Suchergebnisse

The international law order is the first in which we can observe the use of mediation as a legal institution. The mediation activity conducted by the United Nations is a model for contemporary legal entities. The entity is characterized by a multitude of normative regulations and undertaking informational and promotional actions in the field of mediation. The areas of action of the United Nations include interventions in political, international and domestic disputes, trade disputes, and internal disputes thus determine the UN's promediation activities in three spheres of activity: 1) mediation activities under the direction of the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. It involves mediation with the UN Secretary-General as a mediator. The conduct of mediation is aimed at resolving international and domestic disputes; 2) activities of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Working Group II: Arbitration and Conciliation / Dispute Resolution. It is the UN unit specialising in the use of mediation to settle trade disputes in a variety of entities; 3) the United Nations is an organization which employs tens of thousands of people of various nationalities, cultures and operating in different areas. This area is within the Ombudsman's responsibility as part of mediation services. The entity deals with the internal environment of the organization, resolves disputes, including those through mediation between UN employees. ; Międzynarodowy porządek prawny jest pierwszym, w którym możemy zaobserwować zastosowanie mediacji jako instytucji prawnej. Wzorem dla współczesnych podmiotów prawa jest działalność w przedmiocie mediacji prowadzona przez Organizację Narodów Zjednoczonych. Podmiot charakteryzuje się mnogością regulacji normatywnych oraz podejmowaniem akcji informacyjnych i promocyjnych w zakresie mediacji. Płaszczyzny działania ONZ obejmują m.in. interwencje w spory polityczne, międzynarodowe i krajowe, spory handlowe, spory wewnętrzne, determinując tym samym promediacyjną działalność ONZ w trzech sferach działalności: 1) działalność mediacyjna pod kierunkiem Departamentu Spraw Politycznych i Budowy Pokoju ONZ. Obejmuje prowadzenie mediacji z wykorzystaniem osoby Sekretarza Generalnego ONZ jako mediatora. Wykonywanie mediacji jest ukierunkowane na rozwiązywanie sporów międzypaństwowych i wewnątrzpaństwowych; 2) działalność Komisji ONZ ds. Międzynarodowego Prawa Handlowego (UNCITRAL), Zespół II: Arbitraż i koncyliacja / Rozwiązywanie sporów. To komórka ONZ specjalizująca się w wykorzystywaniu mediacji do opanowywania sporów handlowych w różnych konfiguracjach podmiotowych; 3) Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych zatrudnia dziesiątki tysięcy ludzi wywodzących się z różnych narodowości, kultur i działających na różnym terenie. Ten obszar jest właściwy dla działalności Ombudsmana w ramach świadczonych usług mediacyjnych. Podmiot zajmuje się środowiskiem wewnętrznym organizacji, rozwiązuje spory, w tym w drodze mediacji pomiędzy pracownikami ONZ.

The Impact of Great Powers on the Structure and Competences of the International Humanitarian Organisation the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA)UNRRA – United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, whose achievements are not sufficiently reflected in the historiography of the post-war period, is an interesting object of research for many reasons. In this article, we have attempted to show the mechanisms which great powers resorted to in order to secure a dominant position not just in terms of prerogatives but also administrative structure. The main task of the UNRRA was to offer aid needed for the economic and moral reconstruction of the countries occupied by the Axis. This was a massive challenge in logistical and theoretical terms. An efficiently functioning aid organisation could serve not just peace building on humanitarian foundations but also be a test for the paradigm of the United Nations the founding of which it preceded. And it was for just those reasons that many countries expressed apprehension as to the US dominance visible in the negotiations while realising that humanitarian assistance without taking account of the economic potential of that power would have been doomed to fail.

The article discusses critical opinions addressed at present to the UNO by the States and scholars. It was already during the San Francisco conference that the States raised objections to the adopted solutions. After 43 years of its existence, the UNO is still far from fulfilling the hopes which were fostered at the time of its foundation. The causes of shortcomings may be found in structural and managerial deficiencies. The complexity of the UNO structure influences the dissipation of efforts and makes the coordination more difficult. The waste of means on countless programmes, sub-programmes and projects has often been subject to criticism. The efforts to increase efficiency through establishing organs which were to improve the system failed (eg. Administrative Commitee on Co-ordination, Commitee on Programme and Co-ordination, Joint Inspection Unit). However, those organs helped to record and disclose shortcoming and their sources by way of Publishing critical reports. Managerial problems consist mostly in difficulties with poor professional qualifications of the UNO staff. The view that the professional level decreases constantly is shared by 69% of diplomats employed in the UNO-affiliated missions. Critical opinions are voiced also with respect to the unreality of projects, declarativity and mere talk present in the UN system. Particular organizations established on regional and political grounds, the number of which grows constantly and at present is close to 330, are far more efficient. The UNO documents indicate that the member-States most often call for the amendments of provisions on the Security Council, and in the first place on its composition and voting system. The author shares the view that multiplying agencies and organs, or abortive attempts to limit the role of superpowers in the Security Council will not bring adequate effects. Little efficiency of the UNO in maintaining the world peace may be eliminated not through a direct structure reform of the system but indirectly through activities aimed at improving the economic situation of the South. The UNO should work out a worldwide welfare programme which would influence indirectly the consolidation of the world peace through increasing the economic level of conflict-generating regions. Such a programme would have to adopt a system of preferences, for the existing free-market rules the disproportions between the North and the South. ; Digitalizacja i deponowanie archiwalnych zeszytów RPEiS sfinansowane przez MNiSW w ramach realizacji umowy nr 541/P-DUN/2016

The purpose of the present paper is to characterise the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution No. 65 276 on the 'Participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations.' This resolution was adopted as a result of efforts undertaken by the EU following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon which radically changed the principles and conditions of the EU's participation in other international organisations. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 65 276, the EU was granted a new set of new rights at the UNGA as well as in some of its subsidiary bodies, international conferences and meetings held under its auspices. Despite these changes, the status of the EU at the UNGA is not similar to the status of observer states, and Resolution 65 276 points out that the same rights may also be accorded to other regional international organisations. Consequently, the UNGA does not account for the uniqueness of the integration process in the EU member states, treating the EU like any other international organisation.

The purpose of the present paper is to characterise the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution No. 65 276 on the 'Participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations.' This resolution was adopted as a result of efforts undertaken by the EU following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon which radically changed the principles and conditions of the EU's participation in other international organisations. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 65 276, the EU was granted a new set of new rights at the UNGA as well as in some of its subsidiary bodies, international conferences and meetings held under its auspices. Despite these changes, the status of the EU at the UNGA is not similar to the status of observer states, and Resolution 65 276 points out that the same rights may also be accorded to other regional international organisations. Consequently, the UNGA does not account for the uniqueness of the integration process in the EU member states, treating the EU like any other international organisation. ; Celem prezentowanego artykułu jest dokonanie charakterystyki rezolucji Zgromadzenia Ogólnego ONZ nr 65/276 w sprawie statusu uczestniczącego Unii Europejskiej w pracach ONZ. Powyższa rezolucja przyjęta została w rezultacie zabiegów podjętych przez UE po wejściu w życie Traktatu z Lizbony, który zmienił zasady i warunki udziału UE w innych organizacjach międzynarodowych. Na podstawie postanowień rezolucji 65/276 UE otrzymała zupełnie nowe prawa w ZO ONZ, a także w niektórych jego organach pomocniczych oraz międzynarodowych konferencjach i spotkaniach organizowanych pod jego auspicjami. Pomimo tych zmian status UE przy ZO ONZ nie jest podobny do statusu państw obserwatorów, a rezolucja nr 65/276 podkreśla, że takie same prawa, jakie posiada UE, mogą otrzymać również inne regionalne organizacje międzynarodowe. Tym samym ZO ONZ nie uwzględnia wyjątkowości procesu integracji państw w ramach UE i traktuje ją jak każdą inną organizację międzynarodową.

Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law. ; Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

Differences between countries are the immanent feature of social growth but these days that situation had been complicated by globalization. The benefits of globalization are not so obvious because the new opportunities like: faster growth, higher living standards, promotion of democratic values aren't equally distributed and the global market is not yet underpinned by rules based on shared social objectives. That realities cause serious consequences for safety and peace in world. Those issues are the main challenge for international community. They determinate live standard of people and future of our planet. For that reasons author analyse what United Nations are making to find a solution to that problems and where are both - the main difficulties and weaknesses of international act system. Only that kind of Organizations have a legitimation to create an international forum which is necessary to find a solution for international issue. That is why autor is indicated those problems of inequality as a priority over national interests.

Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations' missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.