Suchergebnisse

This book investigates the implementation of disability rights and duties in the European Union, aiming to understand its functioning and explore ways forward through a critical analysis of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) within the context of international regulation.

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- About the Editor and Contributors -- Editor -- Contributors -- Abbreviations -- Part I: Tripartite Disability Rights: A Theory -- Chapter 1: States, International Organisations, Other Sovereign Entities and the Architecture of Disability Rights: A Tripartite Approach? -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 States, International Organisations, Sovereign Entities and the Establishment of Disability Rights and Duties -- 1.3 State Responsibility -- 1.3.1 Respecting Disability Rights -- 1.3.2 Protecting Disability Rights -- 1.3.3 Fulfilling Disability Rights -- 1.4 Responsibility of International Organisations -- 1.5 Responsibility of Other Sovereign Entities -- 1.6 Conclusion -- References -- Documents -- Cases -- Bibliography -- Chapter 2: Non-State Persons and Disability Rights and Duties -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Non-State Persons under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities -- 2.3 NGOs and CRPD -- 2.4 Corporations -- 2.4.1 A Duty to Respect and Fulfil Disability Rights: General Initiatives -- 2.4.2 Initiatives Specifically Addressing People with Disabilities -- 2.4.3 Enforcement Mechanisms -- 2.5 Individuals and Disability Rights and Duties -- 2.5.1 Individuals and Disability Rights -- 2.5.2 Individuals and Duties to Those with Disabilities -- 2.6 Conclusion -- References -- Documents -- Bibliography -- Part II: Evolving Regulatory Areas -- Chapter 3: Right to Life v. Right to Health? Disability and Selective Abortion -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 'Pro-life' v. 'Pro-choice' -- 3.2.1 The Question of the Beginning of Life: Comparative Dilemmas -- 3.2.2 Disability-Based Abortion -- 3.2.3 Case Study: The Situation in Poland -- 3.3 The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the 'Pro-life' v. 'Pro-choice' Debate.

In the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, major offences committed by individuals have been subject to progressive systematisation in the framework of international criminal law. Proposals developed within the context of the League of Nations coordinated individual liability and State responsibility. By contrast, international law as codified after World War II in the framework of the United Nations embodies a neat divide between individual criminal liability and State aggravated responsibility. However, conduct of State organs and agents generates dual liability. Through a critical analysis of key international rules, the book assesses whether the divisive approach to individual and State responsibility is normatively consistent. Contemporary situations, such as the humanitarian crises in Syria and Libya, 9/11 and the Iraq wars demonstrate that the matter still gives rise to controversy: a set of systemic problems emerge. The research focuses on the substantive elements of major offences, notably agression, genocide, core war crimes, core crimes against humanity and terrorism, as well as relevant procedural implications. The book is a useful resource for practitioners, policymakers, academics, students, researchers and anyone interested in international law and politics.

Multiple developments are taking place in the European Union (EU) as concerns climate action through fundamental rights. On the one hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) might afford protection from climate change via first- and second-generation human rights; on the other, the EU is progressively recognizing the human right to a sustainable environment, and possibly to a sustainable climate, via Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. These developments are nonetheless restrained by the limited possibility for individual natural and legal persons to act in the Court. On the other hand, EU Member States are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the EU will also foreseeably accede in the future and through which a string of claims has been brought to the attention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Also in this context, protection from climate change might be afforded via first- and second-generation fundamental rights, and possibly via the third-generation right to a sustainable environment and climate. Contrary to the CJEU system, however, there are no procedural limits to action by individual natural and legal persons in the ECtHR. The article argues that an extensive interpretation of first- and second-generation human rights, particularly the rights to life and to private and family life under ECHR articles 2 and 8, collectively interpreted as the rights to live in a sustainable environment and climate in line with the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, reverses the burden of proof and is essentially tantamount to acknowledging an independent fundamental right to a sustainable environment and climate, thus ensuring adequate climate protection in the EU from a human rights perspective.

The concept of "strategic autonomy" embeds the political idea of "independence" and the legal notion of "sovereignty". As the EU largely depends for energy on foreign resources, particularly from autocratic regimes, difficult governance situations, notably wars, can deeply disrupt the Union's energy supply. Specifically, war in Ukraine has been convincingly explained as an affirmation of the opposed development of Russia's "sphere of influence", whereby energy supply is used as a "weapon" to create dependency across sovereign State borders. Whereas scholars have advanced a dichotomy for the EU and its Member States to escape Russia's sphere of influence, either diversifying energy sources or accelerating the green transition, it is argued in this paper that the two approaches should be considered complementary rather than alternative. It is therefore suggested that, at least in the short term, the EU and its Member States should seek to diversify their energy sources, whilst at the same time trying to accelerate the green transition under the Green Deal as a longer-term strategy. As the EU and its Member States should qualify as "non-belligerent" vis-à-vis Russia, necessity seems the most suitable legal justification to relinquish already contracted energy supply obligations and move to a newly balanced energy policy.
Received: 26 October 2022Accepted: 27 January 2023

The European Union ("EU") is integrated into global markets via an open investment regime, which has fostered the development of wide economic relations. In 2019, the net investment outflow from EU Member States toward third countries totaled $42,6761 million, while inflow totaled $47,3196 million. To regulate investment disparities since the establishment of the common market in the 1950s, EU Member States have concluded about 1400 multilateral investment treaties ("MITs") and bilateral investment treaties ("BITs") with third countries. EU Member States have also negotiated around 190 MITs and BITs inter se, or intra-EU investment agreements. Since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EU has negotiated international investment agreements with economies such as Australia, Canada, China, Vietnam, Singapore, and the United States. Among these agreements, the Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT") is both an intra-EU and extra-EU investment agreement, to which both the EU and Member States are parties. It is therefore of critical importance to establish a predictable legal framework governing investments within and outside of the EU.

By means of Directive 2008/101 the EU extended its Emission Trading System to airline companies whose aircraft arrive at or depart from the territory of the EU Member States. Requested to provide a preliminary opinion on the validity of the Directive–especially in light of its extraterritorial application–the CJEU confirmed its effectiveness, arguably based mainly on the principle of sovereignty and only subsidiarily on the principle of environmental protection. In light of the interpretation provided by the CJEU, this paper critically assesses Directive 2008/101 and concludes that its consistency with international law should be considered in the light of the secondary consequences of the duty to protect the environment rather than territorial sovereignty. ; The Redefining the Transatlantic Relationship and its Role in Shaping Global Governance (TRANSWORLD) project is funded by the European Union's 7th Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 290454.