Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the study of the types of international judicial institutions and their role in ensuring theright to judicial protection. It is noted that the Manila Declaration provides for a judicial settlement of disputes andarbitration. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The InternationalCriminal Court is the permanent body with jurisdiction over persons responsible for particularly serious crimes, inaddition to national criminal jurisdictions. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an independent, conven-tional body whose function is to protect human rights in the states of North and South America. The Arab Court ofHuman Rights has not yet begun its work, although the Court's mandate allows States parties to lodge complaints.The African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights is an independent body whose purpose is to protect human rightsin African countries. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights extends to all matters of interpretationand application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its protocols.The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets EU law and provides for the settlement of disputes by the EU'snational government-institutions. It is emphasized that regional judicial institutions are designed to protect the rightsand freedoms of man and citizen. They are part of a subsidiary human rights protection mechanism that can be applied once all national remedies have been exhausted. Recourse to the International Court of Justice or arbitration isnot an unfriendly act in relations between states, but on the contrary indicates the use of peaceful means of dispute settlement. Unlike other international courts, only international criminal tribunals can be joined in a single proceeding. ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню питання видів міжнародних судових установ та їх ролі в забезпеченні права на судовий захист. Зазначено, що Манільською декларацією передбачено судовий спосіб врегулю-вання спорів та арбітраж. Міжнародний Суд є головним судовим органом Організації Об'єднаних Націй. Постійним органом, який має повноваження здійснювати юрисдикцію стосовно осіб, відповідальних за осо-бливо тяжкі злочини, доповнює національні органи кримінальної юрисдикції є Міжнародний кримінальний суд. Міжамериканський суд з прав людини – є самостійним, конвенційним органом, функція якого полягає у захисті прав людини в державах Північної та Південної Америки. Арабський суд з прав людини так і не розпочав свою діяльність, хоча, мандат Суду дозволяє державам-учасникам подавати скарги. Африканський суд з прав людини і народів – є самостійним органом призначення якого полягає у захисті прав людини в державах Африки. Юрисдикція Європейського суду з прав людини поширюється на всі питання тлума-чення і застосування Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод та протоколів до неї. Суд Європейського Союзу здійснює тлумачення законодавства ЄС та здійснює судове врегулювання спорів національний уряд-інститути ЄС. Акцентовано, що регіональні судові установи покликані захищати права і свободи людини і громадянина. Вони є елементом субсидіарного механізму захисту прав людини, який може бути застосований після вичерпання всіх національних засобів юридичного захисту.Звернення до Міжнародного Суду ООН або арбітражу не є недружнім актом у відносинах між держа-вами, а навпаки свідчить про застосування мирних засобів вирішення спорів. На відміну від інших міжна-родних судових установ лише міжнародні кримінальні трибунали можуть бути об'єднані в рамках одного судочинства.

The article is devoted to the study of the types of international judicial institutions and their role in ensuring theright to judicial protection. It is noted that the Manila Declaration provides for a judicial settlement of disputes andarbitration. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The InternationalCriminal Court is the permanent body with jurisdiction over persons responsible for particularly serious crimes, inaddition to national criminal jurisdictions. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an independent, conven-tional body whose function is to protect human rights in the states of North and South America. The Arab Court ofHuman Rights has not yet begun its work, although the Court's mandate allows States parties to lodge complaints.The African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights is an independent body whose purpose is to protect human rightsin African countries. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights extends to all matters of interpretationand application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its protocols.The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets EU law and provides for the settlement of disputes by the EU'snational government-institutions. It is emphasized that regional judicial institutions are designed to protect the rightsand freedoms of man and citizen. They are part of a subsidiary human rights protection mechanism that can be applied once all national remedies have been exhausted. Recourse to the International Court of Justice or arbitration isnot an unfriendly act in relations between states, but on the contrary indicates the use of peaceful means of dispute settlement. Unlike other international courts, only international criminal tribunals can be joined in a single proceeding. ; Статтю присвячено дослідженню питання видів міжнародних судових установ та їх ролі в забезпеченні права на судовий захист. Зазначено, що Манільською декларацією передбачено судовий спосіб врегулю-вання спорів та арбітраж. Міжнародний Суд є головним судовим органом Організації Об'єднаних Націй. Постійним органом, який має повноваження здійснювати юрисдикцію стосовно осіб, відповідальних за осо-бливо тяжкі злочини, доповнює національні органи кримінальної юрисдикції є Міжнародний кримінальний суд. Міжамериканський суд з прав людини – є самостійним, конвенційним органом, функція якого полягає у захисті прав людини в державах Північної та Південної Америки. Арабський суд з прав людини так і не розпочав свою діяльність, хоча, мандат Суду дозволяє державам-учасникам подавати скарги. Африканський суд з прав людини і народів – є самостійним органом призначення якого полягає у захисті прав людини в державах Африки. Юрисдикція Європейського суду з прав людини поширюється на всі питання тлума-чення і застосування Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод та протоколів до неї. Суд Європейського Союзу здійснює тлумачення законодавства ЄС та здійснює судове врегулювання спорів національний уряд-інститути ЄС. Акцентовано, що регіональні судові установи покликані захищати права і свободи людини і громадянина. Вони є елементом субсидіарного механізму захисту прав людини, який може бути застосований після вичерпання всіх національних засобів юридичного захисту.Звернення до Міжнародного Суду ООН або арбітражу не є недружнім актом у відносинах між держа-вами, а навпаки свідчить про застосування мирних засобів вирішення спорів. На відміну від інших міжна-родних судових установ лише міжнародні кримінальні трибунали можуть бути об'єднані в рамках одного судочинства.

The purpose of the article is to identify domestic remedies that have to be exhausted in Ukraine when everyone applying to international judicial institutions or to the relevant bodies of international organizations. The above analysis allows to reach such conclusions: the legislation of Ukraine provides a single cassation and review of the judgment. The law may provide for other forms of appeal and review of decisions of courts of general jurisdiction; domestic remedies that have to be exhausted in Ukraine when everyone applying to international judicial institutions or to the relevant bodies of international organizations are high specialized courts as courts of cassation for civil and criminal, commercial and administrative matters. High specialized courts are the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine, the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine.

In several recent cases the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that there are some general limits to incorporation of European Union law in the United Kingdom. The general limits stem from the Court's interpretation of the European Communities Act 1972, the statute that grounds domestic effect of EU law, construed both in the light of ordinary canons of interpretation and in the light of fundamental principles. This raises the question what are the legal consequences when an EU measure violates one of those limits. In this paper I propose an answer from the perspective of what a domestic court ought to do. My aim is to develop the legal position emerging from Assange, HS2 and Pham. I argue that sometimes UK courts are under a duty not to apply EU law. However, the circumstances where this is the case are even more limited than the focus on the general limits of incorporation of EU law may suggest. In particular, fundamental principles of UK law may work to expand the scope of domestic effect of EU law. I want to stress that neither the cited cases, nor the present paper, take a position of hostility towards EU law. The following discussion makes it clear that both EU law and UK law have many devices to avoid conflict and those devices need to be exhausted before a court concludes that it is under a duty not to apply EU law.

This paper aims to analyse the international consequences of private divorces, which are available in several European countries. Particular attention is drawn to the amendments suggested by the Lithuanian legislator, which intend to transfer certain functions of the courts to notaries. In particular, Lithuanian notaries would have competence in the dissolution of marriage provided there is mutual consent between spouses. The authors discuss how private divorces are regulated in different countries, whether the amendments suggested by the Lithuanian legislator would introduce a "private divorce" into Lithuanian law, and what the implications of private divorce are in private international law. In particular, the scope of application of the Brussels II bis Regulation is addressed. As yet, there is no consensus as to whether the Regulation applies to private divorces. However, the analysis in this paper shows that it would be beneficial to include such divorces in the above-mentioned Regulation. This would ensure a greater legal certainty for international couples.

This book explains the ideas, tactics, history, and prominent figures of the so-called Alt-Right, a white nationalist movement that first gained national and international prominence during the 2016 presidential election. It describes this movement's place in contemporary American life, and how the Alt-Right relates to Donald Trump's much larger right-wing populist movement. In clear and dispassionate terms, the book explains the degree to which the Alt-Right and other elements of the modern white supremacist movement threaten American democracy.

In the area of seed policies, the dominant paradigm of agricultural development favors the strengthening of intellectual property rights in order to promote and reward innovation by the private sector, combined with the provision of improved seed varieties to farmers in order to help them produce higher yields. But this model may leave out precisely those who need most to be supported, because they are the most vulnerable, living in the most difficult environments. In contrast to dominant approach, this article argues that the poorest farmers would be the primary beneficiaries of an alternative policy, that would favor the maintenance and enhancement of agrobiodiversity by rewarding the farmers for their own innovations, and by treating genetic resources as a public good that should be made accessible to all, as has been the case traditionally in farmers' seed systems. There are other ways of putting science at the service of farmers that may be more effective in reducing rural poverty. This article assesses in this light the complex relationship between the right to adequate food and the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. Both rights are recognized by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They need to be made more mutually supportive in the future, if research in agriculture is to truly serve the needs of the poor. Adapted from the source document.

The newest digital technologies - among them social media, mobility, analytics and cloud - keep changing how people, businesses and governments interact. These digital forces enable unprecedented levels of connectedness and so the world is already investing in consumer-centricity. However, these new technologies are truly still in their infancies. The transformation that is already underway will soon intensify, resulting in a paradigm shift from customer-centricity toward an everyone-to-everyone (E2E) economy. The implication for value creation and allocation will be profound. IBM research shows that many organizations are still not ready to navigate the E2E environment. To prepare for the radical disruption ahead, companies need to act now to create experiences and business models that are orchestrated, symbiotic, contextual and cognitive.

Almost since the beginning of the republic, America's rigorous separation of powers among Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches has been umpired by the federal judiciary. It may seem surprising, then, that many otherwise ordinary cases are not decided in court even when they include allegations that the President, or Congress, has violated a law or the Constitution itself. Most of these orphan cases are shunned by the judiciary simply because they have foreign policy aspects. In refusing to address the issues involved, judges indicate that judicial review, like politics, should stop at the water's edge--and foreign policy managers find it convenient to agree! Thomas Franck, however, maintains that when courts invoke the "political question" doctrine to justify such reticence, they evade a constitutional duty. In his view, whether the government has acted constitutionally in sending men and women to die in foreign battles is just as appropriate an issue for a court to decide as whether property has been taken without due process. In this revisionist work, Franck proposes ways to subject the conduct of foreign policy to the rule of law without compromising either judicial integrity or the national interest. By examining the historical origins of the separation of powers in the American constitutional tradition, with comparative reference to the practices of judiciaries in other federal systems, he broadens and enriches discussions of an important national issue that has particular significance for critical debate about the "imperial presidency

Natalia Denegri v Google Inc.