Suchergebnisse

The legitimacy of power is a feature of authority, which is obtained and exercised in compliance with human rights and principles of legality. Election, in democratic states, is a way of achieving power, when people give power to persons whom they consider to be honest, just and able to rule the state. There are various conditions and types of the legitimacy of power according to M. Weber, D. Beetham, J. d'Aspremont and others, but prerequisite to recognize that power (legitimacy of power) are results of elections which are considered being fair. In my opinion, contemporary elections have a significant impact on recognition of the power legitimacy. International community recognizes the legitimacy of power relying on voting results as a decision of citizens. Problem of power legitimacy in case of falsification of the election results is hidden information about it. Often there is no documentary proofs considered that results are falsified. Authorities have too much impact on recognition of legitimacy and citizens often don't have possibility to prove illegitimacy. If legitimacy is regarded as equivalent to legality, then its other characteristics are dismissed. In this paper the legitimacy and the legality are divided. Falsifications violate human rights and such power can't be recognized as legitimate. Persons who achieve power in an unfair way usually conduct unfair politics. In the paper positions of aforementioned scholars concerning the legitimacy of power, election reality and contemporary process recognition of the legitimacy are analyzed. Types of the legitimacy taking into account the election results, hidden information about falsifications, counterfeit legality, fundamentals of power legitimacy according to natural law viewpoint and people's positions to power legitimacy. Elections falsifications without proofs is background for recognition of illegitimacy of power. This research is a new viewpoint on the problem of the legitimacy of power.

This article examines the ways in which international courts and tribunals should utilise their powers to prescribe provisional measures in the context of environmental disputes. The article makes the case that the system of dispute resolution has the capacity to adapt to the specific needs of environmental disputes. By analysing the key features of provisional measures and extracting new judicial trends, new light is shed on two core issues: first, this article develops a theoretical framework within which provisional measures should be understood in order to achieve their aim. Second, it shows how a certain level of judicial creativity in the design of provisional measures can have implications on whether such measures can be enforced through innovative cooperation with other institutional bodies. As a result, this article argues that provisional measures can fill the gap of enforcement in international environmental law and become a pivotal instrument in environmental protection.

Bringing together the set of regional and international jurisprudence from courts and treaty bodies concerned with issues of minority rights, thiis work concludes with an evaluation of the contribution of the case-law reviewed to the development of universal standards of protection

"Space, Mobility and Legitimacy" published on by Oxford University Press.