Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 4,740 items for :

  • Search level: Chapters/Articles x
Clear All
In: Law and Practices of Delegated Rulemaking by the European Commission
In: Law and Practices of Delegated Rulemaking by the European Commission
In: Law and Practices of Delegated Rulemaking by the European Commission
In: Law and Practices of Delegated Rulemaking by the European Commission
In: Law and Practices of Delegated Rulemaking by the European Commission
In: Law and Practices of Delegated Rulemaking by the European Commission
Free access
In: Review of Central and East European Law
Author:

Abstract

It is generally agreed that statutory limitations applicable to civil proceedings have no place in international arbitration proceedings, unless these have been specifically accepted by the parties; are imposed by mandatory laws, or; otherwise compelled by public policy. In equal measure, the process and recognition of enforcement awards should not be subjected to any statutory limitations, as such limitations are absent in the New York Convention and generally excluded by reference to transnational legal instruments, such as the uncitral Model Law. Investor and commercial actors operating in Central Asia should be cautious when embroiled in disputes with state entities because of the latter tend to protract and delay negotiations in order to impose statutory limitations to claims. It is imperative that upon commencement of negotiations foreign entities take appropriate measures to ensure that their claim is not undergoing a ticking time-ban. This may be achieved by serving the other party with an official notice as to the commencement of negotiations and a statement that this is not a substitute of a civil suit or arbitral proceedings. Equally, one of the parties may trigger arbitral proceedings but ask the arbitrators to suspend all hearings until after the termination of negotiations.

In: Review of Central and East European Law
Author:

Abstract

Since their independence in 1991, the states of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) have become increasingly important as regional and international actors. They have joined the United Nations (UN) as well as regional organizations, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (cis), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (csto), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (sco), and the Eurasian Economic Union (eaeu). International law has played an important role in the processes of state-building and integration these countries have undergone, yet it has not always been consistently accepted as a policy tool and academic discipline. In particular, building a stable nexus between the practice of international law and academic research on the subject remains a challenge. This article provides an overview of Central Asian practices and doctrines of international law with a focus on international peace and security, international organizations, international environmental law, human rights, international humanitarian and criminal law, and international investment arbitration. It concludes with recommendations for more successful promotion and implementation of international law in the region.

In: Review of Central and East European Law

Abstract

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 can be seen as a culmination of eight years of its aggression against Ukraine, including its annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the control of the two ‘People’s Republics’ in Donbas. Before the invasion, the Ukrainian authorities had actively expressed their politico-legal stance on the conflict, using lawfare against the Russian Federation, e.g. at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the International Court of Justice (icj), and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (itlos). In this context, the paper explores the interplay between Ukraine’s domestic legislation regarding the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s control of the People’s Republics in Donbas prior to the invasion, and Ukraine’s use of lawfare against Russia with a focus on policy and legal coherence. It is demonstrated that, while Ukraine’s lawfare strategy regarding Crimea had been in line with domestic legislation, Russia’s use of proxies in eastern Ukraine and the challenges of the Minsk peace process led to incoherence between Ukraine’s domestic laws and its use of lawfare. Though Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is a game-changer, both for Ukraine’s domestic legislation and its use of lawfare, the analysis contributes to an understanding of the nexus between domestic and international law in Ukraine prior to the invasion and explores the implications such a nexus will have for Ukraine’s future lawfare against Russia, including the most recent icj case relating to the interpretation, application, and fulfillment of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In: Review of Central and East European Law