Suchergebnisse

The Master Thesis is devoted to the study of the content of States' obligations stemming from the UN Charter and the ECHR while implementing targeted sanctions imposed by UNSC RESs. The main objectives of the Master Thesis were to analyse the provisions of the UN Charter, the ECHR and the ECtHR's case law and to find out whether it is possible to meet obligations simultaneously under both international legal orders while implementing targeted sanctions; and to establish whether the UN security system and the ECHR have a dialogue or confront each other. The research has shown that Member States to the UN Charter are obliged to implement UNSC RESs concerning targeted sanctions. Moreover, Art. 103 of the UN Charter prioritises «obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter».The ECtHR, while analysing obligations of States' under ECHR when they implemented targeted sanctions in the Al-Jedda, Nada, and Al-Dulimi cases clearly avoided a conflict between legal orders of the UN and the ECHR by using a harmonisation technique. By doing so, the Court created a dialogue between two international legal instruments. However, at the same time, the ECtHR put the burden of balance between the UN Charter and the ECHR on States Parties to the ECHR. Resolutions concerning targeted sanctions usually impose an unconditional obligation on Member States. The actions that States are required to take while implementing UNSC targeted sanctions resolutions are time consuming and de facto States Parties to the ECHR are required to give priority to one of the two legal instruments. Thus, it leads to a confrontation between the ECHR and the UN security system in reality.

While the United States of America, one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions and the most powerful economy in the world, is actively involved in the development of international environmental treaties, its position in prolonged international climate change negotiations is volatile, which weakens and destabilises effectiveness of not only the U.S. but also global combat with climate change. Therefore, this Master thesis aims to analyse negotiating position of the United States in prolonged climate change negotiations while highlighting the underlying causes and factors behind it. United States' negotiating position in this study is being analysed in the context of negotiations of currently the most important legally binding Paris climate change agreement. In this thesis R. D. Putnam two-level game theory and Ch. Downie theoretical assumptions were used to form a causal mechanism which emphasised influence of interest groups, political institutions and chief of government in forming the international U.S. negotiating position. The study found that the interplay between domestic and international factors in the United States had a complex impact on international climate negotiations and the volatility of the United States position in it. Strategies in international negotiations of the White House delegation were influenced not only by the win-sets of other states involved in the negotiations, but also by the mobilization of U.S. domestic actors supporting and contradicting the agreement and thus shaping the U.S. win-set in international negotiations. Due to a polarized domestic environment U.S. representatives in international negotiations were unable to take rigorous and ambitious commitments in international combat with climate change, while the opposing preferences of interest groups, clearly reflected in the Congress, did not allow to ensure a consistent and successful implementation of the commitments. However, the U.S. presidential institution was not only limited by internal groups, but could also autonomously adopt and modify decisions based on personal preferences which provided some freedom of act in international negotiations. Due to an internal polarization, US President Obama's strategy to adopt an agreement as an executive decree allowed him to remove an obstacle of a hostile Senate and to ultimately accept an agreement, albeit with a smaller win-set. However, because of this reason a rather weak global agreement without significant control mechanisms was reached. Moreover, executive powers allowed the newly elected president to take a unilateral decision in 2017 to initiate a withdrawal from the Paris Accord. The interaction of afore mentioned causal factors allows to explain the change in the U.S. negotiating position in the context of the Paris Accord negotiations. The causal mechanism revealed that the change in the U.S. position was driven by a number of related factors: (1) party fragmentation in the Congress where preferences of non-governmental actors were clearly reflected; (2) U.S. President's willingness and ability to avoid bipartisan Congressional assessment and influence over the international agreement; (3) the unsustainable mechanism of shaping the negotiating position in the White House and Congress, especially at the stage of ratification of the agreement. As this thesis was seeking a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the prolonged international climate change negotiations, the results of this work has enriched the academic discussion of this study field and provided an analysis of the negotiating position evolution of one of the biggest polluters in the world. However, the prospects of opportunities and decision-making process of the U.S. in the future provide the space for new research that could complement this academic field, taking into account not only alternative theoretical perspectives but also new empirical circumstances that may arise.

While the United States of America, one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions and the most powerful economy in the world, is actively involved in the development of international environmental treaties, its position in prolonged international climate change negotiations is volatile, which weakens and destabilises effectiveness of not only the U.S. but also global combat with climate change. Therefore, this Master thesis aims to analyse negotiating position of the United States in prolonged climate change negotiations while highlighting the underlying causes and factors behind it. United States' negotiating position in this study is being analysed in the context of negotiations of currently the most important legally binding Paris climate change agreement. In this thesis R. D. Putnam two-level game theory and Ch. Downie theoretical assumptions were used to form a causal mechanism which emphasised influence of interest groups, political institutions and chief of government in forming the international U.S. negotiating position. The study found that the interplay between domestic and international factors in the United States had a complex impact on international climate negotiations and the volatility of the United States position in it. Strategies in international negotiations of the White House delegation were influenced not only by the win-sets of other states involved in the negotiations, but also by the mobilization of U.S. domestic actors supporting and contradicting the agreement and thus shaping the U.S. win-set in international negotiations. Due to a polarized domestic environment U.S. representatives in international negotiations were unable to take rigorous and ambitious commitments in international combat with climate change, while the opposing preferences of interest groups, clearly reflected in the Congress, did not allow to ensure a consistent and successful implementation of the commitments. However, the U.S. presidential institution was not only limited by internal groups, but could also autonomously adopt and modify decisions based on personal preferences which provided some freedom of act in international negotiations. Due to an internal polarization, US President Obama's strategy to adopt an agreement as an executive decree allowed him to remove an obstacle of a hostile Senate and to ultimately accept an agreement, albeit with a smaller win-set. However, because of this reason a rather weak global agreement without significant control mechanisms was reached. Moreover, executive powers allowed the newly elected president to take a unilateral decision in 2017 to initiate a withdrawal from the Paris Accord. The interaction of afore mentioned causal factors allows to explain the change in the U.S. negotiating position in the context of the Paris Accord negotiations. The causal mechanism revealed that the change in the U.S. position was driven by a number of related factors: (1) party fragmentation in the Congress where preferences of non-governmental actors were clearly reflected; (2) U.S. President's willingness and ability to avoid bipartisan Congressional assessment and influence over the international agreement; (3) the unsustainable mechanism of shaping the negotiating position in the White House and Congress, especially at the stage of ratification of the agreement. As this thesis was seeking a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the prolonged international climate change negotiations, the results of this work has enriched the academic discussion of this study field and provided an analysis of the negotiating position evolution of one of the biggest polluters in the world. However, the prospects of opportunities and decision-making process of the U.S. in the future provide the space for new research that could complement this academic field, taking into account not only alternative theoretical perspectives but also new empirical circumstances that may arise.

While the United States of America, one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions and the most powerful economy in the world, is actively involved in the development of international environmental treaties, its position in prolonged international climate change negotiations is volatile, which weakens and destabilises effectiveness of not only the U.S. but also global combat with climate change. Therefore, this Master thesis aims to analyse negotiating position of the United States in prolonged climate change negotiations while highlighting the underlying causes and factors behind it. United States' negotiating position in this study is being analysed in the context of negotiations of currently the most important legally binding Paris climate change agreement. In this thesis R. D. Putnam two-level game theory and Ch. Downie theoretical assumptions were used to form a causal mechanism which emphasised influence of interest groups, political institutions and chief of government in forming the international U.S. negotiating position. The study found that the interplay between domestic and international factors in the United States had a complex impact on international climate negotiations and the volatility of the United States position in it. Strategies in international negotiations of the White House delegation were influenced not only by the win-sets of other states involved in the negotiations, but also by the mobilization of U.S. domestic actors supporting and contradicting the agreement and thus shaping the U.S. win-set in international negotiations. Due to a polarized domestic environment U.S. representatives in international negotiations were unable to take rigorous and ambitious commitments in international combat with climate change, while the opposing preferences of interest groups, clearly reflected in the Congress, did not allow to ensure a consistent and successful implementation of the commitments. However, the U.S. presidential institution was not only limited by internal groups, but could also autonomously adopt and modify decisions based on personal preferences which provided some freedom of act in international negotiations. Due to an internal polarization, US President Obama's strategy to adopt an agreement as an executive decree allowed him to remove an obstacle of a hostile Senate and to ultimately accept an agreement, albeit with a smaller win-set. However, because of this reason a rather weak global agreement without significant control mechanisms was reached. Moreover, executive powers allowed the newly elected president to take a unilateral decision in 2017 to initiate a withdrawal from the Paris Accord. The interaction of afore mentioned causal factors allows to explain the change in the U.S. negotiating position in the context of the Paris Accord negotiations. The causal mechanism revealed that the change in the U.S. position was driven by a number of related factors: (1) party fragmentation in the Congress where preferences of non-governmental actors were clearly reflected; (2) U.S. President's willingness and ability to avoid bipartisan Congressional assessment and influence over the international agreement; (3) the unsustainable mechanism of shaping the negotiating position in the White House and Congress, especially at the stage of ratification of the agreement. As this thesis was seeking a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the prolonged international climate change negotiations, the results of this work has enriched the academic discussion of this study field and provided an analysis of the negotiating position evolution of one of the biggest polluters in the world. However, the prospects of opportunities and decision-making process of the U.S. in the future provide the space for new research that could complement this academic field, taking into account not only alternative theoretical perspectives but also new empirical circumstances that may arise.

While the United States of America, one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions and the most powerful economy in the world, is actively involved in the development of international environmental treaties, its position in prolonged international climate change negotiations is volatile, which weakens and destabilises effectiveness of not only the U.S. but also global combat with climate change. Therefore, this Master thesis aims to analyse negotiating position of the United States in prolonged climate change negotiations while highlighting the underlying causes and factors behind it. United States' negotiating position in this study is being analysed in the context of negotiations of currently the most important legally binding Paris climate change agreement. In this thesis R. D. Putnam two-level game theory and Ch. Downie theoretical assumptions were used to form a causal mechanism which emphasised influence of interest groups, political institutions and chief of government in forming the international U.S. negotiating position. The study found that the interplay between domestic and international factors in the United States had a complex impact on international climate negotiations and the volatility of the United States position in it. Strategies in international negotiations of the White House delegation were influenced not only by the win-sets of other states involved in the negotiations, but also by the mobilization of U.S. domestic actors supporting and contradicting the agreement and thus shaping the U.S. win-set in international negotiations. Due to a polarized domestic environment U.S. representatives in international negotiations were unable to take rigorous and ambitious commitments in international combat with climate change, while the opposing preferences of interest groups, clearly reflected in the Congress, did not allow to ensure a consistent and successful implementation of the commitments. However, the U.S. presidential institution was not only limited by internal groups, but could also autonomously adopt and modify decisions based on personal preferences which provided some freedom of act in international negotiations. Due to an internal polarization, US President Obama's strategy to adopt an agreement as an executive decree allowed him to remove an obstacle of a hostile Senate and to ultimately accept an agreement, albeit with a smaller win-set. However, because of this reason a rather weak global agreement without significant control mechanisms was reached. Moreover, executive powers allowed the newly elected president to take a unilateral decision in 2017 to initiate a withdrawal from the Paris Accord. The interaction of afore mentioned causal factors allows to explain the change in the U.S. negotiating position in the context of the Paris Accord negotiations. The causal mechanism revealed that the change in the U.S. position was driven by a number of related factors: (1) party fragmentation in the Congress where preferences of non-governmental actors were clearly reflected; (2) U.S. President's willingness and ability to avoid bipartisan Congressional assessment and influence over the international agreement; (3) the unsustainable mechanism of shaping the negotiating position in the White House and Congress, especially at the stage of ratification of the agreement. As this thesis was seeking a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the prolonged international climate change negotiations, the results of this work has enriched the academic discussion of this study field and provided an analysis of the negotiating position evolution of one of the biggest polluters in the world. However, the prospects of opportunities and decision-making process of the U.S. in the future provide the space for new research that could complement this academic field, taking into account not only alternative theoretical perspectives but also new empirical circumstances that may arise.

Having analysed the differences between the child protection legislation in Lithuania and the United Nations Child Rights Convention, in the paper it has been revealed that Lithuania does not implement the objectives set by the United Nations on banning of corporal punishment. The study has revealed that in the national domestic law Lithuania has not banned corporal punishment by law. The concept of corporal punishment is not defined neither by a framework of child's rights nor by domestic violence laws in Lithuania. Having examined all issues, it is concluded that the corporal punishment is violation of human dignity and the right to bodily integrity and the inviolability, because it contradicts the provisions of European Convention on Human Rights.

Contents of a research. To achieve the uniform and efficient application and treatment of international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention. In order to disclose these rules and evaluate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, investigate legal acts which are in force nowadays and research ECJ case law and national case law of Lithuania and Norway. Aim of a research. Identify the international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and investigate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA. Results of a research. The aim and objectives, determined at the beginning of a research, achieved: defined the concept of international jurisdiction and assessed its relation with national jurisdiction; disclosed the legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases and determined their applicability order; identified the need of adoption of the New Lugano Convention and evaluated its place between other legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases; disclosed international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and evaluated whether there is ensured parallel acting of the provisions of this legal act and of the Brussels I bis regulation; and assessed whether the hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, is efficiently ensured. After the evaluation of research results, provided possible suggestions for legislation improvement (amendmens of some articles of the New Lugano Convention) and other solution for ensurement of the efficient hearing of civil cases on regulation of international jurisdiction in the New Lugano Convention.

Contents of a research. To achieve the uniform and efficient application and treatment of international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention. In order to disclose these rules and evaluate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, investigate legal acts which are in force nowadays and research ECJ case law and national case law of Lithuania and Norway. Aim of a research. Identify the international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and investigate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA. Results of a research. The aim and objectives, determined at the beginning of a research, achieved: defined the concept of international jurisdiction and assessed its relation with national jurisdiction; disclosed the legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases and determined their applicability order; identified the need of adoption of the New Lugano Convention and evaluated its place between other legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases; disclosed international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and evaluated whether there is ensured parallel acting of the provisions of this legal act and of the Brussels I bis regulation; and assessed whether the hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, is efficiently ensured. After the evaluation of research results, provided possible suggestions for legislation improvement (amendmens of some articles of the New Lugano Convention) and other solution for ensurement of the efficient hearing of civil cases on regulation of international jurisdiction in the New Lugano Convention.

By using two-level game theory this paper analyses factors that caused Japan's ambitious position in the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Analysis is done by finding local and international lobby groups that are concerned with Japan's international obligations, examining their inter-relations, and comparing their positions with official Japan's aims. The results of the paper showed that the biggest influence on Japan's position was Democratic Party which won the election at the end of summer 2009. It was seeking to get support of the society and to use country's technological potential to accomplish projects mitigating causes of climate change. By fulfilling their plans, the democrats did not meet strong opposing powers at home, because they had support from the citizens, did not have close relationship with business lobby, and were following previously approved strategic documents. In international area Japan was not bind by bilateral or multilateral agreements, and had support from EU and other influential international actors.

By using two-level game theory this paper analyses factors that caused Japan's ambitious position in the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Analysis is done by finding local and international lobby groups that are concerned with Japan's international obligations, examining their inter-relations, and comparing their positions with official Japan's aims. The results of the paper showed that the biggest influence on Japan's position was Democratic Party which won the election at the end of summer 2009. It was seeking to get support of the society and to use country's technological potential to accomplish projects mitigating causes of climate change. By fulfilling their plans, the democrats did not meet strong opposing powers at home, because they had support from the citizens, did not have close relationship with business lobby, and were following previously approved strategic documents. In international area Japan was not bind by bilateral or multilateral agreements, and had support from EU and other influential international actors.

By using two-level game theory this paper analyses factors that caused Japan's ambitious position in the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Analysis is done by finding local and international lobby groups that are concerned with Japan's international obligations, examining their inter-relations, and comparing their positions with official Japan's aims. The results of the paper showed that the biggest influence on Japan's position was Democratic Party which won the election at the end of summer 2009. It was seeking to get support of the society and to use country's technological potential to accomplish projects mitigating causes of climate change. By fulfilling their plans, the democrats did not meet strong opposing powers at home, because they had support from the citizens, did not have close relationship with business lobby, and were following previously approved strategic documents. In international area Japan was not bind by bilateral or multilateral agreements, and had support from EU and other influential international actors.

The Bosphorus presumption was formed and explicitly applied for the first time in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights in order to evaluate whether a Member State of the European Union (the EU), by adopting an act which implements EU law, acts in compliance with the Convention. Such issue arose due to a very specific relation between the EU, which is not a party to the Convention, the Member States, each a party to the Convention, and the Convention system. According to the Bosphorus presumption, when a state implements its obligations arising from the membership in the international organization, the State is presumed acting in compliance with the Convention, provided that protection of human rights in that international organization is equivalent to that provided by the Convention. In 2013, the draft agreement on the EU accession to the Convention was negotiated. And although the EU Court of Justice by its Opinion 2/13 postponed the process of the EU accession to the Convention for an indefinite period, the EU primary law still obliges the EU to accede to the Convention. Thus, the question remains whether the EU accession to the Convention is to change the position of the Strasbourg Court on the level of protection of fundamental rights in the EU and further application of the Bosphorus presumption. The objective of this thesis is to examine this presumption and assess the possible effect of the EU accession to the Convention on the existence and application of the Bosphorus presumption. This dissertation analyses application of such presumption as well as arguments supporting or disproving the need for application of the presumption after the EU accession to the Convention and provides probable scenarios of the Bosphorus presumption.

The Bosphorus presumption was formed and explicitly applied for the first time in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights in order to evaluate whether a Member State of the European Union (the EU), by adopting an act which implements EU law, acts in compliance with the Convention. Such issue arose due to a very specific relation between the EU, which is not a party to the Convention, the Member States, each a party to the Convention, and the Convention system. According to the Bosphorus presumption, when a state implements its obligations arising from the membership in the international organization, the State is presumed acting in compliance with the Convention, provided that protection of human rights in that international organization is equivalent to that provided by the Convention. In 2013, the draft agreement on the EU accession to the Convention was negotiated. And although the EU Court of Justice by its Opinion 2/13 postponed the process of the EU accession to the Convention for an indefinite period, the EU primary law still obliges the EU to accede to the Convention. Thus, the question remains whether the EU accession to the Convention is to change the position of the Strasbourg Court on the level of protection of fundamental rights in the EU and further application of the Bosphorus presumption. The objective of this thesis is to examine this presumption and assess the possible effect of the EU accession to the Convention on the existence and application of the Bosphorus presumption. This dissertation analyses application of such presumption as well as arguments supporting or disproving the need for application of the presumption after the EU accession to the Convention and provides probable scenarios of the Bosphorus presumption.

The Bosphorus presumption was formed and explicitly applied for the first time in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights in order to evaluate whether a Member State of the European Union (the EU), by adopting an act which implements EU law, acts in compliance with the Convention. Such issue arose due to a very specific relation between the EU, which is not a party to the Convention, the Member States, each a party to the Convention, and the Convention system. According to the Bosphorus presumption, when a state implements its obligations arising from the membership in the international organization, the State is presumed acting in compliance with the Convention, provided that protection of human rights in that international organization is equivalent to that provided by the Convention. In 2013, the draft agreement on the EU accession to the Convention was negotiated. And although the EU Court of Justice by its Opinion 2/13 postponed the process of the EU accession to the Convention for an indefinite period, the EU primary law still obliges the EU to accede to the Convention. Thus, the question remains whether the EU accession to the Convention is to change the position of the Strasbourg Court on the level of protection of fundamental rights in the EU and further application of the Bosphorus presumption. The objective of this thesis is to examine this presumption and assess the possible effect of the EU accession to the Convention on the existence and application of the Bosphorus presumption. This dissertation analyses application of such presumption as well as arguments supporting or disproving the need for application of the presumption after the EU accession to the Convention and provides probable scenarios of the Bosphorus presumption.

The Bosphorus presumption was formed and explicitly applied for the first time in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights in order to evaluate whether a Member State of the European Union (the EU), by adopting an act which implements EU law, acts in compliance with the Convention. Such issue arose due to a very specific relation between the EU, which is not a party to the Convention, the Member States, each a party to the Convention, and the Convention system. According to the Bosphorus presumption, when a state implements its obligations arising from the membership in the international organization, the State is presumed acting in compliance with the Convention, provided that protection of human rights in that international organization is equivalent to that provided by the Convention. In 2013, the draft agreement on the EU accession to the Convention was negotiated. And although the EU Court of Justice by its Opinion 2/13 postponed the process of the EU accession to the Convention for an indefinite period, the EU primary law still obliges the EU to accede to the Convention. Thus, the question remains whether the EU accession to the Convention is to change the position of the Strasbourg Court on the level of protection of fundamental rights in the EU and further application of the Bosphorus presumption. The objective of this thesis is to examine this presumption and assess the possible effect of the EU accession to the Convention on the existence and application of the Bosphorus presumption. This dissertation analyses application of such presumption as well as arguments supporting or disproving the need for application of the presumption after the EU accession to the Convention and provides probable scenarios of the Bosphorus presumption.