Law Tutors Blog | Law Tutors Online | London Law Tutor Ltd.

As the world’s borders no longer pose a barrier to trade in the same manner as they once did, international trade has developed and is further fuelled by supranational organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. [1] When disputes arise between trading parties, be that body corporates or sovereign state, there are a plethora of methods that can be employed to resolve the matters; the main two methods used in international disputes are arbitration and litigation. This essay concludes that arbitration can be significantly more conducive to the international trade environment, but there are certain pitfalls that can allow litigation to prevail over arbitration. One of the prime advantages of arbitration is the neutral forum within which the dispute can be conducted. This works to alleviate concerns that one or both of the parties may have that the forum could be biased towards a certain party because that party is a national of that state. [2] This neutrality increases t

The Kyoto Declaration of the Fourth UN Congress in 1970 started the ball rolling for a UN convention that would work to address the problems related to international corruption. [1] In 2000, the UN General Assembly Resolution initiated the UNCAC which came into force in 2005. [2] Prior to 2005 however, there were numerous pieces of domestic legislation that had been passed with the aim of addressing international corruption and its related perils. The need for the UNCAC was partly due to the shortcomings of such conventions. It is argued that whilst the UNCAC addresses some of the problems with domestic law, much remains to be done.  As an introduction, one should note that there has been a contextual change between the settings for domestic laws and the emergence of the UNCAC; whilst corruption has always been a problem, rapid globalisation in recent years and the proliferation of trade has meant that the previous domestic responses have had to be replaced with more global

The circumstances leading to a breach of international legal obligation can be best accessed by referring to the rules of customary international law. These rules have been codified in the draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts by the International Law Commission. [1] They provide good evidence as to what constitutes customary international law and are closely followed by States.  The basic understand is that a state is internationally responsible for every wrongful act it commits which is done under its umbrella. Before holding a state responsible for a breach, it has to be ensured that the “wrongful act” committed is directly attributable to the state. Also, it has to be a breach of an international obligation of that State. As a general rule, the conduct is attributable to a State when it is committed by the State’s organs of government or its agents. By “agent” , it is meant to include persons or entities who act under the direction