Search results

The topic of the paper is the principle of self-determination of peoples in international law and the limits of its implementation. The aim of the paper is to analyze and evaluate theoretical and practical aspects of regulation and implementation of the principle of self-determination of peoples. In the first part of the paper we examine the evolution of the principle in international law. The origin of the principle of self-determination of peoples is connected with the American and French revolutions in late XVIII century and the idea that government derives from the will of people. After the First World War the principle became the ideal of USA president Woodrow Wilson and it was used in redrawing the map of Europe, its practical application was inconsistent though. Since the dismemberment of European empires and the creation of the new national states were based on economic interests, historical claims and strategic calculations we can think of the principle of self-determination of peoples till the Second World War as the political declaration only. The principle of self-determination of peoples got the status of the right of international law under the regime of United Nations in the context of decolonization. Though the formulation of the principle in the Charter of United Nations is abstract, its content is clarified by the resolutions of the General Assembly. The scope of the principle was revised after the Cold War. It became obviously that the right of self-determination overstep the limits of decolonization and the questions about the holders of the right and the right of unilateral secession were raised. In the second part of the paper we analyze the scope of the principle of self-determination of peoples. The principle can be divided into "internal" and "external" self-determination. The former means the right of people to determine its political and economical regime. Civil and political rights claimed by international instruments are the guarantees of the "internal" self-determination. The "external" self-determination means the right of the people to determine its international status and is connected with the problem of the claim to secede. The right of secession does not exist in the instruments of international law, but it is not forbidden either. That is why in some cases it can be justified. The restriction of the right of self-determination is directly connected with the principle of territorial integrity. "External" self-determination, which influences the boundaries of a territory, does not contradict the principle of the territorial integrity if it is implemented by the people, which is the holder of the right of self-determination. In the context of the principle of self-determination a people means an entire population of particular territorial union. It is questionable whether the recognition of the right to unilateral secession would eliminate the ethnic conflicts; the respect to human rights and the preservation of identity of peoples should be a key to the future peace of multinational states.

The topic of the paper is the principle of self-determination of peoples in international law and the limits of its implementation. The aim of the paper is to analyze and evaluate theoretical and practical aspects of regulation and implementation of the principle of self-determination of peoples. In the first part of the paper we examine the evolution of the principle in international law. The origin of the principle of self-determination of peoples is connected with the American and French revolutions in late XVIII century and the idea that government derives from the will of people. After the First World War the principle became the ideal of USA president Woodrow Wilson and it was used in redrawing the map of Europe, its practical application was inconsistent though. Since the dismemberment of European empires and the creation of the new national states were based on economic interests, historical claims and strategic calculations we can think of the principle of self-determination of peoples till the Second World War as the political declaration only. The principle of self-determination of peoples got the status of the right of international law under the regime of United Nations in the context of decolonization. Though the formulation of the principle in the Charter of United Nations is abstract, its content is clarified by the resolutions of the General Assembly. The scope of the principle was revised after the Cold War. It became obviously that the right of self-determination overstep the limits of decolonization and the questions about the holders of the right and the right of unilateral secession were raised. In the second part of the paper we analyze the scope of the principle of self-determination of peoples. The principle can be divided into "internal" and "external" self-determination. The former means the right of people to determine its political and economical regime. Civil and political rights claimed by international instruments are the guarantees of the "internal" self-determination. The "external" self-determination means the right of the people to determine its international status and is connected with the problem of the claim to secede. The right of secession does not exist in the instruments of international law, but it is not forbidden either. That is why in some cases it can be justified. The restriction of the right of self-determination is directly connected with the principle of territorial integrity. "External" self-determination, which influences the boundaries of a territory, does not contradict the principle of the territorial integrity if it is implemented by the people, which is the holder of the right of self-determination. In the context of the principle of self-determination a people means an entire population of particular territorial union. It is questionable whether the recognition of the right to unilateral secession would eliminate the ethnic conflicts; the respect to human rights and the preservation of identity of peoples should be a key to the future peace of multinational states.

The physical death of man leads, from a legal point of view, to the loss of the status of subject of law, but his patrimony, rights and obligations of patrimonial character, remain. Also, the deceased traditionally enjoys a certain respect, being protected, meaning that there was talk of a right of corpses to protect the privacy of their own image, a right to their integrity, a right to peace of last place and a right to respect for the memory of the deceased. The Civil Code in Articles 78 to 81 expressly provides for the regulation of rules likely to protect the non-patrimonial rights of the deceased person under the name of "Respect due to the person and after his death". Thus, according to art. 80 paragraph (Lupaşcu, 2012, p. 112) of the Civil Code: "any person may determine his own funeral and may dispose of his body after death. In the case of those who do not have the capacity to exercise or those who have a limited capacity to exercise, the written consent of the parents or, as the case may be, of the guardian is also required". Without the regulations regarding the respect of the natural person and after his death being irrelevant, the regulations regarding the fate of the deceased person's patrimony are much wider and more complex, making up the matter of successions. In art. 953 C. Civ, the inheritance is defined as the transmission of the patrimony of a deceased natural person to one or more persons in existence. The current Civil Code often uses the notion of inheritance, but the notion of succession has the same meaning, except that it is used less often.