiny and can have claims to impartiality'.…”

Section: B Reasonable Interpretive Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Universal Arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights

Altwicker

2020

European Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is popular to view international human rights law as universal. In a normative sense, human rights universality refers to certain qualities of human rights norms. These qualities have long been under attack, most recently by what is called here human rights nationalism. The main point made in this article is that some of the criticism levelled against normative human rights universality can be accommodated through interpretation. To this end, non-universality of human rights is judicially created (argumentative non-universality). This article offers an analysis of argumentative non-universality in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It shows that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) operationalizes argumentative non-universality through a conception of asymmetric protection, by using context as a difference-making fact and by allowing, in certain cases, for a decentralized interpretation of rights under the ECHR. As argued here, resorting to argumentative non-universality sometimes makes sense because non-universality takes seriously the fact that individual freedom is, to some extent, socially and politically conditioned. Furthermore, non-universality allows for reasonable interpretive pluralism, and it contributes to the institutional legitimacy of the ECtHR. In conclusion, the ECtHR is, rightly so, an ‘interpreter of universality’ (as quoted by Judge Pinto de Albuquerque) as it is an interpreter of the non-universality of convention rights.

show abstract

“…This tension calls for a clear delimitation of independence and impartiality in the context of icsid arbitration, tailored to the function of its arbitrators, and in variance with the judicial standard of independence and impartiality. 118 The benign and legitimate interests pursued by the system of party-appointments should not be hindered, but situations in which the familiarity with a participant (a party or a counsel) or with the subject-matter of the proceeding would inhibit the arbitrator's capacity to evaluate the merits of the case open-mindedly, rationally, and objectively, without relying on extraneous factors, must be prevented.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Independence and Impartiality in the ICSID Convention and Arbitration Rules

Cleis¹

2017

The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleis, ��7 | doi �0.��63/978900434�487_003 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc License. chapter 1 Independence and Impartiality in the icsid Convention and Arbitration RulesThis Chapter analyzes the icsid Convention's rules and regulations on arbitrators' independence and impartiality, arbitrators' disclosure obligations and the right of the disputing parties to remove unqualified arbitrators. It sheds light on the discussions relating to these provisions during the drafting process of the Convention, and interprets the relevant provisions of the Convention in light of the drafters' regulatory intent.The focus then shifts from the provisions of the icsid Convention and Arbitration Rules to the meaning of the notions of independence and impartiality, and the crucial question whether and how the parties' ability to appoint a decision-maker of their choice and the requisite independence and impartiality of this arbitrator can be reconciled.

show abstract

A Note on Nonlinear Xing Codes

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Judging Inter-American Human Rights: The Riddle of Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Judging Inter-American Human Rights: The Riddle of Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Non-Universal Arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights

Independence and Impartiality in the ICSID Convention and Arbitration Rules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About