Suchergebnisse

It is only in connection with electoral law that the terms 'majority principle' and 'proportionality' are widely used. It seems to us meaningful to apply the two concepts also to the political decision-making process as a whole. In this broadened sense 'majority principle' and 'proportionality' denote certain models of conflict regulation. The majority model then denotes the regulation of conflict through majority decisions. The proportional model is much more difficult to describe: its basic characteristic is that all groups influence a decision in proportion to their numerical strength. Proportional conflict regulation is easiest to apply when a decision is concerned with several units, all of which are perceived as equivalent to one another. The classical case of this is the parliamentary election, for the parliamentary seats are perceived as equivalent to one another, so that by means of an appropriate electoral law they can relatively easily be distributed on a proportional basis among the different political groups. In Switzerland the election of the government by the parliament gives rise to an analogous situation, in that the seven seats in the Bundesrat (Federal Council) are perceived as equivalent to one another, so that they can likewise be relatively easily distributed on a proportional basis. In most other political systems the application of the rules of proportionality at the level of the government would entail greater difficulties, since the individual governmental posts are perceived as being of different value. The greatest difficulty presents itself when only a single office is to be filled, for example that of President. Here the application of proportional rules is only possible if rotation of office (i.e. proportionality in the temporal dimension) is brought into the reckoning, or if the disadvantage imposed on one group can be compensated by preference given to it in another decision.

Sea — Maritime boundaries — Delimitation — Principles of — Single maritime boundary — Arbitration tribunal asked to establish single boundary line for territorial waters, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf — Adjacent States — Equitable solution — Whether international law contains any rules regarding the means of achieving an equitable solution — Whether rules more than guidelines — Equidistance method — Use of parallel lines of delimitation — State practice — Significance of regional practice — Configuration of coastline — Significance of general direction of coastline — Notion of a maritime facade — Relevance of geological and geo-morphological considerations — Proportionality of coastline to maritime zones — Economic considerations — Relevance of the security interests of the partiesSea — Islands — Significance of islands in determining boundary of territorial waters, economic zones and continental shelf between adjacent States — Convention concluded by colonial predecessors of parties to arbitration — Convention settling question of title to certain islands — Effect on maritime boundariesState succession — Treaties — Convention concluded by colonial powers regarding title to islands — Effect upon successor States — Significance in relation to maritime boundaries636Arbitration — Compromis — Maritime boundary delimitation — Composition of tribunal

Sources — Customary international law — Equity and equitable principles — Ex aequo et bono distinguished — Equity within the law — Delimitation of the continental shelf — Relevant factorsState territory — Parts of — Boundaries — Water boundaries — Boundary of continental shelf — Delimitation between opposite States — Equitable principles — Equidistance — Islands — Variable weight of — Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958, Article 6State territory — Parts of — Territorial waters — Delimitation — Baselines — Whether rocks covered only at high water equinoctial springs are islands or low — tide elevations — Practice of the parties — Eddystone RockTreaties — Operation of — Reservations — Refusal by one party to accept reservations of another — Whether affecting treaty as a whole or only provisions to which reservation relates — Effect of express treaty provision covering reservations — Intention of State making the reservation — Interpretation of reservations — Distinction between a reservation and an interpretation — Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958, Articles 6 and 12Arbitration — Procedure — Competence to determine jurisdiction — Delimitation of continental shelf — Whether extending to areas within territorial sea of partiesState territory — Parts of — Continental shelf — Extent of Boundaries — Delimitation — Opposite and adjacent States — Equitable principles — Relation to concepts of equidistance and of median line — Special circumstances — Geographical and geological considerations — Proportionality — Proximity — Natural prolongation — Islands — Whether generating their own shelves — The Channel Islands — Eddystone Rocks — The Scilly Islands — Ushant — Whether full weight to be given to them — Effect of geological features — The Hurd Deep — Position of States not parties to the arbitration

States as international persons — In general — Sovereignty and independence — In matters of domestic jurisdiction — Reserved domain — Belgian legislation on use of languages in education — Whether within scope of application of European Convention on Human Rights — Whether subject to review by European Court of Human Rights.Disputes — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction Preliminary objections — Objection to competence of Court ratione materiae — Contention that subject — matter of complaint outside scope of European Convention on Human Rights and within reserved domain — Belgian legislation on use of languages in education — Whether applicability of Convention of a preliminary character — Whether pertaining to the merits.The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (non-discrimination) — First Protocol (Article 2 (right to education)) — Belgian legislation on use of languages in education — Complaints by French-speaking inhabitants of Flemish-language region — Alleged failure of Belgian State to provide French-language education — Refusal to provide grants for institutions not complying with language legislation and to homologate leaving certificates issued — Whether compatible with Convention and Protocol — Whether within reserved domain — Meaning and scope of Article 2 of Protocol and Articles 8 and 14 of Convention — Whether conferring independent right — Whether operative in conjunction only with rights set out in other Articles — "Discrimination" — Criteria for interpretation — "Objective and reasonable justification" — "Proportionality between means employed and aim to be realized" — Limits to review by court — Subsidiary nature of international machinery of collective enforcement under Convention.

Treaties — Interpretation — Principles and rules of interpretation — Whether special approach required for organic treaty — European Convention on Human RightsTreaties — Special kinds of treaties — Treaties establishing special regimes — Whether special rules of interpretation applicable — European Convention on Human Rights262The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights — Article 11 (individual's right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests) — Government's refusal to afford applicant union right to be consulted while granting it to other unions including other police bodies — Whether right to be consulted within the protection afforded by Article 11 — Significance of phrase "protection of his interests" — State afforded a free choice of means by which to comply with its duty under the Article to enable unions to strive for the protection of their members' Interests — Mere lack of consultation not a breach of the ArticleConsideration of Article 14 (prohibiting discrimination in regard to rights set forth) in conjunction with Article 11 — Article 14 having no independent but rather a complementary existence under the Convention — Article 14 as an integral part of each substantive Article — Application of this concept where a protected right is not defined precisely leaving State wide means for implementation — Consultation as a modality of the right protected in Article 11 — Applicant caused to be at a disadvantage — Whether the distinction made by the Government was discriminatory in context of Article 14 — Elements of unlawful discrimination under the Convention — Role of Court as against that of the national authorities — Belgian Government pursuing a legitimate aim under the Convention — Principle of proportionality

38The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for the Protection of — System of military disciplinary law and procedure — Applicability of Convention to members of armed forces as well as to civilians — Relevancy of the particular characteristics of military life — Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security of person) — Exhaustiveness of permissible limitations set out in Article 5(1) (a)–(f) — Meaning of "liberty" in context of Convention — Difference in standards between servicemen and civilians — Normal conditions of life within armed forces of Contracting States — Evaluation of various forms of physical restriction complained of — Compatibility of deprivations of liberty as found with Article 5(1) of the ConventionArticle 5(1)(b) (restriction permitted to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law) — Wide interpretation unacceptable — Article 5(1)(c) (permissible restriction regarding, inter alia, detention on remand) — Restriction exceeding maximum permissible under domestic law — Breach not eliminated by taking period of detention on remand into consideration in regard to sentenceArticle 14 (prohibition against discrimination in respect of enjoyment of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention) — Distinctions between officers and other ranks — Hierarchical structure of armies creative of inequalities — Margin of appreciation — Pursuit of a legitimate aim — Principle of proportionality — Article 14Article 6(1) (right to fair hearing in, inter alia, determination of a criminal charge) — Relationship between disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges — Court's right to determine whether a disciplinary charge counts as criminal within the meaning of Article 6 — Matters to be considered in making such a decision — Failure to afford a public hearing in regard to certain of the proceedings — Article 6(2) (presumption of innocence) — Interpretation of this provision — Article 6(3) (specific procedural guarantees in regard to determination of criminal charge) — Adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence — Right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one's own choice — Right to have witnesses examined — Article 6 and 14 taken together — Difference between military and civilian proceedings explicable by differences between military and civil life39Article 10 (freedom of expression) — Meaning and application of phrase "for the prevention of disorder" — Application to the order that must prevail within the confines of a specific social group — Relationship of phrase "for the prevention of disorder" to the phrase "prevention of crime" — Meaning and application of phrase "necessary in a democratic society" — Margin of appreciation — "Duties" and "responsibilities" within the meaning of Article 10 (2) — Distinction between depriving person of his freedom of expression and punishing the abusive exercise of that freedom — Articles 10 and 14 taken togetherArticle 11 (freedom of association) — Applicants punished not for their participation in an association or its activities but for their abuse of freedom of expressionArticle 50 (question of just satisfaction) — Moral damage — Factors taken into account in the evaluation thereof — Token indemnity — No evidence of direct or indirect damage — Judgment in itself adequate just satisfaction