The special legal nature of the concession contract (as one of the legal transactions) which represents a legal framework where the public & private interests meet (two parties cooperate for mutual benefit) is characterized by intertwining of general rules of obligation law & special legal institutes that originate from the sphere of public law. The legal nature of the contractual relationships that arise between administrative & private entities requires special regulation of individual institutes that should reflect the public interest as an important guiding principle for concluding these contracts, & a special legal position of a public law entity as a holder of this public interest. Despite adoption of the new Public-Private Partnership Act in the legislative regulation of the concession contract that still remains variously regulated in previously adopted special provisions of sectoral laws, there are still some deficiencies & dilemmas that are more or less effectively dealt with in the contractual practice. For the legal positions that are classically civil at first sight, the legislator or court practice have laid down special modified rules of civil law in most developed countries. In the course of time, these rules became part of public law/administrative law. Thus, the French legal order has best developed the rules of the public contractual law & the legal institute of the administrative contract that the Slovenian administrative theoreticians try more & more to introduce also into our legal order. References. Adapted from the source document.
Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije predstavlja osrednji dokument varstva temeljnih pravic v Evropski uniji, ki so se razvila skozi prakso Sodišča Evropske unije. Kot deklaracija je bila najprej slovesno razglašena 7. decembra 2000, pravna veljava in status primarnega prava Evropske unije pa ji je bil podeljen devet let kasneje z Lizbonsko pogodbo. Vsebina Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije temelji na skupnih ustavnih tradicijah in mednarodnih obveznosti držav članic, Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic, socialnih listinah Evropske unije in Sveta Evrope, sodni praksi Sodišča Evropske unije ter Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Kljub temu pa je njena vsebina tudi inovativna in v nekaterih primerih širša. Tako je z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, zagotovljena pravica do azila, kar predstavlja redkost v mednarodnih dokumentih varstva temeljnih pravic. V praksi jo tako Sodišče Evropske unije kot nacionalna sodišča velikokrat uporabljajo na področju migracij in azila. Sodišče Evropske unije igra pomembno vlogo pri harmonizaciji Skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema in zagotavljanju minimalnih standardov varstva pravic prosilcev za mednarodno zaščito skozi interpretacijo skladnosti določb sekundarne zakonodaje Evropske unije na področju azila in nacionalne zakonodaje z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije. ; "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" represents a core bill of rights document within the European union which developed through the case law of the European Court of Justice. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was solemnly announced on 7 December 2000 as a Declaration, only becoming legally binding nine years later with the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, which granted it the status of primary law of the European Union. The contents within the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is based on the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to member states, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Social Charters of the European union, and the Council of Europe, the case law of the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is also innovative and broader in some cases. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides a right to be granted asylum, which represents a rarity in international instruments of fundamental rights. It is often used in practice by the European Court of Justice and national courts in the field of migration and asylum. The European Court of Justice plays an important role in harmonization of the Common European Asylum System and in setting of minimum standards for protection of the rights of applicants for international protection through its interpretation in compliance of secondary legislation of the European Union and national legislation with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Trgovina z orožjem za marsikatere države in podjetja pomeni velik vir zaslužka. Problem je v tem, ker poleg zakonitega trga z orožjem, obstajata tudi sivi in črni trg. Zato je pomembno, da se vzpostavi celovit in učinkovit nadzor nad trgovino z orožjem. Že od leta 1978 se v resolucijah Generalne skupščine Združenih narodov omenja potreba po pogajanjih glede omejitve mednarodnih prenosov konvencionalnega orožja. Šestintrideset let pozneje je začela veljati prva mednarodna pogodba, ki celovito ureja mednarodno trgovino s konvencionalnim orožjem, Pogodba o trgovini z orožjem (PTO). V procesu nastajanja pogodbe so ves čas sodelovale tudi nevladne organizacije, saj je za vzpostavitev učinkovitega mednarodnopravnega instrumenta pomembno sodelovanje med državami in civilno družbo. PTO je tudi prva mednarodna pogodba, ki ureja prenos osebnega in lahkega orožja. Ravno slednje zaradi svojih lastnosti (enostavno za uporabo, prenosljivost, dolgotrajnost, lahka dostopnost širšemu krogu ljudi) povzroča trpljenje mnogih ljudi. Določbe PTO pa ne posegajo v že urejen sistem pridobivanja orožja, ki velja za športne strelce, lovce in zbiratelje orožja. PTO oboroževanja ne prepoveduje, saj spoštuje pravico vsake države do samoobrambe, temveč le vzpostavlja večjo preglednost nad trgovanjem s konvencionalnim orožjem med državami pogodbenicami. Posebnost PTO je izvajanje po metodi korak po korak, kar omogoča njeno postopno uveljavitev in prilagoditev njenega izvajanja dejanskim razmeram. Učinkovito izvedbo PTO preprečuje nesistematična ureditev kategorij konvencionalnega orožja, streliva in minsko-eksplozivnih sredstev, delov in sestavnih delov orožja, dejavnosti prenosa in neurejenost nadzora nad trgovino s stroji in materiali, ki omogočajo izdelavo orožja in streliva. PTO tudi ne vzpostavlja učinkovitega sistema sankcij za države, ki kršijo pogodbene obveznosti. ; Arms trade has been a large source of profit for various countries and companies. The major problem is that beside legal arms industry there exists grey and black markets. It is thus very important to set up a complete and efficient control of the arms trade. Ever since 1978, The General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolutions has emphasised the need to reach agreements on limiting the international transfer of conventional weapons. Thirty-six years later, the first international treaty that entirely regulates conventional arms trade entered into force. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) thus came into effect. Many non-governmental organisations were also engaged in the process of treaty making, since the establishment of the efficient international legal instruments required the cooperative efforts of countries as well as civil societies. The ATT is the first international treaty regulating the transfer of small arms and light weapons. The latter is the one whose features (easy to use, mobility, durability and easy access to a wider public) cause suffering to many people. The rules and regulations of the ATT do not interfere with the already established system of weapon acquisition that is valid for sports marksmen, hunters and weapons collectors. The ATT do not ban armaments, since each country has a legal right to self-defense. Its aim is to establish better transparency over the conventional arms trade among the states parties. The distinctive feature of the ATT is a step-by-step method, and in this way the treaty is gradually enforced and its implementation adapted for actual situations. Nevertheless, the efficient enforcement of the ATT is prevented by the non-systematic regulation of conventional arms, ammunition, munitions, as well as of parts and components of weapons. The arms transfer activities, the non-systematic monitoring of machine and material commerce that enable arms and ammunition production are also the factors that prevent the implementation of the treaty. The ATT do not establish an efficient system of sanctions against states that violate contractual obligations.
Odgovornost zaščititi (R2P) je bila sprejeta kot odziv na humanitarne katastrofe ob prelomu tisočletja, ko države niso zaščitile svojega prebivalstva pred grozodejstvi. Čeprav formalno ne gre za pravno normo, vsebinsko odraža obstoječe mednarodnopravne obveznosti držav, ki vključujejo preprečevanje hudodelstev zoper človečnost, vojnih hudodelstev in genocida. (Ne)spopadanje s pandemijo per se ne sodi v okvir R2P, vendar to ne pomeni, da zanjo ni izjemnega pomena. Izbruh pandemije COVID-19 je mednarodno skupnost postavil pred resen izziv. Poleg zdravstvene je prinesla še ekonomsko in socialno krizo, kar predstavlja resen dejavnik tveganja za pojav ali pospešitev grozodejstev, ki jih morajo države skladno z R2P preprečevati. K dolgotrajnejši prekinitvi sovražnosti, ki bi omogočila dostavo humanitarne pomoči najbolj ranljivim in uspešnejšo zajezitev pandemije, pa jih niso prepričali niti pozivi generalnega sekretarja Organizacije združenih narodov niti Generalne skupščine, Varnostnega sveta ali Sveta za človekove pravice, kar je posledično že tako marsikje težke življenjske razmere prebivalstva le še poslabšalo. Glede na takšno ravnanje držav se postavlja vprašanje, ali bi lahko neustrezno spopadanje s pandemijo rezultiralo celo v hudodelstvu zoper človečnost ali v kontekstu oboroženega spopada v vojnem hudodelstvu. Magistrsko diplomsko delo se tako osredotoča na vprašanja kako, če sploh, se spremeni odgovornost držav v času pandemije, kakšen vpliv ima slednja na R2P, ali je pandemijo mogoče nasloviti v okviru R2P ali pa bi le-to pomenilo izkrivljanje doseženega konsenza iz l. 2005. ; The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was adopted in response to the humanitarian catastrophes at the turn of the millennium, as States did not protect their populations from atrocities. Although not formally a legal norm, its content reflects the international legal obligations of States, which include the prevention of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. Addressing the pandemic itself does not fall within the scope of R2P, however it is of extreme importance for it. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic presents a serious challenge to the international community, as it not only presents health but also an economic and social crisis, which is a serious risk factor for the occurrence or acceleration of atrocities that States must prevent according to the R2P. However, neither the calls of the Secretary-General of the United Nations nor the General Assembly, the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, convinced them of longer-term ceasefires, which would enable delivery of humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable population and a more successful containment of a pandemic. Consequently, already difficult living conditions of the population have only worsened. Given the States' conduct, the question arises whether inappropriate responses to the pandemic could result in a crime against humanity or in the context of armed conflict in a war crime. The master's thesis thus focuses on how, if at all, the responsibility of the States changes during a pandemic, what impact it has on the R2P, whether the pandemic can be addressed under R2P, or the latter would only distort the 2005 reached consensus.
V času begunske krize leta 2015 se je v Italiji in Grčiji razvil nov način hitrega upravljanja migracijskih tokov, t. i. pristop žariščnih točk, ki temelji na hitri identifikaciji, registraciji in odvzemu prstnih odtisov migrantov ter njihovi nadaljnji preusmeritvi v azilni postopek, postopek vračanja ali premestitve. Čeprav je bil pristop zasnovan kot začasni ukrep, ki naj bi se uporabljal, dokler se izredne razmere ne umirijo, je pristop v praksi implementiran kot trajni mehanizem identifikacije in registracije migrantov, s katerim je Evropska unija (v nadaljevanju: EU) dosegla spoštovanje obveznosti identifikacije migrantov s strani Italije in Grčije, že tako najbolj obremenjenih držav članic. Ker v postopkih identifikacije prihaja do hujših kršitev človekovih pravic, oviranja dostopa do azilnega postopka in diskriminacije na podlagi nacionalnosti, je določenim skupinam de facto odvzeta pravica do mednarodne zaščite. V postopkih vračanja prihaja do kršitev prepovedi vračanja in kolektivnih izgonov, postopki premestitve pa se v žariščnih točkah v praksi ne izvajajo. Uporaba pristopa žariščnih točk tako ni razbremenila Italije in Grčije in ni izboljšala položaja migrantov na poti v Evropo. Odprava sistemskih problemov pristopa, ki so v veliki meri posledica pomanjkanja celovite pravne ureditve in politične volje, bi zato morala zajemati pravno ureditev pristopa v enotnem dokumentu in odpravo spornih praks. Ker so izredne razmere, na katere se uporaba pristopa sklicuje, ob spremljanju političnih in socialnih trendov, v veliki meri predvidljive, bi moral biti poudarek pri izvajanju pristopa na zagotavljanju mednarodne zaščite in ne nadzoru zunanjih meja EU. ; During the refugee crisis in 2015 a new approach of swift migration management developed in Italy and Greece, the so called hotspot approach. The basis of the approach is swift identification, registration and fingerprinting of the incoming migrants for the purpose of redirecting them either to the asylum procedure, returns procedure or relocation procedure. Although designed as a temporary measure, used only until the emergency situation settles down, the approach is implemented as a permanent mechanism for identification and registration of migrants which helped the European union (hereinafter: the EU) achieve compliance from Italy and Greece, already the most burdened states, with their obligation to identify all incoming migrants. Serious human rights violations, obstruction of access to the asylum procedure and discrimination based on nationality occur during the identification process depriving certain groups of migrants of their right to asylum. Violations of the principle of non-refoulment and prohibition of collective expulsions occur during the returns procedures, while relocation procedures are not carried out in the hotspots. The use of the hotspot approach did not relieve the pressure on Italy and Greece nor improve the position of migrants coming to Europe. Systematic problems are largely the result of lack of legal framework and political will and should therefore be addressed with a unified regulation and the end of controversial practices. Since the emergency situation, on which the approach is based, can be largely predicted by observing the current social and political trends the main focus of the approach should be providing international protection instead of control of the EU external borders.
