Comparing the ICTY and the ICC: Some Procedural and Substantive Issues

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Slouching Towards New ‘Just’ Wars: International Law and the Use of Force After September 11th

Netherlands International Law Review -     

The Governance of Terror: Precautionary Logic and Counterterrorist Law Reform After September 11

This article examines how lawmakers respond through law reform to the prospect of further terrorist attacks after September 11. The first part examines ways of conceptualizing the terrorist threat, drawing upon notions of risk, fear, catastrophe, and precaution. The concept of the Precautionary Principle is introduced and explored as a tool for making sense of, and improving, law reform processes in counterterrorism. The second part deploys these concepts through two case studies of counterterrorist law reform: Canada and Australia. What constitutes expertise in this area is considered, as is the capacity of legislators to scrutinize the arguments of necessity and prognoses of dire threat put forward by executive government.     

非法人组织在民事实体法和程序法上法律地位之冲突及协调

关于非法人组织(即公民、法人以外的第三民事主体)之法律地位在实体法和程序法上存在着诸 多冲突与矛盾。造成冲突与矛盾的原因之一,就是由于我们在民事实体法与民事程序法的理论 认识上存在着不一致。要消除二者之间的矛盾与冲突,就必须统一理论界的认识:一方面应赋予 某些非法人组织以民事主体资格和诉讼主体资格;另一方面,有必要对可以成为民事主体的非法 人组织的资格条件从构成要件方面加以限制。     

The EU's Role in the Fight Against Racism and Xenophobia: Evaluation and Prospects After Amsterdam and Tampere

The Treaty of Amsterdam has strengthened thepossibility of the European Union (EU) adoptingmeasures in the fight against racism and xenophobia.These can be based both on the extendednon-discrimination clause of Article 13 TEC and newArticle 29 TEU relating to common action in thecontext of the area of freedom security and justice.So far EU action has concentrated on public awarenessmeasures, increasing the exchange and the analysis ofinformation on racism and xenophobia, and improvingjudicial cooperation and cross-border training in thisarea. The scope of EU action continues to be limited,however, because of the absence of a `mainstreamingclause', very limited funding and structural deficitsin the decision-making system. Both the new AmsterdamTreaty provisions and the renewed emphasis placed onthe fight against racism and xenophobia by the TampereEuropean Council of October 1999 should be used forextending the EU's role in this area which is ofcrucial importance to its credibility as a politicalcommunity.     

论我国诉讼时效效力的私人自治转向——实体与程序双重视角的观察

我国《民法通则》及《关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》对诉讼时效法律效力的规定实质上是一种"干预"模式,这种模式既不符合诉讼时效制度的本来目标,也不符合通过私人行为实现法律控制的国家策略,从干预模式到"自治"模式的转换势在必行。同时,那种试图通过法官释明来纠正自治模式可能带来的局限的方式并不是真正有效和适当的方式。     

Part III. Interstate Agreements on Cooperation Against Terrorism : Treaty Concerning Cooperation Between Members of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the Struggle Against Terrorism

The authors of Federal Law No. 131 "On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation" knew what they were doing when they provided a three-year "transition period" for their creation. The law entered into force in its full measure in far fewer than all of the regions of the country and there is plenty of confusion. And the situation with authority and money among the bodies of local self-government recalls the well-known old anecdote concerning the fate of money under communism: some have it and some do not.     

欧盟《非合同之债的法律适用条例》之规则批判

2009年1月11日开始生效的<欧洲议会与欧盟理事会关于非合同之债的法律适用条例>(简称<罗马条例Ⅱ>)首次以条例的形式在欧共体层面对欧洲的侵权法律适用制度作了统一,大大提高了欧盟成员国侵权之债法律适用结果的确定性与可预见性,避免了当事人选择法院的可能性,将欧洲国际私法的统一化运动推到了最高潮,基本实现了欧洲统一侵权之债法律适用制度的历来夙愿.但是.<罗马条例Ⅱ>又是欧洲共同体各大机构之间,确切地说,是各大机构所代表的商业利益集团之间的相互妥协之果,所以不可避免地带有先天性的不足,某些规则的适用结果差强人意.     

网络时代冲突法理论与规则的几点思考

<正> 18世纪印刷技术的迅速发展,使作品可以借助书籍这种载体大范围地传播,版权制度亦应运而生。直到20世纪80年代,由于知识产权本身的地域性特点,版权的国际保护较少涉及法律适用上的争议。《伯尔尼公约》规定了清楚的规则:(1)公约成员国国民,其作品不论是否出版,均应在公约的一切成员国中享有公约最低要求所提供的保护,此即“作者国籍”标准;(2)非公约成员国的国民,其作品只要首先在某个成员国出版,也应当在一切成员国中享有公约提供的保护,此即“作品国籍”,亦称“地点标准”;(3)享有国民待遇的作者在任何成员国所得到的版权,均须依照“权利要求地法”而不是“作品来源地法”来保护,此即版权的独立性原则。由此可见不论是权利的取得,还是跨界保护时的法律适     

村规民约:国家法与民族习惯法调适的路径选择——以融水苗族村规民约对财产权的规定为视角

广西融水苗族村规民约在财产权保护上十分重视,以较大篇幅对财产权的保护以及财产权纠纷的规制进行规定,在承继和发展苗族习惯法有益部分的基础上有力地维护了村民利益,同时明确地将自己定位在国家法的框架内,逐步向国家法治靠拢.因此,对广西融水苗族村规民约的阐述更明确了村规民约作为国家法与少数民族习惯法不断调适的首要选择和最佳途径.     

法律、民生与民间规则——兼论两岸交流制度中民间规则的作用

法律是社会交往和社会需要的产物,因之,法律也是主体交往中日常生活的公共产品。它不仅作用于人们日常的物质生活,而且也作用于人们的精神生活。更重要的是,法律作为正式制度,还缔造着人们的制度生活。但法律的规定并不是完全自足的,一方面,需要关注作为非正式制度的民间规则的作用,另一方面,当法律规定有所遗漏,或者法律规定对公民的日常生活不能调整、规范时,民间规则对救济法律的不足,就可能会派上用场。甚至即使法律对相关社会关系有所规定,在实践中也免不了法律和民间规范相互交叠地发挥作用。基于这种认识,在两岸有关民生的交流中,应当把民间规则纳入保障两岸民生、促进两岸往来的重要社会因素中。     

Compliance with the Law in Slovenia: The Role of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy

The empirical status of Tom Tyler’s (1990) process-based model of regulation is frustrated by the fact that most studies are conducted in the US, leaving open the question of whether similar effects can be observed in countries with different historical and political contexts. The current study tests two process-based model hypotheses using cross-sectional survey data from 683 young adults in Slovenia. The results reveal: (1) procedural justice judgments significantly shape individual perceptions of police legitimacy, and (2) perceived police legitimacy explains self-reported compliance with the law. Though slightly diminished in magnitude, the legitimacy effect persists when using an instrumental variable to address possible endogeneity bias and after statistically controlling for known correlates of law violating behavior (i.e., personal morality and low self-control). The findings also show that the legitimacy effect on compliance with different laws (e.g., littering and buying stolen property) varies depending on the operationalization of legitimacy (i.e., additive scale versus instrumental variable). While the findings indicate that the process-based model of regulation is germane to post-socialist countries such as Slovenia, more research focusing on the explanatory breadth of the model is necessary.     

From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics

The history of the genesis and institutionalization of the European Convention on Human Rights offers a striking account of the innovation of a new legal subject and practice—European human rights—that went along with, but also beyond, the political and legal genesis of Europe following World War II. The rise of the European human rights institutions shows not only how law and lawyers played key roles in the early politics of European integration but also how the subtle combination of law and politics—as both national and international strategies—continued to play a decisive part in the institutionalization of European human rights. The article generally argues that the interplay between law and diplomacy had a fundamental impact on the innovation of European law and that lawyers capable of playing an intermediary role between the two were particularly central to this development.     

Political Self‐control and European Constitution: The Assumption of National Political Loyalty to European Obligations as the Solution to the Lex Posterior Problem of EC Law in the National Legal Orders

Current understandings of the constitutional effectiveness of EC law emphasise the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) claims of supremacy and direct effect, and the acceptance of those claims by the national courts. However, the lex posterior problem of EC law in the national legal order—the problem whereby the application of European obligations in the national legal order could be legislated away by subsequent contrary national legislation—has been addressed not by national courts' acceptance of Costa but by national courts' assumption that national legislatures do not intend to legislate contrary to prior European obligations, often developed from separately established national doctrines which assume legislative fidelity to treaty obligations. As such, the solution to the lex posterior problem of EC law in the national legal orders rests on these national legal doctrines combined with pervasive national legislative self‐restraint. Political self‐control in the Member States supports the European legal order.