Suchergebnisse

Pensar tras Derrida. No pensar con él. No en su lugar o ante él. Tampoco en contra de él. El libro coordinado por Miriam Jerade y Rosaura Martínez Ruíz nos invita justamente a pensar tras él, después de él, en bastardillas, como marcando, remarcando una retirada y una reescritura. Otra escritura, una escritura poética y performativa, que podríamos inscribir aquí con comillas invisibles, como exponiendo el suspenso fenomenológico de una epokhé, pero que es también una puesta entre paréntesis de las comillas: una epokhé de la epokhé, una epokhé pre-originaria que retiene y relanza cualquier posición o tesis general para dar a leer aquello que no podría aparecer como tal sino en el pensamiento de la différance: lo que nos espera más lejos, irreconocible, impensado. Pero ¿cómo abrir y dejar en suspenso el texto derridiano? ¿Cómo leer, interpretar, descifrar o decodificar las huellas de su corpus filosófico en el umbral de su propio pensamiento, no a través de una explicación de texto o close reading para que se desvele la verdad o la cosa misma, sino como una textualidad liberada de la autoridad del sentido o del concepto? ¿Cómo afrontar una escritura y una lectura seminal y diseminante que desborda y precede el horizonte hermenéutico de la comprensión?

Ante el desconcierto institucional que caracteriza a la Unión Europea es preciso hacer balance y reflexionar sobre los aspectos positivos que el avance de la construcción europea ha supuesto para los todavía veintiocho Estados integrados en esta compleja entidad supranacional, y cuyo andamiaje debe ser necesariamente renovado para garantizar el dinamismo y la agilidad en la toma de decisiones que requiere el contexto de un mundo globalizado. La UE debe ser capaz de responder a los retos que tal globalización mundial implica, ad intra y ad extra.Recibido: 14 diciembre 2018Aceptado: 19 enero 2019Publicación en línea: 30 abril 2019

Tras la sentencia dictada por la Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña es preciso
analizar las claves jurídicas del siniestro del buque Prestige, y en particular estudiar
los diferentes ámbitos de responsabilidad exigibles en relación al caso, para concluir estudiando
las medidas preventivas necesarias a futuro en el ámbito de la Unión Europea dentro
de este sector de la contaminación marítima por hidrocarburos.
Coruñako Probintzia Auzitegiak emandako epaiaren ondoren, Prestige
itsasontziko istripuaren gako juridikoak aztertu behar dira, batik bat eskatu ahal diren erantzukizunak.
Amaitzeko, etorkizunean Europar Batasunean beharko diren prebentzio-neurriak
aztertu dira, itsasoa hidrokarburoz kutsatzearen arloan.
This article aims to analyze the legal keys of the Prestige incident, and in
particular explore the different areas of responsibility applicable in relation to the case, to
conclude studying the necessary preventive measures for the future in this area of marine
pollution by hydrocarbons.

The article aims to point out that the notion of sexual and reproductive rights was set up exclusively for the body of bio-women, excluding gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender and intersex people of their dogmatic formulation. From the critical analysis of Beatriz Preciado, this paper seeks to show how subversive reappropriation sexual technology provides each individual the autonomy to manage the transformation of his own body according to gender identity freely want to redo. In this context, recognition of sexual and reproductive rights satisfies the desire for recognition of those precarious subjectivities that have been excluded from the scope of protection law. To resist state violence deprives non-normative gender of their human rights, it requires a political struggle based on equality that enables certain of lives that are worth living and worthy of being mourned. ; El artículo tiene por objeto señalar que la noción de los derechos sexuales y reproductivos fue configurada exclusivamente para el cuerpo de las bio-mujeres, excluyendo a los gays, lesbianas, bisexuales, transexuales, transgéneros e intersexuados de su formulación dogmática. A partir de los análisis críticos de Beatriz Preciado, este trabajo busca mostrar cómo la reapropiación subversiva de las tecnologías sexuales proporciona a cada individuo la autonomía de gestionar la transformación de su propio cuerpo de acuerdo a la identidad de género que libremente desee rehacer. En este contexto, el reconocimiento de derechos sexuales y reproductivos satisface el deseo de reconocimiento de aquellas subjetividades precarizadas que han sido excluidas del ámbito de protección de la ley. Para resistir a la violencia estatal que priva a los géneros no-normativos de sus derechos humanos, se requiere de una lucha política basada en la igualdad que posibilite que ciertas vidas que sean dignas de ser vividas y merecedoras de ser lloradas.

El sistema legislativo español se encuentra en el grupo de reglas complejas o plurales, caracterizado por la existencia de conflictos domésticos de naturaleza inter-territorial. El elemento clave regulador de la estructura del sistema español de derecho internacional privado se basa hoy día en el derecho comunitario, concretamente, en el artículo 65 del Tratado de Amsterdam, que pudo, por lo menos teóricamente, influir en la base esencial del sistema de derechos «forales» (leyes históricas), afectando directamente al régimen matrimonial económico y a los sectores de la sucesión. La única manera de evitar una desaparición potencial o una carencia reguladora de la aplicación de la ley interregional se basa en la existencia de una cláusula de salvaguarda en el tratado ya mencionado. ; The Spanish legal system stands in the group of complex or plural rules, characterised by the existence of domestic conflicts of inter-territorial nature. The key regulatory element in the structure of the Spanish system of International Private Law is based nowadays by Community Law in article 65 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which might, at least theoretically, influence on the essential ground of the system of «Foral» Laws (Historical Laws), directly affecting to the economic matrimonial regime and to the succession sectors. The single manner to avoid a potential disappearance or regulatory lack of enforcement of interregional Law is based actually by means of a safeguard clause in the aforementioned Treaty

En: Arbitraje: revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones. eISSN. 2603-9281. vol. 11, n. 3, 2018, pp 703-734 ; El caso RFC Seraing v. FIFA gira en torno a la prohibición del Third Party Ownership (TPO), impuesta por la FIFA en el art. 18ter de su Reglamento sobre el Estatuto y la Transferencia de Jugadores (RETJ). La sentencia de 20 febrero 2018 del Tribunal Federal Suizo (TFS) reabre el debate acerca de la especificidad del Derecho del deporte y la proyección sobre el mismo de los principios y normas del Derecho europeo; en su decisión, el TFS desestima el recurso de anulación presentado por un club de fútbol de tercera división belga contra el laudo dictado por el Tribunal Arbitral de Deportes (TAS) el 9 marzo 2017. La decisión del TFS considera, por un lado, que el TAS es un verdadero tribunal arbitral y confirma a su vez la validez de la prohibición impuesta por la FIFA a los TPO. El litigio abre de nuevo el debate centrado, por un lado, en el análisis de la compatibilidad de la normativa FIFA con la legislación europea que ampara la libre circulación de personas y capitales así como la protección de la libre competencia y por otro en la interacción entre las decisiones arbitrales del TAS y las de los respectivos tribunales estatales, junto al papel decisorio final que previsiblemente habrá de jugar el TJUE en esta materia sobre la que todavía no ha tenido ocasión de pronunciarse. En paralelo, el RFC Seraing y Doyen Sports Ltd. iniciaron un procedimiento judicial en Bélgica contra la FIFA, la UEFA y la Federación Belga de Fútbol). Procesalmente, el tribunal belga tenía que determinar si podía declararse competente o si la excepción de arbitraje alegada por la FIFA (es decir, que la disputa tenía que dirimirse por arbitraje ante el TAS), era válida. El 29 agosto 2018, la Corte de Apelación de Bruselas dictó una decisión declarándose competente al considerar que la cláusula de arbitraje contenida en los Estatutos de la FIFA no era válida al ser demasiado genérica. En su argumentación, y haciendo referencia al art. 1681 del Code judiciaire belga y al art. II del Convenio de Nueva York sobre el Reconocimiento y la Ejecución de Sentencias Arbitrales Extranjeras de 1958 (CNY), la Corte de Apelación de Bruselas consideró que la cláusula de arbitraje TAS contenida en los Estatutos de FIFA no cumplía con el requisito de referirse a una relación jurídica determinada ("rapport de droit déterminé"). ; The case Rfc Seraing v. FIFA revolves around the ban of the Third Party Ownership (TPO), imposed by FIFA in art. 18 ter of its Regulations on the Statute and Transfer of Players (RETJ).The judgment of February 20, 2018 of the Swiss Federal Court (SFC) reopens the debate about the specificity/particularity of sports law and the projection on it of the principles and rules of European Law; in the decision, the SFC dismisses the appeal of annulment filed by a Belgian third division football club against the arbitral award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on March 9, 2017. The decisions of the SFC considers, on the one hand, that the CAS it is a true arbitral tribunal and confirms in turn the validity of the prohibition imposed by FIFA on the TPO. The litigation opens again the debate centered, on the one hand, on the analysis of the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with European legislation that protects the free movement of people and capital as well as the protection of free competition and on the other hand in the interaction between the arbitral decisions of the CAS and those of the respective state courts, together with the final decision–making role that the CJEU will foreseeable have to play in this matter on which it has not yet had the opportunity to rule. Meanwhile, RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports Ltd. initiated legal proceedings in Belgium against FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian Football Federation. Procedurally, the Belgian court had to determine whether it could declare itself competent or whether the arbitration exception alleged by FIFA (that is, the dispute had to be settled by arbitration before the CAS) was valid. On August 29, 2018, the Brussels Court of Appeal issued a decision declaring itself competent when considering that the arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes was not valid because it was too generic. In his argument, and making reference to art. 1681 of the Code judiciaire Belgian and to art. II of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (CNY), the Brussels Court of Appeal found that the TAS arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes did not meet the requirement to refer to a specific legal relationship ("rapport de droit determine"). ; The case Rfc Seraing v. FIFA revolves around the ban of the Third Party Ownership (TPO), imposed by FIFA in art. 18 ter of its Regulations on the Statute and Transfer of Players (RETJ).The judgment of February 20, 2018 of the Swiss Federal Court (SFC) reopens the debate about the specificity/particularity of sports law and the projection on it of the principles and rules of European Law; in the decision, the SFC dismisses the appeal of annulment filed by a Belgian third division football club against the arbitral award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on March 9, 2017. The decisions of the SFC considers, on the one hand, that the CAS it is a true arbitral tribunal and confirms in turn the validity of the prohibition imposed by FIFA on the TPO. The litigation opens again the debate centered, on the one hand, on the analysis of the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with European legislation that protects the free movement of people and capital as well as the protection of free competition and on the other hand in the interaction between the arbitral decisions of the CAS and those of the respective state courts, together with the final decision–making role that the CJEU will foreseeable have to play in this matter on which it has not yet had the opportunity to rule. Meanwhile, RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports Ltd. initiated legal proceedings in Belgium against FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian Football Federation. Procedurally, the Belgian court had to determine whether it could declare itself competent or whether the arbitration exception alleged by FIFA (that is, the dispute had to be settled by arbitration before the CAS) was valid. On August 29, 2018, the Brussels Court of Appeal issued a decision declaring itself competent when considering that the arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes was not valid because it was too generic. In his argument, and making reference to art. 1681 of the Code judiciaire Belgian and to art. II of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (CNY), the Brussels Court of Appeal found that the TAS arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes did not meet the requirement to refer to a specific legal relationship ("rapport de droit determine").

En: Arbitraje: revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones. eISSN. 2603-9281. vol. 11, n. 3, 2018, pp 703-734 ; El caso RFC Seraing v. FIFA gira en torno a la prohibición del Third Party Ownership (TPO), impuesta por la FIFA en el art. 18ter de su Reglamento sobre el Estatuto y la Transferencia de Jugadores (RETJ). La sentencia de 20 febrero 2018 del Tribunal Federal Suizo (TFS) reabre el debate acerca de la especificidad del Derecho del deporte y la proyección sobre el mismo de los principios y normas del Derecho europeo; en su decisión, el TFS desestima el recurso de anulación presentado por un club de fútbol de tercera división belga contra el laudo dictado por el Tribunal Arbitral de Deportes (TAS) el 9 marzo 2017. La decisión del TFS considera, por un lado, que el TAS es un verdadero tribunal arbitral y confirma a su vez la validez de la prohibición impuesta por la FIFA a los TPO. El litigio abre de nuevo el debate centrado, por un lado, en el análisis de la compatibilidad de la normativa FIFA con la legislación europea que ampara la libre circulación de personas y capitales así como la protección de la libre competencia y por otro en la interacción entre las decisiones arbitrales del TAS y las de los respectivos tribunales estatales, junto al papel decisorio final que previsiblemente habrá de jugar el TJUE en esta materia sobre la que todavía no ha tenido ocasión de pronunciarse. En paralelo, el RFC Seraing y Doyen Sports Ltd. iniciaron un procedimiento judicial en Bélgica contra la FIFA, la UEFA y la Federación Belga de Fútbol). Procesalmente, el tribunal belga tenía que determinar si podía declararse competente o si la excepción de arbitraje alegada por la FIFA (es decir, que la disputa tenía que dirimirse por arbitraje ante el TAS), era válida. El 29 agosto 2018, la Corte de Apelación de Bruselas dictó una decisión declarándose competente al considerar que la cláusula de arbitraje contenida en los Estatutos de la FIFA no era válida al ser demasiado genérica. En su argumentación, y haciendo referencia al art. 1681 del Code judiciaire belga y al art. II del Convenio de Nueva York sobre el Reconocimiento y la Ejecución de Sentencias Arbitrales Extranjeras de 1958 (CNY), la Corte de Apelación de Bruselas consideró que la cláusula de arbitraje TAS contenida en los Estatutos de FIFA no cumplía con el requisito de referirse a una relación jurídica determinada ("rapport de droit déterminé"). ; The case Rfc Seraing v. FIFA revolves around the ban of the Third Party Ownership (TPO), imposed by FIFA in art. 18 ter of its Regulations on the Statute and Transfer of Players (RETJ).The judgment of February 20, 2018 of the Swiss Federal Court (SFC) reopens the debate about the specificity/particularity of sports law and the projection on it of the principles and rules of European Law; in the decision, the SFC dismisses the appeal of annulment filed by a Belgian third division football club against the arbitral award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on March 9, 2017. The decisions of the SFC considers, on the one hand, that the CAS it is a true arbitral tribunal and confirms in turn the validity of the prohibition imposed by FIFA on the TPO. The litigation opens again the debate centered, on the one hand, on the analysis of the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with European legislation that protects the free movement of people and capital as well as the protection of free competition and on the other hand in the interaction between the arbitral decisions of the CAS and those of the respective state courts, together with the final decision–making role that the CJEU will foreseeable have to play in this matter on which it has not yet had the opportunity to rule. Meanwhile, RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports Ltd. initiated legal proceedings in Belgium against FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian Football Federation. Procedurally, the Belgian court had to determine whether it could declare itself competent or whether the arbitration exception alleged by FIFA (that is, the dispute had to be settled by arbitration before the CAS) was valid. On August 29, 2018, the Brussels Court of Appeal issued a decision declaring itself competent when considering that the arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes was not valid because it was too generic. In his argument, and making reference to art. 1681 of the Code judiciaire Belgian and to art. II of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (CNY), the Brussels Court of Appeal found that the TAS arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes did not meet the requirement to refer to a specific legal relationship ("rapport de droit determine"). ; The case Rfc Seraing v. FIFA revolves around the ban of the Third Party Ownership (TPO), imposed by FIFA in art. 18 ter of its Regulations on the Statute and Transfer of Players (RETJ).The judgment of February 20, 2018 of the Swiss Federal Court (SFC) reopens the debate about the specificity/particularity of sports law and the projection on it of the principles and rules of European Law; in the decision, the SFC dismisses the appeal of annulment filed by a Belgian third division football club against the arbitral award issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on March 9, 2017. The decisions of the SFC considers, on the one hand, that the CAS it is a true arbitral tribunal and confirms in turn the validity of the prohibition imposed by FIFA on the TPO. The litigation opens again the debate centered, on the one hand, on the analysis of the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with European legislation that protects the free movement of people and capital as well as the protection of free competition and on the other hand in the interaction between the arbitral decisions of the CAS and those of the respective state courts, together with the final decision–making role that the CJEU will foreseeable have to play in this matter on which it has not yet had the opportunity to rule. Meanwhile, RFC Seraing and Doyen Sports Ltd. initiated legal proceedings in Belgium against FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian Football Federation. Procedurally, the Belgian court had to determine whether it could declare itself competent or whether the arbitration exception alleged by FIFA (that is, the dispute had to be settled by arbitration before the CAS) was valid. On August 29, 2018, the Brussels Court of Appeal issued a decision declaring itself competent when considering that the arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes was not valid because it was too generic. In his argument, and making reference to art. 1681 of the Code judiciaire Belgian and to art. II of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (CNY), the Brussels Court of Appeal found that the TAS arbitration clause contained in the FIFA Statutes did not meet the requirement to refer to a specific legal relationship ("rapport de droit determine").

The capacity to abuse, or in general affect the enjoyment of human, labour andenvironmental rights has risen with the increased social and economic powerthat multinational companies wield in the global economy. At the same time,it appears that it is difficult to regulate the activities of multinational companiesin such a way that they conform to international human, labour and environmentalrights standards. This has partially to do with the organization of companiesinto groups of separate legal persons, incorporated in different states, aswell as with the complexity of the corporate supply chain. Absent a businessand human rights treaty, a more coherent legal and policy approach is required.Faced with the challenge of how to effectively access the right to remedy inthe European Union for human rights abuses committed by EU companies innon-EU states, a diverse research consortium of academic and legal institutionswas formed. The consortium, coordinated by the Globernance Institute forDemocratic Governance, became the recipient of a 2013 Civil Justice ActionGrant from the European Commission Directorate General for Justice. A mandatewas thus issued for research, training and dissemination so as to bringvisibility to the challenge posed and moreover, to provide some solutions forthe removal of barriers to judicial and non-judicial remedy for victims of business relatedhuman rights abuses in non-EU states. The project commenced inSeptember 2014 and over the course of two years the consortium conductedresearch along four specific lines in parallel with various training sessions acrossEU Member States.The research conducted focused primarily on judicial remedies, both jurisdictionalbarriers and applicable law barriers; non-judicial remedies, both to company based grievance. The results of this research endeavour make up the content ofthis report whose aim is to provide a scholarly foundation for policy proposalsby identifying specific challenges relevant to access to justice in the EuropeanUnion and to provide recommendations on how to remove legal and practicalbarriers so as to provide access to remedy for victims of business-related humanrights abuses in non-EU states