Comments on: Jurisdiction to Prevent the End of the World http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/ News and Views in Private International Law Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:33:28 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Anne Palmer http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-99033 Anne Palmer Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:03:41 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-99033 These people,experts allegedly just have't a clue. We have Phantom Particles? They think there has not been a Black Hole in the making. Most important is that they keep a sense of humour. The cannot know the origin of the incident until they open and inspect the machinery in the vicinity of the affected area. They are not too happy about what has happened and no doubt it took them all by surprise. But it seems they are determined to carry on and fix it to have another "go". Their Engineers can only begin to GUESS at what happened. Like I thought. They know not what they do. They really have't a clue. These people,experts allegedly just have’t a clue.

We have Phantom Particles?
They think there has not been a Black Hole in the making. Most important is that they keep a sense of humour.

The cannot know the origin of the incident until they open and inspect the machinery in the vicinity of the affected area. They are not too happy about what has happened and no doubt it took them all by surprise. But it seems they are determined to carry on and fix it to have another “go”. Their Engineers can only begin to GUESS at what happened.

Like I thought. They know not what they do. They really have’t a clue.

]]> By: Gilles Cuniberti http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-98823 Gilles Cuniberti Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:42:38 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-98823 Anne, you are safe for a while: the Collider has mysteriously broken. http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2008/10/04/panne-mysterieuse-au-royaume-des-particules-fantomes_1103051_0.html Anne,

you are safe for a while: the Collider has mysteriously broken.

http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2008/10/04/panne-mysterieuse-au-royaume-des-particules-fantomes_1103051_0.html

]]> By: Anne Palmer http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-97807 Anne Palmer Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:20:41 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-97807 The last paragraph states, "A spokesman for the European Court of Human Rights confirmed the lawsuit had been lodged and the petition to obtain an emergency injunction against CERN was rejected. She said: "There will therefore be no bar to CERN carrying out these experiments but the applicants can continue with this case here at the ECHR." Now, just suppose there was a risk that something dreadful would happen, and according to the reports, no one seems to know exactly what 'may' of 'may not' happen. So, just supposing it was all designed (where did the money come from?) to see if indeed it could destroy the planet earth by a mad scientist from the comic books. Are we being told that NO ONE would prevent the experiment. We cannot prevent the war of all wars from happening, and no one seemed to learn from the ending of the Japanese war, but surely there is some one that could decide this experiment was a tad risky, especially as it did not after all allegedly run as expected. (Or was it stopped after-all?) The last paragraph states, “A spokesman for the European Court of Human Rights confirmed the lawsuit had been lodged and the petition to obtain an emergency injunction against CERN was rejected. She said: “There will therefore be no bar to CERN carrying out these experiments but the applicants can continue with this case here at the ECHR.”
Now, just suppose there was a risk that something dreadful would happen, and according to the reports, no one seems to know exactly what ‘may’ of ‘may not’ happen. So, just supposing it was all designed (where did the money come from?) to see if indeed it could destroy the planet earth by a mad scientist from the comic books. Are we being told that NO ONE would prevent the experiment.

We cannot prevent the war of all wars from happening, and no one seemed to learn from the ending of the Japanese war, but surely there is some one that could decide this experiment was a tad risky, especially as it did not after all allegedly run as expected. (Or was it stopped after-all?)

]]> By: Gilles Cuniberti http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-97142 Gilles Cuniberti Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:14:06 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-97142 Anne, I think Andrew was thinking of the jurisdiction of the ECJ to interpret the Brussels Regulation for novel issues. He was not referring to the ECHR, which is a different court, with indeed different jurisdiction rules. In any case, for the moment, there is indeed an action pending before the ECHR, while as far as I know, there are none before the ECJ. Anne,

I think Andrew was thinking of the jurisdiction of the ECJ to interpret the Brussels Regulation for novel issues. He was not referring to the ECHR, which is a different court, with indeed different jurisdiction rules.

In any case, for the moment, there is indeed an action pending before the ECHR, while as far as I know, there are none before the ECJ.

]]> By: Anne Palmer http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-97053 Anne Palmer Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:59:41 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-97053 To apply to the ECHR I understand that "You must be a victim of a violation of one or more of the articles of the Convention. Generally, this means you must be directly affected by a breach of the Convention." It may be too late to stop anything from happening by that time. Plus, "Before you make an application to the ECHR you must pursue any proceedings that you could take in the UK that are capable of providing you with an adequate remedy for the breach of your Convention rights." so once more it may be too late. To Andrew's, 'One for the ECJ', Would it really be any quicker? To apply to the ECHR I understand that “You must be a victim of a violation of one or more of the articles of the Convention. Generally, this means you must be directly affected by a breach of the Convention.” It may be too late to stop anything from happening by that time. Plus, “Before you make an application to the ECHR you must pursue any proceedings that you could take in the UK that are capable of providing you with an adequate remedy for the breach of your Convention rights.” so once more it may be too late.

To Andrew’s, ‘One for the ECJ’, Would it really be any quicker?

]]> By: Gilles Cuniberti http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-96943 Gilles Cuniberti Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:59:11 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-96943 Well, one of the plaintiffs is a Spanish science writer, so it may be next on their agenda to come and entertain us in Europe. Well, one of the plaintiffs is a Spanish science writer, so it may be next on their agenda to come and entertain us in Europe.

]]> By: Andrew Dickinson http://conflictoflaws.net/2008/jurisdiction-to-prevent-the-end-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-96865 Andrew Dickinson Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:24:23 +0000 http://www.conflictoflaws.net/?p=1179#comment-96865 If an action were to be brought in a Member State court, would the destruction of the planet in the cause of science be a civil and commercial matter? If so, presumably the court would after 11 January 2009 be required to apply the law of every nation on a distributive basis in accordance with Art. 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation, subject to the claimant's right to elect that the law of Switzerland (or is it Switzerland and France) should be applied under Art. 7? Arguably, the most extreme example imaginable of the mosaic view (Mosaikbetrachtung). Or could this be categorised as "nuclear damage" within Art. 1(2)(f) of that Regulation? One for the ECJ, I think ... If an action were to be brought in a Member State court, would the destruction of the planet in the cause of science be a civil and commercial matter?

If so, presumably the court would after 11 January 2009 be required to apply the law of every nation on a distributive basis in accordance with Art. 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation, subject to the claimant’s right to elect that the law of Switzerland (or is it Switzerland and France) should be applied under Art. 7? Arguably, the most extreme example imaginable of the mosaic view (Mosaikbetrachtung).

Or could this be categorised as “nuclear damage” within Art. 1(2)(f) of that Regulation?

One for the ECJ, I think …

]]>