The main aim of this thesis is to explain the substance and function of intervention of the national courts in international commercial arbitration, explanation of its necessity and notice of possible danger connected to it. Besides describing all the principal situations when national courts usually participate in the proceedings, the attention is also given to concrete legislations and fundamental differences between them. The main focus is on Revised UNCITRAL Model Law of December 2006, which influenced the significant part of national legislations. Limitedly the thesis also deals with legislations and case-law of the United States of America, Great Britain, France and Germany. There is also clarified the specifics of the Czech national legislation at the end of the chapters. The thesis is divided into two logical units. At the beginning of the first part you can find an introduction to international commercial arbitration in the form of a brief historical excursus, an explanation of differences between the court proceedings and arbitration, a description of particular kinds of arbitration and an enumeration of both Czech and international sources of law. The main part of this chapter is formed by a general specification of fundamental principles and terms related to international arbitration. The second...

Magister Legum - LLM / With regard to the establishment of legislative frameworks for investigating and prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes at both national and international level, a number of pertinent issues come up concerning the Court which should have primacy to deal with a particular case. States have had a variety of options at their disposal, such as complementarity, exclusivity, subsidiarity and concurrent jurisdiction principles. As a rule, these experiences find their limits in the full criminalisation of conduct that is also punishable before the international criminal tribunals under international law, ignoring the fact that international law does not provide definite guidance with respect to a number of questions in relation to interaction between national and international jurisdiction vis-à-vis the ‘core crimes.’ In addition,a considerable increase in the content of international law and divergences in various legal systems in criminal law, both general and special, since the end of World War II, influence the effective prosecution of ‘core crimes.’ Against this background; this work is organised into five chapters. Chapter one gives a general introduction and background to the study. Chapter two will set out the present international legal framework governing the prosecution of ‘core crimes’ in national courts and a description of the relevant practice in various states. Chapter three will examine critically the jurisdiction and overlaps of the international courts and ad hoc tribunals,along with the corresponding models of international criminal justice of exclusivity, subsidiarity, complimentarity and concurrent jurisdiction. Chapter four seeks to discuss the optimal relationship based on interactions between national and international jurisdictions. It will also include the merits and limits of both jurisdictions, basing on existing precedents and legislation.Finally, Chapter five contains a summary of conclusions drawn from the whole study and winds up with a set of recommendations.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The 20th century witnessed several wars and genocides worldwide. Notable examples include the Armenian and Jews genocides which took place during World War I and World War II respectively. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 is a more recent example where a large number of the population was affected, either as victims or perpetrators. Over 800,000 Tutsis were dead, and more than 120,000 suspects were in prison for the genocide. The present study focuses on the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi where the scale of the crimes simultaneously dictated the overwhelming need for justice at both international and national level. At the international level, the ICTR was set up by the United Nations to deal with the organisers of the genocide while the Rwandan national courts were left to deal with the remaining suspects. Yet it became increasingly clear that the national courts lacked themselves the capacity to deal with the vast majority of alleged perpetrators. If their impact was to be enhanced, they needed to rely on the support of alternative justice mechanisms. So Rwanda introduced a modern version of the traditional Gacaca courts as an attempt to deal with the huge backlog of cases in order to combat the culture of impunity. However, having different courts for one and the same situation has had its own limitations. One of these issues is the legal and practical disparities that exist between the ad hoc International Tribunal and national justice mechanisms in the process of prosecuting perpetrators, such as the unequal treatment of the accused. This study therefore attempts to show these discrepancies and their impact on the process of accountability and reconciliation. Thus, the study analyses the relationship between the ICTR, national courts and Gacaca in prosecution of genocide suspects as well as lessons from the adopted ‘multifaceted approaches’ to deal with the crime of genocide.

"This paper deals with the prosecution of a crime of crimes, genocide, at international and national levels. The international community has shown interest in penalizing perpetrators of gross human rights violations since the Nuremberg trial, and then the adoption of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. After these times, significant numbers of international tribunals, although at an ad hoc level, have been established to punish gross violations of human rights including the crime of genocide. Along with these tribunals, quite a number of national courts have engaged in the prosecution of genocide. Nevertheless, due to legal and practical problems, the two legal systems are adopting different approaches to handle the matter, although the crime is one and the same. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to assess critically where the difference lies, the cause and impact of the disparity on the rights of the accused to fair trial. Moreover, the study will posit some recommendations that might assist to ameliorate this intermittent situation." -- Synopsis. "This work consists of five chapters. Chapter one is addressing the general introduction of the work, and it has already been discussed. Chapter two deals with the crime of genocide and its criminal responsibility as indicated under different national and international laws. The third chapter is devoted to focus on the right to fair trial and the prosecution of genocide, and specifically addresses the issues of the right to legal assistance, speedy trial, obtain and examine evidence, and sentencing. In chapter four the role of the Rome Statue in protecting the rights of the accused, its impact on on national laws, the complementarities of the International Criminal Court and national courts will be discussed. Finally, the work will come to an end by giving concluding remarks and recommendations under the fifth chapter." -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2003. / Prepared under the supervision of Dr. Henry Onoria at the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Kampala / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

"Although the African Commission recognised that non-state actors (in this case the transnational corporations (TNCs)) contributed to the violations that prompted the SERAC communication, it failed to hold the TNCs accountable for the violations. The Commission rather held the state party responsible [for] failing to prevent the violations in its territory. The reason for the failure of the Commission to hold the non-state actor accountable is obvious. As Anderson has noted, 'conventional jurisprudence contends that human rights are enforceable only against the acts of omissions of the state rather than the acts of private entities'. Consequently, especially in international fora, violations by non-state actors have gone largely unaccoutned for. Hence, commentators have argued in favour of seeking an appropriate regime for holding non-state actors accountable for such violations, some arguing for horizontal application at international fora. However, non-state actors lack the status to allow Charter institutions exercise jurisdiction over them. This leaves the option of domestic systems as fora for their accountability. Thus, the emerging principle of horizontal applicability of human rights in domestic jurisdictions and the assumption of independent judiciaries provide the premises for this study. ... Chapter 1 contains a general overview of the study. In Chapter 2, the essay examines the scope and content of the right to a satisfactory environment as contained in the African Charter. Chapter 3 examines the existing framework for the realisation of the right to a satisfactory environment under the African Charter. The SERAC case is considered briefly in this chapter as an example of the difficulty to arrest non-state actor violations in the existing framework. Chapter 4 presents the case for horizontal application of article 24 of the African Charter at the domestic level as a complimentary approach to realisation of the right. The debate on horizontal applicability of human rights is highlighted to show that it is not yet widely accepted but it is presented as a basis for this option. The recent Nigerian case of Gbemre v SPDC is examined as an example of the possibility of horizontal applicaton of the article 24 right in a domestic tribunal. Chapter 5 summarises the conclusions from the study and makes recommendations in support of applying the African Charter based right horizontally in domestic courts." -- Introduction. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2006. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / Centre for Human Rights / LLM / LLM

Sveriges inträde i EU 1995 har lett till många förändringar i det svenska rättssystemet. Svenska domstolar har därmed fått en ny arbetssituation och nya skyldigheter. Flera förändringar har skett i svensk processrätt, och grundläggande EU-rättsliga principer som de om direkt effekt och EU-rättens företräde framför nationell rätt, har ställt de nationella domstolarna inför flera utmaningar. Den mest grundläggande skyldigheten de svenska domstolarna har gentemot EU är förpliktelsen att inhämta förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen. Sistainstansrätterna är skyldiga att göra detta närhelst de är osäkra på tolkningen och/eller tillämpningen av en EU-rättslig bestämmelse. Detta är en långtgående förpliktelse som endast har två undantag: det första är i de fall EU-domstolen redan dömt i ett identiskt fall (acte éclairé); det andra är då den nationella domstolen anser att den EU-rättsliga bestämmelsen är tillräckligt klar och tydligt för att den självständigt ska kunna tillämpa den (acte clair). Dessa skyldigheter har lett till ett flertal problem för de svenska domstolarna. Sverige har fått skarp kritik från Kommissionen för sistainstansrätternas obenägenhet att inhämta förhandsavgörande. Huruvida EU borde ta hårdare tag mot medlemsstaternas nationella domstolar eller om kriterierna för när skyldigheten att inhämta förhandsavgörande borde mjukas upp diskuteras flitigt i nuläget. Det finns företeelser som talar för en utveckling åt både det ena och det andra hållet, vilket gör detta till ett väldigt spännande ämne att studera. / Since Sweden joined EU in 1995 many things has changed in the Swedish legal order. This has led to several new obligations for the Swedish courts. There have been a number of changes in Swedish law of procedure, and fundamental principles of law set down by EU, like the principle of direct effect of EU law and its precedence over national law, has presented many challenges before the national courts. The most fundamental obligation of the Swedish courts to EU is the duty to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The courts of last instance are obligated to do this in any case where they are insecure of the appropriate application of EU-law. There are only two exceptions to this rule, namely when the ECJ already has ruled in an identical matter (acte éclairé) and in cases where the national court feels that the correct interpretation of the rule of law in question is obvious (acte clair). These obligations have lead to a number of problems for the Swedish courts. The Commission has criticized Sweden because of the national courts of last instance unwillingness to request preliminary rulings. Whether EU should toughen up and take action against the national courts disobedience or if the criteria for when an obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling should get more flexible is constantly discussed at this time. There are several things that speaks for both of these developments and that makes this a very interesting topic to study.

La distinction du fait et du droit est une problématique centrale dansl’organisation des voies de droit. Elle exerce en effet, au-delà d’une variété de formes et designifications, une influence décisive sur l’office du juge ainsi que sur la fonction desautorités soumises à son contrôle. Pour appréhender pleinement la portée qu’elle revêt dansl’équilibre des pouvoirs établi par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne, il est nécessairede se défaire de toute préconception de la distinction du fait et du droit (notamment auregard des pratiques observées en droit interne), afin de comprendre comment le juge del’Union européenne exerce un pouvoir de détermination à son égard, que ce soit dans lecontrôle de validité des actes juridiques ou dans les voies de recours dirigées contre desactes juridictionnels. Dans cette opération, elle reste toutefois soucieuse d’assurerl’acceptabilité de ses décisions, et prend donc en considération certaines contraintesjuridiques qui se présentent à elle dans son office. Autorité normatrice et ordonnatrice, laCour de justice en tant qu’interprète authentique utilise en réalité la distinction du fait et dudroit comme un instrument de répartition des compétences entre les différents acteursconcernés par la réalisation du droit de l’Union européenne. Elle définit ainsi, à travers ladétermination de la distinction du fait et du droit dans chacune de ses manifestations,l’habilitation que leur confère le système juridique. En ce sens, elle apparaît comme lajuridiction suprême de cet espace normatif. / The distinction between fact and law is central to the organization of remedies.It exerts, through its variety of forms and meanings, a decisive influence on the Court and onthe function of the authorities that the former reviews. In order to fully grasp its significance inthe balance of power that the European Court of Justice has established, one has to discardany preconception related to the distinction between fact and law (especially those present inmunicipal law). This in turn leads to the understanding of the manner in which the EuropeanCourt specifies the distinction, should it concern the review against legal acts or the ways ofchallenging case law. Whilst doing this, the European Court remains wary of the acceptabilityof its decisions, thus taking into account several legal constraints. As a normative authorityand as the authentic interpreter, the European Court of Justice uses the distinction betweenfact and law as a way to divide the competences of the actors concerned with theimplementation of EU law. By performing this specification, it defines the way the legalsystem entitles these actors. In this way, the European Court of Justice emerges as theSupreme Court of this normative space.

Les crimes internationaux constituent des infractions dont les conséquences dramatiques affectent la communauté internationale dans son ensemble. Cette dernière s'est engagée dans la poursuite d'auteurs présumés de ces crimes à travers les différents mécanismes juridiques mis en place par la justice pénale internationale. Il incombe essentiellement aux États d'assurer l'effectivité de cette justice. Ainsi, quand des auteurs présumés de crimes internationaux se trouvent sur le territoire ou dans la juridiction d'un État, ce dernier est tenu de les poursuivre ou de les extrader vers d'autres États ou juridictions pénales internationales lorsque cela est nécessaire. Depuis la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, certains États mettent en application ces obligations en engageant des poursuites à l'encontre de criminels internationaux. La répression nationale des crimes internationaux se heurte à de nombreuses difficultés afférentes, le plus souvent, au manque de moyens ou de volonté, à l'inadéquation de certains systèmes juridiques nationaux, à la realpolitik (de l'allemand politique réaliste), à la nécessité de préserver les relations interétatiques, etc. Par ailleurs, il n'existe pas encore d'instance supranationale capable de contraindre les États à respecter leurs obligations internationales de répression des crimes internationaux. Par conséquent, l'idée de l'implication des cours régionales des droits de l'Homme dans la répression nationale des crimes internationaux s'impose davantage eu égard aux exigences internationales de répression des crimes internationaux qu'elles rappellent constamment aux États / International crimes constitute offences whose dramatic consequences affect the international community as a whole. This international community has committed itself to prosecute alleged perpetrators of these crimes through various legal mechanisms created by international criminal justice. The States are primarily responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of international criminal law. Consequently, when alleged perpetrators of international crimes are on the territory or under the jurisdiction of a given State, national authorities must prosecute them in their own national courts or extradite them to others States or international criminal courts when necessary. Since the Second World War, some States implement these international obligations by prosecuting international criminals. The national prosecution of international crimes faces many barriers related most of the time to a lack of financial resources or political will. This can also result from the inadequacy of some national legal systems, realpolitik, the need to safeguard inter-state relations... In addition to this, a supranational body compelling States to respect their international obligations to prosecute international crimes has not yet been created. Therefore, the legal involvement of regional human rights courts in the implementation of national prosecution of international crimes is necessary. This is the consequence of international requirements related to the pursuit of international criminals reminding the States of their legal duties

<p>Sveriges inträde i EU 1995 har lett till många förändringar i det svenska rättssystemet. Svenska domstolar har därmed fått en ny arbetssituation och nya skyldigheter. Flera förändringar har skett i svensk processrätt, och grundläggande EU-rättsliga principer som de om direkt effekt och EU-rättens företräde framför nationell rätt, har ställt de nationella domstolarna inför flera utmaningar.</p><p>Den mest grundläggande skyldigheten de svenska domstolarna har gentemot EU är förpliktelsen att inhämta förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen. Sistainstansrätterna är skyldiga att göra detta närhelst de är osäkra på tolkningen och/eller tillämpningen av en EU-rättslig bestämmelse. Detta är en långtgående förpliktelse som endast har två undantag: det första är i de fall EU-domstolen redan dömt i ett identiskt fall (acte éclairé); det andra är då den nationella domstolen anser att den EU-rättsliga bestämmelsen är tillräckligt klar och tydligt för att den självständigt ska kunna tillämpa den (acte clair).</p><p>Dessa skyldigheter har lett till ett flertal problem för de svenska domstolarna. Sverige har fått skarp kritik från Kommissionen för sistainstansrätternas obenägenhet att inhämta förhandsavgörande.</p><p>Huruvida EU borde ta hårdare tag mot medlemsstaternas nationella domstolar eller om kriterierna för när skyldigheten att inhämta förhandsavgörande borde mjukas upp diskuteras flitigt i nuläget. Det finns företeelser som talar för en utveckling åt både det ena och det andra hållet, vilket gör detta till ett väldigt spännande ämne att studera.</p> / <p>Since Sweden joined EU in 1995 many things has changed in the Swedish legal order. This has led to several new obligations for the Swedish courts. There have been a number of changes in Swedish law of procedure, and fundamental principles of law set down by EU, like the principle of direct effect of EU law and its precedence over national law, has presented many challenges before the national courts.</p><p>The most fundamental obligation of the Swedish courts to EU is the duty to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The courts of last instance are obligated to do this in any case where they are insecure of the appropriate application of EU-law. There are only two exceptions to this rule, namely when the ECJ already has ruled in an identical matter (acte éclairé) and in cases where the national court feels that the correct interpretation of the rule of law in question is obvious (acte clair).</p><p>These obligations have lead to a number of problems for the Swedish courts. The Commission has criticized Sweden because of the national courts of last instance unwillingness to request preliminary rulings.</p><p>Whether EU should toughen up and take action against the national courts disobedience or if the criteria for when an obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling should get more flexible is constantly discussed at this time. There are several things that speaks for both of these developments and that makes this a very interesting topic to study.</p>

Le statut du chef de l'État et des gouvernants, qui n'était déjà plus un obstacle insurmontable aux poursuites judiciaires depuis le droit de Nuremberg, apparaît désormais comme un bastion menacé. Les principes classiques du droit international comme l'immunité des chefs d'État, la sauvegarde de la fonction représentative et la souveraineté de l'État permettaient aux gouvernants d'échapper à toute poursuite pénale. Le droit international, qui s'analysait simplement comme un droit interétatique, a connu de profondes mutations. Ce droit ne se limite plus aux seuls États : de nouveaux sujets comme de nouveaux domaines de compétence émergent. Les individus ont ainsi pris une place de plus en plus importante dans le droit international avec des préoccupations d'humanité afin de prévenir les atrocités qu'a déjà connues le monde à l'occasion de différents conflits armés. La responsabilité du chef de l'État n'est dès lors plus une affaire d'ordre interne, mais bien également d'ordre international, avec l'émergence d'une nouvelle branche du droit international : le droit pénal international. Les nouvelles tendances du droit pénal international, marquées par l'exigence croissante de répression des crimes les plus graves, s'opposent désormais à la conception classique de l'immunité qui a longtemps triomphé dans l'ordre juridique international et visent à atténuer la raison d'État. Ce mouvement part de la conception selon laquelle « on ne saurait plus accepter l'idée même d'immunité lorsqu'il est commis un crime qui ébranle les fondements mêmes de la communauté internationale et révolte la conscience de tous les hommes ». Cette prise de conscience de l'incompatibilité entre immunités et droits de l'homme se manifeste à travers l'évolution de la protection internationale des droits de l'homme favorable à une « immunisation » du régime des immunités des gouvernants, organes de l'État coupables de violations graves du droit international. En dépit de quelques réticences, la responsabilité pénale du chef de l'État est aujourd'hui une réalité qui mérite d'être universellement approuvée et soutenue. / The status of the Head of State and governments, which was already no longer an insurmountable obstacle to prosecution since Nuremberg law, has emerged as a threatened bastion. The traditional principles of international law as the immunity of Heads of State, the protection of the representative function and state sovereignty allowed the rulers to escape criminal prosecution. International law, which is simply analyzed as an interstate law, has undergone profound changes. This right is no longer limited only to States: new topics as new emerging areas of competence (areas of competence or fields of jurisdiction). Individuals have taken an increasingly important role in the international law with the concerns of humanity to prevent atrocities which the world has already known on the occasion of various armed conflicts. The responsibility of the Head of State is therefore no longer a matter of a domestic order, but also an international one, with the emergence of a new branch of international law: international criminal law. New trends in the international criminal law, marked by the increasing demand for dealing with the most serious crimes, henceforth oppose to the classical conception of immunity that has prevailed for a long time in the international legal order, and aim at reducing the State cause. This movement starts from the idea according to which "we can no longer accept the idea of immunity when a crime is committed that undermines the very foundations of the international community and revolts the conscience of all mankind." This awareness of the incompatibility between immunities and human rights is developed through the evolution of the international protection of human rights in favor of "immunization" of the regime of immunities of rulers, State bodies responsible for serious violations of international Law. Despite some misgivings, the criminal responsibility of the Head of State is a reality that should be universally endorsed and supported.