bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
Authors: Choong John 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rule 28. Rule 28 achieves two things. First, it provides a means by which a party, typically a respondent, can submit an early challenge to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or the competence of SIAC, which will be determined by the SIAC Court on a prima facie basis. Second, Rule 28 confirms the power of a SIAC tribunal, once constituted, to rule definitively on its own jurisdiction — a power which rests on the twin principles of competence–competence and separability. The chapter also briefly explains the approach taken as a matter of Singapore law to the interpretation of arbitration agreements and the determination of whether a dispute is arbitrable.
Early Dismissal of Claims and Defences: (SIAC Rule 29)
Authors: Choong John 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter addresses one of the main changes in the 2016 Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules: the introduction of Rule 29 on the early dismissal of claims and defences. The 2010 SIAC Arbitration Rules did not contain any equivalent provision. The chapter begins with an introduction to early dismissal mechanisms in arbitration generally, in Part A. It then addresses the scope of Rule 29 in Part B, followed by an examination of the procedural aspects of Rule 29 in Part C. Parts D and E examine the discretion of the tribunal in deciding whether to grant a Rule 29 application and the tribunal's decision at the conclusion of the Rule 29 proceedings, respectively.
The Powers of the Tribunal
Authors: Choong John 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses some of the key powers of a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) tribunal under Rules 27 and 31. The 2016 edition of the SIAC Rules makes clear for the first time in the history of SIAC that the tribunal's prescribed powers are subject to any agreement of the parties. But that does not mean the tribunal can only exercise its powers under Rule 27 upon an agreement of the parties or after being requested to do so by a party. A tribunal can exercise its powers under Rule 27 of its own motion (i.e. sua sponte). Under Rule 31, the tribunal has the power to determine the law applicable to the substance of a dispute (in the absence of the parties having agreed the applicable law) and to determine a dispute on equitable grounds (if authorized to do so by the parties).
Interim and Emergency Relief
Authors: Choong John 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter focuses on Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rule 30. Interim or emergency relief is aimed at preserving the status quo between parties pending the resolution of a dispute. A party to a SIAC arbitration has three options for obtaining interim relief during the course of an arbitration. Depending on the circumstances in which the relief is sought, a party can seek interim relief from: (a) the tribunal (Rule 30.1); (b) an emergency arbitrator (Rule 30.2 and Schedule 1); or (c) a court of competent jurisdiction (Rule 30.3). Each of these three options is discussed in turn.
SIAC Investment Rules
Authors: Choong John 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
In 2017, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) released separate rules for investment arbitration: the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules (SIAC IA Rules). This chapter addresses the new SIAC IA Rules, which entered into force on 1 January 2017. It begins in Part A with an introduction to the SIAC IA Rules. Part B then examines the key provisions of the SIAC IA Rules in more detail. These include scope of application (Rule 1), constitution of the tribunal (Rules 5 to 9, 12, 13), third-party funding (Rules 24, 33 and 35), early dismissal of claims and defences (Rule 26), third party intervention (Rule 29), and confidentiality and transparency (Rules 37 and 38).
Mandate
Authors: Lichtenstein Natalie 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
Chapter 3, Mandate, discusses the provisions in the AIIB Charter that encapsulate AIIB’s mandate. These provisions address the overarching objectives that the Prospective Founding Members saw for AIIB. The Chapter explains the Preamble to the AIIB Charter, and compares it with other Charters. Then the separate clauses that govern AIIB’s legal purpose and AIIB’s functions are described, and also compared to the similar clauses for other multilateral development banks. Key elements are regional economic development, development finance, infrastructure investment, supplementing private finance and multilateral collaboration. AIIB’s cooperation arrangements with other international organizations are summarized. This Chapter concludes by enumerating the clauses in the AIIB Charter where the purpose and functions have particular legal significance, setting a framework for AIIB to evolve into new areas and functions.
Capital and Finance
Authors: Lichtenstein Natalie 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
Chapter 6, Capital and Finance, describes AIIB’s capital structure, and its financial resources and management. It begins by explaining the importance of the capital structure for multilateral development banks (MDBs) generally and the origins of this model. Because MDBs raise most of their funds for investment operations on international capital markets, there is heavy reliance on market perceptions of the MDB’s finances and investment operations, and on the commitments of members to provide callable capital. AIIB’s capital is divided into paid-in and callable capital shares, and the rules for capital increases and allocation of capital are outlined. The principles and legal provisions governing AIIB’s financial resources and management are highlighted. The Chapter concludes with the rules for trust funds and Special Funds provided by donors, and for AIIB to establish subsidiaries.
The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute
Authors: Kittichaisaree Kriangsak 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
Prosecution of perpetrators of serious crimes of international concern before the permanent International Criminal Court, set up in 2002, has been few and far between. Hope thus rests with the implementation of the international legal obligation for States to either extradite such perpetrators to another State able and willing to prosecute them or prosecute the perpetrators themselves or surrender them to be prosecuted by a competent international court. This book is written by the Chairman of the UN International Law Commission's Working Group on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare). The Commission submitted its Final Report on that topic to the UN General Assembly in 2014, leaving unanswered numerous important issues such as the customary international law status of the said obligation, immunities of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, the exercise of universal jurisdiction, and competing rules of international law regarding the surrender of persons to a competent international court. This book is an authoritative guide to, as well as the unique drafting history of, the International Law Commission's Final Report. In addition, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the subject, including issues not settled by the Commission and proposing practical solutions to the daunting challenges facing international efforts to bring to account perpetrators of serious atrocities that shock humankind. It will be useful to States, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, international lawyers, students of international law, and the civil society entrusted with human rights protection.
General Introduction
Authors: Kittichaisaree Kriangsak 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter introduces the legal concept of the international legal obligation to extradite or prosecute perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern, tracing its historical foundation, explaining the codification and progressive development work of the UN International Law Commission on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind that has bearings on the concept, and identifying the gap in the existing treaty regime on this obligation. It succinctly analyses the three intertwined alternatives of extradition, prosecution, both by domestic criminal tribunals, and the third alternative of surrendering the perpetrators of such crimes to international criminal tribunals for the purpose of their prosecution.
The International Law Commission’s Work on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)
Authors: Kittichaisaree Kriangsak 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter explains the work by the UN International Law Commission on the topic ‘Obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’ from 2006 to 2014, culminating in the Final Report of the Commission on this topic which was taken note of by the UN General Assembly in 2014. All the legal issues relevant to the obligation are identified and, where appropriate, analysed. The drafting history of the Report by the Working Group under the present author's chairmanship is elucidated in details — and this is the only place where this drafting history can be found.
Customary International Law Analysis
Authors: Kittichaisaree Kriangsak 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter explains the theory behind, and the key characteristics of, core crimes (such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) proscribed by peremptory norms (jus cogens), from which derogation is not permitted, as well as the importance of their prosecution. State practice and its acceptance as law in support of the existence of the customary international law binding on all States to either extradite or prosecute perpetrators of core crimes are systematically elaborated pursuant to the established criteria for the identification of customary international law.
The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute for Non-Core Crimes as Treaty Obligations
Authors: Kittichaisaree Kriangsak 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
The obligation to extradite or prosecute perpetrators of non-core crimes can be found in various treaties, outside customary international law. This chapter explains the operation of the various provisions on the obligation to extradite or prosecute under more than 60 treaties, addresses pertinent issues of international law pertaining to the implementation of these provisions; namely, double criminality ratione materiae and ratione temporis; the political offence exception; and the existence of humanitarian reasons to deny extradition.
Conclusions and the Way Forward
Authors: Kittichaisaree Kriangsak 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
The chapter describes international efforts to close the gaps in existing treaties on the obligation to extradite or prosecute. These include: (i) the joint initiative for the adoption of a new international instrument on mutual legal assistance and extradition for the effective investigation and prosecution of the most serious crimes of international concern, in particular, the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, by domestic jurisdictions; and (ii) the International Law Commission's work on a draft convention on Crimes against Humanity. The chapter also explores the issue of capacity building for the national judiciary and a regional judicial mechanism to help alleviate the burden of the International Criminal Court; national peace/reconciliation, international peace/stability, and other considerations against the implementation of the obligation to extradite or prosecute; the operation of transitional justice as an alternative to prosecution; and the implications of the atrocities in Syria for the future prospects of this obligation in the context of international criminal justice.
Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples
Authors: Weller Marc 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter studies Articles 3, 4, 5, 18, 23, and 46(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The debate about the right to self-determination for indigenous peoples, and its provisional conclusion through the adoption of the Declaration, represents a very significant step in the development of concepts of international legal personality. First, the change in terminology from ‘populations’ to ‘people’ marks the emergence of indigenous peoples as subjects, rather than objects of international law. Second, there was the possibility of drawing on existing international legal language in relation to a safeguard clause, which was eventually adopted in line with the General Assembly's vulnerable Friendly Relations resolution. Without the adoption of this clause, it is unlikely that the Declaration could have been adopted with a significant majority, if at all.
Indigenous Belonging
Authors: Imai Shin , Gunn Kathryn 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses Articles 9, 33, 35, and 36, focusing on the relationships between the indigenous individual and the indigenous community, group or nation, the question of the right to select or deny membership, and of duties to the community. The recognition of indigenous peoples' right to determine their own membership is crucial for their ability to meaningfully exercise their right to self-determination. Thus, the provisions of Articles 9, 33, 35, and 36 reinforce the right of indigenous peoples to define themselves, both in terms of membership and geographic scope. During the drafting of the Declaration, representatives of indigenous peoples stressed the importance of self-identification. However, some States argued that the lack of a fixed definition would create a circularity whereby people who claimed to be indigenous would define indigeneity based on the criterion that they themselves defined. A similar problem arises when discussing membership in an indigenous group or community.
Indigenous Education and the UNDRIP
Authors: Graham Lorie M , Van Zyl-Chavarro Amy B 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses the right to education in Article 14. Article 14 takes on a special meaning and purpose in terms of repairing, restoring, and strengthening indigenous communities and cultures through education. These aims are to be achieved through linkages with other basic rights, such as the rights of self-determination, non-discrimination, and cultural and linguistic integrity. For instance, Article 14 provides for the right of indigenous peoples to develop and control educational systems that are consistent with their linguistic and cultural methods of teaching and learning. It also articulates a more general right of non-discriminatory access to all levels and forms of education within the State, thereby ensuring that indigenous pupils are placed on an equal footing with non-indigenous pupils. Moreover, it ensures that any action that a State takes with respect to the education of indigenous individuals is done in partnership with indigenous communities.
Legal Implementation and International Cooperation and Assistance
Authors: van Genugten Willem , Lenzerini Federico 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses Articles 37–42, considering legal implementation and international cooperation and assistance. Article 37 recognizes that treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations reflect legally important entitlements that have to be honoured by applying the standards of modern treaty law, while taking into consideration the facts of cases at hand and later developments, and including the interests of other parties than the original ones. In addition, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) might be a declaration ‘only’, but it cannot be simply considered as ‘just another’ non-binding argument. Large parts of Articles 37–42 — particularly Article 37, relating to the right that treaties concluded with indigenous peoples are honoured and respected by States, and Article 40, proclaiming the right of indigenous communities to access to justice and to remedies — do have customary international law character, while other parts also reflect more than moral or political commitments ‘only’.
CMU and the Deepening of Financial Integration
Authors: Valiante Diego 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
The integration of capital markets in the EU is a long-term and complex task that is far from being completed. A comparative analysis with capital markets integration and development in the United States can offer insights on how the EU can develop its policy framework to achieve a single market for capital. This chapter begins with a brief review of the history of European financial integration policies since its inception in 1957. It then illustrates how capital markets can provide significant risk absorption against exogenous shocks. Finally, it presents a brief overview of the United States' economic history between 1860s and 1930s. Analogies can be found with the European financial integration process, as well as benchmarks to identify areas where European policies can do more to promote a Single Market for capital.
A Single Listing Authority and Securities Regulator for the CMU and the Future of ESMA
Authors: Avgouleas Emilios , Ferrarini Guido 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter proposes a system for EU centralization of scrutiny and approval of public offers of securities or of listing of companies mature enough to conduct an IPO or those that seek a listing following a secondary offer. It first discusses the European Securities and Markets Authority's unique presence in the EU regulatory edifice and the true ambit and interpretation of its powers. It then sets out the preferred architecture and ambit for a possible European Listing Authority and Capital Markets Union–Securities and Exchange Commission (CMU–SEC), and the advantages their establishment could bring to the CMU project. Next, it discusses the legality of a possible CMU–SEC and brings the different strands of the present analysis into a comprehensive solution.
Some Aspects of the Impact of Brexit in the Field of Financial Services
Authors: Wymeersch Eddy 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
Brexit will have a considerable impact on various segments of economic, social, and personal life. This chapter outlines a few aspects that are of particular importance for the financial services activity. One issue relates to the conditions for EU banks and investment firms to obtain access to each other markets. Today, firms from both sides enjoy passporting rights: they are entitled to establish themselves throughout the Union without any additional authorisation, remaining subject to their home regulation and supervision, the latter being largely harmonised. After Brexit, free access will not be the rule anymore: UK firms, products, and services will be governed by the ‘third country’ regime, calling for authorisations or additional requirements. The remainder of the chapter discusses the equivalence of third country regulations or standards, euro derivatives clearing, and Brexit and the European Banking Authority.
The Role of Financial Innovation in EU Market Integration and the Capital Markets Union
Authors: Avgouleas Emilios 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter offers a critical overview of the issues that the European Union 27 (EU-27) will face in the context of making proper use of financial innovation to further market integration and risk sharing in the internal financial market, both key objectives of the drive to build a Capital Markets Union. Among these is the paradigm shift signalled by a technological revolution in the realm of finance and payments, which combines advanced data analytics and cloud computing (so-called FinTech). The chapter begins with a critical analysis of financial innovation and FinTech. It then traces the EU market integration efforts and explains the restrictive path of recent developments. It considers FinTech's potential to aid EU market integration and debates the merits of regulation dealing with financial innovation in the context of building a capital markets union in EU-27.
Damages Actions by Investors on the Back of Market Disclosure Requirements
Authors: Davies Paul 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
EU rules requiring disclosures to the market by publicly traded companies have developed enormously since the first Listing Particulars Directive of 1980. However, even today they are hesitant about dealing with the subject of investor actions for damages for breaches of the rules. In relation to public offerings, periodic disclosures, and episodic disclosures, the current EU rules do not bring about harmonisation of national systems of damages liability in investor actions, but rather place almost exclusive emphasis on coordinated administrative action and sanctions. This chapter considers the question of how the liability rules should be shaped if they are to contribute most effectively to the achievement of the goals of the Union's disclosure rules. The discussions cover investor actions and the promotion of disclosure, investor litigation in the context of public offerings, and investor litigation in the context of continuing disclosures.
Institutional Investors and Development of Europe’s Capital Markets
Authors: Darvas Zsolt , Schoenmaker Dirk 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter investigates the role of institutional investment in developing capital markets. It also examines the role of institutional investment in risk sharing. The contribution of institutional investment to risk sharing depends on: the size of institutional investment; the degree of geographical diversification of portfolios, and the composition of assets (equities vs bonds) held. The chapter investigates these three aspects of financial integration in the EU's Capital Markets Union and assesses the prospects for increased risk sharing in the EU. The main hypothesis is that the larger the assets managed by institutional investors, the smaller the home bias and thereby the larger the scope for risk sharing, ceteris paribus. The analysis will focus on portfolio equity home bias.
Shareholder Activism in the CMU
Authors: Pacces Alessio M 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
Hedge fund activism is on the rise in Europe. Whereas hedge funds activism has been so far largely a U.S. phenomenon, there is survey evidence suggesting that hedge funds are looking for new targets. Europe is particularly attractive in this respect because the European jurisdictions support broader rights than those available to the shareholders of a typical Delaware-incorporated U.S. public company. Shareholder rights are an important part of the activist hedge fund's toolbox, although they must be understood in light of the activist's business model. This chapter discusses hedge fund activism as a major driver of institutional shareholders' engagement, particularly in Europe. It argues that the revision of the Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD) curbs rather than supports hedge funds activism, therefore casting some doubts as to whether the SRD will effectively foster engagement and investment by institutional shareholders.