Abstract
National Security, Private Actors, and Political Risk: Judicial and Non-Judicial Responses
Highlights
Schill and Vidigal always safeguarded policy space for State measures taken on grounds of national security
When States agreed at the 1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes to complement diplomacy with binding dispute settlement under international law, replacing the use of force as a means of pursuing foreign policy interests and settling international conflicts, they already made sure that certain issues would be exempted from international adjudication
While Article 16 of the 1899 Hague Convention recognized that ‘arbitration is ... the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle,’ it limited that insight to ‘questions of a legal nature.’[2]. Political questions, which were understood as those relating to the vital interests or essential security of States, were assumed to be excluded by this formulation – and could be framed to cover certain matters of inter-State commerce.[3]
Summary
Schill and Vidigal always safeguarded policy space for State measures taken on grounds of national security.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
