Analysis of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Non-Human Rights Treaties with Emphasis on Trade and Investment Treaties

Document Type : academic

Authors

1 Corresponding author, Assistant professor of Al-Zahra University

2 PhD of international law, Allameh Tabatabaei University

Abstract

At first, it was assumed that the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine exists only in the human rights treaties and particularly in the European Convention on Human Rights, while the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine is considered as a right for States in many non-human rights treaties due to specific conditions and rules that govern some international treaties such as the existence of optional obligations or ambiguity, insertion of non-precluded measures clauses and existence of positive obligations. Therefore, in international treaties, the granting of this right to States would enable them to choose and adopt the best decision, according to the circumstances and necessities related to the public interest. Accordingly, the traditional views which believed in the conflict of the margin of appreciation doctrine with adherence to international obligations have been adjusted. There are concerns about the abuse of freedom of action, and powers granted to the States, that leads to an opposition with authorities granted under the framework of the margin of appreciation doctrine to States. Of course, these concerns were obviated somewhat with regard to the fact that, international judicial courts have relied on review standards to supervise on State powers.

Keywords

References

  • الف. فارسی

    ـ کتاب

    • عالیخانی، محمد؛ حقوق بین‌الملل، خط سوم، 1378.

    ـ مقاله

    ب. انگلیسی

    - Books

    • Andrew Legg, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality, Oxford University Press, 2012.
    • Cairo A. R. Robb, Amelia Porges, Damien Geradin, Daniel Bethlehem, James Crawford, Philippe Sands, International Environmental Law Reports, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    • Cairo A. R. Robb, Amelia Porges, Damien Geradin, Daniel Bethlehem, James Crawford, Philippe Sands, International Environmental Law Reports, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    • Dinah Shelton, Paolo G. Carozza, Regional Protection of Human Rights, Oxford University Press, 2013.
    • H. Myron Nordquist, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, published by Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 1991.
    • H. van Houtte, The Law of International Trade, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002.
    • Holmer, Oskar, Decoding the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in Its Use by the European Court of Human Rights, university essay from Stockholms universitet, Juridiska institutionen, 2013.
    • Jan Anne Vos, The Function of Public International Law, Springer, 2011.
    • Karl P. Sauvant, Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2008-2009, Oxford University Press, 2009.
    • Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Francesco Francioni, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2009.
    • ·      James Crawford, Karen Lee, Elihu Lauterpacht, ICSID Reports, vol. 14, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

     

    - Articles

     

    - International Instruments

    • Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
    • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)
    • Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), (The New York Convention)
    • Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States
    • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
    • General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
    • International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID.
    • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
    • Selected Recent Developments in IIA Arbitration and Human Rights, International Investment Agreements, IIA Monitor No. 2, 2009.

     

     

    - Jurisprudence

    • Australia–Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, Report of the panel, WT/DS18 /R, 12 June 1998.
    • Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22.
    • China—Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS363/AB/R, Jan. 19, 2010.
    • CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, May 12, 2005.
    • Continental Casualty v. Argentine Republic -, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9.
    • EC–Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS121/AB/R, 2000.
    • EC—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/ARB/ECU Mar. 24, 2000.
    • Enron Corp. Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, May 22, 2007.
    • European Communities — Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, 16 January 1998.
    • European Communities–Trade Description of Sardines Appellate Body Report, WT/DS231/AB/R, September 26, 2002.
    • Fadeyeva v. Russia, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 55723/00, Judgment of 9 June 2005.
    • Mexico—Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services, WT/DS204/ R(2 Apr 2004)
    • Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, Sept. 28, 2007.
    • The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), P. C. I. J. , series A, No. 10, 1927.
    • Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Federal Republic of Germany-Pakistan, Protocol, 2, Nov. 25, 1959.
    • United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,WT/DS58, 12 October 1998.
    • United States–Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Panel Report, WT/DS2/R, Jan. 29, 1996.
    • United States—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS285/AB/R, Apr. 7, 2005.
    • US-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/ARB, Dec. 21, 2007.
    • US-Tax Treatment of “Foreign Sales Corporation”, WT/DS108/ARB, Aug. 30, 2002.

     

    • Z v. Finland, Judgment of 25 February 1997, Partly dissenting opinion of judge De meyer.
    • LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, Oct. 3, 2006.
    • Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, Feb. 6, 2007.

     

    - Reports

    • Dispute Settlement Reports 2001: vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    • Dispute Settlement Reports 2002: vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
    • WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995-2010,Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 May 2017
  • Revise Date: 30 August 2017
  • Accept Date: 11 October 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics