To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This essay outlines a quandary facing international investment dispute settlement (IIDS): the tension between the wish to curb “dual hatting” and the wish to increase the diversity of those appointed as arbitrators in IIDS cases. Thoughtful observers are concerned by the effect on IIDS, either in fact or as a matter of appearance, of lawyers who wear “dual hats”—one as arbitrator in IIDS cases, and a second as counsel representing clients in other IIDS matters. Concurrently, other thoughtful observers are concerned that appointments to IIDS predominantly go to a small cadre of established arbitrators caricatured as “pale, male and stale.” This concern has prompted efforts to increase the pool of female and minority arbitrators. However, these individuals would be drawn primarily from the ranks of younger practicing lawyers who must continue to practice unless and until they receive sufficient appointments to make full-time service as arbitrators economically feasible.
John Crook's remarks highlighted key recurring problems faced by mass claims programs. His remarks drew on his personal experience, but also on the writings of experts who have designed and administered mass claims programs, notably Dr. Norbert Wühler, whose visa apparently fell victim to “extreme vetting” because of his work for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) on a mass claims program in Iraq.
This article establishes the significance of elections held in the annexed
departments of the Napoleonic Empire from 1802 to 1813. It thus represents an
original, and perhaps surprising, contribution to recent debate on the nature of
Napoleonic imperialism, in which attention has shifted from core to periphery, and
away from purely military matters. The electoral process under this authoritarian
regime has been alternately neglected or derided, especially where the newly created
departments of the Low Countries and parts of Germany and Italy are concerned.
However, extensive archival research demonstrates that it was taken extremely
seriously by both regime and voters, especially outside metropolitan France. These
‘First European Elections', as they may be dubbed, took place in regular fashion
right across the Empire and are studied here on a transnational basis, which also
involves the metropolitan departments. Though open to all adult males at the primary
level, they were not exercises in democracy, but they did create some rare political
space which local people were not slow to exploit for their own purposes. Above all,
they served as a means of integrating ‘new Frenchmen’, particularly members of
indigenous elites, into the Napoleonic system.