In the process of resolving disputes, it is not uncommon for parties to justify actions otherwise in breach of their obligations by invoking the need to protect some aspect of the elusive concept of public order. Until this thoroughly researched book, the criteria and factors against which international dispute bodies assess such claims have remained unclear. Now, by providing an in-depth comparative analysis of relevant jurisprudence under four distinct international dispute resolution systems – trade, investment, human rights and international commercial arbitration – the author of this invaluable book identifies common core benchmarks for the application of the public order exception. To achieve the broadest possible scope for her analysis, the author examines the public order exception’s function, role and application within the following international dispute resolution systems: relevant World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements as enforced by the organization’s Dispute Settlement Body and Appellate Body; international investment agreements as enforced by competent Arbitral Tribunals and Annulment Committees under the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes; provisions under the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights as enforced by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, respectively; and the New York Convention as enforced by national tribunals across the world. Controversies, tensions and pitfalls inherent in invoking the public order exception are elucidated, along with clear guidelines on how arguments may be crafted in order to enhance prospects of success. Throughout, tables and graphs systematize key aspects of the relevant jurisprudence under each of the dispute resolution systems analysed. As an immediate practical resource for lawyers on any side of a dispute who wish to invoke or strengthen a public order exception claim, the book’s systematic analysis will be welcomed by lawyers active in WTO disputes, international investment arbitration, human rights law or enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Academics and policymakers will find a signal contribution to the ongoing debate on the existence, legal basis, content and functions of the transnational public order.

Law and Order offers a valuable new study of the political and social history of the 1960s. It presents a sophisticated account of how the issues of street crime and civil unrest enhanced the popularity of conservatives, eroded the credibility of liberals, and transformed the landscape of American politics. Ultimately, the legacy of law and order was a political world in which the grand ambitions of the Great Society gave way to grim expectations. In the mid-1960s, amid a pervasive sense that American society was coming apart at the seams, a new issue known as law and order emerged at the forefront of national politics. First introduced by Barry Goldwater in his ill-fated run for president in 1964, it eventually punished Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats and propelled Richard Nixon and the Republicans to the White House in 1968. In this thought-provoking study, Michael Flamm examines how conservatives successfully blamed liberals for the rapid rise in street crime and then skillfully used law and order to link the understandable fears of white voters to growing unease about changing moral values, the civil rights movement, urban disorder, and antiwar protests. Flamm documents how conservatives constructed a persuasive message that argued that the civil rights movement had contributed to racial unrest and the Great Society had rewarded rather than punished the perpetrators of violence. The president should, conservatives also contended, promote respect for law and order and contempt for those who violated it, regardless of cause. Liberals, Flamm argues, were by contrast unable to craft a compelling message for anxious voters. Instead, liberals either ignored the crime crisis, claimed that law and order was a racist ruse, or maintained that social programs would solve the "root causes" of civil disorder, which by 1968 seemed increasingly unlikely and contributed to a loss of faith in the ability of the government to do what it was above all sworn to do-protect personal security and private property.

Often identified as a major cause of the Republic's collapse, the absence of a professional police force in classical Rome was in fact a characteristic shared with other premodern states. The mechanisms of self-regulation that operated as a stabilizing force are examined in this study.

In this book, Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou argues that, from the legal perspective, the formula 'European public order' is excessively vague and does not have an identifiable meaning; therefore, it should not be used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its reasoning. However, European public order can also be understood as an analytical concept which does not require a clearly defined content. In this sense, the ECtHR can impact European public order but cannot strategically shape it. The Court's impact is a by-product of individual cases which create a feedback loop with the contracting states. European public order is influenced as a result of interaction between the Court and the contracting parties. This book uses a wide range of sources and evidence to substantiate its core arguments: from a comprehensive analysis of the Court's case law to research interviews with the judges of the ECtHR.

This unprecedented behind the scenes analysis of public order policing, first published in 1994, investigates the impact of increased police powers and equipment on basic democratic freedoms, describing and analysing police operations from protest marches to riots, and from royal ceremonials to street carnivals. When confrontational government policies stimulate inner-city riots and violent protest, the state response is all too often to equip the police with enhanced legal powers and the paraphernalia of riot control. In Britain such developments prompted debates about a drift into authoritarianism. Here the policing of political protest is examined within its political and broader ‘public order’ context, and the text draws on extended and detailed observation of actual events.

Now in a comprehensively updated edition, this indispensable handbook analyzes how international humanitarian law has evolved in the face of these many new challenges. Central concerns include the war on terror, new forms of armed conflict and humanitarian action, the emergence of international criminal justice, and the reshaping of fundamental rules and consensus in a multipolar world. ThePractical Guide to Humanitarian Law provides the precise meaning and content for over 200 terms such as terrorism, refugee, genocide, armed conflict, protection, peacekeeping, torture, and private military companies—words that the media has introduced into everyday conversation, yet whose legal and political meanings are often obscure. The Guide definitively explains the terms, concepts, and rules of humanitarian law in accessible and reader-friendly alphabetical entries. Written from the perspective of victims and those who provide assistance to them, the Guide outlines the dangers, spells out the law, and points the way toward dealing with violations of the law. Entries are complemented by analysis of the decisions of relevant courts; detailed bibliographic references; addresses, phone numbers, and Internet links to the organizations presented; a thematic index; and an up-to-date list of the status of ratification of more than thirty international conventions and treaties concerning humanitarian law, human rights, refugee law, and international criminal law. This unprecedented work is an invaluable reference for policy makers and opinion leaders, students, relief workers, and members of humanitarian organizations. Published in cooperation with Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières.

This is a study of two topics of central importance in late medieval history: the impact of war, and the control of disorder. Making war and making law were the twin goals of the state, and the author examines the effect of the evolution of royal government in England and France. Ranging broadly between 1000 and 1400, he focuses principally on the period c.1290 to c.1360, and compares developments in the two countries in four related areas: the economic and political costs of war; the development of royal justice; the crown's attempt to control private violence; and the relationship between public opinion and government action. He argues that as France suffered near breakdown under repeated English invasions, the authority of the crown became more acceptable to the internal warring factions; whereas the English monarchy, unable to meet the expectations for internal order which arose partly from its own ambitious claims to be 'keeper of the peace', had to devolve much of its judicial powers. In these linked problems of war, justice, and public order may lie the origins of English 'constitutionalism' and French 'absolutism'.