Folkeret

This volume of the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (NYIL) addresses the question how the assumption that states have a common obligation to achieve a collective public good can be reconciled with the fact that the 195 states of today's world are highly diverse and increasingly unequal in terms of size, population, politics, economy, culture, climate and historical development.  The idea of common but differentiated responsibilities is on paper the perfect bridge between the factual inequality and formal equality of states. The acknowledgement that states can have common but still different - more or less onerous - obligations is predicated on the moral and legal concept of global solidarity.  This book encompasses general contributions on the function and the content of the related principles, chapters that describe and evaluate how the principles work in a specific area of international law and chapters that address their efficiency and broader ramifications, in terms of compliance, free-rider behaviour and shifting balances of power.  The originality of the book resides in the integration of conceptual, comparative and practical dimensions of the principles of global solidarity and common but differentiated responsibilities. The book is therefore highly recommended reading for both academics with a theoretical interest and those working within international organisations. The Netherlands Yearbook of International Law was first published in 1970. It offers a forum for the publication of scholarly articles in a varying thematic area of public international law.

The book rethinks the means of harmonization of prima facie norm conflicts in light of the multitude of international agreements across regimes. The methodology deployed in this book, which is referred to as complementation or complementary application, represents a novel approach by focusing on commonly shared objectives and a unifying ordre public transnational across fields of public international law that allow for a harmonization beyond traditional treaty interpretation. Fields of public international law, mainly the laws of armed conflict, international environmental law, and human rights law, apply simultaneously to questions regarding the environment and war. Such a coexistence challenges the unity of the international legal order, and it also challenges the means of harmonization across fields of public international law. However, eventually, the co-existence of several fields of public international law can result in a refinement of international law and enhanced legal protection. Diversification can also contribute to clarification or normative intensification in areas of parallel application of various fields and multilayered legal protection, demonstrating a counter-option to fragmentation.

In the era of globalisation, cross-border crimes are becoming increasingly common. The nature of these crimes is complex, and cross-border evidence exchange is, therefore, crucial to the successful prosecution of these offences. The exchange of evidence between countries can provide invaluable assistance in solving crimes that have an international dimension. The European Investigation Order (EIO) allows judicial authorities to request evidence more quickly and easily than via traditional instruments. The EIO has become the primary legal tool for gathering trans-border evidence, replacing the traditional Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) conventions previously used. However, the EIO is not the only pertinent legal instrument for cross-border evidence gathering within the EU. Accordingly, professionals need a clear understanding of this subject.Exchanging evidence among judicial authorities in the EU Member States presupposes twoessential components. First, there must be a secure communication channel. This is provided by e-CODEX, which offers a European digital infrastructure for secure cross-border communication in the field of justice. Recently (May 30th, 2022), the e-CODEX system became the digital backbone of EU judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters on the basis of Regulation 2022/850. To achieve effective evidence exchange via EIO/MLA legal instruments, there must also be a communication tool. This is provided by the e-Evidence Digital Exchange System, which is capable of managing any EIO/MLA procedures/instruments, from the e-Forms (EIO Annexes) to the whole business logic, on the basis of the e-CODEX system. Finally, it is essential to use a uniform standard for the representation of evidence data and metadata, so as to streamline the process and make investigations more effective, in particular when it comes to complicated criminal cases where it is key to find either correlations amongdifferent cases or to extract multiple types of data from the same inspection. The importance of cross-border evidence exchange in criminal matters cannot be overstated. This book addresses all the above-mentioned aspects, offering an up-to-date overview of scenarios in cross-border judicial cooperation from both juridical and technical standpoints.

Seen from "e;inside the IAU,"e; this book tells the in-depth story of a major crisis in which China "e;divorced"e; from the International Astronomical Union in 1960  as a protest against the admission of Taiwan. This happened to all the scientific unions at the same time, and to the Olympic Games, which, unexpectedly, would serve as a laboratory for the "e;reconciliation"e; which took place following the re-opening of China to the world 20 years later.The so-called "e;China conflict"e; is the most important crisis in the post-WWII history of the IAU. Yet, many details about this conflict and its links to broader geopolitical events have long remained unsettled, obscure, or altogether absent. In particular, the book describes for the first time the "e;separation"e; period, which covered the Cultural Revolution, and in which the IAU made desperate official efforts to reach out to China, while some groups of Western and Chinese astronomers managed to keep contact at times. On the occasion of the IAU Centenary celebrations in 2019, the book revisits this painful succession of events using unpublished documents from the IAU Archives and the International Council of Scientific Unions. The book also contains supplementary typescripts of selected handwritten correspondences and the full translation of key original Chinese documents unknown to readers outside China.What emerges is a complex and fascinating story of human relations and science diplomacy under the shadow of the Cold War. Readers will learn how the 20-year "e;China conflict"e; as lived by astronomers and scientists is important not only for the history of the IAU, but also for the history of contemporary China. "e;This book is full of so many original documents of the IAU office, very reliable and good to open to the public readers."e; Shuhua Ye, Shanghai Observatory (IAU Vice-President, 1988-1994)This book is a companion book to "e;Astronomers as Diplomats,"e; published at the same time in the same series.

The Asian Yearbook of International Economic Law (AYIEL) 2022 addresses the rapidly evolving field of international economic law with a special focus on Asia and the Pacific. This region has long been and remains a major engine of the world economy; at the same time, it is characterized by a host of economies with varying developmental levels, economic policies and legal jurisdictions. The AYIEL 2022 especially focuses on trade law, investment law, competition law, dispute settlement, economic regulation and cooperation, and regional economic integration, as well as other legal developments in Asian countries.

Volume 204 contains Somalia v. Kenya, Situation in the State of Palestine, The M/T 'San Padre Pio' Case (Switzerland v. Nigeria) and Ukraine v. Russian Federation.

This book offers a comprehensive summary of extant international law scholarship on the topics of self-determination and secession and positions the concepts among present-day theory and relevant practice, illustrated through various ongoing cases and historical examples. The right to self-determination is among the least understood rights within international law. Theoretical dilemmas ¿ as to whether there is a link between self-determination and secession ¿ are nothing new. In essence, self-determination is a much broader concept than secession and obtaining independent statehood. Unilateral secession is not prohibited by international law, but neither is it per se welcomed or accepted in practice. Beyond the context of decolonization, secession claims have long been viewed with disapproval in international law, and lawyers have been extremely skeptical about the issue. Although this is still the case, there are also new trends and opportunities to explore situations in which secession can be accepted, legitimized, or even legally permissible. The yardstick for this is the diplomatic response to secessionism and the growing involvement of the international community in mediation and conflict resolution. Though finding solutions can be difficult, within the existing frame, the ongoing tension between the duty of every society to recognize pluralism and diversity on the one hand, and the inherent desire of every culture ¿ whether majority, minority or indigenous ¿ to protect its values and ensure conformity on the other, must be resolved. The practices and modalities that envisage the internal dimension of the right to self-determination as a right that is exercised within the state borders can offer such opportunities. The appropriate role of the state and the international community is to serve as mediators between competing forces and to set parameters that can transform destructive conflicts into productive political models.

This book critically analyzes the criminalization of incitement to terrorism under the fundamental principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality with the aim of striking a fair balance between security and liberty on this complicated issue. The criminalization of incitement to terrorism has gained momentum, but no exact or generally accepted definition of this offense exists at the international level. What¿s more, given that the criminalization of incitement to terrorism results in restrictions on the exercise of citizens¿ freedom of expression, there should be certain limitations on those criminal measures to avoid unnecessary or disproportionate infringement of this fundamental human right. Nevertheless, there has not been a precise standard by which to determine how to draw the line between anti-terrorism and the protection of freedom of expression. Hence, it could be concluded that the criminalization of incitement to terrorism concerns how to balance security and liberty, and the safeguarding principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality should be fully observed in considering this issue.This book studies definitions of ¿incitement¿, ¿terrorism¿, and ¿incitement to terrorism¿ under the relevant international and national legislation, and points out the existing absence, ambiguousness, or substantive divergence in defining actus reus and mens rea regarding incitement to terrorism. It carefully considers the current need for and essential limitations on criminal measures against incitement to terrorism in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality, and particularly focuses on how to balance the protection of freedom of expression with the criminalization of incitement to terrorism. In considering how to draw a line between the two, the book formulates precise requirements for objective and subjective elements of this offense in accordance with the principle of legality.Given its scope, it will be of interest not only to academics, human rights lawyers and practitioners, but also to policymakers, as it offers an extensive evaluation of the effects and counter-effects of existing criminal measures.

"RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE"