Suchergebnisse

Political interest in territorial integrity and state sovereignty has always been to the fore in decisions made by governments faced with those who rebel. Thus, rebellion has been considered as an integral part of internal armed conflict rather than expanding it as part of external or international armed conflict. In this way, public international law has not only limited its scope of application but also failed to provide an effective legal framework for rebels who are not categorised as a party to international armed conflict. The enormous political support for "state sovereignty" and lack of necessary political will to recognise the right of rebellion at the international level have played a vital role in this failure. Attempts to overcome the failure have never been successful due to the fear of ruling authorities that recognition of the right of rebellion might provide legitimacy to opponents and put their authority at risk. The political power has always triumphed over the necessity to recognise the right of rebellion, and this has resulted in the underdevelopment of this area of law. Furthermore, the rebels have denied their accountability for asymmetrical use of force against state authorities based on their disadvantageous position under public international law. This unequal position between rebels and state authorities has created a "gap" in the current international legal framework.

The detention of refugees and asylum-seekers throughout the world remained a most serious issue, currently affecting thousands of individuals. This article examines national concepts, powers and practices of detention and contrasts these with individual rights of refugees and asylum-seekers under international law.

Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court's approach to human rights is a global outlier. In conceiving of rights adjudication in categorical terms rather than embracing proportionality analysis, the Court limits its ability to make the kinds of qualitative judgments about rights application required to adjudicate claims of disparate impact, social and economic rights, and horizontal effects, among others. This approach, derivative of a private-law model of dispute resolution, sits in tension with the rights claims typical of a pluralistic jurisdiction with a mature rights culture, in which litigants more often disagree, reasonably, about the scope of rights rather than deny that others have them at all. In order to overcome the mismatch between the nature of the rights claims the Court faces and its anachronistic technology of adjudication, it will need not only to adopt a form of proportionality analysis but it will also need to adjust the ways in which it receives and assesses empirical social facts and it will need to broaden its remedial toolkit to include, for example, suspensions of invalidity. While proportionality is far from perfect, its flaws are anticipated by the challenges of constitutional democracy itself under conditions of pluralism.

SommaireCet article a pour objet d'identifier et d'analyser l'impact normatif du droit international dans l'orientation des différents comportements étatiques. Nous évaluerons surtout le conflit existant entre le droit international et certaines variables non juridiques qui influencent le processus décisionnel dans l'ordre international, telles le nationalisme, la réalisation d'objectifs stratégiques, l'idéologie et l'opportunisme politique. Nous en arriverons ainsi à l'inévitable conclusion que, contrairement aux variables susmentionnées, le droit international joue un rôle très limité.En effet, l'efficacité du droit international repose essentiellement sur l'existence d'un consensus au sein de la communauté internationale au sujet des avantages mutuels à adopter tel ou tel comportement étatique. En l'absence d'un tel consensus, les règles du droit international deviennent instables, obscures et inefficaces.En raison de sa structure sociale primaire, décentralisée et fragmentée, la société internationale a élaboré, tout compte fait, un ordre juridique faible et rudimentaire même si sa réglementation ponctuelle est souvent très complexe.Le rôle souvent affaibli du droit dans la conduite des relations internationales s'explique, en grande partie, par la crainte des États de limiter leur autorité souveraine. Cette crainte empêche donc la réalisation d'un consensus politique en faveur d'un droit international fort. Aucun défaut inhérent attribuable à la nature même du système juridique international ne saurait être à l'origine de l'inefficacité du droit international.

Letter of Intent in International Contracting' provides readers with a unique point of reference on the legal effects of letter of intent - the document frequently used in international transactions. Firstly, the book takes a fresh look at trade usages in negotiations of international contracts. It integrates the view of negotiations as strategies and tactics (well-known in business, but largely disregarded by the law) with the legal analysis. Secondly, it discusses in turn those provisions frequently used in letter of intent and comments on them based on a thorough comparative research of four jurisdictions: the Netherlands, France, England and Wales, and United States. The discussion of French law is based on the recent reform of the French law of obligations which significantly modified the French Code civil in 2016. At the international level, the study addresses the 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods and international soft law: UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010, Principles of European Contract Law, and the Draft Common Frame of Reference. The book is a result of doctoral research conducted at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. This book is relevant to legal practitioners working in the field of international contracts as well as to scholars and policy makers concerned with harmonization of law based on non-binding principles and business practices --Source other than Library of Congress