The Internationalization of Law from the Perspective of Infra- and Nonstate Actors

Varella, Marcelo Dias

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54163-6_4

Marcelo Dias Varella²

1094 Accesses

Abstract

Social transformations enforce new forms of global legal integration that prompt universal rules independent of the central authority of nation-states. Private and substate actors have always been the main engines of the international lawmaking process, but new transnational mechanisms of interaction have arisen. This approach to the internationalization of law is not driven by representatives of states in the logic of the traditional construction of international law: the ratification of treaties, the consolidation of customs, or the expansion of integration systems by national parliaments. Rather, this approach works through communicative processes with greater autonomy, which may or may not involve state actors. This interpretation of the internationalization of law may necessitate a restructuring of the theory of the sources of international law. In addition to the greater complexity of treaties, customs, principles, and unilateral acts, a new set of norms and processes emerge from the approximations of domestic law or through transnational legal processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Nas palavras de Kelsen, “O Estado deixa de ser uma ordem suprema mesmo em seu interior: mesmo deste lado, há uma ordem que lhe é superior—o direito internacional—do qual a ordem estatal depende em sua totalidade, embora sejam seus próprios órgãos encarregados, em uma bem larga medida, de criar”, In: Kelsen (1926), p. 27.
2.
Kelsen (1926), p. 27.
3.
Varella (2005).
4.
Koskenniemi (2005), p. 47.
5.
Saleilles (1903), p. 178.
6.
Delmas-Marty (2003), p. 33.
7.
Saleilles (1903), p. 177.
8.
Ost (2009), p. 8.
9.
Delmas-Marty (1994), p. 14. She highlights international comparative law as an important method of study; however, it is not enough to explain the reality. In the actual scenario, the internationalization of law would be a better way to understand contemporary facts.
10.
Among the multilateral treaties that reproduced the precautionary principle are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the OSPAR Convention, and the UN Convention on Climate Change. Among commercial treaties are the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the WTO, although the Organ dispute settlement has withdrawn from discussion of the principle in article 5:7 of the treaty.
11.
Saleilles (1903), p. 168.
12.
International courts are not substate or private actors. However, due to the specificity of the topic addressed and their importance, I believe that it would be better to discuss them in this chapter.
13.
In this regard, see the work of Costa (2011).
14.
See: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/analytic_index_e.htm.
15.
Interestingly, as there was a gain of legitimacy, members prefer to use this international tribunal at the expense of others. WTO law somehow imposes itself upon other legal subsystems. Even if in theory, there is no hierarchy in international law, at the practical level. The treaties of the WTO system are used as legal sources more than others and overlap the other when there are conflicts of norms. This prevalence of trade rules has drawn criticism from different sectors, such as environmentalists, who in the nineties saw the economic logic that would eventually neutralize the achievements of international environmental law in recent years. These criticisms were mitigated by the consolidation of a relatively favorable jurisprudence in favor of the environment and public health.
16.
An exception refers to the success rate of applications in the United States and the European Communities against developing states, which exceeded 90 % on average, in the first 12 years of the DSB. I analyzed 144 reports delivered with 2,369 points claimed. See more details in Varella (2009), p. 5.
17.
Delmas-Marty (2005), pp. 122–123.
18.
Delmas-Marty (2007), pp. 126–127.
19.
The idea of generation of rights was proposed by the Norberto Bobbio. First generation rights would be those linked to political participation. The second generation are related to social issues. The third generation refers to the collective concerns on the environment, consumer’s rights, and so on. Finally, the fourth generation are the new technologies such as biotechnologies and nanotechnologies. See Bobbio (2004).
20.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), pp. 16 and 21.
21.
Article 16. (2) The legal and constitutional provisions relating to civil rights shall be interpreted and integrated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
22.
Article 10. The rules related to civil rights and liberties recognized by the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the treaties and international agreements on the same subject ratified by Spain.
23.
Article 233. Application of international law. When interpreting any legislation, every court must prefer any reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent with international law over any alternative interpretation that is inconsistent with international law.
24.
Peters (2009), p. 178. I prefer to use the author’s translation, in English, in view of the difficulty of access to their languages—Article 20 of the Constitution of Romania: “(1) Concerning the Constitutional provision citizen’s rights and liberties Shall be Interpreted and enforced in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the covenants and other treaties Romania is a party to. (2) Where inconsistencies exist between the covenants and treaties on fundamental human rights Romania is a party to and domestic laws, the international Supplements Regulations Shall take precedence.” Article 11 of the Constitution of Slovakia: “International treaties on human rights and basic liberties that were ratified by the Slovak Republic and promulgated in a manner determined by law take precedence over its own laws, provided that they secure a greater Extent of constitutional rights and liberties.” Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic: “Ratified and promulgated international accords on human rights and fundamental freedoms, to which the Czech Republic has committed itself, are binding and are higher immediately to law.”
25.
I use different expressions with minor variations in meaning: cross-influence, cross-interpretation, intertextuality, comparative interpretation, court permeability, combination of rules, dialogue of judges, cross-references, external referral, normative cosmopolitanism, and comparative method or comparing international law. For an analysis of the nuances involving definitions, see the work of Turgis (2012), p. 55.
26.
As we shall see in the final chapter, different theories reach similar results. Gunter Teubner, Niklas Luhmann, and Marcelo Neves have differing ideas but similar theoretical approaches. Mireille Delmas-Marty and François Ost proposed a different analysis. Finally, other relevant authors would be Dupuy or Laurence Bourgorgue-Larsen, Martii Koskenniemi, Hélène Ruiz, and Emanuelle Jouannet for a more traditional positivist analysis on this scenario.
27.
Berman (2004), p. 4.
28.
Delmas-Marty (2007), pp. 41–43.
29.
Neves (2009).
30.
Among the authors, I highlight the different jobs that structure Slaughter’s idea.
31.
Berman (2004), p. 6.
32.
Romano (2008–2009), pp. 755–787.
33.
Nedelski (2000), pp. 1 and 39
34.
Arendt (1991), p. 111.
35.
Nedelski (2000), p. 18.
36.
Baudenbacher (2003), pp. 508 and 522.
37.
Supreme Court of Canada, Harvard College v. Litigation. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), Decision of 05. 12. 2002, Available at: http://csc.lexum.org/en/2002/2002scc76/2002scc76.html, Accessed: 07/05/2012. The decision is also discussed in Baudenbacher (2003), p. 522.
38.
Court of Appeals U.S. Second Circuit, Dolly ME Filartiga and Joel Filartiga v. Americo Norberto Peña-Irala, Decision of 30. 06. 1980, (630 F. 2d. 876).
39.
Supreme Court of Canada, Harvard College v. Litigation. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), Decision of 05.12.2002, Available at http://csc.lexum.org/en/2002/2002scc76/2002scc76.html, accessed: 07/05/2012. The decision is also discussed in Baudenbacher (2003), p. 522.
40.
Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F. 3d at 847–848; Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F. 3d at 236, 238; Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 25 F. 3d at 1474–1475; Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 830 F. 2d at 424–425; Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F. 2d 774, 777–780 (D. C. Cir. 1984) (Edwards, J., concurring); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d at 880–882, 884–885, 887; Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d at 441–443; Jama v. U.S. I. N. S., 22 F. Supp. 2d at 362–363; Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F. Supp. at 179; Paul v. Avril, 812 F. Supp. at 212; Ford v. Suarez-Mason, 672 F. Supp. at 1539–1540; Guinto v. Marcos, 654 F. Supp. 276, 279–280 (S. D. Cal. 1986); Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F. Supp. 1421, 1426–1427 (C D. Cal. 1985); 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 250, 252–253 (1907); 1 Op. Atfy Gen. 57, 58 (1795); PAUST, supra note 1, at 203, 206–208, 212, 281–282, passim; but see Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F. 2d at 798 (Bork, J., concurring). The access to domestic courts as a remedy established on human rights. See General Comment n. 24, U. N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., U. N. Doc. CCPR/C/Rev. l/add. 6, § 8–9, 11–12 (2 Nov. 1994); Paust, supra note 1, at 75 n. 97, 198–203, 212, 256–272 n. 468–527, 280 n. 556, 292, 362, 375–376; Paust, Fitzpatrick, van Dyke, supra note 1, at 72–73, 266–268, 273, 344, 459, 726; cited by Paust (2002), at 321 & n. 97; Dubai Petroleum Co., el al. v. Kazi, 12 S. W. 3d 71, 82 (Tex. 2000) (“The Covenant [ICCPR] not only guarantees foreign citizens equal treatment in the signatorie’s courts, but also guarantees them equal access to these courts.”). See Paust (2002), p. 635. See also Lambert-Abdelgawad and Martin-Chenut (2008), pp. 101 and ff.
41.
Legrand (1997), p. 111.
42.
p. 2000, pp. 503 and 530.
43.
Nedelski (2000), p. 34.
44.
Lollini (2007), pp. 60–74.
45.
Neves (2009), p. 174.
46.
Tripathi (1957), pp. 319–347.
47.
Delmas-Marty (2010), p. 248.
48.
ECHR, Soering v. Litigation. UK. Decision of 07.07.1989; ECHR Litigation v Dehwari. Netherlands, Decision of 22.06.1999; ECHR Litigation Yang Jin Chun v. Hungary, Decision of 08.03.2001; Privy Council of Belize, Litigation P. Reyes v. Queen, Decision of 11.03.2002, Supreme Court of South Africa, v. State Litigation. Makwangane, 1995, Cited by Delmas-Marty (2005), pp. 55–57. Delmas-Marty (2005), pp. 55–57.
49.
Baudenbacher (2003), pp. 508 and 522.
50.
There are several examples, such as cases Chackrabarty (the first bacteria patent), Hibberd (first plant), or Harvard oncomouse (first mammal). See Varella (1996).
51.
Knopp (2000), p. 533.
52.
Knopp (2000), pp. 519 and ss; Slaughter (1994), pp. 99–137. I discuss the ideas in the last chapter that defend judges as the main creators of what is now a global pluralistic law.
53.
Tripathi (1957), pp. 344–345.
54.
Tripathi (1957), p. 319.
55.
Waldron (2005), pp. 129–147.
56.
O’Connor (2006).
57.
Reid (2005), pp. 281 and ff. The cases cited as core of this dispute are Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558 (2003)); Foster v. Florida (537US 990 (2002)); Günter v. Bollinger, (539 U.S. 306 (2003)). Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551 (2005)). See also Tushnet (2003), p. 243.
58.
“We emphasize that it is the American conceptions of decency that are dispositional, rejecting the claim of plaintiffs and several amici … that foreign case law of other countries are relevant. While the practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant for determining when a practice uniform among our people is not merely a historical accident, but implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, which occupies a place not only in our ways, but in Constitution itself … they cannot serve to establish a prerequisite of the Eighth Amendment, that the practice is accepted among our people ”, In: 487 U.S. 815 (1988), pp. 830–831.
59.
Respectively U.S. Supreme Court, Atkins v. 122 S. Virginia Ct. 2242 (2002), U.S. Supreme Court, Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and Raine v. Byrd 521 U.S. 811 (1997).
60.
Zaring (2006).
61.
Zaring (2006), p. 20. See also Slaughter (1998), p. 708, for a different analysis.
62.
There is a debate about which organs should be considered international courts. Casella, for example, presents different criteria: permanent institution trial conflict based on international law as an established process and mandatory sentences parties. Other authors, such as Brownlie, include courts or administrative duties. See Casella (2010), p. 813 and Brownlie (2010).
63.
One example is the recent amendment of the Rules of the Supreme Court in Brazil, which now enable consultations to the Permanent Review Tribunal MERCOSUR to subsidize their decisions, starting in 2012. The Regimental Amendment n. 48, April 3, 2012, included the clause in article VIII ^7, and the points h m in art. 357, creating a regular instrument of dialogue. See Fontoura Costa (2011).
64.
As a matter of methodological convenience, I will take the hybrid condition of the Court of Justice of the European Union to present the dialogue, both as a court “quasi-national” and as an international tribunal.
65.
Delmas-Marty (2005), p. 59.
66.
ICJ Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), Decision of 31.03.2004.
67.
Torres v. State of Oklahoma PCD-04-442 (Okla. Crime App 13.05.2004).
68.
Levit (2006), p. 172.
69.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/139/14582.pdf, Accessed: 06/02/2012.
70.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, Litigation Osbaldo Torres v. State of Oklahoma, Decision of 06.09.2004.
71.
U.S. Supreme Court, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon 548 U.S. 331 (2006).
72.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-10566.pdf, p. 21, Accessed: 21/02/2012.
73.
Bradley (2007).
74.
Benvenisti and Downs (2009), p. 939.
75.
Lanier (1998).
76.
German Constitutional Court. Solange I case (BVerfGE 37, 271 2 BvL 52/71), Decision of 29.05.1974. Available at http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/transnational/work_new/german/case.php?id=588. See Petersmann (2008), pp. 769–798.
77.
German Constitutional Court, Decision Solange II (BVerfGE 73, 339 and 375), Decision of 22. 10.1986, Available at: http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/transnational/work_new/german/case.php?id=572. See Petersmann (2008), pp. 783–784.
78.
German Constitutional Court, Decision Solange III (BVerfGE 89, 115), Decision, 12.10.1993. See Petersmann (2008), pp. 783–784.
79.
Schwabe (2005).
80.
German Constitutional Court, v. Brunner. Treaty on European Union, Judgment, 12.10.1993, See Slaughter (1994), p. 110.
81.
German Constitutional Court, Case of Bananas (BVerfGE 102, 147 Solange IV), Decision of 07.06.2000, E. -U. See Petersmann (2008), pp. 783–784.
82.
German Constitutional Court, Arrest warrants European (BVerfGE 113, 273), Decision of 18.07.2005. All decisions cited above were in E. -U. Petersmann (2008), pp. 783–784.
83.
Neves (2009), p. 164.
84.
Varella (2009), p. 12.
85.
DSB / WTO, Brazil—Measures affecting the importation of tires (WT/DS332).
86.
Decision of the arbitral panel in the event of 20/08/2008.
87.
STF, ADPF 101, Justice Rapporteur Carmen Lucia, Decision of 24.06.2009.
88.
Corus Steel (CA U.S. Fed Circuit), Judgment of 21 January 2005, Available at: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/04-1107.pdf. Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc. (“Corus”) appealed the judgment of the Court of International Trade against the U.S. Department of Commerce and others, questioning its methodology for calculating the average margin to verify the occurrence of dumping, in particular, its methodology of “zeroing,” claiming it was unfair because of uncertain aggregated values that were part of the transactions. One of the arguments was that the methodology violated the obligation of member states to interpret the law according to the WTO, bringing international jurisprudence as a foundation. However, the Court explained that the methodology of interpretation of the law was admissible in administrative investigations and that the Commerce Department was not required to incorporate WTO procedures, confirming what had been sentenced.
89.
See Varella (2009), pp. 5–21.
90.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), pp. 31–32.
91.
Neves (2009), p. 117.
92.
Neves (2009), pp. 140 and 154.
93.
Petersmann (2008), p. 777.
94.
Lubbe-Wolff (2012).
95.
Krish (2010), pp. 121–123.
96.
ECHR, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, no. 44774/98, Available from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-70956, Accessed: 12/03/2012. Interesting also the French norm, under Education Code, art. L 141-5-1.
97.
Constitutional Court of Spain, Amparo in 2292/93, Decision of 31.01.1994 View, Krish (2010), p. 117.
98.
Osuna (2003).
99.
ECHR Behrami and Behrami v. France, v Saramati. France, Germany and Norway, respectively n App. 71412/01 78166/01. Decision of 02.05.2007. See also Simma (2009), p. 295. Other cases could be cited as ECHR Kasumaj v. Greece, Decision on admissibility of 07/05/2007 or ECtHR, v Gajic. Germany, App No. 31446/02, Decision on Admissibility, 28 Aug. 2007.
100.
Slaughter (2004a), pp. 80–81. The author also cites other cases, such as the prohibition of torture by the Agency of Internal Security of Israel.
101.
If v Ireland. United Kingdom (application no. 5310/71), judgment of 01. 18.1978, quoted by Neves (the information contained in Slaughter, p. 80).
102.
A defaultant is a receiver chosen by a judge to take care of an object held by justice but who loses or damages the object.
103.
It was internalized before the Constitutional Amendment No. 45, which created § 3 of art. 5 of the Federal Constitution and predicted the normative constitutional status to human rights treaties approved by three-fifths of the members of congress, in two shifts in every home. The Inter-American Convention, ratified before that, had the status of any other federal law, according to the doctrine in force since then.
104.
In this sense, interestingly, the vote of Judge Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas in Litigation v. Gomes Lund et al. v. Brazil (Araguaia Guerrilla), 24.11.2010: “Even the national constitutions are to be interpreted or, if necessary, until amended to maintain harmony with the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. According to Article 2 of the Convention, States undertake to adopt measures to eliminate laws and practices of any species that mean rape her and also rather undertake to edit legislation and develop actions that will lead to compliance broader and more effective the Convention.”
105.
Petersmann (2008), p. 770.
106.
Delmas-Marty (2005), p. 77.
107.
Slaughter (1994), p. 117.
108.
CJEU. NV-Algemene Transport en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Dutch Tax Administration. (26/62). Decision de05.02.1963.
109.
There are several examples, such as the case of Boskoski and Strugar, to define when a territory is considered occupied under international law. See ICTY. Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Decision of 31.01.2005, para. 227 (n. 775).
110.
Simma (2009), p. 285. See also Ex-ICC. Prosecutor v. Boškoski, Case no. IT-04-82-T. Decision of 01.07.2008, for 192 (n. 779). Ex-ICC. Prosecutor v. Strugar. Case no. IT-01-42-T. 31. 012005 decision to § 227 (n. 775).
111.
Miller (2002), p. 489.
112.
In addition to the quote expressed, we note that courts often use the logic developed by other international bodies without any express service. Burke-White (2002), Burke-White, W., pp. 43–45. It should be noted also that there is a different form of dialogue on trade and investment tribunals. In an interesting article, Fontoura Costa demonstrates that there is a repetition of important referees and judges in different courts and in international arbitration Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO. The prestige of having participated in the WTO appellate body leads to a call for different private arbitrations. See Fontoura Costa (2011).
113.
See Opinion no. 16 of the IACHR on the right to information on consular assistance by way of judicial guarantees, of 01.10.1999 and the Decision of the ICJ, of 27.06.2001.
114.
See IACHR. Velásquez Rodriques. Divisions of 29.07.1988 and HRC. Rubio v decision. Colombia, 02/11/1987. See Turgis (2012), p. 66.
115.
In the original words of the Court: “Although the Court is in no way obliged, in the exercise of its judicial functions, to model its own interpretation of the Covenant on that of the Committee, it believes that it should ascribe great weight to the interpretation ADOPTED by this independent body established specifically that was to supervise the application of that treaty. The point here is to achieve the necessary clarity and the essential consistency of international law, as well as security law, the ambos to which individuals with guaranteed rights and the States obliged to comply with treaty obligations are entitled. Likewise, when the court is called upon, as in these proceedings, to apply a regional instrument for the protection of human rights, it must take due account of the interpretation of that instrument ADOPTED by the independent bodies created which have been specifically, if such has been the case, to monitor the sound application of the treaty in question. In the present case, the interpretation of Article 12 Given above, paragraph 4, of the African Charter is consonant with the case law of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights established by Article 30 of the said Charter (see, for example, Kenneth Good v. Republic of Botswana, No. 313/05, para. 204, World Organization against Torture and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, International Commission of Jurists, Inter-African Union for Human Rights v. Rwanda, No. 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93).”
116.
Miller (2002), pp. 500 and ff.
117.
Helfer and Slaughter (2005), p. 8.
118.
See the reference work of Fontoura Costa, Comparing painelists WTO and ICSID arbitrators. The creation of international law in fields Oñati Cool Series, vol. 1, no. 4, 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1832382, accessed on 27.04.2012.
119.
Judge Fausto Pocar, member of HRC / UN between 1984 and 2004.
120.
Judge Thomas Buergental, who was judge, Vice President, and President of the IACHR, between 1979 and 1991, and a member of the HRC, between 1995 and 1999, and Judge Cançado Trinity, the ICJ from 2009.
121.
Judge Patrick Lipton Robinson, member of the Commission on Human Rights between 1988 and 1991.
122.
Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa, in 1997.
123.
See Turgis (2012), pp. 168–169.
124.
ICT-Rwanda. Court of Appeals. Prosecutor v decision. Akayesu of 01.06.2001
125.
The same is true regarding other courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, which influences various international criminal courts. See, for example, the case ICT-Rwanda. Kayishema and Ruzinada, decision of 01.06.2001, regarding the European Court of Human Rights and in the case Ex-ICC. Furundzija, which made express reference to Van Hurk case, the ECHR. Turgis (2012), p. 164.
126.
Turgis (2012), p. 173.
127.
Helfer and Slaughter (2005), p. 9. The authors believe that there would be a subjective feeling of judges, which include as part of this community, connected to each other. This is a subjective analysis difficult to prove.
128.
Interesting perception of Slaughter on different logics of the IACHR and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ use of ECHR precedents. While the court used the European precedents as argument from authority, the Commission used them more narrowly, comparing the core logic of cases between the two courts. See Slaughter (1994), p. 106.
129.
IACHR. Barrios Alto v. Peru Decision of 14.03.2001
130.
IACHR. Gomes Lund et al v. Brazil . Decision of 24.10.2010. The discussion of the various votes on the Supreme Court, in relation to the case Gomes Lund, can be found at Ramos (2011), pp. 174–225.
131.
Habermas (2001), pp. 42–43. Martin-Chenut cites various examples of cross-fertilization between the IACHR, the ECHR, and the UN. In the case of children rights and militar justice, see especially Martin-Chenut (2007), pp. 628 and ff. and Martin-Chenut (2009), p. 442 and ff.
132.
Fontoura Costa (2011).
133.
Decision Airey v. Ireland, of 9.10.1979. See Delmas-Marty (2003), p. 141.
134.
Slaughter (2004a).
135.
Cf. Mills and Stephens (2005), pp. 1–30.
136.
See art. 282 of UNCLOS, Article 1982 or 2005 of the Free Trade Agreement of North America, 18.12.1992. There are also other various treaties following the same model. On the topic, see the work of Silva (2012), p. 396.
137.
It is a term to describe the search for the litigants’ more convenient forum to resolve a dispute. There are various interesting questions of optimization of the interest of the parties in conflict of jurisdiction. See Ramos (2007), p. 181 and ff.
138.
Slaughter (2004b).
139.
Alvarez (2001), p. 183. Although the description comes from an author who criticizes the theory of Slaughter.
140.
Notably, although simultaneous translation tools are still precarious, they are still used in public administration, especially for understanding general language documents that are less accessible.
141.
Saleilles (1903), p. 179.
142.
Saleilles (1903), p. 184.
143.
See in particular the texts Cassese (2005), p. 973 and ff.
144.
Keohane and Nye (2001). See also Slaughter (2004b), p. 159.
145.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), pp. 263–318.
146.
Cassese (2005), p. 981.
147.
Slaughter (2004b), p. 175.
148.
Slaughter (2004b), pp. 155 and 180.
149.
Slaughter (2004b), p. 170.
150.
Derrida (1989–1990), p. 924.
151.
Teubner (1997), p. 5th.
152.
Fischer-Lescano and Teubner (2003–2004), p. 1023.
153.
Neves (2009), Cf. Marques and Turkienicz (2005), pp. 873–894.
154.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), p. 278 and ff.
155.
See, in particular, arts. 904. 4 and 908 of the NAFTA Treaty.
156.
See, in particular, arts. 6:07 GATS.
157.
See http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/faltacoisa.
158.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), pp. 285–287.
159.
Teubner (1997), p. 3rd.
160.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), p. 309.
161.
Teubner (1997), p. 5.
162.
Slaughter (2004b), pp. 171, 257 and 229.
163.
Alvarez (2005), pp. 187–188 and 228.
164.
Alvarez (2005), pp. 195 and 238
165.
CJEU. Cassis de Dijon, between France and Germany. Decision of 20.02.1979.
166.
DSB/WTO. European Communities—Measures on meat and meat products (hormones). (WT/DS/26 and 48). Decision of 16.01.1998.
167.
The Codex Alimentarius laid out five of the six hormones in question. Three were natural and did not offer two proven dangers. See DSB/WTO. European Communities—Overview commercial sardines (WT/DS231/R). Decision of 29.05.2002, pp. 10 and ff. Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), p. 271.
168.
United States—Prohibition of import of certain products and Shrimp (WT/DS58). See Decisions of 12/10/1998, 15/06/2001 and 22/10/2001.
169.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), citing Young, 304–305.
170.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), p. 311. See De Schutter (2004), p. 2.
171.
De Schutter (2004), p. 2nd.
172.
Kelsen (1926), p. 29.
173.
Habermas (2001), p. 41.
174.
Slaughter (2004b), p. 160.
175.
Teubner (1997), p. 4.
176.
Teubner (1997), p. 2nd. Here is a different idea, citing the example of human rights, which is triggered against the activities of a state to question the arbitrariness of its policies.
177.
Teubner (1997), pp. 19–20, and Teubner (2012), p. 48.
178.
Teubner (1997), p. 25.
179.
Lagarde (1982), p. 125.
180.
Teubner (2009), pp. 401–406.
181.
Teubner (2005), pp. 90–91.
182.
Vivant (1996), I, 3969. See also Delmas-Marty (2003), p. 113.
183.
Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), p. 272.
184.
Ladeur cited by Teubner (2009), p. 127.
185.
Teubner (1997), p. 1.
186.
Therefore, some authors consider the lex mercatoria a normative system “corrupt” in the sense of luhmannian, that is, to guarantee their existence depending on the use of part of another system of logic that is opposed, as this work does not adopt a luhmannian vision as theoretical basis for their development, not enter the theme.
187.
Discussion videoconference with G. Teubner in class for the students of doctorate in law from the University Center of Brasilia.
188.
Neves (2009), p. 193. “But internationally understood that the sentence, which is not linked to any state law, is a decision of international justice, in which the regularity is examined because the rules applicable to countries where their recognition and enforcement are defendants, who under Article VII of the New York Convention of 10 January 1958 the company Rena Holding had the right to submit in France, the sentence taken in London, 10 April, 2001, in accordance with the arbitration agreement and with the rules of l’IGPA, and avail himself of the provisions of the French law of international arbitration, it does not provide for the annulment of the sentence in their country of origin as a reason for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award made abroad…” Free translation. Original: “More attendu que la sentence internationale, qui n’est aucun rattachée to ordre juridique étatique, est une décision de justice internationale dont la régularité est au regard des règles examinée applicables dans le pays où sa reconnaissance son exécution et sont demandées; qu’en application de l’article de la VII New York Convention du 10 janvier 1958, la société était recevable Rena Holding the Presenter her sentence rendue en France le 10 avril à Londres 2001 conformément à la convention d’arbitrage et au règlement de l’IGPA, et fondée to be prévaloir du droit français des dispositions de l’arbitrage international, qui ne prévoit pas l’annulation de la sentence dans son pays d’origine comme causes of refus d’exécution of reconnaissance et de la sentence rendue à l’étranger’;” Cour de Cassation. 05-18053, Arrêt n. Du 29 juin 1021 2007—Cour de cassation—Première Chambre civile. Available at http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/premiere_chambre_civile_568/arret_n_10607.html, Accessed: 26/04/2012.
189.
Bart, p. 9 cited by Delmas-Marty (2003) p. 103.
190.
Teubner (2005), pp. 97–98.
191.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), p. 84.
192.
Arbitrage TAS 2006/A/1119. In the words of the court: “La souveraineté nationale, telle qu’elle s’exprime à l’occasion d’une mesure disciplinaire sportive rendue par une Autorité Nationale, n’a, en principe, the vocation that s’appliquer seul sur le territoire National. La décision nationale peut être Toutefois remplacée par une décision de l’Autorité internationale—le TAS—which soit pour la nécessaire assurée uniformité du droit. Certes, il est l’État théoriquement concevable what ifs Decisions Impose nationales dans les jusque competitions internationales sur son territoire if déroulant au Mépris Autorité de l’internationale. Un tel comportement irait Cependant à l’find de tous les esforços tendant to Lutter contre le au niveau international dopage, et pourrait conduire à l’exclusion de l’État de l’Organisation des concerns competitions internationales ”, Available at http://jurisprudence.tascas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/1119.pdf, accessed: 07/05/2012. See also Neves (2009), pp. 198–199.
193.
Aribtration TAS 2006/A/1082 and 1104 Available at http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%%20Documents/Forms/By20Year.aspx, accessed: 07/05/2012. The cases are discussed by Neves (2009), pp. 203–204.
194.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), pp. 75–76.
195.
Teubner (1994). Talk with G. Teubner, under the Master and Doctorate Program in Law of the University Center of Brasilia in 2010.
196.
Teubner (1999), pp. 312–313.
197.
Teubner (1999), p. 313.
198.
Teubner (2009), p. 118. The author illustrates the different advances in corporate law, employment law, and civil liability as most striking in the process of hierarchy of norms. We will see this point in more detail in the last chapter.
199.
Teubner (2009), p. 129.
200.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), p. 77.
201.
Koh (1996), p. 204.

References

Alvarez J (2001) Do liberal states behave better? A critique of Slaughter’s liberal theory. Eur J Int Law 12:183–246
Article Google Scholar
Alvarez J (2005) Do States socialize? Duke Law J 54:961–974
Google Scholar
Arendt H (1991) Juger sur la philosophie politique de Kant. Suivi de deux essais interprétatifs par Ronald Beiner et Myriam Revault d’Allonnes, Traduit de l’anglais par Myriam Revault d’Allonnes. Seuil, Paris
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (2003) Judicial globalization: new development or old wine in new bottles. Tex Int Law J 38:505–526
Google Scholar
Benvenisti E, Downs GW (2009) Court cooperation, executive accountability, and global governance. Int Law Polit 41:931–958
Google Scholar
Berman PS (2004) Judges as cosmopolitan transnational actors. Articles and working papers, paper 38, University of Connecticut School of Law
Google Scholar
Bobbio N (2004) A era dos direitos direitos. Campus, Rio de Janeiro
Google Scholar
Bradley CA (2007) The Federal judicial power and the international legal order. Supreme Court Review. http://ssrn.com/abstract=960237
Brownlie I (2010) Principles of public international law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Burke-White W (2002) A community of courts: toward a system of international criminal law enforcement. Mich J Int Law 24(1):2–101
Google Scholar
Casella PB (2010) Manual de direito internacional público, 18th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo
Google Scholar
Cassese S (2005) The globalization of law. Int Law Polit 37:973–993
Google Scholar
Costa JAF (2011) Comparing WTO panelists and ICSID aribtrators. The creation of international legal fields. Oñati Legal Series 1(4). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1832382. Accessed 27 Apr 2012
De Schutter O (2004) The accountability of multinationals for human rights violations. In: European law. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working, paper, 2004/1
Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty M (1994) Au pays des nuages ordonnés. Postface de Pour un droit commun. Seuil, Paris
Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty M (2003) Les forces imaginantes du droit, v. I: Le relatif et l’universel. Seuil, Paris
Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty M (2005) Les forces imaginantes du droit, v. II: Le pluralisme ordonné. Seuil, Paris
Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty M (2007) Les forces imaginantes du droit, v. III: La refondation des pouvoirs. Seuil, Paris
Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty M (2010) Les forces imaginantes du droit, v. IV: Vers une communauté de valeurs? Seuil, Paris
Google Scholar
Derrida J (1989–1990) La force de loi: le “fondement mystique de l’autorité”. Cardozo Law Rev 11(920):920–1045
Google Scholar
Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G (2003–2004) Regime collisions: the vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 25:999–1023
Google Scholar
Fontoura Costa JA (2011) Decidir e julgar. In: Um estudo multidisciplinar sobre a solução de controvérsias na Organização Mundial do Comércio, Tese de titularidade apresentada à Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo
Google Scholar
Habermas J (2001) Constelação pós-nacional. Ensaios Políticos, Tradução de Márcio Seligmann Silva. Littera Mundi, São Paulo
Google Scholar
Helfer LR, Slaughter A-M (2005) Why States create international tribunals: a response to professors Posner and Yoo. Calif Law Rev 93:3–30
Google Scholar
Kelsen H (1926) Le rapports de système entre le droit interne et le droit international public. Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int 11
Google Scholar
Keohane R, Nye Jr JS (2001) Between centralization and fragmentation: the club model of multilateral cooperation and problems of democratic legitimacy. KSG Working Paper n. 01-004. http://ssrn.com/abstract=262175 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.262175. Accessed 07 May 2012
Knopp K (2000) Here and there: international law in domestic courts. Int Law Polit 32:501–535
Google Scholar
Koh HH (1996) Transnational legal process, The 1994 Roscoe Pound Lecture. Nebr Law Rev 75:181–207
Google Scholar
Koskenniemi M (2005) From apology to utopia. The structure of international legal argument, reissue with a new epilogue. Cambridge University, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Krish N (2010) Beyond constitutionalism. The pluralist structure of postnational law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Lagarde P (1982) Approche critique de la lex mercatoria, In: Le droit des relations économiques internationales: Etudes offertes à Berthold Goldman. LITEC, Paris
Google Scholar
Lambert-Abdelgawad E, Martin-Chenut K (2008) La prescription en droit international: vers une imprescritibilité de certains crimes? In: Ruiz-Fabri H et al (eds) La clémence saisie par le droit. Amnistie, prescription et grâce en droit international, UMR de Droit Comparé, vol 14. Société de Droit Comparé, Paris
Google Scholar
Lanier ERS (1998) Farewell: The Federal German Constitutional Court and the Recognition of the Court of Justice of the European Communities as Lawful Judge. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 11(1), article 2. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol11/iss1/2/. Accessed 21 Feb 2012
Legrand P (1997) The impossibility of ‘legal transplants’. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4:111–124
Google Scholar
Levit JK (2006) A tale of international law in the heartland: Torres and the role of state courts in transnational legal conversation. Tulsa J Comp Int Law 12:163–187
Google Scholar
Lollini A (2007) Legal argumentation based on foreign law, an example from case law of the South African Constitutional Court. Utrecht Law Rev 3(1):60–74
Google Scholar
Lubbe-Wolff G (2012) ECHR and national jurisdiction – The Görgülü Case. http://www.%20humboldt-forum-recht.de/druckansicht/druckansicht.php?artikelid=135. Accessed 17 Apr 2012
Google Scholar
Marques CL, Turkienicz E (2005) Comentários ao acórdão do STF no caso Teka v. Aiglon: em defesa da teoria finalista de interpretação do art. 2o do CDC. In: Marques CL, Araujo N (eds) O novo direito internacional. Estudos em homenagem a Erik Jayme. Renovar, São Paulo, pp 873–894
Google Scholar
Martin-Chenut K (2009) La jurisprudence interaméricaine des droits de l’homme sur l’exercice de la justice par les tribunaux militaires. In: Chronique internationale. Droit de l’homme, Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, n. 2, avril/juin 2009, Chroniques, pp 442–453
Google Scholar
Martin-Chenut K (2007) Amnistie, prescription, grâce: la jurisprudence interaméricaine des droits de l’homme en matière de lutte contre l’impunité. In: Chronique internationale. Droit de l’homme, Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, juillet/septembre 2007, pp 628–640
Google Scholar
Miller N (2002) An international jurisprudence? The operation of “precedent” across international tribunals. Leiden J Int Law 15:483–526
Article Google Scholar
Mills A, Stephens T (2005) Challenging the role of judges in Slaughter’s liberal theory of international Law. Leiden J Int Law 18:1–30
Article Google Scholar
Nedelski J (2000) Communities of judgment and human rights. Theor Inq Law 1(2):1–39
Google Scholar
Neves M (2009) Transconstitucionalismo. Martins Fontes, São Paulo, p 87
Google Scholar
Nicolaidis KA, Shaffer GC (2005) Managed mutual recognition regimes: governance without global government. Law and Contemporary Problems 68:263–318; Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research, Paper n. 1007; IILJ Working, Paper n. 2005/6. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=723150ordoi:10.2139/ssrn.723150
O’Connor S (2006) Keynote address. In: Proceedings of the ninety-sixth annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. http://www.aclu.org/hrc/JudgesPlenary.pdf. Accessed 07 May 2012
Ost F (2009) Le droit comme traduction. In: Les grandes conférences de la Chaire Unesco. Pul
Google Scholar
Ost F, Van de Kerchove M (2002) De la pyramide au reseau. Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Públications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Boulevard du Jardin Botanique, Bruxelles
Google Scholar
Osuna AS (2003) Efectos y ejecucción de las sentencias del tribunal de Estrasburgo. In: Anales do III Congreso Iberoamericano de derecho constitucional, realizado em Sevilla, de 3 a 5 de dezembro de 2003. http://congreso.us.es/cidc/Ponencias/humanos/AnaSalado.pdf. Accessed 17 Apr 2012
Paust JJ (2002) International law as law of the United States: trends and prospects. Chin J Int Law 1(2):615–646
Article Google Scholar
Peters A (2009) Supremacy lost: international law meets domestic constitutional law. Int Constitut Law J 3:170–198
Google Scholar
Petersmann E-U (2008) Human rights, international economic law and constitutional justice. Eur J Int Law 19(4):769–798
Article Google Scholar
Ramos RMM (2007) Estudos de direito internacional privado e de direito processual civil internacional, vol II. Coimbra, Coimbra
Google Scholar
Ramos AC (2011) Crimes da ditadura militar: a ADPF 153 e a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. In: Gomes LF, Mazzuoli VO (eds) Crimes da ditadura militar. Uma análise à luz da jurisprudência atual da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo, pp 174–225
Google Scholar
Reid CJ Jr (2005) ED White’s use of Roman and Canon law: a study in the Supreme Court’s use of foreign legal citations. Univ St Thomas Law J 3(2):281–310
Google Scholar
Romano CRP (2008–2009) Deciphering the grammar of the international jurisprudential dialogue. Int Law Polit 41:755–787
Google Scholar
Saleilles MR (1903) Conception et objet de la science du droit comparé. Rapport presenté au Congrès International de Droit Comparé
Google Scholar
Schwabe J (ed) (2005) Fifty Years of Jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court, the Organization of Brazilian translation of Leonardo Martins. Konrad – Adenauer – Stiftung, Montevideo
Google Scholar
Silva AR (2012) L’articulation entre le droit de l’OMC et les accords commerciaux régionaux. Tese (Doutorado em Direito), Université Paul-Cézanne – Aix-Marseille III
Google Scholar
Simma B (2009) Universality of international law from the perspective of a practitioner. Eur J Int Law 20(2):265–297
Article Google Scholar
Slaughter A-M (1994) A typology of transjudicial communication. Univ Richmond Law Rev 99(29):99–137
Google Scholar
Slaughter AM (1998) Court to court. Am J Int Law 92(4):708–712
Article Google Scholar
Slaughter A-M (2004a) International Law in a world of liberal states. Eur J Int Law 503:502–538
Google Scholar
Slaughter AM (2004b) The new world order. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Google Scholar
Teubner G (1994) Droit et réflexivité. L’auto-référence en droit et dans l’organisation, trad. par N. Boucquey, Paris-Bruxelles, Story-LGDJ
Google Scholar
Teubner G (1997) The King’s many bodies: the self-descontruction of law’s hierarchy. Law Soc Rev 31(4):763–787
Article Google Scholar
Teubner G (1999) Les multiples corps du roi: l’auto-destruction de la hiérarchie du droit, in Philosophie du droit et droit économique, quel dialogue? Frison-Roche, Paris
Google Scholar
Teubner G (2005) Unitas multiplex: a organização do grupo de empresas como exemplo. Rev Direito GV 1(2):77–110
Google Scholar
Teubner G (2009) And if I by Beelzebub cast out Devils: An Essay on the Diabolics of Network Failure. German Law J 10(4):395–416
Google Scholar
Teubner G (2012) Constitutional fragments. OUP, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Tripathi P (1957) Foreign precedents and constitutional law. Columbia Law Rev 57(3):319–347
Article Google Scholar
Turgis S (2012) Les intéractions entre les normes internationales relatives aux droits de la personne. Pedone, Paris
Google Scholar
Tushnet M (2003) Transational domestic constitutional law. Loyola Los Ang Law Rev 37:249–270
Google Scholar
Varella MD (2005) Le rôle des organisations non-gouvernementales dans le développement du droit international de l’environnement. J Droit Int Paris 132:41–76
Google Scholar
Varella MD (1996) Propriedade intelectual de setores emergentes. Atlas, São Paulo
Google Scholar
Varella MD (2009) Efetividade do Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio: uma análise sobre os seus doze primeiros anos de existência e das propostas para seu aperfeiçoamento. Rev Brasil Polít Int 52(2):5–21
Article Google Scholar
Waldron J (2005) Foreign law and the modern jus gentium. Harv Law Rev 119:129–147
Google Scholar
Zaring D (2006) The use of foreign decision by federal courts: an empirical analysis. Washington & Lee Legal Studies Research Paper Series. http://ssrn.com/abstract=899148

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University Center of Brasilia, Campus do UniCEUB, Brasilia, DF, Brazil
Marcelo Dias Varella

Authors

Marcelo Dias Varella
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Varella, M.D. (2014). The Internationalization of Law from the Perspective of Infra- and Nonstate Actors. In: Internationalization of Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54163-6_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54163-6_4
Published: 13 March 2014
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54162-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54163-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics