Suchergebnisse

Cuando los tribunales domésticos se encuentran ante la cuestión de aplicar el Derecho internacional se pueden encontrar con diversos obstáculos al ejercicio de su jurisdicción. Este artículo se dedica a analizar los mismos, en concreto, la regla de la inmunidad del Estado extranjero y las doctrinas del Acto de Estado y de la Cuestión Política. Estas barreras tienen distinto origen, contenido y alcance, aunque todas ellas han sido extensamente tratadas por la jurisprudencia y la doctrina. Aquí se han tomado las jurisdicciones estadounidense y alemana como ejemplos paradigmáticos de Derecho comparado, para pasar luego a estudiar la respuesta judicial española, aunque no se olvida hacer las referencias necesarias a otras jurisprudencias nacionales, como la británica ; When domestic courts are faced with the question of applying international law they can found various obstacles to the exercise of their jurisdiction. This article is dedicated to analyze them, namely the rule of State immunity and the Act of State and Political Question doctrines. These barriers have different origins, contents and scopes, but all of them have been extensively treated by jurisprudence and doctrine. Hereby we have taken the U.S. and German jurisdictions as paradigmatic examples of comparative law to continue afterwards with the Spanish judicial response, but we do not forget to make the necessary references to other national jurisprudences, such as the British case law

The present article deals with the legal framework of peacekeeping operations that consists of international missions of military and/or police character deployed in the territory of one or more States —with their consent and cooperation— with the object of halting armed conflicts. After the system of collective security envisioned in the Charter of the United Nations was rendered obsolete by the Cold War, these operations were created by the UN as an alternative and, in fact, have become a mainstay in the worldwide organization's efforts to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council is fundamentally, but not exclusively, responsible for peacekeeping according to article 24.1 of the Charter, and this implies that it is the only organ authorized to adopt coercive measures. In case the Security Council does not react to a specific warlike crisis —when, for instance, measures have been blocked by the veto of some of its permanent members— then the General Assembly retains a subsidiary role and can create peacekeeping operations, as these are then not considered coercive measures, but consensual. Also, this article explores the doctrinal controversy concerning the legal basis for these peace missions.