Suchergebnisse

Svrha je rada upozoriti na osobitu važnost suradnje država u borbi protiv krijumčarenja migranata morem, napose u prostoru izvan područja suverenosti obalnih država. U radu se stoga objašnjava međunarodnopravni okvir za aktivnosti država u borbi protiv krijumčarenja migranata morem. Pritom je naglasak stavljen na jurisdikciju država za provođenje prisilnih mjera protiv brodova kojima se krijumčare migranti. Izlaganje polazi od općih pravila koja uređuju jurisdikciju država na otvorenom moru, a danas su kodificirana u Konvenciji Ujedinjenih naroda o pravu mora iz 1982. Potom je fokus usmjeren na posebna pravila u vezi s krijumčarenjem migranata na moru sadržanima u Protokolu protiv krijumčarenja migranata kopnom, morem i zrakom, prihvaćenu uz Konvenciju UN-a protiv transnacionalnog organiziranog kriminaliteta iz 2000., gdje je u čl. 7. Protokola podcrtana upravo dužnost suradnje država stranaka "na sprječavanju i suzbijanju krijumčarenja migranata morem, u skladu s međunarodnim pravom mora". Protokol protiv krijumčarenja migranata u svome članku 17., štoviše, potiče države ugovornice na "sklapanje dvostranih ili regionalnih sporazuma ili operativnih dogovora ili suglasnosti" radi njegove bolje implementacije. U tom su smislu prikazani i evaluirani oblici bilateralne i multilateralne regionalne suradnje država s naglaskom na Mediteran, uzimajući napose u obzir suradnju država članica Europske unije preko Agencije za europsku graničnu i obalnu stražu (Frontex). K tomu, dan je osvrt na Rezoluciju Vijeća sigurnosti UN-a br. 2240 (2015) koja državama članicama UN-a daje izvanredne jurisdikcijske ovlasti na otvorenom moru pred obalama Libije, a služi kao pravni temelj za djelovanje mornaričke operacije EU-a EUNAVFOR Med "Sophia" u okviru Zajedničke sigurnosne i obrambene politike. ; The aim of the paper is to highlight the particular importance of interstate cooperation in combating migrant smuggling by sea, notably in waters beyond the sovereignty of coastal states. In explaining the international legal framework for the activities of states in combating migrant smuggling by sea, emphasis is put on the jurisdiction of states to take enforcement measures against vessels that are engaged in migrant smuggling. First, the general rules concerning the jurisdiction of states on the high seas are discussed, which are codified today in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. Thereafter, the focus is on the special rules regarding migrant smuggling by sea, as comprised in the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air of 2000, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Article 7 of the Protocol indeed emphasizes the duty of states parties to "cooperate to the fullest extent possible to prevent and suppress the smuggling of migrants by sea, in accordance with the international law of the sea." Article 17 of the Migrant Smuggling Protocol furthermore encourages states parties to "consider the conclusion of bilateral or regional agreements or operational arrangements or understandings" with a view to enhancing the Protocol's implementation. In that respect the paper examines and evaluates forms of bilateral and regional cooperation between states with an emphasis on the Mediterranean, and especially considers the cooperation between the member states of the European Union via the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). In addition, the UN Security Council Resolution 2240 (2015) is analyzed, since it grants the UN member states exceptional jurisdictional powers on the high seas off the Libyan coast and serves as the legal basis for the activities of EUNAVOR Med Sophia, an EU naval operation in the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy.

In the wake of the 'Kant revival,' which has spawned a plethora of works on his philosophy by its contemporary interpreters & advocates such as Herbert Schnadelbach, Hans Lenk, Konrad Cramer, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, Volker Gerhardt, Karl-Otto Apel, Otfried Hoffe & others (whose studies were published this year under the title of Kant in der Diskussion der Moderne), the author tries to prove, by means of an analysis of Kant's treatise Uber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis, that not only did Kant in his later works draft & expound the program of a practical philosophy of morality & right, politics, & history, but also that in the last three chapters of this work, this philosophy evolves into a modern liberal theory of morality, state law, & international or "international civil" law built around the central principle of Kant's practical philosophy: "Was aus Vernunftgrunden fur die Theorie gilt, das gilt auch fur die Praxis.". Adapted from the source document.

U radu se analiziraju pojam i pravni položaj nedržavnih aktera kao stranaka nemeđunarodnih oružanih sukoba, s posebnim osvrtom na odredbe zajedničkog čl. 3. Ženevskih konvencija za zaštitu žrtava rata iz 1949. te Dopunskog protokola II uz Ženevske konvencije iz 1977. godine, kao temeljnog međunarodnopravnog okvira koji regulira postupanje svih stranaka u nemeđunarodnim oružanim sukobima. Analizirajući pravni temelj obvezatnosti spomenutih pravnih normi u odnosu na nedržavne aktere autorica upućuje na neravnopravan položaj koji nedržavni akteri imaju u odnosu na države zbog nemogućnosti da formalno postanu strankama navedenih međunarodnih ugovora. U tom kontekstu iznose se prednosti alternativnih mehanizama (sklapanja drugih međunarodnih ugovora, davanja jednostranih izjava ili izjava o obvezivanju) kojima nedržavni akteri mogu izraziti svoju volju i pristanak da budu vezani pravilima međunarodnog humanitarnog prava, što može imati pozitivan učinak i na njihovu svijest o odgovornosti za kršenje tih pravila. ; The author of this paper analyzes the concept and the legal status of non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts. A special emphasis is placed on common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions for the protection of victims of war of 1949, as well as on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 1977 – the fundamental legal framework that regulates conduct of all parties to non-international armed conflicts. Notwithstanding the fact that these international instruments equally bind both States as well as non-State actors as parties to non-international armed conflicts, the legal position of non-State actors, compared to States, is not identical. Moreover, non-State actors cannot become parties to the aforementioned international agreements. In such a context, the author introduces alternative mechanisms (the conclusion of other international agreements, making unilateral declarations or Deeds of Commitment) which non-State actors can use to express their will and consent to be bound by the rules of international humanitarian law. The author concludes that such mechanisms may produce positive effects on non-State actors' awareness of their responsibility for violations of those rules.

The article is devoted to the doctrine & practice of the Law of Treaties. The author focuses his attention on the following four topics: (l) the Treaties & third States or third international organizations; (2) the Treaties that provide rights for third States or third international organizations; (3) the Treaties that set out obligations for third States or third international organizations. He pays special attention to the most-favored-nation clause. The author gives interpretations of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 & the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States & International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986. References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper provides a detailed overview of the existing relationship between the just war theory & international law. It stresses the fact that the two concepts were historically incompatible. The just War theory falls within ethics & appeals to superior principles that were not in accordance with the positivist law theory & the concept of sovereignty upon which public international law was founded. That incompatibility may at first seem as a paradox since the two concepts should be derived from a common base: the idea of justice. Further development of international law has clearly proved that law cannot be separated from the idea of justice & that is, to some extent, closely linked to some elements of natural law. The author concludes that in the domain of the use of force contemporary international law provides a legal frame, which is in accordance with the precepts of the just war theory. References. Adapted from the source document.

Different parts of state territory on land, sea, & in the airspace are explained first. The concept of territorial sovereignty is envisaged through principles of its all-inclusiveness & its exclusivity, subject to many exceptions & 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 & tribunals. Besides, it can be the cause of some misconceptions & confusion in public international law. Within the explanation of territorial boundaries are discussed the so-called natural boundaries -- such as rivers, lakes, & mountain boundaries -- as well as the artificial boundaries. An explanation of the principle of uti possidetis, of procedures of fixing boundaries, & of special legal scope of boundary treaties in international law is offered in conclusion. Adapted from the source document.

Switzerland's major contribution to the shaping of neutrality as an institution of international law lies in its centuries-old practice & its international recognition. However, Swiss neutrality still conforms to the classical military/political conflict, since in the past, it proved to be a successful security/political instrument in the protection of independence & territorial integrity. In the contemporary international/global constellation, there is almost no room for a neutral stance due to the global interdependence within the international community & the collective security, on the one hand, & the new threats & dangers lacking a classical military dimension, on the other. All this is conducive to the solidarity & cooperation whose purpose is protection, which requires international security/political efforts in securing peace. The Swiss government is of the opinion that participation in a collective security system such as the UN does not run counter to its permanent neutrality, since the UN Charter forbids war & does not recognize it as a means of the international regulation of conflicts. Also, the UN Charter does not oblige member countries to participate in any coercive military measure. Finally, by the admittance of the permanently neutral Austria into the UN, the practice has proved that neutrality & the collective security are compatible. On several occasions, the Swiss have raised the issue of UN membership; in the 1986 referendum, the Swiss citizens voted against this proposal, while on 3 Mar 2000, they voted in favor of it; the only other country besides Switzerland not in the UN is the Vatican. 32 References. Adapted from the source document.

Commenting on the article by R. Badinter (1996, this issue), the author contends 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 existence of certain rules of general international law & consider them validated & indisputable. This fiction has been given support by states, since they uphold only those legal statements that suit their interests. The author analyses the Opinions of the Arbitration Committee on the process of the disintegration & 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. Adapted from the source document.

The author outlines some basic conceptual aspects of the legal evolution of international relations after 11 September 2001. First, he briefly sums up the classical international law. Then he goes on to analyze the two dominant approaches to the future development of international law -- the idealistic & the realistic -- by juxtaposing Kant & Hegel. Regarding this debate one should not forget Carl Schmitt, the German legal & political theoretician, since he challenges the universalist presumptions of Kant's project. Schmitt calls into question the function of the rationalization of governance which should be taken over by the constitution, both within & outside the nation-state. The author concludes that the US & other big powers will soon have to return to the path they paved & energetically followed between 1918 & 1945, the path of gradual progress in the historical evolution of international law. 12 References. Adapted from the source document.