Suchergebnisse

The ultimate goal of game theory is to provide a theoretical model for strategic situations' analysis, i.e. for situations where one actor's choice depends on the behavior of other players in the game. As a concept, game theory is also applicable to the legal context. Legal dialectics and processes are often conducted in some form of strategic interactions. Game theory is a way to see how legal rules affect particular actors' behavior. International Economic Law has its own dynamics which makes the process similar to the analysis through the game theoretical tools. Therefore, the rules of international law are considered as the rules of the game that are taking place among different actors. Game theoretical considerations clarify the substance of the interaction and cooperation of players involved (states, international organizations and other actors). Game theory provides a basis for normative analysis of the issue of implementation of the rules of international law and improves understanding of those rules. The topic of the paper is the application of the game theory in the context of the legal framework established by the World Trade Organization. The member states' dilemma between using the advantages and liberalization options provided by the WTO on the one hand, and joining the regional trade agreements, on the other one, is strategic by nature. Therefore, game theory can contribute to understanding and resolving, using the game of 'prisoner's dilemma' as a model. It is the game which clearly shows that a group of rational egoists can end up worse than a group of actors that acts prima facie contrary to their own interests. 'Prisoner's dilemma' demonstrates why society and law has the need for coordination as well as mechanisms for co-operation. WTO member states put emphasis on the process of liberalization conducted in the framework of regional trade agreements (RTAs); at the same time, their participation in WTO negotiations is not effective and efficient enough to make a breakthrough in the multilateral framework. A solution of the game for Member States is not to cooperate: i. e, liberalization is primarily achieved through regional agreements rather than within the WTO. The rational decision of the Member States (opting for a regional approach) has resulted in a suboptimal result, which is a basic characteristic of the game model based on a prisoner's dilemma: in this case, the optimal solution would be cooperation through a multilateral framework (World Trade Organization).

Political parties are an indispensable factor in any modern parliamentary democracy. It would be impossible to parliamentary democracy to function properly without them. Political parties are a constitutional category and they have to act in accordance with constitution, but due to their importance it is already observed that sometimes they go beyond constitution. Each country should find its own way in order to face that challenge. Germany is a good example for that, by giving political parties the freedom to act on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Law, but with the care that the entire system does not endanger itself. That could be seen in three examples. First example is the relationship between the parliamentary group as the emanation of political parties in parliament and deputies. Second example is banning of anti-constitutional political parties. Third example is the election process of judges of the Constitutional Court. The paper concludes that it is necessary to find an ideal formula for the freedom of their actions, according to which political parties are allowed to perform any action that is beneficial to the constitutional order, while not all of them are forbidden, but only the actions that have a devastating effect on the system as a whole.

The modern state administration and its bodies and special organizations should act in the field of the rule of law. It is a term that originates from the Anglo-Saxon legal world, but it is also a category and a principle of the Constitution of Serbia from 2006. The paper points out the different understandings of the rule of law and briefly looks at the position of the administration or the phase in its historical course until its subsumption under the principle of legality. In Serbia, state administration bodies consist of ministries, administrative bodies within the ministry and special organizations. Administrative or special organizations are formed by the state in order to perform professional and related administrative tasks. In order to permanently and unhinderedly perform the professional work of these organizations, they can act authoritatively. Special organizations have numerous and diverse administrative powers. The paper points out both the similarities and differences of special organizations in relation to administrative bodies. A review of the activities and organizational structure of all special organizations (secretariats, institutes, directorates and one center) established by the Law on Ministries from 2020 was performed. It was also pointed out that all institutes: the Republic Institute of Statistics, the Republic Hydrometeorological Institute, the Republic Geodetic Institute and the Intellectual Property Institute are special organizations that provide services to interested parties. In one part of the final considerations, the author states that for special organizations (as part of the state administration) it could be concluded that they really operate in the field of rule of law as an order with positive properties as characterized by the Constitution, it is necessary to strictly respect the principles organization of state administration prescribed by the Law on State Administration: independence and legality; expertise, impartiality and political neutrality, effectiveness in exercising the rights of the parties, proportionality and respect for the parties; publicity of work. ; Published

In this paper, the author points to the outdated textbook classification of states into three groups, according to whether they have carried out the codification of administrative procedure or not. The first group includes the states that have administrative procedures fully codified. The second group comprises the states with the so-called mixed systems, which have uncodified procedural regulations related to the administration, while the third group contains a few states that do not have administrative procedural regulations at all. The author analyzes recent changes in this highly dynamic field in order to specify general patterns, common characteristics and peculiarities of regulations of general administrative procedure in contemporary states. The paper especially points to the general acceptance of the concept of administrative act but also underscores the differences in its content in various legal systems. The author has identified and analyzed some smaller standalone trends, such as: the increasing complexity of administrative procedures along the lines of judicial procedures, and the most recent deviations from this trend; the increasing presence of administrative contracting and other forms of alternative dispute resolutions of administrative matters; and the growing insistence on the principle of citizens' participation in administrative proceedings. The goal of the analysis is to determine the degree of influence of the Global and European administrative law on the national regulations, to explore the activities of certain expert organizations bringing together a number of experts in the field of comparative administrative law, and to discuss the course of the latest regulations in this area.

This paper show why the standardization of administrative procedure is important for the state legal system that, in the last two decades, the administrative procedure codes were adopted in almost all of the European states. Afterwards author analyzed main driving forces for development of administrative procedural law at the level of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The most important legal sources of European administrative procedural law (basic standards, principles, recommendations and guidelines in this area) are concisely presented but it is clearly indicated that there are certain ambiguities, that these sources don't apply equally to all institutions of the Union, and that they still don't make finished, complete and forever given system that can be automatically transferred to jurisprudence of the member states and candidate countries. Moreover, often administrative process laws of the member states contain rules that are not existing in this kind of regulation at European Union level and that is why the process of adopting the first European Union general law on administrative procedure was initiated, which would further improve the standards of European administrative process in general. When it comes to the general administrative procedure of the Republic of Serbia it has been shown that in spite of the strategic orientation towards the reform of the Law on Administrative Procedure expressed in numerous strategies, our executive authorities in this area have not yet moved beyond the development of the third version of the Draft Law on General administrative Procedure which was afterward adopted by the Government as the Bill. In his final remarks the author concludes stating that the largest number of European standards of administrative process are included in the final version of the Draft, but without eliminating the shortcomings of the existing Law, and without normative adjusting to the circumstances in which the Serbian administration operates, and with unnecessary abandonment of some solutions that have proved to be right in the decades-long practice of administrative authorities.

The development of both conventional and written legal rules that were governing the roots of the administration, has run in parallel with the development of the country. The development of legal state was going parallel with the development of constitutional state. The legal state can not be imagined without pandering Administration under the law, but precisely because of it stems judicial control of management, which is necessary for the full realization of the principle of legality and the protection of rights and legal interests of citizens. Administrative action presents a means to protect the rights and interests of citizens, but on the other hand it is also an effective tool for ensuring the legality of administrative operations. Pandering administration under the law is linked to the French Revolution from 1789, in this respect, France is a country that is the first to introduce an administrative dispute. The development of an administrative dispute in France can be followed through the occurrence and development of the State Council, which was formed during Napoleon time in 1799. The legal institutionalization of the administration is not done in the same way everywhere, in that sense we distinguish two big legal systems, Anglo-Saxon and European-continental. In Anglo- Saxon law legal institutionalization of the administration included the procuring administration under the legal norms of general law, management control exercised by courts of general jurisdiction. In the European-continental law legal institutionalization of the administration departs from pandering Administration under the legal standards that belong to a specific branch of law administrative law. In the European- continental system there is a difference between private and public law, and an important part of the legal regime are special administrative courts. The development of an administrative dispute actually juridical control of administration in Serbia can be traced back to the second half of the 19th century. Although Serbia has created very early the State Council following the example of France, in a formal sense the administrative dispute in Serbia was fully introduced by the Constitution from 1869. At our place administrative activities are controlled by the courts, which are an integral part of the judiciary and acting under special rules, rules of administrative law. Depending on the positive law of certain countries, the subject of administrative dispute is defined broadly or narrowly. According to French positive law the subject of administrative dispute may be not only single authoritative legal acts of administration, but also the general acts of administration - implementing regulations issued by the administration, as well as administrative objections. According to French positive law the subject of administrative dispute is defined very broadly, unlike the German and Austrian positive law, where an administrative dispute can not be conducted against all acts of general administration. Regarding that in the comparative law we meet a number of different solutions, we believe that in our country we should choose the one that would be the best way to provide protection for the rights of citizens. We lead the administrative dispute in the first place about the legality of final administrative act against other individual legal acts because of the silence of administration, and it may be decided on the request for the return of items and damages. The results of scientific studies will confirm the importance of the need that the subject of the administrative procedure should be complied with the case of an administrative dispute. All acts adopted in the administrative procedure should have directly open the way so the control of legality can be accomplished in administrative proceedings in front of the competent administrative court. What is certainly a major challenge is a control of the legality of administrative contracts. Extended subject of administrative dispute will strengthen the position of the parties in the administrative procedure, in order to guarantee them the quality of court protection in front of the Administrative Court.

The author is of the opinion that experts in international law are not broad-minded regarding the establishment of a state. Most legal experts take for granted the statements of the international judiciary on the existance of certain rules of general international law and consider them validated and indisputable. This faction has been given support by states since they uphold those legal statements that suit their interests. The author analyses the Opinions of the Arbitration Committee on the process of the disintegration and the criteria for the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia as well as the criteria for the creation of the new states. He considers this precedent as central for international judiciary law. (SOI : PM: S. 187)