Suchergebnisse

In a world that has become highly interdependent through globalization, where many borders often effectively only exist on political maps, transnational organized crime has become a significant, systemic threat to human, national, and international security. In "Re-Imagining International Law Enforcement" the clear focus is on the efforts of international law enforcement, which is the cooperation between states to engage and combat the problem of organized crime across borders. Often believed to be an international police force, INTERPOL facilitates exchange of information but does not, in fact, act upon information. Similar to this model, other organizations try to foster cooperation between national police forces but leave eventual enforcement to national agencies. The research focuses on establishing the current status quo, the level of cooperation throughout the last 200 years, and the current efforts put forth to build international cooperation. This is done through several case studies, which are evaluated from a political science perspective to provide the political reality in which possible solutions have to work. From that platform recommendations are produced that might improve the problems long-term, to limit a possible run-away prevalence of organized crime in the next decades. More specifically, national law enforcement models and theories are identified that might be useful on an international scale to approach the issue that is clearly beyond the scope of any single nation.

The protection of commercial agents under Directive 86/653 in international cases raises questions of private international law. Here, several different fact situations are analysed: In, first, the normal single market case where commercial agent and principal both are active in Member States, Article 3 (4) Reg. Rome I assures protection of the commercial agent even where the law of a third country has been chosen by the parties. Where, second, the principal is from a third state but the commercial agent is active in the single market, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Ingmar has ruled that the protection according to the Directive applies. Its rules then should be considered as overriding mandatory provisions in the sense of Article 9 Reg. Rome I. Where, third, the protection provided for by the Directive has in Member State law been extended to commercial agents not covered by the Directive, this extended protection according to the UNAMAR judgment of the ECJ may under certain conditions override even the law of another Member State – and the Belgian Court of Cassation has actually decided in this sense. In the specific case, though, the result is odd and apparently helped to oust an arbitration clause. Fourthly, in case of an extra-EU commercial agent and an EU-principal, according to the ECJ case Agro the protection foreseen by the Directive need not necessarily be granted to the foreign commercial agent by the applicable Member State law. This, according to the ECJ, even is the case where the EU-provisions have been transplanted into the legal system of the third state where the commercial agent is active. It is shown that this is very questionable and that the third state rule can – similarly to Ingmar – be an overriding mandatory provision. The restrictive Article 9 (3) Reg. Rome I here poses some problems, which, however, can be overcome. The Belgian Enterprise Court in Ghent in fact used Article 7 Rome Convention