No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Remarks by Geir Ulfstein
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0272503700001518/resource/name/firstPage-S0272503700001518a.jpg)
- Type
- Effectiveness of International Adjudication: Assessing Functions and Performance
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015
References
1 Yuval Shany, Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach, 106 AJIL 225 (2012).
2 Yuval Shany, Assessing the Effectiveness Of International Courts (2014).
3 Id. at 270.
4 Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 Nov. 1950, art. 19, ETS 5.
5 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, preamble, 2187 UNTS 90.
6 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement), 15 April 1994, art. (3)(2), 33 I.L.M. 1226 (1994).
7 Shany, supra note 2, at 242–43.
8 Helfer, Laurence R. & Alter, Karen, Legitimacy and Lawmaking: A Tale of Three International Courts, 14 Theoretical Inquiries L. 479 (2013)Google Scholar.
9 EC—Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400/R; WT/DS401/R), DSB Panel Report of 25 Nov. 2013.