The 1959 Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention marks an important year in the early history of international investment law. Many accounts locate the origin of the field in 1959 with the ratification of the first bilateral investment treaty between Germany and Pakistan of the same year. This chapter aims at situating the Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention as a continuation, rather than a beginning, of the development of norms in the field of international investment law. The Draft Convention is one of the L10first to contain provisions that are recognisable to contemporary investment lawyers, but their content is an iteration of the older claims of the principles of acquired rights and the prohibition of unjust enrichment. The chapter demonstrates that the Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention brought the internationalisation of legal authority over concession agreements into formal shape.

This chapter engages with the Palestine Railway Arbitration of 1922 and draws out the techniques applied in the arbitration that framed new ways of protecting private property and laid the groundwork for the internationalisation of concession agreements. The chapter describes how introduction of the Mandate System and the inclusion of concession agreements into peace treaties (under the jurisdiction of mixed arbitral tribunals) enabled the advanced protection of private property on the international plane with special attention to the underlying modes of authorisation. It shows how these transformations can be understood as practices of jurisdiction that rely on a mode of self-authorisation. The Palestine Railway Arbitration is particularly illuminating of this point for two reasons. First, from a purely doctrinal perspective, the arbitration is full of formal flaws. It therefore raises the question of the source of the authority of law more pressingly than other arbitrations. Second, it appears that most legal inventions and changes were made out of a sense of necessity without much theorising. These observations point towards an account of law that is attentive to the actual practices of the actors involved.

The conclusion highlights some conclusions on the nature and role of reciprocity in public international law, on the basis of the analysis in foregoing chapters. It highlights the link between reciprocity and the principle of sovereign equality, before briefly outlining the functions, limits, and some of the specific meanings of reciprocity in public international law.

The negative connotations of reciprocity and its link to conduct-based responses in a lawless context have led to a juxtaposition in legal doctrine of reciprocity with community interests, institutionalisation, and the existence of objective legality. This chapter provides an overview of existing approaches to the subject and introduces the argument of this book, that reciprocity in public international law is not antithetical to community interests and obligations, but that its importance is explained by a structural factor: the sovereign equality of states. This explains and predicts where reciprocity will be relevant, and where it will find its limits.

Biological diversity, including marine biological diversity, is essential for human life. However, presently biological diversity on land and in the oceans is rapidly declining. Thus, there is a strong need to establish legal frameworks for the conservation of marine biological diversity. In this regard, growing attention is being paid to the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs). This chapter will explore emergent norms on this subject. In particular, the following issues will be examined: (1) the principal approaches to conservation of marine biological diversity, (2) the limits of the LOSC with regard to the conservation of marine biological diversity, (3) the significance of, and the limitations associated with, the Convention on Biological Diversity in the context of the conservation of marine biological diversity, (4) MPAs and their limitations, and (5) MPAs on the high seas.

This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the role reciprocity plays in treaties. First looking at treaty law and how reciprocity functions in the rules on reservations to treaties, the chapter goes on to examine reciprocity’s role in bilateral treaties, drawing on the examples of air transport agreements and energy agreements in particular, before looking at reciprocity’s role in multilateral treaties of the bilateralizable, interdependent, and integral types. It then analyzes treaties creating international organizations, particularly the EU and ILO, and differentiated obligations in environmental and trade law, illustrating how reciprocity operates in these types of instrument. Finally, the chapter addresses "objective regimes" and the effects of treaties on third parties. While some limitations exist on reciprocity, these do not depend on the substance of obligations but rather on the legal equality of the subjects involved.

This chapter addresess the operation of reciprocity in the enforcement of international law. It looks at the roles reciprocity may play in the consequences of a breach of international law, analyzing the exception of nonperformance and State responsibility. In particular, it analyzes the consequences that attach to the breach of erga omnes obligations or peremptory norms, and the rules and limitations on countermeasures. The structure and mechanisms of international responsibility demonstrate the persisting importance of reciprocity in international law and the structural limitations that international law’s horizontal nature poses to establishing specific consequences for breaches of community obligations.

This chapter will examine rules governing marine spaces beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, namely, the high seas and the Area. The high seas are essentially characterised by the principle of freedom of the seas, and order in the high seas is ensured primarily by the flag State. Thus, the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State and its exceptions are key issues underlying international law governing the high seas. However, the Area is governed by the principle of the common heritage of mankind. This principle is innovative because it may bring new viewpoints beyond the State-to-State perspective in the law of the sea. Against that background, this chapter will discuss in particular the following issues: (1) the principle of freedom of the high seas, (2) the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of the high seas, (3) the problems associated with flags of convenience, (4) the peacetime exceptions to the principle of the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State on the high seas, (5) the raison dtre of the principle of the common heritage of mankind, and (6) the 1994 Implementation Agreement

This final chapter revisits the main findings of the book and ties them to the inquired legal events. The first part restates how property protection came to be prioritised over redistributional policies. The second part draws out the contradiction in the simultaneous proposition of a universal timeless legal order that at once claims to represent modernity. The chapter goes on to summarise how law emerges as a self-authorising practice through the lens of jurisdiction and temporal ordering. It concludes with a reflection of the relationship between the structures developed in this book and the two main pillars of legitimation for the contemporary regime of international investment law, namely the depoliticisation of conflicts and the promotion of development.

Peaceful settlement of international disputes occupies an important place in international law in general and the law of the sea is no exception. In this respect, the LOSC establishes a unique mechanism combining the voluntary and compulsory procedures for dispute settlement. It is particularly significant that the LOSC sets out the compulsory dispute settlement procedures as an integrated part of the Convention. Furthermore, it is of particular interest to note that a new permanent international tribunal, namely, ITLOS, was established. The dispute settlement procedures of the LOSC provide an interesting insight into the development of dispute settlement procedures in international law. Thus, this chapter will address the dispute settlement procedures under the LOSC with particular reference to the following issues: (1) the principal features of the dispute settlement procedures of the LOSC, (2) the significance of and limitations associated with the compulsory procedures for dispute settlement under the LOSC, and (3) jurisdiction over mixed disputes involving maritime and non-maritime issues, and (40 a risk of fragmentation of international law.

Marine living resources are of vital importance for mankind because these resources are an essential source of protein and many human communities depend on fishing. As marine living resources are renewable, there is certainly a need to pursue conservation policies in order to secure sustainable use of these resources. Nonetheless, the depletion of these resources is a matter of more pressing concern in the international community. Thus, the conservation of marine living resources is a significant issue in the law of the sea. This chapter will examine rules of international law governing the conservation of these resources, focusing particularly on the following issues: (1) the problems associated with the traditional approaches to conservation of marine living resources, (2) the concept of sustainable development living resources, (3) the ecosystem approach, (4) the precautionary approach, and (5) the role of regional fisheries management organisations in the conservation of marine living resources and its main challenges.