Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The subject of this article is the analysis of the chosen judgments of the International Court of Justice due to observe, how the Court uses this term. The Court’s statement in the given scope makes an important part of international debate as to the analyzed concept. At the first glance the Court uses interchangeably the two terms: international society and international community, that are indeed synonymic. However the closer analysis shows, that the Court not only prefer the term “community”, but also connects with it a lot of important factors, like members of this community, it’s values and ideals. The review of some of the Court’s judgments illustrates the spectrum of legal problems that might be connected with the concept of “international community” and the consequences of the uncertainty of this term.
PL
Autorka analizuje rolę sądów międzynarodowych w pojmowaniu i stosowaniu instytucji immunitetu jurysdykcyjnego państwa leżącego na styku prawa międzynarodowego publicznego i prawa krajowego. Płaszczyzna zetknięcia się tych instytucji w omawianym przypadku dotyczy korzystania przez państwa z immunitetu jurysdykcyjnego oraz ochrony praw jednostki ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem prawa dostępu do sądu. Zadania sądów międzynarodowych w omawianym zakresie są szczególnie istotne wobec pewnej niemocy prawa międzynarodowego w zakresie kodyfikowania jego kluczowych instytucji, w tym immunitetu państwa. Brak traktatowych regulacji oraz niewielka szczegółowość norm zwyczajowych przenoszą ciężar rozpatrywania treści, zakresu stosowania, dopuszczalności ograniczeń immunitetu na sądy międzynarodowe, których stanowisko w tych sprawach może stanowić wzorzec dla sądownictwa krajowego. Jednak orzecznictwo w tej sprawie (zarówno jeśli chodzi o sądy międzynarodowe, jak i krajowe) nie jest spójne, czego koronnym przykładem są różnice w podejściu do kwestii immunitetu Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka i Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości. Brak jednolitej wizji immunitetu jurysdykcyjnego państwa jest charakterystyczny i dla sądów krajowych, i dla międzynarodowych, i w ogólności nie jest niczym nadzwyczajnym. Znaczące różnice w poglądach głównych sądów międzynarodowych na tę instytucję utrwalają stan niepewności co do rzeczywistego zakresu, rozumienia i możliwości (czy braku możliwości) zastosowania ewentualnych ograniczeń, szczególnie dojmujący wobec równoczesnego zastoju kodyfikacyjnego.
EN
The Author analysis the role of international courts in the understanding and implementation legal institutions situated on the border between public international law and domestic law, on the example of the jurisdictional immunity of the state. The level of contact of those institutions under discussion relates to state’s using the immunity and human rights protection with special regard to the access to the court. The functions of international courts in discussed scope are particularly important in the opposite to public international law powerlessness according to the codification of its fundamental institutions. The lack of the treaty regulations and low specificity of custom norms relocate the liability of analyzing the substance, the scope of application, the admissibility of the limitation of immunity on international courts, whom statements can be a pattern for domestic courts. Unfortunately the judgments of international courts as well as domestic ones are not consistent – example of what are the differences in the approach to the immunity between European Tribunal of Human Rights and International Court of Justice. The lack of consistent vision of jurisdictional immunity is typical for international and domestic courts and in general is nothing special. However significant differences in the statements of main international courts deepen the uncertainty according to immunity’s scope, substance, possibilities of limitation (or lack of possibilities of limitation), that is especially deep regarding to simultaneous slowdown of codification activity.
EN
The possibility of the intervention of the third state in cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) is determined by the existence of the “interest of the legal nature” that may be affected by the decision in the case on the side of the intervenient – to – be state. Author analyses the meaning given to this concept by International Court of Justice and the way ICJ uses it in its jurisprudence. The special attention is paid to the search for the difference between the popular civil term “legal interest” and the ICJ’s “interest of the legal nature” – author examines if ICJ uses those two terms synonymously and, if so, why. If on the other hand the Court does not do it, author studies, what meaning the Court attributes to each of them. The ongoing consideration is limited to the interventions based on the art. 62 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice with no reference to any form of participation in the proceedings before the Court based on the art. 63 Statute. Author emphasizes the role of the Court’s statements in the development of the rules of public international law and its contribution to create the international legal language.
EN
Authors emphasize the great importance of internal communication between trade unions and employee at the work place. Clarifying the nature of this process, the authors pay attention to its language’s aspects and to its forms and scope. The classic tools used in this process such as: broadcasting center, wall newspaper, magazine works, newsletter, union’s publications are highlighted. A special regard is dedicated to modern solutions such as internet, intranets, phone, SMS, MMS. The authors also point out the importance of the content in the communication between trade unions and employee, that addresses the issue of form, which should be used adequately to the information provided.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.