We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
European countries are seen as strong supporters of international adjudicatory institutions related to human rights and international criminal law, while the USA has generally been more skeptical about international courts and tribunals. While positions of the USA and Europe have generally been similar in relation to tribunals examining issues to trade and investment, for example. More recently and especially since the election of President Trump, the USA’s position towards all international courts and tribunals, including on matters of international economic law. The election of President Trump has resulted in a profound antagonism towards international courts and tribunals, and multilateral institutions more generally, in both words and facts. Differently, European countries, guided in large part by the European Union, have broadly maintained their support for international courts and tribunals, including trade related courts, and have voiced their desire for substantial changes in investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms. In both cases, European countries have not tried to dissociate from those courts, but rather, have argued for stronger, clearer and more permanent dispute resolution mechanisms.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.