Suchergebnisse

The last contribution on this topic, which was published in the July 1997 issue of the Quarterly,1 examined the Court's remarkable ruling in CIA Security International S.A. v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL,2 in which the Full Court decided that where a member State neglects to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission in breach of the obligations set out in Directive 83/189,3 it may not rely on those regulations in subsequent proceedings before national courts. The Court's ruling attaches a meaningful penalty to State failure to abide by the obligations of notification stipulated by the Directive. It thereby induces compliance with requirements of transparency on which the Commission pins great faith in its "post-1992" strategy for the management of the internal market. The case law since CIA Security has generated a sufficient number of further illuminating rulings to justify a further tour of the area in this contribution.

Odom, W. E.: Strategic realignment in Europe: NATO's obligation to the East. S. 7-12. Bratinka, P.: The challenge of liberation: the view from the Czech Republic. S. 13-20. Bombik, S.: Returning to civilisation: the view from Slovakia. S. 21-24. Nowakowski, J. M.: In search of the strategic home: the view from Poland. S. 25-29. Waschler, T.: "Where there's a will ...": the view from Hungary. S. 30-35

У статті розглядаються питання місця міжнародних договорів у законодавстві України, яке актуалізується тим, що серед правників і досі не вироблено єдиної позиції щодо його розуміння, у результаті чого воно характеризується неоднозначністю, невизначеністю та стало одним з найскладніших об'єктів пізнання. Аналізуються теоретичні підходи та основні практичні проблеми включення норм міжнародних договорів до національного законодавства України, вноситься пропозиція вдосконалити ч. 1 ст. 9 Конституції у спрямуванні на поширення статусу складової національного законодавства на всі чинні міжнародні договори незалежно від форми надання згоди на їх обов'язковість для України. ; В статье рассматриваются вопросы места международных договоров в законодательстве Украины, которое актуализируется тем, что среди юристов до сих пор не выработано единой позиции по его пониманию, в результате чего оно начало характеризоваться неоднозначностью, неопределенностью и стало одним из самых сложных объектов познания. Анализируются теоретические подходы и основные практические проблемы включения норм международных договоров в национальное законодательство Украины, вносится предложение усовершенствовать ч. 1 ст. 9 Конституции в направлении на распространение статуса составляющей национального законодательства на все действующие международные договоры независимо от формы предоставления согласия на их обязательность для Украины. ; The article examines the issues of the place of international treaties in the Ukrainian legislation, which has an increased relevance now by the fact that among lawyers there is still no common position on role of international treaties. As a result of which the impact of international treaties began to be characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty and has become one of the most complex objects of knowledge. Theoretical approaches and main practical problems of incorporating the norms of international treaties into the Ukrainian national legislation of are analyzed. A proposal is also made to improve Part 1 of Art. 9 of the Constitution in the direction of extending the status of a component of national legislation to all existing international treaties, regardless of the form of consent for their obligation for Ukraine.

У статті розглядаються питання місця міжнародних договорів у законодавстві України, яке актуалізується тим, що серед правників і досі не вироблено єдиної позиції щодо його розуміння, у результаті чого воно характеризується неоднозначністю, невизначеністю та стало одним з найскладніших об'єктів пізнання. Аналізуються теоретичні підходи та основні практичні проблеми включення норм міжнародних договорів до національного законодавства України, вноситься пропозиція вдосконалити ч. 1 ст. 9 Конституції у спрямуванні на поширення статусу складової національного законодавства на всі чинні міжнародні договори незалежно від форми надання згоди на їх обов'язковість для України. ; В статье рассматриваются вопросы места международных договоров в законодательстве Украины, которое актуализируется тем, что среди юристов до сих пор не выработано единой позиции по его пониманию, в результате чего оно начало характеризоваться неоднозначностью, неопределенностью и стало одним из самых сложных объектов познания. Анализируются теоретические подходы и основные практические проблемы включения норм международных договоров в национальное законодательство Украины, вносится предложение усовершенствовать ч. 1 ст. 9 Конституции в направлении на распространение статуса составляющей национального законодательства на все действующие международные договоры независимо от формы предоставления согласия на их обязательность для Украины. ; The article examines the issues of the place of international treaties in the Ukrainian legislation, which has an increased relevance now by the fact that among lawyers there is still no common position on role of international treaties. As a result of which the impact of international treaties began to be characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty and has become one of the most complex objects of knowledge. Theoretical approaches and main practical problems of incorporating the norms of international treaties into the Ukrainian national legislation of are analyzed. A proposal is also made to improve Part 1 of Art. 9 of the Constitution in the direction of extending the status of a component of national legislation to all existing international treaties, regardless of the form of consent for their obligation for Ukraine.

AbstractThe UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has closed hundreds of investigations into alleged ill-treatment of detainees by British troops in Iraq. This article probes one reason given for the closure of these investigations: the assertion (without further evidence) that the allegations were 'less serious', 'lower-level' or in the 'middle' range of severity. These terms usually appear without reference to international law, and are once defined with reference to the English criminal law of assault, so that investigations were closed if the alleged treatment resulted in less than grievous bodily harm. The MOD's terminology is wrong-headed and conceptually underinclusive: it fails to grasp the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment in international human rights law (IHRL), and largely neglects the investigatory obligations in IHRL, international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL).

My research introduces the issue of the Israeli military detention policies towards Palestinian children in the West Bank (WB) and illustrates how these violate international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL), despite their legally binding nature and despite Israel's obligation to protect Palestinian civilians as protected persons under occupation. My research shows that Israel fails to uphold the best interest of the child resorting to the detention of Palestinian minors in an "intentional, widespread and systematic manner" (UNICEF, 2013:13) and not as a measure of last resort. My research also shows that intentionally targeting Palestinian children is one of several tools Israel adopts to enforce the occupation in the WB. Ultimately, Israeli detention policies are a form of persecution and deny children their right to self-determination. My research applies two methods: legal analysis and interviews. Chapter two discusses Israel's obligations under IHRL with special reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 (CRC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 (CAT) and under IHL with special reference to the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1948 (IV GC). The legal analysis focuses mainly on IHRL and only partially draws on IHL. Finally, chapter three presents the findings from interviews to a number of human rights advocates from Palestinian and international NGOs. The interviews, conducted between March 18th and May 28th, 2015, corroborate the legal arguments.

La collaboration du Droit international (DI) et des Relations internationales (RI) est un défi en soi. En plus, la façon dans laquelle elle a été construite et une image statique du DI empêchent son développement. La considération des contributions du DI et une définition qui saisit l'aspect dynamique des phénomènes juridiques ouvrent de nouvelles pistes d'analyse, dont celle de l'interprétation de normes. Nous suivons cette approche interdisciplinaire pour comprendre l'application inconsistante des clauses démocratiques. L'analyse des éléments de l'interprétation – la norme, la situation factuelle et l'interprète – permet de distinguer les facteurs intervenant, ainsi que la nature des obligations des clauses démocratiques. Les divers engagements normatifs expliquent l'association de ces éléments et fournissent la logique d'application des clauses démocratiques.

Responsibility to protect is a very controversial principle in the international arena. One group of researchers name it the new approach and impulse for human security and human rights improvements with deeper involvement and response from the international community. On the contrary, other group of researchers state that this concept doesn't bring any new insights for situation improvement and can even be harmful, because it may, in some way, give a better opportunity for justification of the country's unilateral intervention. While discussion is still ongoing, the rising and concerning issue is how this concept (let it be remembered that this is the product of a special committee outside the United Nations (UN)) is evolving and fixating itself on the international and national level – as prioritizing one country humanitarian actions or the joint response from international community. To analyse this issue, the UN is taken as the most important international actor regarding the question of international peace and security. USA is taken to analyse it from the national level. The research is based on primary source analysis. Results of the UN documents and primary source analysis indicate that the concept of responsibility to protect this organisation is evolving gradually. First, it was started with the basic and uncontroversial assumptions from the concept, then the idea of the possible fruitful cooperation with other regional and transnational organisations was introduced. Furthermore, the required steps before and after the crisis are named, strictly defined cases when responsibility to protect principle can be applied. In the UN, the principle is developing in more narrow in comparison with the primal guidelines from the special committee. Organisation clearly defines that the principle of responsibility to protect can be used just by the international community with the mandate of UN Security Council. No other options for other organisations or state are declared, even in the cases when the UN Security council is not able to take appropriate actions. With some exceptions, the analysis supports the researchers' claim that international actions are prioritised and not very specific issues are added by this principle. Regarding the position of the USA, the result estimates a very incoherent position. In various sources, the position changes from very unfavourable to favourable. One of the most opposing statements from the responsibility to protect statement for US is the obligation to act in the situations where human rights condition is in a very poor situation. This is seen as framing countries actions; for this reason, there is an intention to change it to readiness to act. Considering the time frame of written sources, it can be seen that the position is changing to more favourable towards the responsibility to protect the concept itself, but to clearly define that position – one country's humanitarian intervention or international response – is very difficult because the stated position is very ambiguous. ; Straipsnio tikslas – išanalizuoti, kaip yra konstruojamas "atsakomybės ginti" principas Jungtinių Tautų (JT) organizacijoje ir Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose (JAV) nuo 2005 metų. Tyrimas grindžiamas pirminių šaltinių ana­lize siekiant palyginti tarptautinį ir valstybinį lygmenis. Toks palyginimas ir analizė yra reikalingi, nes tyrėjų nuomonės apie "atsakomybės ginti" prin­cipo įtaką skiriasi, o šis principas tampa vis plačiau naudojamas valstybių pagrindžiant užsienio politikos veiksmus. Vienų autorių nuomone, "atsako­mybės ginti" principas yra naujas ir vertingas postūmis tarptautinėje siste­moje žmogaus teisių ir žmonių saugumo klausimais. Kitų autorių nuomone, yra priešingai – šis principas neatneša nieko naujo, nesiūlo intensyvių kaitos taškų ir net gali būti žalingas tarptautinei bendruomenei. Plėtojantis moksli­nei diskusijai, kartu ir pats principo naudojimas evoliucionuoja ir įsitvirtina tarptautiniu bei nacionaliniu lygmenimis. Nevienodas šio principo įsitvirtini­mas gali lemti skirtingą jo interpretaciją užsienio politikos veiksmuose.

State responsibility — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Obligation to respect rights and domestic legal effects — Articles 1(1) and 2 as basis for international State responsibility — American Convention on Human Rights as lex specialis vis-à-vis general international law — State responsibility for actions and omissions by public authorities and private individuals — International humanitarian law — Article 3 of 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II — Interpretation of American Convention on Human Rights — State obligations to protect civilians in non-international armed conflictHuman rights — Right to life — Right to humane treatment — Right to personal liberty — Obligation to respect rights — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Condition to ensure right to life — Duty to investigate violations of that right — Non-identification of victims as result of massacre and grave lack of compliance with State's duty to protect — No limitation of victims to those identified — Right to humane treatment of family members — No evidence required of grave impact on emotional well-being — Whether Colombia violating Articles 4, 5 and 7, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human RightsHuman rights — Rights of the child — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 19 — Scope of this right — Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Articles 6, 37, 38 and 39, and Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions — Interpretation of American Convention on Human Rights — International corpus juris for child protection — Special vulnerability of children in domestic armed conflict — Whether Colombia violating Article 19, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human RightsHuman rights — Right to freedom of movement and residence — Differentiated situation of displaced persons — State obligation of preferential treatment and positive steps to reverse effects — Evolutive interpretation of Article 22(1) of American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Right to not be forcefully displaced within a State Party — Whether Colombia violating Article 22, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human RightsHuman rights — Right to fair trial and right to judicial protection — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Articles 8 and 25 — Restrictive and exceptional scope of military criminal jurisdiction — Assessment of effectiveness of domestic administrative 312proceedings — Result of administrative proceedings taken into account in reparations — Criteria — Length of criminal proceedings — Complexity — Procedural activity of interested party — Conduct of judicial authorities — Pertinence of criteria depending on circumstances of case — State duty to start investigations promptly and ex officio — Procedural activity of interested parties not decisive if limited as result of threats and displacement — Complexity of case linked to acts and omissions by State — Whether Colombia violating Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of American Convention on Human RightsInternational tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Preliminary objections by Colombia — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 46 — Content of preliminary objection tied to merits of case — Loss of "preliminary nature" — Partial acknowledgement of international responsibility — Competence of Court — Judgment on Preliminary Objections — Judgment on Merits, Reparations and CostsDamages — Reparations — Monetary and other — Colombia to investigate liability of masterminds, direct perpetrators, collaborators and those who acquiesced to massacre — Colombia individually to identify executed and disappeared victims and family members — Colombia to establish mechanism with victim representation for compliance with reparations — Colombia to provide treatment to family members of victims as long as necessary and without cost — Colombia to ensure security conditions for displaced family members and inhabitants to enable their return — Colombia to build a monument in remembrance of massacre — Colombia to implement permanent education programme on human rights and international humanitarian law for Colombian Armed Forces — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 63(1)

Intro -- GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE -- GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF): AN OVERVIEW* -- Summary -- Introduction -- The Global Environment Facility (GEF) -- Organizational Structure -- Funding -- Project Areas -- Current Issues for Congress -- External Challenges for GEF -- Internal Challenges for GEF -- Looking Forward -- Appendix. Global Environment Facility Trust Fund -- End Notes -- Chapter 2 U.S. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY: EVOLVING VIEWS ON COST, COMPETITIVENESS AND COMPREHENSIVENESS* -- Summary -- Introduction: The Three Cs -- UNFCCC: Containing the Three Cs with a Voluntary Commitment -- The U.S. and Kyoto: the Three Cs Prevent Mandatory Reductions -- Copenhagen: A Comprehensive but Voluntary Approach to the Three Cs -- Domestic Positioning -- International Initiatives -- The Three-Cs: Re-evaluating the Policy Assumptions -- End Notes -- Chapter 3 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE: SELECTED LEGAL QUESTIONS* -- Summary -- Background on Global Climate Change Negotiations -- What Is the Difference between a "Convention," a "Protocol," and an "Accord"? -- What Makes Some International Agreements "Legally Binding" but Not Others? -- How Does the United States Become a Party to an International Agreement by Way of Treaty? -- What Effect Does an Agreement Have Domestically once the United States Becomes a Party to It? -- The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -- Is the United States Legally Bound by the UNFCCC? -- When Is an Agreement Formally Adopted under the UNFCCC? -- The Kyoto Protocol -- Is the United States Legally Bound by the Kyoto Protocol? -- What Obligations Did the United States Incur by Signing the Kyoto Protocol and to What Extent Does It Remain Bound by Those Obligations?

In the context of Israel's declared permanent state of exception, this article focuses on the legal protection awarded to the Palestinian populations under Israeli control. To broaden the discussion over Palestinian people's rights, which generally focuses on the confiscation of land and the right to return, the author consciously focuses on anti-terrorism and security measures, which contribute to the creation of what the International Court of Justice has defined as an 'associated regime' of occupation. The article is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author discusses Israel's domestic obligations towards Palestinians (arguing the case of both Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian residents) and their de jure and de facto discrimination. The second part discusses the applicability of humanitarian law, specifically the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This section discusses the applicability of the Convention to both territories and people under Israeli control. The third part discusses the applicability of international human rights law to all territories under Israeli control and delves into the issue of the mutual relationship between the two international legal regimes in the territories under occupation. The article posits that Israel's rationale for the non-applicability of such legislation to the Palestinian territories and populations it controls constitutes a form of 'alternative legality'. The article concludes that Israel's disproportionate application of security practices and anti-terrorism measures to the Palestinian segment of its population violates Palestinian rights protected under Israel's domestic and international legal obligations.

The appropriate response to human shields is a recurring issue in modern warfare. Technological asymmetry, disparate obligations, and doctrinal divergence between state and nonstate adversaries combine to make civilians account for 84 percent of combat deaths. Just as a slot machine entices a gambler though he rarely wins, the international community's inconsistent response to human shields has placed shield users on an intermittent reinforcement schedule, thereby ensuring that this tactic remains part of insurgent strategy. Long-term protection of civilians requires eliminating this tactic. Principles of behavior science indicate that an effective way to do so is to uniformly remove its desired consequence--combatants must never allow the presence of shields to impede access to the shielded military objective. This approach is supported by a broader, more forward-thinking conception of the principle of proportionality as reflected in current treaty and customary international law.

In delivering the fourth Dag Hammarskjold Lecture, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented an invented conversation with Hammarskjold. As part of this conversation, Annan compares the current global situation & that of the 1960s. Annan focused on Hammarskjold's own final Annual Report to the UN (August, 1961), a report that emphasized the UN's obligation to uphold economic, civil, political, & social human rights. Annan concluded his lecture by outlining the differences between the present & the 1960s, emphasizing that just governments & political actors from all spheres must work together if the goals of the UN Charter in the 21st century are to be achieved. K. Larsen

El presente ensayo analiza la inclusión de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas en el derecho y la política internacional, en el marco del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos. El objetivo de tal reflexión es determinar el grado de implementación de los estándares internacionales sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas por parte de los Estados, en particular Guatemala, respecto a los programas y proyectos de desarrollo. Para lograr tal objetivo, en un primer momento, se refleja la evolución del derecho internacional en torno al reconocimiento de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas. Posteriormente, se analiza la adecuación del derecho interno de los Estados a los estándares internacionales y regionales en la materia a la luz de las obligaciones internacionales de derechos humanos correspondientes y, finalmente, se aborda la consideración estatal de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas en programas y proyectos de desarrollo. ; This paper evaluates the inclusion of the rights for indigenous peoples within the standards of international law and policy, in accordance to the obligations established by the International Law of Human Rights. The analysis targets to assess the degree of implementation of international standards on the rights of indigenous peoples, in the development programs and projects, by the Governments, particularly Guatemala. First, it reflects the evolution of the international law in relation to the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples; then analyzes the adjustment of the internal law of States, to meet the international and regional standards, in the framework of relative international human rights´ obligations. Finally, it addresses the importance that States have granted to the rights of indigenous peoples in development programs and projects