To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The fourth section of the, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, in a judgment from 26 February 2002, held that the German authorities, in a case involving the revocation of parenting rights, violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The circumstances of the case are compelling: the painful separation of parents and children ordered by the German authorities in the interests of the children, followed by several years of hard-fought litigation as the parents struggled to reestablish their parenting rights over their children and to restore their natural family. The Court concluded that the interference in the right of private and family life was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the German authorities.
In the middle of the 19th century Jurists Forums were founded in several European countries, including Germany, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Italy and Hungary. The aim of the institution was to assemble practitioners and academics, in order to discuss contemporary legal problems with the goal of influencing jurisprudence and legislation. The activities of the Deutscher Juristentag (German Jurists' Forum) were interrupted after Hitler came to power, primarily because the German Jurists' Forum refused to exclude its Jewish members. The organization was resurrected after the Second World War, and has taken a leading role in influencing the jurisprudence of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH — German Federal Court of Justice), for example in the area of product liability and family law.
The case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, better known as the ‘Nicaragua case’ or simply Nicaragua, is arguably one of the most important and controversial cases ever to be heard by the International Court of Justice. Twenty-five years after the judgment on the merits was handed down, it is high time to reassess the impact of Nicaragua on international law. The joint efforts of the Grotius Centre of the Leiden Law School, the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at University College London, the Netherlands Society of International Law, and the law firm Foley Hoag LLP resulted in a one-day conference, on 27 June 2011, the very day on which the judgment on the merits of the Nicaragua case was handed down, 25 years ago.
By
Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International European University Institute,
Cristina Hoss, Graduate Diploma and Ph.D. in Law, University of Paris II
This chapter compares and analyzes the international legal issues arising from transboundary environmental pollution and international terrorism. At first glance, it might appear to be somewhat peculiar to consider such disparate topics alongside one another. However, the potential cross-border effects of terrorism and pollution, as well as the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the resulting harm is the result of nonstate actors, makes such an examination worthwhile. Moreover, both of these transboundary phenomenons share one vitally important characteristic: they cannot be left to the respective domestic legal orders alone, but need common action in order to raise an effective response.
This examination is facilitated by considering the features of international environmental law arising out of the historic Trail Smelter arbitration and the emerging international law on transboundary terrorism, which allows for a consideration of international law's general mechanisms for combating all manners of transboundary harm. Such a consideration gives rise to the interesting question of whether these legal mechanisms constitute special international law, or whether they are, in fact, merely applications of the general law of state responsibility.
The legal mechanisms developed by international law to combat transboundary pollution and international terrorism share two important features. First, international law has placed the prevention of transboundary harm at the very center of both, whereas the responsibility of states, the “curative” side of international law, does not seem to be the preferred strategy to combat transboundary harm.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.