Suchergebnisse

The purpose of the article is to focus on the need to strengthen the interaction of the law enforcement agencies of various states, highlighting the role of financial institutions in this process, to find optimal ways to improve international cooperation. The study is based on the methods of systemic and critical analysis, as well as a formal logical method. The article confirms that the need to strengthen international cooperation is explained by the existence of certain factors that determine the possibility of money laundering. It has been established that without adequate cooperation between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions at the national level, it is quite difficult to detect crime and prevent money laundering at the initial stage. As a conclusion of the investigation, it is proposed to develop a methodology for the interaction of the law enforcement agencies of several states to counteract money laundering. The results obtained can also become the basis for developing legislative proposals to improve international cooperation in law enforcement and, at the same time, they can be used to increase the efficiency of their anti-money laundering activities.

This paper deals with the attribution of responsibility to States Parties for violations of selected multilateral human rights treaties outside their territory, and the jurisdiction of the treaty organs over such violations. Jurisdiction over human rights violations may result from territorial sovereignty, but also from quasi-territorial domination (occupation and similar situations, jurisdiction over marine spaces) or from the exercise of personal jurisdiction such as activities by consular, diplomatic, or intelligence agents in foreign countries, acts by or on vessels on the high seas, or on air or space craft. For each of the treaty systems examined (African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, European Convention on Human Rights), this contribution describes the system's general features, its provisions on jurisdiction, and most importantly, the practices it generates. This allows for a number of conclusions: that all the mechanisms examined contain some compulsory elements, that all of them except the African system contain pertinent rules, and that all of these mechanisms apply the classical rules of international law on the exercise of quasi-territorial and personal jurisdiction. States are responsible for the breaches of human rights standards committed by their agents and organs in the exercise of such jurisdiction, and treaty organs are entitled to deal with such breaches. ; Este artículo se ocupa de la atribución de la responsabilidad a los Estados Parte por violaciones de ciertos tratados multilaterales de derechos humanos fuera de su territorio y la jurisdicción de los tribunales u órganos de tratado sobre dichas violaciones. La jurisdicción sobre la violación de los derechos humanos es resultado de la soberanía territorial pero también, incluso, de la dominación cuasi territorial (ocupación territorial y situaciones similares, la jurisdicción sobre territorio marítimo) o del ejercicio de jurisdicción personal por parte de las autoridades competentes, tales como actividades consulares, diplomáticas o de inteligencia en países extranjeros, actos en o por embarcaciones marítimas en altamar o en naves de aire o espaciales. Para cada uno de los sistemas de tratados revisados, (Carta Africana sobre los Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos, Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, Convención Europea sobre Derechos Humanos) este documento describe las características generales del sistema, sus disposiciones sobre jurisdicción y, lo más importante, la prácticas derivada de su aplicación. Este documento propone las siguientes conclusiones: todos los mecanismos revisados contienen algún elemento preceptivo/obligatorio; todos ellos, excepto el sistema Africano, contienen reglas pertinentes y asimismo todos aplican las reglas clásicas del derecho internacional en el ejercicio de la competencia cuasi territorial y personal. Estos Estados son responsables por las violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas por sus agentes y órganos en el ejercicio de su soberanía y los órganos del tratado pueden conocer de estos abusos. ; Este artigo ocupa-se da atribuição da responsabilidade de Estados membro por violações de tratados multilaterais de direitos humanos fora de seu território e a jurisdição dos organismos de controle sobre ditas violações. A jurisdição sobre a violação dos direitos humanos é resultado da soberania territorial, mas também, inclusive, da dominação quase territorial (ocupação territorial e situações similares, a jurisdição sobre território marítimo) ou do exercício das autoridades competentes, tais como atividades consulares, diplomáticas ou de inteligência em países estrangeiros, atos em ou por embarcações marítimas em alto-mar ou em navios de ar ou espaciais. Para cada um dos sistemas de tratados revisados (Carta Africana sobre os Direitos Humanos e dos Povos, Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos, Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos, Convenção Europeia sobre Direitos Humanos) este documento descreve as características do sistema geral, suas disposições sobre a jurisdição e, o mais importante, as práticas que tem gerado. Este documento propõe as seguintes conclusões: todos os mecanismos revisados contém algum elemento preceptivo/obrigatório; todos eles, exceto o sistema Africano, contém regras pertinentes e assim mesmo todos aplicam as regras clássicas do direito internacional no exercício pelas violações de direitos humanos cometidas por seus agentes e organismos no exercício da sua soberaniae os organismos de controle tem direito a tratar qualquer deste abusos.

Este artículo se ocupa de la atribución de la responsabilidad a los Estados Parte por violaciones de ciertos tratados multilaterales de derechos humanos fuera de su territorio y la jurisdicción de los tribunales u órganos de tratado sobre dichas violaciones. La jurisdicción sobre la violación de los derechos humanos es resultado de la soberanía territorial pero también, incluso, de la dominación cuasi territorial (ocupación territorial y situaciones similares, la jurisdicción sobre territorio marítimo) o del ejercicio de jurisdicción personal por parte de las autoridades competentes, tales como actividades consulares, diplomáticas o de inteligencia en países extranjeros, actos en o por embarcaciones marítimas en altamar o en naves de aire o espaciales. Para cada uno de los sistemas de tratados revisados, (Carta Africana sobre los Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos, Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, Convención Europea sobre Derechos Humanos) este documento describe las características generales del sistema, sus disposiciones sobre jurisdicción y, lo más importante, la prácticas derivada de su aplicación. Este documento propone las siguientes conclusiones: todos los mecanismos revisados contienen algún elemento preceptivo/obligatorio; todos ellos, excepto el sistema Africano, contienen reglas pertinentes y asimismo todos aplican las reglas clásicas del derecho internacional en el ejercicio de la competencia cuasi territorial y personal. Estos Estados son responsables por las violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas por sus agentes y órganos en el ejercicio de su soberanía y los órganos del tratado pueden conocer de estos abusos. ; This paper deals with the attribution of responsibility to States Parties for violations of selected multilateral human rights treaties outside their territory, and the jurisdiction of the treaty organs over such violations. Jurisdiction over human rights violations may result from territorial sovereignty, but also from quasi-territorial domination (occupation and similar situations, jurisdiction over marine spaces) or from the exercise of personal jurisdiction such as activities by consular, diplomatic, or intelligence agents in foreign countries, acts by or on vessels on the high seas, or on air or space craft. For each of the treaty systems examined (African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, European Convention on Human Rights), this contribution describes the system's general features, its provisions on jurisdiction, and most importantly, the practices it generates. This allows for a number of conclusions: that all the mechanisms examined contain some compulsory elements, that all of them except the African system contain pertinent rules, and that all of these mechanisms apply the classical rules of international law on the exercise of quasi-territorial and personal jurisdiction. States are responsible for the breaches of human rights standards committed by their agents and organs in the exercise of such jurisdiction, and treaty organs are entitled to deal with such breaches. ; Este artigo ocupa-se da atribuição da responsabilidade de Estados membro por violações de tratados multilaterais de direitos humanos fora de seu território e a jurisdição dos organismos de controle sobre ditas violações. A jurisdição sobre a violação dos direitos humanos é resultado da soberania territorial, mas também, inclusive, da dominação quase territorial (ocupação territorial e situações similares, a jurisdição sobre território marítimo) ou do exercício das autoridades competentes, tais como atividades consulares, diplomáticas ou de inteligência em países estrangeiros, atos em ou por embarcações marítimas em alto-mar ou em navios de ar ou espaciais. Para cada um dos sistemas de tratados revisados (Carta Africana sobre os Direitos Humanos e dos Povos, Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos, Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos, Convenção Europeia sobre Direitos Humanos) este documento descreve as características do sistema geral, suas disposições sobre a jurisdição e, o mais importante, as práticas que tem gerado. Este documento propõe as seguintes conclusões: todos os mecanismos revisados contém algum elemento preceptivo/obrigatório; todos eles, exceto o sistema Africano, contém regras pertinentes e assim mesmo todos aplicam as regras clássicas do direito internacional no exercício pelas violações de direitos humanos cometidas por seus agentes e organismos no exercício da sua soberaniae os organismos de controle tem direito a tratar qualquer deste abusos.

Through materialist dialectics, the article is dedicated to the study and solution of theoretical and practical questions related to the right of a person not to declare or give explanations about himself, his relatives, or close relatives. Interested here was the thorough review of the doctrinal sources of this right, the meaning and methodology of its research, the concept and content of the right of a person not to testify, the peculiarities of this right in Ukraine and in the world, its legislation, as well as its guarantee of implementation. In addition, based on the analysis of the legislation of each country, the authors identify the characteristics of the guarantee, analyze the theoretical aspects and the practical problems of granting the police and judicial authorities the right not to declare or give explanations about themselves. It is concluded that the immunity of witnesses means a set of rules that exempts certain groups of witnesses from the obligation to testify in criminal proceedings, as well as from the obligation of the witness to testify against himself. In this sense, immunity for a witness is divided into two types of imperatives: (absolute, unconditional) and device (relative, conditional).

Lexistence dun droit international privé européen nest plus à démontrer. Les développements considérables auxquels il donne lieu aujourdhui soulèvent la question de ses frontières. Où commence et où sarrête le DIP européen ?

All companies, regardless of the sector they belong to, can positively or negatively impact human rights. Governments are increasingly aware of the benefits that free trade brings their nations, which has led them to do whatever is necessaryto attract foreign investment, even if it means to act against the interests of their own people. The power relationship between corporations and states generates a tension derived from their nature: while the objective of states is the welfare ofits members, the purpose of corporations is profit. It is in the crack generated by the collision of powers and purposes between these two actors, that this article is intended to raise the discussion on the need to establish an international framework for corporate liability for human rights violations. To achieve its goal, the article will analyze the opportunities and obstacles raised by the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the American context and its relationship with the developments in the business and human rights field.

All companies, regardless of the sector they belong to, can positively or negatively impact human rights. Governments are increasingly aware of the benefits that free trade brings their nations, which has led them to do whatever is necessaryto attract foreign investment, even if it means to act against the interests of their own people. The power relationship between corporations and states generates a tension derived from their nature: while the objective of states is the welfare ofits members, the purpose of corporations is profit. It is in the crack generated by the collision of powers and purposes between these two actors, that this article is intended to raise the discussion on the need to establish an international framework for corporate liability for human rights violations. To achieve its goal, the article will analyze the opportunities and obstacles raised by the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the American context and its relationship with the developments in the business and human rights field.

La globalización permeó las fronteras artificiales existentes entre la economía y la sociedad alrededor del mundo. Las actividades empresariales en este ambiente globalizado ha servido como catalizador de las violaciones de derechos humanos como consecuencia de la ausencia de la protección institucional algunas empresas han explotado los vacíos jurídicos y la falta de protección de los derechos humanos. Al respecto, para lograr un cambio paradigmático requiere un fuerte énfasis en los derechos y las obligaciones de las empresas. Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico de las obligaciones de las empresas en material de derechos humanos frente a la falta de cláusulas de estabilización en los contratos de inversión extranjera. En primer lugar, estas cláusulas son examinadas en relación con la responsabilidad en las obligaciones corporativas con relación a los derechos humanos fundamentales. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se analizan las dimensiones sustantivas y procesales de las cláusulas de estabilización. En segundo lugar, apelando a los ejemplos concretos del Acuerdo para el desarrollo de la Minería entre Mittal Steel y el Gobierno de Liberia, así como el proyecto del Oleoducto de Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan como casos de análisis, este artículo busca la aplicación de las cláusulas de estabilidad en las inversiones extranjeras con relación a la protección de los derechos humanos por parte de los Estados y de las empresas. En tercer lugar, se propone una modificación a la forma como se introduce la cláusula relativa a los derechos humanos. En este orden de ideas, los derechos humanos de los inversionistas, específicamente de las empresas, deben ser incluidos en los acuerdos de inversión extranjera. ; Globalisation has blurred the artificial borders that exist between economies and societies around the world. The activities of corporations in this globalised environment have often served as the catalyst for human rights violations; due to the lack of institutional protection, some corporations are able to exploit regulatory lacunae and the lack of human rights protection. It appears that the paradigmatic change demands an equal emphasis of rights and obligations of corporations. This article discusses and critically analyses corporate human rights obligations and the lack thereof under stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts. First, stabilization clauses in foreign investment agreements are examined in relation to corporate obligations and responsibility for fundamental human rights. In doing so the substantive and procedural dimension of stabilization clauses is analysed. Second, using the concrete examples of the Mineral Development Agreement between Mittal Steel and the Government of Liberia Mittal Steel Agreement and of the Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan Pipeline Project as case studies, this article considers an application of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts in relation to the fundamental human rights obligation of states and of corporations. Third, a proposal for reform in the form of a fundamental human rights clause is introduced. To be clear, the argument here is that the fundamental human rights obligations of investors, particularly of corporations, must be included in foreign investment agreements.

Globalisation has blurred the artificial borders that exist between economies and societies around the world. The activities of corporations in this globalised environment have often served as the catalyst for human rights violations; due to the lack of institutional protection, some corporations are able to exploit regulatory lacunae and the lack of human rights protection. It appears that the paradigmatic change demands an equal emphasis of rights and obligations of corporations. This article discusses and critically analyses corporate human rights obligations and the lack thereof under stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts. First, stabilization clauses in foreign investment agreements are examined in relation to corporate obligations and responsibility for fundamental human rights. In doing so the substantive and procedural dimension of stabilization clauses is analysed. Second, using the concrete examples of the Mineral Development Agreement between Mittal Steel and the Government of Liberia Mittal Steel Agreement and of the Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan Pipeline Project as case studies, this article considers an application of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts in relation to the fundamental human rights obligation of states and of corporations. Third, a proposal for reform in the form of a fundamental human rights clause is introduced. To be clear, the argument here is that the fundamental human rights obligations of investors, particularly of corporations, must be included in foreign investment agreements. ; La globalización permeó las fronteras artificiales existentes entre la economía y la sociedad alrededor del mundo. Las actividades empresariales en este ambiente globalizado ha servido como catalizador de las violaciones de derechos humanos como consecuencia de la ausencia de la protección institucional algunas empresas han explotado los vacíos jurídicos y la falta de protección de los derechos humanos. Al respecto, para lograr un cambio paradigmático requiere un fuerte énfasis en los derechos y las obligaciones de las empresas. Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico de las obligaciones de las empresas en material de derechos humanos frente a la falta de cláusulas de estabilización en los contratos de inversión extranjera. En primer lugar, estas cláusulas son examinadas en relación con la responsabilidad en las obligaciones corporativas con relación a los derechos humanos fundamentales. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se analizan las dimensiones sustantivas y procesales de las cláusulas de estabilización. En segundo lugar, apelando a los ejemplos concretos del Acuerdo para el desarrollo de la Minería entre Mittal Steel y el Gobierno de Liberia, así como el proyecto del Oleoducto de Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan como casos de análisis, este artículo busca la aplicación de las cláusulas de estabilidad en las inversiones extranjeras con relación a la protección de los derechos humanos por parte de los Estados y de las empresas. En tercer lugar, se propone una modificación a la forma como se introduce la cláusula relativa a los derechos humanos. En este orden de ideas, los derechos humanos de los inversionistas, específicamente de las empresas, deben ser incluidos en los acuerdos de inversión extranjera.