Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the study of one of the grounds for exemption from responsibility of international intergovernmental organizations - self-defense. It is provided by Art. 21 Draft articles on the Responsibility of international organizations, adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2011. The wording of the norm significantly differs from the relevant provision providing a similar right to sovereign states. In particular, it states that "The wrongfulness of an act of an international organization is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence under international law". It does not have a direct reference to the United Nations Charter, which is contained in Art. 21 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of the States in 2001. Currently there are no international agreements that envisage the right to self-defense of international organizations. Consequently, the basis for its application can be only an international law custom. Defining it is a complex scientific issue. Present analysis is based on the legal nature of international organizations. It is pointed out that, unlike sovereign states, they do not have their own territory, which in the vast majority of cases is the main purpose of military attacks by aggressor countries. Consequently, the grounds for applying the right to self-defense of international organizations are quite limited. They are mainly related to the negative circumstances in which police and peacekeeping units operate acting on the mandate of the relevant international organization and on its behalf. In other cases, international organizations are protected by agreements with the states on its territory their headquarters are located, where the guarantees of their safety and integrity are expressly provided. It is pointed out that it is highly likely that some of new means of direct and indirect intervention that are already being used to interfere in internal and external affairs of states will probably be applied to international organizations in the future. ; В статье даётся толкование ст. 21 Проекта статей об ответственности международных организаций, принятого Комиссией международного права ООН в 2011 г., предусматривающей право на самооборону как одно из условий, исключающих их противоправное поведение на международной арене. Содержание права на самооборону международных организаций сопоставлено с содержанием права на самооборону суверенных государств. Определена сфера практического применения права на самооборону международными организациями. ; У роботі надано тлумачення ст. 21 Проекту статей про відповідальність міжнародних організацій, що був прийнятий Комісією міжнародного права ООН у 2011 р., який передбачає право на самооборону, як одну із підстав, що виключають їх протиправну поведінку на міжнародній арені. Зміст права на самооборону міжнародних організацій зіставлений зі змістом права на самооборону суверенних держав. Визначено сферу практичного застосування права на самооборону міжнародними організаціями.

The article is devoted to the study of one of the grounds for exemption from responsibility of international intergovernmental organizations - self-defense. It is provided by Art. 21 Draft articles on the Responsibility of international organizations, adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2011. The wording of the norm significantly differs from the relevant provision providing a similar right to sovereign states. In particular, it states that "The wrongfulness of an act of an international organization is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence under international law". It does not have a direct reference to the United Nations Charter, which is contained in Art. 21 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of the States in 2001. Currently there are no international agreements that envisage the right to self-defense of international organizations. Consequently, the basis for its application can be only an international law custom. Defining it is a complex scientific issue. Present analysis is based on the legal nature of international organizations. It is pointed out that, unlike sovereign states, they do not have their own territory, which in the vast majority of cases is the main purpose of military attacks by aggressor countries. Consequently, the grounds for applying the right to self-defense of international organizations are quite limited. They are mainly related to the negative circumstances in which police and peacekeeping units operate acting on the mandate of the relevant international organization and on its behalf. In other cases, international organizations are protected by agreements with the states on its territory their headquarters are located, where the guarantees of their safety and integrity are expressly provided. It is pointed out that it is highly likely that some of new means of direct and indirect intervention that are already being used to interfere in internal and external affairs of states will probably be applied to international organizations in the future. ; В статье даётся толкование ст. 21 Проекта статей об ответственности международных организаций, принятого Комиссией международного права ООН в 2011 г., предусматривающей право на самооборону как одно из условий, исключающих их противоправное поведение на международной арене. Содержание права на самооборону международных организаций сопоставлено с содержанием права на самооборону суверенных государств. Определена сфера практического применения права на самооборону международными организациями. ; У роботі надано тлумачення ст. 21 Проекту статей про відповідальність міжнародних організацій, що був прийнятий Комісією міжнародного права ООН у 2011 р., який передбачає право на самооборону, як одну із підстав, що виключають їх протиправну поведінку на міжнародній арені. Зміст права на самооборону міжнародних організацій зіставлений зі змістом права на самооборону суверенних держав. Визначено сферу практичного застосування права на самооборону міжнародними організаціями.

The article is devoted to the study of one of the grounds for exemption from responsibility of international intergovernmental organizations - self-defense. It is provided by Art. 21 Draft articles on the Responsibility of international organizations, adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2011. The wording of the norm significantly differs from the relevant provision providing a similar right to sovereign states. In particular, it states that "The wrongfulness of an act of an international organization is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence under international law". It does not have a direct reference to the United Nations Charter, which is contained in Art. 21 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of the States in 2001. Currently there are no international agreements that envisage the right to self-defense of international organizations. Consequently, the basis for its application can be only an international law custom. Defining it is a complex scientific issue. Present analysis is based on the legal nature of international organizations. It is pointed out that, unlike sovereign states, they do not have their own territory, which in the vast majority of cases is the main purpose of military attacks by aggressor countries. Consequently, the grounds for applying the right to self-defense of international organizations are quite limited. They are mainly related to the negative circumstances in which police and peacekeeping units operate acting on the mandate of the relevant international organization and on its behalf. In other cases, international organizations are protected by agreements with the states on its territory their headquarters are located, where the guarantees of their safety and integrity are expressly provided. It is pointed out that it is highly likely that some of new means of direct and indirect intervention that are already being used to interfere in internal and external affairs of states will probably be applied to international organizations in the future. ; В статье даётся толкование ст. 21 Проекта статей об ответственности международных организаций, принятого Комиссией международного права ООН в 2011 г., предусматривающей право на самооборону как одно из условий, исключающих их противоправное поведение на международной арене. Содержание права на самооборону международных организаций сопоставлено с содержанием права на самооборону суверенных государств. Определена сфера практического применения права на самооборону международными организациями. ; У роботі надано тлумачення ст. 21 Проекту статей про відповідальність міжнародних організацій, що був прийнятий Комісією міжнародного права ООН у 2011 р., який передбачає право на самооборону, як одну із підстав, що виключають їх протиправну поведінку на міжнародній арені. Зміст права на самооборону міжнародних організацій зіставлений зі змістом права на самооборону суверенних держав. Визначено сферу практичного застосування права на самооборону міжнародними організаціями.

В настоящей работе раскрыты сущность и признаки необходимой обороны, условия правомерности её применения. Приведены различные точки зрения о полезности или вредности необходимой обороны. Необходимая оборона, её виды были рассмотрены с точки зрения закона, а также приведены научные мнения на этот счёт. Особое внимание в статье обращено на пределы необходимой обороны, рассмотрена возможность их превышения. В этой связи обращено внимание на важность тщательного рассмотрения всех обстоятельств конкретного дела, где можно применить законодательство о необходимой обороне. Выявлены трудности применения норм о необходимой обороне, в частности установления её пределов у практических работников, а также предложено решение данной проблемы. ; In the article reveals the essence and signs of necessary defense, the conditions for the legality of its application. Various points of view on the usefulness or harmfulness of necessary defense are presented. The necessary defense, its types were considered from the point of view of the law, and scientific opinions on this matter were given. Particular attention in the article is paid to the limits of necessary defense, the possibility of exceeding them is considered. In this regard, attention is drawn to the importance of careful consideration of all the circumstances of a particular case, where the legislation on necessary defense can be applied. The difficulties of applying the norms on necessary defense, in particular, the establishment of its limits for practitioners, are revealed, and a solution to this problem is proposed.

The article deals with the correlation between the European Union law and international law. Constant participation of the European Union and its members in international organizations gave a rise to the need for establishment of interrelation between the sources of international law particularly international agreements and customs and sources of European Union law such as regulating agreements and acts of the EU institutions as well as necessity to identify which norms should be applied in a certain case and which hierarchical connections exist in these sources. This issue was research by numerous Ukrainian and foreign scholars such as T.V. Komarova, O.V. Plotnikov, K. Zigler, I.I. Maryniv, R. Jennigs, K. Tomushat and others. But unlike scientific research EU agreements do not have any provisions which would identify the type of relations between EU law and international law. It is also necessary to note that the only subject which position is important in this sphere is EU Court. In order to answer the mentioned questions decisions of the EU Court which had an impact on the formation of a new law and order on international level such as the one of the European Union (for example decision in case Van Gend en Loos) and decision of the Court which established fundamental positions regarding correlation of EU law and international law (for example in case Kadi v Council and Commission) were researched into. Provisions of EU regulating agreements related to international agreements and their place in the system of norms of the European Union were analyzed. To see the procedure of applying customary law in European law case law of the EU Court was researched. The article provides modern position of the EU Court regarding interaction between European and international law.

Civil law provides both general rules that provide the grounds and procedure for liability for damage to a person, and special grounds for bringing or release from such liability in the event that the person causing such damage carried them out in self-defense or extreme necessity. Therefore, it is important to clarify the specifics of civil liability of a person in the exercise of his right to self-defense and in a state of extreme necessity. The grounds and procedure for bringing a person to such responsibility are determined, the peculiarities of the subject composition are determined. A thorough study of the Civil Code of Ukraine to determine their compliance with the general principles of civil law and the need for appropriate changes and clarifications for proper legal regulation of grounds for liability and release from liability for damage caused by a person exercising his right to self-defense and in a state of extreme necessity . The development of civil legislation of Ukraine in terms of compensation for damage caused by a person in the exercise of his right to self-defense, in conditions of extreme necessity and necessary defense in order to identify gaps and contradictions and formulate proposals for recoding the Civil Code of Ukraine. The purpose of the study is to define the concept of self-defense and extreme necessity, as well as to determine the grounds and conditions of civil liability for damage caused by a person exercising his right to self-defense or in extreme necessity, as well as sanctions applied to a person. The object of the study is the legal relationship arising from the prosecution of a person who caused harm in a state of extreme necessity or in the exercise of his right to self-defense and the application of civil sanctions. To achieve this goal, the following methods were used: formal-legal to study the legal regulation of legal relations; analytical for the correct interpretation of the scope of legal content; system-structural to determine the legal nature of the studied legal relations; historical and legal for the analysis of the development of civil legislation; dialectical to identify contradictions in legal relations and legal regulation. It is noted that in determining the content of self-defense committed by a person, it is necessary to take into account the legal nature of legal relations, as the performance of self-defense actions of a legal nature are mainly contractual obligations, and self-defense actual actions – noncontractual obligations, including tort obligations. The prevailing position in civil science is that self-defense is a way of protecting civil rights and a non-jurisdictional form of realization of this protection. It is noted that self-defense can be carried out in the form of both factual and legal actions, which can be both legal and illegal. Manifestations of self-defense are measures of operational influence, which in science are called operational sanctions. They are designed to prevent specific offenses, usually in contractual obligations and can be applied by a unilaterally authorized person out of court. Varieties of such sanctions are unilateral withdrawal from the contract; unilateral termination of the obligation; actions of the commission agent, aimed at unilateral retention of the thing to be transferred to the principal, in order to ensure their claims under the contract; actions of the commission agent aimed at unilateral deduction of the amounts due to him under the contract, received by him for the principal. Illegal active and passive actions of self-defense can lead to harm to the life, health of the offender, his property, which can lead to prosecution of the person for the damage. The analysis of the norm of Art. 1169 of the CCU, which regulates liability for damage caused by a person in the exercise of his right to self-defense. It is noted that the norm of Part 2 of Art. 1169 of the Civil Code is formulated unsuccessfully, because it does not contain information about "another person" who was harmed by a person who carried out self-defense against unlawful encroachments, and therefore it is not clear who may be obliged to compensate him. In this regard, it is proposed to make appropriate changes to the norm under study in terms of clarifying the person who may be obliged to compensate, introducing the term "causer" of the damage along with the term in the article "person who committed an illegal act". As a general rule, damage caused by a person in cases of exercising his right to self-defense is reimbursed only if the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. In this case, the right to apply a sanction for damages has a person whose actions have become the basis for the application of self-defense. Damage caused to third parties in ways not prohibited by law and which do not contradict the moral principles of society, is compensated by the person who committed the illegal act, and in other cases – by the person who carried out self-defense. That is, in the first case, the third party has the right to apply sanctions for recovery. Keywords: sanctions, liability, protection, compensation for damage, tort, operational measures.

Раздел "Международное право" - рубрика "Вопросы теории" ; Статья посвящена рассмотрению вопроса правомерности упреждающего и превентивного применения вооруженной силы. На основе различных аспектов проводится анализ, позволивший раскрыть содержание терминов, выявить основные проблемы в понимании превентивной и упреждающей самообороны и предложить практические рекомендации. Лингвистический аспект. В сложившейся международной практике вышеназванные термины имеют разное значение: упреждение трактуется как ликвидация непосредственной или близкой угрозы, а превенция рассматривается как ликвидация угрозы, не являющейся непосредственной или близкой, т. е. угрозы, которая только формируется. Историко-правовой аспект. До принятия Устава ООН существовало право государств на войну. Однако в XX в. стали формироваться нормы международного права, ограничившие, а потом и запретившие войну. Завершился процесс отказа от войн принятием Устава ООН, запретившего прибегать к применению или угрозе силой. Доктринальный аспект. Выделяют три основных подхода относительно оснований и толкования самообороны: 1) «узкое» толкование самообороны. Основанием для самообороны является исключительно вооруженное нападение; 2) расширенное толкование права на самооборону. Основанием для самообороны признается также неминуемая угроза вооруженного нападения; 3) концепция превентивной самообороны: основанием для самообороны также являются отдаленные, только формирующиеся угрозы. Юридический аспект. На основании анализа Устава ООН и других документов делается вывод о возможности применения силы государством в качестве самообороны только в ответ на вооруженное нападение, в то время как упреждающие и превентивные меры являются исключительной компетенцией Совета Безопасности ООН. Военно-политический аспект. Проводится анализ Стратегий национальной безопасности США 2002 и 2006 гг. Таким образом, одним из путей решения разногласий по поводу толкования оснований для самообороны является восполнение существующих пробелов и исправление неточностей формулировок. = The present article considers the legality of pre-emptive and preventive use of armed force. On the basis of various aspects an analysis is carried out, which enabled to reveal the contents of terms to identify the main problems in the understanding of preventive and pre-emptive self-defense and to make practical recommendations. Linguistic aspect. In the prevailing international practice, the above-mentioned terms meanings are different: pre-emption is interpreted as the elimination of direct or close threat and prevention is seems as the elimination of the threat, which has just formed. Historical aspect. Prior to the adoption of the UN Charter all states had the right to war. However, the XX century began to form norms of international law, at first, to limit the right of war, but then to prohibit war. The process of renunciation of war was completed by the UN Charter adoption, which prohibits the use or threat of force. Doctrinal point. There are three main approaches to the grounds and the interpretation of self-defense: 1) the narrow interpretation of self-defense. The basis for self-defense is an armed attack; 2) the expanded interpretation of the right to self-defense. The basis for self-defense is recognized to be an imminent threat of armed attack; 3) the basis for self-defense is also a remote threat — the concept of preventive self-defense. Legal aspect. On the basis of analysis of the UN Charter and other documents, the conclusion was made on the possibility of the use of force by a State only in response to an armed attack, while the pre-emptive and preventive measures are within the exclusive competence of the UN Security Council. Military-political aspects. This part analyses «The National Security Strategy of the United States» for 2002 and 2006. Thus, one of the ways of resolving problems in interpretation of the grounds for self-defense is to fill gaps and to correct inaccuracies of formulations.

The article deals with the issue of the conflicts of laws in international private law. It has been found out that each state has its own legal regulation of the relations which leads to conflicts of material norms of various states and complicates legal regulation of international relationships. The law of the states has many differences in regulation of various relations which provides for application of a connecting factor as one of the ways to solve the problem. It has been proved that international private law has a significant role in regulation of relations with a foreign element. As for international private law which norms are formed independently by each state, compliance with treaty obligations as well as rules and principles of international law by each state is significant to each state. At the same time, codification of international private law is the main way for systematization and legislative implementation of conflict of laws, material and procedural provisions designated for regulation of private relations with foreign element. Qualification of legal definitions which are applied in formulation of the rule of the conflict of laws is a burning issue as well. It has been established that the procedure for qualification in international private law should identify the model of relations and consists of three stages which are: interpretation of the rule; analysis of relations; comparison of the rule and relations. It has been clarified that the situation of a mobile conflict and the issue of acceptance or failure to accept remission and remission to the law of the third state relate to the issue regarding application of the rule of the conflict of laws in international private law. We think that the first priority task is to bring national laws on international private law in compliance with modern conditions of international civil and trade turnover. For the future development it is necessary to introduce a single legislative act which will take into account all these issues and the mechanism ...

The article deals with the issue of the concept of restorability as one of the most important technical and operational properties of military vehicles, and on the basis of developing a system image of the process of reconstruction of the properties of military vehicles object and repair, a typical structure of requirements is defined which should be taken into account in the development of tactical and technical the task of creating the latest weapons and military equipment.

This article deals with the issues of regulation of property relations of spouses in private international law. The article deals with the conflict issues of marriage, as well as the contractual regime of a property of spouses. The article reveals the content of the Minsk and Chisinau conventions on property relations between spouses. In particular, the conventions say that the property relations between spouses are determined by the legislation of the Contracting Party in whose territory they live together. If the husband lives in one Contracting State and the wife in the other and both have the same nationality, the law of the country of which they are nationals governs their property relations. Attention is paid to bilateral agreements on legal assistance to States in the field of property relations between spouses. For example, such an agreement exists between Russia and Estonia, and it helps to resolve various property issues between spouses. The domestic legislation of different States regulates the issue of determining the regime of matrimonial property in different ways. For example, in the States of the Anglo-Saxon legal system and in most Muslim countries there is only a regime of separate property. On the contrary, in the States of the Romano-German legal system, preference is given to the regime of the common property of spouses, and it is possible to establish a different regime of property relations by agreement of the spouses. According to this principle, and developing family law in Russia.