Pravo na prodemokratsku intervenciju - od Grenade do Ukrajine

This article argues that the right to pro-democratic intervention does not exist as an exception to the legal rule about the prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations. Article addresses new interpretations of the nature of state sovereignty that in legal doctrine generate demands for the redefinition of existing rules regarding the use of force. However, by analyzing different cases in practice it shows that the claim about the emergence of the new customary right to pro-democratic intervention in international law is not sustainable. Finally, attention is given to the current situation in Ukraine in order to show relevance of this issue.U ovom radu pokazujemo zašto smatramo da pravo na prodemokratsku intervenciju ne postoji kao jedan od posebnih izuzetaka od pravila o zabrani pretnje silom i upotrebe sile u međunarodnim odnosima. Ukazujemo na shvatanja o promenjenoj prirodi suverenosti države koja u doktrini dovode i do zahteva za redefinisanjem postojećih pravila o upotrebi sile. Međutim, ispitujući primere iz prakse pokazujemo da nije moguće utvrditi da je nastalo pravo na prodemokratsku intervenciju kao novo pravilo običajne prirode u međunarodnom pravu. Osvrćemo se i na trenutnu situaciju u Ukrajini, na čijem primeru pokazujemo aktuelnost navedenog pitanja

Sudski procesi i pomirenje - tužbe za genocid Srbije i Hrvatske pred Međunarodnim sudom pravde

Justice is one of the main components of the process of reconciliation. When materialized in its institutionalized form, justice is achieved through trials, whether to individuals or states. In the case of war in former Yugoslavia apart from the trials to the individuals before International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, equally important and current issue is the case before International Court of Justice regarding the claim and counter-claim of Croatia and Serbia concerning the crime of genocide. Through the analysis of this judicial proceeding using the concept of change in the conflictive ethos it is shown that it does not per se contribute to the reconciliation. Reasons for that are to be found in the very nature of the judicial proceedings and discrepancies between legal and social norms and understandings of justice. Nevertheless the importance of judicial proceedings is not denied as a structural measure in the reconciliation process therefore suggestions for the overcoming of deficiencies in the contribution of these proceedings to the reconciliation are offered.Pravda je jedan od osnovnih činilaca procesa pomirenja. Iskazana u institucionalizovanom obliku, pravda se sprovodi putem suđenja, bilo pojedincima, bilo državama. U slučaju rata u bivšoj Jugoslaviji, pored suđenja pojedincima pred Međunarodnim krivičnim tribunalom za bivšu Jugoslaviju, važno je i aktuelno pitanje tužbe i protivtužbe Hrvatske i Srbije pred Međunarodnim sudom pravde u vezi sa zločinom genocida. Analizirajući ovaj sudski proces sa stanovišta promene konfliktnog etosa, ukazano je na to da ovaj sudski proces sam po sebi ne vodi pomirenju. Razlozi za to nalaze se u samoj prirodi sudskih postupaka i diskrepanci između pravnih i društvenih normi i shvatanja pravde. Pa ipak, važnost sudskih postupaka kao strukturne mere u procesu pomirenja nije poreknuta, te su dati predlozi za prevazilaženje navedene manjkavosti u pogledu doprinosa sudskih procesa pomirenju

To exclude or not to exclude, that is the question. Developments regarding bases for exclusion from refugee status in the EU

In this Article, the author presents and explains the current normative framework in EU law about the exclusion from refugee status based on the premise that a person is not deserving of refugee status. This article is directed at clarifying the present content of the legislation in force and the caselaw of the Court of Justice of the European Union that further elaborates on this issue. The Commission’s recent proposal for new legislation is also scrutinized, in order to present a possible evolution of the exclusion provision

Court of justice of the European union as the actor in the protection of asylum seekers rights

U trenutku kada je Evropska unija suočena sa najvećim prilivom državljana trećih država na svoju teritoriju do sada, institucije EU u okviru svojih nadlež- nosti preduzimaju korake kako bi doprinele rešavanju problema. Jedan od ko- raka jeste i izmena relevantne legislative kako bi se ona usaglasila sa dešavanji- ma u praksi. Ipak, kriza tzv. Dablinskog sistema (sistem za utvrđivanje države članice odgovorne za ispitivanje zahteva za azil u EU) je akutna, sa dubokim i dalekosežnim posledicama, te zahteva brza rešenja. Sa druge strane, procedu- ra za izmenu pravnih akata u EU može da traje i po nekoliko godina. Stoga, u takvim trenucima uloga Suda pravde, kao institucije koja treba da obezbedi „da se pravo poštuje prilikom tumačenja i primene prava”, može biti ključna. On se javlja kao institucija koja brže može da doprinese neophodnim prome- nama tumačenjem postojećih pravila. Kako bi se ukazalo na ovu ulogu Suda u radu su analizirane četiri presude putem kojih je Sud pravde ojačao položaj pojedinca u Dablinskom sistemu kroz tumačenje dometa pravnog leka koji je na raspolaganju pojedincima u pogledu osporavanja odluke o transferu u drugu državu. Nakon objašnjenja delovanja Suda predstavljen je nov nacrt izmena i dopuna Dablinske regulative iz maja 2016. godine, koji je još uvek u procedu- ri, i ocenjeno je da u njemu praksa Suda pravde nije u potpunosti kodifikova- na. Ukazano je i na to da će takav predlog Komisije najverovatnije biti usvojen od strane Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta EU, i dat je odgovor na pitanje šta će Sud pravde u tom slučaju moći da učini kako bi nastavio da bude akter u zašti- ti prava tražilaca azila.In the times when European Union is faced with the biggest influx of third counties’ citizens to its territory until now, EU institutions are taking different steps in order to contribute to the solution of the problem. One of the steps is the change in the relevant legislation in order to harmonize it with the ongo- ing events. However, the crisis of the Dublin system (system for establishing the member state responsible for examining an application for asylum in the EU) is acute and its consequences are far-reaching, and it calls for quick and effective solutions. On the other hand, procedure for necessary change in the legislation might take up to several years. In these cases, the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as the institution that is to „ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed” can be crucial. CJEU is an institution that can generate the necessary changes in shorter period of time. In order to emphasize this role of the CJEU this Article analyses four judgments in which CJEU strengthened the position of the asy- lum seekers in the Dublin system. It did it by interpreting the scope of the le- gal remedy that is available to asylum seekers regarding the decision to transfer them to the other Member State. After the explanation of the Court’s role, the amendments to Dublin regulation of May 2016 are presented. It is concluded that this proposal does not codify the case-law of the CJEU. Also, it is presumed that European Parliament and Council of the EU will adopt the said amend- ments as proposed by the Commission, thus putting into question the signifi- cance of the previous Court’s practice. Therefore, it is presented what are the ways in which CJEU can continue to act as relevant actor in the protection of the rights of the asylum-seekers

Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of asylum

Суд правде Европске уније је правосудна институција Европске уније чији се утицај у развоју саме Европске уније и одређених поља њеног деловања често истиче. Посебно се указује на његову улогу чувара правног система Уније. Та улога поткрепљена је истицањем посебног места циљног метода тумачења и описа Суда као активистичког или чак и политичког актера. С обзиром на велики број политика Уније и питања којима се Суд правде бави, није увек могуће ове тврдње испитати користећи се његовом целикупном јуриспруденцијом. Стога смо се одлучили да испитамо каква је улога Суда правде у области која је од 2015. године у центру деловања ЕУ – политика азила. Определили смо се да путем правне анализе резоновања Суда правде у релевантним пресудама испитамо које методе тумачења Суд користи и каква је последица коришћења тих метода на садржину правила о азилу. Предмет ове докторске дисертације јесте анализа пресуда Суда правде Европске уније у области азила како би се утврдило да ли у овој области може да се утврди правилност у резоновању Суда правде. Како бисмо то испитали определили смо се да анализирамо методе тумачења које Суд правде примењује и претходне судске одлуке (самог Суда правде ЕУ и релевантних међународних судова). Додатно, истраживање је усмерено на утврђивање улоге Суда правде у вези са правилима о азилу у Унији, конкретно кроз испитивање начина на које Суд утиче на развој ових правила. Истраживање је руковођено општом хипотезом да се у пресуђивању Суда правде ЕУ у области азила могу уочити правилности које указују на то да Суд правде ЕУ доприноси конзистентном и самосвојном систему правила о азилу у ЕУ. Ова хипотеза поткрепљена је детаљним испитивањем следећих предметних целина: институционалне структуре и одлика Суда правде ЕУ; одлика резоновања Суда правде ЕУ (метода тумачења и претходних судских одлука); азила у међународном праву и праву ЕУ и коначно применом теоријског оквира на пресуде у вези са азилом и извођење закључака. Методе које су коришћене приликом истраживања су примарна и секундарна анализа садржаја, класификација, индукција и дедукција.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is a judicial institution of the European Union whose influence on the development of the EU itself and certain aspects of its functioning is frequently emhasized. What is especially accentuated is its role as guardian of the EU legal system. This role is underpinned by the usage of the theleological method of interpretation and the labelling of the Court as an activist one, or even by underlining its political role. Having in mind the vast field of EU competences in different fields and therefore the abundant jurisprudence of the Court, it is not always possible to test these remarks in the whole spectrum of the Court’s functioning. Therefore, we decided to anlyse what the role of the CJEU is in the field central to the functioning of the EU since 2015 – the question of asylum. By using the legal study of the Court’s reasoning in the relevant judgements, we elected to investigate methods of interpretation used by the Court as well as the consequence of this approach on the content of the rules on asylum. The main focus of this doctoral dissertation is the analysis of the judgements of the CJEU in the field of asylum in order to determine whether a certain pattern of reasoning can be discerned. In order to analyse this question we chose to scrutinize the methods of interpretation used by the Court and the role of previous judicial decisions (of the CJEU and of the relevant international courts). Moreover, this research is concerned with the determination of the role of the CJEU in regards to the rules on asylum through the examination of the manners in which the Court affects the development of these rules. The research is conducted by the general hypothesis that in the legal reasoning of the Court in the field of asylum one can discern a pattern which implies that the CJEU contributes to the consistent and self-sufficient system of norms on asylum in the EU. This hypothesis is underpinned by a detailed study of the following research aspects: institutional structure and characteristics of the Court of Justice of the EU; characteristics of the legal reasoning of the CJEU (methods of interpretation and the role of previous judicial decisions); rules on asylum in International as well as EU Law; and finally, the implementation of the theoretical framework on the judgements regarding asylum and infering conclusions. The research methods used in the research are: primary and secondary content analysis, classification, induction and deduction

Protracted Armed Violence as a Criterion for the Existence of Non-international Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and Beyond

The present article provides legal analysis of the concept of ‘protracted armed violence’ which is part of the commonly accepted definition of non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia interpreted this notion as the intensity requirement. However, the practice of other international legal institutions that use this concept (such as International Criminal Court and some other judicial institutions) is not always coherent with this finding. This fact raised several theoretical and practical issues in the process of interpretation and implementation of international legal norms. Therefore, the aim of the article is to critically reassess the ‘protracted armed violence’ concept in various branches of international law and to contribute to the better understanding of the NIAC phenomenon

Doprinos Evropske unije utvrđivanju domena primene pravila o terorizmu

This article analyses the relationship between rules on terrorism in international law and international humanitarian law (IHL), with the special emphasis on the European Union's standpoint on this issue. To this end, the article will present EU regulation in this field and the 2014 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Tamil Tigers case will be analysed. Having in mind that the relation between the scope of application of the rules on terrorism and international humanitarian law is one of the contentious issues that burden and prologue adoption of the Comprehensive convention on terrorism under the auspices of United Nations, this article will point out to the standpoint which the CJEU took regarding that relation and whether it can be instructive for this process. In order to present differing viewpoints of the states about the issue of relation between rules on terrorism and IHL, process of negotiations in the Ad hoc committee whose task is to draft the Convention on terrorism will be addressed firstly. It is concluded that the Western states and those states that are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation have opposite views about the aforementioned relation and that these disagreements prevent them from adopting the final draft of the future convention on terrorism. On the other hand, European Union (EU) adopted the regulation on the fight against terrorism, and based on that regulation certain number of organizations is marked as terrorist organizations and economic measures are imposed upon them. Among these organizations is the organization of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, Tamil Tigers) which challenged this decision before the CJEU. The main object of the analysis is therefore the judgment of the CJEU in this case and especially the part of the judgment in which Tamil Tigers contest the application of the EU rules on terrorism, stating that it cannot be applied in the armed conflict occurring between them and the government of Sri Lanka, since the only norms applicable in this case are the rules of international humanitarian law. The Court found that the rules about financing terrorism apply all the time and that in the situation of armed conflict they are applicable alongside the rules of IHL. The Conclusion of the article is that the CJEU approach in this judgment can give useful guidelines for the resolution of a burdening issue of the relation between rules on terrorism and IHL. The rules on terrorism should be divided into two distinct categories, and each category should have its own relation with the IHL norms - rules on financing terrorism should be applied alongside IHL in armed conflict while the rules on incrimination of terrorist acts should not be applicable in situations of armed conflict. Also, the distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello should be preserved, therefore the application of the rules on terrorism and IHL should not depend upon the expressed motives of the parties to the conflict. In the end, it is also pointed out that the EU regulation has some shortcomings when it comes to the definition of terrorism and some recommendations are given for its overcoming

The Dangers of Conflation

On May 17th 2023 Advocate General de la Tour handed down the Opinion in case C-402/22. It addresses the meaning of “particularly serious crime” found in Article 14 (4) (b) of the 2011 Qualification Directive, which sets out the grounds for revocation or refusal to grant refugee status under EU law. This provision refers to “refugees delinquents” and introduces security concerns of states as the ground for depriving persons of their refugee status. In practice, it opens the question of how to treat refugees that committed certain crime(s) after they obtained refugee status. In this blog I detail the AG’s answer to that question and raise one overriding concern regarding Article 14 QD.</p

Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of asylum

Суд правде Европске уније је правосудна институција Европске уније чији се утицај у развоју саме Европске уније и одређених поља њеног деловања често истиче. Посебно се указује на његову улогу чувара правног система Уније. Та улога поткрепљена је истицањем посебног места циљног метода тумачења и описа Суда као активистичког или чак и политичког актера. С обзиром на велики број политика Уније и питања којима се Суд правде бави, није увек могуће ове тврдње испитати користећи се његовом целикупном јуриспруденцијом. Стога смо се одлучили да испитамо каква је улога Суда правде у области која је од 2015. године у центру деловања ЕУ – политика азила. Определили смо се да путем правне анализе резоновања Суда правде у релевантним пресудама испитамо које методе тумачења Суд користи и каква је последица коришћења тих метода на садржину правила о азилу. Предмет ове докторске дисертације јесте анализа пресуда Суда правде Европске уније у области азила како би се утврдило да ли у овој области може да се утврди правилност у резоновању Суда правде. Како бисмо то испитали определили смо се да анализирамо методе тумачења које Суд правде примењује и претходне судске одлуке (самог Суда правде ЕУ и релевантних међународних судова). Додатно, истраживање је усмерено на утврђивање улоге Суда правде у вези са правилима о азилу у Унији, конкретно кроз испитивање начина на које Суд утиче на развој ових правила. Истраживање је руковођено општом хипотезом да се у пресуђивању Суда правде ЕУ у области азила могу уочити правилности које указују на то да Суд правде ЕУ доприноси конзистентном и самосвојном систему правила о азилу у ЕУ. Ова хипотеза поткрепљена је детаљним испитивањем следећих предметних целина: институционалне структуре и одлика Суда правде ЕУ; одлика резоновања Суда правде ЕУ (метода тумачења и претходних судских одлука); азила у међународном праву и праву ЕУ и коначно применом теоријског оквира на пресуде у вези са азилом и извођење закључака. Методе које су коришћене приликом истраживања су примарна и секундарна анализа садржаја, класификација, индукција и дедукција.The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is a judicial institution of the European Union whose influence on the development of the EU itself and certain aspects of its functioning is frequently emhasized. What is especially accentuated is its role as guardian of the EU legal system. This role is underpinned by the usage of the theleological method of interpretation and the labelling of the Court as an activist one, or even by underlining its political role. Having in mind the vast field of EU competences in different fields and therefore the abundant jurisprudence of the Court, it is not always possible to test these remarks in the whole spectrum of the Court’s functioning. Therefore, we decided to anlyse what the role of the CJEU is in the field central to the functioning of the EU since 2015 – the question of asylum. By using the legal study of the Court’s reasoning in the relevant judgements, we elected to investigate methods of interpretation used by the Court as well as the consequence of this approach on the content of the rules on asylum. The main focus of this doctoral dissertation is the analysis of the judgements of the CJEU in the field of asylum in order to determine whether a certain pattern of reasoning can be discerned. In order to analyse this question we chose to scrutinize the methods of interpretation used by the Court and the role of previous judicial decisions (of the CJEU and of the relevant international courts). Moreover, this research is concerned with the determination of the role of the CJEU in regards to the rules on asylum through the examination of the manners in which the Court affects the development of these rules. The research is conducted by the general hypothesis that in the legal reasoning of the Court in the field of asylum one can discern a pattern which implies that the CJEU contributes to the consistent and self-sufficient system of norms on asylum in the EU. This hypothesis is underpinned by a detailed study of the following research aspects: institutional structure and characteristics of the Court of Justice of the EU; characteristics of the legal reasoning of the CJEU (methods of interpretation and the role of previous judicial decisions); rules on asylum in International as well as EU Law; and finally, the implementation of the theoretical framework on the judgements regarding asylum and infering conclusions. The research methods used in the research are: primary and secondary content analysis, classification, induction and deduction