Suchergebnisse

Public international law has been 'global' in its application since at least the 1960s, when most western colonial empires had disappeared. Still, it is far from being left untouched by the fundamental changes which law is undergoing worldwide and which scholars often catch under the term 'globalization'. The gradual decline of the monopoly of states in the field of international relations and the on-going globalization of the economy and the challenges mankind is facing threaten the autonomy of public international law and even stretch it to its vanishing point. The authors argue that while international lawyers should not react defensively, we should be even more careful not to sacrifice the central position of the state in international law too readily as it is the prime locus of democracy and the rule of law. They also plead for a shift in international legal academia from the traditional focus on the formal role of international law within the system of law and global governance to studying its societal impact and potential in facing global challenges.

After the first drafts of the Treaty of Lisbon were available outside of the small circle of cogniscenti, specialists of the various policies tried to establish whether the new Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) contained anything relevant for their specific areas of law. People interested in tax law and those interested in the relation between EU law and public international law quickly established that one familiar yet not always well understood part of the old EC Treaty was missing: The TFEU like the earlier draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, did not contain an equivalent to Article 293 EC – an Article regulating agreements between EU Member States on matters such as inter alia double taxation. In this chapter, I will embark on looking at the reasons and, more importantly, the effects of abolishing Article 293 EC in the current legal system. Several questions need to be addressed: Is there now a legal void? If not, was the initial article superfluous? What does its disappearance say about the future relation between double tax agreements concluded under public international law and EU law? The issue of double tax agreements in the context of the EU raises some fundamental questions about the complex multi-level legal world we are living in.

This report is intended for development professionals as a way to help them understand some of the key characteristics of peace negotiations and how the points of impasse between parties are often strikingly similar. Development professionals can play an important role in any peace process, providing the technical knowledge and practical, on-the-ground insights necessary to create a peace agreement that is durable. They are often in a position to facilitate dialogue among the parties in conflict, provide funding to support peace processes, contribute technical expertise and deliver practical knowledge as to what is feasible during the implementation of the peace agreement based on existing dynamics on the ground. Because development is a key component in any peace process, it is important to have development professionals present at the negotiation table, not just in the post-conflict implementation phase. This is often important because necessary technical issues will be reflected within an agreement to bring about successful implementation. This brief provides a number of lessons learned that are important for development practitioners to keep in mind when supporting peace processes. Much of the guidance offered in this brief has been distilled from multiple sources in academic literature, from background materials used in developing Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation's toolkit on supporting peace processes and from materials produced by numerous other research institutions.

Public international law has been 'global' in its application since at least the 1960s, when most Western colonial empires had disappeared. Still, it is far from being left untouched by the fundamental changes which law is undergoing worldwide and which scholars often catch under the term 'globalization'. The gradual decline of the monopoly of States in the field of international relations and the on-going globalization of the economy and the challenges mankind is facing threaten the autonomy of public international law and even stretch it to its vanishing point. The authors argue that while international lawyers should not react defensively, we should be even more careful not to sacrifice the central position of the State in international law too readily as it is the prime locus of democracy and the rule of law. They also plead for a shift in international legal academia from the traditional focus on the formal role of international law within the system of law and global governance to studying its societal impact and potential in facing global challenges.

The premises concerning the use of force are currently changing, as are the goals and methods, which entails that appropriate adaptation and interpretation of international legal norms is required in the context of new threats and methods of combating them. This constitutes a significant problem, especially in the event of extraordinary circumstances that are to justify the use of unilateral measures without the consent of the UN Security Council. This encompasses, inter alia, the issue of targeted killing, i.e. eliminating in the territory of another state, while not operating against such a state, on the order of a specific government, a specific person responsible for the illegal use of force, if other methods of apprehending the perpetrator are unrealistic. This makes such a method, in a given circumstance, a legal form of combat, as long as the criterion of necessity and proportionality is taken into account.

The provisions aiming at reducing non-tariff barriers and notably regulatory differences are the main innovation in CETA and the one that presents most important economic gains. In order to promote compatibility and convergence of their regulations, the EU and Canada have established cooperation mechanisms that, for the first time, integrate guidelines regarding good regulatory policies within a trade agreement but also set up permanent institutional schemes with the objective of facilitating and promoting regulatory cooperation between the parties. Even though these regulatory cooperation mechanisms included in the new generation of trade agreements such as CETA, do not modify directly the legislative and regulatory procedures of the EU and its Members states and are presented as voluntary for the parties, the European civil society is very much concerned about them. It fears that these mechanisms will endanger European democratic principles and restrict the regulatory autonomy of the parties and notably their right to adopt rules in order to follow socio-environmental objectives. This article aims at taking these worries seriously and putting forward an analysis of the regulatory cooperation provisions within CETA which is firstly descriptive and then evaluative. This analysis follows the framework established by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public and International Law in the context of the development of an international public law theory.

The provisions aiming at reducing non-tariff barriers and notably regulatory differences are the main innovation in CETA and the one that presents most important economic gains. In order to promote compatibility and convergence of their regulations, the EU and Canada have established cooperation mechanisms that, for the first time, integrate guidelines regarding good regulatory policies within a trade agreement but also set up permanent institutional schemes with the objective of facilitating and promoting regulatory cooperation between the parties. Even though these regulatory cooperation mechanisms included in the new generation of trade agreements such as CETA, do not modify directly the legislative and regulatory procedures of the EU and its Members states and are presented as voluntary for the parties, the European civil society is very much concerned about them. It fears that these mechanisms will endanger European democratic principles and restrict the regulatory autonomy of the parties and notably their right to adopt rules in order to follow socio-environmental objectives. This article aims at taking these worries seriously and putting forward an analysis of the regulatory cooperation provisions within CETA which is firstly descriptive and then evaluative. This analysis follows the framework established by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public and International Law in the context of the development of an international public law theory.

The thesis explores the scope of protection, including the extraterritorial applicability of the prohibition of collective expulsion on a global level. It further carves out how and why the prohibition evolved into a procedural guarantee that binds states when expelling foreigners en masse. In doing so, the work assesses the guarantee enshrined in various regional and international human rights instruments.

International audience ; Charles VI famously promised Prussian King Frederick William I the succession of the duchies of Jülich and Berg in 1726, but did not keep this treaty pledge. Frederick II did not think high of public international law, but used this as a political motive for revenge on Austria in November 1740, starting the War of the Austrian Succession. Although the Emperor benefitted from an advantageous position in Imperial law, which was essentially feudal for successions, his decisions in the 1720s were always the counterpart of a bilaterally negotiated concession by the other party, triggered by European, rather than German politics. In the light of the Utrecht and Italian examples, it can be argued that the power relations at the inter-sovereign level and the resulting political compromise created an implicit hierarchy, where vertical Imperial law was bowed and bent to fit the main players' horizontal options.

Every state may face a bid for protection in embassies or consulates from persons looking for a shelter in dangerous situations to their lives and safety. Even though diplomatic asylum is more peculiar to Latin America region, no State is prevented from such seekers. Practical examples show that diplomatic asylum helped to safe thousands of people in countries where instability of governments exist, during wars or in situations where no other alternative of protection was available. Grant of diplomatic asylum is a problematic issue because it raises question which value should prevail: inviolability of premises or non interference into internal affairs, protection of human rights or sovereignty of State. This master thesis attempts to find out what is the current position of diplomatic asylum in the context of public international law and on what grounds it could be granted in embassies and consulates. For this aim, the thesis is focused on the evolution and main features of diplomatic asylum, on its relation with regional and universal international law instruments, on dominating positions to diplomatic asylum in the case law. International treaties, state practice and various positions of legal writers were analyzed in order to reveal grounds for granting diplomatic asylum. In the States where diplomatic asylum is recognized, it is granted according to the existing legal regulation. In the States where diplomatic asylum is not considered as legal institute, it is granted on humanitarian considerations in order to protect people. The thesis concludes that different attitudes to diplomatic asylum exist regarding international law. For a group of State it is an institute of regional international law while other states tolerate it purely on humanitarian considerations. Despite different approaches of diplomatic asylum in the international law, it can be a means to protect life or safety of a person.

Every state may face a bid for protection in embassies or consulates from persons looking for a shelter in dangerous situations to their lives and safety. Even though diplomatic asylum is more peculiar to Latin America region, no State is prevented from such seekers. Practical examples show that diplomatic asylum helped to safe thousands of people in countries where instability of governments exist, during wars or in situations where no other alternative of protection was available. Grant of diplomatic asylum is a problematic issue because it raises question which value should prevail: inviolability of premises or non interference into internal affairs, protection of human rights or sovereignty of State. This master thesis attempts to find out what is the current position of diplomatic asylum in the context of public international law and on what grounds it could be granted in embassies and consulates. For this aim, the thesis is focused on the evolution and main features of diplomatic asylum, on its relation with regional and universal international law instruments, on dominating positions to diplomatic asylum in the case law. International treaties, state practice and various positions of legal writers were analyzed in order to reveal grounds for granting diplomatic asylum. In the States where diplomatic asylum is recognized, it is granted according to the existing legal regulation. In the States where diplomatic asylum is not considered as legal institute, it is granted on humanitarian considerations in order to protect people. The thesis concludes that different attitudes to diplomatic asylum exist regarding international law. For a group of State it is an institute of regional international law while other states tolerate it purely on humanitarian considerations. Despite different approaches of diplomatic asylum in the international law, it can be a means to protect life or safety of a person.

Political interest in territorial integrity and state sovereignty has always been to the fore in decisions made by governments faced with those who rebel. Thus, rebellion has been considered as an integral part of internal armed conflict rather than expanding it as part of external or international armed conflict. In this way, public international law has not only limited its scope of application but also failed to provide an effective legal framework for rebels who are not categorised as a party to international armed conflict. The enormous political support for "state sovereignty" and lack of necessary political will to recognise the right of rebellion at the international level have played a vital role in this failure. Attempts to overcome the failure have never been successful due to the fear of ruling authorities that recognition of the right of rebellion might provide legitimacy to opponents and put their authority at risk. The political power has always triumphed over the necessity to recognise the right of rebellion, and this has resulted in the underdevelopment of this area of law. Furthermore, the rebels have denied their accountability for asymmetrical use of force against state authorities based on their disadvantageous position under public international law. This unequal position between rebels and state authorities has created a "gap" in the current international legal framework.

Monism and dualism represent two different approaches towards the relationship between public international law and municipal law. While the former views public international law and municipal law as a single legal system, the latter regards these two areas of law as separate and distinct legal systems that exist alongside each other. However, not all legal systems are clearly either monist or dualist. The dichotomy between monism and dualism no longer only concerns the relationship between public international law and municipal law, but also increasingly affects the relationship between public international law and regional law. This contribution discusses the application of the monist and dualist approaches by the South African Constitutional Court in the Glenister case and the European Court of Justice in the Kadi and Hungary cases in order to illustrate the practical application of the dichotomy between monism and dualism in a municipal system and on a regional level.

Monism and dualism represent two different approaches towards the relationship between public international law and municipal law. While the former views public international law and municipal law as a single legal system, the latter regards these two areas of law as separate and distinct legal systems that exist alongside each other. However, not all legal systems are clearly either monist or dualist. The dichotomy between monism and dualism no longer only concerns the relationship between public international law and municipal law, but also increasingly affects the relationship between public international law and regional law. This contribution discusses the application of the monist and dualist approaches by the South African Constitutional Court in the Glenister case and the European Court of Justice in the Kadi and Hungary cases in order to illustrate the practical application of the dichotomy between monism and dualism in a municipal system and on a regional level.

This PhD dissertation conceptualizes the World Bank Inspection Panel as a mechanism of quasi-judicial review or oversight, aimed at enhancing the accountability and legitimacy of the World Bank – which is conceived as an international institution exercising public power. The author engages in comparative constitutional law analysis, looking towards three non-international constitutional systems (the United States, European Union, and post-Apartheid South Africa) to construct a 'conceptual model of judicial oversight' that refl ects the concept's 'nature', 'effect', and 'dynamics'. The author employs this Model to analyze the institutional history and practice of the World Bank Inspection Panel, covering the Panel's entire institutional lifespan to date. The author concludes that the nature, effect and dynamics of judicial oversight – indeed, the 'judicial spirit' – are more alive in this area of public international law than what might be expected.