Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article assesses the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty against the background that, at the time of UK's withdrawal from the EU, UK parliament proclaimed it to be preserved despite the continuing domestic legal effect accorded, under 2018 and 2020 Acts, to pertinent EU law provisions in the UK legal system. The relevant evidence is analysed to show whether that position is one to which English law subscribes.

Abstract:The unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovar authorities in Pristina in 2008 has been the source of various controversies in international affairs. From a legal perspective, Kosovo's secessionist drive is contrary to the well-established position of international law regarding the territorial integrity of states. From a political perspective, Kosovo's case exemplifies the political drive to alter the law – a drive that applies to other entities in Kosovo's position. Both these phenomena are accompanied by the divergent interests held by Kosovars as the 'local agency' and by the interests of Serbia and third states (including great powers) that support or oppose Kosovo's independence. The interdisciplinary nature of this matter is enhanced by the intersection of applicable legal frameworks with competing political interests. The motivating factors – and implications of – great power conduct in this context should be examined through the prism of political realism, which provides an enhanced perspective on the relationship between legal and political factors in all their complexity.

Over the past decade, the effective performance by the UN Security Council of its primary responsibility in the area of peace and security has increasingly become contingent on the implementation of its decisions within the national legal systems of the UN Member States. An examination of this issue in the context of the British legal system could offer a useful case-study of the ways to enhance the effectiveness of the UN collective security mechanism, to enforce the limits on the legitimacy of that mechanism, and also to highlight the practical difficulties that may accompany the attempts to apply Security Council resolutions domestically. This contribution exposes all these issues, focusing on the practice of the uk courts over the past decade. It examines the mediation of the effect of Security Council resolutions into English law through the 1946 United Nations Act, the royal prerogative and other common law techniques. After that, the contribution moves on to examine the English courts' handling of the normative conflict between a Security Council resolution and other sources of international law.

Abstract
Parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitutional context is expressive of the utilitarian philosophy which dictates that government is there to gratify the wishes and interests of the majority to the greatest extent possible. This approach, at times cast in more moderate terms as 'democratic legitimacy', arguably reflects the majoritarian underpinnings of British parliamentarism. A close look on the workings of 'parliamentary sovereignty' reveals, however, that its discrete constitutional relevance is not great. Courts in the English legal system retain their full-fl edged law-making power, and are entitled to balance the legislation-backed public utility by common law constitutional considerations. The examination of the relevant aspects of English law shows that parliamentary sovereignty is neither sufficient nor necessary for properly articulating and giving effect to the demands of public utility.

The inter-war period of European and global history (1919–1939) fascinates by virtue of its uniqueness, the intensity of its developments, and the strategies of crisis managements it has witnessed within the League of Nations framework and beyond. The uniqueness of this period was mainly due to the fact that the identity and interests of major powers were split to a greater extent than held in common. In this time of major strategic and ideological divisions the uniform and consistent operation of positive international law as a major instrument for the preservation of peace was obviously challenged. The legal and political discourse of four major scholars of international law – Scelle, Schmitt, Kelsen and Lauterpacht – had to analytically tackle this challenge to the very viability of international law, the essence of its normativity, and its ability to make the difference in international affairs. As this contribution demonstrates, the complexity of this issue was not always given the similarly required complex attention, and grave implications followed both in legal and political terms. Viability of law in times of division is what requires that continuous attention is paid to the inter-war jurisprudential debate. The issues the four inter-war authors have focused upon retain their major significance in terms of the viability of international law in the post-Cold War international system. Three modern case-studies consequently illustrate the continuing relevance of the inter-war debate.