Shai Dothan – författare

Based on years of experience teaching English to non-native speakers, this insightful How To guide describes not only the particular challenges that multilinguals face compared to native English speakers but also the unique benefits of working in multiple languages.Throughout this engaging and practical book, Shai Dothan explores the mastery of the English language, reflecting on the common problem of perfecting your English whilst also practicing and refining other languages. This book serves as a guide to improving writing styles and presentation skills, especially of non-native English speakers by providing techniques for improved public speaking, reading, and writing. With an accessible approach, chapters teach a wide range of useful skills including how to excel in exams, publish in multiple languages, and develop your ‘inner ear’.Designed for multilinguals who wish to improve their English, this guide will be an invaluable and invigorating resource for students and researchers who are seeking to hone their English language skills. It can be used to accompany English language courses in an academic or professional setting and can also be read individually as a self-help book. Researchers, students, and professionals working in the field of law will find the book particularly relevant.

Based on years of experience teaching English to non-native speakers, this insightful How To guide describes not only the particular challenges that multilinguals face compared to native English speakers but also the unique benefits of working in multiple languages.

Throughout this engaging and practical book, Shai Dothan explores the mastery of the English language, reflecting on the common problem of perfecting your English whilst also practicing and refining other languages. This book serves as a guide to improving writing styles and presentation skills, especially of non-native English speakers by providing techniques for improved public speaking, reading, and writing. With an accessible approach, chapters teach a wide range of useful skills including how to excel in exams, publish in multiple languages, and develop your ‘inner ear’.

Designed for multilinguals who wish to improve their English, this guide will be an invaluable and invigorating resource for students and researchers who are seeking to hone their English language skills. It can be used to accompany English language courses in an academic or professional setting and can also be read individually as a self-help book. Researchers, students, and professionals working in the field of law will find the book particularly relevant.

Based on years of experience teaching English to non-native speakers, this insightful How To guide describes not only the particular challenges that multilinguals face compared to native English speakers but also the unique benefits of working in multiple languages.Throughout this engaging and practical book, Shai Dothan explores the mastery of the English language, reflecting on the common problem of perfecting your English whilst also practicing and refining other languages. This book serves as a guide to improving writing styles and presentation skills, especially of non-native English speakers by providing techniques for improved public speaking, reading, and writing. With an accessible approach, chapters teach a wide range of useful skills including how to excel in exams, publish in multiple languages, and develop your ‘inner ear’.Designed for multilinguals who wish to improve their English, this guide will be an invaluable and invigorating resource for students and researchers who are seeking to hone their English language skills. It can be used to accompany English language courses in an academic or professional setting and can also be read individually as a self-help book. Researchers, students, and professionals working in the field of law will find the book particularly relevant.

This book challenges Mancur Olson's famous observation that concentrated interests inevitably dominate diffuse ones in democracies by presenting an alternative view that strong, independent courts can effectively protect the rights of diffuse interests against powerful, concentrated groups.Drawing on diverse examples from national and international courts, this book demonstrates how judicial institutions can rebalance democratic power dynamics. The analysis contributes to two fundamental debates in law and social sciences: the competition between diffuse and concentrated interests in democratic systems, and the evolving societal role of courts at both national and international levels. Dothan argues that courts support diffuse interests not due to judges' ideologies, but through structural incentives that make such support strategically beneficial. Even when courts cannot directly help diffuse interests or when their judgments face compliance issues, they still strengthen these groups by providing information and motivation for political engagement.Elites, Power Struggles, and the Law be of interest to scholars and students of socio-legal studies, international law, and comparative law, as well as others with relevant interests in sociology and political science.

This book challenges Mancur Olson's famous observation that concentrated interests inevitably dominate diffuse ones in democracies by presenting an alternative view that strong, independent courts can effectively protect the rights of diffuse interests against powerful, concentrated groups.Drawing on diverse examples from national and international courts, this book demonstrates how judicial institutions can rebalance democratic power dynamics. The analysis contributes to two fundamental debates in law and social sciences: the competition between diffuse and concentrated interests in democratic systems, and the evolving societal role of courts at both national and international levels. Dothan argues that courts support diffuse interests not due to judges' ideologies, but through structural incentives that make such support strategically beneficial. Even when courts cannot directly help diffuse interests or when their judgments face compliance issues, they still strengthen these groups by providing information and motivation for political engagement.Elites, Power Struggles, and the Law be of interest to scholars and students of socio-legal studies, international law, and comparative law, as well as others with relevant interests in sociology and political science.

This book challenges Mancur Olson's famous observation that concentrated interests inevitably dominate diffuse ones in democracies by presenting an alternative view that strong, independent courts can effectively protect the rights of diffuse interests against powerful, concentrated groups.Drawing on diverse examples from national and international courts, this book demonstrates how judicial institutions can rebalance democratic power dynamics. The analysis contributes to two fundamental debates in law and social sciences: the competition between diffuse and concentrated interests in democratic systems, and the evolving societal role of courts at both national and international levels. Dothan argues that courts support diffuse interests not due to judges' ideologies, but through structural incentives that make such support strategically beneficial. Even when courts cannot directly help diffuse interests or when their judgments face compliance issues, they still strengthen these groups by providing information and motivation for political engagement.Elites, Power Struggles, and the Law be of interest to scholars and students of socio-legal studies, international law, and comparative law, as well as others with relevant interests in sociology and political science.

This book argues that national and international courts seek to enhance their reputations through the strategic exercise of judicial power. Courts often cannot enforce their judgments and must rely on reputational sanctions to ensure compliance. One way to do this is for courts to improve their reputation for generating compliance with their judgments. When the court's reputation is increased, parties will be expected to comply with its judgments and the reputational sanction on a party that fails to comply will be higher. This strategy allows national and international courts, which cannot enforce their judgments against states and executives, to improve the likelihood that their judgments will be complied with over time. This book describes the judicial tactics that courts use to shape their judgments in ways that maximize their reputational gains.

This book is motivated by a question: when should international courts intervene in domestic affairs? To answer this question thoroughly, the book is broken down into a series of separate inquiries: when is intervention legitimate? When can international courts identify good legal solutions? When will intervention initiate useful processes? When will it lead to good outcomes? These inquiries are answered based on reviewing judgments of international courts, strategic analysis, and empirical findings. The book outlines under which conditions intervention by international courts is recommended and evaluates the implications that international courts have on society.

This book is motivated by a question: when should international courts intervene in domestic affairs? To answer this question thoroughly, the book is broken down into a series of separate inquiries: when is intervention legitimate? When can international courts identify good legal solutions? When will intervention initiate useful processes? When will it lead to good outcomes? These inquiries are answered based on reviewing judgments of international courts, strategic analysis, and empirical findings. The book outlines under which conditions intervention by international courts is recommended and evaluates the implications that international courts have on society.

This book is motivated by a question: when should international courts intervene in domestic affairs? To answer this question thoroughly, the book is broken down into a series of separate inquiries: when is intervention legitimate? When can international courts identify good legal solutions? When will intervention initiate useful processes? When will it lead to good outcomes? These inquiries are answered based on reviewing judgments of international courts, strategic analysis, and empirical findings. The book outlines under which conditions intervention by international courts is recommended and evaluates the implications that international courts have on society.

This book is motivated by a question: when should international courts intervene in domestic affairs? To answer this question thoroughly, the book is broken down into a series of separate inquiries: when is intervention legitimate? When can international courts identify good legal solutions? When will intervention initiate useful processes? When will it lead to good outcomes? These inquiries are answered based on reviewing judgments of international courts, strategic analysis, and empirical findings. The book outlines under which conditions intervention by international courts is recommended and evaluates the implications that international courts have on society.

This book argues that national and international courts seek to enhance their reputations through the strategic exercise of judicial power. Courts often cannot enforce their judgments and must rely on reputational sanctions to ensure compliance. One way to do this is for courts to improve their reputation for generating compliance with their judgments. When the court's reputation is increased, parties will be expected to comply with its judgments and the reputational sanction on a party that fails to comply will be higher. This strategy allows national and international courts, which cannot enforce their judgments against states and executives, to improve the likelihood that their judgments will be complied with over time. This book describes the judicial tactics that courts use to shape their judgments in ways that maximize their reputational gains.

This special issue focuses on the opportunities and challenges connected with investment courts. The creation of permanent investment courts was first proposed several decades ago, but it has only recently become likely that these proposals will be implemented. In particular, the European Commission has pushed for a court-like mechanism to resolve investment disputes in various recent trade and investment negotiations. Such a framework was included in some free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment protection agreements (IPAs) the European Union (EU) signed or negotiated with Vietnam, Singapore, Mexico and Canada. While it was shelved long before the publication of this Special Issue, the European Commission had also formally proposed a court system during the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States. The issue of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) has also been prevalent at the Working Group III proceedings of the UNCITRAL on investor-State dispute settlement reform, attracting scholarly and public attention.Will these developments lead to the creation of permanent investment courts? How will such courts change the future of international investment law? Will they bring about a real institutional change in adjudicatory mechanisms? Will they introduce a 'hybrid' system, which borrows important characteristics from both arbitration and institutional methods of international adjudication? How will the enforcement mechanisms work, and under which rules of ethics will its adjudicators function and exercise their duties? This special issue brings together leading scholars sharing a common interest in investment courts to address these questions.

This special issue focuses on the opportunities and challenges connected with investment courts. The creation of permanent investment courts was first proposed several decades ago, but it has only recently become likely that these proposals will be implemented. In particular, the European Commission has pushed for a court-like mechanism to resolve investment disputes in various recent trade and investment negotiations. Such a framework was included in some free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment protection agreements (IPAs) the European Union (EU) signed or negotiated with Vietnam, Singapore, Mexico and Canada. While it was shelved long before the publication of this Special Issue, the European Commission had also formally proposed a court system during the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States. The issue of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) has also been prevalent at the Working Group III proceedings of the UNCITRAL on investor-State dispute settlement reform, attracting scholarly and public attention.Will these developments lead to the creation of permanent investment courts? How will such courts change the future of international investment law? Will they bring about a real institutional change in adjudicatory mechanisms? Will they introduce a ''hybrid'' system, which borrows important characteristics from both arbitration and institutional methods of international adjudication? How will the enforcement mechanisms work, and under which rules of ethics will its adjudicators function and exercise their duties? This special issue brings together leading scholars sharing a common interest in investment courts to address these questions.

This special issue focuses on the opportunities and challenges connected with investment courts. The creation of permanent investment courts was first proposed several decades ago, but it has only recently become likely that these proposals will be implemented. In particular, the European Commission has pushed for a court-like mechanism to resolve investment disputes in various recent trade and investment negotiations. Such a framework was included in some free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment protection agreements (IPAs) the European Union (EU) signed or negotiated with Vietnam, Singapore, Mexico and Canada. While it was shelved long before the publication of this Special Issue, the European Commission had also formally proposed a court system during the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States. The issue of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) has also been prevalent at the Working Group III proceedings of the UNCITRAL on investor-State dispute settlement reform, attracting scholarly and public attention.Will these developments lead to the creation of permanent investment courts? How will such courts change the future of international investment law? Will they bring about a real institutional change in adjudicatory mechanisms? Will they introduce a 'hybrid' system, which borrows important characteristics from both arbitration and institutional methods of international adjudication? How will the enforcement mechanisms work, and under which rules of ethics will its adjudicators function and exercise their duties? This special issue brings together leading scholars sharing a common interest in investment courts to address these questions.

The purpose of this book is to investigate what methods of interpretation and understanding of the law are useful for legal scholarship. The main idea is that legal scholarship needs to regularly make assumptions about the content of the law and about human behavior to better understand legal doctrine. For example, law and economics scholars often assume that people are rational or that the law aspires to efficiency. These assumptions may be untrue, but they can lead to hypotheses about the content of the law that are susceptible to empirical investigation against relevant legal sources. In contrast, conceptual thinking about the essence of the law does not make claims that can be falsified by observing legal sources. The book offers a methodology for examining the state of the law on a specific topic that aspires to be rigorous. It recommends first establishing what are the conflicting paradigms that explain the relevant legal field. These paradigms can serve as assumptions and scholars need to build a hypothesis that complies with all the relevant assumptions. The hypothesis can then be checked against legal sources. If there are relevant judgments on a similar topic, scholars can use reasoning by analogy to test the hypothesis against them, but only if the analogy is grounded in policy reasons. Analogies cannot be used only because legal solutions look conceptually similar. If a hypothesis about the law is confirmed by legal sources, it can be adopted as the best interpretation of the law on a particular point. To demonstrate that every assumption about the law can be contested, the book reviews three basic legal principles: proportionality, consistency, and legal truth. It suggests that such principles are useful assumptions that can lead to good predictions about the content of the law most of the time, but in certain situations, they should be discarded and replaced by other assumptions.

The purpose of this book is to investigate what methods of interpretation and understanding of the law are useful for legal scholarship. The main idea is that legal scholarship needs to regularly make assumptions about the content of the law and about human behavior to better understand legal doctrine. For example, law and economics scholars often assume that people are rational or that the law aspires to efficiency. These assumptions may be untrue, but they can lead to hypotheses about the content of the law that are susceptible to empirical investigation against relevant legal sources. In contrast, conceptual thinking about the essence of the law does not make claims that can be falsified by observing legal sources. The book offers a methodology for examining the state of the law on a specific topic that aspires to be rigorous. It recommends first establishing what are the conflicting paradigms that explain the relevant legal field. These paradigms can serve as assumptions and scholars need to build a hypothesis that complies with all the relevant assumptions. The hypothesis can then be checked against legal sources. If there are relevant judgments on a similar topic, scholars can use reasoning by analogy to test the hypothesis against them, but only if the analogy is grounded in policy reasons. Analogies cannot be used only because legal solutions look conceptually similar. If a hypothesis about the law is confirmed by legal sources, it can be adopted as the best interpretation of the law on a particular point. To demonstrate that every assumption about the law can be contested, the book reviews three basic legal principles: proportionality, consistency, and legal truth. It suggests that such principles are useful assumptions that can lead to good predictions about the content of the law most of the time, but in certain situations, they should be discarded and replaced by other assumptions.