Search

The article addresses the realization of economic sanctions, which have become one of the key instruments for ensuring compliance with international law, given the inability of the United Nations Security Council--paralyzed by Russia's veto power--to fulfill its primary role of maintaining international peace and security. Particular attention is given to the realization of economic sanctions in the European Union (EU), which, alongside the United States, currently serves as a leading proponent of these coercive measures. The focus on the EU is explained by Ukraine's aspirations for EU membership, which necessitates the systematic alignment of national legislation with EU law, as well as by the critical need to ensure the effective implementation of economic sanctions, which today represent one of the few viable tools for influencing violators of international law. In this context, the article aims to analyze the practice of economic sanctions realization in the EU and to identify the problematic aspects that affect the effectiveness of these coercive measures. To achieve this goal, the process of sanctions realization in the EU is divided into three stages: the initiation and imposition of sanctions, their implementation, and the monitoring and evaluation phase. It is established that the initiation and imposition stage faces significant challenges, including the need to reach consensus among EU member states on sanction decisions, which can be complicated by the divergent political interests of individual European countries, the timely adoption of the necessary legal acts by the Council of the EU, and the legality of these measures. In contrast, the implementation stage is characterized by the lack of a unified approach to transposing economic sanctions into the national legal frameworks of EU member states, which hinders the effective enforcement of sanction regimes. The monitoring and evaluation stage reveals issues such as the lack of sufficient resources in EU member states to fulfill their reporting obligations to the European Commission regarding the implementation of EU sanctions legislation, the complexity and ambiguity of EU acts in the area of restrictive measures, the unclear definition of the objectives of economic sanctions, and the absence of a unified system for evaluating the effectiveness of sanction measures. The author emphasizes that these factors negatively impact the achievement of the goals at this stage, which in turn undermines the overall effectiveness of EU restrictive measures. The article stresses that the identified shortcomings in the EU's sanction implementation practices could serve as a foundation for improving domestic sanctions legislation and enhancing its effectiveness. In particular, it is recommended to develop mechanisms for the monitoring and evaluation of sanctions effectiveness, introduce liability for violations of sanction laws, and authorize a designated state body to provide clarifications on compliance with sanction regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the years, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) has been recognized as a crucial element in the toolkit of measures to combat climate change. At the European Union (EU) level, CCS plays a vital role in climate policy, particularly in reducing CO2 emissions from hard-to-abate industries. However, no comprehensive legal framework covers all stages of CCS. These stages include carbon capture techniques, transportation by ships or pipelines, injection, site closure, and post-closure management. Each of these stages is regulated by different legal frameworks that address various topics such as geoengineering, climate change, industrial activities, property, transportation, port operations, waste management, dumping, health, and the environment. Critical legal questions remain unanswered, such as who is liable for discharges in the marine environment during the transportation of CO2 by ships and for the long-term management of sub-seabed storage sites. As the transportation of CO2 by ships will likely have transboundary implications, we explore the legal possibilities, limitations and risks associated with exporting CO2 streams for sequestration under the sub-seabed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The concept of Turkic foreigners policy is located at the significant position in Turkish Migration Policy during the Republic history. It was interpreted within the settlement policy during the construction of the nation state in the first years of the Republic that is center of migration, settlement and population policies. With the increasing foreign population in Türkiye in the 2000’s due to economic, political and geopolitical reasons, the process of harmonization with the European Union acquis has brought about the updating of migration legislation, taking into account international migration law and the European Union acquis. The concept of Turkic foreingners policy existed in the Foreigners and International Protection Law 6458, which became law in 2013, and the immigration legislation developed accordingly, criticized on the grounds that it is an elite immigration policy aimed at a privileged group in terms of international immigration legislation. In this article, in the light of these discussions, the concept of Turkic foreigners policy will be criticized in terms of its place in current legislation and international migration law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution reflects a three-way conversation involving professors Martti Koskenniemi, Päivi Leino-Sandberg and Jan Klabbers, conducted at the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights. It touches on a diversity of themes, including the role of international organizations in international law, the populist 'backlash', the problems and prospects of expert governance, the possibility of a global virtue ethics, and what a critical approach to international law may entail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to point out and assess the mechanism of methodological transformation of the concept of conflict of laws. Within this mechanism, the conflict of laws does not pendulate anymore between the methodologies of multilateralism and unilateralism. Such mechanism suggests that nowadays the multilateralism survives owing to unilateralism itself. This idea is moving in between national legal orders, international legal order and quasi federal legal order of European Union, on the one side, and sets in motion the concept of „overriding or internationally mandatory rules”, on the other side. Our conclusion suggests that nowadays scholars acquired truly on the move identities. Such identities allow them a truly evolutive conceptualisation.

This article analyzes the legal regulation of scientific research in European Union law, examining the challenges and paradoxes the EU faces in this area. Through a systematic analysis of normative and programmatic documents, the crucial influence of EU law on shaping international scientific research standards is revealed. The study highlights the evolution of the European Research Area and the fundamental role of the Horizon Europe program in promoting scientific excellence and innovation. The findings have significant implications for EU research policy and its international cooperation in science and technology. The author applies a complex methodology including analysis and synthesis, structural, formal-legal methods, as well as approaches of scientific deduction and induction. The author argues that EU law has a significant impact on the development of international standards for scientific activity. Despite the absence of imperative supranational competence in the field of science, the EU has facilitated the formation of subsidiary mechanisms for funding and supporting scientific activity, leading to the establishment of sustainable institutions and mechanisms within the European Research Area and EU program systems such as "Horizon Europe", which has resulted in a substantial evolution of standards for scientific activity. The author states that this primarily concerns scientific ethics, multiculturalism and non-discrimination, the evolution of views on transnational research, and the formation of a sustainable regime for funding and evaluating scientific projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The issue of marriage between persons of the same sex has frequently sparked both emotional and political debates between supporters and opponents, and the debates related to unions concluded between persons of the same sex continue very strongly. Analyzing these aspects, it can be observed that in the Convention for the Defense of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms no right is guaranteed regarding marriage between persons of the same sex, but nevertheless, an attempt is made to build a right of legal recognition for couples formed by people of the same sex. The European Court of Human Rights highlighted that it is the right of the member states to protect marriage and the family, this being done with the "specific realities of each state". In relation to the Romanian legislative framework, we underline the fact that the only form of union accepted by Romanian law is the traditional marriage, which is concluded between men and women. Or, we raise the question, if the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not guarantee any right regarding same-sex marriage, and the European Court of Human Rights highlights the fact that every state is obliged to protect marriage and the family in relation to the realities and own beliefs, why does the latter force the Romanian state to go over constitutional beliefs and values? In order to be able to make legal arguments on this matter, I believe that we must not give up the fundamental values of a state and force citizens to give up their traditional values and culture. I am of the opinion that before promoting any action, there must be a balance between traditional values and the law, and the legislative framework must be harmonized with the specific realities of each state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article pays tribute to Professor Armand de Mestral, a revered figure in international and international trade law from the McGill Law faculty. With a career spanning over forty years, he notably contributed to legal scholarship and policy, held the Jean Monnet Chair, and served as an arbitrator in various international tribunals. Professor de Mestral's work in EU law and regional trade agreements, coupled with his leadership in the Canadian Red Cross Society, highlights his profound influence in both academia and social justice. His legacy continues to inspire future generations in the field of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Court of Justice of the European Union has been criticised increasingly for its approach to international law. While much literature focuses on reluctance to apply international law (ie refusing direct effect), this criticism also includes interpretation, arguably a more contentious area. The Court interprets international treaties through either the Vienna Convention or its own teleological method, with the latter increasingly applied. The legitimacy of applying localised methods of interpretation to international treaty law is debated in scholarship. Whether the Court's case law applying international law is Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit (friendliness to international law) is the focus of most contributions in this area. This Article seeks to move beyond that debate by demonstrating the Court should in all instances seek to achieve the legal imperatives of certainty and justice. It is explained that justice divides into 'thin' and 'thick' forms. Whilst 'thin' justice is widely accepted and amounts to treating like cases alike, substantive ('thick' justice) outcomes are inherently debatable. The Article proves the Court is failing to clearly distinguish cases ('thin' justice) and that case law is uncertain. There are also significant questions concerning 'thick' justice. The Court has been subject to criticism for substantive outcomes in this area, with the Commission and Council even seeking to limit its role. With case law that is uncertain and appears unjust it is argued that there is failure in this 'integral part of EU law.' The Court is now under increased pressure, and it is uncertain how it will respond. There are certainly cautionary lessons to be learned concerning the importance of paying proper attention to justice and certainty for EU law as a whole, and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the realm of statutory interpretation, the relationship between the purposive approach and 'legislative intent' has long been a subject of debate. The 'Inconsistency Thesis' ('IT') lies at the core of that debate, and posits that rejecting legislative intention is inconsistent with a purposive interpretation of statutes. Drawing from various judicial perspectives, this article explores differing views on that thesis; some equating legislative intention to statutory purpose, whilst others advocate for a clear distinction. This paper delves into this intricate discourse, identifying three distinct conceptualisations of 'legislative intent:' the State-of-Mind, Group Agency, and Shorthand accounts. It argues that the debate's controversies stem from these different conceptualisations, but ultimately defends the Shorthand Account. Additionally, this article refutes the claim that replacing 'intent' with 'purpose' would clarify the debate, emphasising the metaphorical value of the term 'legislative intent.' Through this exploration, the paper underscores the need for a consistent conceptual framework in discussing legislative intent, advocating for clarity and precision in the field of statutory interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CJEU case law has long emphasized the autonomy of the EU legal order, recently triggering the foreclosure of intra-EU investment arbitration. Though academic discourse has treated this as a European peculiarity, autonomy is not unfamiliar to international law as an inherent attribute of all international organizations (IOs). This Article traces how the CJEU employed this as the basis for the development of a legal principle of significant constitutional role in safeguarding the EU's jurisdictional integrity. First, It considers the EU conception of autonomy on the basis of two identified dimensions of IOs' autonomy under international law. Political autonomy characterizes the scope of an IO's powers and its independent legal personality. Institutional autonomy denotes its (im)permeability to external norms. Second, the Article examines autonomy's different normative status under international and EU law as a legal notion and a constitutional principle, respectively. Rather than viewing the latter as an EU invention, it amounts to a Pygmalian judicial creation—the CJEU drew inspiration from a notion of international law and adapted it within the Union framework. The Article justifies these adaptations by reference to international law in light of the EU's institutional-judicial architecture and the intertwining of autonomy with, inter alia , Article 2 TEU values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As of late July 2023, the month of July 2023 had become the hottest month ever recorded in history.1 Heads of the governments of small island states have been outspoken about the existential risk their countries face due to rising sea level as a consequence of climate change.2 Wildfires are more frequent and more negatively impactful than ever before in different parts of the world.3 It is no wonder that sustainability has become a buzz word in the media, and policymakers all over the world are, more than ever, focusing on trying to achieve a sustainable future. A sustainable global economy means providing good quality of life for everyone, keeping our planet clean and safe by tackling climate change, and having good-quality trading goods, such as agriculture, oil, and minerals. But how can the European Union (EU) and international law promote a highly sustainable global economy? How can EU countries and others ensure a sustainable global economy? This article has four sections. Section 1 proposes a climate club for a sustainable economic future. It challenges the view that trade's only impact on the environment is negative. It takes the unconventional view that the trading system goes beyond benefiting the economy and society in that it can also contribute to environmental protection, with a specific focus on decarbonization. This section proposes a paradigm shift in how we approach trade and develops a new theory based on the triple benefit of trade--economic growth, climate change mitigation, and enhancement of energy security. This section incorporates the current trend of bottom-up, rather than top-down, solutions to today's global challenges. It investigates how trade agreements may be more effective legal instruments than environmental agreements for environmental-protection purposes, a possibility that is both counter-intuitive and surprising, and identifies opportunities to promote sustainable energy and environmental protection in future trade agreements. Section 2 aims to explore the concept of a climate club linked to the international trade regime and proposes a strategy for its implementation the Group of Twenty (G20) framework. Section 2 examines the relevance of this proposal to Saudi Arabia, who is a member of the G20 and a participant in Mission Innovation. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's largest oil producers and exporters, facing both opportunities and challenges in transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Saudi Arabia has expressed its commitment to diversifying its economy, reducing its dependence on oil revenues, and contributing to global efforts to combat climate change. However, Saudi Arabia also faces resistance from some of its trading partners who may perceive its climate policies as a threat to their energy security or competitiveness. Therefore, Saudi Arabia can benefit from joining a climate club that can provide it with access to new markets, technologies, and financing for its green transition. Section 3 analyzes the Saudi Green Initiative (SGI), launched by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman in March of 2021.4 The SGI is a comprehensive plan to combat climate change and promote sustainable development.5 The initiative aims to reduce carbon emissions, increase the use of renewable energy, and protect natural resources in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.6 While the initiative has been praised for its ambitious goals, it has also faced criticism and skepticism from various quarters, which will be analyzed in Section 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Iuris Stetinensis is the property of University of Szczecin Press / Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecinskiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this article is to present international law regulations (including EU laws) on Ukrainians’ entry to and stay in Poland in the face of the outbreak of the armed conflict in Ukraine on 20 February 2022. The analysis covers acts of international law, with a particular focus on acts of EU law which are relevant to Ukraine’s situation today and its consequences for Poland. De lege lata and de lege ferenda conclusions are drawn that will ensure even more effective protection of persons who flee the armed conflict currently going on in Ukraine and who seek protection in Poland. The methodology applied in the research coverds two basic methods typical to law studies - an analysis of the law in force and legal comparison, also aided by the statistical method.

This article explores the concept of corporate liability in EU law, focusing on competition law and data protection law. The authors argue against the existence of a general legal principle that holds the entire economic unit liable, emphasizing that under EU law, only the individual legal entity is responsible for violations. The article examines the basis for generalizing legal principles in EU law and highlights the different approaches to corporate liability in primary and secondary law. It concludes that liability and obligations are attached to specific legal entities rather than entire economic units. The text also discusses the principle of separation in corporate law in various European countries and in public international law, emphasizing that shareholders are generally not personally liable for a company's obligations. The article further argues that the principles of corporate liability in competition law cannot be applied to other areas of law, and that the specific legal entity should be the subject of primary obligations, liability, and fines in data protection law and other areas. Overall, the article emphasizes that there is no general legal principle of corporate liability based on the economic unit in EU law. [Extracted from the article]

This article addresses the question of how the EU's legal constraints can be overcome in the governance of Global Spaces. It shows, first, that EU law is part of a trend of including language relating to Global Spaces in constitutional documents. The article subsequently highlights a tension specific to the EU as a non-state entity. While the EU Treaties enshrine grand foreign policy ambitions, which are impossible to achieve without a proactive role across the Global Spaces, EU law imposes several obstacles that complicate the pursuit of these ambitions. These concern particularly the need to base EU actions on powers conferred by the member states, the parallel international presence of the Union and the member states, and difficulties for the EU to join relevant international agreements and institutions. The article argues that through legal creativity, these constraints can be largely overcome, enabling the EU to pursue its ambitions nonetheless. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the weaknesses of general principles of EU law and the need for their re-evaluation. It discusses different perspectives and voices calling for change, including critical traditions, transformative law of political economy, doctrinal constructivism, and social law scholars. The article emphasizes the importance of examining the conceptual and constitutional foundations of EU law and suggests that legal scholars have an opportunity to provide a more solid scholarly foundation. It also discusses various legal and political issues related to European law, such as the role of civil courts, the influence of trade unions and academic actors, the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the intensity of judicial review, and the concept of servitisation. The text concludes by highlighting the need for a global perspective in European jurists' engagement with legal and political issues. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Die Unternehmensbesteuerung (Ubg) is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In general, the situation that has developed in Ukraine on the border with the European Union shows that despite the long history of the UN and the agreement of states to resolve all conflicts through negotiations, the prohibition of the use of force and threat of force, respect for the independence of other states, there are still terrorist states in the world that do not recognize and violate international law. Thus, the states that follow the norms and principles of international law, respect the key European values, support and protect human rights and peace on the continent must unite to overcome armed aggression. That is why the granting of temporary protection to Ukrainian citizens is an important issue, as it is one of the EU's significant contributions to the protection of the identity of the Ukrainian people, who are fighting for their independence. The purpose of the article was to study the peculiarities of obtaining temporary protection in the EU, to compare it with refugee status, to analyse the approaches to this procedure in individual states, as well as to determine the impact of obtaining the relevant status on the realization of the fundamental right to work. The main method used for the research is the method of analysis and synthesis. Its application provided reliable results in many areas of research. First of all, this method was applied in the analysis of EU and international law in the context of granting refugee status and temporary protection. Also, the method of analysis and synthesis was used by the author in the study of the peculiarities of temporary protection in individual Member States. Finally, the author used this method to analyse the problems currently faced by Ukrainian citizens and their possible solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whatever historians say about the past of international law, I that interpretation is international law in and of itself i . One could go as far as to state that for Orford, international law is such a special "object" that it is subtracted from historical knowledge (which is what Orford appears to be saying at page 96: 'International law ... is not an event or a person that can be located straightforwardly in a specific historical context'). Tzouvala, Ntina Capitalism as Civilisation: A History of International Law, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2021; 230 pp.; 9781108684415. [Extracted from the article]

The concept of autonomy lies at the core of the distinctiveness of European Union law and of the EU’s legal order. While the EU system is a creation drawing features from both an international organization and a federal state, the European Court of Justice has strongly proclaimed in its case law the sui generis nature of the Union as a supranational entity, relying heavily on autonomy as a key principle of the Union’s legal order. Without purporting to cover the full spectrum of possible analytical approaches, this paper examines some of the conceptions regarding the nature and dichotomies characterizing the autonomy of EU law, which might prove helpful in mapping the evolution of the notion into an ‘existential’ principle of the EU. The paper also discusses the internal and external dimensions of autonomy, with an emphasis on the latter, illustrating the evolution of external perceptions and the EU’s dynamics on the international plane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines approaches to the interaction of decisions of the Court of the European Union (CJEU) and international obligations in the field of human rights with the constitutional identity of states. Attention is focused on the concepts of "national identity" and "constitutional identity", their relationship, and the introduction of the concept of "national identity" into the European legal order after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty (1993). Attention is drawn to the fact that the primary law of the EU does not contain the concept of "constitutional identity", but this term is widely used in the decisions of the constitutional courts of several EU member states. In these decisions, the constitutional courts raised the issue of the protection of the constitution and constitutionality in the EU member state given the harmonization of legislation and/ or ultra vires decisions. The article notes that the concept of constitutional identity is broad, it covers the historical, political, cultural, and legal identity of the state, as well as the connection of national law with the international and autonomous legal order of the EU. The idea of constitutional identity is dynamic and constantly evolving due to the continuous development of the states themselves. The analysis of various approaches to this interaction based on the German Federal Constitutional Court, Hungarian Constitutional Court, and Italian Constitutional Court was carried out. It is noted that the interaction of CJEU rulings with constitutional identities is based on the principle of primacy of the EU law, and international human rights obligations are based on the conventional feature of the "obligation of uniform interpretation" and universal standards while ignoring the constitutional tradition of the states. It means that CJEU judgments have a higher legal force than national court judgments, while international human rights obligations should become precedents for subsequent national court judgments, not lowering the national standards of human rights protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Iurisprudentia is the property of Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has forced millions of people to flee the erupting armed conflict. Some of them were displaced within Ukrainian territory, others crossed the border and sought refuge in neighbouring countries and others further abroad. This article explores the limits of international refugee law in addressing this situation, which are of two kinds. First, people fleeing armed conflict are not considered refugees under the Refugee Convention if they are 'merely' fleeing armed conflict. Furthermore, the large number of persons arriving is also a limit. These limitations of international refugee law are filled by regional protection statuses (including temporary protection in European Union law) and the procedural ways in which protection can be granted. This article focuses on whether the current legislation in EU law is a sufficient response to the situation created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European continent has only one micro-state that is not landlocked: the Principality of Monaco. This city-state along the French Riviera is an independent state under international law and is not an EU Member State. Therefore, the law and policy of the EU's external relations applies, which must cater for the Principality's peculiar existence because of practical necessity. The EU retains differentiated legal relations with its closest geographical neighbours, and the EU-Monégasque relationship sees several unilateral EU measures taken to account for Monaco, as well as a limited array of international agreements between the parties, including a monetary agreement. These cumulatively make up the legal aspects to their international relations with each other. At first sight, these legal relations appear limited. Yet, as this article establishes, EUMonégasque legal relations have widened and deepened over time, and an association agreement is on the horizon to account for the necessitated intensity of cooperation on a legal footing. Such a development would bring the Principality legally closer to the EU than it ever has been before. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annual of the Faculty of Law / Godišnjak Fakulteta Pravnih Nauka is the property of Pan-European University Apeiron and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union was supposed to be definitively settled several times during the past decade - yet it was not. The 2016 referendum brought about a surge in interest in legal questions, especially of EU law and international economic law. This presented scholars with a questionable gift: on the one hand, countless new opportunities for research, publications, and public visibility; on the other, the curse of chasing a rapidly and at times erratically moving target. Therefore, this essay reflects on the continued relevance of Brexit scholarship and different strategies for extending its shelf-life. It argues that the relevance of this scholarship may indeed extend into the future when foresighted and innovative approaches are being put forward. Looking ahead, the essay observes that the Windsor Framework to overhaul the Northern Ireland Protocol likely marks the end point of the frenzied and fraught EU-UK relationship between 2016 and 2023. The essay concludes that, while disagreements will continue, the EU-UK relationship as a topic is entering a period of normalization. Rigorous legal and innovative interdisciplinary scholarship will remain necessary both to develop EU-UK relations as a sub-topic of its own and to embed it into wider discourses of EU and international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Political Science Studies / Studia Politologiczne is the property of University of Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of the article is to provide an overview of the international and EU law framework concerning the relation between the research and teaching. The analysis of internal regulations of selected European states is provided for a broader vision and comparative perspective. Such an overview constitutes the initial ground for further research and evaluation of the applicable law and its implementation. The article constitutes a summary of the initial phase of the research project dedicated to the impact of the legal research on legal education based on the projects funded by the Polish National Science Centre. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie przeglądu międzynarodowych i unijnych ram prawnych dotyczących relacji pomiędzy badaniami naukowymi a nauczaniem. W celu uzyskania szerszej wizji i perspektywy porównawczej dokonano analizy regulacji wewnętrznych wybranych państw europejskich. Taki przegląd stanowi wstępną podstawę do dalszych badań i oceny obowiązującego prawa oraz jego implementacji. Artykuł stanowi podsumowanie początkowej fazy projektu badawczego poświęconego wpływowi badań prawnych opartych na projektach finansowanych przez Narodowe Centrum Nauki na edukację prawniczą. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Abgaben-, Finanz- und Steuerrecht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The analysis of domain-specific terminology is essential for characterizing specialized discourses, and emerges as a useful means of measuring the thematic hybridity of law and legal translation in particular. This paper accordingly presents a large-scale mapping of terminological and phraseological features in a multi-genre corpus that was built as part of the LETRINT project on institutional legal translation. The corpus-driven analysis focuses on the density of legal terminology and phraseology, on the one hand, and that of terminology of other specialized domains, on the other, in nine genres that are considered representative of three central legal functions (law-making, compliance monitoring and adjudication) in three international settings (the European Union, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization). The comparative examination of density scores provides empirical evidence of the common core features of the selected genres, and reveals variations based on institutional thematic focus, primary legal function and genre specificities. These insights nuance our understanding of international legal discourses and domain specialization in institutional translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses Case C-161/20 Commission v. Council (International Maritime Organization (IMO)), in which the Court of Justice of the EU upheld a Council Decision endorsing a submission to the IMO by the Presidency of the Council on behalf of the European Commission and the Member States (MSs), and not on behalf of the EU. With this case, the Court contributes to the debate on the EU's external representation, particularly in the context of an international organization to which all the MSs, but not the EU, are parties and which regulates issues falling within EU competences. Combining an EU external relations law and a public international law perspective, this article assesses the Court's reliance on and interpretation of international law and explores the boundaries carved by EU and international law for the participation of the EU as a separate entity in the IMO. It also seeks to discern how this case fits within the Court's established 'gatekeeping' mechanisms in determining the effects of international law in the EU legal order and whether it signals an emerging, more flexible engagement with international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because of their internal situations, Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain do not recognise Kosovo. Aware of its inability to create a common view, as in other cases, the European Council has noted that 'Member States will decide, in accordance with national practice and international law, on their relations with Kosovo' on a sui generis basis. Nevertheless, the EU has engaged in de facto recognition of Kosovo by treating it as an independent State. Their obligations rooted in a duty of sincere cooperation and mutual solidarity mean that the five Member States that do not recognise Kosovo may not obstruct the EU's 'engagement without recognition' policy and, in this way, participate in de facto recognition of Kosovo. After some introductory remarks, the specific nature of recognition of States from the perspective of EU law will be explored. The section after that will deal with Member States' obligations regarding recognition when the EU has adhered to a certain recognition policy. The fourth section will investigate the sui generis case of Kosovo in specific circumstances defined by EU law. The paper concludes with some final remarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Intellectual Property Law / Revista Română de Dreptul Proprietăţii Intelectuale is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As a cross-cutting area of law, labour law presents many difficulties in interpretation. Although legal interpretation issues are essentially dealt with in legal theory, the specificities of labour law raise a number of issues that need to be treated specifically from a labour law perspective. One feature of labour law, which practitioners and the literature no longer dispute, is that it mixes private and public law norms, which can provide a number of novae for research into the methodology of interpretation. Labour law is a status law, which is meant that it seeks to regulate exclusively the organized work of the human being. The interpretative horizon of labour law is affected by the fact that this area of law is regulated at several levels. While the classical private law framework is dominated by national sources of law, labour law is also extensively influenced by the products of European Union law. There is no doubt that the private law roots of contract-based labour law are still dominant, but there is a growing trend towards the use of legal interpretation methods derived from EU law, which is devoid of private law doctrine. There is often a conflict of terminology and interpretative methods between domestic and international law, including EU law, which cannot be resolved by classical methods. In light of the above, my essay will focus on the legal interpretation methods of labour law, with particular attention to both theoretical and practical positions. Among the methods of interpretation, I will examine their relevance and prevalence at the EU and national level, and attempt to draw conclusions from these findings for the sustainability of labour law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Relevant data resources are critical for AI-supported decision-making. Thus, control over data, and how that moves across borders, has become a key point of international dispute. This article analyses the EU's international legal positionings regarding cross-border data flows in the context of an increasingly fierce global battle over data resources. It also asks whether the EU approach to data government, which is reflected in its international positionings, can contribute to address the pressing problem of the unequal distribution of the gains of the data driven economy in and among states. The article argues that EU's approach to data government is ridden with contradictions and that its centrepiece, the data protection framework, is best understood as a non-performative. This non-performativity, together with the determination to climb up the ladders of global digital value chains, makes the EU's position on cross-border data flows ambiguous and downgrades its punch in international negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amendments to the EU establishing treaties included in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty have resulted in conflicting norms and jurisdictions, arising from overlaps between international investment treaties and EU law. According to the 2018 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Achmea case, an arbitration clause in an intra-EU bilateral investment treaty is not compatible with EU law because of the autonomy of EU law and its need for uniform interpretation and application. In its 2021 Judgment in the Komstroy case, the Court expanded this approach in relation to investor-host State arbitration based on the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), that is, on a multilateral agreement among the European Union, its Member States and a few non-EU Member States. The Court based this decision not only on the autonomy of EU law and its need for uniform interpretation and application, but also on the venue of arbitration in a Member State. Several arbitral tribunals and scholars have criticized this approach. Criticism increased in 2022 when the arbitral tribunal in the Green Power v. Spain case – established under the Rules of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce according to the Energy Charter Treaty – followed the Komstroy decision of the EU Court of Justice. This article addresses the main aspects of this ongoing debate and looks at what other options might be available. The relevant case law has focused on a conflict-based perspective. It is suggested that other perspectives might be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The invasion of Ukraine has prompted the EU, together with other like-minded States, to adopt unprecedented economic sanctions against Russia; the international legality of autonomous sanctions is consequently under the spotlight. This article discusses EU practice concerning the adoption of sanctions (or "restrictive measures") against non-member States with a view to determining its influence upon the development of international law. After a concise overview of EU sanctions law and policy, the article underlines that, if the majority of EU measures can be qualified as retorsions, some appear to be in conflict with international obligations deriving from treaty or customary international law. Particular attention is given to the issue of whether EU autonomous sanctions can find a legal justification, under customary international law, in an independent sanctioning competence of the EU, as a regional organisation and a multilateral actor, or in the notion of "collective countermeasures". The article concludes that de lege lata these legal foundations are controversial. On the other hand, it underscores the unique contribution given by EU practice to the development in international law of the concept of collective countermeasures and to the consolidation of the principles of the indivisibility of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution focuses on one aspect of the complex relationship between EU law and international law: the reception and enforcement of international law in the EU legal order, from the perspective of EU law itself. Starting with the principles through which the EU's international treaties and customary international law are declared to be "part of the EU legal order", it turns to the place of international treaty obligations in the EU's hierarchy of norms. The enforcement of international law norms is then considered from different jurisdictional perspectives: enforcement in national courts, judicial review proceedings before the Court of Justice and enforcement actions against Member States. Threading through these questions of reception and enforcement we find a certain level of ambivalence and ambiguity: while international law may be characterised as "an integral part" of EU law, the principle of the autonomy of EU law leads to an emphasis on the separation between EU and international law and influences the real impact of the latter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As per several judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), intra- EU investment arbitration is incompatible with the EU treaties. Therefore, and due to the primacy of the EU treaties over other international agreements concluded by the EU or its Member States, provisions in investment treaties conferring jurisdiction on investment tribunals are inapplicable in intra-EU cases. Nonetheless, investment tribunals continue to exercise jurisdiction in these cases, relying on an alleged dichotomy between EU law and international law, as well as on the general law of treaties as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). This paper counters tribunals' arguments by introducing Article 5 VCLT, a norm collectively overlooked by investment tribunals. It shows how Article 5 VCLT translates relevant norms of EU law into an international legal concept – the 'rules of the organization' – and endows them with precedence over pertinent other VCLT provisions. In consequence, the position of investment tribunals is untenable not only under EU law, but also under international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic that we will deal with in this paper is the review of current reports in the spirit of the documents approved by the EU and the harmonization of these documents by the EU member countries, especially in terms of civil rights, judicial decisions of the member countries of EU. and the comparative aspect with the domestic law of states. In this paper we have taken as an example the Spanish state and Moroccan citizens living in Spain, their problems with the law in force and compliance with international standards, the result of cultural differences dictated by economic differences which differences have led to the emigration of Moroccan citizens to Spain. While diversity has to do with the approach-unification of different concepts of the individual, his life characteristics, the evaluation and acceptance of the differences between them, the opposite of this is the economic differences and the vital needs for existence. Therefore, the topic addressed in this paper is the essence of the study of cultural diversity, differences and negligence of state institutions for the harmonization of their legislation. The concept of international law in general, and international law in particular, the aim not only of harmonization, but also of the application of legal norms in the positive law of EU member states, tools used by the system of private international law from EU member states are the main purpose to assess, establish and harmonize legal provisions to unify multicultural values in the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that under EU law, the EU and its Member States can withdraw from a multilateral agreement such as the Energy Charter Treaty independently of one other. While loyalty obligations may require the EU and its Member States to coordinate their actions under a mixed agreement closely, all can withdraw. The autonomous nature of EU law does not allow Member States to prevent the EU from taking decisions within its competence. Similarly, as the European Court of Justice maintains, under EU law, the EU and its Member States are only ratifying those parts of the agreement that fall within their competence -- thus, Member States are entitled to cease exercising their powers through withdrawal. However, this power to withdraw unilaterally is not without complications. First, it may affect the ability of others to remain a party to the Energy Charter Treaty under EU law. Second, where not all Member States and the EU withdraw, 'incomplete mixity' raises several complicated questions under international law, particularly those concerning international responsibility and investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Coordinated withdrawal by all Member States and the EU is, therefore, the preferred policy option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the Mercosur--European Union Association Agreement (AA) from a non-European perspective. It covers the Mercosur normative system, more specifically the part that deals with the incorporation of international laws and treaties into the regional legal system. First, it seeks to explain the nuances behind the announcement made by the States Parties to the AA in June 2019, seeking to contextualise the time frame for the development of the negotiations and the subsequent signing of the AA. Next, two important aspects for the effectiveness of the agreement are analysed: the procedure for incorporating the rules adopted by Mercosur Members, with reference to the provisions currently in force and applicable to Mercosur Members as a result of the agreements signed by them; and the difficulties associated with the procedure. Finally, the pillars on which the negotiations were initially conducted are discussed, with special attention to political dialogue, trade and cooperation, and the sustainable development considerations that are present in the AA. By adopting a non-European perspective, this article presents the issues related to Mercosur's internal normative system for the incorporation of international norms and regulations, that is, the agreement itself, and the procedure for its entry into force and possible obstacles to its implementation. It is concluded that, despite all the efforts made to finalise the negotiations, there is a clear and indisputable uncertainty regarding the effective application of the agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contribution of international organisations (IOs) to the process of identification, codification or development of rules of general international law is one still enveloped in a measure of mystery. While the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) has long relied on IOs' practice, and the practice of States within IOs, in carrying out its work, it has only recently begun to address the role that IOs might play in the formation or expression of rules of customary international law, jus cogens or general principles of law. In this process, the European Union (EU) has long been seen as an 'odd' fit. From the point of view of general international law, EU integration forms an apparent paradox: on the one hand, the degree of transfer of powers to the organisation renders it particularly well suited to be a 'jus generative' force and a useful source of practice for the ILC's work; on the other, its 'exceptionalism' often militates against the reliance on EU-related practice as evidence of existing or emerging rules of general application. This article looks at the effects of this 'integration paradox' in the ILC's work by reviewing the references to, and the use of, EU practice in eight distinct codification projects, combined with interviews with ILC members and EU officials. It provides an ILC (outside) view on the relevance of EU practice for the identification, codification, and development of rules of general international law. This view, in turn, has implications for the operation of an EU (inside) foreign policy objective: its ambition to contribute to the development of international law, as expressed in Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]