Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Mónika Ambrus x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All

Historically, global water law has developed in fragments. The fragmented nature of water law mainly originates from the fact that water can be seen as an economic, ecological and social unit (horizontal fragmentation). Within the clusters that these units constitute, water law is also seen as fragmented, given that a particular cluster is composed of different levels (vertical fragmentation). This article will scrutinise the social justice cluster, or the right to water, and examine whether and to what extent vertical fragmentation in water law leads to divergent approaches among the different levels, while placing the discussion within the general context of fragmentation in international law. For that purpose the elaboration of the human right to water by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, functioning at the international level, will be compared with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECTHR), a regional court.

In: International Community Law Review


In terms of evidence law, it can be argued that the degree of discretion allocated to the state party by the European Court of Human Rights also assigns the extent to which the allegations have to be proven by the state in order to be accepted, which can be translated as the applicable standard of proof. With the help of this procedural approach the article aims to explore the standards of proof narrated and actually applied in the case law in religion cases, that is cases under Article 9 ECHR, Article 14 in combination with Article 9 ECHR and Article 2 of Protocol I when interpreted in the light of Article 9 ECHR.

In: Religion & Human Rights

Global water law and governance is horizontally and vertically fragmented, very complex, involves both state and non-state parties, and is established under and / or mandated by national, supranational (eu) or international law. Accordingly, it can be qualified as polycentric governance. Any governance system — but a polycentric governance system in particular — raises questions of its legitimacy. The paper aims to look at one specific segment of this legitimacy discourse, namely how an international organization that is a ‘centrepiece’ in a polycentric governance system attempts to legitimize itself: that is, to justify its activities in order to gain social acceptance. For this purpose, the legitimacy narratives of a rather successful river basin organization — the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River — will be analysed as a case study for obtaining a better understanding of the specific nature of polycentric governance and its legitimacy narratives.

In: International Organizations Law Review