法律管理权essay [5]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-09-23编辑:zcm84984点击率:11221
论文字数:2890论文编号:org201409211323275271语种:英语 English地区:加拿大价格:免费论文
关键词:Law Essay法律管理权国家法案侵权活动
摘要:本文是加拿大滑铁卢大学的一篇争权和法律管理权的侵权活动的法律作业,主权和非主权活动之间的区别也只适用于合法的追求索赔侵权的声明下。”法院评估了核电厂作为商业活动的运营情况但是核电厂仍然归属给国有企业,而不是USSR(州)。
anymore. The universal principle lost it’s the only destination to criminal proceedings and at present time could be applicable for civil proceedings as well. That is follows from Furundzija decision [29] and Article 146 of the IV Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilians during war.
In my opinion the Ferrini judgment as a whole can be valuable from the point of view that it could be served as lever to suppress states from committing serious crimes. Awareness of possibility to establish universal jurisdiction in civil cases can make states to be more careful in their actions. Such violations as war crimes need to have more strict punishment in comparing with other crimes. However, the only problem could be that not all states legally fixed the principle of universal jurisdiction in their national acts. In general, universal jurisdiction could be next tool in taking the shield of immunity from states.
The Ferrini judgment in the part of elaboration of international legislation on state immunity made me think that Italian Courts used the absence of its own national legislative acts on state immunity in favor of fundamental human rights. Not so long ago there was a big doubt whether “the national court” could make a judgment on denial of state immunity in the case of “international violation”. And now we are already witnesses of such judgments. These judgments (mostly Italian) were justified with the idea that international customary law is part of national law. And in the author’s view it could be possible to apply the same idea in common law states as well because these states do not need to fulfill any special procedures in order to male international law become the part of their national law.
The Ferrini judgment in the part of elaboration of international court practice cleared up me the situation on relations on the issue of state immunity between such two treaties namely European Convention of State immunity and Brussels Convention (Rome II).
As we know some states of the European Union such as Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Nederlands and United Kingdom are signatories of ECSI as well. It means that these states apply the provisions of ECSI and Rome II. However, these two treaties have different position to the application of iure imperii distinction in tortious activity. The European Convention on State Immunity does not apply the traditional distinction of iure imperii and iure gestionis in torts anymore whereas the Rome II still follows to this approach. And this wrong interpretation on existing controversy between these two treaties would dominate in mind of author if the court practice did not help in the clearance of this misunderstanding.
As we remember in the final remarks of Lechouritou ECJ it was stated that: “the Brussels Convention, as a measure facilitating the internal market by the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, is not the right instrument for the assertion of compensation claims based on acts perpetrated by armed forces in the course of warfare. The consequences of war and occupation can […] only be dealt with at a public law level.” [30] It means that the Brussels Convention did not have the aim of consideration the cases concerning “international matters”.
Afterwards it makes me think that there will be no controversy between the European Convention on S
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。