Download Free Essays On Some Disputed Questions In Modern International Law 1885 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Essays On Some Disputed Questions In Modern International Law 1885 and write the review.

Modern international law is widely understood as an autonomous system of binding legal rules. Nevertheless, this claim to autonomy is far from uncontroversial. International lawyers have faced recurrent scepticism as to both the reality and efficacy of the object of their study and practice. For the most part, this scepticism has focussed on international law's peculiar institutional structure, with the absence of centralised organs of legislation, adjudication and enforcement, leaving international legal rules seemingly indeterminate in the conduct of international politics. Perception of this 'institutional problem' has therefore given rise to a certain disciplinary angst or self-defensiveness, fuelling a need to seek out functional analogues or substitutes for the kind of institutional roles deemed intrinsic to a functioning legal system. The author of this book believes that this strategy of accommodation is, however, deeply problematic. It fails to fully grasp the importance of international law's decentralised institutional form in securing some measure of accountability in international relations. It thus misleads through functional analogy and, in doing so, potentially exacerbates legitimacy deficits. There are enough conceptual weaknesses and blindspots in the legal-theoretical models against which international law is so frequently challenged to show that the perceived problem arises more in theory, than in practice.
Actio Popularis before International Courts and Tribunals examines actio popularis in the context of the symbiotic relationship between procedural and substantive normativity in international law. Actio popularis is an important procedural tool devised to address the challenges posed by the relativization of substantive normativity and recognition of norms established to protect collective interests in international law. Farid Ahmadov’s analysis underlines the ineffectiveness of bipolar litigation in enforcement of collective obligations in international law and the importance of introducing new procedural mechanisms to address the challenges posed by the transition from bilateralist to multilateralist normativity. The volume highlights the subtle link between interpretation of standing rules and the ways in which judicial policy concerns inform decisions of international courts and tribunals on admissibility of actio popularis.
Includes proceedings of the annual general meetings of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society.