Search results

Given the importance of water for the survival of humankind and the entire living world, and considering that many parts of the world are running out of water, the human right to water has gradually become an issue of considerable concern worldwide. We should also bear in mind that water has an economic value. It is often figuratively called "the blue gold'' or "the oil of the 21st century'', which makes it a precious commodity and an object of market exchange. In such circumstances, it is necessary to make a strong turn and establish the human right to water in the highest legal documents. In this paper, the author points to the importance of incorporating the right to water in the constitutionally guaranteed rights. The constitutional regulation and protection of this human right would create conditions to protect the general public interest, which should prevail over the individual commercial interests in water privatization. The starting point for this analysis will be the existing normative framework which has been established at the international level, involving the key role of the UN. Exercising the right to water will also be explored from the perspective of the ECtHR jurisprudence. The paper will also point to the examples of constitutional provisions in the countries which have recognized this right.

Given the current pandemic coronavirus, the paper analyzes the state's response to the dis- ease caused by the virus (COVID-19) from the standpoint of two neighbouring countries i.e. the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Serbia. Special attention was paid to the states' response to the pandemic from human rights perspective. The research was conducted into the patterns of their "struggle", especially as regards the human rights restrictions they had opted for within their constitutional framework. The starting point of the paper was that human rights often are the victims of the crises and that they are easily restricted for a longer periods. In this respect, the author deals with possible answers to the questions about the quality and content of human rights, and how the protection of human rights was ensured in these exceptional circumstances. This legal framework was linked to current statistics on the number of COVID-19 cases. Having analyzed the response of the two states, it could be noted that both states have constitutional provisions governing the state of emergency, allowing them the rule of law in these exceptional circumstances. Both constitutions recognize a list of human rights that may be derogated in state of emergency. However, in Croatia, the state of emergency was not introduced, and the human rights were restricted in accordance with the given epidemiological situation. In Serbia, the struggle against COVID-19 took place in state of emergency and was marked by an extremely restrictive regime of human rights, which was partly in conflict with the constitutional order. The constitutional concept of absolute protection of human rights, in their broadest sense, had proved unsustainable in practice.

After the Constitutional Court of Serbia dismissed the motion for assessment of constitutionality of the so-called Brussels Agreement in December a year ago, the issue of constitutional review of international agreements has been actualized. The aim of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of legal provisions pertaining to the constitutional review of international agreements as envisaged in the following states: Austria, Germany, France, Spain and Serbia. The starting point is that the international treaty may be the subject matter as well as grounds of constitutional review, depending on its status in the national legal system. Further, we note that the constitutional review of international treaties has some specific features that distinguish it from the review of legislative or other legal act, particularly regarding the effects of the Constitutional Court decisions. Our intention is to analyze the legal provisions in our system by exploring this issue from the perspective of comparative law.