Rechtsmittel gegen Entscheide des juge d'appui bei der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit der Schweiz

The author examines whether and by which means the decisions handed down by the State judge giving his support to the arbitral proceeding (juge d'appui) may be appealed. Every relevant Article in the PILA (Private International Law Act) is addressed and analyzed in this regard (Art. 179(2) and (3), Art. 180(3), Art. 183(2), Art. 184(3) and Art. 185) by reference to the present legal doctrine and case law. Concerning the stages of appeal, the view is held that by direct or analogous application of Art. 356(2) CPC (Civil Procedure Code) the juge d'appui has jurisdiction as the sole instance of the Canton to render decisions in support of the arbitral tribunal. On the federal level however, the parties shall have the right to appeal against these decisions by filing a civil law appeal before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, with the exception of most decisions given by juge d'appui within the meaning of Art. 180(3) PILA. As to this federal appeal, it is established that the case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court under the FTA (Act on the Federal Tribunal) indicates the Court's inclination to qualify both negative and positive decisions issued by the juge d'appui as final decisions in terms of Art. 90 FTA. In reference to the upcoming revision of the PILA's 12th Chapter the author concludes that the legislator might implement some clarifications in the current legal framework. It seems particularly advisable to ensure that all relevant Articles in the PILA regarding decisions of the juge d'appui explicitly reference to Art. 356(2) CPC. Moreover, the author is of the opinion that it would also be expedient to specify the

Advancing the Goals of the 2005 UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in the Fields of Education, Participation of Civil Society and Sustainable Development

This is a contribution to an expert opinion to be submitted to Intergovernmental Committee of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity. It seeks to identify recommendations for action in the fields of education, participation of the civil society and sustainable development (under respectively Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention), which are to be specifically targeted taking into account the changed and changing conditions of the digital networked environment.

Addressing climate change under preferential trade agreements: Towards alignment of carbon standards under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

With its wide coverage of economic spheres and the variety of trade and investment measures currently under negotiation, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership opens windows of opportunity for advancing action on climate change. We examine possible avenues and international trade law implications for an alignment of carbon-related standards between the EU and the US. We compare EU and US carbon emissions standards for cars and argue that negotiators should strive for a mutual recognition of their equivalence for a transitional period, while pursuing the goal of full harmonization at the level of the highest standards of two parties at some date in the future. This could be a way to balance between economic and environmental interests and harness economic incentives for the benefit of climate.

Toward alignment of carbon standards under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

With its wide coverage of economic spheres and the variety of trade and investment measures currently under negotiation, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) opens windows of opportunity for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The paper examines the possible avenues and the WTO law implications for the alignment of emissions standards between the European Union (EU) and United States of America (US). Looking particularly at the automobile sector, it argues that TTIP negotiators should strive for the mutual recognition of equivalence of EU and US car emissions standards, while pursuing full harmonisation in the long term. It concludes that the preferential trade agreement (PTA) status of TTIP would not be able to exempt measures taken for regulatory convergence from compliance with applicable WTO rules, particularly the rules of the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Furthermore, the EU and the US would not be able to ignore requests for the recognition of equivalence of third countries’ standards and would need to provide the grounds upon which they assess third countries’ standards as not adequately fulfilling the objectives of their own regulations and therefore rejecting them.