Karteikarten: Adjudication Strategies in International Law — 24 Karten

Deep vs shallow integration — difference?

Deep creates shared rules; shallow maintains national autonomy.

Inquisitorial system — role?

Judge actively steers case and produces evidence.

Adversarial system — role?

Parties produce evidence; judge evaluates submissions.

Choice of law — purpose?

Determines which legal system governs a dispute.

Inquisitorial evidence — fit?

Suitable when judge is trusted and active in fact-finding.

Adversarial evidence — fit?

Suitable when parties control evidence and rebuttal.

Externalities — effect?

Applying the same law to parties ensures consistency.

Judge bound by?

Parties' contract; limits how law is applied.

Adverse selection — before?

Principal can't verify qualities before appointment.

Moral hazard — after?

Selected actor may behave against principal’s interests.

Incomplete contracts — central?

Require interpretation and reliance on precedent.

Stare decisis — meaning?

Courts follow prior decisions for continuity.

Precedent — goal?

Ensure legal consistency, not identical outcomes.

Institutional balance — limit?

Prevents courts from legislating and legislatures from judging.

International judges — problem?

Incentives and independence issues due to asymmetric info.

GATT dispute process — first step?

Bilateral consultations between parties.

GATT dispute process — second?

Referral to CONTRACTING PARTIES for decision.

DSU structure — stages?

Panels, appellate review, adoption, compliance, countermeasures.

DSU remedies — sequence?

Withdrawal, then compensation if withdrawal impractical, then suspension.

WTO adjudication — principle?

Compulsory; states must accept decisions, no unilateral self-help.

WTO law as benchmark?

Not generally; only in exceptional cases with explicit WTO reference and EU intent.

EU judicial procedure — chambers?

Default formation for cases; Grand Chamber for complex/high-impact cases.

Urgency procedure — purpose?

Accelerate case handling for time-sensitive harms.

Deep integration — effect?

Harmonizes competition rules across jurisdictions.