Different parts of State territory on land, sea and in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness and its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions and restrictions imposed either by rules of general international law or by specific treaty obligations that can be assumed by a State. The concept of State servitudes was not assimilated in the practice of international courts and tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions and confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries such as boundary rivers and lakes and mountain boundaries, as well as the artificial boundaries. Follow explanation of the principle of "uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries and of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law. (SOI : PM: S. 74)
The situation in Kosovo up to 1999, and all attempts which failed in order to find a just and lasting solution for that problem, have fully justified the above criteria for a lawful humanitarian intervention which was undertaken by the NATO forces against the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It seems, however, that the responsible persons in the NATO were not aware of the competence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate to prosecute persons responsible for use of prohibited arms and for destruction of some objects. Some of these unlawful acts constitute grave breaches of the 1959 Geneva Conventions and violations of laws and customs of war. In these circumstances it is the legal duty of the Prosecutor to undertake an investigation. In case that he fails in his duty, there are no statutory limits in respect of the crimes provided in the Statute of the Tribunal. (SOI : SOEU: S. 98f.) + Most legal writers in their writings confuse notions of humanitarian intervention, intervention of a State in order to protect its citizens abroad and humanitarian relief. The use of force for protection of citizens abroad, when they are in immediate danger of losing their lives or suffering serious injury, can exceptionally be justified by a state of necessity as regulated in article 33 of Drafts Article on State Responsibility by the International Law Commission. Further conditions for such an intervention are provided in the wording of the US State Secretar, Daniel Webster in the Caroline case of 1837, relating to the self-defence. Actions of humanitarian relief have nothing unlawful in their character, but a question can arise of the obligation of parties to a conflict to receive and allow its distribution to a who are in need. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Protocol of 1977, provide in this respect a legal obligation of all parties to internation armed conflicts. Such relief actions can be imposed as obligation to parties to internal armed conflicts as well, by UN Security Council resolutions based on Chap. VII of the UN Charter. + In the view of this author there is no rule of positive international law granting a right to foreign States to intervene by force, either in protection of their citizens, or when a humanitarian intervention is required. The matter can only be of exceptional circumstances precluding wrongfulness of the use of force, which otherwise remains prohibited. When the matter is of humanitarian intervention, circumstances precluding the wrongfulness would, according to this author, be the following: (1) There should be a situation of systematic, repeated and widespread commission of international crimes by a State authority against its own citizens. Special problems are created to the international community by widespread practices of ethnic cleansing. (2) Such a situation constitutes itself a "threat to the peace" calling for an enforcement action by the Security Council according to the Chap. VII of the UN Charter. (3) In case that the Security Council fails in its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and when there are no other means, a group of States or an organization can undertake a humanitarian intervention by use of force in order to stop the commission of crimes. In these circumstances it acts as de facto organ of the entire international community of States. (4) In these extreme and exceptional circumstances, States taking part in such an action cannot obtain any advantages in their profit. (5) Collective intervention by a single State acting in the name of several other States or an organization. However, even such an intervention should have priority over humanitarian intervention undertaken by a State acting in its o name. (6) It is self-evident that in performing a humanitarian intervention there should not be committed international crimes especially against protected persons, including civilian population
Vanredno stanje predstavlja neredovnu, izuzetnu situaciju u kojoj se mogu naći i najdemokratskije države. U takvim okolnostima obično se poziva na staro pravilo da je spas naroda (države) najviši zakon. Ipak, s obzirom na to da je tada, zbog višeg razloga (opstanak države), neophodan izvestan stepen koncentracije vlasti u rukama egzekutive, što neminovno otvara mogućnost zloupotreba, ustavotvorci moraju biti vrlo pažljivi prilikom normiranja ovako osetljivog pitanja. Centralni deo rada ukazuje na prednosti i mane sadašnjeg ustavnog rešenja u Srbiji, prvenstveno u odnosu na način uvođenja vanrednog stanja postavljen u Ustavu Srbije iz 1990. godine. U nekadašnjem srpskom ustavu predsednik Republike je bio ovlašćen za donošenje odluke o vanrednom stanju, što je danas u nadležnosti Narodne skupštine, koja je nesumnjivo najpotpuniji i najbolji reprezent narodne volje. Međutim, pitanje efikasnosti odlučivanja i brzine reagovanja u toj delikatnoj stvari i dalje ostaje sporno. Pored izvesnih nedoslednosti, pa čak možda i omaški, postojeći Ustav Republike Srbije iz 2006. godine ipak u osnovi pokazuje demokratska nastojanja da se donošenje odluke o uvođenju vanrednog stanja višestruko osigura, a pogotovo da se u vreme važenja vanrednog stanja u potpunosti poštuju ljudska prava u skladu sa preuzetim međunarodnim obavezama. ; State of emergency marks an irregular, exceptional situation, which potentially may hit the most democratic countries as well. Since ancient times, under those circumstances, the rule salus populi suprema lex (safety of the people is supreme demand) is applied and used as an excuse. However, as under those circumstances a kind of concentration of power within the executive branch is unavoidable, there is a need to have very cautiously measured constitutional norms regulating that balance. The main goal of this paper is to examine advantages and shortcomings of the current regulation of that issue in Serbia according to the 2006 Constitution, particularly in connection with the previous, 1990 Constitution and the experience of introducing state of emergency in the country. According to the previous Serbian Constitution, President of the Republic was engaged to introduce the state of emergency, while according to the current one, that decision was moved into hands of the National Assembly – which is undeniably the best and the most prominent representative of the will of the people. However, the issue of efficiency and properly quick reaction is at stake. Although the existing 2006 Constitution has some inconsistencies, and even more some omissions, it basically reflects democratic tendencies to secure in many ways the decision on emergency state introduction, and particularly to ensure respect of the human rights during the state of emergency in compliance with the established international obligations.
In this paper, the author analyzes the key stages in the development of the Republic of Srpska, since its formation in 9 January 1992. In this context, it elaborates the process of genesis of the Republic of Srpska, its international verification by the Dayton Peace Agreement, post-conflict consolidation as a process of trial of the constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina that would redistribute responsibilities between the entity and state authorities. However, the paper points out that the Republic of Serbian unquestionable categories and that the current attempt by the U.S. and the EU for the amendment of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not imply denial of two-entity structure of the state. In the future, how would you rate the author will attempt leading actors in world politics to redesign the institutional framework at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as to strengthening its negotiating capacity to assume the obligations related to membership of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Корупција представља једну од најважнијих тема међународне политике сузбијања криминалитета. Управо нас она упућује, заједно са савременим облицима коруптивног деловања, на потребу увођења одговорности правних лица за дела корупције. Дуго година владајућа максима societas delinquere non potest, која је одбацивала идеју о кривичној одговорности правних лица, у савременом кривичном законодавству је доведена у питање. О неопходности законског уређења проблематике одговорности правних лица за кривична дела говоре многобројни међународни документи које је наша земља ратификовала и на тај начин преузела обавезу имплементације норми међународног права. Овом приликом проблематизујемо питање које се односи на одговорност правних лица за кривична дела и кривичноправно сузбијање корупције. На овом месту размотрићемо да ли је потребно да се говори о кривичној одговорности правних лица, или је примереније терминолошки и са становишта теорије говорити о казненој одговорности правних лица. ; Corruption is considered a social problem not only in Serbia. This phenomenon is given more and more attention at the international level as well. This primarily means coordinated efforts in opposing this obstacle and threat to the development of every country. It is surprising how material-criminal legal norms were narrowly determined in the field of one of the most important topics of international and national policy of crime suppression. For decades, and particularly thanks to sensations of the last years, the practitioners, especially those in the field of judiciary and police, have been warning of corruption and the need of its suppression and limiting. The connection between corruption and organized crime has intensified even more the discussions on counter measures that could be incorporated into the existing laws and remove their weaknesses. Every country should undertake a number of measures and activities in the field of battle against corruption taking into account the international standards in this field. These measures may be of preventive or repressive character. This paper deals with criminal legal intervention that represents ultima ratio, i.e. the last resort that should not be used until all other means and manners to protect someone have been exhausted. Our legislator has responded in the meantime, removed the most important flaws that distort the picture about our criminal legal regulations and incriminated corruptive behaviour, taking into account at that the obligations undertaken based on international conventions. Very delicate field of the responsibility of legal persons for criminal act remains unregulated. In this paper we point out to the need and state the reasons, with parallel study of the achieved solutions in some countries and Anglo-Saxon and continental legal culture, why the issue of responsibilities of legal persons for acts of corruption and even more widely should be regulated by a separate law.
The Republic of Serbia represents an employer for civil servants and employees, for employees who perform tasks within the scope of state administration bodies, courts, public prosecutors' offices, for police officers as a separate category of civil servants, etc. The regulation of the labor legal status of these persons is also carried out through the conclusion of special collective agreements in addition to the normative. A significant part of the state administration is made up of public services that, by their significance and manner of carrying out tasks of general interest, as well as by the method of financing, represent the central level of the state that encompasses the entities which are responsible for the provision of predominantly non-market services which the state is obliged to provide in order to meet the general needs of its people. The concept of administration has been established as a profession of general interest. Administration carried out by the state authorities itself is viewed in a narrower sense, and when we look at the administration through public services or public administration, we have to bear in mind that non-state actors are also entrusted with administrative activities. Based on the nature of their work, state authorities have a significant administrative function in regulating tasks and prerequisites which are important for collective negotiations in the public sector. The state administration also carries out registration of social partners, tasks related to determining the representativeness of social partners, registration of collective agreements and decision-making on the extended effect of the collective agreement. Relevant authorities, councils, state administration boards and special organizations perform their activities through tripartite and bipartite social dialogue, and decisions are made by consensus. The state administration performs and ensures the performance of state functions important for collective negotiations in the public sector, conducts a procedure for obtaining the authority of representatives of state bodies and public services to start, negotiate and conclude a collective agreement. Also, the state administration has an active role in the process of registration of the collective agreements, as well as in the obligatory mediation and conciliation and arrangement of the minimum work process in activities of general interest. The state administration maintains the legal order and secures public interest through the procedure of concluding and applying collective agreements in the public sector. Through the realization of these activities, the participation of state entities in the conclusion of collective agreements opens the question of the legal nature of collective agreements, that is, leaves the possibility for the analysis and comparison of the collective agreement and the administrative contract. Collective agreement is a general act, but in its adoption, administrative-legal relationship is recognized as a significant relationship which is regulated by numerous norms of international and national law. Both contracts are concluded with the agreement of the contracting parties, and with the reduced authoritative function of the state administration. A particularly collective association of state bodies and public services can be considered as social acts that regulate rights, obligations and responsibilities from the employment of public sector employees, which contain mandatory and normative parts, but each is an autonomous source of labor law in the public sector.
