Search Results

This chapter addresses the exceptions that apply exclusively to third country direct investment, i.e., Article 57 (1) EC, Article 59 EC, and Article 60 EC. Article 57 (1) EC contains a grandfathering clause for restrictive national and Community laws with respect to the categories of direct investment, including real estate, establishment, the provision of financial services, and admission of securities to capital markets. Concerning Article 57 (2) — empowering the Community to adopt measures involving the categories of capital movement mentioned above — this book limits itself to a broad brush depiction of the provision. Article 59 EC allows the Community to take temporary safeguard measures with regard to third countries in case of economic crisis. Article 60 EC provides the EC, and on an interim basis also the Member States, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), with a tool to adopt economic sanctions against one or more third countries in the area of free movement of capital. The discussion of the above-mentioned exceptions centres upon their effects on the standard of liberalisation of foreign direct investment achieved by virtue of Article 56 (1) EC.

This chapter explores how human rights law has contributed to the shift towards participatory gender equality by legitimating the adoption of quotas and parity mechanisms to ensure women’s equal participation in decision-making. Since the adoption of CEDAW, human rights law has moved away from formal equality notions that simply affirm women’s equal political rights. Instead, we see growing endorsement of substantive equality doctrines that validate the adoption of gender quotas, initially as temporary special measures to ensure women equal opportunities, and, more recently, as permanent measures targeting the gender-balanced composition of an ever-expanding range of public and private governance bodies. The chapter explores how human rights law connects this participatory turn to issues of pluralism, calling attention to the need for public bodies to represent the full diversity of the population, and calling on state parties to increase the participation of women from ethnic minorities, indigenous groups, and religious minorities.

This chapter discusses the enduring restrictions on the civil liberties of the people of Great Britain before and during the First World War. These restrictions were introduced as temporary measures under the Defence of the Realm Act. However, many of these restrictions either lasted longer than expected, surviving the reason for their original introduction, or were revived in a different form at a later date.

This chapter illustrates an asymmetric comparative international law approach to treaty interpretation through the example of the CEDAW Committee’s greater willingness to go beyond a margin of appreciation to tolerate progressive deviations rather than regressive deviations in the interpretation of CEDAW’s provisions. Section I examines the interactions between the CEDAW Committee and states parties. Section II discusses how the Committee’s asymmetric approach to treaty interpretation fits within a comparative international law project. Section III provides an introduction to the CEDAW Committee. Section IV illustrates the CEDAW Committee’s inflexible treatment of Muslim states parties’ reservations to the Convention, which constitute regressive deviations. Section V analyzes the Committee’s permissive treatment of the Scandinavian approach to CEDAW. Section VI explores how the asymmetric approach allows states to develop interpretations of treaties. Section VII concludes and describes potential future avenues of research into the asymmetric comparative international law approach to treaty interpretation.

Chapter 6 considers the possibilities and limitations for women’s participation in peacekeeping. It recommends understanding the FFPU as an alternative to gender mainstreaming, perhaps as a temporary special measure. FFPUs could be developed alongside existing efforts to expand gender-integrated peacekeeping forces. FFPUs appear to be a step in the right direction, though it is important to recognize that they should not be expected to solve all the problems women face when it comes to peace and security. Moreover, a shift in understanding is needed away from seeing women as super-heroines who are naturally adept at solving the problems necessary for peacekeeping. The effective pursuit of peace requires work from both men and women, including peacekeepers, policy makers, and practitioners, as well as the broader society.