Fundamental Rights in International and European Law: Public by Christophe Paulussen, Tamara Takacs, Vesna Lazić, Ben Van

By Christophe Paulussen, Tamara Takacs, Vesna Lazić, Ben Van Rompuy

In this e-book numerous views on primary rights within the fields of private and non-private overseas legislation are innovatively coated. released at the party of the 50th anniversary of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut within the Hague, the gathering displays the breadth and scope of the Institute’s examine actions within the fields of public foreign legislations, ecu legislation, deepest overseas legislations and foreign and eu activities legislation. It does so through laying off extra gentle on topical matters – corresponding to drone battle, the struggle opposed to terrorism, the overseas alternate surroundings nexus and compelled arbitration – that may be regarding the topic of basic rights, which runs via these kinds of 4 components of research.

Points of divergence and parts of universal flooring are exposed in contributions from either employees participants and unusual exterior authors, having long-standing educational family with the Institute.

The Editors of this ebook are all employees individuals of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, every one of them representing one of many components of analysis the Institute covers.

Show description

Read Online or Download Fundamental Rights in International and European Law: Public and Private Law Perspectives PDF

Similar comparative books

Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems

An exam of ways, why and the place corruption mars judicial tactics.

The Unauthorised Agent: Perspectives from European and Comparative Law

The point of interest of this ebook, the felony scenario created while an agent acts with no authority, is without doubt one of the most vital concerns in enterprise legislation. The research is split into 3 sections: obvious authority, ratification and the legal responsibility of the falsus procurator. Adopting a special comparative viewpoint, the contributions are drawn from many alternative felony structures, delivering the chance for research of the eu universal law/civil legislations divide.

Extra resources for Fundamental Rights in International and European Law: Public and Private Law Perspectives

Example text

The first and second anonymous respondent did not address this question. The Netherlands was the only EU Member State that had called for greater transparency before. The Czech Republic and the second anonymous respondent indicated they had not called for more transparency and the first and third anonymous respondents did not address this question. The first and second anonymous respondents found that drones can, in principle, be effective weapons and that generally, the current use of drones is in conformity with international law.

The Netherlands and the Czech Republic thought that more transparency was necessary regarding the use of armed drones (the latter with respect to drones and targeted killing outside armed conflicts), but the third anonymous respondent felt this was not necessary. The first and second anonymous respondent did not address this question. The Netherlands was the only EU Member State that had called for greater transparency before. The Czech Republic and the second anonymous respondent indicated they had not called for more transparency and the first and third anonymous respondents did not address this question.

The Czech Republic noted that ‘[d]efinitely the test applies within a geographically confined territory’, but ‘this test should [also] be applicable to address the acts of [an] NSA that [does] not limit itself [to] one geographical area’. The Netherlands and the first anonymous respondent did not address this question. • Two EU Member States (the Czech Republic and the third anonymous respondent) agreed that an aggregation of armed attacks taking place in geographically varied locations can satisfy the intensity threshold so as to amount to a NonInternational Armed Conflict (NIAC), whereas the second anonymous respondent did not agree.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.06 of 5 – based on 41 votes