Suchergebnisse

This study examines the adoption of arbitration for the definitive solution of conflicts between Brazilian Public Administration and its citizens. Despite strong sociological reasons against adopting the institute in Brazil, surprisingly, legal scholars assimilated it with ease. Dogmatic reasons, however, prevent its adoption. The thesis that it is possible when it comes to the secondary interest is untenable, as the secondary interest is only valid when it coincides with the primary one. The unavailability of the public interest was circumvented by explicit legislative authorization term. It is impossible to circumvent the supremacy of the public interest over the private one, which prevents removing the judiciary from having the final word prerogative on the interpretation of matters of the public interest. Therefore, all laws that authorize administrative arbitration are unconstitutional. ; Este estudio trata sobre la adopción del arbitraje para la solución definitiva de los conflictos entre la Administración Pública brasileña y la administrada. A pesar de las fuertes razones sociológicas en contra de la adopción del instituto en Brasil, sorprendentemente la comunidad jurídica lo asimiló con facilidad. Sin embargo, razones dogmáticas impiden su adopción. La tesis de que es posible cuando se trata de interés secundario es insostenible, ya que el interés secundario solo es válido cuando coincide con el primario. La indisponibilidad del interés público se eludió mediante autorización legislativa expresa. Es imposible eludir la supremacía del interés público sobre el privado, lo que impide que el poder judicial tenga la prerrogativa de dar la última palabra en la interpretación de los asuntos relacionados con el interés público que deben descartarse. Por lo tanto, todas las leyes que autorizan el arbitraje administrativo son inconstitucionales. ; Este estudo versa sobre a adoção da arbitragem para solução definitiva de conflitos entre a Administração Pública brasileira e o administrado. Apesar de fortes razões ...

On 1 April 2020, the Latvian fishing company SIA North Star and its owner Peteris Pildegovics initiated an investor-State arbitration against Norway (Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway) at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). This case is not only Norway's first ever ICSID case, but also the first publicly known investor-State arbitration in which an operator of a fishing vessel has brought a claim against a coastal State for allegedly unlawful exercise of prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction in relation to fisheries. The case raises intricate questions concerning the limits of jurisdiction ratione materiae and jurisdiction ratione personae of investment tribunals.

This work analyzes the Agenda 2030 in its main potentiality to lead public policies and private actions towards a more sustainable path. At the same time it acknowledges its dependency on measurements and finance mechanisms for the Sustainable Development Goals implementation. The main argument is that public expectations face difficulties to be translated in public actions, due to, among other factors, the lack of measurement and finance mechanisms. With this purpose it starts describing what is the Agenda 2030, and how this United Nations lead international declaration is structured to be monitored and implemented by States and others multi stakeholders. Secondly it analyses the importance of the measurements to address critical social environmental challenges and to allow comparison between the achievements of each member state. Third it remarks the role-played by international financial institutions, by international investment and by the private sector in general. Forth, the article highlights the drawbacks the methodology of goals can represent when used to overcome collective challenges marked by moral issues and diffuse impacts, being highly dependent on measurements and finance tools. The methodology chosen was the descriptive and normative, the techniques used were documentary, legislative and bibliographic research.

Habermas discusses the chances for the establishment of world citizenship in contemporary society, marked by multiculturalism and the process of globalization. Habermas identifies the historical configuration of the post-national constellation, and from there themed the transition from international law to the law of citizens of the world, which aligns the concept of citizenship to the idea of ​​human rights. Habermas analyzes the Kantian idea of ​​a cosmopolitan state in which citizens are legal subjects of their respective States and members of a cosmopolitan entity. Kant elaborates on the concept of world republic, which Habermas disagrees with, but offers the example of the European Union for a discussion on the realization of a just and peaceful international order. Based on the Kantian orientation of constituting an order of world citizenship, Habermas discusses the conformation and viability of this idea in contemporary times. For Habermas, it is possible to spell out the idea of ​​cosmopolitan citizenship. From the European Union, cooperation between States and citizens shows that a cosmopolitan community is needed to complement an international community of States.

For decades, Norway has been viewed as a role model when it comes to safeguarding Sámi rights as an Indigenous people in the Nordic Countries. Among other reasons, this is because Norway is the only country with a Sámi population that has ratified ILO Convention No. 169. Also, Norway has adopted a particular land law where one of the purposes is to survey Sámi rights to land and water. It is also said that Norway has worked actively to ensure adoption of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Norway has gained international recognition for this work, among others from former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People James Anaya, who in his report on the situation of the Sámi people in Norway, Sweden and Finland, stated that Norway, since passing the Finnmark Act 2005, has set an important example for the other Nordic countries (para 44).

Since it is imposed to thinking, deconstruction can be seen as a law, the Law itself. Deconstruction of law is to put it in the context of writing, to notice its submission to the différance, to the play in the language. The law of deconstruction acts in the deconstruction of law, revealing paradoxes and fragilities of juridical order, as well as concepts of natural law and human rights. Finally, deconstruction of law brings with it justice as undecidability, such as the obligation to make fair decisions, even when it is not possible to state the presence of justice. Law, writing and deconstruction converge then to justice, understood as the hospitality.

This article deals with the duty to consult indigenous peoples and the obligation to involve these peoples in decision-making processes in matters that concern them. After a general review of international legislation and obligations, particularly the ILO Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the article focuses on how these obligations are implemented towards the indigenous Sámi in Norwegian law. Here, the consultation agreement from 2005 and the Sámi Rights Committee's 2007 draft are still central. The review includes an analysis of the extent to which these duties meet international law requirements, and a deliberation on the concept of free, prior and informed consent.