I have just published a paper presented in French at the International Conference held at the University of Le Havre Normandy, in Le Havre, France, on 6-7 November 2024.
That conference was about "Les activités économiques à l'aune des droits fondamentaux" and was recently published in a very nice 476-page volume with the same title by Legitech.
The book addresses the challenges in reconciling economic activities with fundamental rights and freedoms. The contributions are from four continents: Europe (France, Romania, Italy, Switzerland), North America (Canada), Africa (Togo, Gabon, Morocco, Mauritania), and Central Asia (Kazakhstan).
As for my paper in the volume, "Supranationalism in International Courts: ECtHR vs. ISDS Tribunals, " it examines two fundamentally different models of supranational adjudication: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Tribunals. The supranationality of the second type of Tribunals was never considered in the legal literature.
While both allow private parties to challenge state actions before international bodies, they embody distinct conceptions of supranationalism. The ECtHR represents 'structural-systematic' supranationalism—building permanent institutions that progressively integrate national legal systems. ISDS represents 'case-specific' supranationalism—providing powerful dispute resolution for individual cases without creating broader legal integration.
The analysis develops a multidimensional framework that builds on the scholarship of Schmerz, Pollack, Helfer, Slaughter, and Alter.
Supranationalism is assessed across six key dimensions:- Independence from States: How judges are selected, their tenure, financial independence, and protection from removal; -Nature of Jurisdiction: Whether permanent or ad hoc, compulsory or optional, and possibilities for state withdrawal; --Access to the Tribunal: Who can bring cases, admissibility requirements, and breadth of standing; -Scope of Jurisdiction: The breadth of subject matter over which the tribunal has authority; -Interpretative Authority: Whether rulings create binding or persuasive precedent and influence national law; -Enforcement Mechanisms: How effectively tribunal decisions are implemented and what consequences follow non-compliance.
The comparison between the two demonstrates that supranationalism is multidimensional and context-dependent. The ECtHR's structural-systematic approach suits deep integration among states sharing common values. ISDS's case-specific approach suits the protection of economic interests without broader political integration.
Neither model is inherently superior—each serves distinct purposes effectively. Understanding these variations requires examining specific institutional features rather than applying a single template. Future international tribunal design should consciously choose which type of supranationalism—systematic integration, episodic remediation, or hybrid approaches—best matches institutional purposes and contexts.
The volume can be found and bought online at:https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9782919826407&i=stripbooks&linkCode=qs
