International courts use two key methodologies to determine the degree of deference granted to states in their implementation of international obligations: the standard of review and margin of appreciation. This book investigates how these doctrines are applied in international courts, analysing where their approaches converge and diverge.

International courts and tribunals are increasingly asked to pass judgment on matters that are traditionally considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of States. Especially in the fields of human rights, investment, and trade law, international adjudicators commonly evaluate decisions of national authorities that have been made in the course of democratic procedures and public deliberation. A controversial question is whether international adjudicators should review such decisions de novo or show deference to domestic authorities. This book investigates how various international courts and tribunals have responded to this question. In addition to a comparative analysis, the book provides a normative argument, discussing whether different forms of deference are justified in international adjudication. It proposes a distinction between epistemic deference, which is based on the superior capacity of domestic authorities to make factual and technical assessments, and constitutional deference, which is based on the democratic legitimacy of domestic decision-making. The book concludes that epistemic deference is a prudent acknowledgement of the limited expertise of international adjudicators, whereas the case for constitutional deference depends on the relative power of the reviewing court vis-à-vis the domestic legal order.

The focus of this edited volume is the often-overlooked importance of secondary rules of international law. Secondary rules of international law-such as attribution, causality, and the standard and burden of proof-have often been neglected in scholarly literature and have seen fragmented application in international legal practice. Yet the systemic nature of international law entails that coherent and consistent application of such rules is a key element in reinforcing the legitimacy of decisions of international courts and tribunals. Accelerated development of international law and international litigation, coupled with the fragmented nature of the adjudicatory terrain calls for theoretical scrutiny and systemic analysis of the developments in the judicial treatment of secondary rules. This publication makes three important contributions to the study of secondary rules. First, it offers a comprehensive, expert doctrinal analysis of how standard of review, causation, evidentiary rules, and attribution operate in the case law of international courts or tribunals in fields spanning human rights, trade, investment, and humanitarian law. Second, it comparatively evaluates the divergent layers of meanings and normative expectations attached to secondary rules in international law scholarship as well as in the judicial practice of international courts and tribunals. Finally, the book investigates the role that secondary rules play in the development of the primary rules in international law and for the legitimacy of the decisions of international courts and tribunals. Earlier scholarly works have not problematized the role of secondary rules of international law in adjudication thoroughly. Secondary Rules of Primary Importance in International Law seeks to fill this gap by emphasizing the consequential nature of these secondary rules and argues that the outcome of litigation is fundamentally shaped by the exact standard of proof, standard of review, or attribution basis that is chosen by adjudicators. As such, the book offers an important resource for the study and practice of international law against the backdrop of the wide-ranging and fragmented nature of international adjudication.

This book examines how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reviews State behaviour through the prism of the standard of review. It develops a novel rationale to support the ICJ's application of deferential standards of review as a judicial avoidance technique, based on strategic considerations. It then goes on to empirically assess all 31 decisions of the Court in which the standard of review was at issue, showing how the Court determines that standard, and answering the question of whether it varies its review intensity strategically. As a result, the book's original contribution is two-fold: establishing a new rationale for judicial deference (that can be applied to all international courts and tribunals); and providing the first comprehensive, empirical analysis of the ICJ's standards of review. It will be beneficial to all scholars of the Court and those interested in judicial strategy.

Caroline Henckels examines how investment tribunals should balance competing state and investor interests in determining state liability in regulatory disputes.

This thoughtfully edited volume brings together leading scholars in the field to explore the relationship between the substantive standards of treatment contained in international investment agreements and the rule of law, which is developing into one of the key principles which both supporters and critics use to evaluate the investment treaty regime. Investment Protection Standards and the Rule of Law explores two perspectives. Firstly, it examines to what extent the substantive standards of treatment can be understood as expressions of the rule of law. Secondly, it addresses the rule-of-law problems, or rule-of-law lacunae, that exist in, or are created by, the application of these standards. The subject matter is advanced by combining doctrinal analysis of the core substantive treatment standards, as well as normative assessment of those standards from the perspective of the rule of law. This book also offers a critical discussion of the potential the rule of law has as a guidepost for structuring international investment relations, as well as its blind spots.

This completely revised and up to date Fourth Edition of this well received work offers in one volume a comprehensive review of United States copyright, patent, and trademark laws. The material has been completely updated and includes detailed discussion of the 2011 America Invents Act, as well as other pertinent developments in U.S. law It provides thorough and sophisticated treatment of this complex material in a form both less cumbersome than a treatise and considerably deeper and more sophisticated than a study outline or "nutshell." With its detailed citations, and readily accessible and complete subject coverage, this book will be a useful quick reference or deskbook for intellectual property practitioners, students, law professors, and librarians, as well as for anyone interested in understanding American intellectual property law

This book investigates how international adjudicators defer to State decision-making authority, and what that reveals about the domestic-international interface.

This thoroughly revised Handbook presents an up-to-date political and philosophical history of global constitutionalism. By exploring the constitutional-like qualities of international affairs, it provides key insight into the evolving world order.