Comments on: “Third Spaces” http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internationallaw/2008/01/11/third-spaces/ A blog dedicated to International Law Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:47:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Acetylene Torch Basics http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internationallaw/2008/01/11/third-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-8700 Acetylene Torch Basics Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:47:35 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internationallaw/2008/01/11/third-spaces/#comment-8700 best information. best information.

]]> By: Jürg Gassmann http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internationallaw/2008/01/11/third-spaces/comment-page-1/#comment-1642 Jürg Gassmann Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:14:15 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/internationallaw/2008/01/11/third-spaces/#comment-1642 In order to be academically useful, the concept of "third space" does need a clear definition. I don't think that definition arises from the discussion presented. Even in the heyday of the nation-state, there were innumerable very significant cross-jurisdictional developments that defy the national-supranational divide: The Latin Monetary Union, the Hague Conventions, the unification of laws on bills of exchange and cheques, admiralty law in general and marine insurance, the Customs Union of 1860 (predecessor to the German Empire of 1871) and the internationalisation of Imperial Chinese customs are such examples. They were not classifiable then, and would not be now. Some (especially the treaties dealing with shipping and border demarcation of rivers) can be seen as formalising feudal practices, but by no means all. Prior to World War I, personal travel was essentially free - the system of passports was only comprehensively introduced after the war. I'm not saying the concept of "third space" is without merit; the issue of "third space" has existed ever since the nation-state replaced the Roman Empire, with an awful lot of fuzziness in between. I believe it is a useful concept if we focus on the question of legal remedies. This links into, but is not synonymous with, the term "self-executing" - if we look at, for instance, the issue of the rights of European citizens with respect to personal data transferred to the third parties (e.g. the US) in connection with international travel, and the recipients' obligations and liabilities, the matter of "third space" comes into focus. In order to be academically useful, the concept of “third space” does need a clear definition. I don’t think that definition arises from the discussion presented. Even in the heyday of the nation-state, there were innumerable very significant cross-jurisdictional developments that defy the national-supranational divide: The Latin Monetary Union, the Hague Conventions, the unification of laws on bills of exchange and cheques, admiralty law in general and marine insurance, the Customs Union of 1860 (predecessor to the German Empire of 1871) and the internationalisation of Imperial Chinese customs are such examples. They were not classifiable then, and would not be now. Some (especially the treaties dealing with shipping and border demarcation of rivers) can be seen as formalising feudal practices, but by no means all. Prior to World War I, personal travel was essentially free – the system of passports was only comprehensively introduced after the war.

I’m not saying the concept of “third space” is without merit; the issue of “third space” has existed ever since the nation-state replaced the Roman Empire, with an awful lot of fuzziness in between. I believe it is a useful concept if we focus on the question of legal remedies. This links into, but is not synonymous with, the term “self-executing” – if we look at, for instance, the issue of the rights of European citizens with respect to personal data transferred to the third parties (e.g. the US) in connection with international travel, and the recipients’ obligations and liabilities, the matter of “third space” comes into focus.

]]>