China-EU Law Journal (CELJ), Online First, 2017DOI: 10.1007/s12689-017-0075-1Max Planck Private Law Research Paper No. 17/120 Pages Posted: 23 Dec 2016 Last revised: 20 Mar 2017Jurgen BasedowMax Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private LawAbstractThe surprising outcome of the referendum on the future membership of the United Kingdom (UK) in the European Union (EU) has given rise to a large number of political speculations and claims. They will have to be realized within the framework of EU law and British constitutional law. This paper is meant to outline that framework and, in particular, the procedure that might lead to BREXIT, infra 1, as well as the options available for the negotiations about the future relations between the EU and the UK, infra 2. Its main thrust will be the legal consequences of BREXIT for the operation of primary and secondary EU law, infra 3 to 5. A final section will deal with the fate of international treaties concluded by the EU for Britain after BREXIT, infra 5. Particular attention will be given to possible implications for China.BASEDOW, Jurgen. BREXIT and Business Law. China-EU Law Journal (CELJ), 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s12689-017-0075-1. Max Planck Private Law Research Paper No. 17/1. Disponivel em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2889218>. Acesso em: 21 mar. 2017. 96 Texas L. Rev. (2017 Forthcoming)69 Pages Posted: 7 Apr 2017 Ingrid B. WuerthVanderbilt University - Law SchoolDate Written: April 6, 2017AbstractInternational law is in a period of transition. After World War II, but especially since the 1980s, human rights expanded to almost every corner of international law. In doing so, they changed core features of international law itself, including the definition of sovereignty and the sources of international legal rules. But what might be termed the golden-age of international human rights law is over, at least for now. Whether measured in terms of the increasing number of authoritarian governments, the decline in international human rights enforcement architecture such as the Responsibility to Protect and the Alien Tort Statute, the growing power of China and Russia over the content of international law, or rising nationalism and populism, international human rights law is in retreat. The decline offers an opportunity to consider how human rights changed, or purported to change, international law and how international law as a whole can be made more effective in a post-human rights era. This article is the first to argue that international human rights law whatever its much disputed benefits for human rights themselves appears to have expanded and changed international law itself in ways that have made it weaker, less likely to generate compliance, and more likely to produce interstate friction and conflict. The debate around international law and human rights needs to be reframed to consider these costs and to evaluate whether international law, including the work of the United Nations, should focus on a stronger, more limited core of international legal norms that protects international peace and security, not human rights.WUERTH, Ingrid B. International Law in the Post-Human Rights Era (April 6, 2017). 96 Texas L. Rev. (2017 Forthcoming). Disponivel em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2947771>. Acesso em: 10 abr. 2017. European Review of