¹ Venzke, Ingo, Making General Exceptions: The Spell of Precedents in Developing Article XX GATT into Standards for Domestic Regulatory Policy, 12 German Law Journal (GLJ) 1111 (2011); Schill, Stephan W., System-Building in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Lawmaking, 12 GLJ 1083 (2011).Google Scholar

² Bogdandy, Armin von & Venzke, Ingo, Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers, 12 GLJ 989, 996–997 (2011).Google Scholar

³ Study Group of the International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 13 April 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi.Google Scholar

⁴ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 487.Google Scholar

⁵ Id., para. 412.Google Scholar

⁶ Id., para. 13.Google Scholar

⁷ For a critique that the ILC Study Group Report is essentially silent on questions relating directly to the fragmentation of international authority, and for an exploration of the correlation between norm fragmentation and authority fragmentation, see Tomer Broude, Principles of Normative Integration and the Allocation of International Authority: The WTO, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Rio Declaration, 6 Loyola University Chicago International Law Review (Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev.) 173, 175 (2008); see further Erich Vranes, Völkerrechtsdogmatik als “self-contained discipline”? Eine kritische Analyse des ILC Report on Fragmentation of International Law, 65 Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 87, 90 (2010).Google Scholar

⁸ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), paras 37, 43.Google Scholar

⁹ Id., para. 419: “None of this predetermines what it means to ‘confront’ a norm with another or how they might enter into ‘concurrence.’ These matters must be left to the interpreter to decide in view of the situation.”; for a critique of this lacuna, see Vranes (note 7), 87.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Nele Matz-Lück, Harmonization, Systemic Integration, and ‘Mutual Supportiveness’ as Conflict-Solution Techniques: Different Modes of Interpretation as a Challenge to Negative Effects of Fragmentation, 17 Finnish Yearbook of International Law (FYIL) 39, 45 (2006).Google Scholar

¹¹ Ioannidis, Michael, A Procedural Approach to the Legitimacy of International Adjudication: Developing Standards of Participation in WTO Law, 12 GLJ 1175, 1189 (2011) – referring to Art. XX GATT.Google Scholar

¹² ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 493.Google Scholar

¹³ Von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 2), 990–993.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 2), 991; Marc Jacob, Precedents: Lawmaking Through International Adjudication, 12 GLJ 1005, 1015–1016 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Aaken, Anne van, Defragmentation of Public International Law Through Interpretation: A Methodological Proposal, 16 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 483 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁶ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, e.g., Symposium: The Proliferation of International Tribunals: Piecing together the Puzzle, 31 New York Journal of International Law and Politics 679 (1999).Google Scholar

¹⁸ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Id., para. 24; for an approach to a categorization of different kinds of conflicts, see Rüdiger Wolfrum & Nele Matz, Conflicts in International Environmental Law 7 et seq. (2003); for the definition of conflicts of norms, see also Erich Vranes, The Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Legal Theory, 17 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 395 (2006); Pauwelyn, Joost, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law (2003); Thiele, Carmen, Fragmentierung des Völkerrechts als Herausforderung für die Staatengemeinschaft, 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts 1, 4 (2008); van Aaken (note 15), 486.Google Scholar

²⁰ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 493.Google Scholar

²¹ Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, UNTS, Vol. 1155, 331.Google Scholar

²² ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 492.Google Scholar

²³ Id., para. 491.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Tullio Treves, Fragmentation of International Law: The Judicial Perspective, 23 Comunicazioni e Studi 821, 831 (2007). See, in particular, the statement by Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order, Speech by His Excellency Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 27 October 2000, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?pr=85&pt=3&p1=1&p2=3&p3=1 (last visited on 18 October 2010).Google Scholar

²⁵ Simma, Bruno, Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner, 20 EJIL 265, 289 (2009).Google Scholar

²⁶ Simma, Bruno, Fragmentation in a Positive Light, 25 Michigan Journal of International Law (MJIL) 845, 846 (2004); Simma (note 25), 279.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Koskenniemi, Martti & Leino, Päivi, Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 553, 575 (2002), with references.Google Scholar

²⁸ See id., 578; Anne van Aaken, Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Protection, 17 FYIL 91, 94 (2006); see also van Aaken (note 15), 485.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Matz-Lück (note 10), 42.Google Scholar

³⁰ Howse, Robert & Nicolaidis, Kalypso, Democracy without Sovereignty: The Global Vocation of Political Ethics, in: The Shifting Allocation of Authority in International Law: Considering Sovereignty, Supremacy and Subsidiarity. Essays in honour of Professor Ruth Lapidoth, 163, 182 (Tomer Broude & Yuval Shany eds, 2008).Google Scholar

³¹ Marceau, Gabrielle, Fragmentation in International Law: The Relationship between WTO Law and General International Law - a Few Comments from a WTO Perspective, 17 FYIL 5, 6 (2006).Google Scholar

³² On ‘structural bias', see Martti Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Reissue with a New Epilogue 600–615 (2005).Google Scholar

³³ Koskenniemi, Martti, What is international law for?, in: International Law, 32, 52 (Malcolm D. Evans ed., 2010); Craven, Matthew, Unity, Diversity and the Fragmentation of International Law, 14 FYIL 3, 11 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁴ Möllers, Christoph, Gewaltengliederung: Legitimation und Dogmatik im nationalen und internationalen Rechtsvergleich 50-51 (2005); Bast, Jürgen, Das Demokratiedefizit fragmentierter Internationalisierung, in: Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft. Soziale Welt - Sonderband 18, 185, 188 (Hauke Brunkhorst ed., 2009).Google Scholar

³⁵ Von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 2), 996–997.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, De-Fragmentation of International Economic Law Through Constitutional Interpretation and Adjudication with Due Respect for Reasonable Disagreement, 6 Loy. U. Chi. Int'l L. Rev. 209 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. Paulus, Andreas, International Adjudication, in: The Philosophy of International Law, 207, 209 (Samantha Besson & John Tasioulas eds, 2010). For a taxonomy of trade-off devices, including proportionality, balancing tests, and cost-benefit analysis, see Joel P. Trachtman, The Economic Structure of International Law 221 et seq. (2008).Google Scholar

³⁸ Tushnet, Mark, The Inevitable Globalization of Constitutional Law, 49 Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) 985 (2009); Beatty, David M., The Ultimate Rule of Law (2004).Google Scholar

³⁹ See van Aaken (note 15), 502. However, for the impression that most German scholars strongly defend the rationality of balancing, see Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, On the Limits of Constitutional Adjudication: Deconstructing Balancing and Judicial Activism 136 (2010).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Kumm, Mattias, Constitutional Rights as Principles: On the Structure and Domain of Constitutional Justice, 2 International Journal of Constitutional Law 574, 579 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sweet, Alec Stone & Mathews, Jud, Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, 47 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 72, 98 (2008).Google Scholar

⁴² Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex. rel. Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761, 768 (1945); see Martin H. Redish & Shane V. Nugent, The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Constitutional Balance of Federalism, Duke Law Journal 569, 580 (1987); Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970); see Stephen Gardbaum, Limiting Constitutional Rights, 54 UCLA Law Review 789, 851 (2007); Kassel v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662, 678 (1981); Diamond Waste, Inc. v. Monroe County, 939 F.2d 941 (11th Cir. 1991); Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987); critically: Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 254 (1987); Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part; United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 127 S. Ct. 1786, 1797, 1799 (2007); Scalia, J., concurring. Mads Andenas & Stefan Zleptnig, Proportionality: WTO Law in Comparative Perspective, 42 Texas International Law Journal 371, 404 (2007). The German Federal Constitutional Court leaves no room for proportionality in the area of federal relations (BVerfGE 81, 310, 338 - Kalkar II; but see also BVerfGE 106, 62, 164 - Altenpflegegesetz, where the examination, despite its intensity, only loosely resembles a classical proportionality test.). However, it explicitly acknowledged proportionality as a standard of review in the relations between the EU and its member states (BVerfGE 89, 155, 212 - Maastricht).Google Scholar

⁴³ With ‘legitimate ends’ as a first step, the analysis involves four steps, cf. Stone Sweet & Mathews (note 41), 75.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights 66 (2002). For the purpose of this contribution, it will not be necessary to consider whether the distinction between rules and principles is dichotomous and whether principles are correctly qualified as optimization requirements only. For a discussion, see András Jakab, Prinzipien, 37 Rechtstheorie 49, 54 (2006); Borowski, Martin, Grundrechte als Prinzipien 105 et seq. (2007); Poscher, Ralf, Insights, Errors and Self-misconceptions of the Theory of Principles, 22 Ratio Juris 425, 433 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously 24 et seq. (1977). Several criteria have been brought forward for the distinction between rules and principles. For the proposition that that rules prescribe specific acts, whereas principles prescribe highly unspecific actions, see Joseph Raz, Legal Principles and the Limits of Law, 81 Yale Law Journal 823, 838 (1972). According to him, the distinction is one of degree, which knows many borderline cases. Cf. also George C. Christie, The Model of Principles, Duke Law Journal 649, 669 (1968); Hughes, Graham, Rules, Policy and Decision Making, 77 Yale Law Journal 411, 419 (1968). Others qualify principles as reasons for the existence of certain rules which give meaning to a cluster of rules as tending towards the realization of a common objective: Neil MacCormick, Principles of Law, 19 Juridical Review 217, 222 (1974). For an overview, see Humberto Ávila, Theory of Legal Principles 8 et seq. (2007).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Alexy (note 44), 48 et seq. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id., 57 et seq. For Alexy's later distinction between commands to optimize and commands to be optimized, see Robert Alexy, On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison, 16 Ratio Juris 433 (2003).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Alexy (note 44), 66 et seq. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Necessity tests can also be found in Arts VI (4), and (5), and XII (2)(d) GATS; 2 (2), (3), and (5) TBT, 2 (2), and 5 (6) SPS; and 8 (1) TRIPS and Art. XI (2)(b) and (c) GATT. Still, the WTO legal system does not contain a general proportionality requirement. See Jan Neumann & Elisabeth Türk, Necessity Revisited: Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law after Korea - Beef, EC - Asbestos and EC - Sardines, 37 Journal of World Trade (JWT) 199, 231 (2003). For details of the necessity test in the WTO jurisprudence, see Benn McGrady, Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures, 12 Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL) 153 (2008); Stone Sweet & Mathews (note 41), 152–159; Andenas & Zleptnig (note 42), 408–416. However, see also Meinhard Hilf, Power, Rules and Principles - Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law?, 4 JIEL 111, 120 (2001), who advocates a general principle of proportionality in WTO law, and Andrew D. Mitchell, Legal Principles in WTO Disputes 191 (2008), for whom proportionality is an “overarching” principle.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Appellate Body Report, United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, 29 April 1996, 20; Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998, paras 115–116.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Stone Sweet & Mathews (note 41), 153, referring to Art. XX GATT.Google Scholar

⁵² According to Howse, the WTO privileges the interests and values of liberal trade over distributive justice, environmental concerns, and the protection of human health and safety. See Robert Howse, Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law, in The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA, 35, 36 (Joseph H. H. Weiler ed., 2001).Google Scholar

⁵³ Eeckhout, Piet, The Scales of Trade - Reflections on the Growth and Functions of the WTO Adjudicative Branch, 13 JIEL 3, 12 (2010). For a critique of the whole structure of the trade-and-debate, see Andrew T. F. Lang, Reflecting on ‘Linkage': Cognitive and Institutional Change in the International Trading System, 70 The Modern Law Review 523 (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Andenas & Zleptnig (note 42), 410. Measures under lit. (j) must be “essential” to the objective.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Appellate Body Report, Korea - Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, 11 December 2000, para. 161, footnote 104.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ GATT Panel Report, United States - Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, L/6439, adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345, para. 5.26.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Neumann & Türk (note 49), 210. For a reconstruction of the Appellate Body's approach to Art. XX GATT as balancing of principles, see Anne-Charlotte Martineau, La technique du balancement par l'Organe d'appel de l'OMC (études de la justification dans les discours juridiques), 123 Revue du droit public de la science politique en France et a l'etranger 991, 1005 (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Appellate Body Report, Korea - Beef (note 55), para. 161.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See also Appellate Body Report, Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, 3 December 2007, para. 210.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Cf. Peter Van den Bossche, Looking for Proportionality in WTO Law, 35 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 283, 289 (2008).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, 12 March 2001, para. 168; Appellate Body Report, Brazil - Retreaded Tyres (note 59), para. 140.Google Scholar

⁶² Weiler, Joseph H. H., Comment: Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (DS332): Prepared for the ALI Project on the Case Law of the WTO, 8 World Trade Review 137, 139 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶³ Regan, Donald H., The Meaning of ‘Necessary’ in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: The Myth of Cost-Benefit Balancing, 6 World Trade Review 347, 348 (2007); cf. Weiler (note 62), 139.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Appellate Body Report, Korea - Beef (note 55), para. 166; Appellate Body Report, EC - Asbestos (note 61), para. 172.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Neumann & Türk (note 49), 213.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Appellate Body Report, EC - Asbestos (note 61), para. 172.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Bown, Chad P. & Trachtman, Joel P., Brazil - Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres: A Balancing Act, 8 World Trade Review 85, 88 (2008).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Hilf (note 49), 121; Deborah Z. Cass, The ‘Constitutionalization’ of International Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade, 12 EJIL 39, 68 (2001); Marceau, Gabrielle & Trachtman, Joel P., The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods, 36 JWT 811, 853 (2002); see also Martineau (note 57), 997 and cf. Neumann & Türk (note 49), 227, with further references in footnote 190.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Desmedt, Axel, Proportionality in WTO Law, 4 JIEL 441, 476 (2001); Neumann & Türk (note 49), 227, referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Gasoline (note 50), and Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp (note 50), with further references in footnote 191.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Eeckhout (note 53), 20.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Weiler (note 62), 138.Google Scholar

⁷² Regan, Donald H., International Adjudication: A Response to Paulus - Courts, Custom, Treaties, Regimes, and the WTO, in: The Philosophy of International Law, 225, 239 (Samantha Besson & John Tasioulas eds, 2010), referring in particular to US - Shrimp and the notion of ‘exhaustible natural resources'.Google Scholar

⁷³ See, e.g., Chung, Olivia, Note, The Lopsided International Investment Law Regime and Its Effect on the Future of Investor-State Arbitration, 47 VJIL 953, 956 (2007); Harten, Gus van, Investment treaty arbitration and public law (2008); and cf. Charles N. Brower & Stephan W. Schill, Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?, 9 Chicago Journal of International Law 471, 474 (2009), with further references in footnote 14.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Sweet, Alec Stone & Grisel, Florian, Transnational Investment Arbitration: From Delegation to Constitutionalization?, in: Human Rights, International Investment Law and Investor-State Arbitration, 118, 130 (Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Francesco Francioni & Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann eds, 2009), embracing of balancing and proportionality by investment tribunals as an indicator of the gradual entrenchment of investment arbitration as a stable system of governance in the field of international investment.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Brower & Schill (note 73), 484–489.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. Kingsbury, Benedict & Schill, Stephan, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law, IILJ Working Paper 39 (2009/6).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Id., 30; Jasper Krommendijk & John Morijn, 'Proportional’ by What Measure(s)? Balancing Investor Interests and Human Rights by Way of Applying the Proportionality Principle in Investor-State Arbitration, in: Human Rights, International Investment Law, and Investor-State Arbitration, 422, 432 (Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Francesco Francioni & Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann eds, 2009).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Example taken from van Aaken (note 15), 507, with references.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cf. the case of Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v. Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/l.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cf. the cases of Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua SA v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17; Aguas del Tunari SA v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3. For further cases involving water distribution, see van Aaken (note 15), 509, references in footnote 108. For the implications of the right to water (Art. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), see Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter CESCR), General Comment No. 15, 20 January 2003, UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Art. 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, example taken from Bruno Simma & Theodore Kill, Harmonizing Investment Protection and International Human Rights: First Steps Towards a Methodology, in: International Investment Law for the 21st Century, Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, 678 (Christina Binder, Ursula Kriebaum, August Reinisch & Stephan Wittich eds, 2009).Google Scholar

⁸² Kingsbury & Schill (note 76), 31, with references.Google Scholar

⁸³ Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 20 March 1952, CETS No. 009.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003, para. 122. See Peter Behrens, Towards the Constitutionalization of International Investment Protection, 45 Archiv des Völkerrechts 153, 165 (2007); Hirsch, Moshe, Interactions Between Investment and Non-Investment Obligations, in: The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, 154, 170 (Peter Muchlinski, Federico Ortino & Christoph Schreuer eds, 2008); Kingsbury & Schill (note 76), 32; van Aaken (note 15), 507.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability of 3 October 2006, para. 194 et seq. For an overview of the case law, see José E. Alvarez & Kathryn Khamsi, The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime, in: 1 Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy, 378 (Karl P. Sauvant ed., 2008–2009).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Sweet, Alec Stone, Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality's New Frontier, 4 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 47, 62 (2010); for an account of fair and equitable treatment, see further Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law 119 et seq. (2008).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Kingsbury & Schill (note 76), 10–16, 37, with references.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Saluka Investments BV v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award of 17 March 2006, paras 305 et seq. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See, e.g., BG Group Plc. v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, Final Award of 24 December 2007, para. 298; Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award of 16 December 2002, para. 112.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Fifty-third session, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), ch. IV. E. 1, 43 et seq. With regard to the interpretation of non-precluded measures clauses, see William W. Burke-White & Andreas von Staden, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, 48 VJIL 307 (2008).Google Scholar

⁹¹ CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of 12 May 2005, 353 et seq.; Enron Corp., Ponderosa Assets, L. P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award of 22 May 2007); Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award of 28 September 2007. In its report of 25 September 2007, the Annulment Committee of the ICSID found that the CMS Tribunal had made a “manifest error of law” in its interpretation of the NPM clause. According to the committee, the tribunal had mistakenly conflated the stringent customary principles on necessity with the terms of the treaty exception. However, the committee denied a “manifest excess of powers.” The initial awards both in Sempra and in Enron have meanwhile been annulled, see Decisions on the Argentine Republic's Application for Annulment of the Award of 29 June 2010 and of 30 July 2010, respectively. In the Sempra Case, the Annulment Committee reached the conclusion that the tribunal - in respect of the NPM clause - had failed altogether to apply the applicable law and, by failing to do so, has committed a manifest excess of powers (para. 165).Google Scholar

⁹² LG&E (note 85), para. 245; Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award of 5 September 2008, paras 192–199.Google Scholar

⁹³ Van Aaken (note 15), 484.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Terminology in the ILC report changes. See title of section F (“systemic”), paras 410–413 (“systematic”/“systemic”). The term ‘systemic integration’ may insinuate that, thanks to a process of harmonious integration, the system of international law is becoming more complete, firm, compact, and uniform - or: integrated, see Vassilis P. Tzevelekos, The Use of Article 31 (3)(c) of the VCLT in the Case Law of the ECtHR: An Effective Anti-Fragmentation Tool or a Selective Loophole for the Reinforcement of Human Rights Teleology? Between Evolution and Systemic Integration, 31 Michigan Journal of International Law 621, 633 (2010). For a variety of further mechanisms by which a tribunal may undertake a broader interpretative approach by referring to extraneous legal material, see Duncan French, Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules, 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 281 (2006).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 419; van Aaken (note 15), 502.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law 371, 373 (2008); Simma & Kill (note 81), 682.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ This is the only function of Art. 31(3)(c) VLCT, according to Isabelle van Damme, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body 366 (2009).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Simma & Kill (note 81), 683; Regan (note 72), 235 – “normative gravitational force”.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Van Aaken (note 28), 108; Anne van Aaken, Balancing of Human Rights – Constitutional Interpretation in International Law, in: Human Rights Today - 60 Years of the Universal Declaration, 51, 66 (Miodrag Jovanović & Ivana Krstić eds, 2010); Kingsbury, Benedict & Schill, Stephan, Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionality, in: International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, 4 (Stephan Schill ed., 2010, forthcoming).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 473; to the same effect: Simma & Kill (note 81), 707; Campbell McLachlan, The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, 54 ICLQ 279, 310 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 28; for a critique, see Vranes (note 7), 97.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Klaus F. Röhl & Röhl, Hans Christian, Allgemeine Rechtslehre: Ein Lehrbuch 655 (2008); Vranes, Erich, Der Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz: Herleitungsalternativen, Rechtsstatus und Funktionen, 47 Archiv des Völkerrechts 1, 12 (2009), who also reports further foundations for the principle of proportionality.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, 15 April 1994, UNTS, Vol. 1869, 401.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ For an overview, see Holger Hestermeyer, Human Rights and the WTO: The Case of Patents and Access to Medicines 209 et seq. (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965, UNTS, Vol. 575, 159.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Van Aaken (note 15), 496; for the impact of non-investment international obligations in investment case law, see Hirsch (note 84).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ McLachlan (note 100), 305; Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation 288 et seq. (2008); van Aaken (note 15), 495.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ For some entry points of human-rights law in investment law, see van Aaken (note 15), 495.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Van Aaken (note 28), 100; van Aaken (note 15), 500.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Report of the Panel, European Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, Corr. 1 and Add. 1–9, 21 November 2006, paras 7.68–7.70.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ To the same effect: Orakhelashvili (note 96), 366 – all relevant sources of international law; contra: Mitchell (note 49), 83 – only rules, not principles.Google Scholar

¹¹² ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 450.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Marceau, Gabrielle, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights, 13 EJIL 753, 781 (2002); ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 471.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 471. However, it is to be admitted that this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the ordinary meaning of the term ‘parties’ in Art. 31(1) VCLT in its context in the VCLT. Obviously, there is no reference to a dispute in the VCLT. Thus, so the argument goes, ‘parties’ can only mean parties to the treaty. See Regan (note 72), 233; Thiele (note 19), 26. For a discussion of the pros and cons of different interpretations of Art. 31(3)(c) VCLT, see further Benn McGrady, Fragmentation of International Law or “Systemic Integration” of Treaty Regimes: EC - Biotech Products and the Proper Interpretation of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 42 JWT 589 (2008).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Thirlway, Hugh, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989, Part Three, 62 British Yearbook of International Law 1, 60 (1991); Simma & Kill (note 81), 689.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Matz-Lück (note 10), 45; Orakhelashvili (note 96), 373 et seq. Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 42 – with a caveat concerning the distinction between ‘apparent’ and ‘genuine’ conflicts. See also Christopher J. Borgen, Resolving Treaty Conflicts, 37 George Washington International Law Review 573, 640 (2005). See further ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 43: “Inasmuch as the question of conflict arises regarding the fulfilment of the objectives (instead of the obligations) of the different instruments, little may be done by the relevant body. In any case, the third party settlement body is always limited in its jurisdiction.”Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Martineau (note 57), 1008.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ For the basic rights under the German Basic Law, cf. Borowski (note 44), 114 et seq. Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Van Aaken (note 15), 492.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Cf. Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Freihandel und Verfassung: Einzelstaatliche Gewährleistung und die konstitutionelle Funktion der Welthandelsordnung (GATT/WTO), 57 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 83, 116 (1997).Google Scholar

¹²² ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), paras 433–460.Google Scholar

¹²³ Van Aaken (note 15), 484.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ For the WTO and Art. XX GATT, see Martineau (note 57), 1023; Venzke (note 1), 1113.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Sieckmann, Jan-Reinard, Regelmodelle und Prinzipienmodelle des Rechtssystems 18 et seq. (1990); Alexy (note 47), 433; Karl Larenz, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft 474 et seq. (1991). Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Alexy (note 44), 57.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Petersen, Niels, How Rational is International Law?, 20 EJIL 1247, 1257 (2009).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 474, quoting the joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal in the Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) ICJ Reports 2002, 86, para. 79: “International law seeks the accommodation of this value [the prevention of unwarranted outside interference in the domestic affairs of States] with the fight against impunity, and not the triumph of one norm over another.”Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp (note 50), para. 159.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Bugge Thorbj⊘rn Daniel, WTO Adjudication: An institutional analysis of adjudicative balancing of competing interests – exemplified with developments in interpretation of GATT Article III and XX 13, 343 et seq. (2005); for a comprehensive analysis, see also Anupam Goyal, The WTO and International Environmental Law: Towards Conciliation (2006); Vranes, Erich, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law, and Legal Theory (2009).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Stone Sweet & Mathews (note 41), 72, 76.Google Scholar

¹³² Cf. Alexy (note 44), Röhl & Röhl (note 102), 667.Google Scholar

¹³³ For a comparison of German and U.S. constitutional law scholarship, and their approaches to the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, respectively, see Oliver Lepsius, Was kann die deutsche Staatsrechtslehre von der amerikanischen Rechtswissenschaft lernen?, in: Staatsrechtslehre als Wissenschaft, 319 (Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz ed., 2007). For the common law and civil law paradigms of precedent, see Jacob (note 14), 1008–1010.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Broude (note 7), 190. Google Scholar

¹³⁵ To be sure, qualitatively different models of norm integration can lead to different degrees of authority integration, see Broude (note 7), 176.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Id., 187.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Id., 186.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Regan (note 72).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ For a critical stance, see, e.g., French (note 94), 314.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ See, supra, and, generally, von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 2), 989–997.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ With regard to human rights and the WTO, see, in particular, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Time for a United Nations ‘Global Compact’ for Integrating Human Rights into the Law of Worldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration, 13 EJIL 621 (2002); Alston, Philip, Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann, 13 EJIL 815 (2002); Howse, Robert, Human Rights in the WTO: Whose Rights, What Humanity? Comment on Petersmann, 13 EJIL 651 (2002); Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, Human Rights, International Economic Law and ‘Constitutional Justice', 19 EJIL 769 (2008); Howse, Robert, Human Rights, International Economic Law and Constitutional Justice: A Reply, 19 EJIL 945 (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁴² Howse, Robert, From Politics to Technocracy - and Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime, 96 American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 94, 103 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Howse, Robert, Human Rights in the WTO: Whose Rights, What Humanity? Comment on Petersmann, 13 EJIL 651, 655 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Koskenniemi & Leino (note 27), 572; Paulus (note 37), 214; see also David W. Leebron, Linkages, 96 AJIL 5, 22 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Marceau, Gabrielle, Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions. The Relationship between the WTO Agreement and MEAS and other Treaties, 35 JWT 1082, 1103 (2001).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Paulus (note 37), 214, with references.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Dunoff, Jeffrey L., The Death of the Trade Regime, 10 EJIL 754 (1999); Koskenniemi & Leino (note 27), 573.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Dukgeun, Ahn, Environmental Disputes in the GATT/WTO: Before and After US - Shrimp, 20 MJIL 819, 859 (1999); Koskenniemi & Leino (note 27), 574; Paulus (note 37), 214.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Regan (note 72), 238.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Howse (note 142), 109 - analyzing Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp (note 50); Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, 16 January 1998; Appellate Body Report, EC - Asbestos (note 61).Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Bogdandy, Armin von, Law and Politics in the WTO – Strategies to Cope with a Deficient Relationship, in: 5 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 609 (Jochen A. Frowein & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds, 2001); Howse, Robert, Moving the WTO Forward - One Case at a Time, 42 Cornell International Law Journal 223, 228 (2009), with further references; Ioannidis (note 11), 1187–1190.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Ioannidis (note 11), 1191.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Koskenniemi & Leino (note 27), 573.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Cf. Benvindo (note 39), 135.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Alexy (note 44), 100–109; Robert Alexy, Balancing, Constitutional Review, and Representation, 3 International Journal of Constitutional Law 572, 577 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy 256 et seq. (1992, trans. William Rehg, 1996); see, in particular, 259: “Values must be brought in to a transitive order with other values from case to case. Because there are no rational standards for this, weighing takes place either arbitrarily or unreflectively, according to customary standards and hierarchies.” Note 38: “Because there are not unambiguous units for measuring so-called legal values, Alexy's economic model of justification also does not help operationalize the weighing process.” See also Bernhard Schlink, Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit, in: 2 Klärung und Fortbildung des Verfassungsrechts: Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht, 445, 460 (Peter Badura & Horst Dreier eds, 2001): essentially “subjective.” For a critique vocalized in US scholarship, see T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, 96 Yale Law Journal 943 (1987).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Martineau (note 57), 1014.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Koskenniemi, Martti, The Politics of International Law, 1 EJIL 4, 19 (1990).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Pulido, Carlos Bernal, The Rationality of Balancing, 92 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 195, 196 (2006) – with references.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Cf. Hofmann, Ekkehard, Abwägung im Recht: Chancen und Grenzen numerischer Verfahren im Öffentlichen Recht 5 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Fischer-Lescano, Andreas, Kritik der praktischen Konkordanz, 41 Kritische Justiz 166, 172 (2008).Google Scholar

¹⁶² Martineau (note 57), 1011.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Petersen (note 127), 1258.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Alexy (note 44), 388.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Id., 100; similarly Pulido (note 159), 198. For a challenge of Alexy's premises with Jacques Derrida's philosophy, see Benvindo (note 39), 161 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Alexy (note 44), 137 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Id., 102. The Law of Balancing leads necessarily to the Weight Formula, see Alexy (note 47).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Howse (note 52), 51.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Schauer, Frederick, Balancing, Subsumption, and the Constraining Role of Legal Text, 4 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 34, 36 (2010); for the WTO dispute settlement system, see Andenas & Zleptnig (note 42), 427; Martineau (note 57), 1022–1030.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ For strategies in response to the problem of justifying the exercise of public authority by international courts, informed by discourse theory, see Armin von Bogdandy & Ingo Venzke, On the Democratic Legitimation of International Judicial Lawmaking, 12 GLJ 1341 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Aaken, Anne van, A Functional Approach to International Constitutionalism: The Value Added of a Social Science Contribution, Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 2008-08, 10.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Cf. ILC, Fragmentation Report (note 3), para. 487.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Alexy (note 44), 67 et seq.; Anne van Aaken, “Rational Choice” in der Rechtswissenschaft: Zum Stellenwert der ökonomischen Theorie im Recht 328 et seq. (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Aaken, Anne van, How to do Constitutional Law and Economics: A Methodological Proposal, Law and Economics Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 2008-04, 10; van Aaken (note 99), 69.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Koskenniemi, Martti, Constitutionalism as Mindset: Reflections on Kantian Themes About International Law and Globalization, 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9, 22 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Beatty (note 38).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Bogdandy, Armin von & Venzke, Ingo, On the Democratic Legitimation of International Judicial Lawmaking, in this issue.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ See Howse & Nicolaidis (note 30), 184 – “spirit of subsidiarity” as an anchor for a global political ethics.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ van Aaken (note 15), 512.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ For a distinction of these dimensions, see Joel P. Trachtman, Transcending “Trade and …”, 96 AJIL 77, 79 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Howse (note 52), 62.Google Scholar

¹⁸² For the scope of a margin of appreciation doctrine in international law, see Yuval Shany, Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law, 16 EJIL 907 (2006). For deference by the WTO adjudicating mechanism to the assessments of other bodies (domestic and international), see Ioannidis (note 11), 1194–1195.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Howse (note 52), 62.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Alexy (note 44), 82, 313, 417; Martin Borowski, The Structure of Formal Principles - Robert Alexy's ‘Law of Combination', 119 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie – Beiheft 19, 27 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Alexy (note 44), 423; Borowski (note 184), 19.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Von Bogdandy (note 151), 613, 666, referring Appellate Body Report, US - Gasoline (note 50), 27; Appellate Body Report, US - Shrimp (note 50), paras 166–176.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ For a recent analysis and critique of the “argument from transnational effects”, see Alexander Somek, The Argument from Transnational Effects I: Representing Outsiders through Freedom of Movement, 16 European Law Journal 315 (2010); id., The Argument from Transnational Effects II: Establishing Transnational Democracy, 16 European Law Journal 375 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Howse, Robert, The Appellate Body Rulings in the Shrimp/Turtle Case: A New Legal Baseline for the Trade and Environment Debate, 27 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 491, 507 (2002); Trebilcock, Michael & Howse, Robert, The Regulation of International Trade 535 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ See further Appellate Body Report, Korea - Beef (note 55), para. 178 – “responsible and representative governments may act in good faith”.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ EC - Hormones (note 150), para. 124.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Cf. Howse (note 151), 229.Google Scholar

¹⁹² Bernhardt, Rudolf, Interpretation in International Law, in: 2 Encyclopedia of Public International Law (EPIL), 1416, 1419 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1995); Herdegen, Matthias, Interpretation in International Law, in: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, para. 29 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2008), available at: http://www.mpepil.com (visited on 18 October 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Howse (note 151), 229; with regard to health policies, see further Maxwell Gregg Bloche, WTO Deference to National Health Policy: Toward an Interpretive Principle, 5 JIEL 825, 845 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ EC - Hormones (note 150), paras 176 et seq. and cf. Möllers (note 34), 320–325.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ See Noble Ventures v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award of 12 October 2005, para. 178; Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award of 3 September 2001, para. 297.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Kingsbury & Schill (note 76), 14.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Howse (note 142), 42 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Howse, Robert & Nicolaidis, Kalypso, Legitimacy and Global Governance: Why Constitutionalizing the WTO Is a Step Too Far, in: Efficiency, Equity, and Legitimacy: The Multilateral Trading System at the Millennium, 227, 243 (Roger B. Porter, Pierre Sauvé, Arvind Subramanian & Americo Beviglia Zampetti eds, 2001); Howse, Robert & Nicolaidis, Kalypso, Enhancing WTO Legitimacy: Constitutionalization or Global Subsidiarity?, 16 Governance 74, 86 (2003); von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 2), 1356 – publicness, transparency and adequate participation as “minimal safeguards” against an “autocratic rule of courts” entrusted with the task of systemic integration.Google Scholar