Suchergebnisse

The new s.elp Pocket Commentaries are reduced to essential information on current legal developments. With these short and handy books you can easily update your knowledge. The first volume deals with the new Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, which became effective on 11.1.2009. Comprehensive and accessible analysis of the rules of the Rome II Regulation on the private international law of non-contractual obligations Coverage of practical issues such as international product liability, liability for environmental damage or non-contractual liability for unfair competition Written by a team of internationally orientated scholars.

The article analyses the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Nevsun v. Araya case, which deals with the severe violations of human rights, including slavery and forced labor with respect of the workers of Eritrean mines owned by a Canadian company "Nevsun". By a 5 to 4 majority, the court concluded that litigants can seek compensation for the violations of international customs committed by a company. This decision is underpinned by the tenets that international customs form a part of Canadian common law, companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law, and under ubi jus ibi remedium principle plaintiffs have a right to receive compensation under national law. Being a commentary to this judgment the article focuses its analysis on an issue that is of a key character for Public International Law, namely on the tenet that international customs impose obligations to respect human rights on companies and they can be called for responsibility for these violations. This conclusion is revolutionary in the part in which it shifts the perception of the companies' legal status under International Law. The court's approach is critically assessed against its well-groundness and correspondence to the current stage of International law. In particular, the authors discuss, whether the legal stance on the Supreme Court of Canada, under which companies can bear responsibility for violations of International Human Rights Law is a justified necessity or a head start.

Das gemeinsame internationale Vorgehen gegen aggressive Steuerplanung steht im Fokus der internationalen Steueragenden. Als Grund dafür wird die mangelhafte Informationsversorgung der Behörden mit relevanten Informationen gesehen, das in der Folge den Behörden erschwert, aggressive Steuerplanung begünstigende Gesetzeslücken zu erkennen und gezielt dagegen vorzugehen. Eine erhöhte Transparenz im Steuerrecht und eine Kooperation der Staatengemeinschaft werden dabei als Lösungsansätze gesehen. Die Meldeverpflichtung iSd EU-MPfG hinsichtlich bestimmter grenzüberschreitender Gestaltungen, basiert auf Aktionspunkt 12 des BEPS-Projekts der OECD und der darauf aufbauenden DAC 6-RL der EU. In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Meldung, als Ergebnis dieser internationalen Transparenzbestrebungen, ein Instrument im Kampf gegen aggressive Steuerplanung. Mit den durch die Meldung gesammelten Daten und dem anschließenden EU-weiten automatischen Informationsaustausch, soll es den Steuerbehörden und Gesetzgebern ermöglicht werden, zeitnah durch systematisches Risikomanagement, gezielte Kontrollen und gesetzgeberische Maßnahmen auf aggressive Steuergestaltungen zu reagieren.Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, die rechtlichen Bedeutungen der Meldung für das österreichische Abgabenverfahren zu untersuchen. Dabei wird die Meldung bestehenden Offenlegungsinstrumenten gegenübergestellt und versucht, Erkenntnisse für eine Einordnung der Meldung in das Abgabenverfahren zu gewinnen. Im weiteren Gang der Untersuchung wird auch die internationale Tendenz einer verstärkten Bedeutung der Inpflichtnahme Dritter konkret beleuchtet, die sich im Rahmen des EU-MPfG in der primären Meldepflicht der Intermediäre abzeichnet. Das gemeinsame internationale Vorgehen gegen aggressive Steuerplanung steht im Fokus der internationalen Steueragenden. Als Grund dafür wird die mangelhafte Informationsversorgung der Behörden mit relevanten Informationen gesehen, das in der Folge den Behörden erschwert, aggressive Steuerplanung begünstigende Gesetzeslücken zu erkennen und gezielt dagegen vorzugehen. Eine erhöhte Transparenz im Steuerrecht und eine Kooperation der Staatengemeinschaft werden dabei als Lösungsansätze gesehen. Die Meldeverpflichtung iSd EU-MPfG hinsichtlich bestimmter grenzüberschreitender Gestaltungen, basiert auf Aktionspunkt 12 des BEPS-Projekts der OECD und der darauf aufbauenden DAC 6-RL der EU. In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Meldung, als Ergebnis dieser internationalen Transparenzbestrebungen, ein Instrument im Kampf gegen aggressive Steuerplanung. Mit den durch die Meldung gesammelten Daten und dem anschließenden EU-weiten automatischen Informationsaustausch, soll es den Steuerbehörden und Gesetzgebern ermöglicht werden, zeitnah durch systematisches Risikomanagement, gezielte Kontrollen und gesetzgeberische Maßnahmen auf aggressive Steuergestaltungen zu reagieren.Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, die rechtlichen Bedeutungen der Meldung für das österreichische Abgabenverfahren zu untersuchen. Dabei wird die Meldung bestehenden Offenlegungsinstrumenten gegenübergestellt und versucht, Erkenntnisse für eine Einordnung der Meldung in das Abgabenverfahren zu gewinnen. Im weiteren Gang der Untersuchung wird auch die internationale Tendenz einer verstärkten Bedeutung der Inpflichtnahme Dritter konkret beleuchtet, die sich im Rahmen des EU-MPfG in der primären Meldepflicht der Intermediäre abzeichnet. ; The international co-operation in combatting aggressive tax planning strategies have never been as high on the political agenda as they are today. The authorities' lack of timely and relevant information on tax planning schemes is one of the main challenges faced by tax authorities. The improvement of tax transparency and co-operative actions of the states are viewed as a solution approach. The reporting of potential aggressive cross-border tax planning arrangements in accordance with EU-MPfG is based on the Mandatory Disclosure Rules of the BEPS Action Plan of the OECD and the DAC 6 Council Directive of the EU. As an outcome of these international transparency efforts, the reporting obligation is an important tool in combatting aggressive tax planning strategies. The increased flow of information through the reporting obligation followed by an automatic information exchange within the EU enables authorities to quickly respond to tax risks through systematic risk assessments, targeted audits or legislative actions. The main objective of this thesis investigates the potential legal effects of the reporting obligation for the Austrian tax procedure. In this context the report is compared to already existing national disclosing tools.In the course of the investigation, the international tendency of increased importance of third-party obligations are mentioned. That increased third-party obligations are evident in the primary reporting obligation of intermediaries within the framework of the EU-MPfG. ; Arbeit an der Bibliothek noch nicht eingelangt - Daten nicht geprüft ; Abweichender Titel laut Übersetzung des Verfassers/der Verfasserin ; Diplomarbeit Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 2021

The international human rights regime -- Human rights in international law -- The content of human rights -- Rights in principle -- Rights in policy -- Rights in practice -- Measurement complexity, validity, and viability -- The basic rights argument -- The obligations argument -- The implementation argument -- The unique rights argument.

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — Allegations of inhuman treatment and torture — Arbitrary detention — Obligation to provide effective remedies — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Optional Protocol — United Nations Human Rights Committee — Competence to consider communication from complainants abroadInternational organization and administration — The United Nations — Other organs of the United Nations — Human Rights Committee — Competence to consider communication from complainants abroad — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Optional Protocol310The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Detention incommunicado — Whether conditions of detention amounted to inhuman treatment or torture — Continued detention after having served sentence — Continued detention after having signed document for provisional release — Whether arbitrary detention — Right to review of detention by a competent court — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Optional Protocol — United Nations Human Rights Committee — Competence to consider communication from complainants abroad

AbstractSocial human rights are not held to belong to the category of jus cogens norms. At the same time these human rights protect vital matters, such as the right to adequate food, which obviously has a relationship to the right to life. On the other hand, the annexes to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, which are binding on all WTO member States, has implied a shift from the old General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) to the WTO, from pure contractual treaties to more standard-setting treaties. The article seeks to analyse if the obligations erga omnes and the concept of 'multilateral obligations' are applicable to distinguish between human rights treaties on the one hand and WTO agreements on the other. The background of the analysis is also the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) Study Group on fragmentation of international law, finalised in 2006. The article finds that there is still uncertainty regarding the exact meaning of the term 'multilateral obligations'. Hence, other concepts such as 'absolute obligations' might be preferred in order to characterise human rights treaties, and hence implicitly acknowledge that treaties that protect vital matters may prevail over other treaties, based on the interests which are to be protected.

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims open with an unusual provision: it is the undertaking of the contracting states 'to respect and to ensure respect for [the Conventions] in all circumstances'. Why reaffirm that contracting states are bound to 'respect' their treaty obligations? Does 'all circumstances' add anything special to this fundamental rule of the law of treaties? And what about 'ensure respect': should that not be regarded as implicit in 'respect', in the sense of a positive counterpart to the negative duty not to violate the terms of the Conventions?I readily admit that common Article 1 was not the first provision of the Conventions to capture my attention: there was, after all, so much to discover in these impressive structures that Article 1 could easily be passed over as an innocuous sort of opening phrase. Two things have changed this. One was the insistence of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that a State Party to the Conventions is not only itself bound to comply with its obligations under these instruments but is under a legal obligation to make sure that other States Parties do likewise. The more this thesis of the ICRC was forced upon us, the less likely it seemed to me that this could indeed be an international legal obligation upon contracting states.

Ende 2013 lebten 33,3 Millionen Menschen als Folge bewaffneter Konflikte, Situationen allgemeiner Gewalt und Menschenrechtsverletzungen innerhalb ihres Heimatstaates fern ihrer Heimat. Scheidet der Staat, der zunächst und zuvörderst für die innerhalb seiner Landesgrenzen Vertriebenen verantwortlich ist, als Schutz- und Hilfsakteur aus, ist die andere, die substaatliche Konfliktpartei in die Pflicht zu nehmen. Völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen nichtstaatlicher Gewaltakteure gegenüber Binnenvertriebenen können dann aus dem humanitären Völkerrecht, den Menschenrechten und dem Völkerstrafrecht folgen. Diese Normkomplexe verbieten willkürliche Vertreibungen und allgemein Verhaltensweisen, die Fluchtbewegungen auslösen. Schließlich schützen sie die Vertriebenen. Rechtsquellen sind universale Weltordnungsverträge und das Völkergewohnheitsrecht, aber auch unilaterale Erklärungen und bi- bzw. multilaterale Abkommen bewaffneter Oppositionsgruppen. Zur Veranschaulichung des Themas dient der Darfur-Konflikt. / »International Legal Obligations of Armed Non-State Actors Towards Internally Displaced Persons. The Case Darfur« -- Public international law is no longer only intergovernmental law, but also serves the interests of the individual. Thus, today national issues such as situations of internal displacement caused by non-international armed conflicts, situations of generalized violence and violations of human rights are subject to international law. International legal obligations of armed non-state actors towards internally displaced persons follow from international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law. The Darfur conflict serves as a case example to illustrate the matter.

On December 8, 2011, the Japanese Supreme Court decided that the accession to a multilateral treaty by a state not recognized by Japan cannot create obligations between Japan and that state except with respect to obligations of universal value under general international law. The case arose in the specific context of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) but has broader implications for the operation of multilateral treaties in general.

A review of the current state of legal regulation in the field of human rights is likely to give the disappointing impression that international legislation is unequal to the task of checking widespread disregard for human dignity. Despite the vast proliferation of instruments setting standards on human rights, imposing obligations as regards the observance of those standards and establishing procedures to deal with breaches of those obligations, violations of human rights continue, their perpetrators apparently undeterred.

This Article explores how host governments' legal obligations can affect or constrain their ability to address "land grievances," which are defined as concerns raised by local individuals or communities in response to negative impacts of land-based investments. Obligations under international investment law, international human rights law, and investor-state contracts can be in tension or can directly conflict with one another, creating complexity for governments seeking to respond to land grievances. To explore the legal considerations that governments must navigate in this context, this Article considers several options that governments could pursue to respond to land grievances. In all of the options considered, the governmental action would also implicate investors' contract rights or expectations, making the rights and obligations under investment treaties particularly important to consider. Given the challenges arising from these options, and in light of the critical need for governments to protect human rights and address their citizens' concerns, the Article concludes with a call to reassess the elevation of contract rights and expectations to a supranational level via international investment law. In the absence of a more comprehensive overhaul of the investment law system, a more critical approach by arbitral tribunals regarding the nature and scope of contract rights (and expectations) deemed enforceable could help limit the potential for arbitral decisions to undermine governments' abilities to address the concerns, and protect the rights, of their citizens.

Introduction -- Political and historical background -- Authority for the exercise of jurisdiction under the United States' municipal law and the international law of the sea -- United States' obligations under international human rights and refugee law -- Status determinations in international waters and in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- Detention and related issues in Guantánamo Bay -- Conclusion

The proliferation of non-state actors in contemporary armed conflicts is a challenge for the implementation of international humanitarian law. Among these actors, private contractors have taken on a special role for the tasks performed and the personnel deployed in conflict areas, to the extent that their presence has become almost indispensable. But this prominence is posing, among other problems, the need to define the legal regime to which they subject these companies and their personnel in order to end the legal uncertainty surrounding their activities. This situation has led in practice to have benefited from de facto impunity because of the difficulties for prosecution in cases of crimes committed during the provision of their services. Therefore, we must insist that there is no legal vacuum around these companies although at present there are no specific rules governing its activities. Indeed, international humanitarian law provides the appropriate legal framework to regulate the tasks carried out by these companies in armed conflicts. Although ius in bello not specifically regulate private military and security companies, nor the status of their personnel, contains rules and principles that define the rights and obligations of their employees, especially when providing armed services, and define the scope of their responsibility. Therefore, these companies must take steps to ensure compliance with these rules, because otherwise incur responsibility that extends to managers, directors and administrators. ; La proliferación de actores no estatales en los conflictos armados contemporáneos constituye un desafío para la aplicación del derecho internacional humanitario. Entre estos actores, los contratistas privados han adquirido un especial protagonismo por las tareas que llevan a cabo y por el personal desplegado en zonas de conflicto, hasta el punto de que su presencia se ha hecho prácticamente indispensable. Pero este protagonismo está planteando, entre otros problemas, la necesidad de definir el régimen jurídico al que están sometidas estas empresas y su personal, para acabar así con la incertidumbre jurídica que rodea sus actividades. Esta situación ha dado lugar en la práctica a que se hayan beneficiado de una impunidad de facto a causa de las dificultades que surgen para su persecución en los casos de crímenes cometidos durante la prestación de sus servicios. Por ello, se debe insistir en que no existe ningún vacío legal en torno a estas empresas, aunque por el momento no existan normas específicas que regulen sus actividades. En efecto, el derecho internacional humanitario proporciona el marco jurídico adecuado para reglamentar las tareas que llevan a cabo estas empresas en los conflictos armados. Aunque el ius in bello no regula específicamente las compañías militares y de seguridad privadas, ni el estatuto de su personal, contiene reglas y principios que delimitan los derechos y obligaciones de sus empleados, especialmente cuando presten servicios armados, y definen el alcance su responsabilidad. Por eso, estas empresas deben adoptar medidas para asegurar el respeto de estas normas, pues, en caso contrario, incurrirán en responsabilidad, que se extiende a los gestores, directivos y administradores. ; La prolifération d'acteurs non étatiques dans les conflits armés contemporains constitue un défi pour l'application du droit international humanitaire. Parmi ces acteurs, les sociétés privées jouent un rôle particulièrement important, vu les tâches réalisées et le personnel déployé dans les zones de conflit, au point que, pratiquement, leur présence est devenue indispensable. Entre autres questions, le rôle de ces entreprises privées pose celle de la nécessaire définition du régime juridique auquel elles et leur personnel sont soumis, pour mettre fin à l'incertitude juridique entourant leurs activités. Dans la pratique, ces acteurs jouissent d'une impunité de facto, vu les difficultés pour les poursuivre en justice dans les cas de crimes commis durant la prestation de leurs services.À ce propos, il faut rappeler qu'il n'existe pas de vide légal à propos de ces entreprises, même si jusqu'ici il n'y a pas de normes spécifiques réglementant leurs activités. En effet, le droit international humanitaire fournit le cadre juridique approprié pour réglementer les tâches accomplies par ces entreprises dans le cadre de conflits armés. Même s'il ne réglemente pas spécifiquement les sociétés militaires et de sécurité privées, ni le statut du personnel, l'ius in bello inclut des règles et principes qui délimitent les droits et obligations de leurs employés, spécialement lorsqu'ils prestent des services armés, et définissent la portée de leur responsabilité. En conséquence, ces sociétés doivent adopter des mesures pour assurer le respect de ces normes ; dans le cas contraire, elles encourent une responsabilité, qui s'étend aux gestionnaires, cadres dirigeants et administrateurs.

The proliferation of non-state actors in contemporary armed conflicts is a challenge for the implementation of international humanitarian law. Among these actors, private contractors have taken on a special role for the tasks performed and the personnel deployed in conflict areas, to the extent that their presence has become almost indispensable. But this prominence is posing, among other problems, the need to define the legal regime to which they subject these companies and their personnel in order to end the legal uncertainty surrounding their activities. This situation has led in practice to have benefited from de facto impunity because of the difficulties for prosecution in cases of crimes committed during the provision of their services. Therefore, we must insist that there is no legal vacuum around these companies although at present there are no specific rules governing its activities. Indeed, international humanitarian law provides the appropriate legal framework to regulate the tasks carried out by these companies in armed conflicts. Although ius in bello not specifically regulate private military and security companies, nor the status of their personnel, contains rules and principles that define the rights and obligations of their employees, especially when providing armed services, and define the scope of their responsibility. Therefore, these companies must take steps to ensure compliance with these rules, because otherwise incur responsibility that extends to managers, directors and administrators. ; La proliferación de actores no estatales en los conflictos armados contemporáneos constituye un desafío para la aplicación del derecho internacional humanitario. Entre estos actores, los contratistas privados han adquirido un especial protagonismo por las tareas que llevan a cabo y por el personal desplegado en zonas de conflicto, hasta el punto de que su presencia se ha hecho prácticamente indispensable. Pero este protagonismo está planteando, entre otros problemas, la necesidad de definir el régimen jurídico al que están sometidas estas empresas y su personal, para acabar así con la incertidumbre jurídica que rodea sus actividades. Esta situación ha dado lugar en la práctica a que se hayan beneficiado de una impunidad de facto a causa de las dificultades que surgen para su persecución en los casos de crímenes cometidos durante la prestación de sus servicios. Por ello, se debe insistir en que no existe ningún vacío legal en torno a estas empresas, aunque por el momento no existan normas específicas que regulen sus actividades. En efecto, el derecho internacional humanitario proporciona el marco jurídico adecuado para reglamentar las tareas que llevan a cabo estas empresas en los conflictos armados. Aunque el ius in bello no regula específicamente las compañías militares y de seguridad privadas, ni el estatuto de su personal, contiene reglas y principios que delimitan los derechos y obligaciones de sus empleados, especialmente cuando presten servicios armados, y definen el alcance su responsabilidad. Por eso, estas empresas deben adoptar medidas para asegurar el respeto de estas normas, pues, en caso contrario, incurrirán en responsabilidad, que se extiende a los gestores, directivos y administradores. ; La prolifération d'acteurs non étatiques dans les conflits armés contemporains constitue un défi pour l'application du droit international humanitaire. Parmi ces acteurs, les sociétés privées jouent un rôle particulièrement important, vu les tâches réalisées et le personnel déployé dans les zones de conflit, au point que, pratiquement, leur présence est devenue indispensable. Entre autres questions, le rôle de ces entreprises privées pose celle de la nécessaire définition du régime juridique auquel elles et leur personnel sont soumis, pour mettre fin à l'incertitude juridique entourant leurs activités. Dans la pratique, ces acteurs jouissent d'une impunité de facto, vu les difficultés pour les poursuivre en justice dans les cas de crimes commis durant la prestation de leurs services.À ce propos, il faut rappeler qu'il n'existe pas de vide légal à propos de ces entreprises, même si jusqu'ici il n'y a pas de normes spécifiques réglementant leurs activités. En effet, le droit international humanitaire fournit le cadre juridique approprié pour réglementer les tâches accomplies par ces entreprises dans le cadre de conflits armés. Même s'il ne réglemente pas spécifiquement les sociétés militaires et de sécurité privées, ni le statut du personnel, l'ius in bello inclut des règles et principes qui délimitent les droits et obligations de leurs employés, spécialement lorsqu'ils prestent des services armés, et définissent la portée de leur responsabilité. En conséquence, ces sociétés doivent adopter des mesures pour assurer le respect de ces normes ; dans le cas contraire, elles encourent une responsabilité, qui s'étend aux gestionnaires, cadres dirigeants et administrateurs.