Search results

The internationalization of national constitutions includes an eventual unification of constitutional rules deemed necessary to intensify international relations. So, in a broader way it is invoked the impact of international law and international relations on constitutional law. The result of the internationalization of national rights is a progressive harmonization of concepts and legal rules. In the current state of international law, constitutions' internationalization corresponds a concrete impact of international law on constitutional norms. The current trend of constitutions is to regulate in a more accurate and comprehensive way the relations between the state and international law. International law does not require any particular form of the conclusion of international treaties. In intensification of international relations, international conventions and integration of states in international organizations, the Parliament carries important consequences for both on normative function and the control function. Such legislative activity is guided by international treaties concluded by the state. While the executive and the legislative are involved in the development of international law, the jurisdictional power intervenes to reconcile domestic and international legal norms. States do not devote supremacy of international law over their constitution. Because international treaties to be part of the national legal order is not enough that the procedure for concluding treaties to be respected. It is also necessary that treaties do not contravene fundamental state constitutional principles of human rights and the relationship between public authorities. The control of international treaties' constitutionality can be mandatory or optional. In the process of ratification of the treaty on EU European constitutional courts tend to create a similar design to establish the limits of European integration. In reality, the issue of constitutionality of international treaties control is a political issue and it is difficult to apply legal principles purely political matters. There are three categories of states in the aspect of national courts on constitutional regularity control concluding treaties.

Development perspectives of the European Law of Contracts arise from the Press Releases of the European Parliament, the Union Council and the European Commission. The necessity to develop the European Law of Contracts is determined by the objectives of the Common Market, by the amplification of the commercial relations inside the EU, by the abstract and selective regulation of the contracts in the Treaty on European Union, in the EU Regulations and Directives, as well as by the divergences of contracts in national legislations of Member States.

In international relations, international security combines that set of international relations that ensures global stability. In other words, international security is a state in which states are not threatened by war or by any breach of their sovereignty or independent development by other states. In accordance with the UN Charter, the Security Council currently has the main task of ensuring world peace, also having the sole right to impose sanctions against aggressors. The idea of international security, its realization in practice is determined by historical, economic, political, social conditions, as well as other factors. The problem of international security arose with the formation of the state institution, being always close to the problem of war and peace. Over time, there has been a change in the ability to analyze and report security issues. Along with these, both the policies and the security strategies of contemporary societies have undergone a process of metamorphosis.

The development of international online commerce has led to the shift of disputes arising mainly from electronic contracts in the online environment (Online Dispute Resolution, ODR).International commercial arbitration could not be an exception to this development.The digital foreign arbitral award rendered following an online arbitration (e-arbitration) may be enforced in case of voluntary non-enforcement on the territory of a foreign state, following the recognition and enforcement procedure. One of the reasons that the party opposed to the digital arbitral award may invoke to block this procedure is the lack of formal validity of the arbitration agreement concluded by electronic means. This article aims to examine the regulatory framework within which a state court will examine the formal validity of the digital arbitration agreement and the extent to which this ground for refusal of recognition can be found to be well-founded.

The arbitration agreement constitutes the main element of private arbitration. Arbitration Convention creates essentially a double effect, a main direct negative (one to evade certain disputes under the jurisdiction of state power) and a positive one, complementary (to give judges the power to decide the dispute in question). The main effect called negative effect of the arbitration agreement (arbitration compromise clause), is to remove, to dispute subject to its jurisdiction courts that would have had in the absence of the arbitration clause jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties. Once removed jurisdiction of the courts, the dispute shall be resolved by the arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement grants the arbitral tribunal with the power to judge a dispute, checking by its own court jurisdiction on that issue. Literature called the verification principle Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle empowers the arbitral court to decide on its own jurisdiction. For arbitration agreement to be effective, it must result from genuine consent of the parties, also to correspond to legal national rules. In examining objectives' arbitrability of international disputes, a court must apply its own conception of international public policy. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is applied in the same way both for litigation through the courts as well as arbitration. As a result, the European Court of Human Rights determined that the requirements of Article 6 must be applied by arbitral tribunals.