Suchergebnisse

Ovaj rad se sastoji od pet poglavlja. U prvom poglavlju rad se bavi pregledom pojma neutralnosti, povijesnog razvoja instituta trajne neutralnosti, glavnih razlika između privremene i trajne neutralnosti te modusa osnivanja trajne neutralnosti na međunarodnom polju. U drugom poglavlju rada analiziraju se prava i dužnosti neutralnih država uz poseban naglasak na postojanje distinkcije između onih prava i dužnosti koje se odnose kako na trajno neutralne tako i na privremeno neutralne države te onih koji vrijede isključivo za trajno neutralne države. Fokus trećeg poglavlja sastoji se u obradi pitanja članstva u međunarodnim organizacijama, naročito analize problematike glede članstva trajno neutralnih država u organizacijama s ustrojenim sustavima kolektivne sigurnosti. U ovom poglavlju daje se pregled različitih reakcija i stajališta koje su pojedine trajno neutralne države zauzimale prilikom odlučivanja o pristupanju pojedinim međunarodnim organizacijama te se daje osvrt na njihov današnji položaj unutar međunarodne zajednice. Četvrto poglavlje prvenstveno se bavi Švicarskom, Austrijom i Maltom kao primjerima trajno neutralnih država. U ovom poglavlju analizira se povijesni kontekst stjecanja svojstva trajne neutralnosti, njegov razvoj, specifičnosti te prava i obveze koje vežu ove tri države. Konačno, u posljednjem petom poglavlju daje se osvrt na ulogu trajno neutralnih država u očuvanju mira i stabilnosti u međunarodnoj zajednici uslijed sve kompliciranijih odnosa između subjekata međunarodnog prava. ; This thesis consist of of five chapters. In the first chapter the thesis examines the concept of neutrality, the historical development of the institute of permanent neutrality, the main differences between temporary and permanent neutrality, and the mode of establishment of permanent neutrality in the international field. In the second chapter of the paper the rights and duties of neutral states are analyzed with special emphasis on the existence of a distinction between those rights and duties that apply to ...

Svrha je rada upozoriti na osobitu važnost suradnje država u borbi protiv krijumčarenja migranata morem, napose u prostoru izvan područja suverenosti obalnih država. U radu se stoga objašnjava međunarodnopravni okvir za aktivnosti država u borbi protiv krijumčarenja migranata morem. Pritom je naglasak stavljen na jurisdikciju država za provođenje prisilnih mjera protiv brodova kojima se krijumčare migranti. Izlaganje polazi od općih pravila koja uređuju jurisdikciju država na otvorenom moru, a danas su kodificirana u Konvenciji Ujedinjenih naroda o pravu mora iz 1982. Potom je fokus usmjeren na posebna pravila u vezi s krijumčarenjem migranata na moru sadržanima u Protokolu protiv krijumčarenja migranata kopnom, morem i zrakom, prihvaćenu uz Konvenciju UN-a protiv transnacionalnog organiziranog kriminaliteta iz 2000., gdje je u čl. 7. Protokola podcrtana upravo dužnost suradnje država stranaka "na sprječavanju i suzbijanju krijumčarenja migranata morem, u skladu s međunarodnim pravom mora". Protokol protiv krijumčarenja migranata u svome članku 17., štoviše, potiče države ugovornice na "sklapanje dvostranih ili regionalnih sporazuma ili operativnih dogovora ili suglasnosti" radi njegove bolje implementacije. U tom su smislu prikazani i evaluirani oblici bilateralne i multilateralne regionalne suradnje država s naglaskom na Mediteran, uzimajući napose u obzir suradnju država članica Europske unije preko Agencije za europsku graničnu i obalnu stražu (Frontex). K tomu, dan je osvrt na Rezoluciju Vijeća sigurnosti UN-a br. 2240 (2015) koja državama članicama UN-a daje izvanredne jurisdikcijske ovlasti na otvorenom moru pred obalama Libije, a služi kao pravni temelj za djelovanje mornaričke operacije EU-a EUNAVFOR Med "Sophia" u okviru Zajedničke sigurnosne i obrambene politike. ; The aim of the paper is to highlight the particular importance of interstate cooperation in combating migrant smuggling by sea, notably in waters beyond the sovereignty of coastal states. In explaining the international legal framework for the activities of states in combating migrant smuggling by sea, emphasis is put on the jurisdiction of states to take enforcement measures against vessels that are engaged in migrant smuggling. First, the general rules concerning the jurisdiction of states on the high seas are discussed, which are codified today in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. Thereafter, the focus is on the special rules regarding migrant smuggling by sea, as comprised in the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air of 2000, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Article 7 of the Protocol indeed emphasizes the duty of states parties to "cooperate to the fullest extent possible to prevent and suppress the smuggling of migrants by sea, in accordance with the international law of the sea." Article 17 of the Migrant Smuggling Protocol furthermore encourages states parties to "consider the conclusion of bilateral or regional agreements or operational arrangements or understandings" with a view to enhancing the Protocol's implementation. In that respect the paper examines and evaluates forms of bilateral and regional cooperation between states with an emphasis on the Mediterranean, and especially considers the cooperation between the member states of the European Union via the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). In addition, the UN Security Council Resolution 2240 (2015) is analyzed, since it grants the UN member states exceptional jurisdictional powers on the high seas off the Libyan coast and serves as the legal basis for the activities of EUNAVOR Med Sophia, an EU naval operation in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy.

Međunarodni kazneni sud novo je međunarodno tijelo kojem je glavni cilj istraga i suđenje slučajeva genocida, ratnih zločina, te zločina protiv čovječnosti u zemljama članicama. Iako su Sjedinjene Američke Države u 2000. potpisale Rimski statut, međunarodnu povelju iz 1998. koja predstavlja osnovicu Međunarodnog kaznenog suda, Busheva vlada napravila je velik zaokret godinu dana kasnije, potpuno se ograđujući od svake ideje o suđenju Amerikancima izvan zemlje. Tekst analizira glavne argumente američke vanjske politike povezane s Međunarodnim kaznenim sudom, od navodne pristranosti Suda, te odnosa između Suda i Ujedinjenih naroda, pa sve do pitanja američkog suvereniteta. Također, ponuđena je i međunarodnopravna politička kritika nedavnih poteza američke vlade, koji štete i američkim nacionalnim interesima, i međunarodnoj sigurnosti. ; The International Criminal Court is a new international body constituted with the aim of prosecuting and trying cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Although in 2000 the United States signed the 1998 Rome Statute, which is the foundation of the International Criminal Court, the Bush Administration took a radically different position the following year, protecting itself from any idea of trying American citizens abroad. This text analyses the main U.S. foreign policy arguments pertaining to the ICC, from the alleged impartiality of the Court and the relationship between the Court and the United Nations, to the question of American sovereignty. In addition, the text offers an international legal and political critique of the recent U.S. policy actions, which harmed both American national interests, as well as international security.

In this article I will examine the powers and activities of NATO-led Kosovo forces (KFOR) and their impact on human rights protection in Kosovo. Through this examination, I seek to answer the following questions: which KFOR actions affected the human rights of Kosovars? Does KFOR carry out responsibilities and abide by the obligations normally imposed upon nation-states? And is there a solution available when the alleged violator is KFOR? KFOR is responsible for carrying out military tasks and for 'shouldering' UNMIK and local security forces in some civilian peace-building tasks. In the course of the exercise of its mandate, there were alleged complaints of human rights violations by KFOR. The legal implications of these alleged complaints against KFOR (in)actions will also be discussed. ; In this article I will examine the powers and activities of NATO-led Kosovo forces (KFOR) and their impact on human rights protection in Kosovo. Through this examination, I seek to answer the following questions: which KFOR actions affected the human rights of Kosovars? Does KFOR carry out responsibilities and abide by the obligations normally imposed upon nation-states? And is there a solution available when the alleged violator is KFOR? KFOR is responsible for carrying out military tasks and for 'shouldering' UNMIK and local security forces in some civilian peace-building tasks. In the course of the exercise of its mandate, there were alleged complaints of human rights violations by KFOR. The legal implications of these alleged complaints against KFOR (in)actions will also be discussed.

Glavni je problem priopćenja vanjska politika Republike Hrvatske (RH) u vezi s Ustavom BiH jer nedovoljno pridonosi rješavanju društvenih, političkih, ekonomskih, kulturnih itd. slabosti Bosne i Hercegovine (BiH) koje mogu i trebaju biti rješavane unutar prava. Ta je politika nedovoljno uspješna jer nije državna, nego strančarska. Matica politike je narodnjačka, tj. etnička. Alternativa zanemaruje činjenicu da je RH, kao stranka Daytonskoga mirovnog sporazuma, čiji je dio Ustav BiH, internacionalnim pravom ovlaštena zahtijevati od drugih stranaka, uključujući BiH, da poštuju i primijene Sporazum. Sporedni je problem priopćenja nedostatna znanstvena spoznaja glavnog problema. Posljedica je pomanjkanja interesa pravnih znanstvenika u RH i previda pravnih slabosti politike. Temeljna je svrha priopćenja priprema istraživačkog projekta unutar integralne pravne znanosti dopunjene izvornom pravnom dogmatikom i prilagođenom pravnopolitičkom analizom. Hipoteze, koje su dijelom ispitane, pripisuju politiku uvjetima te predviđaju razvoj problema ako se politika ne promijeni i ako se prromijeni u skladu s prijedlogom izloženim u priopćenju. ; The paper deals with the main problem of the Republic of Croatia's foreign policy on the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which fails to alleviate the social (political, economic, cultural, etc.) inadequacies of Bosnia and Herzegovina that can and ought to be solved within the limits of the law. It is of meagre success because it is a policy of political parties rather than of a nation-state. The mainstream policy is ethnicist. Its alternative ignores the fact that the Republic of Croatia, as a party to the Dayton Peace Agreement, whose part is the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is by international law entitled to demand other parties, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, to observe and change the Agreement. The subordinate problem is a paucity of knowledge provided by legal scholars in the Republic of Croatia about the main problem. The knowledge deficit is a consequence of the lack of interest in the policy and oversight of its legal ramifications. The principal goal of the paper is the preparation of a research-project within integral legal scholarship supplemented by original legal dogmatics and adjusted policy analysis. The principal hypotheses are that the past policy can be ascribed to Croatian institutions (legalistic order, ethnic state, parochial studies) and their environment (dependence on foreign powers, pre-political and pre-legal conditions of the Croatian population); and that the same policy, even in a stable environment, should be expected to facilitate threats to the very existence of Bosnia and Hercegovina and Bosnian Croats, thus greatly endangering the Republic of Croatia. On the assumption that the environment, as well as the institutions and doctrines improve, the paper proposes a state policy as an alternative to past partisanship, with a view of re-instituting Bosnia and Hercegovina as a functional nation-state, establishing local and cultural autonomy, and retaining the constitution-making power of each major ethnic community in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The expected consequences are the strengthening of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bosnian Croats, and the Republic of Croatia, in line with the values and principles of the inquiry.

U radu se analiziraju pojam i pravni položaj nedržavnih aktera kao stranaka nemeđunarodnih oružanih sukoba, s posebnim osvrtom na odredbe zajedničkog čl. 3. Ženevskih konvencija za zaštitu žrtava rata iz 1949. te Dopunskog protokola II uz Ženevske konvencije iz 1977. godine, kao temeljnog međunarodnopravnog okvira koji regulira postupanje svih stranaka u nemeđunarodnim oružanim sukobima. Analizirajući pravni temelj obvezatnosti spomenutih pravnih normi u odnosu na nedržavne aktere autorica upućuje na neravnopravan položaj koji nedržavni akteri imaju u odnosu na države zbog nemogućnosti da formalno postanu strankama navedenih međunarodnih ugovora. U tom kontekstu iznose se prednosti alternativnih mehanizama (sklapanja drugih međunarodnih ugovora, davanja jednostranih izjava ili izjava o obvezivanju) kojima nedržavni akteri mogu izraziti svoju volju i pristanak da budu vezani pravilima međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, što može imati pozitivan učinak i na njihovu svijest o odgovornosti za kršenje tih pravila. ; The author of this paper analyzes the concept and the legal status of non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts. A special emphasis is placed on common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions for the protection of victims of war of 1949, as well as on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 1977 – the fundamental legal framework that regulates conduct of all parties to non-international armed conflicts. Notwithstanding the fact that these international instruments equally bind both States as well as non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts, the legal position of non-State actors, compared to States, is not identical. Moreover, non-State actors cannot become parties to the aforementioned international agreements. In such a context, the author introduces alternative mechanisms (the conclusion of other international agreements, making unilateral declarations or Deeds of Commitment) which non-State actors can use to express their will and consent to be bound by the rules of international humanitarian law. The author concludes that such mechanisms may produce positive effects on non-State actors' awareness of their responsibility for violations of those rules.