International Law

Ibn Khātima (c.1324-c.1369) is a noted writer of the Medieval Arab Spain. He was poet, historian and, over all, physician. His main work in the field of medicine is titled in Arabic Taḥṣīl garaḍ al-qāṣid fī-tafṣīl al-maraḍ al wāfid (Succeeding in clarify pest disease), known simply as Taḥṣīl, which deals with the Black Death, the pandemic that devastated Asia, Africa and Europe in the 14th century. This paper focuses on this important book and includes the causes of this terrible plague described by Ibn Khātima according to the scientific knowledge of Islamic Middle Ages. Moreover, the article also discusses the connection of the Taḥṣīl to scientific discoveries of the 19th and the 20th centuries in relation to the contagion theory in the disease. And, ultimately, it contains the English translation of some fragments of the Taḥṣīl taking as reference the Arabic manuscript n.1785 from the Library of El Escorial at Madrid.

UNIVERSITATEA CREŞTINĂ
„DIMITRIE CANTEMIR”





        FACULTATEA DE
ADMINISTRAREA AFACERILOR INTERNAŢIONALE
   
          în  parteneriat  cu







Asociaţia Română
de Drept și Afaceri Europene

CONFERINŢA INTERNAŢIONALĂ
„Challenges of Doing Business
in the Global Economy”
- CBGE 2019 -

Ediţia a VII-a
http://iaduer.ro/?p=7455

Dubrovnik Cumhuriyeti, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’na özel bir statü ile tabi olmuş bir şehir devletiydi. Her iki siyasi oluşumun vatandaşları da gerek ahidnamelerin gerekse hususi birtakım fermanların hukuki şemsiyesi altında siyasi, sosyal ve ekonomik faaliyetlerini yürütürlerdi. Dubrovnikliler gibi Osmanlı uyruklu vatandaşlar da söz konusu aktivitelerini ilgili mekan(lar)a gidip gelerek ya da orada ikamet ederek gerçekleştirirlerdi. Kişilerin ikili veya çoklu münasebetlerine dair birtakım sorunlar yahut da hukuki statüleri ve mükellefiyetleri hakkındaki meseleler hem Osmanlı hem de Dubrovnik Devlet Arşivi kayıtlarında yer bulmuştur. Çalışmamız, bu konuda tespit ettiğimiz belgeler ışığında işlenmeye çalışılacaktır.

This  project  concerns  the  problems  that  surround  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of international  humanitarian  law  in  non-international  armed  conflicts.  The  provisions  applicable to  such  conflicts  are  common  Article  3  of  the  Geneva  Conventions  together  with  Additional Protocol  II  to  the  Geneva  Conventions.  The  main    problems  surrounding  the  implementation  of these  provisions are  of various natures. States  always tend to be declined  to admit  that  a situation within the states meets the  requirements  for  non-international  armed  conflicts.  States  are  not going to accept to  recognize armed  rebel  forces    as  parties  to  such  conflicts.  Armed  insurgent  factions,  on  the  other  hand, lack  motivation  to  apply  the  rules  since  this  measure  will  probably  not  change  their  status  and treatment  under  the  domestic  laws  of  the  State.  In  addition,  the  concept  of  international  armed conflict,  where  a  prima  facie  non-international  armed  conflict  turns  international  by  the involvement  of  a  third  State  or  States,  is  creating  confusion  on  which  legal  framework  should  be applicable.  The  conclusion  is  that  since  the  problems  surrounding  the  implementation  and enforcement  in  non-international  armed  conflicts  are  various  and  not  easily  dealt  with  under  the current  provisions,  a  solution  to  this  problem  would  be  to  create  one  single  legal  framework  for all  armed  conflicts,  abandoning  the  current  division  between  international  and  non-international armed  conflicts.  This  would  help  in  the  application  of  the  rules  and  in  addition  make  it  easier  for the  parties  involved  to  abide  by  them.  Unfortunately,  it  seems  that  such  a  solution  is  yet  far away.

This article observes that 225 years have passed from the 1794 Jay Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, known among other achievements as marking the ‘modern’ era of arbitration in the resolution of interstate disputes. I argue that the perception of interstate arbitration reflected in the Jay Treaty, namely as a sui generis dispute resolution mechanism that is designed to resolve not only disputes that concern legal questions but also complex disputes involving political issues, is in line with its true nature and original purpose. In contrast, I trace the gradual judicialization of interstate arbitration over the last 225 years, which has culminated in a widely held perception of interstate arbitration and adjudication by a permanent international court as one of the same. To demonstrate the advantages of the ‘traditional’ understanding of interstate arbitration over this contemporary judicialized conception, the article presents a comparative case study analysis of four notable arbitrations concerning interstate territorial disputes. In this analysis, the article examines key legal and political aspects of these arbitrations in an attempt to illustrate how the parties’ and arbitral tribunals’ perception of the arbitral process may have affected the outcome of the case. The article then offers lessons to both state parties and arbitral tribunals regarding best practices in interstate arbitration. These include the parties appointing arbitrators familiar with the dispute who have extra-judicial expertise, and the arbitrators approaching their own role as judges-diplomats, deciding both the legal and political aspects of the dispute.

In this chapter, I make two claims; one general and one specific. First, I argue that the rise in socio-legal methods (in all their variety) brings important insights for international lawyers and their practice. The rise of non-doctrinal approaches may lead international lawyers to be more circumspect about their universalist and often sweeping normative solutions. It also brings much needed reflection into the profession of international law, which generally views itself as cosmopolitan and universalist, and as promoting seemingly incontestable virtues such as peace and justice. Second, I argue that ethnographic research inspired by social anthropology may bring important insights particularly in the contested and controversial fields of international law such as international investment law (IIL). Ethnographic research asks how IIL influences and impacts on the lived experiences of affected actors. Such research requires assessing international investment agreements (IIAs) in a context of a particular state or community. This type of research requires looking at how IIL influences and impacts on government practices, policies and discourses. It must take into account the structure and power dynamics of the government and public administration; it requires assessing the awareness of important government and non-government actors; it should assess the political narratives associated with the foreign investment and its regulation in the country; last but not least, it should assess the media, public debate, and civil society mobilisation on the issue.
Drawing on a comparative large-scale research project, the chapter argues that a method particularly apt to answer such questions is the extended case method – which includes participant observation, interviews, discourse and content analysis of official documents and media, and archival work. Ethnographic research may help us understand what actors these treaties empower and constrain, and how they are used in political contestation and national governance writ large. As it brings into light discrepancies between normative prescriptions and actual practices, such research enhances our understanding of what international investment law induces beyond its immediate and obvious legal effects.

Slobodian makes a groundbreaking contribution. Unlike standard accounts, which cast neoliberals as champions of markets against governments and states, Slobodian argues that neoliberals embraced governance—chiefly at the global level. By going above national borders, they neutralized politics within those borders, so that democratic governments could not obstruct the security and mobility of property. Gradually, despite encountering resistance at every turn, they helped build a world order guided by the principle of “capital first.” For Slobodian, their success casts a disturbing light on many of the international rules and institutions that make up today’s global order—but also shows how different people, with a different program, could change them.