Courts Crossing Borders: Blurring the Lines of SovereigntyLegal issues that have traditionally been treated as domestic are in-creasingly governed by transnational law and numerous obscure tri-bunals. This book acquaints students of law and politics with the largely unrecognized authority of transnational legal systems and the ways boundaries of national sovereignty are being eroded in the 21st century. The editors have skillfully organized their collection around issues dealing with both human rights and issues of trade and used a comparative approach to analyze the many court decisions, treaties, and legal agreements that affect national sovereignty. Included subject areas are: Courts and Regional Trade Agreements, Dispute Resolution under NAFTA, and Universal Criminal Jurisdiction. |
From inside the book
Results 1-3 of 5
Page 69
EU Total cases Inconsistent with EU 13 2 3 18 Consistent with EU 5 13 2 20 Total cases 18 15 5 38 Source : Rachel A. Cichowski , Litigation and environmental protection in the European Union , Max - Planck - Projektgruppe Recht der ...
EU Total cases Inconsistent with EU 13 2 3 18 Consistent with EU 5 13 2 20 Total cases 18 15 5 38 Source : Rachel A. Cichowski , Litigation and environmental protection in the European Union , Max - Planck - Projektgruppe Recht der ...
Page 142
Rather , they may technically only either “ uphold a final determination ( on dumping or subsidies ] [ o or remand it for action not inconsistent with the panel's decision . " Yet , in spite of that restraint and as further discussed ...
Rather , they may technically only either “ uphold a final determination ( on dumping or subsidies ] [ o or remand it for action not inconsistent with the panel's decision . " Yet , in spite of that restraint and as further discussed ...
Page 150
Recall that , as discussed in section two , the binational panels may technically only either “ uphold a final determination ( on dumping and countervailing duties ) or remand it for action not inconsistent with the panel's decision .
Recall that , as discussed in section two , the binational panels may technically only either “ uphold a final determination ( on dumping and countervailing duties ) or remand it for action not inconsistent with the panel's decision .
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Contents
Judicialization and Sovereignty Mary L Volcansek | 11 |
Transnational Courts | 17 |
Courts and Regional Trade Agreements Mary L Volcansek | 23 |
Copyright | |
17 other sections not shown
Common terms and phrases
actors acts Advisory agreements American application Article authority binational panels challenge Chapter charges claim Commission committed Common Market Community constitutional Convention Court of Human Court of Justice created crimes against humanity decisions determination direct dispute resolution domestic economic effect enforcement environmental established Europe European Court European Union example final forced Former free trade Global Human Rights ICTY important individuals institutions Integration Inter-American interests International Criminal International Law issue Journal judges Judgment judicial jurisdiction Law Review limited Market measures movement NAFTA nature norms noted Opinion organizations Oxford Oxford University Press panel parties persons policies political principle prosecution protection provides question rape regime regional Relations reports requires result Review rules sentences sexual social sovereignty statute Stone Sweet Studies supranational tion tional transnational Treaty Trial Tribunal United violations violence women World York
Bibliographic information
| Title | Courts Crossing Borders: Blurring the Lines of Sovereignty |
| Editors | Mary L. Volcansek, John F. Stack |
| Publisher | Carolina Academic Press, 2005 |
| Original from | the University of Michigan |
| Digitized | 28 Oct 2008 |
| ISBN | 1594600554, 9781594600555 |
| Length | 252 pages |
| Export Citation | BiBTeX EndNote RefMan |