Book contents
- Experiments in International Adjudication
- Experiments in International Adjudication
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I International Adjudication
- Part II Experiments in Dispute-Specific Adjudication
- Part III Context-Specific Redress Mechanisms
- 6 Mixed Claim Commissions and the Once Centrality of the Protection of Aliens
- 7 The General Claims Commission (Mexico/US) and the Invention of International Responsibility
- 8 Mirage in the Desert
- Part IV The Quest for a Permanent Court
- Part V Experiments in Specialised Courts
- Index
- References
7 - The General Claims Commission (Mexico/US) and the Invention of International Responsibility
from Part III - Context-Specific Redress Mechanisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2019
Book contents
- Experiments in International Adjudication
- Experiments in International Adjudication
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I International Adjudication
- Part II Experiments in Dispute-Specific Adjudication
- Part III Context-Specific Redress Mechanisms
- 6 Mixed Claim Commissions and the Once Centrality of the Protection of Aliens
- 7 The General Claims Commission (Mexico/US) and the Invention of International Responsibility
- 8 Mirage in the Desert
- Part IV The Quest for a Permanent Court
- Part V Experiments in Specialised Courts
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experiments in International AdjudicationHistorical Accounts, pp. 150 - 168Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Select Bibliography
Barker, C. (ed.), The Harvard Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal (Buffalo, NY: Hein, 2007), 80–86.Google Scholar
Borchard, E., ‘Recent Opinions of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico’ (1931) 25(4) American Journal of International Law 735–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordin, F. L., ‘Reflections on Customary International Law: The Authority of Codification Conventions and ILC Draft Articles in International Law’ (2014) 63 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 535–567.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. R., and Grant, T., ‘Responsibility of States for Injuries to Foreigners’ in Grant, J. P. and Barker, J. Craig (eds.), The Harvard Research in International Law: Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal (Buffalo, NY: Hein, 2007).Google Scholar
Corten, O., and Klein, P., ‘La Commission du droit international comme agent de la formalisation du droit de la responsabilité’ in Alland, D., Chetail, V., de Frouville, O. and Vinuales, J. (eds.), Unity and Diversity of International Law: Essays in Honour of Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2014), 415.Google Scholar
De Beus, J. G., The Jurisprudence of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, under the Convention of September 8, 1923 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, J. C., ‘International Law as Applied by U.S.-Mexico Claims Commission’ (1928) 14 American Bar Association Journal 312.Google Scholar
Hunt, B. L., ‘Work of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico’ (1937) 3 Federal Bar Association Journal 83.Google Scholar
Juliard, P., ‘Calvo Doctrine/Calvo Clause’ in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Jansen, N., The Making of Legal Authority. Non-legislative Codifications in Historical and Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissel, A., ‘The Duality of State Responsibility’ (2013) 44 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 793.Google Scholar
Nolte, G., ‘From Dionisio Anzilotti to Roberto Ago: The Classical International Law of State Responsibility and the Traditional Primacy of a Bilateral Conception of Inter-state Relations’ (2002) 13 European Journal of International Law 1083, esp. 1084–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. B., ‘The Settlement of Outstanding Claims between Mexico and the United States’ (1924) 18 American Journal of International Law 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabtai, R. (ed.), The International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Part 1, Articles 1–35 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991).Google Scholar
Spiermann, O., International Legal Argument in the Permanent Court of International Justice, The Rise of the International Judiciary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 41ff.Google Scholar
Spiermann, O., ‘“Who Attempts too Much Does Nothing Well”: The 1920 Advisory Committee of Jurists and the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice’ (2002) 73 British Yearbook of International Law 187–260.Google Scholar
Stuyt, A. M., The General Principles of Law as Applied by International Tribunals to Disputes on Attribution and Exercise of State Jurisdiction (Berlin: Springer, 1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vollenhoven, C., et al. ‘General Claims Commission – United States and Mexico: Illinois Central Railroad Company v. United Mexican States’ (1926) 20(4) American Journal of International Law 794–799.Google Scholar
Woolsey, L. H., ‘Settlement of Claims between the United States and Mexico’ (1936) 30 American Journal of International Law 99.Google Scholar