Suchergebnisse

The internationalization of national constitutions includes an eventual unification of constitutional rules deemed necessary to intensify international relations. So, in a broader way it is invoked the impact of international law and international relations on constitutional law. The result of the internationalization of national rights is a progressive harmonization of concepts and legal rules. In the current state of international law, constitutions' internationalization corresponds a concrete impact of international law on constitutional norms. The current trend of constitutions is to regulate in a more accurate and comprehensive way the relations between the state and international law. International law does not require any particular form of the conclusion of international treaties. In intensification of international relations, international conventions and integration of states in international organizations, the Parliament carries important consequences for both on normative function and the control function. Such legislative activity is guided by international treaties concluded by the state. While the executive and the legislative are involved in the development of international law, the jurisdictional power intervenes to reconcile domestic and international legal norms. States do not devote supremacy of international law over their constitution. Because international treaties to be part of the national legal order is not enough that the procedure for concluding treaties to be respected. It is also necessary that treaties do not contravene fundamental state constitutional principles of human rights and the relationship between public authorities. The control of international treaties' constitutionality can be mandatory or optional. In the process of ratification of the treaty on EU European constitutional courts tend to create a similar design to establish the limits of European integration. In reality, the issue of constitutionality of international treaties control is a political issue and it is difficult to apply legal principles purely political matters. There are three categories of states in the aspect of national courts on constitutional regularity control concluding treaties.

This book explores the issue of environmentally-induced migrations from the point of view of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international law of statelessness. Last few years have become a period of unprecedented growth in the number of studies devoted to the forced migration caused by climate change. The book by professor Jane McAdam, published by Oxford University Press, differs significantly from previous studies in this area. The focus of the author became a state responsibility for the situation of climate-change induced displaced people with a particular focus on legal aspects of this problem. The basis of the author`s considerations are four particular areas of public international law: international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law and international law of statelessness. The issue of climate change-induced displacement is now becoming a growing challenge for public international law. The growing number of climate change migrants becomes a challenge for the international istitutions dealing with humanitarian assistance. Sea level rise become a factor of specific legal problems, such as climatic deterritorialization of the state, state succession on the new territory, the status of people forced to leave their country submerged under the waters of ocean (forced migrants?, refugees?, stateless people?, citizens of the former country continuing its status within a new territory?).

Adjusting the legal status, and support policies for migrant workers is an issue on the agenda of international institutions for nearly a hundred years. The first efforts to protect foreign workers have been taken during the first session of the International Labour Conference in 1919. In the following decades ILO activities has led to the preparation of three international documents concerning this issue (non-binding ILO Convention No. 66 in 1939, and Convention No. 97 of 1949, and No. 143 of 1975). For many decades, the problem of the protection and assistance of migrant workers' rights was considered as a narrow issue of international labor law. Codification efforts, undertaken during seventies, has led to the adaptation of the UN document (International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families) in 1990, and inclusion this issue into more general area of international human rights law. Despite this fact, and the existence of several categories of documents concerning migrant workers within Council of Europe, the European Union, and even ASEAN, the protection of migrant workers has never been effectively functioning system. The aim of this article is the analysis of the codification of that issue, and the main obstacles to consensus on the protection of migrant workers' rights. The state parties of the UN Convention contains primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines). It seems, therefore, that despite 46 ratifications the, UN convention does not have a global character, and activities of its monitoring body (Committee on Migrant Workers-CMW) reflects primarily demands of sending countries. The article closely examines particularly controversial provisions of the ILO and UN documents from the point of view of current labour migrations and policies of sending and host countries.

The European Union does not have an autonomous and self-standing public policy concerning the protection of landscape. Instead, it adopts fragmentary and incidental measures meant to protect landscape. These measures are adopted within the frameworks of other EU policies, most importantly the EU environmental policy as well as other policies which are integrated with it (such as agricultural policy or policy concerned with special planning). In all these realms, the EU shares its powers with its member states. In some important areas, such as e.g. the property regime, the member states retained their exclusive competences. This particular distribution of powers makes the implementation of the extra-EU international law instruments rather difficult and not sufficiently effective to produce a worthwhile impact. These obligations have a limited influence because most of them are obligations of "a diligent pursue" rather than "firm result". As such, they are unlikely to give rise to direct application of respective conventional provisions. Notwithstanding, their importance is much more pronounced in the area of legal reasoning, where even the EU or domestic measures have to be interpreted in the light of the EU and/or its member states' obligations arising from international conventions on landscape protection.

The subject of this paper touches upon the prohibition to use force, and military force in particular, by States in self-defence. This is a classical example of an important and still very topical issue in international law practice. The right of each State to self-defence is perceived as one of the fundamental rights provided for in customary as well as positive international law. And yet, the exercise of this right has always raised many controversies and questions resulting, on the one hand, from the fact that the concept of self-defence has evolved over years, and, on the other hand, because of the recent tendencies to legalise different military actions carried out outside the framework of the United Nations Charter. These tendencies, presented in the paper in the context of military actions taken by states in situations of a potential terrorist attack, are described as either a pre-emptive, or a preventive use of military force. The author then concludes that although in the event of a pre-emptive military action taken by a State in reliance of its right to self-defence it may be justified to rely on the legal construction of self-defence, in the context of a preventive military operation, such reliance would be much more risky, if not inadmissible. A preventive use of military force fails to meet the criteria of legality of self-defence set forth in the UN Charter, as well as those resulting from international customary law. ; Problematyka artykułu nawiązuje do klasycznej, ale niezwykle ważnej i aktualnej w praktyce międzynarodowej problematyki zakazu użycia siły, zwłaszcza siły zbrojnej. Dotyczy bowiem możliwości podejmowania i realizowania przez państwa działań zbrojnych pod postacią samoobrony. Prawo każdego państwa do użycia siły w ramach samoobrony było i jest postrzegane jako jedno z praw fundamentalnych, gwarantowanych zarówno przez zwyczajowe, jak i pozytywne prawo międzynarodowe. Jego realizacja w praktyce budzi jednak wiele kontrowersji i pytań. Są one związane zarówno z ewolucją samej instytucji samoobrony, jak również z nowymi tendencjami w zakresie legalizowania różnych akcji zbrojnych dokonywanych poza ramami Karty Narodów Zjednoczonych. Autor prezentuje te tendencje, zwłaszcza w kontekście działań zbrojnych podejmowanych przez państwa w sytuacji potencjalnego zagrożenia atakami terrorystycznymi, a określanych jako uprzedzające i prewencyjne użycie siły. W konkluzji autor stwierdza, że o ile w wypadku zbrojnej operacji uprzedzającej uzasadnione jest odwoływanie się do konstrukcji prawnej samoobrony, o tyle w wypadku zbrojnej operacji prewencyjnej jest to znacznie bardziej ryzykowne, a wręcz nieuprawnione. Prewencyjne użycie siły zbrojnej nie spełnia bowiem kryteriów legalności samoobrony – zarówno tych określonych w Karcie Narodów Zjednoczonych, jak i tych wynikających z prawa zwyczajowego.

In international relations, international security combines that set of international relations that ensures global stability. In other words, international security is a state in which states are not threatened by war or by any breach of their sovereignty or independent development by other states. In accordance with the UN Charter, the Security Council currently has the main task of ensuring world peace, also having the sole right to impose sanctions against aggressors. The idea of international security, its realization in practice is determined by historical, economic, political, social conditions, as well as other factors. The problem of international security arose with the formation of the state institution, being always close to the problem of war and peace. Over time, there has been a change in the ability to analyze and report security issues. Along with these, both the policies and the security strategies of contemporary societies have undergone a process of metamorphosis.

Development perspectives of the European Law of Contracts arise from the Press Releases of the European Parliament, the Union Council and the European Commission. The necessity to develop the European Law of Contracts is determined by the objectives of the Common Market, by the amplification of the commercial relations inside the EU, by the abstract and selective regulation of the contracts in the Treaty on European Union, in the EU Regulations and Directives, as well as by the divergences of contracts in national legislations of Member States.

The aim of this study was to present private and official codifications concerning the topic of responsibility of international organizations. Moreover, it highlighted some controversial issues which occurred during the work of International Law Commission (ILC). The topic of responsibility of international organizations was analyzed both by private bodies such as Institute de Droit International and International Law Association and – as mentioned above – ILC. The efforts of Institute de Droit International resulted in a resolution on The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-fulfilment by International Organizations of their Obligations toward Third Parties. While in 1996 International Law Association studied these topics, a Committee on the Accountability of International Organizations was established. These private drafts paid attention of ILC to some legal issues which helped ILC to identify problems which require further discussion. After completion of its work on State responsibility in 2001, ILC decided to include the topic Responsibility of International Organizations in its work program. Mr G. Gaja was appointed the Special Rapporteur and in years 2003-2011 he presented eight reports which took into account the comments and observations received from governments and international organizations. In his reports he largely followed the model of Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts. In 2011 the Commission adopted the draft of 67 articles on Responsibility of International Organizations, divided into six parts. The Draft Articles aimed at codification of a set of secondary rules applicable to a wide range of international organizations. The codifications of rules on the responsibility of international organizations was a very difficult task due to diversity of international organizations, which differ in size, functions and competence. Furthermore, there is a lack of relevant practice that would allow to elaborate the principles relating to responsibility of international organizations. Nonetheless, the responsibility for international wrongful acts is the most important institution of international law irrespective of the subject which committed a wrongful act. ; Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polskim

Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an essential reference to human rights and freedoms. Both the Declaration and the Constitution obliges authorities, especially justice and therefore constitutional justice to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, including those through which is ensured protection of personality's spiritual side. The right to a fair trial has a special place among the fundamental rights in a democratic society, whose level should be inherent in any system of law. The right to a fair trial in an independent and impartial court is recognised in customary international law so that those states that have not yet ratified the international instruments are also bound by law and the judicial system to adapt their legislation appropriately. The right to a fair trial has several components such as access to justice, a fair and public case in a reasonable time, examination of the case by an independent and impartial court, established by law, advertising delivery decisions. The right to be tried by an independent and impartial court is so elemental, exciting Human Rights Committee status as an "absolute right not bear any exception". The right to a fair trial also means a reasonable opportunity to expose any part of his case to the court in a manner that does not disadvantage the opposing party, which is achieved by ensuring its rights of defense. Parties have the right to be assisted by an attorney, elected or appointed by office. Realisation of the right to defense is ensured by the organisation and functioning of the judiciary, which is based on the principles of legality, equality of parties, gratuity, collegiality, publicity, immutability and the active role of the court. To enact a law the court as part of a fair trial takes into account the competence to hear the case, both materially and territorially. In this context, statutory legislation provisions are clear and precise, clearly delineating the powers of courts, the costs involved in the administration of justice. To understand and respect the provisions is of paramount importance in realisng the right - a prerequisite to the existence of balanced and harmonious society.