Search

This study investigates the implications of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling on November 15, 2023, declaring the second supplementary budget of 2021 unconstitutional, specifically the reallocation of unused COVID-19 debt authorisations for green initiatives. This landmark decision clarifies the exceptions to the debt brake and the handling of special funds, significantly affecting the climate and transformation fund, indirectly influencing other special funds aimed at stabilising the energy sector and rebuilding from the 2021 flood disaster. The research method involves a comprehensive review of legal documents, government reports, and financial data to assess the impact on Germany’s ability to fund its climate and energy transition policies, particularly through the climate and transformation fund and the broader implications for economic policy and insolvency rates. The main findings highlight the conflict between fiscal discipline, as mandated by the debt brake, and the government’s intention to finance environmental initiatives with unutilised COVID-19 debts. The ruling underscores the challenges of balancing fiscal restrictions with urgent environmental goals, questioning the flexibility of budgetary and tax policies to support significant investments in sustainability and climate protection. The conclusion calls for reevaluating how green agendas can be funded within stringent fiscal rules, emphasising the need for innovative financing solutions and a commitment to reconciling economic stability with ecological sustainability. This case study presents a critical analysis of the delicate balance between fiscal responsibility and achieving vital environmental objectives, urging rethink on financing green initiatives within the confines of fiscal and constitutional boundaries.

The subject of analysis in the current theoretical and practical research is an act with a high degree of social danger that exists in objective reality and manifests within the tourism sector – sexual exploitation in the field of travel and tourism. This exploitation is characterised by prerequisites for being carried out in a hidden and unnoticed manner. It is a multidimensional activity with objective and subjective features that affect the diverse rights of victims, primarily children. The primary goal of this study is to illustrate the necessity for adequate criminal law protection for every child worldwide from this form of abuse and to present several specific proposals. This article applies comparative legal research and socio-legal research of legal provisions of different legislation regulating sexual exploitation in travel and tourism. MAXQDA software was used for data analysis.

This article explores the historical evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) against the backdrop of the internet’s inception and development. In the early years, the internet was largely restricted to government organizations, the military, and scientific institutions. Censorship was prevalent, limiting the emergence of disputes within this limited virtual environment. To overcome these constraints, private commercial online services like CompuServe and AOL emerged, offering content-rich platforms but with limited connectivity. This limitation inadvertently reduced the incidence of disputes. However, unrestricted access to online services led to cases of identity deception and abuse, exemplified by the infamous case of a virtual persona, ‘Joan’. The ‘Joan’ incident underscored the challenges of managing online interactions in the absence of regulatory mechanisms. It prompted the emergence of system administrators responsible for balancing content policies and First Amendment rights. The article also delves into the early legal landscape concerning online communication and the challenges of regulating content and expression. This historical analysis offers insights into the origins of ODR, highlighting the need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms in the evolving digital landscape. It sheds light on the internet’s journey from a closed network to a global platform, raising critical questions about identity, freedom of expression, and the role of administrators in online governance.

This study endeavors to examine the phenomenon of whistleblowing within the context of freedom of expression. The paper is organized into three key segments, each addressing distinct aspects. Initially, it delves into the challenges and complexities inherent in conceptualizing whistleblowing. Subsequently, the paper establishes a theoretical foundation for the fundamental rights approach to whistleblowing, laying the groundwork for the final section: an analysis of whistleblowing cases through the lens of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law. The research methodology employed comprises secondary analysis (desk research) and legal case studies. The study aims to achieve a dual purpose: firstly, to offer a comprehensive understanding of the legal analysis and interpretation of whistleblowing; and secondly, to elucidate the evolving legal standards and criteria governing whistleblowing in the context of freedom of expression over recent years.

Certain platform operators serve as both suppliers of goods on the platform and sources of business opportunities. Platforms on which the operator himself is a provider, i.e. his own user, is referred to as hybrid or dual-role platforms. The platform operator can set and enforce the platform rules itself. Unfair treatment can take many forms, from a modification of the product ranking to the removal of products or the supplier from the platform. The ranking of products on the platform must necessarily put one provider’s product ahead of another’s and the platform operator must regulate in some way which providers are allowed on the platform and which are excluded from the platform. Thus, the question is whether these rules and their enforcement must be objectively justified or whether the platform operator can act on its own. This article discusses the concept of ‘self-favoring.’ Whether private law places restrictions on this kind of action or if the platform operator has the right to handle independently will be analyzed below. The analysis aims to furnish details regarding the operator’s essential powers on his platform, which are a manifestation of the notably partial exercise of regulatory power.

Definition of waste in the EU legal regulations is very vague. Therefore, the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Commission (by its guidance) try to help to the national courts with the interpretation of the concept of waste. There are many judgements that offer examples and circumstances that should be considered when defining a substance as waste. However, the fact that the concept of waste depends on the verb ‘discard’ which should be interpreted according to the relevant circumstances in the particular cases causes that the concept of waste remains still very vague. The situation is also complicated by the fact that the concept of waste does not have the same meaning with other relevant international documents. The aim of the paper is to collect the last development of the concept of waste in the judgements of the Court of Justice of the EU. In the paper, there are pointed out how the relevant circumstances of the word ‘discard’ should be considered in the present view of the Court of Justice of the EU. In conclusions, we try to summary the main categories of waste regarding the interpretation of the verb ‘discard’.

The article tries to answer a very important problem faced by legal practitioners of all times, namely the problem of the relationship between equity and law. The perspective of a judge on this aspect is complemented by that of prestigious authors who have reflected on the most appropriate way of applying the law. In the article they are analyzed two major currents of interpretation of legal norms, which are still facing each other in the theory of law, namely textualism and purposivism, the first current claiming that the interpretation of the legal norms must be done exclusively on the basis of the text of the law, and the second that the legislator’s intention or purpose must also be taken into account. It is also emphasized the risk that, through the interpretation of the law, judges will impose their views on state policy. Only equity can protect us from this risk, because it prevents arbitrariness.

The smart shipping and maritime technology encompass blockchain and smart contracts technology, information perception technology, intelligent decision-making technology, intelligent routing technology, marine communication network security technology, route planning technology, autonomous navigation technology, state monitoring and fault diagnosis technology and so on. Nevertheless, these advancements bring practical and legal challenges, as well as a new threat in the digital age: cybercrime. This paper deals with the key challenges and opportunities associated with the integration of digital technologies in shipping and transport such as smart contracts and unmanned ships, and how do cyber issues impact the safety, security, and efficiency of maritime operations. The first part examines the technological background into which smart contracts are integrated and operate, i.e. the terms blockchain and technology distributed ledger technology. The concept, the mechanism and the types of smart contracts in the maritime industry are further analysed. Also, the aspects of new technologies such as Autonomous Vessels and the challenges they raise are examined. The second part focuses on the legal potential of smart contracts examining their issues and the cyber challenges in the maritime industry. The critical remarks and conclusions drawn are listed at the end of the paper.

This study thoroughly investigates the development of an oil and natural gas mining treaty in the high seas of the North Natuna region, focusing on overlapping Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claims involving Indonesia, Vietnam, and China. Analyzing the geopolitical and economic implications, the research utilizes a comprehensive methodology, including policy document scrutiny and an extensive literature review. The findings underscore the significant potential of North Natuna’s natural resources, accentuating the determination of the three nations to assert their territorial claims. Notably, tension arises from China’s Nine Dash Line claim, challenging the UNCLOS 1982 arbitral tribunal decision. The study recommends a tripartite resolution, emphasizing a robust Code of Conduct agreement. Despite diplomatic efforts, this research stresses the need for strengthening the Code of Conduct and adopting a tripartite reconciliation approach to ensure the security and sovereignty of the North Natuna region. Enforcing rights through the International Arbitration Tribunal is crucial for lasting peace, stability, and the sustainable management of oil and natural gas activities.

اشارهنظر مشورتی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری با موضوع پیامدهای حقوقی ناشی از سیاست‌ها و رویه‌های اسرائیل در سرزمین اشغالی فلسطین شامل بیت‌المقدس شرقی در 29 تیر 1403 (19 ژوئیة 2024) صادر شد. این نظر در پاسخ به پرسش‌های مجمع عمومی سازمان ملل از دیوان است که در 9 دی 1401(30 دسامبر 2022) در قالب قطعنامة 77/247 به تصویب رسید. در واقع، این دومین نظر مشورتی است که به‌طور اختصاصی به اقدامات اسرائیل در سرزمین‌های اشغالی فلسطین می‌پردازد. نخستین مورد، حدود 20 سال پیش در 19 تیر 1383 (9 ژوئیة 2004) با عنوان پیامدهای حقوقی ساخت یک دیوار در سرزمین‌های اشغالی فلسطین از سوی دیوان و متعاقب پرسش مجمع عمومی در این مورد صادر شد. با اینکه نظر مشورتی 2004 تنها به بخشی از اقدامات اسرائیل یعنی ساخت دیوار حائل در سرزمین‌های اشغالی می‌پرداخت، اما به یکی از مهم‌ترین تصمیم‌های تاریخ رسیدگی‌های دیوان بدل شد. نظر مشورتی 2024 به دلیل گسترة پرسش‌های مطرح‌شده از سوی مجمع عمومی، به‌ناگزیر اهمیت بیشتری را به دلیل فرصت فراخ دیوان برای پرداختن به تقریباً تمامی ابعاد حقوقی بین‌المللی اشغال فلسطین از سوی اسرائیل خواهد داشت. به همین دلیل نیز مجمع عمومی در راستای اجرایی‌کردن نظر مشورتی 2024 دیوان در 29 شهریور 1403 (19 سپتامبر 2024) ذیل قطعنامة A/RES/ES-10/24 اعلام نمود اسرائیل 12 ماه از زمان تصویب قطعنامه فرصت دارد تا به حضور غیرقانونی خود در سرزمین‌های اشغال‌شدة فلسطین پایان دهد. به همین جهات، مطابق مصوبة هیئت تحریریة مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، تصمیم بر آن شد تا ترجمة نظر مشورتی مزبور در این شماره منتشر شود.برگردان متن، به قلم چهار تن از همکاران مرکز امور حقوقی بین‌المللی، همگی از دانش‌آموختگان مقطع دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل صورت گرفته است.ارجاعات دیوان در نظر مشورتی به‌صورت درون‌متنی است که در اینجا بر اساس شیوه‌نامة مجله، به‌صورت پاورقی درج شده است. همچنین در ترجمه سعی شده تا حد امکان وفاداری به متن برای بیان عبارات دیوان حفظ شود و از این رو درج تعابیر، اسامی و عبارات به‌کار‌رفته در متن ترجمه، از‌جمله واژة رژیم اسرائیل، لزوماً بیانگر یا مؤید دیدگاه مجله یا مرکز امور حقوقی بین‌المللی نیست.

امروزه مسائل زیست‌محیطی، یکی از مهم‌ترین چالش‌های بین‌المللی به شمار می‌آید و یکی از اولویت‌های سران دولتها نیز شده است. شکی نیست در آینده‌ای نه‌چندان دور، ریشه اصلی اختلاف دولت‌ها همانا مسائل زیست‌محیطی و منابع طبیعی خواهد بود. در این میان کوه‌ها به واسطه نقش بی‌بدیلی که در اکوسیستم ایفا می‌نمایند از اهمیت و جایگاه ویژه‌ای برخوردارند؛ با این حال، کمتر در کانون توجه‌ها قرار گرفته‌اند و به همین علت، ساختار شکننده آنها بیش از پیش در معرض آسیب و تخریب قرار میگیرد. با استفاده از ظرفیت‌های حقوق بین‌الملل میتوان نسبت به جلوگیری از تخریب بیشتر و احیای خسارات واردشده اقدام نمود چه اینکه هم‌اکنون نیز در این حوزه اقدامات حقوقی پاره‌ای از کشورهای اروپایی اثرات مثبتی نیز داشته است.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the international community has confronted the emergence of a novel paradigm known as the "Global War on Terrorism." This framework has disrupted the equilibrium between human rights and national security, resulting in significant ramifications: it has not only compromised the fundamental rights of citizens but also adversely affected the basic rights of individuals suspected or accused of terrorist offenses. Governments engaged in counter-terrorism efforts bear the responsibility of maintaining a delicate balance between effective law enforcement and the safeguarding of civil liberties. While the existence of terrorism as a formidable threat is widely acknowledged, the protection of human rights - particularly the rights of the accused in anti-terrorism operations - remains paramount. There exists a consensus that, in the pursuit of counter-terrorism, all lawful means should be employed to prevent such crimes, with efforts to neutralize threats supporting the tenets of human rights. However, the central issue pertains to the precision and legality of these measures. This study aims to examine the challenges inherent in reconciling the respect for and protection of human rights with the imperative to combat terrorism, with a specific focus on the rights of the accused. The findings indicate that responses to terrorism must uphold the rule of law; neglecting human rights in the fight against terrorism risks creating an environment conducive to the proliferation of terrorism.

ماهیت داوری‌ بین‌المللی و حاکمیت طرفین دعوا در انتخاب داور، ایجاب می‌کند داوران از میان افراد ذی‌صلاحی با ملیت، جنسیت و سنین گوناگون منصوب شوند. با این وجود بررسی‌ها نشان می‌دهد که داوری بین‌المللی عمدتا در انحصار مردانی سفیدپوست از کشورهای توسعه-یافته بوده و سایرین سهم چندانی در این عرصه ندارند. انتصاب مکرر برخی از داوران سرشناس و پذیرش نقش دوگانه داور و وکیل از مهمترین سازوکارهایی است که با دشوار ساختن ورود داوران جدید، موقعیت افراد موجود را تثبیت نموده و شبکه‌ی بسته‌ای از داوران بین المللی را شکل می‌دهد. مقاله‌ی حاضر با تحلیل تاثیر انتصاب مکرر داوران و پذیرش نقش دوگانه‌ی داور و وکیل بر تنوع جامعه داوری و متعاقبا بر کیفیت رسیدگی و مشروعیت داوری، پیشنهاد می‌کند که متعاقب افشای انتصاب‌ها و موضع‌گیری سابق داوران، در تعداد داوری و وکالتی که یک فرد می‌تواند بپذیرد، محدودیت ایجاد شود.

قانون‌گذاری سنگ‌بنای نظام‌های حقوقی است و تمامی این نظام‌ها از چنین کارکردی به‌اقتضای ساختار و مختصات خود برخوردارند. در این زمینه، حقوق بین‌الملل برخلاف نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی، به دلایلی چون تأثیر عوامل غیرحقوقی چندان منظم عمل نمی‌کند و می‌توان هرگونه اقدام اعضای جامعه‌ بین‌المللی در جهت ایجاد حقوق را خلق قواعد حقوقی بین‌المللی یا قانون‌سازی بین‌المللی دانست. بنابراین، همه کنش‌گران بین‌المللی، به‌کمک ابزارها و منابع سخت و نرم حقوق بین‌الملل، در این فرایند مشارکت می‌نمایند. در این میان، منابع سنتی حقوق بین‌الملل، عرف و معاهده، از جایگاهی ویژه برخوردارند. عمر دیرپای این دو منبع به زمان تشکیل جامعه‌ جهانی بازمی‌گردد و همچنان دولت‌ها برای ایجاد قواعد لازم‌الاجرا از آنها بهره می‌برند. پرسش اصلی این است که چگونه این منابع سنتی از گذشته تاکنون در فرایند قانون‌سازی بین‌المللی مشارکت داشته‌اند؟ مطابق فرضیه، با ابتنای بر روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، این منابع به‌شکلی خودخواسته و غیرتحمیلی، اما متفاوت، نیازهای واضعان خود را مرتفع می‌سازند و همین، رمز بقای آنها در درازای تاریخ است. نوشتار حاضر، هم‌سو با فرضیه پژوهش، درمی‌یابد درحالی‌که قانون‌سازی عرفی، به‌عنوان یک حرکت جمعی، عمدتاً خودجوش، ضمنی، تدریجی و غیرعامدانه است، خلق معاهداتی قواعد حقوقی، به‌عنوان نماد فردگرایی یا خاص‌نگری در جامعه بین‌المللی، اغلب دفعی، صریح، یکباره و عامدانه رقم می‌خورد.

ایران در بخش انرژی و محیط زیست با مشکلاتی مانند اتلاف انرژی، هدررفت منابع نفت و گاز، نابودی پوشش گیاهی، خاک و پهنه های آبی روبه رو است که هزینه های سنگینی برای کشور در بر دارد. از سوی دیگر همکاری بین المللی برای کاهش گازهای گلخانه ای و پیوستن به توافقنامه اقلیمی پاریس یکی مسأله اساسی برای کشور است. اما ایران حتی بدون پیوستن به این توافقنامه برای حفظ منابع طبیعی و کاهش هزینه های بخش انرژی خود ناچار به بهینه سازی تولید و مصرف انرژی و حفاظت از محیط زیست است. این مقاله با روش توصیفی و تحلیل حقوقی به بررسی این نکته می پردازد که چگونه میان اقدامات خودخواسته ایران در بهینه سازی انرژی و حفاظت از چاهکها و تعهدات توافقنامه اقلیمی پاریس در مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی همگرایی وجود دارد و اینکه تا چه اندازه بهره گیری از این همگرایی در جهت همکاری برای تحقق اهداف این توافقنامه و منافع ملی کشور ضرورت دارد.

حل و فصل منازعات قومی برای اعادۀ صلح و امنیت بین المللی حیاتی است و از این رهگذر، با حقوق بین ­الملل پیوند می­ خورد. این نوشتار به ­دنبال بررسی مهم­­ ترین چالش­ ها و فرصت ­های حقوق بین­ الملل در زمینۀ حل و فصل منازعات قومی است. اصلی­ ترین چالش ­ها عبارت‌اند از: 1) تناقض­ های درونی فرآیندهای دخیل در صلح­ سازی که مانع برپایی صلح پایدار در جوامع چندقومی می­شوند؛ 2) نبود یا نابسندگی رهیافت اقلیت­ محور در ساختار و سازکارهای واکنشی ملل متحد که در نتیجۀ آن، صلح قومی درازمدت و پایدار دست­ نایافتنی می­نماید؛ و ناهماهنگی سازمانی و رویکرد تک ­بعدی در چارچوب ملل متحد که موجب شده است اتخاذ اقدامی کارآمد، متمرکز، فراگیر و بر مبنایی مورد به ­مورد برای حل و فصل این منازعات، شدنی و دست­کم آسان نباشد. در مقابل، نگارندگان چند مورد از راهکارهای موجود را در حقوق بین ­الملل برای رویارویی با این چالش­ ها پیشنهاد می­دهند که برخی از آنها عبارت‌اند از: 1) تبدیل حقوق اقلیت­ ها به جریان اصلی در سطح ملل متحد؛ و 3) ایجاد نهادی تخصصی برای منازعات قومی. این مقاله، به واکاوی تفصیلی چالش­ ها و فرصت­ های پیش­گفتۀ فراروی حقوق بین‌الملل در حل منازعات قومی می‌پردازد.

رایج‌ترین شیوه پرداختن به مسائل حوزه‌های گوناگون دانش -از جمله حقوق بین‌الملل- به روش علمی، نگارش و انتشار کتاب و مقاله است. با این همه، این شیوه تنها نحوه مواجهه نظری با مسائل مختلف حقوق بین‌الملل نیست. در واقع، یکی از مهم‌ترین این روش‌ها نگارش «نقد کتاب» است که تقریباً در تمام مجلات اصلی حقوق بین‌الملل در سراسر جهان دارای جایگاهی ثابت و درخور هستند. باید متذکر شد که «نقد» در این سیاق معنایی بسیار موسع دارد و محدود به «انتقاد» نیست. در واقع، «نقد کتاب» بیشتر با تحلیل و تجزیه ساختاریِ اثر مرتبط است و قاعدتاً باید بتواند مخاطبین اثر را نیز با مهم‌ترین مباحث کتاب و پیش‌زمینه‌های آن آشنا کند. نوشتار حاضر، ضمن تبیین مفهوم «نقد کتاب» و جایگاه آن در حقوق بین الملل، به نقد کتاب «قضاوت ایران» نوشته چارلز براور می پردازد.

This contribution will interpret conflict between an emergency order and an ordinary law as a special case of norm collision and will revisit the constitutional review of such cases through this lens. First, the theoretical framework of emergencies will be taken into account, and then, based on the relevant constitutional case law of Austria, Germany, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia delivered during the recent public health emergency, a comparative analysis will investigate the most popular techniques to outline the scope of emergency regulation. Finally, based on this research, a three-step analysis will be proposed for constitutional courts to approach such issues by taking into account either the theoretical, the formal and the substantial aspects of the case. Apart from highlighting the role of constitutional review to establish the objective limits of emergency regulations, we also aim at giving additional weight on the formal and the theoretical prongs of the assessment of extraordinary state interferences, which have been consistently underestimated in our sense.

The duty to mitigate loss is a general principle of law that serves to limit the liability of the party that has caused injury to the extent that the injured party has not demonstrated the diligence expected from the latter. However, this duty also serves the purpose of ensuring economic efficiency. While the classic understanding requires that, according to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the interests of the injured party should be prioritized, today, the contract also refers to the cooperation between the parties. Therefore, reduction in the amount of claimable compensation should not be the sole sanction vis-à-vis the injured party that has violated the duty to mitigate loss. Otherwise, the injured party may escape the consequences of having violated the duty to mitigate loss by resorting to other optional rights. However, in order to ensure economic efficiency, in case the injured party violates the duty to mitigate loss, sanctions should also be foreseeable in terms of other optional rights. This study will evaluate the effect of the violation of the duty to mitigate loss in particular, with regards to request for specific performance and rescission of contract.

The complexity and flexibility of contract law, and its ability to meet various social, economic and technical-technological needs, are indicated by a number of theories (approaches) that offer a new approach to the processing of contracts. Among the predominant theories one might include the following: overview of contracts from a constitutional and human rights approach2; deriving from this the contracts related to private and family life (intimate contracts)3; by connecting the concepts of contract law and property rights, exploring the specific characteristics of existing contracts4; filling the term "digital contract type" with content5; classification of different kinds of interconnection of contracts (complex contracts).6 The author dedicates the study to the topic of whether Hungarian contract law can meet the challenges created by digitalization, which have not yet been identified in all its details, and what are the critical points that require consideration and action as soon as possible. After the summary of the digital legislation of the European Union the author identifies the effects of digitalization in relation to the Hungarian contract law and the special contracts resulting from digitalization. Finally, the author makes de lege lata and de lege ferenda conclusions in light of this topic.

The article presents the issue of assistance to displaced persons from Ukraine in meeting their housing needs in Poland, which is provided on the basis of a special act dated March 12, 2022 regarding assistance to citizens of Ukraine in connection with the armed conflict in the territory of that state. The aim of the article is to discuss this specific legal regulation with subsequent assessment of its effectiveness in meeting the housing needs of displaced Ukrainians who settled in Poland due to the armed conflict in their country. Logical-linguistic and comparative legal methods are used herein. The right to housing as part of the human rights system is discussed in the beginning, and then individual solutions for meeting housing needs introduced by the special aid act are reflected on. Finally, the conclusions from the analysis are formulated, on the basis of which it should be concluded that the introduced solutions should be assessed positively. The clearest proof of their effectiveness is the lack of camps for Ukrainian refugees in Poland. The efficiency of the solutions results primarily from the skillful combination of two pillars of assistance, i.e. the public and private sectors.

Administration of corporate activity is the daily preoccupation of corporate directors. Delegation of decision-making to the director, who is an independent player within the company, can clearly create the risk of conflicting his interests with the interests of the shareholders. This potential conflict of interests is a consequence of the division of ownership of the company and the control powers of the company's commercial activity. The delegation of decision-making authority to the directors of the company may cause the risk of the temptation of the director to the assets of the company. In addition, directors may also be tempted by opportunities for profit that arise during the exercise of their function, instead of using these opportunities for the company. For this reason, it is necessary to foresee clear disciplinary parameters, to avoid and eliminate the conflict of interest, as well as the prohibition of competition. In the present paper, through a legal assessment, special attention has been paid to the main categories of standards: elimination of conflict of interest and prohibition of competition. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the US doctrine, legal provisions, which regulate the two standards of disciplinary conduct for the corporate directors, as well as the court practice in this regard. Also, an important objective of this paper is that it may serve as an important basis for further comparative studies in this field with other jurisdictions. Such analysis is based on the qualitative method, which contains also the research, analytical, descriptive, interpretive methods. The result of this paper will stimulate debate in the academic level and contribute to further improvements of our company legislation, as well to the legal doctrine in Albania that lacks such.

Judicial constitutional review is an essential component of upholding constitutionalism, even though it is a relatively new concept outside the United States. The US Supreme Court set a precedent in 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison case by declaring legislative acts unconstitutional, which is widely regarded as the beginning of the principle or doctrine of judicial constitutional review. Since then, judicial constitutional review has become a widely accepted feature of most democratic legal systems. Comparative constitutional law recognizes two well-known models of judicial constitutional review: the American model of dispersed or decentralized review by ordinary courts and the constitutional Kelsen/European model of centralized review by a specialized constitutional court. Additionally, there are mixed or hybrid systems that combine elements of both models.

The article deals with certain problems of legal regulation of electronic administrative judicial procedure in the context of the realization of the right to judicial protection. The methodological basis of a scientific article is a set of philosophical, general and special scientific methods. It is indicated that electronic administrative judicial procedure should be attributed to the components of electronic governance. It has been established that the right to appeal to an administrative court and ways to protect violated rights cannot be limited when submitting and considering electronic documents, since the lack of such an opportunity leads to a violation of fundamental human rights, court practice in this matter is given. It has been established that it is the application of a specific method of protecting participants in public law relations of a violated or denied right that is the result of the activity and effectiveness of the legal mechanism for protecting rights when using information and communication technologies in administrative courts. Revealed that these rights protection mechanisms should be applied on the basis of the rule of law, accessibility and transparency, impartiality and independence, including the principles of oral hearing and equality of arms. The analysis of the concepts "electronic justice", "electronic court" in the scientific literature, national and international legal documents is carried out. The essence of "electronic administrative judicial procedure", its elements, stages of implementation in practice are disclosed. Separate directions for improving the legal regulation of electronic administrative judicial procedure regarding the implementation of the right to judicial protection are proposed.

International trade agreements contribute to the development of international trade and services. The European Union is currently modernizing the system and structure of international agreements related to international trade, investment and services. The aim of the scientific study is to clarify and identify the characteristic features of the agreements of new generation that are concluded between the European Union and non-EU member states. Based on the facts, we can confirm that trade policy supports, among others, values such as the protection of human rights, the protection of labor rights, the environment and the fight against climate change. Such an approach of the European Union to the liberalization of world trade through comprehensive trade agreements is also supported by the strategy of the European Commission „Trade for All”.

With the concepts of rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights representing the most prominent values upon which the European Union is established, the EU accession process expectedly supplicates candidate countries to ameliorate the efficiency of their legal institutions. As a general rule, such fundamentals are habitually correlated with other equally relevant criteria concerning the EU accession process. Given that the Western Balkans are not ordinarily regarded as an exemplary model in terms of practically demonstrating the rule of law and economic well-being, this research paper analyzes the linear relationship between human rights and rule of law manifestations and corruption perspectives in some EU candidate countries as a potential mechanism for satisfying EU accession fundamentals. For that matter, a simple linear regression analysis was conducted in order to determine whether and how such correlation would benefit policymakers in some current EU candidate countries toward their paths to European integration.

European Institutions and scholars are reflecting upon the nature of the requirements that are or can be used to implement sustainability through Public Procurement. As far as public organisations are concerned, the Portuguese government's actions are in the same wavelength as the European guidelines on the matter. Public procurement involves economic operators. Thus, it is important to try to understand if the European Union proposal for a directive on "Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence" is an interesting tool in the discussion. Recently, the Portuguese Council of Ministers issued Resolution no. 132/2023, of 25 October, defining the ecological criteria applicable to certain kinds of contracts and products, goods and services concerning some administrative bodies, a Resolution which, nevertheless, is prone to criticism. May the shift of the European Union Public Procurement paradigm help implement Sustainable Public Procurement through mandatory requirements? Can the future Directive help economic operators align with contracting authorities to implement Sustainable Public Procurement? Might the obligation to include environmental factors help fulfil the Directive's due diligence obligations? And, lastly, has Portugal taken the right step with the issuance of Resolution no. 132/2023?

تحریم شبکه‌های پیام‌رسانی مالی، یکی از مهم­ترین و مؤثرترین قسمت‌های تحریم­‌های مالی و اقتصادی است که در سال‌های اخیر علیه کشورهای متعددی وضع و اجرا شده است. در این میان سوئیفت به‌عنوان مهم­ترین سکوی پیام‌رسانی مالی بین‌­المللی به‌طور خاص مورد توجه واضعان تحریم‌­های بین‌­المللی بوده است. تلاش‌های بسیار گروه‌­های سیاسی (نظیر کنشگران تحریم‌­ها، گروه‌­های طرفدار حقوق بشر و حتی حامیان فلسطین) و دولت‌های گوناگون برای استفاده از سوئیفت در جهت اعمال فشار بر دولت‌ها، برخی دولت‌ها را بر آن داشته است تا شبکه­‌ها و راهکارهای جایگزین را برای سوئیفت فراهم کنند. هم‌زمان، پیشرفت‌های نوین در فناوری‌های مالی و بلاکچین باعث شده است که ایده تأسیس سازکارهای سریع­تر، ارزان­تر و شفاف­تر از سوئیفت مطرح شود. مجموعه این تحولات، مسائلی را در حقوق بین‌الملل طرح کرد که مستلزم بررسی است. در این راستا مقاله حاضر به بیان چالش‌های حقوقی تحریم سوئیفت در حوزه حقوق بین­‌الملل می‌پردازد و ضمن معرفی جایگاه و اهمیت سوئیفت و مسائل مرتبط با حقوق داخلی ایران، مشروعیت تحریم‌های بین‌المللی مرتبط با سوئیفت را بررسی می‌کند. در ادامه واکنش‌های کشورهای مختلف به تحریم سوئیفت و برخی راهکارهای جایگزین کشورها ارزیابی شده است. یافته‌های مقاله نشان می‌دهد که تحریم‌های اعمال‌شده بر شبکة سوئیفت، تأثیرات عمیقی بر چشم‌انداز مالی جهانی داشته است. یکی از پیامدهای کلیدی این تحریم‌ها، تسریع تلاش‌های کشورهای تحریم‌شده برای توسعه و اجرای سیستم‌های پیام‌رسانی مالی جایگزین مانند SPFS (سیستم انتقال پیام‌های مالی) روسیه و CIPS (سیستم پرداخت بین‌بانکی فرا‌مرزی) چین بوده است.

اعمال تحریم ­ها علیه ایران در طی سالیان متمادی با اثرگذاری بر بخش­ های مهم اقتصادی اعم از بخش بانکی، انرژی، صنعتی و سایر بخش ­ها شامل نظام سلامت و درمان و عرصه علمی کشور موجب ورود خسارات گسترده به اشخاص حقیقی و حقوقی شده و این مسئله را مطرح نموده که نحوه جبران و ارزیابی این خسارات چگونه است. این پژوهش، اَشکال جبران خسارت در حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین­ الملل را تبیین و نحوة ارزیابی خسارات مادی، معنوی و تنبیهی را بررسی می­کند. شیوه جبران خسارت در حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین­ الملل نسبتاً از رویکرد واحدی تبعیت می­کند. خسارات مادی به روش مالی قابل جبران است اما ممکن است جبران خسارات معنوی صرفاً از طریق مالی قابل جبران نباشد که در این صورت از روش­ های غیرمالی همچون عذرخواهی رسمی، پذیرش نقض و اظهار تأسف استفاده می­شود. ارزیابی خسارات مادی با استفاده از معیار موردی به دلیل دقت بالای آن و عدم تضییع حقوق زیان­دیدگان و همچنین استفاده از متغیرهای کلان اقتصادی در دعاوی گسترده امکان‌پذیر است. در ارزیابی خسارات معنوی، با توجه به دشواری تقویم این نوع خسارت، معیار مختلط ارجحیت دارد و در مورد خسارت تنبیهی باید تداوم و استمرار اعمال تحریم­ ها در طی سالیان متمادی و گستردگی و شدت خسارات مادی و معنوی واردشده لحاظ شود.

فاعل معنوی، مفهوم نسبتاً جدیدی در حقوق کیفری بین‌المللی است که برای اولین بار در بند (الف) ماده (3)25 اساسنامة دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی ذکر شده است. دیوان، مفهوم فاعل معنوی را به شیوه‌ای خاص تفسیر می­کند، در حالی ­که در اساسنامة دیوان­های بین‌المللی، اصطلاح فاعل معنوی در ارتکاب جرایم بین‌المللی صراحتاً به کار برده نشده، بلکه به‌صورت کلی شیوه‌های ارتکاب جرم ذکر شده است. برای درک صحیح مفهوم آن، سؤال این است که بر اساس چه معیاری می‌توان ارتکاب جرم از طریق دیگری را احراز کرد. در پاسخ به این پرسش، پژوهش حاضر با استناد به اساسنامة دیوان کیفری بین­المللی و رویه‌قضایی آن، ضمن تشریح ماهیت و انواع فاعل معنوی به این نتیجه می‌رسد که دیوان با استناد به معیارهای مختلفی ازجمله معیار کنترل جرم، فاعلان معنوی را همانند فاعلان مادی و شرکای جرم، به‌عنوان مرتکب جرم قابل مجازات می­داند.

شکار، تجارت غیرقانونی و قاچاق گونه­‌های مختلف حیات‌ وحش که از مهم‌ترین عوامل نابودی آن‌هاست، طی سالیان اخیر رشد چشمگیری داشته است. در این میان هوبَره، در سطح بین‌المللی به‌عنوان ‌گونه‌ای آسیب‌پذیر، در فهرست قرمز اتحادیه بین‌المللی حفاظت از طبیعت جای گرفته و همچنین در کنوانسیون تجارت بین‌المللی گونه‌های جانوری و گیاهی در معرض انقراض، معروف به سایتس که یکی از مهم‌ترین کنوانسیون‌های بین‌المللی در خصوص حفاظت از گونه‌های جانوری است، به­ عنوان گونه در معرض انقراض و در کنوانسیون بُن به‌عنوان گونه‌ای که وضعیت نامطلوبی دارد، معرفی شده است. حفاظت از این گونه آسیب‌پذیر و در معرض انقراض که یکی از گونه ­های ارزشمند حیات‌ وحش ایران است، برای ایران مسئله مهمی شده و به‌رغم اینکه تا کنون مقررات مختلفی نسبت به حفاظت از گونه‌های جانوری تصویب شده و مجوزهای صادره مربوط به شکار و صید جانوران وحشی، ظاهراً مطابق کنوانسیون سایتس بوده است، چالش‌های بی‌شماری در جهت جلوگیری از قاچاق هوبره به کشورهای حاشیة خلیج‌ فارس پدید آمده است. نشان‌دادن ابعاد و اهمیت این مسئله و بررسی راهکارهای ممکن بر اساس قوانین داخلی و بین‌المللی، وجهه همت نوشتار پیش رو است.

از هنگام پیدایش حقوق بین‌­الملل نوین به دنبال انعقاد معاهده وستفالی در 1648 تا حدود نیم قرن پیش، دولت‌­ها تنها تابعان حقوق بین­‌الملل برخوردار از شخصیت حقوقی بین­‌المللی قلمداد می‌­شدند. اما اکنون شمار موجودیت‌­های عهده‌دارِ نقش­‌های تأثیرگذار افزایش یافته است و در میان آن­ها گروه­‌های مسلح غیردولتی به دلیل مشارکت فزاینده خود در مخاصمات مسلحانه، از اهمیت بالایی در مطالعات برخوردارند. مشارکت فعال این موجودیت­‌ها در مخاصمات، منجر به طرح پرسش راجع به وضعیت شخصیت حقوقی آن‌­ها در فضای حقوق بین‌­المللی می­شود که هنوز در بسیاری از جنبه‌­ها، دولت‌محوری پدیده غالب است. پاسخ به پرسش مذکور از آن جهت مهم است که دانسته شود قدم نخست در خصوص صلاحیت داراشدن حقوق و تکالیف در معماری حقوق بین­‌الملل و به تبع آن، بحث در خصوص امکان درنظرگرفتن قواعد ثانویه به‌عنوان ضمانت اجرای نادیده‌گرفتن تعهدات بین­‌المللی، در گرو بهره­‌مندی از شخصیت حقوقی بین‌المللی است. این مقاله، شخصیت حقوقی گروه­‌های مسلح غیردولتی در حقوق بین‌­الملل را با تأکید بر وضعیت یمن بررسی می‌کند و چنین نتیجه می‌­گیرد که امکان دارد تکامل شخصیت گروه­‌های مذکور، نقش مهمی در مسئول قلمدادنمودن آن­ها به لحاظ بین‌­المللی ایفا کند.

در حقوق ایران، در صورت ناتوانی تاجر در ادای دیون و ایفای تعهدات مالی خویش، او ورشکسته اعلام و با تشریفات خاصی اموال او تصفیه می­‌شود. اما امروزه با پیشرفت روزافزون تجارت خارجی و مراودات تجار با تاجرانی از کشورهای مختلف و داشتن اموال در کشورهای متعدد، ورشکستگی ابعاد وسیع­‌تری یافته که از آن تحت عنوان ورشکستگی فرامرزی نام برده می­شود. نحوه حل و فصل اختلافات ناشی از ورشکستگی فرامرزی، یکی از مسائل حائز اهمیت در این خصوص است. مقاله حاضر، شیوه‌­های حل و فصل اختلافات را در این حوزه با تأکید بر داوری بررسی کرده و با پذیرش این موضوع که حتی با وقوع ورشکستگی، قرارداد داوری پیش از آن همچنان به قوت خود باقی خواهد ماند، قائل است که می­توان حل و فصل اختلافات ناشی از ورشکستگی فرامرزی را با انعقاد قرارداد داوری پس از وقوع ورشکستگی نیز امکان‌پذیر دانست. داوری همچون سایر روش ­ها مزایا و معایبی دارد. در این پژوهش، پیشنهادهایی جهت رفع چالش‌های این شیوه ارائه شده است.

The steady rise of international investment arbitration in recent years suggests that many states still struggle to prevent investor grievances from becoming international investment disputes and ultimately arbitration claims. The United States is not exempt from such difficulties, but it has some institutional advantages contributing to its successful approach to mitigating and managing international investment disputes. Key advantages include its practice of: (1) “internationalizing” domestic law in U.S. international investment agreements (IIAs); (2) encouraging foreign investors to pursue domestic remedies in U.S. courts; and (3) domesticating the international investment regime within the U.S. government. The U.S. experience offers some valuable lessons for the ongoing reform of the international investment regime.

Embedded in any policy proposal is a set of assumptions about the problem that the policy is intended to solve.1 As policy processes play out, some of these assumptions are contested by the actors involved, while others remain latent. Policy discussion about institutionalizing investment dispute prevention reflects a set of assumptions concerning the problem of investment disputes. In this contribution, I examine assumptions embedded in the development of, and the response to, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Secretariat's 2023 Draft Legislative Guide on Investment Dispute Prevention and Mitigation. The Draft Legislative Guide represents the high-water mark of efforts to develop a model of investment dispute prevention that could be rolled out at the domestic level. I make three main arguments. First, both the Draft Legislative Guide itself and wider policy discussion assume that investment disputes develop independently of the cognitive and institutional environment in which they occur. As a result, policy discussion overlooks the extent to which dispute prevention initiatives can, counter-intuitively, produce investment disputes. Second, policy discussion of investment dispute prevention assumes that investment disputes have their roots in coordination failures across government, rather than democratic processes, distributive conflicts, or tensions between the interests of investors and wider public interests. This premise, and its implications, deserve much closer critical scrutiny. Third, institutionalized models of investment dispute prevention of the sort envisaged by Draft Legislative Guide are almost exclusively found in developing states. The dispute prevention agenda needs to grapple openly with the fact that advice is being given to developing states to establish dispute prevention institutions that have no equivalents in the domestic systems of developed states.

For Peru, the introduction of dispute prevention mechanisms was a consequence of the country's increased openness to foreign investment. Following a severe economic crisis, the government launched several pro-investment reforms in the 1990s. These included signing bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements with investment protection provisions, as well as investment contracts with foreign investors. The resulting flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) into the country, in turn, increased the likelihood of the state facing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases. As Peru began to face investment claims in the early 2000s, the Coordination and Response System for International Investment Disputes, also known as “SICRECI” for its acronym in Spanish, was established to manage the practical challenges of coordinating the state's defense. In practice, however, SICRECI's mandate has expanded progressively beyond coordinating ISDS defense, as the institution has undertaken several actions to prevent disputes and otherwise adapted to the specifics of Peru's pro-investment policy. SICRECI became one of the first models of dispute prevention mechanisms, with international organizations showcasing it as an example of how states, in particular developing countries, could address and mitigate a growing number of concerns over the impact of investment arbitration.1

This contribution examines the role of dispute prevention mechanisms (DPMs) in domesticating and broadening foreign investor privileges. Although conceived as a means of responding to the backlash against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), dispute prevention mechanisms are likely to produce legal enclaves whereby a privileged group of actors are afforded special treatment, and their interests are elevated into policy priorities. As currently conceived, DPMs are expected to operate as a regime embedded in domestic law, but replicating and amplifying investment law's emphasis on the exclusivity of foreign investor rights. Thus, the effect of DPMs is to anchor and extend foreign investor rights to a pre-dispute stage. By analyzing the premises and core features of the emerging DPMs, this contribution argues that, rather than addressing the systemic issues underpinning international investment law, the dispute prevention agenda will further expand and entrench foreign investor privileges.

China's 2019 Foreign Investment Law establishes a formal mechanism to handle complaints by foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs)—i.e., Chinese enterprises that are wholly or partly foreign-owned. Its “complaint agencies” are empowered to prevent disputes by facilitating settlements; they do not have adjudicatory authority. Beyond the immediate objective of dispute prevention, this essay argues that the FIE complaint mechanism was intended to strengthen central oversight and control over subnational governments. However, the mechanism may be hindering its intended objectives in practice. In particular, the flexibility and informality of its processes encourage ad hoc settlements between FIEs and errant subnational governments in ways that may undermine the exercise of central administrative powers.

This contribution highlights the importance of institutional dispute prevention not just to prevent the proliferation of formal legal disputes between states and foreign investors, but also to preserve the relationship between investors and states and enable investment retention and expansion. Drawing from empirical studies and survey findings, as well as the World Bank's country experience of working on investment policy and promotion frameworks, this contribution provides an overview of the World Bank's experience in implementing such mechanisms globally.1

The claim that states have an unfettered sovereign right to control their borders and exclude non-citizens from their territory is accepted everywhere without contestation. Yet it is anything but a self-evident truth. While taken for granted today, the assumption that control over migration is the “last bastion of sovereignty” represents a radical departure from the norm of freedom of movement (for some, not others, namely, white, “civilized,” Christian men) that defined international law's earlier approach. What avenues for reform, resistance, and recalibration open when we revisit the legal foundations and contemporary consequences of the dominant understanding according to which states have near-absolute authority to regulate migration as an incident of sovereignty? In the spirit of asking big questions and addressing topics of lasting relevance, this symposium seeks to problematize the view that each state has unfettered discretion to control its territory and decide who it admits “upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”1 With a surge of nationalist-populist anger and anti-immigrant sentiment rising across the globe and the corresponding shrinking of rights and protections afforded to those on the move, there is added urgency to challenge the view readily expressed in public debate that migration is an “existential threat to be managed with the full and legally unregulated power of the sovereign state.”2 This view has emboldened governments, operating alone or in concert, to invest unprecedented amounts of resources, political capital, and institutional capacity to “take back control” over borders and migration—as the Brexit slogan memorably put it. With voters across the globe naming immigration a top concern, governments are recalibrating their policies in an increasingly restrictive direction, shutting the gates of admission to would-be migrants and asylum seekers.3 The deep-seated assumption that states have inherent power over migration provides legal cover for such acts, despite the immense human toll, erosion of rights, and denial of the basic protection and dignity of those who are caught in the increasingly sweeping dragnet of ever-expanding borders and migration control regimes.4 Laws, regulations, and declarations about the urgency to “sort out the border management situation to ensure that the porous borders are addressed in a way that protects the sovereignty of our state” are nowadays proclaimed as a matter of course by public authorities in established democracies as well as autocracies, spanning the gamut from former imperial powers to post-colonial states.5 Exploring what has been forgotten or pushed underground with the triumph of the dominant understanding that states have an inherent sovereign right to control their borders—a view so prevalent that we rarely notice how it impairs our ability to imagine alternatives—is the kernel of this inquiry.

A discussion of the state's “right to exclude” requires that we have at our disposal unambiguous understandings of what constitutes the state, who constitute its subjects/citizens, and who constitute aliens.1 This, however, is not the case. In fact, the reverse is more true: particular notions of the state, of subjects/citizens, and of aliens are the outcome of (among other things) practices of migration regulation. This essay interrogates two understandings of the state that characterize much scholarship on migration, including legal scholarship. First, the assumption of the salience of state borders, of citizens/subjects, and of aliens understood in national terms; second, the assumption—often condensed in invocations of the Westphalian state—that the authority to control migration across these putative borders is a longstanding and non-contentious element of state sovereignty. In such approaches, the state is simply there. It matters little what prefix—national, colonial, imperial, modern, and so forth—we affix to it. Such views are premised on the notion that the practices of governance and the institutions of the state have a fidelity to, can be deduced from, and simply reflect a set of principles. In my view, rather than understand the state as merely translating a set of principles into practice, we are better served by focusing on practices to examine how they interpret and remake principles in particular historical conjunctures.

“We all think about immigration . . . as the state asks us to think about it and, ultimately, as it thinks about it itself.” This aphorism of the sociologist Abdelmalek Sayad seems to speak to lawyers and, in particular, international lawyers who are accustomed to thinking of immigration as a mere question of sovereignty. I contend that this internalization of sovereignty by the legal profession is a pure mystification. I call for acknowledging the duality of sovereignty as a Janus with two faces. This metaphor illuminates the ontological ambivalence of the border that can be viewed as either a passage or a wall depending on the viewpoint.

One crucial difference between migration and other areas is that the web of individual rights woven by human rights law has remained thin for a long time. Migration has long looked like the last bastion of sovereignty while other fields of law became subject to a rights revolution imposing meaningful constraints on public authorities. This essay confronts the legacy of immigration exceptionalism with developments in the European legal space since the 1990s. Catalyzed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), human rights eventually have taken center stage in legal and political struggles challenging the power to exclude. The expansion of human rights discourse in contemporary Europe is seen as part of a larger trend. Mutually reinforcing processes of “humanrightization” in law, politics, and everyday practice have given rise to successful claims raised by migrants and other social actors seeking to limit the governmental power of migration control. Humanrightization of migration discourse makes it possible to formulate far-reaching demands for the inclusion of migrants within the framework of the recognized rules of legal argumentation—a “positivist human rights maximalism.”

Scholars of international law have been increasingly troubled by states’ vast powers and practices of migrant exclusion. There is no doubt that much of this uneasiness is catalyzed by a keen sense of the demands of a basic liberalism at the international legal order's core. Indeed, the increased construction of border walls,1 the continuously widespread use of deportation as a migration control tool,2 and new digital bordering technologies3 have all come under scrutiny precisely because of the challenges they pose to the notion of supposedly universal entitlements, both substantive and procedural, that often appear disabled or overridden when it comes to the treatment of different sorts of migrants. My goal in this contribution is not to add to such legal critiques, but rather to provide the contours of a broader normative argument to rebuke—or at least complicate—what is often called the state's “right to exclude” all or most would-be immigrants. This right is not just standardly assumed in legal and political practice—indeed, standardly viewed as the linchpin of sovereignty—but has also enjoyed sophisticated defense by liberal political theorists.4 The main goal of my argument is to suggest that anyone with basic liberal inclinations—including political theorists, lawyers, and practitioners of politics—should be able to agree that, under current circumstances, granting states a potent “right to exclude” entails deep tensions with basic moral standards of legitimate authority. This is because the deeply entrenched characteristics and historical background conditions of immigration control today tend structurally to push states to violate the appropriate moral conditions of their legitimate authority to enforce immigration restrictions.5 While moving above and beyond legal argumentation, my hope is that the argument may underscore and give further analytical expression to some of the animating concerns of contemporary legal contestations of states’ exclusive powers and practices.

The development of human rights law is generally presented as a story of progress. This progress is an evolution from an “old” legal regime that did not recognize individual rights to a “new” law (starting with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)) that anointed all individuals as possessors of internationally recognized rights against their states. Further, the definition of these rights has supposedly expanded over time, adding elements of complementary protection and extraterritorial application.

Embedded in mutually reinforcing processes of “humanrightization” in law, politics, and everyday practice,1 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR, or Strasbourg Court) has become a central actor and forum for conflicts around the inclusion and exclusion of migrants in Europe. The Strasbourg Court has derived specific protections for migrants from the originally “migration-blind” norms of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the prohibition of torture, and respect for family and private life, for example.2 This extension of the ECHR to migrants means that migration control is no longer purely within the discretion of states.

Public revenues, who decides on them, and their justification and legitimation are among the oldest constitutional issues of all. In the EU, member states ultimately control the scope of European policy and the independence of the European level via the EU's budget. This can be interpreted either as a bug or as a feature. The European Parliament reflects representation without taxation, as it has no taxation powers, and the EU does not have budgetary autonomy.

This essay argues that the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) insertion of a federal homogeneity clause into the EU's primary law is an (ahistorical) and dysfunctional “legal transplant” that does not correspond to the state of European integration. It has its place in specific state constitutional systems, which needed or need an axiological backing of their foundational order, but cannot adequately organize the interaction between the EU and member states. In post-war Germany, value constitutionalism had an important stabilizing effect on society. It contributed to the symbolic reproduction of a society that needed new patterns of orientation after the horror of National Socialism. The insertion of such a clause into the basic order of the EU is taken out of context and brings with it dysfunctional and opportunistic results.

As the European Union (EU) was slowly re-emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic, it faced another unprecedented shock: Russia's large-scale military invasion of Ukraine. In responding to Russia's invasion, however, the EU was able to build on the legal and policy measures that it had developed to address the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, NextGenerationEU (NGEU) and the use of common debt provided a template that the EU could use to mobilize financial resources to support Ukraine against Russia's aggression.