Suchergebnisse

In 1966 the UN passed two International Human Rights Covenants that are among the great achievements of humankind. The covenants were adopted in five equally binding languages, one of which was Chinese. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is generally assumed to have ratified one and signed (but not ratified) the other. In 1973, however, soon after the PRC began representing China in the UN, new Chinese-language versions of each mysteriously came into existence. These are the versions one is likely to find on the UN website, and they are what the Chinese government treats as the "covenants." The authors of this article show that these contain substantial revisions from the covenants that had been passed by the UN 1966 and subsequently ratified by at least 164 countries. The revised versions are so different, in fact, that one could well question whether the PRC actually embraced either covenant. The covenants granted rights that the revisions would later withdraw, and in at least one case the revisions recognize a right that is absent in the covenants. Based on their comparative analysis of the various versions, the question arises as to whether China is a responsible actor in the international legal order and a reliable partner when it comes to entering into agreements with other countries or acceding to international treaties. Given that China comprises over one-fifth of humanity, it also brings into question whether the principles in the covenants can claim absolute validity and anything like universal acceptance. (Crit Asian Stud/GIGA)

Das internationale Investitionsrecht und das Recht der Menschenrechte weisen in der Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit derzeit eine noch ungeklärte Beziehung zueinander auf. Inwiefern einem Menschenrecht auf Wasser im Rahmen des Investitionsschutzrechts Rechnung getragen werden kann, hat in der vorliegenden Arbeit eingehende Betrachtung erfahren. Die bei der Untersuchung entwickelten Lösungsmöglichkeiten bieten das Potential - sowohl durch außervertragliche Integration mittels systemischer Auslegung entlang der aufgestellten Guidelines als auch durch vertragliche Einbeziehung explizit formulierter Bausteine zur Unternehmensverantwortung - ein Menschenrecht auf Wasser im Investitionsschiedsverfahren angemessen zu berücksichtigen.

Pious foundation in Iran and Germany has lots of similarities. In Germany, foundations have the very same function as endowment has in Iran. Conceptually, endowment refers to a property which is designated for a specific purpose by the proprietor in a way that the main property must be preserved and its benefit must be spent. In both countries it is approved that endowment has its own autonomous legal personality and it can possess its own assets. In Germany, establishing a foundation with a legal personality, requires recognition by the competent public authority; whereas in Iran, based on Shia jurisprudence, a property is enough to be endowed by the proprietor for endowment so that the legal personality has been created. In Germany, any alteration or reformation in endowment is accomplished by the recognition of the competent public authority while in Iran, it is law by which the cases of alteration or reformation in endowment is determined. The essential difference between the management system of endowment in these two countries is that in Iran there is a centralized and confined construction by which the issues related to endowment is assigned to The Organization of Endowment and Charitable Affairs, whereas in Germany, this confinement and centralization cannot be seen because the supervision on pious foundations and charities is accomplished by the supervisory authorities of other organizations.

I would like the thank R. Sefton-Green, H. Muir Watt, N. Reich, T. Roethe, C. Torp, G. Miller, K. Purnhagen for extremely helpful comments and B. Schüller not only for his support in my research, but also for interesting discussions over a couple of months. The responsibility for all errors and misconceptions, however, remains mine. ; During the C20th, the Member States of the European Union developed their own models of social justice in private law. Each model is inherently linked to national culture and tradition. However, all models have a common thread, which is the use of the law by the (social welfare) state as a means to protect the weaker party against the stronger party. Since the adoption of the Single European Act in 1986, the European Union has assumed a social outlook which has gradually developed over time eventually taking shape in the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Since the adoption of the SEA, more particularly the White Paper on the Completion of the Internal Market,[1] the European Union adopted a huge set of secondary law means which influence either directly (consumer, labour, anti-discrimination and business law directives) or indirectly (directives meant to liberalise markets, e.g. telecommunication, postal services, energy - electricity and gas, transport, health care) private law matters. This new regulatory private law is governed by a different philosophy, one which cannot be brought into line with the understanding of social justice as enshrined in labour or later the consumer movement and one which is challenging national models of social justice in private law. I call the EU model of justice access justice/Zugangsgerechtigkeit (justice through access, not access to justice), i.e. that it is for the European Union to grant access justice to those who are excluded from the market or to those who face difficulties in making use of the market freedoms. European private law rules have to make sure that the weaker parties have and maintain access to the market - and to the European society insofar as this exists. ; 1. How the Argument Goes . 1 2. The Socio-Economic and Political Background of Social Justice (in Private Law) in France, Germany and England . 3 2.1. The English Model – A Liberal and Pragmatic Design Fit for Commercial Use . 4 2.1.1. English Pragmatism and Two Explanatory Hypotheses . 4 2.1.2. The Gradual Intrusion of Social Justice into Labour and Consumer Law . 7 2.2. The French Model – A Forward Looking Political Design of a (Just) Society. 8 2.2.1. The Political Conception – A Tentative Explanation. 9 2.2.2. Politicising Private Law as Social Law. 9 3.3. The German Model – An Authoritarian Paternalistic-Ideological though Market Orientated Design . 11 3.3.1. Ideological Paternalism and Market Pragmatism. 11 3.3.2. Authoritarian Liberalism and the Rise of Labour Law and Consumer Law . 12 4. The European Integration Process and the European Model of Justice. 13 4.1. The Evolving Character of the European Legal Order and the Rise of 'The Social'. 14 4.2. The Impact of the European Integration Process on Labour and Anti-Discrimination Law. 15 4.2.1. Labour Law and Anti-Discrimination Law . 15 4.2.2. Consumer Law . 19 5. The European Model on Access Justice . 21 5.1. Social Distribute, Access Justice and Allocative Libertarian Justice. 21 5.2. The Two Constitute Elements: Access Rights and Anti-Discrimination Rights. 23 5.2.1. Specific Access Rights in Labour, Anti-Discrimination and Consumer Law. 24 5.2.2. The Horizontal Dimension of Anti-Discrimination . 26 Bibliography. 28

Sommaire; Préface; Remerciements; Tableaux; Liste des abréviations, sigles et acronymes; Introduction; Première Partie Le droit à un recours devant un organe indépendant et impartial; Titre I Le cadre institutionnel des voies de recours; Chapitre I Le recours interne; Chapitre II Les juridictions instituées; Titre II L'accès limité à un juge administratif international; Chapitre III Une compétence personnelle restreinte; Chapitre IV Les conditions de recevabilité relatives à l'acte litigieux; Deuxième Partie Le droit à un règlement équitable et effectif des différends

"International crime and justice is an emerging field that covers international and transnational crimes that have not been the focus of mainstream criminology or criminal justice. This book examines the field from a global perspective. It provides an introduction to the nature of international and transnational crimes and the theoretical perspectives that assist in understanding the relationship between social change and the waxing and waning of the crime opportunities resulting from globalization, migration, and culture conflicts. Written by a team of world experts, it examines the central role of victim rights in the development of legal frameworks for the prevention and control of transnational and international crimes. It also discusses the challenges to delivering justice and obtaining international cooperation in efforts to deter, detect, and respond to these crimes. This book is arranged in nine parts covering the subject matter of international criminal justice. Each of the short chapters provides readers with an understanding of the main concepts relevant to the topic and sensitizes them to the complex nature of the problems"--Provided by publisher

The article surveys & summarizes recent literature in political geography & normative international relations theory to highlight how territorial borders are increasingly regarded as social phenomena, rather than material facts, & how this opens them to ethical & normative critique. The article suggests this is a line of inquiry that has yet to be fully developed. In order to do so, though, it is necessary to recognize the ontological sedimentation & power of territorial borders understood as fences between states, suggesting that ontologically minimalist methodologies may be inappropriate. From here, the article argues that an ethically plausible defense of territorial borders-as-fences can be made, but only by scaling back the role that territorial borders play & linking it more closely to the role of borders in making possible & meaningful human ethical life. Adapted from the source document.