Suchergebnisse

Rund 25 Jahre nach der letzten rechtsvergleichenden Analyse der Alterssicherung von Beamten ist am Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Sozialrecht in München eine neue Studie zu dieser Fragestellung konzipiert und unter Mithilfe von einigen externen Kooperationspartnern durchgeführt worden. Untersucht werden die grundlegenden Prinzipien der Alterssicherung von Beamten und ihre mögliche Veränderung im Laufe der Zeit. Dabei steht die aktuelle Situation in einer Reihe von europäischen Ländern im Vordergrund. Ausgehend von den in Deutschland über die letzten Jahrzehnte gesammelten Erfahrungen, wird die Alterssicherung von Beamten in Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien, Dänemark, Norwegen, Schweden, Rußland, der Schweiz, Slowenien, Tschechien und im Vereinigten Königreich dargestellt. Das Dienstrecht der Europäischen Union und der Vereinten Nationen wird ergänzend einbezogen

Finally emerging from decades of conflict and isolation, Iraq has endured three devastating wars, the demise of the Saddam Hussein regime, the end of international economic sanctions, and the protracted process of approving a constitution and forming a new democratically elected government. The nation's emergence from war, and efforts to build the foundations of stable governance and economic growth, provides a fascinating case study for analyzing new international norms promoting the "rule of law" in post-conflict countries. This paper addresses arguments that early legal and economic reforms implemented by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) in Iraq during 2003-2005 may have violated the principle of "conservation" in international humanitarian law. The paper further examines whether a new doctrine of "jus post bellum" is emerging, and the extent to which the United Nations and international economic organizations are permitted to support economic reforms as part of a larger effort to engage in peace building and to establish a "rule of law" in post-conflict countries.

"The U.S. won a $7.5 Billion award from the World Trade Organization against the European Union, who has for many years treated the USA very badly on Trade due to Tariffs, Trade Barriers, and more. This case going on for years, a nice victory", tweeted President Trump's on October 3, 2019. The United States (US) won not only the highest amount of retaliation ever adjudicated in the history of the WTO but also an ongoing right to retaliate on an annual basis until such time as the EU had complied by either removing the subsidies it granted Airbus or somehow neutralizing their adverse effects on Boeing. In light of the facts of the case, this ruling has two major shortcomings. First, in sharp contrast with the statutory language and practice until now, the Arbitrator effectively introduced a permanent liability rule into the WTO system through the backdoor. Second, given the way the decision and the associated award is written, it is simply impossible for the EU to comply because (a) the contested subsidies are no longer in existence and (b) no guidance has been provided on how the EU might go about removing their effects if it sought to achieve compliance. Thus, in all likelihood, the EU is saddled with a ruling that obligates it to cough up an annual sum of $7.5 billion USD for an indefinite time period.

AbstractOver a decade ago, an important debate began concerning the proper role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in an international legal universe characterized by a large and rapidly increasing number of specialized courts and tribunals. What functions can and should the Court perform in response to the fragmentation of international law, and the proliferation of international tribunals? Initial proposals, especially those emerging in the late 1990s, were hierarchical and centralist in their orientation, and have justifiably fallen out of favour. This article uses the current international legal disputes about Australia's plain packaging tobacco legislation as the basis for an exploration of the possibilities for an alternative, non-centralist vision for the ICJ, which is sensitive both to the institutional limits of the international judiciary, and to the benefits of a fundamentally pluralist international legal order.

AbstractIncreased policy harmonization on refugee matters in the European Union (EU), namely the creation of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), has created the imperative for a transnational judicial comparative dialogue between national courts. This article is based on a structured, focused comparison approach to examining a key element of a transnational European legal dialogue, namely, the use of foreign law by national judges when making their own decisions on asylum. It does so by examining two countries, France and Britain, as representative of the difference in legal tradition and culture within the EU in terms of the civil–common law divide. Both case studies are structured around a common set of empirical and jurisprudential research questions. The empirical findings reveal a surprising lack of transnational use of national jurisprudence on asylum between judges. Nonetheless, a slight but noticeable increase in the use of transnational asylum jurisprudence in the British and French courts must be noted. Two broad accounts—one rational, the other cultural—are applied in each of the case studies to explain this empirical finding. This article concludes on the broader implications of these findings for the establishment of a CEAS by 2012.

AbstractThe recognition of foreign judgments lacking reasons raises several policy issues. Reason-giving is perceived by the European Court of Human Rights as critical to ensure an effective access to justice. Yet, foreign judgments often lack reasons because the defendant failed to appear before the foreign court, and it may be right to sanction this strategy of foreign court avoidance. Finally, the European Union has begun to implement its policy of efficiency of cross-border enforcement, which commands states to recognize such judgments irrespective of any other consideration. This article explores whether these conflicting issues can be reconciled.

"There cannot be a mantle of oblivion. No society can start a new stage on an ethical claudication like" – Raúl AlfonsínIt is a matter of pride for the Argentine Foreign Affairs Ministry and especially for the National Foreign Service under my direction, to give you a very warm welcome and to be able to host the 33rdCourse on International Law and Legal Information organized by the prestigious International Association of Law Libraries (IALL).

Regulation (EU) n° 650/2012 of 4 July 2012 led to a considerable revolution in the field of international successions. Indeed, such a subject has always caused several divergences among national legal systems, especially at the European level where the need for a proper functioning of the free movement of persons have led to an essential common reform of private international succession law. As a results, rules governing cross-border successions have been globally harmonised and citizens are finally able to organise their succession in advance. Nonetheless, Regulation n° 650/212 should not be limited to the only harmonisation of conflicts-of-laws rules ; these latter are certainly its primary objective, but not the only one. Indeed, the new instrument should aim at a more ambitious goal : the convergence of national legal systems. In order to achieve such a purpose, the European legislator has provided for two different means : on one side a typical and essential instrument of private international law like the public policy ; on the other side a new and unique instrument of substantial law such as the European certificate of succession. As a consequence, the new Regulation should not leed to a sample unification in the field of the private international law, but would also contribute to a progressive uniformisation of national rules of Member States. It could thus represent a remarkable achievement in the historical European project for the maintenance and development of an area of freedom, security and justice inside the Union. ; Le Règlement (UE) n° 650/2012 du 4 juillet 2012 apporte une véritable révolution dans le domaine des successions internationales. Depuis toujours, en effet, cette matière a donné lieu à d'innombrables difficultés et divergences entre les systèmes juridiques nationaux, notamment au sein de l'Union européenne où la nécessité de garantir la liberté de circulation des personnes a rendu indispensable la mise en place d'une réforme commune du droit international privé des successions. C'est ...

Regulation (EU) n° 650/2012 of 4 July 2012 led to a considerable revolution in the field of international successions. Indeed, such a subject has always caused several divergences among national legal systems, especially at the European level where the need for a proper functioning of the free movement of persons have led to an essential common reform of private international succession law. As a results, rules governing cross-border successions have been globally harmonised and citizens are finally able to organise their succession in advance. Nonetheless, Regulation n° 650/212 should not be limited to the only harmonisation of conflicts-of-laws rules ; these latter are certainly its primary objective, but not the only one. Indeed, the new instrument should aim at a more ambitious goal : the convergence of national legal systems. In order to achieve such a purpose, the European legislator has provided for two different means : on one side a typical and essential instrument of private international law like the public policy ; on the other side a new and unique instrument of substantial law such as the European certificate of succession. As a consequence, the new Regulation should not leed to a sample unification in the field of the private international law, but would also contribute to a progressive uniformisation of national rules of Member States. It could thus represent a remarkable achievement in the historical European project for the maintenance and development of an area of freedom, security and justice inside the Union. ; Le Règlement (UE) n° 650/2012 du 4 juillet 2012 apporte une véritable révolution dans le domaine des successions internationales. Depuis toujours, en effet, cette matière a donné lieu à d'innombrables difficultés et divergences entre les systèmes juridiques nationaux, notamment au sein de l'Union européenne où la nécessité de garantir la liberté de circulation des personnes a rendu indispensable la mise en place d'une réforme commune du droit international privé des successions. C'est ...

Regulation (EU) n° 650/2012 of 4 July 2012 led to a considerable revolution in the field of international successions. Indeed, such a subject has always caused several divergences among national legal systems, especially at the European level where the need for a proper functioning of the free movement of persons have led to an essential common reform of private international succession law. As a results, rules governing cross-border successions have been globally harmonised and citizens are finally able to organise their succession in advance. Nonetheless, Regulation n° 650/212 should not be limited to the only harmonisation of conflicts-of-laws rules ; these latter are certainly its primary objective, but not the only one. Indeed, the new instrument should aim at a more ambitious goal : the convergence of national legal systems. In order to achieve such a purpose, the European legislator has provided for two different means : on one side a typical and essential instrument of private international law like the public policy ; on the other side a new and unique instrument of substantial law such as the European certificate of succession. As a consequence, the new Regulation should not leed to a sample unification in the field of the private international law, but would also contribute to a progressive uniformisation of national rules of Member States. It could thus represent a remarkable achievement in the historical European project for the maintenance and development of an area of freedom, security and justice inside the Union. ; Le Règlement (UE) n° 650/2012 du 4 juillet 2012 apporte une véritable révolution dans le domaine des successions internationales. Depuis toujours, en effet, cette matière a donné lieu à d'innombrables difficultés et divergences entre les systèmes juridiques nationaux, notamment au sein de l'Union européenne où la nécessité de garantir la liberté de circulation des personnes a rendu indispensable la mise en place d'une réforme commune du droit international privé des successions. C'est ...

Abstract
This article reassesses the impact of the concept of vulnerability as it emerges from the MSS v Belgium and Greece case of the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequent developments relating to the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. This examination is performed in light of the human rights principle of equality. The choice of the principle of equality is justified by frequent claims that vulnerability allows more substantive equality outcomes. Examining the concrete functions and consequences of the recourse to vulnerability in relation to refugees and asylum seekers in post-MSS judgments, the article argues that, in the European setting at least, vulnerability produces a set of negative consequences. More specifically, the article demonstrates that the deployment of the language of vulnerability results in the positioning of refugees and asylum seekers as passive recipients of benevolence rather than as active rights claimants, the introduction of additional layers of subjectively constructed stratification, and the erasure of the specificity of refugees' and asylum seekers' experience. It is contended that these negative consequences of deploying the concept of vulnerability can be mitigated if recourse to vulnerability is accompanied by a highly skilled technical discussion of the principles of substantive equality as they are known in international human rights law, including such aspects of substantive equality as structural discrimination and intersectionality.

Abstract
The view that subsidiary protection status is a lesser form of protection than refugee status is widespread among European Union (EU) Member States' asylum authorities and courts. This view is based on the assumption that the protection needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are of shorter duration than those of refugees. Based on this assumption, several EU Member States have curtailed the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and national courts have upheld these restrictions. This article argues that the assumption of a shorter duration of subsidiary protection, and therefore lesser protection needs, is empirically unfounded and normatively untenable. The assumption is based on the premise that the principal circumstances justifying subsidiary protection – poor security situations or armed conflicts – are temporary in nature. Contrary to tendencies in EU Member States, it is argued that the development of EU asylum law points towards the creation of a uniform status of protection that entails the same rights for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Why, then, does the assumption of the temporary nature of subsidiary protection persist? This article posits that the persistence of the assumption of the temporary nature of subsidiary protection derives from a more profound perception in international legal thought of wartime as exceptional and of short duration.