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

Search:
in the keywords:  dispute settlement
help Sort By:

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

TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE NOTIFICATIONS AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT WITHIN THE WTO

100%
Ghodsi M., Michalek J. J.
|
2016
|
vol. 11
|
issue 2
219-249
EN
The aim of this paper is to verify empirically whether the Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) regarding Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) notifications by WTO members can serve as an early warning system for past and future disputes (DS) covering allegedly trade restricting TBTs. WTO members, in order to increase transparency of trade policies, have made efforts to compile data on notified TBTs. For several years the WTO provides a TBT dataset, used in our paper, which covers the STCs raised by its members (“reverse” notifications). From 1995-2011, there have been 45 requests for consultation under the Dispute Settlement (DS) Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to identify possible violations of the technical barriers to trade (TBT) agreement. This paper attempts to find the linkages between DS cases citing the TBT agreement and the STC data regarding TBTs. The DS Body’s decisions regarding possible violations of the TBT agreement are discussed in detail. Afterwards, we analyze, descriptively and econometrically, the relationship between notified STCs and DS consultations regarding TBTs.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Angola–Brazil Bilateral Investment Treaty: an introduction to its dispute settlement mechanism

88%
Alcici L. M.
Studia Prawnicze: rozprawy i materiały
|
2021
|
issue 1(28)
71-77
EN
This article presents an overview of the Angola–Brazil BIT and briefly analyses the dispute settlement mechanism for investment disputes provided for by that agreement. The ratification of the BIT by Brazil a few years ago means that Brazilian investors are now able to seek protection to their investments in Angola through the bilateral dispute settlement mechanism established by the BIT. Although Investor-State arbitration is not envisaged in the agreement, Brazilian investors can request Brazil to act on their behalf bringing their claims before the Joint Committee for conciliation and, if this proves unsuccessful, initiating State-State arbitration proceedings against Angola.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Is the Court of Justice Afraid of International Jurisdictions?

75%
Szpunar M.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2017
|
vol. 37
125-141
EN
This article analyses the relationship between the Court of Justice and other international jurisdictions. In particular, it addresses the following question: To what extent is the Court of Justice ready to accept that some aspects of EU law are subject to the jurisdiction of an international body? The answer to this question requires analysis of the precise scope of the principle of autonomy of EU law as this principle could potentially constitute grounds on the basis of which the Court of Justice excludes the transfer of judicial competences to external bodies. For this reason, the article refers to the most important decisions in the field: Opinions 1/91 and 1/92, Opinion 1/09, Opinion 2/13, judgment in C­146/13 Spain v. Parliament and Council and judgment in C­284/14 Achmea. It also discusses the consequences of the application of Article 344 TFEU.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The rule of law w opiniach doradczych i wyrokach Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości

55%
Lis E.
Studia Prawnicze
|
2018
|
issue 2 (214)
5-33
EN
This paper argues that by delivering judgement and giving an advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice contributes to enhancement and promotion of the rule of law. First of all, it was necessary to explain the term ‘rule of law’ and its formal and substantive theories. It argues that the notion of rule of law in national legal systems should be distinguished from this concept in international law. Then it analyzes some judgements and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice with regard to peaceful settlement of disputes, interpretation, uniform application and development of international law, as well as equality before the law. It was established that through peaceful settlement of disputes between States, the International Court of Justice helped maintain peace, friendly relations and prevent violent conflicts. Furthermore, the World Court consistently and impartially applies, clarifies and contributes to the development of international law. Unfortunately, individuals are not on equal footing in the advisory proceedings concerning revision of judgements of administrative tribunals. According to Article 34 paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court, only States are entitled to appear before the International Court of Justice. What is more, there is also absence of equality of the parties in advisory proceedings because individuals are deprived of any access to the Court. But in the last advisory opinion rendered on 1 February 2012, the Court argued that it is obliged to ensure that this principle is adhered to as far as it possible.
PL
W artykule wykazano, że Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości, wydając orzeczenia i opinie doradcze, przyczynia się do wzmocnienia i promocji koncepcji rządów prawa. W związku z tym, po pierwsze, wyjaśniono pojęcie „rządów prawa” oraz przedstawiono teorie formalne i materialne koncepcji rządów prawa. Ustalono, że idei rządów prawa w krajowych porządkach prawnych nie należy utożsamiać z koncepcją rządów prawa w prawie międzynarodowym. Następnie dokonano analizy wybranych orzeczeń i opinii doradczych Trybunału w odniesieniu zarówno do pokojowego rozstrzygania sporów międzynarodowych, interpretacji, jednolitości stosowania, rozwoju prawa międzynarodowego, jak i zachowania zasady równości wobec prawa. Stwierdzono, że poprzez pokojowe rozstrzyganie sporów międzynarodowych pomiędzy państwami Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości przyczynia się do utrzymania międzynarodowego pokoju, przyjaznych stosunków oraz zapobiega wybuchowi konfliktów zbrojnych. Ponadto Trybunał w sposób jednolity, bezstronny stosuje, wyjaśnia i przyczynia się do rozwoju prawa międzynarodowego. Niestety, w postępowaniu doradczym dotyczącym rewizji orzeczeń trybunałów administracyjnych nie zagwarantowano jednostkom zasady równości stron. Zgodnie z art. 34 ust. 1 Statutu Trybunału jedynymi podmiotami uprawnionymi do bycia stroną w postępowaniu przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Sprawiedliwości są państwa. Jednostki nie mogą także uczestniczyć w postępowaniu doradczym. Jednakże w ostatniej opinii doradczej z dnia 1 lutego 2012 r. Trybunał stwierdził, że jest zobowiązany do zagwarantowania równości stron tak dalece, jak jest to możliwe.
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.