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

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  estoppel
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Venire contra factum proprium nemini licet – Changing Fortunes of the Maxim Demanding Constancy in Conduct

100%
Dajczak W.
Forum Prawnicze
|
2019
|
issue 3 (53)
33–47
2
Content available remote

Glosa do wyroku Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 1 października 2018 r. w sprawie obowiązku negocjacji dostępu do Oceanu Spokojnego (Boliwia v. Chile)

88%
Kułaga Ł.
Przegląd Sejmowy
|
2019
|
issue 3(152)
141–150
EN
The judgment of the International Court of Justice of 1 October 2018 in the case concerning the obligation to negotiate access to the Pacific Ocean refers to a territorial dispute between Bolivia and Chile, resulting from the loss of the access to the sea by Bolivia as a consequence of an armed conflict with Chile in 1880s. Filing a complaint in 2013, Bolivia demanded that the Court rule that Chile is obliged to enter into negotiations therewith as regards obtaining an agreement guaranteeing its full, sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Bolivia derived this duty from agreements it concluded with Chile, Chile’s unilateral acts, general principles of law, particularly estoppel, acquiescence and justified expectations, as well as resolutions of the Organisation of American States. Chile interpreted the bilateral relations in this scope differently and claimed that the duty of this kind had not arisen. This year, with the panel’s 12:3 decision, the Court decided that Chile does not have an obligation to negotiate with Bolivia its sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. To the judgment there are attached: the declaration by judge A. Yusuf and dissenting opinions of judge P. Robinson, judge N. Salam and judge ad hoc Y. Daudet.
3

Podstawy związania umową o arbitraż spółek holdingowych w międzynarodowym arbitrażu handlowym

75%
Comi U.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2018
|
vol. 27
|
issue 1
229-265
EN
This paper analyses grounds for binding non-signatory companies by an arbitration agreement signed by another company from the same group of companies. It discusses certain doctrines created by state courts and arbitral tribunals to fill the gap in domestic regulations. Among them there is a group of companies doctrine, equitable estoppel and connected with it good faith doctrine as well as piercing the corporate veil. Purposes of these doctrines may seem similar, however, prerequisites as well as effects of their application are different. The most frequently used criteria include abuse, circumvention or violation of law or rules of equity as well as acting and behaving like a party to the contract that the company has not signed. The criterion of the purpose of law is also important. At the same time, a necessary condition is the existence of strong corporate connections between a company that has not signed the contract and at least one of the formal parties to the contract as well as significant under-capitalization of a subsidiary company. Binding non-signatory related companies on the basis of these doctrines may lead to the attribution of legal or contractual obligations or to assigning responsibility for actions or intentions. This may result in the assignment of obligations or liability of the company to its shareholder or vice versa, as well as relativisation of the separateness between two related companies that are not in the relationship of domination or dependence. The doctrines discussed in the paper aim at protecting the law against abuse and avoiding unfair decisions. Excessive vagueness of the prerequisites for their application may, however, lead to legal uncertainty and, as a result, threaten the security of trade. Therefore, such premises need to be defined as precisely as possible on the basis of objective criteria.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Methodological importance of legal constructions and their influence on the legal norms interpretation

75%
Serediuk V.
Krakowskie Studia Małopolskie
|
2023
|
vol. 2(38)
26-36
EN
The article reveals the methodological significance of legal constructions and shows their influence on the interpretation of legal norms. It has been found that legal construction is one of the epistemological tools of legal science and means of interpreting legal norms in the process of their implementation. A concentrated expression of the possible conditions of law enforcement determines the methodological significance of legal constructions during the interpretation of legal norms. The legal construction is shown as a set of stable connections of the object, which ensure its integrity and identity. Emphasis is placed on the fact that intraindustry and inter-industry connections of legal norms allow law to preserve its properties as a regulatory in the face of internal and external changes, to be stable and stable. The existence of a stable structure determines the existence of law as a system is a condition for the existence of law. The author came to the conclusion that in order to optimize legal interpretation activity, it is necessary to improve the process of eliminating defects in legal constructions. The ambiguity and inconsistency of legal constructions is a consequence of the increase in the number of scientific terms, special expressions, contradictions and gaps in the normative material. The reason for this is hasty normative design without compliance with the requirements of legal technique. With the help of legal constructions, insightful, detailed and in-depth clarification of the content of legal norms is carried out.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Principle of Good Faith in the International Law

71%
Lis E.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
|
2016
|
vol. 25
|
issue 1
EN
The purpose of this article was to present one of the most fundamental principles of international law. According to Art. 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of ICJ, the principle of good faith is a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations and accordingly is one of the formal sources of international law. Undoubtedly, there are still controversies regarding its nature, meaning, content and scope. It should be emphasized that it is impossible to settle one, generally accepted, definition of good faith because it is rather an ambiguous notion. The principle of good faith is applied in many areas of international law and is of great importance. The most relevant in this area is the law of the treaties. The principle of good faith is in use in the law of the treaties from formation of the treaty to its extinction. This principle covers also a narrower doctrine of “abuse of rights”, which is probably one of the most disputable aspects of this principle. The realization of the principle of good faith is well established in the principle of estoppel. What is more, the principle of good faith is also applied in the process of negotiation. Good faith performs intermediary function between rules and principles. Furthermore, it appoints the way of observance of the existing rules of international law and limits a manner of its execution.
PL
Celem tego artykułu jest przedstawienie jednej z najbardziej fundamentalnych zasad prawa międzynarodowego. Zgodnie z art. 38 (1) (c) Statutu MTS zasada dobrej wiary jest ogólną zasadą prawa uznaną przez narody cywilizowane, a zatem stanowi formalne źródło prawa międzynarodowego. Bez wątpienia wciąż ogromne kontrowersje budzi charakter, znaczenie, treść i zakres tej zasady. Należy podkreślić, iż pojęcie „dobrej wiary” jest niejasne i trudno jest wskazać jedną, powszechnie uznaną jej definicję. Zasada dobrej wiary znajduje zastosowanie w różnych dziedzinach prawa międzynarodowego. Najbardziej znaczące jest prawo traktatów. Dobra wiara jest stosowana od momentu zawarcia traktatu aż po jego wygaśnięcie. Odnosi się także do doktryny (o węższym zakresie stosowania) zakazu nadużycia praw, która stanowi najbardziej kontrowersyjny aspekt tej zasady. Kolejną konkretyzacją dobrej wiary jest dobrze ugruntowana zasada estoppel. Ponadto zasada dobrej wiary jest stosowana w trakcie negocjacji. Dobra wiara pełni funkcję pośrednią pomiędzy regułami a zasadami. Co więcej, określa sposób przestrzegania istniejących reguł prawa międzynarodowego i ogranicza sposób ich wykonywania.
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.