Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T03:07:23.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Remarks by Geir Ulfstein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Geir Ulfstein*
Affiliation:
Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Effectiveness of International Adjudication: Assessing Functions and Performance
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.