Suchergebnisse

This article tries to analyze Italian government's stance after Albania's de facto withdrawal from the Warsaw Treaty in 1961 and de jure denunciation of this treaty in 1968. The retreat of Soviet troops from Vlora Naval Base had a considerable impact on Italy's foreign relations with Albania in many regards. Concerning internal interests, Italy had a close relationship with Albania and had always demonstrated the willingness to enhance her influence in this respect. On the other hand, for Italy being a NATO member country, Albania's withdrawal from the Warsaw Treaty was an enormous relief. The possibility that the two superpowers clash on the Adriatic Sea was considerably minimized. This led to a genuine interest in Albania. Albanian political immigrants in Italy played a major role in enhancing this attention. Nevertheless, because of the communist regime in Albania, the rapprochement wanted by Italy remained merely a desire which did not exceed bilateral economic relations. Viewed as an opportunity for Albania to open up to the West, this effort constitutes another chance deliberately "missed" by the regime at home. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2017.v8n2p155

У статті автор детально аналізує сучасну практику денонсації міжнародних договорів між Україною та Росією, звертаючись до міжнародно-правових положень та політичних чинників, що впливають на цю практику, на прикладі денонсації угод щодо розміщення Чорноморського флоту РФ та Договору про дружбу між Україною та РФ. Автор робить висновок про необхідність відповідної реакції на небезпечне політичне розуміння інституту денонсації, яке не повинно ототожнюватися з наявною політичною складовою цього інституту. ; В статье автор детально анализирует современную практику денонсации международных договоров между Украиной и Россией, обращаясь к положениям международного права и политическим факторам, которые влияют на эту практику. На примере денонсации Соглашений о размещении Черноморского флота РФ и Договора о дружбе между Украиной и РФ автор делает вывод о необходимости соответствующей реакции на опасное политическое понимание института денонсации, которое не должно отождествляться с присутствующей политической составляющей этого института. ; In the article the Author analyzes a modern practice of denunciation of international treaties between Ukraine and Russia through consideration of international law and political factors, which affect this practice; the examples of Treaties of disposal of Black Sea Navy Fleet and Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia are prominent. The Author concludes that the relevant reaction on political interpretation of the denunciation institute, which is dangerous, is necessary, and can not be understood as equal to existing political component of this institute.

У статті автор детально аналізує сучасну практику денонсації міжнародних договорів між Україною та Росією, звертаючись до міжнародно-правових положень та політичних чинників, що впливають на цю практику, на прикладі денонсації угод щодо розміщення Чорноморського флоту РФ та Договору про дружбу між Україною та РФ. Автор робить висновок про необхідність відповідної реакції на небезпечне політичне розуміння інституту денонсації, яке не повинно ототожнюватися з наявною політичною складовою цього інституту. ; В статье автор детально анализирует современную практику денонсации международных договоров между Украиной и Россией, обращаясь к положениям международного права и политическим факторам, которые влияют на эту практику. На примере денонсации Соглашений о размещении Черноморского флота РФ и Договора о дружбе между Украиной и РФ автор делает вывод о необходимости соответствующей реакции на опасное политическое понимание института денонсации, которое не должно отождествляться с присутствующей политической составляющей этого института. ; In the article the Author analyzes a modern practice of denunciation of international treaties between Ukraine and Russia through consideration of international law and political factors, which affect this practice; the examples of Treaties of disposal of Black Sea Navy Fleet and Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia are prominent. The Author concludes that the relevant reaction on political interpretation of the denunciation institute, which is dangerous, is necessary, and can not be understood as equal to existing political component of this institute.

The ratification of international human rights treaties is considered an ordinary act of each State's international relations. However, the denunciation of an international human rights treaty is an act of particular gravity, and therefore limited by both international law and domestic law. This essay analyzes such limits and reviews the few cases of denunciation of international human rights treaties in an effort to demonstrate that it is not a sovereign power that States can exercise without restrictions. The case of Ecuador is examined in light of the constant threats from its government to withdraw from the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System. ; La ratificación de un tratado internacional de derechos humanos es considerada un acto ordinario de las relaciones internacionales de cada Estado. No obstante, la denuncia de un tratado internacional de derechos humanos es un acto de especial gravedad, y en consecuencia se encuentra revestido de límites derivados tanto del derecho internacional como del derecho interno de cada Estado. Este ensayo analiza tales límites y realiza un recuento de los contados casos de denuncia de tratados internacionales de derechos humanos con el afán de demostrar que no se trata de una facultad soberana que los Estados puedan ejercer sin restricciones. De manera particular se menciona el caso de Ecuador a raíz de las constantes amenazas de su gobierno de retirarse del Sistema Interamericano de Protección de Derechos Humanos.

For decades, following the views of the Argentine legal scholar Carlos Calvo, Latin American countries avoided adopting international investment treaties. The Calvo doctrine established that disputes between foreign investors and the state should only be settled by national courts, to the exclusion of international jurisdictions. This position eroded as numerous bilateral investment treaties (BITs) were signed during the 1980s and 1990s, exposing the countries of the region to investment lawsuits. Recently, a crisis of the investment treaty regime has been noticed in the region, with the denunciation of both BITs and the ICSID Convention, the non-recognition of arbitral awards, and the negotiation of a new model of investment treaties. The analysis of the historical process of rise and crisis of the investment regime in the region, through the review of documents and data on its effects, demonstrate that countries have taken measures to restrict the possibility of investor-State arbitration. In this sense, the region seems to be experiencing a return to Calvo's doctrine on the need to guarantee countries' decision-making autonomy in strategic policies. ; Por décadas, os países da América Latina evitaram adotar tratados de investimento seguindo os pensamentos do jurista argentino Carlos Calvo. A doutrina Calvo estabelecia que as disputas entre investidores estrangeiros e o Estado deveriam ser resolvidas pelos tribunais nacionais, à exclusão de jurisdições internacionais. Essa posição se erodiu à medida que um número crescente de tratados bilaterais de investimento (BITs) foi assinado nas décadas de 1980 e 1990, expondo os países da região a ações arbitrais de investimento. Recentemente, percebe-se uma crise do regime de investimentos na região, com a denúncia de BITs e da Convenção ICSID, o não reconhecimento de sentenças arbitrais e a negociação de um novo modelo de tratados de investimentos. Da análise do processo histórico de ascensão e crise do regime de investimento, através da análise de documentos e dados sobre os efeitos dos acordos de investimento, pode-se dizer que os países da região têm tomado medidas para restringir a possibilidade de arbitragens Investidor-Estado. Nesse sentido, estaríamos experimentando um retorno à doutrina de Calvo sobre a necessidade de garantir autonomia decisória sobre políticas públicas estratégicas na região.

В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы и правовые последствия референдума о членстве Великобритании в Европейском союзе, который состоялся 23 июня 2016 г. Автор использует различные методы лингвистического и юридического анализа статей Лиссабонского договора о внесении изменений в Договор о Европейском союзе и Договор об учреждении Европейского сообщества и Акта о европейских сообществах 1972 г., обосновывает необходимость законодательного закрепления процессуального порядка сецессии из Европейского союза. ; This article reviews the current problems and the legal consequences arising from the European Union Membership Referendum, which took place in the UK and Gibraltar on June 23, 2016. The author uses different methods of linguistic and legal analysis of the articles of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and the European Communities Act of 1972. The author proves the necessity of legislative regulation of a procedural order of secession from the European Union.

The moral reason of our war, by G. del Vecchio.--The national ideal and the duty of Italy; by P. Fedozzi.--The political reasons of our war, by P. Bonfante.--The rights of Italy over the Alps and the Adriatic, by C. Errere.--The unredeemed provinces in the history of Italy, by P. S. Leicht.--The national struggle in the unreddemed provinces, by L. Bianchi.--Denunciation of the treaty of the Triple alliance, by P. Fedozzi.--Italy's war and Italy's wealth, by G. Arias.--Necessity and reason for the present war with Turkey, by A. Solmi.--Artes et arma, by G. Albini. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Das Demokratieprinzip ist im Völkerrecht verankert. Seine normativen Grundlagen sind zum einen das Vertragsrecht, insbesondere der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, sowie die regionalen Verankerungen in Europa und in Amerika durch die Satzungen der jeweiligen internationaler Organisationen und ihrer Menschenrechtsinstrumente. Substantielle vertragliche Verpflichtungen ergeben sich auch aus den bilateralen Verträgen der EG. Zum anderen fußt es auf der Staatenpraxis, insbesondere im Rahmen der UNO. So ist die internationale Gemeinschaft auf die Errichtung demokratischer Strukturen verpflichtet, wenn sie staatliche Funktionen in failed states übernimmt oder den Wiederaufbau eines Staatswesens begleitet. Die Demokratieresolutionen der UNO lassen erkennen, daß alle Staaten verpflichtet sind, das Ziel der Demokratie anzustreben und erreichte demokratische Errungenschaften zu gewährleisten. Das Demokratieprinzip beinhaltet normativ die Legitimation staatlichen Handelns durch freie Wahlen und die Absicherung durch Menschenrechte, Gewaltenteilung und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Staatliche Entscheidungen bedürfen daher einer legitimierenden Rückbindung an den frei geäußerten Willen des konstituierenden Staatsvolkes, wobei die Freiheit dieser Willensäußerung in dynamischer Perspektive die Freiheit der Willensänderung garantiert. Sowohl der Vertragsschluß als Akt staatlichen Handelns als auch der Inhalt des Vertrages bedürfen der Legitimation, und zwar über die Zeit hinweg. Das geltende Völkervertragsrecht berücksichtigt das Demokratieprinzip jedoch nur unzureichend. Die Verletzung innerstaatlichen Rechts beim Vertragsschluß kann nur eingeschränkt geltend gemacht werden. Es existiert auch kein Verfahren, mit dem die fortdauernde Legitimation eines Vertrages überprüft werden könnte. Angesichts der Zunahme von Verträgen, die innere Angelegenheiten der Gesellschaften regeln, bedarf das Spannungsverhältnis einer Lösung. Das Problem wird illustriert durch Frankreichs Ausstieg aus der NATO, Senegals Kündigung der Seerechtskonventionen, den Streit um den deutschen Atomausstieg, das Verfahren um den Donaustaudamm Gabcíkovo Nagymaros, die Frage der Vereinbarkeit von Drogenkonsumräumen mit den UN-Anti-Drogenkonventionen, das Schiedsverfahren zwischen Aminoil und Kuwait sowie der Kündigung des ABM-Vertrages durch die USA. Ein erster Ansatz zur Lösung kann in einer Neuinterpretation der völkervertragsrechtlichen Regeln liegen. So bietet sich der Grundsatz der "demokratiefreundlichen Interpretation" an. Internes Recht, das der Kontrolle der Exekutive dient, muß beim Vertragsschluß Berücksichtigung finden. Und Verträgen, die "innere Angelegenheiten" betreffen, kann ein implizites Kündigungsrecht zugebilligt werden. Der wesentliche Ansatz ist aber kautelarjuristischer Natur. Revisions-, Experimentier- und Kündigungsklauseln können bei der Abfassung von Verträgen die Vertragsbeziehung so ausgestalten, daß zukünftige Meinungsänderungen berücksichtigt werden können. Schließlich ist de lege ferenda ein Recht auf Revision, kombiniert mit einem subsidiären Kündigungsrecht, wünschenswert. Mit einem solchen Mechanismus könnten neue normative Lösungen eingeführt werden und die Legitimation bestehender Normen auf den Prüfstand gestellt werden. ; International law provides for a democratic principle. It is based both on treaty law and customary law. The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights as well as the regional treaties in Europe and the Americas - the statutes of the respective regional organisations and their human rights instruments - form a substantial body of treaty obligations toward democracy, which is complemented by bilateral treaties of the EC safeguarding democracy. State practice, especially within the framework of the UN, indicates an obligation to establish democratic structures whenever the international community takes upon itself the task of nation building in failed states. The democracy resolutions of the UN point out that all member states are obliged to strive for democracy and uphold democratic achievements so far. The normative democratic principle includes the legitimation of public affairs through free and fair elections and the guarantee of human rights, separation of powers and the rule of law. Acts of states therefore must be legitimised through the freely expressed will of the people. Under a dynamic perspective, the free will includes the possibility for changes of policy. The conclusion of treaties as an act of state as well as the content of the treaty as a rule of law need to be legitimised through the times. The current law of treaties does not acknowledge the democratic principle, however. Violations of internal law at the conclusion of a treaty can only be claimed to a limited extent. Nor does international law provide for a formal procedure to validate the on-going support for the content of the treaty. Facing an ever-growing expansion of the number of treaties dealing with the internal affairs of societies, solutions must be found. The problem is being illustrated by France's withdrawal from NATO, Senegal's withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, the dispute related to the question of the use of nuclear energy in Germany, the judgement of the ICJ in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros case, the question of the compatibility of drug consumption rooms with UN anti-drug conventions, the dispute settlement award in the Aminoil case and last not least the denunciation of the ABM treaty by the US. Realigning the interpretation of the law of treaties to the democratic principle is one way to deal with the problem. Interpretation of treaties should take into account the democratic principle. Internal law controlling the executive has to be complied with where conclusion of treaties is concerned. And treaties dealing with "internal affairs" can be considered to contain an implicit right of withdrawal or denunciation. The proper solution lies in respecting the democratic principle when drafting treaties, though. Clauses of revision, clauses allowing for experiments and clauses of denunciation or withdrawal help shaping a contractual relationship that can take into account changes of the political will. Last not least, a right of revision is recommended de lege ferenda, combined with a subsidiary right of denunciation or withdrawal. Such a mechanism allows for introducing new normative solutions and for validating the on-going legitimation of existing treaty rules. (See also the English summary at the end of the thesis.)

En: Arbitraje: revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones. eISSN. 2603-9281. vol. 3, n. 2, 2010, pp 411-432 ; Como en cualquier tipo de arbitraje, el arbitraje de inversiones se fundamenta en el acuerdo de las partes. El consentimiento al arbitraje tanto por parte del Estado receptor de la inversión como por parte del inversor es un requisito indispensable para la competencia del tribunal arbitral. De forma tradicional el consentimiento se otorgaba a través de un acuerdo directo entre el inversor y el Estado receptor de la inversión. Pero en los últimos años, el consentimiento resulta de una oferta unilateral realizada por el Estado receptor de la inversión, que se contempla en su legislacion o en un Tratado internacional, que posteriormente es aceptada por el inversor. Este trabajo analiza cuando este tipo de disposiciones constituyen una oferta inequívoca de arbitraje y cuando, por el contrario, constituyen promesas futuras e incluso una simple consideración general favorable hacia este método de solución de controversias. Una interpretación correcta de estas cláusulas tiene una decisiva importancia si observamos que algunos países, especialmente de Latinoamérica, están empezando a diseñar estrategias para limitar su exposición al arbitraje, comenzando por la denuncia de la Convención CIADI. ; Like any form of arbitration, investment arbitration is always based on an agreement. Consent to arbitration by the host State and by the investor is an indispensable requirement for a tribunal's jurisdiction. Traditionally this would take place by a direct agreement between the host State and the investor. But in the last years, consent result from a unilateral offer by the host State, expressed in its legislation or in a treaty, which is subsequently accepted by the investor. This article analyzes when these provisions constitute an unequivocal offer to arbitrate and when contain simple promises of future consent or hold out a general prospect of sympathetic consideration. A correct interpretation of these clauses has today great importance, if we observe that some countries, especially in Latin America, have started to design strategies to limit their exposure to investment arbitration, beginning by the denunciation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (The ICSID Convention).

En: Arbitraje: revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones. eISSN. 2603-9281. vol. 3, n. 2, 2010, pp 411-432 ; Como en cualquier tipo de arbitraje, el arbitraje de inversiones se fundamenta en el acuerdo de las partes. El consentimiento al arbitraje tanto por parte del Estado receptor de la inversión como por parte del inversor es un requisito indispensable para la competencia del tribunal arbitral. De forma tradicional el consentimiento se otorgaba a través de un acuerdo directo entre el inversor y el Estado receptor de la inversión. Pero en los últimos años, el consentimiento resulta de una oferta unilateral realizada por el Estado receptor de la inversión, que se contempla en su legislacion o en un Tratado internacional, que posteriormente es aceptada por el inversor. Este trabajo analiza cuando este tipo de disposiciones constituyen una oferta inequívoca de arbitraje y cuando, por el contrario, constituyen promesas futuras e incluso una simple consideración general favorable hacia este método de solución de controversias. Una interpretación correcta de estas cláusulas tiene una decisiva importancia si observamos que algunos países, especialmente de Latinoamérica, están empezando a diseñar estrategias para limitar su exposición al arbitraje, comenzando por la denuncia de la Convención CIADI. ; Like any form of arbitration, investment arbitration is always based on an agreement. Consent to arbitration by the host State and by the investor is an indispensable requirement for a tribunal's jurisdiction. Traditionally this would take place by a direct agreement between the host State and the investor. But in the last years, consent result from a unilateral offer by the host State, expressed in its legislation or in a treaty, which is subsequently accepted by the investor. This article analyzes when these provisions constitute an unequivocal offer to arbitrate and when contain simple promises of future consent or hold out a general prospect of sympathetic consideration. A correct interpretation of these clauses has today great importance, if we observe that some countries, especially in Latin America, have started to design strategies to limit their exposure to investment arbitration, beginning by the denunciation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (The ICSID Convention).

This research aims to analyze normatively about the nature of the act of the ratification of international treaties and outlines the act of constitutional review to the ratification of international treaties. The results of research shows: 1) the standing of international treaties is dependent on the scores of international law who espoused a country. Ratification of a treaty embodied through the two phases namely: the phases of the national law and of international law; 2) the meaning of "DPR approval" must be viewed in the context of internal procedures meanwhile ratification must be vied of external procedure. 3) Constitutional review may results in wide and problematic decision. If it is declared void then execution of the decision will face obstacles. If there is a denunciation, Government is in the difficult position and even can trigger dispute to the international Court of Justice.Keywords: ratification, international agreement, legislation

После вступления решения международного суда в силу государство-адресат обязано его исполнить. Но государство может быть им не удовлетворено по причинам правового, политического, социального характера, пересмотреть его и в конечном счете отклонить. Автором сделаны выводы, что решение может быть верифицировано на базе международной организации, через его учредительные органы, иные структуры, способные оказать давление, осуществление организационного контроля. Доказано, что, преследуя цель неисполнения решения, государства применяют следующие способы проверки: обжалование решения в вышестоящую инстанцию с одновременным обращением в исполнительный орган международной организации, изменение действующего международного договора (включая ограничение юрисдикции суда), его денонсация, заключение нового договора, изменение существующей практики толкования ; A state is obliged to comply with the decisions of the international court. However, the state may not be satisfied with it for legal, political, or social reasons; it may review or ultimately reject it. The author concludes that the decision can be verified based on an international organization, its constituent bodies, other structures (that can exert pressure), or through the implementation of organizational control. The states apply the following methods of verification for the decision non-execution: an appeal to a higher instance with simultaneous appeal to the executive body of an international organization; a modification of an existing international treaty (including limitation of the jurisdiction of the court); its denunciation; signing a new treaty; or amending an existing practice of interpretation.

In a post-world war economic and political context, the signing of the "Modified Reciprocal Trade agreement between the United States of Venezuela and the United States of America" appears on August 28, 1952. Under the auspices of right wing dictatorial regime, Venezuela was changing the course of its international politics and its leaders wanted to stimulate foreign investment, particularly from oil companies. However, in March 1959 the United States imposed the "Mandatory Import Program." The treaty with Venezuela was thus unilaterally broken. In 1962, President Kennedy introduced an even more discriminatory Petroleum Restrictions Program in violation of the Treaty. Venezuela's denunciation of the agreement was officially notified to the United States ambassador in Caracas on December 31, 1971. ; En un contexto económico y político de la posguerra mundial aparece la firma del "Tratado modificado de reciprocidad comercial entre los Estados Unidos de Venezuela y los Estados Unidos de América", con fecha 28 de agosto de 1952. Bajo los auspicios de un régimen dictatorial de derecha, Venezuela cambiaba el rumbo en su política internacional y sus gobernantes deseaban estimular la inversión extranjera, en particular de empresas petroleras. Sin embargo, en marzo de 1959 Estados Unidos impuso el "Programa obligatorio de importaciones". El tratado con Venezuela quedaba así quebrantado unilateralmente. En 1962, el presidente Kennedy implantó un Programa de Restricciones Petroleras aún más discriminatorio y violatorio del Tratado. La denuncia del Tratado por parte de Venezuela fue notificada oficialmente al embajador de los Estados Unidos en Caracas el 31 de diciembre de 1971.

The current article 54 No. 1 of the Political Constitution of the Republic has been in force since 2005, which refers to the approval of international treaties, and which sought a more leading role of the National Congress in such a process. The purpose of this article is to analyze critically the administrative regulations emanating from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the period indicated above, in order to determine how this dynamic has worked in matters related to, for example, the reservation or publicity of the treaty, or its denunciation, putting special emphasis in how have interacted in these labors the Executive and Legislative Powers. ; Desde 2005 ha estado en vigencia el actual artículo 54 N°1 de la Constitución Política de la República, que hace referencia a la aprobación de los tratados internacionales, y que buscaba un rol más protagónico del Congreso Nacional en tal proceso. El siguiente artículo tiene como objetivo analizar críticamente la normativa administrativa emanada del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores durante el período ya indicado, en pos de determinar cómo ha funcionado tal dinámica en materias vinculadas, por ejemplo, a la reserva o publicidad del tratado, o respecto de la denuncia del mismo, poniendo especial énfasis a cómo han interactuado en estas labores los Poderes Ejecutivo y Legislativo.

Ставится задача рассмотрения влияния американского фактора на процесс демократизации социально-политической жизни Тайваня. Предпосылки демократизации складывались в 1970-х гг. и условно делятся на внешние и внутренние. Внешнеполитические факторы напрямую связаны с изменением позиции США по ряду вопросов. Демократические процессы на Тайване рассматриваются в качестве реакции на определенные внешние «раздражители», главным из которых является политика Америки в регионе. ; The diplomatic status and geopolitical situation of Taiwan determine its huge dependence on foreign factors. Politico-social development of the island is not an exception. It seems that foreign factors inspired democratization of Taiwan which occurred from 1986 to 1996, but precursors of it had been forming since 1972. By correlating some relevant foreign affairs with Kuomintang policies and politico-social reforms in Taiwan in the exact period, we are able to unveil some foreign factors, that had great influence on the democratization of Taiwan. Foreign factors analysis, as well as domestic reforms assessment should begin with determination of key objectives of Taiwan foreign policy. These goals are aimed at preserving Taiwan de facto independence. Specifically, they are strategic, military and economic security arrangements. Foreign factors analysis allows us to emphasize the "American factor" as a key factor that had a great influence on Taiwan. Because Taiwan relied greatly on America in matters of defense, economic and trade cooperation, Taiwan authorities had to consider the USA's opinion on many vital subjects, including domestic policies. America's expectations of Taiwan democratization issue, its role and policy in the Pacific region, its relations with other countries in the region (with China, first of all), its position on some key issues all these variables were taken in account by Taiwan authorities when planning its policy. It is highly possible that the influence of the USA contributed to the exclusion of Taiwan from the UN. In turn, it fostered democratic reforms and a politico-social transformation that are subjects in this paper. Severance of diplomatic relations and denunciation of the Defense treaty between the USA and Taiwan was a great challenge to Taiwan, because it relied on support of American troops in case of an attempt of China to invade the island. The establishment of Sino-American diplomatic relations that followed also fostered the democratization of Taiwan. Other foreign factors, which had slightly less influence on democratization of Taiwan, should be mentioned as well. The "Chinese" factor is one of them. Its indirect influence was huge, though direct influence is hard to evaluate due to the absence of formal relations between China and Taiwan. In order to escape diplomatic isolation Taiwan should strive to preserve contacts and relations of any form and kind with other nations, as well its membership in international organizations, or, otherwise, its independent existence will be under a giant threat.