Search results

In the wake of the 'Kant revival,' which has spawned a plethora of works on his philosophy by its contemporary interpreters & advocates such as Herbert Schnadelbach, Hans Lenk, Konrad Cramer, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, Volker Gerhardt, Karl-Otto Apel, Otfried Hoffe & others (whose studies were published this year under the title of Kant in der Diskussion der Moderne), the author tries to prove, by means of an analysis of Kant's treatise Uber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis, that not only did Kant in his later works draft & expound the program of a practical philosophy of morality & right, politics, & history, but also that in the last three chapters of this work, this philosophy evolves into a modern liberal theory of morality, state law, & international or "international civil" law built around the central principle of Kant's practical philosophy: "Was aus Vernunftgrunden fur die Theorie gilt, das gilt auch fur die Praxis.". Adapted from the source document.

The article is devoted to the doctrine & practice of the Law of Treaties. The author focuses his attention on the following four topics: (l) the Treaties & third States or third international organizations; (2) the Treaties that provide rights for third States or third international organizations; (3) the Treaties that set out obligations for third States or third international organizations. He pays special attention to the most-favored-nation clause. The author gives interpretations of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 & the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States & International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986. References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper provides a detailed overview of the existing relationship between the just war theory & international law. It stresses the fact that the two concepts were historically incompatible. The just War theory falls within ethics & appeals to superior principles that were not in accordance with the positivist law theory & the concept of sovereignty upon which public international law was founded. That incompatibility may at first seem as a paradox since the two concepts should be derived from a common base: the idea of justice. Further development of international law has clearly proved that law cannot be separated from the idea of justice & that is, to some extent, closely linked to some elements of natural law. The author concludes that in the domain of the use of force contemporary international law provides a legal frame, which is in accordance with the precepts of the just war theory. References. Adapted from the source document.

Different parts of state territory on land, sea, & in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness & its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions & restrictions imposed either by rules of general international law or by specific treaty obligations that can be assumed by a state. The concept of state servitudes was not assimilated in the practice of international courts & tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions & confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries -- such as rivers, lakes, & mountain boundaries -- as well as the artificial boundaries. An explanation of the principle of uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries, & of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law is offered in conclusion. Adapted from the source document.

Commenting on the article by R. Badinter (1996, this issue), the author contends that experts in international law are not broad-minded regarding the establishment of a state. Most legal experts take for granted the statements of the international judiciary on the existence of certain rules of general international law & consider them validated & indisputable. This fiction has been given support by states, since they uphold only those legal statements that suit their interests. The author analyses the Opinions of the Arbitration Committee on the process of the disintegration & the Criteria for the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia as well as the criteria for the creation of the new states. He considers this precedent as central for international judiciary law. Adapted from the source document.

Switzerland's major contribution to the shaping of neutrality as an institution of international law lies in its centuries-old practice & its international recognition. However, Swiss neutrality still conforms to the classical military/political conflict, since in the past, it proved to be a successful security/political instrument in the protection of independence & territorial integrity. In the contemporary international/global constellation, there is almost no room for a neutral stance due to the global interdependence within the international community & the collective security, on the one hand, & the new threats & dangers lacking a classical military dimension, on the other. All this is conducive to the solidarity & cooperation whose purpose is protection, which requires international security/political efforts in securing peace. The Swiss government is of the opinion that participation in a collective security system such as the UN does not run counter to its permanent neutrality, since the UN Charter forbids war & does not recognize it as a means of the international regulation of conflicts. Also, the UN Charter does not oblige member countries to participate in any coercive military measure. Finally, by the admittance of the permanently neutral Austria into the UN, the practice has proved that neutrality & the collective security are compatible. On several occasions, the Swiss have raised the issue of UN membership; in the 1986 referendum, the Swiss citizens voted against this proposal, while on 3 Mar 2000, they voted in favor of it; the only other country besides Switzerland not in the UN is the Vatican. 32 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author outlines some basic conceptual aspects of the legal evolution of international relations after 11 September 2001. First, he briefly sums up the classical international law. Then he goes on to analyze the two dominant approaches to the future development of international law -- the idealistic & the realistic -- by juxtaposing Kant & Hegel. Regarding this debate one should not forget Carl Schmitt, the German legal & political theoretician, since he challenges the universalist presumptions of Kant's project. Schmitt calls into question the function of the rationalization of governance which should be taken over by the constitution, both within & outside the nation-state. The author concludes that the US & other big powers will soon have to return to the path they paved & energetically followed between 1918 & 1945, the path of gradual progress in the historical evolution of international law. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author deals with the background & the types of human rights in the era of globalization & looks into the proposals of their global institutionalization. His assumption is that the increased legal normatization of global legal regimes on the basis of human rights is in the rational interest of the actors of global law. There are five main ideas: the democratization of all states, the global institutionalization of the direct global civil law, the global federal republic, the international legal solutions &, the global law. The global institutionalization of human rights has been beset by various problems & it requires different approaches which should be seen as mutually corrective. The globally oriented weak publics are a kind of a forum in which individual solutions' relevance must be argued. They affect the globally operating strong publics. The author concludes that the demand for global justice remains a normative measure towards which public education & the public will must be oriented for the sake of the legal formulation of human rights. 45 References. Adapted from the source document.

Taking an action by the international community, individual states or their organizations with the aim of protecting citizens in some country from the tyranny of their own authorities has been defined as a humanitarian intervention. According to international law the use of power as an instrument in international relations is, however, prohibited & therefore, any approach to humanitarian intervention is stretched out between the challenges of moral responsibility & limitations of legislature. The subject of discussion in this article is the legislative aspect of humanitarian intervention by force. The research is focused on law & legitimating of humanitarian intervention by force without the United Nations Security Council approval. References. Adapted from the source document.

Kant's concept of "perpetual peace" is the cornerstone of the rational human right that, in the form of international law, bears upon all states. However, the prerequisite for enduring international legal security & peace is that the internal affairs of states are based on constitutional & republican principles. Although Kant is clearly aware of the antinomies & paradoxes of a world league of states, he nevertheless postulates the ideal of a world league of republican states, since it corresponds to the general striving of nature & moral consciousness; such a league would guarantee a relatively peaceful coexistence among the states, based on international legal precepts. Hegel has often (& wrongfully) been accused of being an apologist of war; in fact, he only realized (having in mind the realities of sovereign national states) the inevitability of multilateral conflicts -- including military ones. His disproval of Kant's ideal of a league of states is based on his disbelief in the feasibility of supranational law, which should be superior to the absolute sovereignty of the state & keep an eye on & contain its partial interests. Adapted from the source document.

The author illustrates the key issues of processes of the FR Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) before the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ). Focused on explanations for the ICJ determination of the legal foundations for jurisdiction in accordance with international law, he gives legal remarks on reasons why the ICJ was able to consider them in the case of the Bosnia & Herzegovina vs. FR Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro) & why it decided to lack jurisdiction in the cases against NATO. Examinations of the legal facts of the state responsibility do not prejudge questions of the jurisdiction of the ICJ that should be open in the case between Croatia & Serbia & Montenegro. The author's remarks follow the preliminary procedure of the ICJ & help consider the real state of all instituted proceedings. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Historical precedents & a host of international documents -- from Daniel Webster's speech on the Caroline Affair of 1837 to the 1949 Geneva Convention & recent UN Security Council resolutions -- are perused to take a legal stand on the 1999 NATO intervention against Serbia to stop the Kosovo genocide. A distinction is made between humanitarian intervention, humanitarian relief action, & the right of a sovereign state to intervene abroad to protect the life of its citizens. It is opined that there is no international law granting states the right to take a military action on behalf of citizens of another state. However, a set of rules of action in exceptional circumstances sanctioning a military humanitarian intervention is established, outlining a scenario where such an intervention would be legal. It is pointed out that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo met the criteria & satisfied the conditions necessary for a lawful humanitarian intervention, & the NATO military action should be viewed as such. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the genesis & the scenarios of the Kosovo crisis resolution, as well as the possible political reverberations of the NATO military intervention. The premise is that the Kosovo crisis is only a continuation of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia; Kosovo has for centuries been a separate entity largely populated by Albanians; the policy of Serbian nationalism has permanently discriminated against the Albanian population; & prior to the recent air strikes against Yugoslavia, Serbia had systematically led an ethnic-cleansing campaign on Kosovo. Although the author recognizes that support for the NATO military action can hardly be found in the tenets of the UN Charter, he argues that it can nevertheless be justified by international law. He points out that NATO's military campaign enjoyed the broad support of the people of NATO member countries, but that it has made a rift in the European Left. The new Left was in the forefront of the action, while the old, dogmatic, & sectarian Left found itself in the ranks of its most vocal opponents. The author claims that Milosevic, with his overall politics, & particularly his policy on Kosovo, had propelled the West into an action from which it could not extricate itself. He concludes that the consequences of Belgrade's defeat will be (1) the collapse of Milosevic's regime (the beginning of his end); (2) the final incapacitation of Milosevic's politics to create new conflicts; (3) the protectorate over Kosovo & its autonomy, with a factual independence from Serbia; (4) the independence of Montenegro; (5) Reinforcing the Dayton policy in Bosnia & Herzegovina (eliminating centrifugal tendencies); (6) the organized participation of the West in the transitional processes in this region (the pact on the stability of southeast Europe); & (7) bolstering the democratic & weakening the undemocratic tendencies in the region. Adapted from the source document.