A Brief Note On The International Dispute Resolution

One of the foundations of arbitration is that awards rendered are final and not subject to appeal before the courts. In this respect, Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides for minimal intervention, and says, “In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law“. As a result, the grounds upon which a court may set aside an award or refuse to recognize and enforce the same are limited. Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide the restrictive grounds for such relief.

The principle of supremacy of European Union (EU) law has been established over the course of more than five decades. It is a principle that was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1964, and it has continued to have a rich history in the jurisprudence of the ECJ and national constitutional courts. As the ECJ and national courts attempt to define their respective realms of influence, a bright debate has sparked regarding constitutional pluralism. Moreover, the recent codification of primacy in the Constitutional Treaty has led to a new debate on the scope of the supremacy of EU law.

Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

2. What does the persistent objector rule tell us about the nature of sovereignty and customary international law?

However again this higher status can be seen as limited as is only assumed from a written obligation. Therefore to asses if supremacy is not the challenge to member state sovereignty that is appears to be, a close analysis of how the CJEU has dealt with the issue of supremacy of EU law in case law is needed, firstly looking at Van Gend en Loos which stated that the ‘EU was a new legal order permanently limiting the sovereign rights of the Member State’. This customs case helped establish the ‘relationships between the European Union and international law…to grantee that the rules of one system are complied with in another legal order ’ showing in practise that if on a national level EU law is breached CJEU will take supremacy and comply with ‘the integrity of the EU legal order’ . Further evaluation of the limits of the supremacy can be seen in the case of Costa V ENEL where ‘Italy had claimed that the EU treaties…had been transposed into the Italian legal order by national legislation, which could therefore be derogated by subsequent national legislation. The court rejected this presumption of the supremacy of national law by insisting on the supremacy of EU law’ . This case holds significance as it ‘is well-known since Costa V ENEL the court has affirmed the supremacy of Community law over national law’ strongly suggesting the continued existence of EU supremacy is not frequently

Question: In retrospect was the European court of justice correct when it stated that in Van Gend en Loos (1963) a new legal order had been created? Discuss.

Mutual Recognition can be explained as a process whereby a judgement served from one judicial authority is recognised and adhered to by another judicial authority. This measure was a welcomed change to the previous strategies used in the EU regarding international cooperation in criminal matters. According to European Institutions, the older process of mutual legal assistance was too slow and could not endure the ever increasing problem of cross-border criminal activity. In essence, the

Moreover, directives could be given direct effect against the state in its many forms of public authority. The scope of the doctrine of vertical direct effect as applied to emanations of the state depends on the criteria developed by the European Court to define these emanations (Foster v. British Gas, Case C-188/89). The criteria laid down could include privatised industries or services that formerly provided public services. Employees in these industries and services may rely directly on provisions in EU directives, so that a large proportion of the national workforce can directly enforce rights contained in EU

The institutional framework of the EU has been significantly altered. The need for transparency, better democratic accountability and enhanced judicial scrutiny has led to some important improvements in the EU’s institutional make-up. There are now seven EU institutions which are listed in Article 13 of the TEU. These are : the European Parliament; the European Council; the Council; the European Commission; the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the ECJ); the European Central Bank; and the European Court of Auditors.

Thus, we will examine the European Union as our case study and look at the variations of compliance between member states. The Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU law in 2016 shows an considerable increase by 21% of open infringement cases compared to the previous years, making it

The purpose of this research is to discover the main challenges facing the EU in the near future, by showing the economic and legal problems that the EU will face. These problems include how migration, bailouts and terrorism affect the EU economy. Furthermore it will look at anti-EU sentiments around Europe, which has appeared to spread across rapidly, due to Euro Crises. Moreover, the Legal problems that the EU will face, such as: the process of obtaining EU citizenship enabling migration and cultural clashes, whilst also looking at the statute that enables free movement of goods and people, resulting in mass immigration and the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will evaluate EU principles that affect the UK constitution, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the Costa v ENEL (1964) CMLR 425 case being evidence proving that the EU will face challenges concerning its law being more superior than national law, Van Gend en loos (1963) ECR 1. Where a similar principle was set and the “two-speed Europe”, which, is the idea that different member states should integrate at different levels, as it is believed that the more member states in the EU the harder it is to find a consensus amongst difficult agendas, making the EU law very inconsistent. It will be related it back to the question of ‘what are the main challenges facing the EU in the near future?’

The European Union is the unifying power of 28 member states, and consists of many branches of government that fall under intergovernmentalist or supranationalist functions. One branch that seems to go below the radar is the European Court of Justice, which in reality, has greatly affected the development of European Community law, and contributed greatly to European integration. As we have seen throughout history, the member states have been ebbing back and forth between integration and sovereignty, and the states hardly want to give up their national rights, but the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has proven to be vital to the process European integration. Different sets of case laws set up the precedents of direct effect, supremacy, and

The importance of the determination of the “international” criterion under the Model Law resides, for once, in determining its application area, namely the matters that are in the scope of the arbitral tribunals, given the fact that in some national legislation, certain aspects may be referred to such international arbitration but may not be permitted before domestic arbitration.

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial