In this edited volume, scholars from a wide range of areas of international law consider whose interests are at stake in the application of the principle of proportionality. In so doing, the volume casts new light this important principle.

The margin of appreciation is a judicial doctrine whereby international courts allow states to have a measure of diversity in their interpretation of human rights treaty obligations. The doctrine is at the heart of some of the most important international human rights decisions. Does it undermine the universality of human rights? How should judges decide whether to give this margin of appreciation to states? How can lawyers make best use of arguments for or against the margin of appreciation? This book answers these questions, and broadens the discussion on the margin of appreciation by including material beyond the ECHR system. It provides a comprehensive justification of the doctrine, and ALLFSCA14I the key cases affecting the doctrine in practice. Part One provides a systematic defence of the margin of appreciation doctrine in international human rights law. Drawing on the philosophy of practical reasoning the book argues that the margin of appreciation is a doctrine of judicial deference and is a common and appropriate feature of adjudication. The book argues that the margin of appreciation doctrine prevents courts from imposing unhelpful uniformity, whilst allowing decisions to be consistent with the universality of human rights. Part Two considers the key case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee, documenting the margin of appreciation in practice. The analysis uniquely takes a broad look at the factors affecting the margin of appreciation. Part Three explores how the margin of appreciation operates in the judicial decision-making process, reconceptualising the proportionality assessment and explaining how the nature of the right and the type of case affect the courts' reasoning.

This insightful and timely book provides a comparative assessment of selected legal issues emerging from the EU legal context which impact profoundly on the national legal systems. It argues that judicial interaction can answer complex legal questions relating to the implementation of the EU Charter.

La 4e de couverture indique : "Since the inception of the international investment law system, investment promotion and protection have been the raison d'être of investment treaties and states have confined their policy space in order to attract foreign investment and protect their investors abroad. Languishing in relative obscurity until recently, the right to regulate has gradually come to the spotlight as a key component of negotiations on new generation investment agreements around the globe. States and regional organisations, including, notably, the European Union and the United States, have started to examine ways in which to safeguard their regulatory power and guide - and delimit - the interpretive power of arbitral tribunals, by reserving their right to pursue specific public policy objectives. The monograph explores the status quo of the right to regulate, in order to offer an appraisal and a reference tool for treatymakers, thus contributing to a better understanding of the concept and the broader discourse on how to enhance the investment law system's legitimacy."

This book argues that International Investment Law system – IIL - was the result of a colonial project within a capitalist system that has been influenced by the developmentalism discourse and the neoliberal ideology, becoming an instrument that facilitated forms of systemic violence against Third World countries. In order to develop this argument, Enrique Prieto-Rios uses post-war critical thought, chiefly Fanon as interpreted by Lewis R Gordon, the works pursued by academics, part of the Caribbean Philosophical Association, the Institute for Global Law and Policy, the international law from below (southern perspectives), and critical economic thought— particularly the notable economic contributions of Ha-Joon Chang and Latin-American philosopher Enrique Dussel.

At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher's claims. Furthermore, output gains approach 10 percent, and steady state inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy.

The ECJ has applied fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality for decades. This book tries to elucidate the Court's approach to these fundamental tenets of Community law. It starts with establishing a firm theoretical foundation. Then, the book analyzes the case law of the ECJ and other constitutional courts to find out which method courts actually apply. Next, it is discussed why the courts follow a particular approach. Then, it is considered whether the approach fulfils constitutional requirements. Finally, a rationalizing model of balancing is developed. The book is useful for the practitioner as well as for the researcher. It does not present a mere summary of the Court's case law but a systematization of the underlying rationales.

Resumen del editor: "The increasing globalization and the restructuring of the European legal framework by the Treaty of Lisbon are important factors to suggest that the traditional separation of spheres between taxation and human rights should be revisited. This book examines the issues surrounding the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the guarantee and enforcement of human rights in the area of EU (tax) law and explores the possible development and potential impact of human rights in the field of taxation in this age of global law."

Proportionality analysis describes a particular legal technique of resolving conflicts between human rights or constitutional rights and public interests through a process of balancing. However, as a general tendency, the current vivid academic debate on proportionality pays insufficient attention to the institutional context - the question of judicial review. Based on the premise that proportionality analysis is a permissible approach to resolve conflicts between rights and other interests, this book lays out a strategy for courts and tribunals to deal with the challenge of using proportionality analysis in an adequate manner, taking into account their situation and context of judicial review. For this purpose, the book develops the concept of models of judicial review in a first theoretical chapter. These models are then applied to six comparative case studies in German and US constitutional law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Union law, World Trade Organization law, and international investment law. (Series: European Administrative Law - Vol. 8)

EU Law and International Investment Arbitration thoroughly examines the compatibility of ISDS provisions in extra-EU BITs and the Energy Charter Treaty with the autonomy of EU law, and is a must read for all magistrates and investment practitioners involved in investment arbitrations in or with the EU, as well as for academics interested in the participation of the EU to international dispute resolution or the constitutional construction of the EU judicial system.