Suchergebnisse

Is there an intersection between the application of Public International Law with the political conduction of international relations? Should International Law, International Order and International Rules be redefined? How can such an intersection be found? The investigation seeks to extrapolate new definitions and an International Law axiom by utilizing sundry approaches to the state of the question which is properly laid out as well as some terms defined previous to the discussion by utilizing "approaches." The investigation is carried out by using the Cartesian method or that of Descartes and followers and the formal and material logical structures. Eventually new definitions and an axiom by extrapolating analyses categories are laid out. Hence, approaches such as the "legalistic" one, the "natural law" one, the "religious," the "extra-legal" one, the "eclectic" one, the "effective" one and the "UN proposed" one are analyzed in-depth upon observing the experience and current factual situation even though noting that those approaches are neither mutually exclusive nor "pure," but representative as the examples supporting them show. The paper's bottom line is no other than zeroing in on one of the oldest of International Law's wounds: That of its effectiveness. But by pointing out various moot points and by reflecting on the different reality stages, one can conclude that the material mission of the law as well as the aims of international order are eventually attained. Nonetheless in concluding and setting out the axioms and new definitions, the existing political power within a democratic framework should not be overlooked as the praxis of International Law meets that of international power to form then a juxtaposition. So, regardless of some international instruments being deemed as substantial law, one has to ask whether what the international community calls "breaking of law," is rather a breaking of procedures or adjective mandates. ; ¿Existe un punto de equilibrio o balance entre lo que es la aplicación del derecho internacional público y el manejo político de las relaciones internacionales? ¿Deben los conceptos de Derecho Internacional, Orden Internacional y Reglas Internacionales ser redefinidos? ¿Cómo se puede encontrar un punto de equilibrio? Esta investigación busca la extrapolación de nuevas definiciones y de un axioma de Derecho Internacional utilizando para ello varias aproximaciones al estado de la cuestión que es presentada así como términos previamente definidos en forma anterior al inicio de la discusión que utiliza las denominadas "aproximaciones." La investigación se lleva a cabo usando el método cartesiano y las estructuras de la lógica formal y material. Al final, nuevas definiciones y un axioma son presentadas usando para ello distintas categorías de análisis. Así, "aproximaciones" como la "religiosa o teocrática," o la "extra-legal," o la "legalista," o la "efectiva," o la del "derecho natural," la "ecléctica," la del "deber ser" y finalmente la "efectiva" son analizadas en profundidad a través de la observación de la experiencia y la situación actual, aun cuando haciendo notar que dichas aproximaciones no son mutuamente excluyentes, no tampoco "puras," pero sí representativas como los ejemplos que las soportan muestran. La idea subyacente de la investigación no es otra que centrarse en uno de los temas más importantes del derecho internacional: su efectividad. Pero al señalar varios puntos de discusión y a través de la reflexión de los diferentes escenarios reales, se puede concluir que la misión material del derecho internacional al final se cumple. No obstante, al concluir y al trazar el axioma y nuevas definiciones, no puede olvidarse el poder político existente dentro de un marco democrático por cuanto la praxis del derecho internacional se encuentra con la del poder internacional para formar una intersección. De tal manera, que independientemente de que algunos instrumentos internacionales se tengan como norma sustantiva, debe preguntarse uno si lo que la comunidad internacional llama "violación del derecho" no es una pero de meras reglas adjetivas.

Is there an intersection between the application of Public International Law with the political conduction of international relations? Should International Law, International Order and International Rules be redefined? How can such an intersection be found? The investigation seeks to extrapolate new definitions and an International Law axiom by utilizing sundry approaches to the state of the question which is properly laid out as well as some terms defined previous to the discussion by utilizing "approaches." The investigation is carried out by using the Cartesian method or that of Descartes and followers and the formal and material logical structures. Eventually new definitions and an axiom by extrapolating analyses categories are laid out. Hence, approaches such as the "legalistic" one, the "natural law" one, the "religious," the "extra-legal" one, the "eclectic" one, the "effective" one and the "UN proposed" one are analyzed in-depth upon observing the experience and current factual situation even though noting that those approaches are neither mutually exclusive nor "pure," but representative as the examples supporting them show. The paper's bottom line is no other than zeroing in on one of the oldest of International Law's wounds: That of its effectiveness. But by pointing out various moot points and by reflecting on the different reality stages, one can conclude that the material mission of the law as well as the aims of international order are eventually attained. Nonetheless in concluding and setting out the axioms and new definitions, the existing political power within a democratic framework should not be overlooked as the praxis of International Law meets that of international power to form then a juxtaposition. So, regardless of some international instruments being deemed as substantial law, one has to ask whether what the international community calls "breaking of law," is rather a breaking of procedures or adjective mandates. ; ¿Existe un punto de equilibrio o balance entre lo que es la aplicación del derecho internacional público y el manejo político de las relaciones internacionales? ¿Deben los conceptos de Derecho Internacional, Orden Internacional y Reglas Internacionales ser redefinidos? ¿Cómo se puede encontrar un punto de equilibrio? Esta investigación busca la extrapolación de nuevas definiciones y de un axioma de Derecho Internacional utilizando para ello varias aproximaciones al estado de la cuestión que es presentada así como términos previamente definidos en forma anterior al inicio de la discusión que utiliza las denominadas "aproximaciones." La investigación se lleva a cabo usando el método cartesiano y las estructuras de la lógica formal y material. Al final, nuevas definiciones y un axioma son presentadas usando para ello distintas categorías de análisis. Así, "aproximaciones" como la "religiosa o teocrática," o la "extra-legal," o la "legalista," o la "efectiva," o la del "derecho natural," la "ecléctica," la del "deber ser" y finalmente la "efectiva" son analizadas en profundidad a través de la observación de la experiencia y la situación actual, aun cuando haciendo notar que dichas aproximaciones no son mutuamente excluyentes, no tampoco "puras," pero sí representativas como los ejemplos que las soportan muestran. La idea subyacente de la investigación no es otra que centrarse en uno de los temas más importantes del derecho internacional: su efectividad. Pero al señalar varios puntos de discusión y a través de la reflexión de los diferentes escenarios reales, se puede concluir que la misión material del derecho internacional al final se cumple. No obstante, al concluir y al trazar el axioma y nuevas definiciones, no puede olvidarse el poder político existente dentro de un marco democrático por cuanto la praxis del derecho internacional se encuentra con la del poder internacional para formar una intersección. De tal manera, que independientemente de que algunos instrumentos internacionales se tengan como norma sustantiva, debe preguntarse uno si lo que la comunidad internacional llama "violación del derecho" no es una pero de meras reglas adjetivas.

"This book focuses on collaborative work within the disciplines of international law and international relations, to note sample efforts to collaborate, and to assess the cultivation of an interdisciplinary outlook"--

Due to the development of the information society, countries face the task of effectively regulating the relevant social relations. The mechanisms of such regulation should correspond to the specifics of such relations. Digitization is one of the modern methods of legal regulation, which is the use of information technology at the state level. The existing scientific achievements on digitalization processes need constant improvement, which corresponds to the specifics of this field. The object of research is digitalization in law in the light of international experience. The article aims to study and analyze digitalization in law in the international legal aspect. The following methods were used during the study: systemic, systemic-functional, comparative, sociological, analysis, synthesis, analogy, observation, classification, and statistical analysis. The article analyzes the phenomenon of digitalization, identifies the main approaches to understanding it. On the example of international experience (such countries as France, Germany, Italy, Georgia, Greece, and Great Britain), the mechanisms of using digitalization in public administration are determined, the legal regulation of informatization is analyzed. Also, based on the study and analysis of doctrinal teachings of international information experience, it is proposed to improve the domestic legal mechanism to ensure the effective functioning of public relations.

International tribunals and legal scholars have been considering the relationship between International Humanitarian Law ('IHL') and International Human Rights Law ('IHRL') for a number of years.1The International Court of Justice famously or infamously (depending on your perspective) considered their relationship in itsNuclear Weapons Advisory Opinionin 1996.2The Court concluded that while IHRL did apply in times of armed conflict, when it came to the prohibition of arbitrarily taking human life in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, the content of that prohibition had to be found in thelex specialisof IHL.