Contemporary legal practice requires the allocation of authority within a complex system of legal prescriptions. As international law has extended to areas as diverse as trade, environmental regulation and human rights, the consequences of breach of international legal obligations become more difficult to assess, The authors probe the role of the lex specialis maxim as a tool for the effective placing of special secondary rules within the general international law of state responsibility. The central question is: Are the general rules on state responsibility to apply residually? The authors answer in the affirmative. 'Conceptual' arguments for so-called self-contained regimes are unconvincing, Scholars who perceive international law as a unified legal order might be led to apply a presumption in favour of the applicability of the general international law of state responsibility. Scholars who regard international law as no more than the sum total of loosely interrelated subsystems tend to advocate a presumption in favour of the normative closure of a particular regime. In the authors' view, neither presumption is helpful, since both tend to obfuscate the value judgments that legal decision-making inevitably involves. Instead, the authors propose that a fallback on general international law, including resort to countermeasures, may be justified on normative grounds. A closer analysis of four subsystems that have often been associated with the notion of self-contained regimes - diplomatic law, European Community law, the WTO and human rights - concludes the discussion.
Assessing the legitimacy of any legal system is hard, but especially if the system in question is the volatile and contested field of international law. Recognizing limits of space and my capabilities, I reframe the task for this chapter. Rather than defending or attacking the legitimacy of international law, it talks about how one might think about this issue. The chapter proceeds by breaking down the issue of legitimacy into a series of questions. Is international law a legal system? What are the sources of values and standards for assessing its legitimacy? Does contemporary practice of international law advance or retard the development of a legitimate legal system? It concludes with a brief discussion of areas for future research.
外国法的证明与适用是法院审理涉外案件中的重要一环.中国对外国法的证明采取的是争议比较大的"二分法"模式,即在不同情况下分别由当事人和法院对外国法的内容承担证明义务,对于此模式的运用,实践中也存在很多问题.为解决外国法的证明问题,首先应确定外国法的性质.在对比其他国家对外国法所采取的主要态度与做法后,认为外国法具有的是介于法律与事实的中间性质,中国采取的也是偏向于折中说之态度.在此基础上,"二分法"的证明模式具有存在的必要性与可行性.同时,针对实践中存在的问题,提出完善"二分法"的外国法证明方式与明确中国法与外国法适用关系的建议.
数据跨境流动会导致数据面临域外侵害的风险,因此,数据需要法律提供跨境保护.欧盟GDPR发展出以第3条为适用门槛的领土延伸模式与境外等效模式的跨境保护二元模式.领土延伸模式理论上可提供更高的保护标准,而境外等效模式在实际执行效果上更胜一筹.当存在两种模式同时适用的可能性时,一方面,从法律现实主义考量,短期内一国可优先选择适用境外等效模式;但另一方面,补强领土延伸模式实际适用的短板,应当成为一国长期努力的方向.据此,国内层面,我国应重点完善与域外管辖相衔接的代表制度,充分发挥代表制度在促进领土延伸模式域外适用的积极作用;国际层面,我国应积极参与数据保护的国际合作,通过与他国数据保护机构的协作切实保障领土延伸模式的落实.
国际商事惯例构成要件和效力来源从合一走向分离的历史嬗变决定了应将研究重心从空洞的概念主义之争转向实用的功能主义之路,避免继续深陷国际惯例是事实还是法律的理论争议泥潭.法理学"法源理论"的最新发展为重思国际惯例的性质提供了新的理论视角,国际商事惯例具有对法律推理大小前提之含义解释和漏洞补充的双重功能,但其本身既非降格为合同条款也无法升格为实证法律,宜将其视为构成裁判依据认知渊源的特殊规则体系,进而克服定性冲突对功能发挥造成的影响.我国《民法典》"国际惯例渊源条款"的缺失则为重构国际惯例的适用规则铺垫了现实契机,应从体例设置和内容修正两个维度双向发力,为未来国际商事惯例在中国的适用提供更为精细完备的法律依据.
