Suchergebnisse

Empirical research is the new hot trend in international law. An increasing number of publications include empirical data that aim at strengthening their author's argument. Indeed, empirical data are used to make an argument less fallible, as the author's conclusions are transformed from subjective to objectively proven by the empirical wrap. Professor Catherine Rogers' novel article, The Politics and Empirics of International Investment Arbitrators, highlights important limitations that empirical data may produce in international investment law research.a As such, it is a needed and important contribution to the understanding and development of this type of scholarship, and generally to the study of international investment arbitration. The first part of my commentary evaluates the perils and benefits of empirical research in international investment arbitration, and concludes that - to be useful - empirical research must respect certain standards. In the second part, this paper assesses empirical research based on objective variables to conclude that it can be a useful tool to study and strengthen international investment arbitration, if properly used.

In March 2012, a record number of international lawyers assembled in Washington, DC for the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law. We had the privilege of co-chairing the Meeting and chose as our theme, "Confronting Complexity." We felt that this theme reflected well the current challenges and opportunities presented by rapidly evolving technologies, increasing global interconnectedness, rising population, and deepening understanding of science and the environment. New international actors; changes in social, economic, and political dynamics; a multipolar power structure; and novel security threats only add to the complexity we face.

On June 12, 2012, the International Court of Justice ("ICJ" or the "Court") ordered the Republic of the Congo ("DRC") to pay the Republic of Guinea ("Guinea") U.S. $95,000 in compensation for material and non-material injury to Guinea's national Ahmadou Sadio Diallo. The Judgment is notable for several reasons. First, the mere fact that the Court fixed an amount of compensation owned to Guinea is relevant, as this is only the second time in the history of the Court that such a measure was adopted. Second, in reaching its decision, the Court relied heavily on decisions of other international courts and tribunals to determine the amount of compensation. By doing so, the Court aligned itself with other courts' precedent and marginalized fears of fragmentation in international law. Third, the Court's reasoning to award U.S. $95,000 rather than the twelve million dollars requested by Guinea is also significant.

In the last fifty years, the international community has undergone a transformation, as social, economic, and political dynamics have been altered. In fact, the international power structure has shifted towards a more complex structure, economies have been largely liberalized, new powerful international actors have emerged, and security threats have altered significantly. These transformations impacted all nation States. Indeed, a new standard of governance emerged that resulted in increased responsibility to each State's nationals. Similarly, States have become increasingly interindependent and have additional (both in numbers and substance) obligations towards each other and the international community in general. Certain States, however, are unable to operate in this new system of increased responsibility, in terms of obligations towards other States, the international community, and their citizens. These States--often referred to as fragile, failing, or failed States-become ineffective actors in the international stage. This poses multiple problems for the international community as certain necessary obligations (including, for example, border patrols, air traffic control, and health and environmental monitoring) and required acts failed to be performed, making the entire system weaker. This article examines why it is important for international law to recognize the phenomena of State fragility and State failure and to be able to adequately respond to it.