Jurisdictional Decisions Research Articles

Sustainability and jurisdiction in the international civil litigation market

The sustainability of the global economy, particularly in response to the concerns of climate change, is an issue which impacts many different aspects of life and work around the world. It raises particular questions concerning globalised industries or markets which depend on long distance transportation for their function. This article takes as its focus international civil litigation – the judicial resolution of cross-border disputes – as a particular example of a globalised market in which sustainability considerations are presently neglected, and examines how this omission ought to be addressed. It proposes a modification to English law which aims to ensure that jurisdictional decisions by the English courts take into account their environmental impact – that is to say, the environmental impact of the selection of a particular forum. The article also considers the implications of adopting this change on the position of the English courts in the global litigation marketplace, arguing that the effects are likely to be limited, and it could have an incidental benefit in promoting the development and adoption of communications technologies in judicial dispute resolution.

Is a jurisdictional decision in international investment law res judicata?

Die internasionale beleggingsregstelsel word toenemend gekritiseer as gevolg van ’n persepsie dat daar wanbalanse in die stelsel is wat in beleggers se guns werk, wat aanleiding gee tot omstrede debatte oor die regte en verpligtinge van partye. Een terugkerende kwessie draai om gevalle van parallelle prosesse, geïllustreer deur sake soos CME Czech Republic BV v The Czech Republic en Lauder v Czech Republic, waar beleggers en meerderheidsaandeelhouers afsonderlik identiese eise voor beleggingstribunale ingestel het. Die beginsel van res judicata, gewortel in die versekering van finaliteit en prosedurele doeltreffendheid, het na vore gekom as ’n potensiële oplossing om parallelle litigasie te voorkom. Nietemin bly die toepassing daarvan in beleggingsarbitrasie omstrede, veral ten opsigte van besluite oor jurisdiksie. In hierdie bydrae word die kompleksiteite rondom res judicata in beleggingsarbitrasie krities ondersoek, met die fokus op die toepassing daarvan op jurisdiksionele besluite. Die artikel ontleed debatte oor die vraag of sodanige besluite binne die tribunaal die effek van res judicata moet hê en ondersoek scenario’s waar tribunale ongunstige toekennings oor jurisdiksie uitreik. Deur analise van relevante sake en regsbeginsels word met hierdie artikel daarna gestreef om prosedurele doeltreffendheid met regverdigheid te versoen, sonder om die afdwingbaarheid van tribunale se beslissing te ondermyn of om ’n party van die reg te ontneem om beswaar aan te teken waar nuwe feite ’n tribunaal van jurisdiksie ontneem. Die beginsel van res judicata, alhoewel bekend in nasionale reg, neem unieke dimensies aan in beleggingsarbitrasie. Die toepassing van res judicata verskil tussen ICSID- en nie-ICSID-prosedures, met implikasies vir jurisdiksionele uitdagings en die finaliteit van besluite. Tribunale het geworstel met die vraag of besluite orr jurisdiksie as finaal en bindend beskou moet word, wat tot teenstrydige interpretasies en prosedurele onsekerhede gelei het. In hierdie artikel word die rigiede toepassing van res judicata op jurisdiksionele besluite gekritiseer en word geargumenteer ten gunste van ’n meer genuanseerde benadering wat prosedurele doeltreffendheid met partye se regte sal balanseer. Dit beklemtoon die praktiese uitdagings van die toepassing van res judicata op aanhoudende prosesse en stel alternatiewe meganismes voor om prosedurele regverdigheid te beskerm. Deur die praktiese implikasies van res judicata te ondersoek, dra hierdie artikel by tot verdere debat binne beleggingsarbitrasie en bied insigte in die versoening van teenstrydige belange in die nastrewing van billike geskilbeslegting.

Evolution of the Competency Criteria of the Administrative Judge in Morocco

The identification of the area of competence of the administrative judge has historically constituted the main means of determining the scope of application of administrative law as an autonomous law. This study proposes to examine the criteria adopted by jurists to decide on the jurisdiction of the administrative judge in Morocco. Its purpose is to elucidate the position of doctrine and case law on this subject, via the presentation of jurisdictional decisions illustrating the temporal evolution and the socio-political context characterizing the choice of a given criterion in order to reconstruct its genesis, its historical context and its specificities. The work also tries to bring out the points of convergence and divergence between Morocco and France, exporting country of administrative law through colonial penetration, as to the elements which justified the competence of the administrative judge. The study revealed that the criteria adopted so that the administrative judge can rule on a specific case have known in Morocco an evolution varying between the use of the organic criterion: identification of the authority, of the person at the origin of the dispute, and recourse to the material criterion which consists of an examination of the situations encountered, the material facts or the legal acts at the origin of the dispute.

Enforcement actions and their suspension: the concept and legal regulation in Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia

The purpose of this research paper is to study the concept and legal regulation of enforcement actions and their suspension in Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia. The methodology of this article is based on the application of various methods of scientific knowledge, including analytical method, deductive method, synthesis method, hermeneutic method, comparative method, modeling method. The results of scientific research presented in this article contain the author's definitions of "enforcement actions", "suspension of enforcement actions", generalization of legal regulation of enforcement actions and their suspension under the laws of Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia. The practical significance of the results presented in the article lies in the possibility of taking them into account both by legal theorists, in particular those working on the subject of enforcement proceedings, and legal practitioners, in particular those involved in the enforcement of various jurisdictional decisions.

Should the ICC accept Taiwan’s delegation of ad hoc criminal jurisdiction? A debate on Taiwan’s functional statehood in the context of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute

This paper provides a comparative study of Taiwan (Republic of China) (ROC) and Palestine. It argues that Taiwan (ROC), while not recognised as a State and thus unable to ratify the Rome Statute, could still delegate criminal jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court (ICC) by means of an ad hoc Article 12(3) declaration. This is because Taiwan (ROC) practises and enforces an autonomous domestic criminal justice system and has the capacity to cooperate with the ICC under Part 9 of the Rome Statute. By carefully studying the jurisdictional decisions on Palestine, this paper argues that the door is still open for future Pre-Trial Chambers to consider the functional interpretation of ‘State’ under Article 12(3). However, the major challenge for Taiwan (ROC) is not one of impracticability but illegitimacy. A declaration would require consideration of why jurisdiction ought to be extended to Taiwan (ROC) but not to other contested entities. In this respect, the paper argues that the ICC should follow the mandatory non-recognition of contested entities created and sustained in violation of peremptory norms of international law. In addition, the paper argues that, as the ‘interests of justice’ clause under Article 53 would, in any event, serve as the final bar to filter out ‘sham’ declarations that intend to advance entities’ statehood before an investigation, political consequences alone should not prevent the ICC from accepting Article 12(3) declarations lodged by contested entities such as Taiwan (ROC) at the jurisdictional stage.

Digitalization of the ECtHR activities in inheritance cases and in compulsory enforcement of jurisdictional decisions: International-legal aspect

Global challenges and the change in people's usual way of life during the pandemic have shown that it is digital technologies that can expand the possibilities of humanity. Their improvement and expansion of their scope is a priority for many states of the world. Therefore, global digitalization has covered all spheres of social life, including justice and the activities of decision-enforcement bodies. In particular, at the 37th plenary meeting of the European Commission on the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe (CEPEJ), unity was demonstrated on the need for further development of tools concerning the digitalization of justice. Due to this, it is important to analyze the features of the digitalization of justice on the example of the activities of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECtHR) regarding inheritance cases and pay attention to the international legal aspect of this issue. The purpose of the work is to study the international legal aspect of digitalization of the activity of the ECtHR in inheritance cases and in the course of enforcement of decisions of jurisdictional bodies. The research methodology includes the dialectical method, historical-logical, comparative-legal, formal-legal, statistical, systemic-structural, modeling, and sociological methods. The authors summarized that the digitalization of justice is reflected in the activities of the ECtHR, including inheritance cases. The authors also highlighted the problematic issues of regulation of the implementation of digitalization tools for the administration of justice in some countries and problematic issues of digitalization of enforcement of court decisions.

Investigation Report on Jurisdiction of Online Shopping Contract Disputes

With the continuous expansion of the market scale of online shopping, the contradiction between merchants, platforms and consumers has gradually become prominent, which is manifested in the increasing number of online shopping disputes in the courts. The determination of jurisdiction is the starting link before the dispute enters the litigation, which involves the orderly conduct of civil litigation and is related to the interests of the parties. This paper attempts to analyze the causes of the jurisdictional issues of online shopping contract disputes through the investigation of the jurisdictional decisions, explore the shortcomings of existing jurisdictional provisions in online shopping contract disputes, improve the jurisdictional system of online shopping contract disputes, and explore possible legal optimization paths, so as to provide theoretical support for legislation and justice.

An international comparative analysis of public reimbursement of orphan drugs in Canadian provinces compared to European countries

BackgroundThe Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in Canada relative to Europe and the U.S.MethodsGiven its similarity to the Canadian health care system, we used Europe as the reference point to analyze all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). We focused on: (1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; (2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and (3) the timelines for patients to access these therapies in Canada.ResultsSixty-three approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA were identified. Fifty-three (84%) of these drugs had also been submitted to the FDA for approval, and 41 (65%) were submitted to Health Canada for approval. In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (32%), Quebec (25%), and Alberta (25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1).ConclusionsOur comparative analysis found that relative to the EU Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare diseases. This highlights the need for a rare disease strategy in Canada that allows for clear identification and transparent tracking of the pathway for rare disease drugs, and ultimately optimizes the number of patients with access to these therapies.

O sistema acusatório diante da prisão em flagrante

Este trabalho busca compreender a prática do direito a defesa no âmbito das audiências de custódia e, desse modo, debater a incorporação de princípios acusatoriais diante da prisão em flagrante. Para sua elaboração, foram utilizados dados qualitativos e quantitativos, produzidos pela pesquisa de monitoramento executada pelo Centro de Estudos de Criminalidade e Segurança Pública (Crisp/ UFMG), em parceria com o Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa (IDDD). A partir da análise de práticas institucionais adotadas pelos operadores do direito no âmbito das audiências e das decisões proferidas, os achados indicam que, embora as audiências tenham sido instauradas com vistas a possibilitar o direito a defesa da pessoa presa, na prática há uma padronização da resposta jurisdicional, observando-se a “justiça em linha de montagem”, que transforma a ideia do contraditório em mero mito processual e prejudica sobremaneira os interesses do custodiado.

Unfriendly guardians: India's first nuclear leadership change in 1966

This article, which focuses on the political decision making around the leadership of India's Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), shows how this process both decentralized scientific authority in India and led to changes in India's nuclear programme. New evidence presented from the deliberations of the Prime Minister's Secretariat (PMS) shows that Vikram Sarabhai, appointed chairman of the AEC in 1966, following the sudden death of the previous leader, Homi Bhabha, was the favoured candidate from the start of the process. His view on India's nuclear programme contrasted sharply with that of his predecessor, but his authority was protected, in part, from external challenge by the jurisdictional decisions made by the PMS. This article argues that the ambiguity inherent in India's developing nuclear programme was not the result of the apprehension of external threat, but the result of internal tensions within the relevant institutions, which are both revealed and (partially) resolved by the appointment process for the new chair.

BITs & Bonds: The International Law and Economics of Sovereign Debt

AbstractRecent jurisdictional decisions suggest that sovereign debt will be subject to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) for the foreseeable future. This Article argues that applying BITs to sovereign bonds threatens to undermine the core economic function of those treaties by encouraging inefficient state and creditor behavior and raising the overall cost of sovereign debt. It further argues that this concern can be addressed through an interpretative approach that leads to the equal treatment of like creditors.

The Scope and Implications of the International Criminal Court's Jurisdictional Decision over the Rohingya Crisis

In 2018, the International Criminal Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the Myanmar government's deportation of the Rohingya to Bangladesh. The basis for its jurisdiction was that Bangladesh is an ICC state party, although Myanmar is not. This decision has raised questions on the applicability of the decision to other crimes, including genocide. Moreover, its potential applicability to other situations that have taken place in a non-state party became the subject of much debate. The author concludes that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction over Myanmar's alleged genocide but not over all international crimes that generate refugees.

Rules, Standards, and General Jurisdiction

Recent Supreme Court decisions have put the constitutional law of personal jurisdiction in flux. The restructuring that the Court has worked on “general jurisdiction”—that, is personal jurisdiction as to a defendant where the defendant has extensive ties to the forum state but those ties do not give rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action—seems to have been motivated at least in part by a desire by the Court to put in place “[s]imple . . . rules” governing jurisdictional questions. But the Court’s assertion that its approach broke new ground by ensconcing a rule-like test along the boundary of personal jurisdiction is erroneous in a few ways. First, while examination of the preexisting landscape reveals some disagreement among lower courts, the fact is that the presence (or absence) of general jurisdiction was predictable across a broad swath of cases. And, while the Court suggested that an absence of general jurisdiction cases from its docket demonstrated a more general lack of reliance on general jurisdiction, a novel empirical examination of the Supreme Court’s general jurisdiction certiorari docket indicates that the better interpretation of the absence of general jurisdiction from the Court’s docket is that overall lower courts were applying the test for general jurisdiction with relative ease and without much conflict. Second, the Court’s new test for general jurisdiction introduces some less, predictable, standard-like elements that were not part of the old test: The new test makes general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant proper only in essence in the corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business, and the determination of a corporation’s principal place of business may require comparisons across states and countries that are not always easy to apply or predict. Third, the Court’s new test for general jurisdiction is narrower than the old one, and the narrowing of general jurisdiction will push plaintiffs (who may wish to sue in their home jurisdiction or whether they were injured, or who may wish to avoid piecemeal litigation) toward the vagaries of specific jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court’s new general jurisdiction jurisprudence has already had the ripple effect of discrediting more predictable forms of specific jurisdiction. In short, under the new regime—contrary to the Court’s stated goal—more litigants are likely to face standards as they debate the propriety of personal jurisdiction. The decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court—a case the Court has added to its docket this Term—may wind up rejecting yet another existing predictable form of specific jurisdiction. Alternative arguments—that the Court did not clearly express—are in any event insufficient to justify a narrower rule for general jurisdiction. The movement toward the narrow regime seems likely motivated by concerns of comity in the context of foreign corporations, but comity should be self-executing, leaving one to question why it should be part of the constitutional analysis. In the context of domestic corporations, the Court’s shift from a broad test to a narrow rule may be motivated, ironically, by the presence of a broad standard governing another area of Court: the constitutional limit on state choice-of-law rules. But this seems like the choice-of-law tail wagging the personal jurisdiction dog. If the Court truly wants to increase the extent to which rules govern personal jurisdiction, it should embrace a broader rule for general jurisdiction. It should also work to reduce the fractures that have characterized specific jurisdiction decisions, and consider generating a sizeable core where the presence (or absence) of personal jurisdiction is relatively predictable.

Argumentación jurídica de las sentencias de los tribunales constitucionales como método para lograr la constitucionalización del proceso jurisdiccional (Una lectura a partir de la acción de tutela en Colombia)

El presente trabajo aborda el tema de la argumentación jurídica y la racionalidad de la decisión jurisdiccional en un Estado constitucional, específicamente por parte de tribunales constitucionales, y de la forma como éstos, a través de la sobreinterpretación; esto es, de la extracción de normas implícitas o adscritas, pueden llega a una decisión lo más racional, objetiva y justa posible. Para ello, se aborda la argumentación jurídica, sus funciones al interior del proceso y cómo a través de ella se puede llegar a una mejor decisión; igualmente, se hace un acercamiento al concepto de racionalidad y a su relación con el derecho, especialmente en un Estado social y democrático de derecho, lo que implica un replanteamiento de la función del juez. Posteriormente, se hace referencia a la constitucionalización del proceso y la manera como se puede llegar a este resultado empleando la argumentación jurídica y la interpretación constitucional; para culminar con un estudio de caso en Colombia, en donde haciendo uso de la acción de tutela como mecanismo constitucional existente para la protección de derechos fundamentales y que atendiendo a algunas causales procede contra providencia judicial, se pueden extraer normas adscritas.

Res Judicata in International Arbitration: Choice of Law, Competence & Jurisdictional Court Decisions

Given the twin goals of finality and efficiency, the doctrine of res judicata has come to be applied, although less frequently, in the international arbitration context as well. However, being largely perceived as a proverbial ‘twilight issue’ in international arbitration, its application is fraught with uncertainties and inconsistencies. Amongst the more compelling concerns regarding the subject matter, this Article tackles the ambiguities around the choice of law analysis for preclusion standards; the doubts regarding the arbitral tribunal’s kompetenz-kompetenz to address the issue; and the peculiar nature of jurisdictional court decisions and its res judicata effect in subsequent arbitral proceedings. Rarely, if ever, does the lex arbitri shed light on the precise standards of preclusion to be applied in a particular case. Instead, the choice of law analysis by arbitral tribunals are guided by a fluid balancing act between varying degrees of private rights and public interests. While the The International Law Association (ILA) Recommendations (Resolution No. 1/2006) do come close to a purported international standard, its limited acceptability within the community and lean adoptability across jurisdictions, brings to the fore the uncertainties attached to the doctrine itself. Confusion further ensues when the authority of the tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction is brought into question on confronting the defense of res judicata. While the New York Convention’s mandate of recognition of awards empowers the Courts to afford res judicata effect to a prior adjudication, the same conflicts with the arbitral tribunal’s own competence to address arguably procedural arbitrability issues such as this. These concerns amplify manifold when an arbitral tribunal encounters a prior Court’s decision regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction, including the question of non-arbitrability of the disputed claim. In the absence of exacting standards and principles to deal with any of these issues, different tribunals have been discharging their own brand of the doctrine’s broad interpretation. This Article expounds the existing literature on the subject, and thereafter, attempts to analyse each of these complex and controversial issues to better equip practitioners and arbitrators when faced with such concerns; at least until universal conformity is achieved through promulgations bordering a truly international standard. Res Judicata, Claim Preclusion, Choice-of-Law, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Jurisdictional Decisions

Deconstitutionalizing Personal Jurisdiction: A Separation of Powers Approach

The Roberts Court has sought to clarify the constitutional norms governing personal jurisdiction so as to give defendants greater certainty in arranging their business affairs. The Court’s effort has been guided by the implicit assumption that every personal jurisdiction case necessarily rises to the level of constitutional concern. But the only reason that most personal jurisdiction decisions raise constitutional concerns is because the vast majority of states maintain content-less long-arm statutes: in the complete absence of statutory norms, every instance of service of process poses a mini constitutional crisis. With no underlying statutory norms at issue, the Court’s constitutional decisions have long been legislating personal jurisdiction rules instead of adjudicating the constitutionality of legislatively enacted rules. The Court should fix this longstanding separation of powers problem by issuing a simple ruling: the Due Process Clause renders content-less long-arm statutes void for vagueness. That ruling would require state legislatures to enact laws specifying the situations in which service of process over non-residents was authorized. Personal jurisdiction litigation would then turn on statutory questions, with the Constitution held in reserve for particularly egregious power grabs. This approach would lead to differing outcomes in the two Ford Motor Company cases before the Court in the 2020-2021 Term: the Minnesota statute would fail for vagueness, while application of the Montana statute to Ford in the circumstances of that action would obviously not be so egregious as to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. One need not go so far as to say that the Due Process Clause has no role to play in the field of personal jurisdiction to appreciate that it should be cast in a supporting role far narrower than the leading part the Court has handed it for too long.

Case-Linked Jurisdiction and Busybody States

Beginning with Justice Ginsburg’s 2011 opinion in the Goodyear case – and echoed in Justice Thomas’s 2014 opinion in Walden v. Fiore and Justice Alito’s 2017 opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court – the Supreme Court has suggested that the distinctiveness of specific personal jurisdiction (in contrast to general jurisdiction) resides in its being “case-linked.” However, to date, the Justices have not spelled out what it takes for a defendant’s contacts with a forum to be case-linked, although they now have an opportunity to do so in a pair of personal injury cases brought against Ford Motor Company. This essay aims to provide the missing account of case-linkage, explaining along the way how it applies to the Court’s pending cases. Our method is constructive and interpretive: we take as our starting point the Court’s precedents and its reasoning about two pillars of personal jurisdiction: state sovereignty and defendant’s due process rights. After Part I’s introduction, Part II re-examines the Court’s personal jurisdiction decisions from International Shoe to the present with the goal of understanding the concept of case-linkage as it has played out in the cases. Part III describes the Ford litigations presently before the Court, explaining why they invite consideration of an aspect of specific jurisdiction that the Court has yet to address adequately. We put forward our theory of case-linked jurisdiction in Part IV. Case-linkage, we argue, can only be understood within a framework that isolates the key concepts that matter for due process. Two are crucial: (1) a concept of the scope of the defendant’s submission to state authority, and (2) a concept of the scope of the forum state’s legitimate interests. We explain the latter in terms of the principle that a state’s courts ought not meddle in affairs beyond the state’s legitimate reach (labeled “the Anti-Busybody Principle”). By explaining case-linkage both in terms of the scope of a defendant’s submission to state power and of a state’s legitimate interests, we offer a way to bring together the process and sovereignty concerns that underlie the law of personal jurisdiction. With our own affirmative account in place, Part V shows why the “causation” approach to case-linkage advocated Ford and by some lower courts are indefensible, even if the more expansive “relatedness” tests of other courts are also not up to the task at hand. We also show that the intuitively right answer to the Ford cases—that a state court has jurisdiction to hear tort claims brought by state residents injured in-state by the defendant’s product (when the defendant has extensively sold the product-line in that state)—not only meshes with all relevant Supreme Court precedents, but also points to the best path forward for understanding, defining, and demarcating case-linked jurisdiction.

BITs and Bonds: The International Law and Economics of Sovereign Debt

Recent jurisdictional decisions suggest that sovereign debt will be subject to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) for the foreseeable future. This Article demonstrates that applying BITs to sovereign bonds threatens to undermine the core economic function of those treaties by encouraging inefficient State and creditor behavior. It further argues that this dilemma can be resolved through an interpretative approach that leads to the equal treatment of like creditors.

<b>SHOULD THE AREA BE MINED? THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON DEEP-SEA MINING</b><br/>A ÁREA DEVERIA SER MINERADA? O PRINCÍPIO DA PRECAUÇÃO E OS IMPACTOS AMBIENTAIS DA MINERAÇÃO EM FUNDOS MARINHOS

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of the precautionary principle in the regulations of seabed exploitation activities. In order to do this, it relates the current Mining Code with the events that served as the basis for the Code negotiation. The methodology applied in this research is predominantly qualitative and of the document analysis procedure. The documents examined are the rules and jurisdictional decisions emanated from the International Seabed Authority. In summary, this article analyzes the adoption of the precautionary principle in recent normative and decisional constructions regarding mining activities and environmental impacts in the deep seabed. In conclusion, it is pointed to the construction of a normative arrangement of jurisdictional consolidation of the precautionary principle in the exploration activities of the deep seabed. Moreover, given the uncertain nature of the consequences that mining in the deep seabed will bring, the adoption of the principle arises to ensure the reduction of environmental impacts.

Strengths of the French end-of-life Law as Well as its Shortcomings in Handling Intractable Disputes Between Physicians and Families

French end-of-life law aims at protecting patients from unreasonable treatments, but has been used to force caregivers to prolong treatments deemed unreasonable. We describe six cases (five intensive care unit patients including two children) where families disagreed with a decision to withdraw treatments and sued medical teams. An emergent inquiry was instigated by the families. In two cases, the court rejected the families’ inquiries. In two cases, the families appealed the decision, and in both the first jurisdiction decision was confirmed, compelling caregivers to pursue treatments, even though they deemed them unreasonable. We discuss how this law may be perverted. Legal procedures may result in the units’ disorganisation and give rise to caregivers’ stress. Families’ requests may be subtended by religious beliefs. French end-of-life law has benefits in theoretically constraining physicians to withhold or withdraw disproportionate therapies. These cases underline some caveats and the perverse effects of its literal reading.