Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:47:11.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Judicialization Revisited, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. by Karen J. Alter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. Pp. xxiii, 365. Index. $35, £24.95.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

José E. Alvarez
José E. Alvarez*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Recent Books on International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 677 - 686
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Alter’s book has been the subject of many reviews as well as online symposia. See Pollack, Mark, 12 Persp. On Pol. 962 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at http://journals.cambridge. org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9481918&fileId=S1537592714002874; Giorgetti, Chiara, Review of Alter, Karen J., The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, H-Net Reviews (Jan. 2015)Google Scholar, at http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=42277; Brett, Peter, Review—The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, E-International Relations (Oct. 19, 2014)Google Scholar, at http://www.e-ir.info/2014/10/19/review-the-new-terrain-of-international-law-courts-politics-rights; Hernández, Gleider I., The Judicialization of International Law: Reflections on the Empirical Turn, 25 Eur. J. Int’l L. 919 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/25/3/2529.pdf; Book Symposium: “The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights” by Karen Alter, Comments by Tonya L. Putnam, Jacob Katz Cogan, Roger Alford & Karen Alter, Opinio Juris, at http://opiniojuris.org/2014/04/23/alter-book-symposium-welcome-new-world-comparative-international-courts; Book Symposium: “The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights” by Karen Alter, Comments by Nico Krisch, Antonios Tzanakopoulos & Karen Alter, Ejil: Talk!, at http://www.ejiltalk.org/joint-ejiltalk-and-opinio-juris-discussion-of-karen-alters-the-new-terrain-of-international-law. The book was also awarded Asil’s Certificate of Merit for Preeminent Contribution to Creative Scholarship in 2015.

2 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.), Judgment, 1994 ICJ Rep. 112 (July 1).

3 Hoshinmaru (Japan v. Russ.), Case No. 14, Judgment of Aug. 6, 2007, 2005-2007 ITLOS Rep. 18; Tomimaru (Japan v. Russ.), Case No. 15, Judgment of Aug. 6, 2007, 2005-2007 Itlos Rep. 74.

4 Case T-201/04, MicrosoftCorp. v. Comm’n 2007 ECR II-3601; Commission Decision 2007/53, 2007 O.J. (L. 32) 23.

5 Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad andina [TJCA] [Court of Justice of the andean Community], Belmont v. Ecuador, 2-AI-96 (TJCA 1997); Belmont v. Colombia, 15-IP-99, Preliminary Ruling (TJCA 1999).

6 Nafta Secretariat, Opinion and Order of the Extraordinary Challenge Committee in the Matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Secretariat File No. ECC-2004-1904-01USA (Aug. 10, 2005).

7 Panel Report, United States—Preliminary Determi nations with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WTO Doc. WT/DS236/R (Nov. 1, 2002); Appellate Body Report, United States—Final Counter vailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Soft wood Lumber from Canada, WTO Doc. WT/DS257/AB/R (Feb. 17, 2004).

8 Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (Aug. 30, 2000), 5 ICSID Rep. 212 (2002) [hereinafter Metalclad Arbitral Ruling].

9 Panelc Report, United States—Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, WTO Doc. WT/DS108/RW (Aug. 20, 2001); Appellate Body Report, United States—Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations”, WTO Doc. WT/DS108/21/AB/RW (Jan. 14, 2002).

10 Case 89-AI-2000 (Sept. 28, 2001).

11 Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. La Republique de Niger, Arret No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08 (Oct. 27, 2008), available at https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/case-law-doc/traffickingpersonscrimetype/ner/2008/h_m__v__republic_of_niger_html/Hadijatou_Mani_c._Republique_du_Niger_French_Original.pdf. An unofficial English translation can be found at: https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/case-law-doc/traffickingpersonscrimetype/ner/2008/h_m__v__republic_of_niger_html/Hadijatou_Mani_v._Republic_of_Niger_Community_Court_of_Justice_Unofficial_English_translation.pdf.

12 Prosecutor v. Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, Judgment (May 18, 2012), available at http://www.rscsl.org/Documents/Decisions/Taylor/1283/SCSL-03-01-T-1283.pdf.

13 TJCA Case No. 1-AN-1996 (Nov. 28, 1996).

14 Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Kadi v. Council, 2008 ECR I-6351.

15 Case C-273/97, Sirdar v. Army Bd., 1999 ECR I-7403.

16 Columbia alcohol-related practices, 2-IP-98, Preliminary Ruling (TJCA 1998); 3-AI-97, Decision (TJCA 1997); Internal Judgment of Ecuador, alcohol dispute, Judgment of May 15, 1998, cited in 2-AI-97 (TJAC 1997) section XIII.

17 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Cmty. v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No.79 (Aug. 31, 2001).

18 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. Ictr 96-4-T, Judgment (Sept. 2, 1998), available at http://www.unictr.org/sites/unictr.org/files/case-documents/ictr-96-4/trial-judgements/en/980902.pdf.

19 In the words of one reviewer, it is “the most ambitious, comprehensive, and successful analysis of this new world of international courts and the impact they have exerted on international and domestic law and politics.” Pollack, supra note 1.

20 Alter, Karen J., Do International Courts Enhance Compliance with International Law?, 25 Rev. Asian & Pacific Stud. 51 (2003)Google Scholar.

21 Koh, Harold Hongju, Transnational Legal Process, 75 Neb. L. Rev. 181 (1996)Google Scholar.

22 Howse, Robert & Teitel, Ruti, Beyond Compliance: Rethinking Why International Law Really Matters, 1 Global Pol’y 127 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See also Alter, Karen J., The European Union’s Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spillover or Backlash, 54 Int’l Org. 489 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Alter, Karen J., Agent or Trustee: International Courts in Their Political Context, 14 Eur. J. Int’l L. 33 (2008)Google Scholar.

25 Posner, Eric & Yoo, John C., A Theory of International Adjudication, 93 Calif. 1 (2005)Google Scholar.

26 See, e.g., Alter, Karen J. & Helfer, Laurence, Nature or Nurture: Judicial Lawmaking in the European Court of Justice and the andean Tribunal of Justice, 64 Int’l Org. 563 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf.Koremenos, Barbara & Betz, Timm, The Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Agreements, in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations 371 (Dunoff, Jeffrey L. & Pollack, Mark A. eds., 2013)Google Scholar [hereinafter Dunoff & Pollack] (describing and building on the “rational design” literature).

27 See, e.g., Alter, Karen J. & Helfer, Laurence, The andean Tribunal of Justice and Its Interlocutors: Under standing the Preliminary Ruling Reference Patterns in the andean Community, 41 J. Int’l L. & Pol. 871 (2009)Google Scholar; Weiler, J. H. H., The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L.J. 2413 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See, e.g., Alter & Helfer, supra note 26; Alter & Helfer, supra note 27; Alter, Karen J., Helfer, Laurence R. & McAllister, Jacqueline R., A New International Human Rights Court for West Africa: The Ecowas Com munity Court of Justice, 107 AJIL 737 (2013)Google Scholar.

29 See, e.g., Kal Raustiala, Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order, in Dunoff & Pollack, supra note 26, at 293; Joost Pauwelyn & Manfred Elsig, The Politics of Treaty Interpretation: Variation and Explanations across International Tribunals, in id. at 445.

30 See, e.g, Kingsbury, Benedict & Schill, Stephan, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law, in El Nuevo Derecho Administrativo Global En America Latina: Desafios Para las inversiones extranjeras, la Regulacion nacional y el financiamiento para el desarrollo 221 (2009)Google Scholar.

31 Alter adopts the PICT criteria and therefore focuses on permanent institutions with independent judges that adjudicate between two or more entities (one of which must be a state or an international organization) that work on the basis of predetermined rules of procedure and that render legally binding decisions (p. 70). These five-fold criteria describe the institutions included in the top part of the PICT’s synoptic chart of international courts; see http://www.pict-pcti.org/publications/synoptic_chart/synop_c4.pdf, at 2. As Alter acknowledges when she includes, as part of her case studies, rulings issued by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal as well as ICSID investor-state decisions, applying these criteria (including “permanency”) is not always easy (p. 76).

32 PICT chart, supra note 31.

33 Krisch, Nico, The Path of Judicialization: A Comment on Karen Alter’s the New Terrain of International Law, Ejil: Talk! (Apr. 23, 2014)Google Scholar, at http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-path-of-judicialization-a-comment-on-karen-alters-the-new-terrain-of-international-law. See also Alvarez, José E., The New Dispute Settlers: (Half) Truths and Consequences, 38 Tex. Int’l L.J. 1 (2003)Google Scholar.

34 See, e.g., Alter, Karen, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, Ejil: Talk! (Apr. 22, 2014)Google Scholar, at http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-new-terrain-of-international-law-courts-politics-rights.

35 See, e.g., Besson, Samantha, Legal Philosophical Issues of International Adjudication: Getting Over the Amour Impossible between International Law and Adjudication, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 413 (Romano, Cesare P. R., Alter, Karen J. & Shany, Yuval, eds., 2014)Google Scholar (proposing a threefold categorization: law-identifying, law-making, and review); José E. Alvarez, What Are International Judges For? The Main Functions of International Adjudication, in id. at 158 (proposing four distinct forms of dispute settlement, fact-finding, law-making, and governance). See also Kingsbury & Schill, supra note 30 (rebranding many international adjudicative acts, including those by ICSID tribunals, as forms of “global administrative law”).

36 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

37 See, e.g., Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, Challenging (Some) Stereotypes and the Dna of (International) Law, Ejil: Talk! (Apr. 24, 2014)Google Scholar, at http://www.ejiltalk.org/challenging-some-stereotypes-and-the-dna-of-international-law.

38 Metalclad Arbitral Ruling, supra note 8, at paras. 74–101.

39 Id., para. 109.

40 For an excellent summary of the Pope & Talbot NAFTA case and its relation to the NAFTA Commission Interpretation of July 31, 2001, see Gantz, David A., Pope & Talbot, 97 AJIL 937 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., 2001 Bcsc 664, (B.C., Can.) paras. 94 and 99 (finding the claim that Mexico had expropriated Metalclad’s property under its Ecological DECRee to be a separate question involving a question of law with which the court could not interfere).

42 See, e.g., Metalclad Arbitral Ruling, supra note 8, at paras. 81–101 (discussing Mexican laws on construction permits and the procedures applicable to these).

43 See, e.g., United Nations Conference on Trade Development, And, Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2014, (May 2015)Google Scholar, available at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb 2015d2_en.pdf.

44 Metalclad Arbitral Ruling, supra note 8, at para. 103 (“expropriation includes... covert or incidental interference with the use of property which has the effect of depriving the owner, in whole or in significant part, of the use or reasonably-to-be-expected economic benefit of property...”).

45 See, e.g., Been, Vicki & Beauvais, Joel, The Global Fifth Amendment: NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine, 78 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 30 (2003)Google Scholar.