://finance.townhall,con/columnists/johnbrowne/2016/08/05/uks-prime-minister-commits-tosuccessful-brexit-n2201876 >. 5 August 2016 [Accessed 31 March 2019].
COHEN, Roger. Britain’s BREXIT Leap in the Dark. [online] Available at: < https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/opinion/britains-brexit-leap-in-the-dark.html > 24 June 2016.[accessed 31 March 2019].
CORRE, Jacob I. The Arguments and Reports of Darcy v Allen. 45 Emery L.J. 1261. 1996
DAVIS, M and MONK, D.B. [eds]. Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism . New York: New Press, 2007.
ERLANDER, Steven. Brexit’ Opens Uncertain
, vol. 82(1), pp. 121–148.
BUFACCHI, Vittorio & ARRIGO, Jean Maria. Torture, Terrorism and the State: a Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 2006, vol. 23(3), p. 355.
BUHA, Mark J. Rule Utilitarian and Deontologist Perspectives on Comparisons of Torture and Killing. Washington University Juridical Review , 2010, vol. 2, p. 304.
DANELIUS, Hans. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Nordic Journal of International Law, 1959, vol. 58, p. 180.
DERSHOWITZ, Alan. The Torture Warrant
Presented article contributes to the extensive discussion over the mutual relationship between serious human rights violations (violation of ius cogens) and the law of state immunity. Th e structure of article derives from the argumentation presented by Germany and Italy in current dispute before the International Court of Justice. Author focuses his attention on delimitation of existing international legal framework and particularly on assessment of friction areas in German and Italian submissions. Three separate issues are analyzed: temporal, territorial and material.
This paper examines the Late Payment Directive of the European Union and seeks to answer the question of whether the provisions of the Directive apply to loan contracts in corporate transactions. The paper first describes and analyses the Late Payment Directive and provides a comprehensive analysis of relevant arguments and legal sources. It then evaluates the different factors required by the Late Payment Directive and finally argues that the Late Payment Directive has to be applied to loan contracts and facility agreements, even if this is not explicitly foreseen in the Directive.
Four Basic Arguments in Defence of Preservation of Sovereign Statehood
European integration entity ceased to be just a forum for negotiations between independent and sovereign nation states. To some extent it overlaps with the states and becomes their competitor. In this context, the classical concept of state sovereignty loses its original content and meaning. The participation in the integration project opens the question whether it takes away or weakens sovereignty of Member States? This paper puts on four arguments to proof the hypothesis that Czech Republic continues to be a sovereign country even aft er accession to the European Union.
The paper deals with the admissibility of witness testimony in the preliminary proceeding which could be read in court without right of the defence to hear or examine such a witness. This question is particularly interesting with regard to preserving the adversarial principle which is important for an objective assessment of the facts. The focus will be to answer the question of whether so obtained and executed evidence may stand as the main evidence of guilt especially with regard to Article 6,par. 1 and 3 (d) ECHR (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses). The arguments in this paper will be submitted supported by the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic and the ECtHR. Contribution will also deal with British law and the applicability of the so-called Hearsay rule and the exceptions to this rule which can be applied in criminal proceedings.
The Constitutional Court of Romania has subjected the introduction of a norm of European Union law into the constitutionality control, as an interposed norm to the standard norm. On the one hand, the norm should be sufficiently clear, precise and unequivocal in itself, or its meaning should have been clearly, precisely and unequivocally established by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and on the other hand it should be circumscribed by a certain level of constitutional relevance, so that its normative content could support the possible breach of the Constitution - the only direct standard norm within the constitutionality control - by national law. However, the experience of the Constitutional Court of Romania over the eight years (2007-2014) since the EU accession, does not seem to be very convincing, irrespective of the way in which European Union law, including the case law of the CJUE has been used: as justifying or circumstantial argument, as a mere reference or in an inadequate context.
In sports environment there is a whole range of different types of wrongful conduct sanctioned not only by disciplinary bodies using specific rules accepted by the executive authorities of sports organizations but also more serious cases that have to be judged in accordance with criminal law. There has been a long debate whether criminal law should intervene into the area of sport, i.e. whether sport and its environment is in itself such an autonomous system that it could deal with all the matters of criminal nature on its own. The area of sport environment involves a whole range of illegal acts, ranging from criminal liability of sportsmen responsible for injuries inflicted upon others in the area of sport, the issues of hooliganism in sporting events, breach of the public peace as far as the issue of match-fixing including the crimes of bribery and illegal betting. Generally speaking, we are of the opinion that there is no good reason why the criminal law should not be allowed to intervene into the area of sport in certain cases. The basic argument to be used is the fact that every social activity must be carried out in accordance with the legal order of the country, the area of sport being no exception. The area of sport or to be more precise the specific types of sports activities are regulated by special internal and statutory rules introducing certain sanctioning mechanisms in the form of disciplinary rules which can be enforced by different disciplinary bodies.
In some circumstances and despite having right to draw under the Letter of Credit, beneficiary agrees in underlying contract that he would not exercise his right before realization of certain conditions stipulated in the contract or any other agreement with applicant. Despite the fact that the instrument itself (documentary letters of credit and bank guarantees) entitles beneficiary for being paid upon presentation of complying documents, making such commitment will impose restrictions on beneficiary within the framework of underlying contract and creates different scenarios that raises respective questions. First scenario would be that beneficiary fulfills his commitments in underlying contract and receives payment under the credit and there will be no dispute between parties. Second scenario is where beneficiary presents complying documents to bank and demands for being paid the amount stipulated in the credit despite existence of an ongoing dispute with applicant regarding his performance in underling contract. Here, it will be a valid question if we ask whether or not breach of such restrictions by beneficiary will influence principle of autonomy? Consecutive question would be, shall the court consider beneficiary’s violation of his restrictive commitment in underlying contract as a new exception to principle of autonomy? To put it in different way, where beneficiary of documentary letters of credit or demand guarantee regardless of his awareness from independence of underlying contract from the credit commits in underlying contract to condition which restricts his right to draw on the credit; will he be allowed by court to rely on the principle of autonomy to neglect his commitment in underling contract? In short, should law recognize other exception in addition to fraud which is in accordance with limits imposed by underlying contract on beneficiary’s right to draw on the credit? In quest of answering above mentioned questions, this paper will be divided into six main parts. After the introduction, second part will describe nature of documentary leers of credit and principle of autonomy. Third part will analyse the nature of exception while fourth one will look at approach of different jurisdictions to this issue. Fifth part will provide different arguments in favour and against recognition of “underlying contract exception”1 and finally last part provides concluding remarks on the subject matter.
References (alphabetical order)
Annus, Taavi. Comparative Constitutional Reasoning: the Law and Strategy of Selecting the Right Arguments. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law , 2004, Vol. 14, pp. 301–349.
Az Alaptörvény nem fejez ki közakaratot – interjú Sólyom Lászlóval. [online]. Available at < http://www.ugyvedvilag.hu/rovatok/napirend/az-alaptorveny-nem-fejez-ki-koza-karatot-interju-solyom-laszloval > Accessed 31.03.2016.
Bóka, János. Az összehasonlító módszer alkalmazása az Alkotmánybíróság gyakorlatában. In Ambrus, István