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

Como respuesta al conflicto armado que se ha desarrollado en Libia a lo largo de 2011, la UE ha ejecutado las sanciones decididas por el Consejo de Seguridad que no implican el uso de la fuerza, ha destinado más de 150 millones de euros de ayuda humanitaria a la región, ha puesto en marcha la operación FRONTEX "EPN Hermes Extensión 2011", y ha proyectado una operación militar de apoyo a la asistencia humanitaria, la EUFOR Libia, que nunca se ha desplegado. En una perspectiva más general, las revueltas populares que se han sucedido en varios Estados del sur del Mediterráneo, entre ellos Libia, en el que se ha desembocado en una guerra civil, han certificado el fracaso de la política exterior de la UE en esta región. En efecto, durante la última década la política euromediterránea de la UE ha estado mucho más centrada en la cooperación económica y comercial —sobre todo en el campo energético— y en el control de la inmigración irregular, que en el escrupuloso respeto del ordenamiento internacional y la promoción de la democracia, el Estado de derecho y el respecto de los derechos humanos, así como el desarrollo económico y social de la población de los Estados del sur del Mediterráneo. ; As a response to the armed conflict occurred in Libya during year 2011, the EU has applied those Security Council sanctions not involving the use of force. Likewise, the EU has allocated more than E 150 million to humanitarian assistance in the region having implemented Frontex Operation «EPN Hermes Extension 2011» as well and having designed a military operation in support of humanitarian assistance there —the so-called EUFOR Libya, never deployed before. From a more general perspective, people's uprisings in several Southern Mediterranean States —which in the Libyan case has led to a civil war— have proved the failure of EU's foreign policy in the region. In fact, EU's Euro-Mediterranean Policy in the last decade has been mainly focused on financial and trade cooperation (especially in the energy field) and on irregular migration control, to the detriment of the full respect for International Law, and the promotion of democracy, the rule of Law and the respect for human rights, and the economic and social development of the peoples in Southern Mediterranean States. ; Trabajo elaborado en el marco del proyecto de investigación coordinado, concedido por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, "La Política Mediterránea de la Unión Europea en perspectiva: el proceso de Barcelona, la Unión para el Mediterráneo y los intereses españoles" (DER2009-14238-C02-01).

. ; Constituye un gran error olvidar que los profesionales del derecho no pueden ser simples aplicadores de códigos normativos, sino que a partir de una serie de declaraciones de principios deben ser intérpretes de la ley, siempre en clave constirucionalista. Nadie es aséptica por naluraleza ante un conflicto social. No interesa que el poder judicial sea débil, vulnerable e ineficaz, para así criticarlo cada vez que se discrepe de sus decisiones. Al poder político le gustan mucho más los juristas que se limitan a aplicar de forma literal y neutra la ley. El objetivo primordial del derecho es decidir lo que es justo. La administración de justicia tiene que ser honesta, servida por personas con una sólida formación jurídica; pero, al mismo tiempo, dotadas también de una inseparable formación complementaria en campos tan próximos al derecho como son la ética, la criminología, la educación psicosocial. El lenguaje jurídico debe ser también vehículo de comprensión de la ley. ; We make a great mistake when we forget that law professionals cannot be merely appliers of legal codes, but that they must interpret the law, always from the constitucionalist standpoint. Nobody is aseptic by nature in the face of a social conflict. Legal powers cannot be weak, vulnerable and inefficatious, and we must be able to criticise them when we do not agree with their decisions. Political power prefers jurists who merely apply the law literally and neutrally. The main objective of the law is to decibe what is fair. The administration of justice must be honest, served by people with solid legal training. Hoewer, they must also be endowed with an inseparable complementary training in areas close to law such as ethics, criminology.

El TJUE ha desarrollado una rica jurisprudencia en torno a la edad como causa de discriminación prohibida, si bien con una exclusiva proyección en el ámbito de las relaciones laborales, pues hasta ahora es el único ámbito donde el Consejo ha ejercido la competencia prevista en el art. 19 TFUE en relación con esta causa de discriminación. Tal y como se articula en la Directiva 2000/78, la edad es merecedora de un nivel intermedio de protección, sobre todo en comparación con otras discriminaciones prohibidas por el Derecho de la Unión, como el sexo o la nacionalidad. Ello se debe a la propia redacción de la Directiva 2000/78, que establece un marco general mínimo para luchar contra la discriminación por razón de edad, circunscrito al ámbito del empleo y la ocupación. No obstante, el TJUE aporta importantes precisiones respecto al alcance y la articulación de las causas de justificación de una diferencia de trato basada en la edad, tal y como se establecen en dicha Directiva, así como respecto a ciertos efectos jurídicos de la no discriminación por razón de la edad, especialmente en las relaciones entre particulares. En este sentido, el TJUE ha afirmado la aplicación supletoria e incluso independiente del principio general del Derecho que prohíbe la discriminación por razón de la edad, también en las relaciones horizontales, siempre que la situación litigiosa se englobe dentro del ámbito de aplicación del Derecho de la Unión. La jurisprudencia Mangold/Kücükdeveci confirma con certeza que la Directiva 2000/78 no ha establecido un principio general de no discriminación por razón de la edad, sino que esta norma está destinada a facilitar la aplicación concreta de este principio general del Derecho en el ámbito del empleo y la ocupación, pero sin alterar el contenido ni el alcance jurídico del mismo. Ahora bien, en el Asunto Kücükdeveci el TJUE ha revisado el fundamento de este principio general del Derecho al entender que, a partir de su positivación en el art. 21 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales, es ésta la sede desde la que dicho principio despliega sus posibilidades y los límites de su eficacia. Este razonamiento ha sido utilizado por el TJUE para afirmar que otras manifestaciones específicas del principio de no discriminación, como la orientación sexual, también se benefician del estatus de principio general del Derecho de la Unión. ; The ECJ has developed a significant amount of case law on age as a prohibited ground of discrimination, this case law having been so far exclusively reflected in the labour relations field. This is the only field where the Council has exercised the competence set forth in art. 19 of TFEU on this ground of discrimination. Under Directive 2000/78, age is granted an intermediate level of legal protection, especially when compared to other prohibited grounds of discrimination under EU Law, such as sex or nationality. This results from the drafting of Directive 2000/78 itself, which establishes a minimal general framework to fight discrimination on the ground of age, one exclusive to the employment and occupation fields. However, the ECJ provides significant specifications as to the scope and wording of the pleas for unequal treatment on the ground of age, as established in the said Directive. Likewise, the ECJ, details the particular legal effects of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, especially on relations between individuals. In this sense, the ECJ confirms the supplementary, even independent, application of the legal general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age to horizontal relations, provided that the dispute is framed within the EU Law scope of application. The Mangold/Kücükdeveci case law confirms that Directive 2000/78 does not establish a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, but it facilitates the application of this legal General Principle of EU Law to the labour field, without altering the principle's legal content or scope. Yet, in the Kücükdeveci case, the ECJ has reviewed the basis of this General Principle of EU Law, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, upon considering the latter the legal framework within which the principle becomes effective. This has been the reasoning provided by the ECJ so as to hold that other specific manifestations of the principle of non-discrimination, as for instance sexual orientation, are granted the status of General Principles of EU Law as well.

El TJUE ha ido desarrollando una relevante jurisprudencia sobre el principio general de igualdad de trato, centrada principal, aunque no exclusivamente, en alguna de sus manifestaciones específicas, como la edad, y que se ha caracterizado por ofrecer una interpretación amplia y generosa de dicho principio, reforzando su alcance y contenido normativo. Esta doctrina jurisprudencial ha desempeñado un papel impulsor de la acción de la Unión en aquellos ámbitos competenciales donde habitualmente opera el principio de igualdad de trato, como la política social y la política de empleo. Ahora bien, esta tutela judicial de la igualdad de trato se funda en una jerarquía de motivos discriminatorios que tiene su origen en una opción del legislador de la Unión y que se proyecta tanto en el distinto alcance material de las discriminaciones prohibidas como en los diferentes niveles de justificación de las diferencias de trato admisibles. ; The ECJ has developed significant case-law on the general principle of equal treatment, this being chiefly focused, although not exclusively, on some of its particular aspects, such as age. The said case-law is characterized for its wide and generous interpretation of the aforementioned principle, having reinforced its regulatory scope and content. This case-law has given impetus to EU's action in those competence scopes where the principle of equal treatment applies, such as in social and employment policies. However, the legal protection of equal treatment is founded on a hierarchy of discrimination grounds reliant on a choice made by EU's lawmaker, which is reflected at both the various material scopes of prohibited discriminations and the various levels of justification of those differences in treatment which are admissible. ; El presente trabajo se encuadra dentro del Proyecto de investigación financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación «La 'política mediterránea' de la UE en perspectiva: el Proceso de Barcelona, la Unión para el Mediterráneo y los intereses españoles», Código DER2009-14238-C02-01.