{"title":"Coalition-Proof Stability and Optimal Surplus Sharing in International Environmental Agreements","authors":"Ryusuke Shinohara","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3887276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3887276","url":null,"abstract":"In a Nash equilibrium of voluntary participation games in international environmental agreements, the optimal surplus sharing rules, proposed by Eyckmans and Finus (2004) and Weikard (2009), incentivize more countries to participate in the agreements. We examine how robust this desirability of the rules is to multilateral deviations.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133160607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"International Investment Agreements: 'Inside and Outside Agreements'","authors":"A. Franklin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3388442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3388442","url":null,"abstract":"International investment agreements (IIAs) are of great importance to investors, or at least they should be, to investors who want to be knowledgeable about how IIAs can protect against risks. <br>Types of agreements that this article will look at are the following:<br>1. Bilateral investment treaties;<br>2. Bilateral Free trade agreements;<br>3. Regional free trade agreements;<br>4. Investment treaties made between a regional grouping and another state;<br>5. Investment treaties made between two regional groupings.<br><br>The article discusses the major regional groupings: ASEAN, EU, CARICOM, OAS as well as others. It suggests reasons why it is important for investors to understand how being inside a grouping (inside agreements) can have great advantages to the investor, and that being inside a grouping which also has agreements with other regional groups or individual states (Outside agreements) is also important to understand. <br><br>The article also provides information on the international development banks relevant to each regional grouping, as well as human rights courts in those groupings that investors should be aware of.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128981232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Comparative Foreign Relations Law Agenda: Opportunities and Challenges","authors":"Oona A. Hathaway","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3363312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3363312","url":null,"abstract":"International law is generally understood to be made up of the rules that states accept as binding in their relations with one another. But international law is the product not only of a political and legal process that takes place between states — as this common understanding implies — but also of processes that take place within them. And yet to date there has been remarkably little cross-national work examining the role of domestic politics and law in the creation of treaties and other international law. Part of the reason for this gap is the difficulty of conducting cross-national studies of foreign relations law on a large scale. To the extent there have been comparative studies done of foreign relations law, they have been largely limited to relatively small-scale case studies. More comprehensive examination of the differences across nations in the ways in which they make international commitments is rare. This chapter aims to contribute to an emerging conversation about how best to carry out a more comprehensive examination of differences between states in the law governing their engagement in the world around them. It maps out five areas that offer opportunities and challenges for the study of comparative foreign relations law. First, the choice of methodology, whether quantitative or qualitative. Second, the under-representation of certain states in existing foreign relations scholarship. Third, the domestic political and institutional structures that shape the interplay between the legislative, executive, and judicial functions within states. Fourth, the role of geopolitics. Fifth, the chapter sounds a cautionary note about approaching international law through domestic law.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131963641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Interpretation of Plurilingual Tax Treaties: Routine Interpretation — A Refutation","authors":"R. X. Resch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3301474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301474","url":null,"abstract":"Based on an analysis of 3,844 tax treaties, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and its Commentaries (VCLT), and case law of various domestic and international courts.<br><br>The current orthodoxy maintains that courts are not required to compare all language texts of a plurilingual treaty but may rely on a single one for cases of routine interpretation. This view is erroneous, in violation of the VCLT, and the source of treaty misapplication; taxpayers are ill-advised to pay attention only to the text in their own language.<br><br>In daily practice, the issue is of great relevance: almost three-quarters of the well over 3,000 concluded tax treaties are plurilingual. The BEPS MLI escalates complexity because it modifies a large number of treaties having texts in various languages. This study aims to (1) increase awareness about the pitfalls of the current orthodoxy and, in consequence, help diminish misapplication of plurilingual tax treaties through its abandonment, (2) show that sole reliance on prevailing texts is available as a pragmatic alternative in line with the VCLT, and (3) provide policy recommendations how residual cases may be eliminated.<br><br>To support these goals, this study seeks to provide conclusive arguments and useful data to policy makers, treaty negotiators, judges, practitioners, and other scholars. Its analysis of all tax treaty final clauses is intended to help both taxpayers and courts interpreting tax treaties in practice. The general arguments presented in this book are however not limited to tax treaties, since similar issues play a role in the interpretation of other treaties, for example, in the field of foreign investment regulation.<br><br>Note: Excerpt of my Thesis, consisting in TOC, Introduction, and Chapter 3 (Routine Interpretation: A Refutation), the latter being an updated and more extensive version of my previous paper 'Not in Good Faith — A Critique of the Vienna Convention Rule of Interpretation Concerning its Application to Plurilingual (Tax) Treaties'.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122368946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. C. van den Bergh, A. Angelsen, A. Baranzini, W. Botzen, S. Carattini, Stefan Drews, Tessa Dunlop, Eric Galbraith, E. Gsottbauer, R. Howarth, Emilio Padilla, Jordi Roca, Robert C. Schmidt
{"title":"Parallel Tracks Towards a Global Treaty on Carbon Pricing","authors":"J. C. van den Bergh, A. Angelsen, A. Baranzini, W. Botzen, S. Carattini, Stefan Drews, Tessa Dunlop, Eric Galbraith, E. Gsottbauer, R. Howarth, Emilio Padilla, Jordi Roca, Robert C. Schmidt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3259932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259932","url":null,"abstract":"We argue that a global carbon price is the only way to effectively tackle free riding in international climate policy, required to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We briefly review the main reasons behind the essential role of carbon pricing, address common misunderstandings and scepticism, and identify key complementary policy instruments. Negotiating global carbon pricing is argued to be much easier than negotiating binding country-level targets, especially if it includes equitable revenue recycling. Moreover, a global carbon price can be more readily adapted to new data and insights of climate science. We propose a political strategy towards a global carbon price that consists of two tracks. The first entails assembly of a carbon-pricing club, a specific case of a climate club, to gradually move towards a full participatory agreement on carbon pricing. The second track involves putting time and energy into re-focusing UNFCCC negotiations on a carbon-pricing agreement. The two tracks reinforce one another, increasing the likelihood of a successful outcome.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123692425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Us Regulators May Not Prevent Private Space Activity on the Basis of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty","authors":"Laura Montgomery","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3169365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3169365","url":null,"abstract":"Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty states that “the activities of non-governmental entities shall require authorization and continuing supervision.” This has caused confusion for the US government and for private entities that plan to operate in outer space engaging in nontraditional businesses such as satellite servicing or asteroid mining. Many interested parties believe Article VI means that private entities may not operate without governmental authorization and continuing supervision. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suggests that Article VI gives it authority to deny access to space to the unauthorized and unsupervised. A clearer understanding of the law should put these concerns to rest. Article VI is not self-executing. This means that it is not enforceable federal law unless Congress enacts domestic implementing legislation. Therefore, private actors may operate in outer space, even without authorization or supervision, and the FAA and other regulatory agencies may not rely on Article VI to attempt to deny these actors access to space.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114164488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Objective or Subjective - Anti-Treaty Shopping Policy in Selected Asian Jurisdictions in the Post-BEPS World","authors":"S. Baik, M. Petutschnig","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3104976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3104976","url":null,"abstract":"BEPS Action 6 proposes two distinct anti abuse measures to be incorporated into the OECD Model Convention and subsequently into the various bilateral tax treaties: A Limitation on Benefits (LoB) clause and Principal Purpose Test (PPT). While both anti abuse measures are new to the OECD Model Convention, various countries around the world have implemented either LoB or PPT clauses or both into their tax treaties. This paper analyses the treaty network of eight Asian / Pacific jurisdictions (Australia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan) with respect to the anti-abuse measures employed in these treaties. The majority of the more than 500 treaties in the sample do not included an anti-abuse measure of any kind. While the use of anti-abuse rules in general is highly diverse, the choice of the preferred measure if an anti-abuse rule is incorporated in the treaty is quite homogeneous. The one measure most often used is the principal purpose test (or a variation thereof), with 113 individual treaties containing that test. LoB clauses are used in only 16 treaties. The historical development of the treaty networks shows a strong increase in the (relative) importance of the PPT since 43% of all new treaties concluded after 2009 contain such a provision while only 5% of these treaties contain a LoB.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116661179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tax Treaty Disputes: A Global Quantitative Analysis","authors":"Eduardo A. Baistrocchi, M. Hearson","doi":"10.1017/9781316528945.034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316528945.034","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter offers the first global quantitative analysis of tax treaty disputes emerging in the almost first 100 years of the international tax regime (ITR). The time and space dimensions of the analysis are as follows. The time dimension covers the era that ran from 1923 — when four economists produced the League of Nations’ Report on Double Taxation proposing a legal technology that is now encapsulated in the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (OECD MTC) — until 2015, when the G20 and the OECD published the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 2015 Final Reports (BEPS Reports), which ‘represents the first substantial renovation of the international tax standards in almost a century’ (pre-BEPS Reports Era). The space dimension of this analysis covers the G20 countries.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"174 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123398812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Germany’ Presidency in the G20: Testing by Trump","authors":"M. Larionova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3009180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009180","url":null,"abstract":"For nearly a decade, the G20 has united leaders of developed and developing countries to deal with common challenges. There are different assessments of its role in handling the crisis and solving global management issues. But it is obvious that amid the changing situation in the world, worsening of the environment and growing hostility to the globalization the G20 remains a major economic cooperation forum. In 2017, Germany chairs the G20 and it is possible to sum up the preliminary results.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124624677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Intellectual Property Treaty Landscape in Africa, 1998 to 2015","authors":"J. de Beer, J. Baarbé, Caroline B. Ncube","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3008743","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3008743","url":null,"abstract":"Intellectual property (IP) policy is an important part of economic growth and human development. International commitments harmonized in intellectual property treaties exist in tension with local needs for flexibility. Using a novel data collection and visualization method, this paper tracks the adoption of IP treaties on the continent of Africa over a 130-year period from 1885-2015. Our analysis highlights empirical data at four distinct points in time coinciding with events in African and international IP law (1935, 1965, 1995, and 2015). We explore relevant historical and legal aspects of each period to assess the evolution of the IP treaty landscape in context. Our findings show that treaties now saturate the IP policy space throughout the continent, limiting the ability to locally tailor approaches to knowledge governance.","PeriodicalId":191678,"journal":{"name":"PSN: International Agreements/Treaties (Topic)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125975019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}