Suchergebnisse

The purpose of the two-year rule in Article 50 TEU is to prevent the remaining Member States from delaying the exit of the withdrawing Member State through stalling tactics. This article argues that the two-year period is a double-edge sword. It affords very little time to the withdrawing Member State to adjust its domestic legislation, regulatory system and administrative structure to be able to function effectively on the day after exit from the EU. The UK's Great Repeal Bill proposes a 'copy and paste' approach. However, this approach is only a partial solution to the problem of the 'exit-induced' legal lacuna. With the use of two case studies, the article demonstrates that the UK will have to establish new regulatory procedures and redefine EU concepts inserted in national law. The UK will 'regain control' but will have to follow EU practice. At some point in the future it will also encounter the dilemma of diverging from EU practice and creating two sets of compliance standards for its companies.

Wildlife crime and more precisely the illicit trade of wildlife products is one of the fastest growing international crimes in connection with narcotics trafficking, human trafficking and the small arms trade. Conducted mostly by transnational crime syndicates, wildlife crime is also a source of funding for terrorist groups and armed militias in conflict ridden states contributing to the erosion of the rule of law and environmental degradation which has been expressly acknowledged by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Yet, there is no dedicated international law instrument to tackle wildlife crime. Instead, the international community relies on international cooperation and a patchwork of international instruments none of which were originally designed to deal specifically with wildlife crime. Predictably, the current legal framework does not seem to contribute that much to the prevention and eradication of wildlife crime as wildlife populations worldwide keep plummeting. If at the legal level, the adoption of an international agreement to prevent, supress and punish wildlife crime could be a step in the right direction, maybe it is humanity's relationship with nature which needs to be reassessed especially in the light of the probable zoonotic origin of COVID-19.

The family of nations considers war crimes to be among the worst crimes, and it includes them in the group of "international crimes" -- offenses that violate the common values of the entire international community, to which all countries and all people are committed: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and others. Throughout the world special laws are enacted to criminalize such offenses and punish their perpetrators. Israel, too, has enacted clear laws to prohibit and punish the crime of genocide. However, the Israeli legal system does not contain legislation forbidding war crimes and setting corresponding punishments. This report outlines the need for Israeli legislation on that subject. The report reviews the existing provisions of Israeli law, presents international models of legal systems that criminalize war crimes, and examines the Israeli military prosecution's policy and the sentences levied by the courts-martial in cases in which soldiers are charged with crimes that may amount to war crimes. Two test cases included in the report show how the existing legal status in Israel leads people accused of war crimes to be convicted of minor offenses, sentenced to light punishments and in many cases granted a significant shortening of their criminal record. As international criminal law develops, the principle of universal jurisdiction for international crimes expands and the International Criminal Court in the Hague establishes its activity, it should be remembered that the "principle of complementarity" provides protection from criminal prosecution and judgment to those allegedly involved in committing international crimes, as long as the law enforcement system in their country fulfills its role. As such, the international system gives priority to the mother country and its legal proceedings. Therefore, a legal system fulfilling its duty and perceived to be doing so by external observers is of paramount interest to anyone who wishes to defend Israelis against foreign legal intervention

This article challenges along two lines Milton Friedman's injunction that the sole role of the business manager is to maximize profits for shareholders using all legal and ethical means. First, it shows how Friedman overly narrows the manager's moral duties to consequentialist profit maximization and thereby fails to account for a wide range of values and virtues necessary for good management. Second, it illustrates how more oblique approaches to management as well as Adam Smith's virtue-based model better capture the moral imagination and relational aspects of leadership that are critical to good management today. In the end, this article suggests that a subtler version of Friedman's directive should be considered in which maximizing shareholder wealth provides a powerful business goal but not an exclusive one to direct or to motivate managers.