About/Bio
Christian J. Tams is Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow, where he directs the Glasgow Centre for International Law and Security. He is the Review Editor of the European Journal of International Law and an academic member of Matrix Chambers London. His research focuses on questions of dispute resolution, the use of force, investment law and the law of treaties. A selection of his contributions is available on SSRN.
Recently Published
The Kosovo Opinion
August 6, 2010
Christian Tams
Christian J. Tams is Professor of International Law at the Univeristy of Glasgow. His publications include Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005). The International Court of Justice’s Kosovo opinion of 22 July had been much expected. It was one of the not so frequent instances which the world (as opposed to State parties,…
- First
- Page 13 of 13
Popular articles by Christian Tams
Immunities and Compromissory Clauses: Making Sense of Enrica Lexie (Part I)
Small(ish) disputes can make for significant holdings. From Nottebohm to Lotus to AAPL v Sri Lanka, the list of relatively limited incidents prompting far-reaching judicial and arbitral pronouncements is long. We may now have to add Enrica Lexie to it. The PCA’s award…
The Kosovo Opinion
August 6, 2010
Christian Tams
Christian J. Tams is Professor of International Law at the Univeristy of Glasgow. His publications include Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005). The International Court of Justice’s Kosovo opinion of 22 July had been much expected. It was one of the not so frequent instances which the world (as opposed to State parties,…
Immunities and Compromissory Clauses: Making Sense of Enrica Lexie (Part II)
In Part I of this post, we discussed how the Arbitral Tribunal, in its recently-released award in the Enrica Lexie case, approached the question of incidental jurisdiction over questions of immunity. While the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, under Article 288 UNCLOS, was limited to ‘dispute[s] concerning the interpretation or application of th[e] [Law of the Sea] Convention’…