Suchergebnisse

The substantive law in Europe -- The significance of substantive law background for private international law -- General remarks on insurance conflict of laws -- Admission of insurance and reinsurance services and products to the EU market : conflict of laws issues -- The special rules of the Brussels Regulation and Lugano Convention for insurance and reinsurance disputes -- Recognition and enforcement of judgments in insurance and reinsurance matters -- Forum shopping -- The 1980 Rome Convention and the law applicable to insurance and reinsurance contracts -- The choice of law rules in the second and third non-life directives -- Applicable law under the second and third-life assurance directives -- The implementation of the EC choice of laws provisions for insurance contracts in the United Kingdom -- The EC choice of law rules for compulsory insurance contracts : the general rules -- The EC choice of law rules for motor vehicle insurance contracts -- Electronic commerce law in Europe -- Insurance and reinsurance contracts concluded by electronic means : jurisdictional and applicable law problems -- Choice of law in relation to insurance and reinsurance contracts concluded by electronic means.

Prior to the establishment of the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism ('mrm') in 2005, conflict related violence against children was a largely unknown phenomenon in its real numbers and forms. This situation was rightly perceived as being unacceptable by several reports, including UN documents. Nevertheless, the establishment of mrm leaded to the introduction of a number of criteria and rules for the gathering and reporting of information and data on conflict related violence against children to the UN Security Council. It was generally believed that these innovations would enhance the fight against these acts of violence at UN level. This paper critically examines the various criteria and rules through which the mrm has contributed to the fight against violence towards children in armed conflict scenarios. It asserts that due the continued growth of episodes of violence against children, the benefits anticipated to reduce these odious forms of violence under mrm have remained elusive throughout the fifteen years since the mrm was established. The work advances a suggestion for the improvement of the operation and functioning of the mrm through the attribution of adjudication powers to this body.

This article considers the Inter American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)'s and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (iachr)'s approach to interpreting and applying the American Convention on Human Rights (achr) provisions through the prism of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (crc) and ascertains the features of each convention that supports this approach. It concentrates on the IACtHR's and iachr's development and implementation of the principle of the best interest of the child, and on two specific areas of the IACtHR's and iachr's jurisprudence on children's rights – children's migration and trafficking of children – and concludes with some suggestions as to how this approach might be improved further in a manner that gives wider scope for the promotion of children's rights and freedoms in the achr contracting states.

This article argues that it is not possible to interpret or apply the International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or CRPD) and its related Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities without drawing on the texts of other human rights treaties and the related jurisprudence of their judicial or quasi-judicial supervisory bodies. Conversely, it is not possible to supervise the implementation of other human rights treaties, where persons with disabilities are concerned, without drawing on the text of the CRPD and related interpretative conclusions of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee).

The Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) can be contested for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the low status and importance given to public international law in Andean community law. Judicial decisions such as Proceso 28-AI-2001, Proceso 117-AI-2003 and Proceso 118-AI-2003 have induced legal observers to maintain that the ATJ is developing a less inclusive approach toward international legal rules and instruments. This raises some interesting and timely questions, such as: has a "revirement de jurisprudence" occurred? And if there is a "revirement" or reversal, is this "revirement" attributable to an alternative approach of the ATJ towards public international law? What issues might have determined the recent rulings of the ATJ? This paper aims to address these queries. It examines the ATJ's recent judicial decisions dealing with public international law, contrasts them with earlier rulings and collocates them in the wider framework of the Tribunal's overall understanding of the Andean community legal system.

Although still neglected in legal writings, the 2014 agreement on illicit drugs between the FARC and the Colombian Government deserves attention for a number of reasons, including that it was conceived as an essential part of the broader strategy for peace in Colombia, as well as because of its aim of eradicating illicit crops. Starting with some remarks on the Colombian 'drug war' and the policy and legal arguments for classifying the Colombian armed conflict as a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), the paper will then proceed with an analysis of the main reasons behind the drafting of a partial agreement on illicit drugs between the FARC and Colombia in 2014. Next, the paper will address the relevant sections and enforcement mechanisms for putting the provisions of the agreement into effect. An assessment of how the 2014 agreement has addressed the issue of drug trafficking and the issues concerning drug related crimes will also be considered. The paper will conclude with the lessons to be drawn from the new Agreement on illicit drugs. ; Aunque todavía es un tema descuidado por la doctrina, el Acuerdo de 2014 sobre las drogas ilícitas entre el Gobierno de Colombia y las FARC, merece atención por muchas razones, incluyendo el que fue concebido como una parte esencial de una estrategia más amplia para la paz en Colombia, así como por su objetivo de erradicar los cultivos ilícitos. Se parte de algunas observaciones sobre la "guerra contra las drogas 'de Colombia y la política y los argumentos jurídicos para clasificar el conflicto armado en Colombia como un conflicto armado no internacional. Seguidamente se hace un análisis de las principales razones que hay detrás de la elaboración de un acuerdo parcial sobre las drogas ilícitas entre las FARC y Colombia en 2014. A continuación, este trabajo se dirige a los mecanismos de aplicación para poner que sus disposiciones entren en vigor. Se hace, igualmente, una evaluación de la forma en que el Acuerdo de 2014 ha abordado la cuestión del tráfico de drogas y también se examinan las cuestiones relativas a los delitos relacionados con las drogas. El trabajo concluye con las lecciones que caben extraer del nuevo Acuerdo sobre las drogas ilícitas.

In September 2015, the United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This historic document constituted a universal 'plan for action for people, planet and prosperity.' The Sustainable Development Goals serves as an expert compendium, the most authoritative ready-reference tool for anyone interested in the SDGs.

This book is one of the few comprehensive works focusing on the sub-regional institutions in the Latin American and Caribbean region. These organisations and institutions enrich the co-operation at sub-regional level, but, in most cases, are neglected in legal literature. They have mainly economic purposes but they also contribute to new forms of institutional co-operation in other areas, including financial, political and social matters. The volume addresses some of the most representative of these institutions, such as the Mercosur, the Andean Community and sub-regional financial organisations (e.g. Central American Bank for Economic Integration and Andean Development Corporation) as well as new developments including the UNASUR and the Alliance for the Pacific. It provides updated information on the structure and changes of the institutions, and constitutes a valuable resource for those wishing to keep pace with legal developments in the fast-moving world of international institutional law. The book will appeal to a wide audience including researchers and practitioners specialising in international law and international organisations and related disciplines. Marco Odello, JD (Rome), LLM (Nottingham), PhD (Madrid) is a Reader in Law at Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK. Francesco Seatzu, JD (Cagliari), PhD (Nottingham) is Professor of International and European Law at the University of Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy