Debevoise & Plimpton

About: Debevoise & Plimpton is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Arbitration & Public international law. The organization has 36 authors who have published 39 publications receiving 247 citations.

Ranking and Linking as a Function of Sex and Gender Role Attitudes

Abstract: A great deal of empirical research has shown that many of the behavioral and attitudinal differences found between males and females can be conceptualized as falling within the domains of “ranking” and “linking” orientations. This paper explores the three major paradigms that can be and have been used to explain the etiology of these male-female differences: (a) cultural determinism, (b) biological determinism, and (c) biocultural interactionism. It argues that, although there is no definitive evidence in support of any of these three major explanatory paradigms, the cultural and biological deterministic paradigms are difficult to reconcile with a good deal of empirical evidence. Hence, understanding male-female differences as a complex interaction between biological and cultural factors may be a more fruitful approach.

The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction

Abstract: This paper traces the emerging recognition of universal civil jurisdiction, which is a doctrine that would permit victims of the most serious violations of international law to bring tort claims for damages in any national jurisdiction, regardless of the location of the conduct or the nationality of the victim or defendant. We examine the rationale for such a doctrine, the existence of state practice in support of and against, and the appropriate limitations that might operate on the exercise of such jurisdiction.

The Emerging Recognition of Universal Civil Jurisdiction

Abstract: Modern international law takes as a fundamental value the condemnation and redress of certain categories of heinous conduct, such as genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity. Recognizing the need to end impunity for those crimes, international law permits a state, by the principle of universal jurisdiction, to prosecute them even when they take place outside its territory and do not involve its nationals. In virtually all domestic legal systems, an individual who engages in wrongful conduct causing personal inj ury or death will be subject not only to criminal prosecution, but to a civil action by the injured party. Yet, though the principle of universal jurisdiction is well established in the criminal sphere, it is still regarded as novel in the civil context. Recent developments—most notably the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain—will cause greater examination of the function and scope of universal jurisdiction as authorization for national courts to hear civil claims based on heinous conduct proscribed by international law. We here consider whether a civil dimension of universal jurisdiction has emerged, whether it should correspond to the criminal dimension, and whether its use as a basis of jurisdiction should depend on the absence of effective remedies in jurisdictions with traditional links to the proscribed conduct.

Dynamic synergies between China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract: This study examines the dynamic evolving synergies between the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This is among the first studies to present an in-depth comparative treatment and evaluation of these monumental change-oriented undertakings in terms of their interlinks, complementarities, and synergistic potential to mobilize and transform public policy and managerial decision-making in the pursuit of sustainable development. In our study, we identify BRI focus areas, goals, and modalities and explore their manifold interactions with the 17 SDGs, including by reference to dozens of recent BRI and AIIB projects. Our findings strongly suggest ongoing alignment and convergence between the SDGs and BRI, as exemplified by the recent overt inclusion of BRI within the UN’s 2030 Agenda. However, realization of such promising synergies hinges on several variables, including the geopolitical and public health environments, the adoption of more holistic trade and investment strategies, and greater openness and inclusiveness towards non-Chinese and local businesses, particularly regarding their participation in BRI sustainable infrastructure investment projects. Public policy efforts will be essential to steer BRI in more open, liberal, and integrative directions so that BRI can function optimally as an effective vehicle for achievement of the SDGs.

Enforceability of Arbitral Awards Based on Lex Mercatoria

Abstract: THE controversy surrounding the existence, the credibility, even the validity of Lex Mercatoria has not dampened its increasing appeal as a choice of governing substantive law to an arbitration. While most parties disagree as to whether Lex Mercatoria actually represents a discrete body of law, most do agree that, if it does exist, it exists as an amalgam of most globally-accepted principles which govern international commercial relations: public international law, certain uniform laws, general principles of law, rules of international organizations, customs and usages of international trade, standard form contracts, and arbitral case law.1 As a microcosm of international commercial law, Lex Mercatoria is often an ideal, if not the only, choice when no single national law is acceptable. For example, in contracts between a private company and a governmental entity, no state law is likely to be ideal. The governmental party will resist being subject to another state's law, while the private party will be sceptical about receiving fair treatment in the other state's courts. At such an impasse, Lex Mercatoria can both adequately reflect the international character of the parties and the transaction, and solve the sometimes irresolute problem of choice of law. Further, by distilling internationally-accepted principles, it can avoid the effect of relatively unsophisticated national laws unsuited to international contracts. Finally, Lex Mercatoria is inherently flexible – as the law governing both the transaction and the dispute of resolutions arising thereunder. Despite its theoretical advantages, doubts abound as to the predictability and soundness of Lex Mercatoria. These doubts are reflected in the negligible number of reported arbitral awards where parties have specifically chosen Lex Mercatoria or, indeed, an extra-legal standard. However, as Lex Mercatoria undergoes more stringent definition, its appeal will increase and parties may well wonder whether contracts governed by Lex Mercatoria are enforceable, …