An embedded case study investigating the ongoing securitization of migration in the EU from 2014-2020 and the role of legal institutions, in this case the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in these processes. Securitization Theory is used in combination with Critical Legal Theory to create a framework that attempts to both illuminate the role of the functional actor in Securitization Theory further, and the impact securitization has on legal institutions. It provides explanations for sudden shifts in legal argumentation, especially in cases of high political relevance with the use of Critical Legal Theory. The case of N.D. & N.T. vs. Spain serves as an example of a functional actor providing two contrasting judgments on the same events within a short period of time and opens up discussions about political influences on legal institutions. Securitization and the framing of refugees as existential threats to European identity and culture is one of the many ongoing political processes related to the issue of migration and refuge in Europe. As the political landscape shifts and right-wing populist parties establish themselves in European Member States, illegal pushbacks have become common practice at the outer borders of the EU and are challenged both politically and legally. This study investigated cases of illegal pushbacks to renew criticism against the institutions engaging in and enabling the practice.

No description available.

This doctoral thesis is at the intersection of law and technology by focusing on the ethical governance of private companies on the topic of discrimination. It centers on algorithmic and intentional discrimination. It aimed to determine whether the European Union and Federal USA law are equipped to address discrimination in the provision of work, goods, and services online. Through and extensive analyses of sources that included private company practices, private anti-discrimination policies, collective and private litigation, court decisions, public regulation at the EU, Member State levels, and United States, this thesis argued that statutory law and legal precedents in the European Union and United States are only partially equipped to address discrimination against statutorily protected classes. The author of this thesis inferred from the selected sources that the main obstacles to the full implementation of the equality principle rely on businesses' structural challenges, including aesthetic design, matching tools, evaluation systems, and network effect of online platforms that ultimately reinforce old biases against protected classes. Furthermore, rigid and more flexible regimes of liability immunities to online intermediaries results in the lack of incentive for structural changes. Finally, in the light of these structural challenges, this thesis asserts that the fight against discrimination in online platforms might produce the best results when also oriented by a model of regulation that encourages online platforms to implement the principle of transparency and fairness in their interactions with users, coupled with the cooperation of anti-discrimination bodies and private businesses. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

In this thesis, the aim is to address the persistent challenges posed by differing perspectives despite the establishment of the TRIPS agreement, which serves as a shared foundation for addressing legal and practical gaps among jurisdictions worldwide. The focus is on analyzing the Bolar exemptions within TRIPS Flexibilities for pharmaceutical patents in three specific regions: the Republic of Finland, the People's Republic of China (China), and the United States (the US). By employing a hierarchical approach that incorporates deductive theory, examination of legal cases, and literature review, this research aims to identify and resolve disparities between these jurisdictions. Both international law and national legal systems are scrutinized to ensure comparability across the three continents. Ultimately, the study presents a comprehensive assessment of the advantages and disadvantages associated with implementing Bolar provisions in each country, particularly in the context of facilitating access to vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judicial politics scholars routinely posit that the behavior of Supreme Court justices is motivated in important part by concerns of institutional maintenance, that is, by a desire to maintain the Court’s unusually large store of institutional legitimacy. Previous work on this topic, however, has focused almost exclusively on the influence of such motivation on judicial decision making. We contend that if institutional maintenance is an important goal, it should be observable in other contexts as well. We examine televised mass-media interviews with Supreme Court justices from 1998 to 2016 and find that legitimacy reinforcement is the predominant goal reflected in justices’ rhetoric in those interviews.

Sexual harassment in workplace policies and legal procedures, which are strongly affected by the patriarchy that exists in the legal system, mistreat millions of victims annually. Through the implementation of the WPR Analysis on the Code of Conduct in Public Services on preventing […] sexual harassment in the workplace of the Republic of Cyprus and on C. v. Romania ECtHR case (application no. 47358/20), this thesis aims to present the problems representations, the taken-for-granted knowledge, the stereotypes and the origins of the patriarchal-biased labour policies and legal procedures concerning sexual harassment in the workplace. Along with the use of the legal feminist theory, this thesis presents that in these procedures the problems are represented to be the lack of training among employees and the victims’ behaviors. This results in the marginalization and mistreatment of the victims (women, trans, non-binary, homosexuals, even men) by these patriarchal affected procedures while it is illustrated how gender and sexual orientation are determinative to these male-biased procedures.

<p>This thesis is mainly a critical examination of Professor Mark C. Murphy’s theory of defectiveness. In his view, being backed by decisive reasons for action is a standard internal to legality, to the property of being law, such that a law or a legal system that is not backed by decisive reasons for action fails to measure up and thus, is <em>defective</em> qua law or legal system. Following a short introduction, I will devote chapter I to presenting Professor Murphy’s theory of defectiveness in the context of his defence of the natural law tradition. In the remaining two chapters, I shall state and assess two types of argument in support of this main thesis. Chapter II is concerned with the functional argument, which holds that law’s characteristic activity, thus law’s function, is to provide dictates backed by decisive reasons for action. I criticize Murphy’s account claiming that his explanation is bereft of a causal mechanism that links certain characteristic activities with certain effects, which is the main element of non-agentive functional explanations. The different type of argument that attempts to present the presence of decisive reasons as a non-defectiveness condition of illocutionary acts in general, and thus for legal illocutionary acts, is considered in chapter III. Here, I argue that Murphy’s position is not supported by the orthodox theory of illocutionary acts. From this I conclude that we have reason to doubt Professor Murphy’s success in providing an appropriate theory of legal defectiveness.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

The theme of this thesis is "formalism in law" as a concept that permeates an essential part of modern legal thinking. This work shows that it is usually perceived as a critical concept, but without a clear and steady meaning. In recent times, however, the discussion involving this concept changed so that it now includes individuals positively acknowledging themselves as formalists. An overview of this debate (only marginally concerning the Czech environment yet, however) forms the bulk of the thesis. The second essential part of it is a separate rethinking of the place of formalism in law, in all its aspects - in interpretation and application of law, in the creation of law, even in legal education and legal scholarship. This thesis consists of three unequal parts, the first of which is further divided into three sections. The first part deals with the formalism as a topic of discussion in legal philosophy during the entire 20th century, and the intention is to present this debate to Czech readers. Its first section is devoted to a topic typically linked to criticism of formalism in law in Western legal scholarship, as it presents the American legal realism of the interwar period. It shows it as a strong and visible culmination of earlier critical efforts visible on both sides of the Atlantic...

Le concept et la justiciabilité des droits sociaux et économiques dans le cadre nord-américain n'ont jamais fait l'objet d'une étude à part entière par la doctrine juridique française. En cause, le fait que la culture juridique nord-américaine apparaît aux yeux de la plupart des juristes comme largement imperméable à cette catégorie de droits que nous référençons sous le vocable de « droits sociaux ». Lorsque l'on s'interroge sur la manière d'appréhender leur garantie, l'évolution des droits sociaux dans le droit nord-américain est pourtant riche d'instruction, du fait du cadre culturel particulier dans lequel ils opèrent, et du fait que la doctrine nord-américaine a eu le mérite d'embrasser un large spectre théorique pour penser cette catégorie. Le cas nord-américain a impliqué une construction des droits sociaux en deux temps séparés, relatifs à deux projets sociaux différents : d'abord celui de la Nouvelle donne (New Deal) de la présidence Roosevelt dans les années 1930 ; et celui de la déségrégation raciale amorcée par la Cour suprême d'Earl Warren dans les années 1950, couplée avec la Guerre contre la pauvreté (War on Poverty) de la présidence Johnson la décennie suivante. Ces deux temps dans le traitement de la question sociale nord-américaine nous permettent de distinguer deux conceptions antagonistes des droits sociaux. La première est relative à la période du New Deal, elle est fondée sur l'émancipation individuelle du travailleur, et demeure la responsabilité du pouvoir législatif par des politiques d'assurance sociale. La seconde est relative à la période de la guerre contre la pauvreté et de déségrégation raciale dans les années 1950-1960, elle est fondée sur la réintégration des minorités écartées de la première catégorie, elle opère sur le plan de l'assistance sociale et demeure la responsabilité du juge en « réaction » aux oublis du législateur. Il ressort de cet historique des droits sociaux une dualité conceptuelle qui rend compte des limites à la possibilité de théoriser une garantie uniforme des droits sociaux aux Etats-Unis. Cette dualité permet en revanche d'analyser avec plus de précisions les débats doctrinaux essentiels sur la conception et la justiciabilité des droits sociaux. La doctrine nord-américaine a ainsi nourri deux débats doctrinaux majeurs, celui sur le caractère indéterminé des droits sociaux, impliquant leur caractère fondamentalement dynamique, un débat qui aboutit le plus souvent à condamner les théories transcendantes visant à figer leur contenu. Enfin le débat doctrinal sur la compétence réel du juge, qui interroge plus largement les rouages et les possibilités du modèle américain de Judicial Review relativement à la question sociale. Le résultat théorique de notre étude, relativement à la dualité conceptuelle prise en compte, implique la conclusion que la garantie des droits sociaux ne peut s'apprécier qu'en fonction des conjonctures politiques. Elles dépendent du projet social en cours et des jugements collectifs qui déterminent les vecteurs les justifiant, que ce soit le besoin du bénéficiaire, ou sa contrepartie à la société. Cette perspective vide de sa substance le contenu du concept de garantie, mais permet de mieux définir la réalité et les évolutions en cours au sujet de cette catégorie de droits, notamment les vecteurs décisifs à prendre en compte à leur sujet. / The concept and justiciability of social and economic rights in the specific US legal field has never been studied by the French legal doctrine, with the exception of short comparative studies. We see the American legal field as largely aversive to the recognition of the so-called “social rights”. However, when we consider social rights guarantee, American law offers weak but very original perspectives. And the American legal doctrine offers many ways to consider social rights guarantee in the field of Common law. To better appreciate social rights, we need to distinguish two different timeline in American legal history which has influenced the creation and spreading of social rights. First timeline is Franklin Roosevelt New Deal in the 30's, second timeline is Warren court judicial activism against segregation starting in the 50's, joined by Johnson War on poverty the following decade. By dealing with social and economic regulation, these two timelines offers two antagonistic conceptions of social rights. The first conception goes back to the New Deal era. It focuses on the emancipation of worker's rights, and social insurance. That conception implies the exclusive responsibility of legislative branch to make such a social legislation. The second conception goes back mainly to Warren court era and Johnson presidency. That conception implies the protection of the minorities who didn't get access to New Deal reforms because of segregation laws at that time . It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to put them back into the Welfare State. That specific two channels conception of social rights gave birth to a specific conceptual duality which prevents any possibility to conceive a whole theory of social rights guarantee in US legal doctrine. That conceptual duality is interesting tough, as it permits to better consider doctrinal debates about justiciability of social rights. US legal doctrines focused on two mains debates according to social rights. The first one is the problem of indeterminacy. It implies social rights as a history related and dynamic kind of law, condemning most theories based on moral transcendent principles of justice. The second is the problem of court capability for enforcing such kind of rights. It focuses on a broader debate about the Judicial review model, and the separation of powers between courts and legislative branch. The conceptual duality of social rights made their guarantee strongly contingent of the political process. Social rights guarantee depend on the background social project which put them into reality. That perspective made the basic idea of guarantee a non sense in the case of social rights, but stay as the best tool to better appreciate their evolution and the needs they fulfill.

State immunity has undergone major changes over time and is still a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between human rights and the norms governing state immunity. Located in different geological strata of international law, the clashes between the law of state immunity and human rights drew attention to the struggle among competing conceptions of international law. On one hand, being commonly linked to the principle of sovereign equality and to the need for stability in international relations, state immunity operates when a domestic court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute because one of the parties is a foreign state. On the other, human rights have a different logic and require change and the realization of justice. The development of the body of human rights law allowed to call into question the grant of state immunity in cases in which human rights norms were violated. Legal questions arising from the relationship between state immunity and human rights have been put before domestic and international courts. Having examined the various judgments dealing with these issues, this study contends that the answers to the technical and dogmatic questions originating from the encounter between state immunity and human rights reproduce theoretical conflicts which happen - to use Koskenniemi\'s expression - at a \'higher level of abstraction\'. The ICJ\'s judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State may have crystallized a consensus according to which state immunity trumps the individual\'s right to reparation for serious violations of human rights. This consensus, however, is contingent and can be questioned through the language of international law. / A imunidade estatal passou por grandes mudanças através dos tempos e ainda é um tema controverso e bastante debatido. A proposta deste estudo foi investigar a relação entre os direitos humanos e as normas que governam a imunidade estatal. Estando em camadas geológicas diferentes do direito internacional, os choques entre o direito da imunidade estatal e os direitos humanos chamaram atenção para a disputa entre concepções conflitantes de direito internacional. De um lado, sendo comumente relacionada ao princípio da igualdade soberana e à necessidade de estabilidade nas relações internacionais, a imunidade estatal opera quando uma corte não pode exercer jurisdição sobre o objeto de uma disputa em razão de uma das partes ser um estado estrangeiro. De outro, os direitos humanos têm uma lógica diferente e requerem mudança e a realização da justiça. O desenvolvimento do corpo dos direitos humanos permitiu questionar a concessão de imunidade estatal em casos em que normas de direitos humanos foram violadas. Questões jurídicas originadas do relacionamento entre imunidade estatal e direitos humanos foram levadas a várias cortes domésticas e internacionais. Tendo sido realizado o exame dos vários casos lidando com esse assunto, este estudo argumenta que as respostas para as questões técnicas e dogmáticas originadas do encontro entre imunidade de jurisdição e direitos humanos reproduzem conflitos teóricos que ocorrem - na expressão de Koskenniemi - em um \'nível mais elevado de abstração\'. O julgamento da Corte Internacional de Justiça em Imunidades de Jurisdição do Estado pode ter cristalizado um consenso segundo o qual as normas que se relacionam com a imunidade estatal prevalecem sobre o direito individual de reparação por sérias violações de direitos humanos. Tal consenso, no entanto, é contingente e pode ser questionado por meio da linguagem do direito internacional.