The Experts below are selected from a list of 2124 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Marie-lea Rols - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Privileges and Immunities of the World Intellectual Property Organization: Practice and Challenges
    Immunity of International Organizations, 2015
    Co-Authors: Edward Kwakwa, Marie-lea Rols
    Abstract:

    In light of their particular role and position, international organizations have long benefited from specific Privileges and Immunities. Most notably, it is usually understood that these organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity and that their premises are inviolable, while some Privileges and Immunities have been extended to their staff. Those Privileges and Immunities, however, are not absolute and can be curtailed, or waived, under certain circumstances. As a result, not only may the practice regarding Privileges and Immunities vary from one organization or jurisdiction to another, but the precise scope of said Privileges and Immunities could be challenged. The World Intellectual Property Organization (‘wipo’) benefits from a comprehensive protection in that respect, based either on the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies or bilateral agreements, complemented by relevant domestic provisions. Nonetheless, the Organization rarely had to exercise them so far. In fact, it seems that wipo’s policy and related practice with regards to potential claims or claimants, rather than an intricate web of Privileges and Immunities provisions, has kept the Organization out of the courts.

  • The Privileges and Immunities of the World Intellectual Property Organization
    International Organizations Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Edward Kwakwa, Marie-lea Rols
    Abstract:

    In light of their particular role and position, international organizations have long benefited from specific Privileges and Immunities. Most notably, it is usually understood that these organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity and that their premises are inviolable, while some Privileges and Immunities have been extended to their staff. Those Privileges and Immunities, however, are not absolute and can be curtailed, or waived, under certain circumstances. As a result, not only may the practice regarding Privileges and Immunities vary from one organization or jurisdiction to another, but the precise scope of said Privileges and Immunities could be challenged. The World Intellectual Property Organization (‘wipo’) benefits from a comprehensive protection in that respect, based either on the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies or bilateral agreements, complemented by relevant domestic provisions. Nonetheless, the Organization rarely had to exercise them so far. In fact, it seems that wipo’s policy and related practice with regards to potential claims or claimants, rather than an intricate web of Privileges and Immunities provisions, has kept the Organization out of the courts.

Egle Granziera - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges
    Immunity of International Organizations, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gian Luca Burci, Egle Granziera
    Abstract:

    This paper presents a brief overview of the World Health Organization’s experience with Privileges and Immunities, focusing on the sources of its Privileges and Immunities and the challenges encountered in asserting them and securing their respect. This overview will demonstrate how complex and sometimes elusive the legal protection afforded to the WHO can be. Although the rationale for the WHO’s Privileges and Immunities is constitutionally founded on the notion of functional necessity,1 the scope and limits of its functions can be blurred or shifting. While the WHO has not faced the dramatic challenges to or denials of its Privileges and Immunities that other organizations have encountered, the trend of progressive erosion of legal protection in the name of accountability, democratic control by national courts, the protection of human rights and shifting perceptions of the ‘added value’ of international organizations may eventually require a conscious and strategic revision by the international community of the model of international cooperation represented by international organizations.

  • Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization
    International Organizations Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Gian Luca Burci, Egle Granziera
    Abstract:

    This paper presents a brief overview of the World Health Organization’s experience with Privileges and Immunities, focusing on the sources of its Privileges and Immunities and the challenges encountered in asserting them and securing their respect. This overview will demonstrate how complex and sometimes elusive the legal protection afforded to the WHO can be. Although the rationale for the WHO’s Privileges and Immunities is constitutionally founded on the notion of functional necessity,1 the scope and limits of its functions can be blurred or shifting. While the WHO has not faced the dramatic challenges to or denials of its Privileges and Immunities that other organizations have encountered, the trend of progressive erosion of legal protection in the name of accountability, democratic control by national courts, the protection of human rights and shifting perceptions of the ‘added value’ of international organizations may eventually require a conscious and strategic revision by the international community of the model of international cooperation represented by international organizations.

Edward Kwakwa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Privileges and Immunities of the World Intellectual Property Organization: Practice and Challenges
    Immunity of International Organizations, 2015
    Co-Authors: Edward Kwakwa, Marie-lea Rols
    Abstract:

    In light of their particular role and position, international organizations have long benefited from specific Privileges and Immunities. Most notably, it is usually understood that these organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity and that their premises are inviolable, while some Privileges and Immunities have been extended to their staff. Those Privileges and Immunities, however, are not absolute and can be curtailed, or waived, under certain circumstances. As a result, not only may the practice regarding Privileges and Immunities vary from one organization or jurisdiction to another, but the precise scope of said Privileges and Immunities could be challenged. The World Intellectual Property Organization (‘wipo’) benefits from a comprehensive protection in that respect, based either on the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies or bilateral agreements, complemented by relevant domestic provisions. Nonetheless, the Organization rarely had to exercise them so far. In fact, it seems that wipo’s policy and related practice with regards to potential claims or claimants, rather than an intricate web of Privileges and Immunities provisions, has kept the Organization out of the courts.

  • The Privileges and Immunities of the World Intellectual Property Organization
    International Organizations Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Edward Kwakwa, Marie-lea Rols
    Abstract:

    In light of their particular role and position, international organizations have long benefited from specific Privileges and Immunities. Most notably, it is usually understood that these organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity and that their premises are inviolable, while some Privileges and Immunities have been extended to their staff. Those Privileges and Immunities, however, are not absolute and can be curtailed, or waived, under certain circumstances. As a result, not only may the practice regarding Privileges and Immunities vary from one organization or jurisdiction to another, but the precise scope of said Privileges and Immunities could be challenged. The World Intellectual Property Organization (‘wipo’) benefits from a comprehensive protection in that respect, based either on the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies or bilateral agreements, complemented by relevant domestic provisions. Nonetheless, the Organization rarely had to exercise them so far. In fact, it seems that wipo’s policy and related practice with regards to potential claims or claimants, rather than an intricate web of Privileges and Immunities provisions, has kept the Organization out of the courts.

Gian Luca Burci - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization: Practice and Challenges
    Immunity of International Organizations, 2015
    Co-Authors: Gian Luca Burci, Egle Granziera
    Abstract:

    This paper presents a brief overview of the World Health Organization’s experience with Privileges and Immunities, focusing on the sources of its Privileges and Immunities and the challenges encountered in asserting them and securing their respect. This overview will demonstrate how complex and sometimes elusive the legal protection afforded to the WHO can be. Although the rationale for the WHO’s Privileges and Immunities is constitutionally founded on the notion of functional necessity,1 the scope and limits of its functions can be blurred or shifting. While the WHO has not faced the dramatic challenges to or denials of its Privileges and Immunities that other organizations have encountered, the trend of progressive erosion of legal protection in the name of accountability, democratic control by national courts, the protection of human rights and shifting perceptions of the ‘added value’ of international organizations may eventually require a conscious and strategic revision by the international community of the model of international cooperation represented by international organizations.

  • Privileges and Immunities of the World Health Organization
    International Organizations Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Gian Luca Burci, Egle Granziera
    Abstract:

    This paper presents a brief overview of the World Health Organization’s experience with Privileges and Immunities, focusing on the sources of its Privileges and Immunities and the challenges encountered in asserting them and securing their respect. This overview will demonstrate how complex and sometimes elusive the legal protection afforded to the WHO can be. Although the rationale for the WHO’s Privileges and Immunities is constitutionally founded on the notion of functional necessity,1 the scope and limits of its functions can be blurred or shifting. While the WHO has not faced the dramatic challenges to or denials of its Privileges and Immunities that other organizations have encountered, the trend of progressive erosion of legal protection in the name of accountability, democratic control by national courts, the protection of human rights and shifting perceptions of the ‘added value’ of international organizations may eventually require a conscious and strategic revision by the international community of the model of international cooperation represented by international organizations.

Dan Goodman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 is Defined to have both Fundamental and Common Privileges and Immunities
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
    Co-Authors: Dan Goodman
    Abstract:

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 has been defined to have both fundamental Privileges and Immunities as well as common Privileges and Immunities. After the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America, there were two trains of thought regarding the Privileges and Immunities protected under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The first was that the Privileges and Immunities protected were fundamental Privileges and Immunities. The second was that Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 granted common Privileges and Immunities to the citizens of sister States when they were in another State.The Supreme Court of the United States eventually took up the task of defining the Privileges and Immunities contained in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. In Paul v. State of Virginia, the Supreme Court stated that Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution protected common Privileges and Immunities. However, in Ward v. State of Maryland, the Supreme Court of the United States, took the position that Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 described fundamental Privileges and Immunities. It was in the Slaughterhouse Cases, where the Supreme Court of the United States finally defined the Privileges and Immunities in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The Slaughterhouse Court defined Privileges and Immunities under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America to include fundamental Privileges and Immunities AS WELL AS common Privileges and Immunities.

  • Shall Be Entitled to All Privileges and Immunities of Citizens IN and OF the Several States
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
    Co-Authors: Dan Goodman
    Abstract:

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of Constitution was modified by the Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, Section 1, Clause 2. This was determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Slaughterhouse Cases. A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is entitled to Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several States and entitled to Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the several States. Privileges and Immunities of citizens in the several States are still common Privileges and Immunities. Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the several States are fundamental Privileges and Immunities. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America should read: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens IN and OF the several States." Cites and quotes to cases from the Supreme Court of the United States included.

  • Restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Overturn Slaughterhouse?
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
    Co-Authors: Dan Goodman
    Abstract:

    There is a desire to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases using the case McDonald v. City of Chicago. The reason centers on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court does not have to restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. People need to understand that there are now two citizens under the Constitution, each with a different set of Privileges and Immunities.

  • Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen of the Several States
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2008
    Co-Authors: Dan Goodman
    Abstract:

    Under the Constitution of the United States, there are two citizens. They are a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States. The Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, decided that they were separate and distinct with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the United States are in the Fourteenth Amendment. For a citizen of the several States, they are located at Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. Privileges and Immunities of a citizen of the several States are composed of fundamental, common, and special, Privileges and Immunities.