Search Results

The system of international jurisdiction allows for the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by more than one State. Especially in the field of economic law, this system may yield unsatisfactory outcomes. Because restrictive or fraudulent practices may wreak worldwide havoc, several States that have some connection to the practice may start exercising jurisdiction and may claim regulatory primacy. A rule may therefore have to be devised on the basis of which jurisdiction is conferred on the State with a strong, or even better, the strongest link with the matter to be regulated — a rule of jurisdictional reasonableness derived from international comity. This rule has most forcefully been set out in § 403 of the U.S. Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, although the customary law status of that provision is unclear.

The chapter documents the complex relationship between, on the one hand, equity and international law and, on the other, principles and rules, and it discusses equity as a source of international law. The thrust of its argument is that equity is a source of international law, which means that international adjudicators have the power to apply it. While conceding that the felicitous conjunction of law and equity presents a formidable challenge, the chapter suggests that equity can only be conceived as forming part of the law. After discussing equity embedded in conventional law, the chapter turns to customary international law, general principles of law, and general principles of international law. It puts forward the argument that equity is a general principle of international law of a customary law nature, having mutated from a general principle of law through its repeated use at the international level.

This chapter considers the role of international law in sovereign financing, a legal area currently underdeveloped. It briefly presents the content and implications of the Principles and analyses whether and to what extent international law supports them. The Principles are embodied in a itself so called soft law instrument. However, a few principles are backed by international treaties and customary international law, and some others could even be considered as general principles of international law. This chapter argues that the legal character of the Principles is not determined by its soft law shell and will mainly depend on two variables: (a) the extent to which each principle is supported by hard rules of international law, including general principles of international law, and; (b) their intrinsic value to persuade stakeholders that they are necessary in international sovereign financing to overcome global problems. The fact that the Principles are well-rooted and broadly tested in domestic laws influences these two variables.