L'interdiction de la discrimination au travail et les obligations du syndicat en matière de représentation

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Corporate human rights obligations and international investment law

La globalización permeó las fronteras artificiales existentes entre la economía y la sociedad alrededor del mundo. Las actividades empresariales en este ambiente globalizado ha servido como catalizador de las violaciones de derechos humanos como consecuencia de la ausencia de la protección institucional algunas empresas han explotado los vacíos jurídicos y la falta de protección de los derechos humanos. Al respecto, para lograr un cambio paradigmático requiere un fuerte énfasis en los derechos y las obligaciones de las empresas. Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico de las obligaciones de las empresas en material de derechos humanos frente a la falta de cláusulas de estabilización en los contratos de inversión extranjera. En primer lugar, estas cláusulas son examinadas en relación con la responsabilidad en las obligaciones corporativas con relación a los derechos humanos fundamentales. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se analizan las dimensiones sustantivas y procesales de las cláusulas de estabilización. En segundo lugar, apelando a los ejemplos concretos del Acuerdo para el desarrollo de la Minería entre Mittal Steel y el Gobierno de Liberia, así como el proyecto del Oleoducto de Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan como casos de análisis, este artículo busca la aplicación de las cláusulas de estabilidad en las inversiones extranjeras con relación a la protección de los derechos humanos por parte de los Estados y de las empresas. En tercer lugar, se propone una modificación a la forma como se introduce la cláusula relativa a los derechos humanos. En este orden de ideas, los derechos humanos de los inversionistas, específicamente de las empresas, deben ser incluidos en los acuerdos de inversión extranjera.

Neocolonialism and international law, with specific reference to customary counterterrorism obligations and the principle of self-defence

Has international law ever, and, if it has not, can it ever, truly freed itself from the strictures of neocolonialism and the drive by a privileged elite to dominate the world scene? This article begins by inquiring into the nature of neocolonialism and, in so doing, pays particular attention to the writings of former Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah. It then proceeds to determine how neocolonialist designs surface in international law today by briefly looking at two aspects of international law in particular, namely customary international law, with specific reference to the counterterrorism context, and the principle of self-defence. In the final analysis, this article argues for a necessary and eternal scepticism of international law and the agendas of its privileged gatekeepers. Like classic State power, it opens itself to, and often operates as, neocolonial overreach, and to quote Nkrumah, “[t]he cajolement, the wheedlings, the seductions and the Trojan horses of neo-colonialism must be stoutly resisted, for neo-colonialism is a latter-day harpy, a monster which entices its victims with sweet music.”

A good enough approach to setting planning obligations

In this paper we propose an alternative model of, what is often called, land value capture in the planning system. Based on development viability models, negotiations and policy formation regarding the level of planning obligations have taken place at the local level with little clear guidance on technique, approach and method. It is argued that current approaches are regressive and fail to reflect how the ability of sites to generate planning gain can vary over time and between sites. The alternative approach suggested here attempts to rationalise rather than replace the existing practice of development viability appraisal. It is based upon the assumption that schemes with similar development values should produce similar levels of return to the landowner, developer and other stakeholders in the development as well as similar levels of planning obligations in all parts of the country. Given the high level of input uncertainty in viability modelling, a simple viability model is ‘good enough’ to quantify the maximum level of planning obligations for a given level of development value. We have argued that such an approach can deliver a more durable, equitable, simpler, consistent and cheaper method for policy formation regarding planning obligations.

Why designate market makers? affirmative obligations and market quality

We study why most financiaI markets designate one or more agents who precommit to provide more liquidity than they would endogenously choose, and identify two reasons that such affirmative obligations can improve welfare. The first relies on the insight that the informational component of the competi tive bid-ask spread represents a transfer across traders, not a social cost to completing trades. As such, this trading cost dissuades efficient trading, while a restriction on spread widths encourages efficient trading. Secondly, a restriction on spread widths encourages traders to become informed, which speeds the rate at which market prices move toward true asset values in the wake of information events. We consider the setting where competition ensures that affirmative obligations impose net trading losses on designated market makers that must be compensated by side payments, as observed on the Euronext limit order market, and also the setting where the designated market maker is allowed some advantages relative to limit order traders so that profits can be eamed during tranquil periods to offset losses incurred when affirmative obligations are binding, as observed on the NYSE.