The domestic and geopolitical disaster of the Vietnam War, and the process that took the United States into such a large-scale and protracted conflict, led Congress to reinforce its checks on executive war powers. The resulting War Powers Resolution (WPR) sought to inject Congress back into the decision-making process, yet no President has ever acknowledged its constitutionality. The initial debates around the WPR revealed four major lines of argument on the balance of war powers; three of those continued to be made over the next 40 years, as Presidents from both political parties deployed U.S. forces abroad, often without Congressional authorization. This study analyzed the prevalence and distribution of those lines of argument in the U.S. Senate over the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush and the Democratic Administration of President Barack Obama. Both administrations were involved in multiple deployments of U.S. forces abroad, and experienced opposition from both parties. The study found that Democrats displayed consistency across both administrations, indicating a preference for institutional loyalty in supporting compliance with the WPR, whereas Republicans tended to support the status quo. In addition, the study found that Senators from both parties acknowledged the rapidly changing nature of warfare as new technologies mostly remove U.S. armed forces from harm's way even as they conduct lethal strikes. What effect this has on Congress's ability and willingness to further check executive war powers remains to be seen, but it is clear that the debate is far from over. / Master of Arts / The Vietnam War led Congress to reinforce its checks on executive war powers. The resulting War Powers Resolution (WPR) sought to inject Congress back into the decision-making process. The initial debates around the WPR revealed four major lines of argument on the balance of war powers; three of those continued to be made over the next 40 years. This study looked at those three lines of argument in the U.S. Senate over the Republican Administration of President George W. Bush and the Democratic Administration of President Barack Obama. The study found that Democrats consistently took a position that defended the powers of the Congress, whereas Republicans tended to support a status quo that deferred to the power of the President. In addition, the study found that Senators from both parties acknowledged the rapidly changing nature of warfare. What effect this has on Congress’s ability and willingness to further check executive war powers remains to be seen, but it is clear that the debate is far from over.

Europeiska Unionens arbete är mångsidigt, och innefattar även normativa delar. Principer om demokrati, rättssäkerhet och mänskliga rättigheter finns exempelvis fördragsstadgade i Artikel 2 i Lissabonfördraget. Trots EU:s normativa värderingar har vi de senaste åren sett hur situationer utvecklats i ett flertal medlemsländer där dessa värderingar på olika sätt kränkts, exempelvis i Ungern, Rumänien och Polen. Utvecklingen kan få stora konsekvenser dels inom unionen men också för EU:s legitimitet som en normativ internationell aktör. Det är oklart hur dessa situationer kan hanteras av EU, och problemet som uppkommit har kommit att kallas Köpenhamnsdilemmat. Syftet med denna uppsats är att belysa den debatt som pågår kring Köpenhamnsdilemmat, genom att urskilja, beskriva och analysera debattens huvudståndpunkter och de argument som först fram.  Uppsatsen urskiljer 4 huvudståndpunkter i debatten: EU bör ej ingripa, EU bör ingripa genom juridiska institutioner, EU bör ingripa genom politiska institutioner, och EU bör ingripa genom oberoende institutioner. Ståndpunkterna och deras argument utkristalliseras och beskrivs genom en beskrivande idéanalys samt undersökts närmare i en jämförande analys.  Undersökningen har funnit att de tre ståndpunkter som anser att EU bör ingripa har en liknande problembeskrivning. EU anses först och främst ha en normativ sida, där principer om rättsäkerhet, demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter bör upprätthållas i samtliga medlemsländer. Aktörerna pekar dessutom ut en bristande efterlevnad av dessa principer, vilket anses vara ett problem för både EU och unionens medlemsländer. EU bör således ingripa när medlemsländer bryter mot principerna, men saknar idag effektiva mekanismer för att göra så. Aktörerna föreslår därför en rad olika lösningar, som utgör grunden för indelningen av de tre ståndpunkterna. Bland de aktörer som anser att EU inte bör ingripa återfanns ett flertal argument: att EU inte har mandat att intervenera, att ingripanden kränker medlemsländernas suveränitet, och att EU har hanterat processerna felaktigt då deras kritik är politiskt motiverad, debatten elitistisk eller anklagelserna orättvisa och felaktiga. Dessa aktörers lösningsförslag blir följaktligen att EU inte bör ingripa, antingen gällande samtliga eller enbart specifika situationer, när medlemsländer anses bryta mot principerna om rättsäkerhet, demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter. Den jämförande analysen fann att aktörernas lösningsförslag väl följer deras problembeskrivning. En bild av problemet som övergripande följs exempelvis av ett lösningsförslag bestående av en bred mekanism, medan en mer specifik bild av problemet återföljs av en snävare fokuserad mekanism. Analysen fann även att debattens aktörer vanligtvis har en antingen pragmatisk eller idealistisk utgångspunkt, och att deras problembeskrivning, argumentation och därmed även lösningsförslag påverkas av denna utgångspunkt.

This dissertation examines the problems associated with the restrictive interpretation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as UN Charter) to the threat or use of force. This restrictive approach appears no longer helpful in furthering the maintenance of international peace and security. Equally, it does not adequately protect the entire territory of States for the following two reasons. Firstly, the UN member States shelter in the first limb of Article 2(4) to engage in conducts that violate the territory of other States while claiming subservience to the provision of Article 2(4). This occurs through mere frontier incidents, covert and overt support of the activities of the non-State actors. However, the State practice shows that such conducts are always resisted by the victim State no matter how insignificant the breach might be. Secondly, the UN member States have asserted their jurisdiction in cyberspace by adopting appropriate legislation to regulate the cyberspace activities and to curb cybercrimes. To legislate is an exercise of the sovereign power which is by nature, territorial. Thus, it is difficult to equate the non-kinetic character of the cyberspace activities to physical armed attack if Article 2(4) were narrowly construed. Because of these developments, this dissertation advocates for a broad interpretation of Article 2(4), which is respect for the inviolability of State territory. The fact that State practice is repugnant to mere frontier incidents indicates that the restrictive approach is unacceptable. Moreover, Article 2(7) of the UN Charter which prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of a State supports a broad approach. This dissertation adds to the scholarly debate as to whether Article 2(4) applies in cyberspace. It answers in the affirmative if the international community accepts the broad interpretation it proposes. Otherwise, the answer would be negative given the non-kinetic nature of the cyberspace activities.

Tax treaty protection from international double taxation only goes as far as the treaty's substantive scope. Nations worldwide have adopted the text of Article 2 of the OECD Model Double Taxation Conventions (headed Taxes covered) in concluding bilateral treaties to prevent double taxation in the area of taxes on income and capital and taxes on estates, inheritances, and on gifts. The wording and structure of Article 2 give rise to a host of ambiguities, creating uncertainty for taxpayers regarding the taxes that come within treaty scope. A research strategy that draws on historic materials documenting the development of Article 2 throughout the League of Nations, OEEC, and OECD seeks to shed light on a provision that has retained its basic format and wording since the 1920s. Recent case law and academic literature are analyzed to gain a clearer picture of the common international concepts expressed in tax treaties that use the formulations proposed in the OECD Model Conventions. The research strategy, conceptual models, and proposed results aim to contribute to the understanding of the "taxes covered" and to guide subsequent research and heighten awareness of problems in the interpretation and application of the provision on substantive scope in tax treaties.(author's abstract)

No / The dichotomy between prohibitive law and moral responsibility is at the centre of debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. However, political interests remain an important factor not only in determining and tempering the humanitarian impulses of states, but also for gauging their more general adherence to the rule of law. The humanitarian intervention debate only has meaning in a context in which there is general, routine adherence to the non-interventionist norm of the international system, codified as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The `Bush Doctrine¿ of pre-emptive self-defence alters the political and politico-legal context that has until now given the humanitarian intervention debate its meaning and importance. Given this, together with a more general loosening of the strictures prohibiting or limiting the use of force, there is good cause for concern about the foundations of the post-1945 international order. The debate about humanitarian intervention can no longer abstract the tension between law and morality from a political arena that is facing such profound challenges.

La protection du droit à l’instruction a fait l’objet de longues discussions lors des travaux préparatoiresà la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme. Si l’idée d’un droit à l’instruction pour tous s’esttrès vite imposée dans l’esprit de ses rédacteurs, le respect des convictions religieuses etphilosophiques des parents, qui assurent en priorité l’éducation et l’enseignement de leurs enfants, afait l’objet de davantage de controverses. Ces hésitations expliquent la présence de ce droit à l’article 2du premier protocole additionnel à la Convention du 20 mars 1952. Son importance n’est cependantpas à négliger. Qualifié de droit matriciel, le droit à l’instruction participe à la garantie concrète eteffective des autres droits et libertés de la pensée protégés par le corpus européen. Il assure en celal’épanouissement de la personne et lui garantit le droit de se déterminer librement. Il peut donc êtrerevendiqué par tous, élève ou étudiant, et peu importe la structure fréquentée (établissement public,privé, scolaire ou supérieur). Consciente de cet enjeu décisif pour la sauvegarde d’une sociétédémocratique, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme a su interpréter l’article 2 du Protocoleadditionnel de manière à assurer un juste équilibre entre la marge nationale d’appréciation et lapromotion du droit à l’instruction. Pour cela, elle a mis à la charge des Etats des obligations positivesafin d’assurer à chacun la possibilité, notamment, de se servir des moyens d’instruction existants. Engarantissant ainsi l’égal accès de tous aux structures existantes, la Cour européenne des droits del’Homme a également incité les autorités étatiques à respecter les particularités de chacun. A cette fin,une obligation de neutralité leur est imposée aussi bien dans les établissements d’enseignement quedans les programmes dispensés. Aucun élève ni étudiant ne doit se sentir exclu ou stigmatisé en raisonde ses convictions propres. La garantie d’un droit universel à l’instruction implique alors la garantied’un droit à une instruction pluraliste. / The Protection of the right to education has been the subject of endness debates troughout thepreparatory work on the European Convention of Human Rights. While the idea of a right to educationfor all was quite evident in the mind of the drafters of the European Convention of Human Rights, therespect for religious and philosophical convictions of parents, who come first in the education of theirchildren, has been more controversial. Theses doubts explain the inscription of this right in Article 2 ofthe Protocol to the Convention on 20 March 1952. Its importance mustn’t be overlooked. Described asa « matrix right », the right to education contributes to a concrete and effective guarantee of the rightsand freedoms protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. It ensures personal blossomingand the right to make up their own minds. Therefore, everybody can claim this right, whether it be apupil or a student, regardless of the institution (public or private school, primary school or furthereducation). Aware of this key issue to protect a democratic society, the European Court of HumanRights has interpreted article 2 of the Protocol in order to reach a fair balance between the nationalmargin of appreciation and the protection of the right to education. That’s the reason why the Courtrequires States to achieve some positive obligations especially to enable everyone to use existingeducation means. Through the guarantee to an equal access of everyone to education institutions, theEuropean Court of Human Rights also encourages national authorities to observe the distinctivefeatures of each individual. In order to do so, the authorities must remain neutral both in educationalinstitutions and their curriculum. No pupil or student must feel excluded or chastised because of hispersonal convictions. Then, securing the universal right to education implies securing the right to apluralistic education.

Despite the rule of law being one of the founding values and objectives of the European Union, some of the Member States have disrespected the rule of law. In response, the European Commission has invented new tools to reinforce the rule of law. The newest tool is the Rule of Law Report, and the purpose of this thesis is to study the Report’s significance in ensuring respect for the rule of law in the EU. To do so a combination of legal methods and a range of sources, such as EU primary law, case-law, EU documents and doctrine, have been used. The Report is issued annually, so far it has been published in three editions stretching from 2020 to 2022. The Report builds on a general part and 27 country chapters assessing the rule of law situation in each Member State. From the 2022 Report onwards, the Report is also accompanied with recommendations to each Member State. The Report is to be considered soft law. It is non-binding and can, hence, not be subject to judicial review by the European Court of Justice, but it imposes a moral obligation on the institutions addressed. Mainly on the Member States, but also on the Council, the European Parliament, and other bodies of the EU. It is descriptive, interpretative and has a connection to hard law but can only be enforced by soft enforcement. Furthermore, the Report does not explicitly mention a legal basis, but the Commission appears to have the conferred powers to adopt the act. Moreover, the Report have had practical effects at national and EU-level, and it has potential to have even more effects. It urges national rule of law reforms and causes debate in the institutions and national parliaments about the rule of law situation. It could be subject to interpretation in the ECJ and in national courts and it could serve as a source to activate other hard tools in the rule of law toolbox. Despite being criticised, the Report has significance in ensuring respect for the rule of law in the EU. It might have a low legal status, but it has legal relevance, and it has the potential to have even higher legal relevance in the future.

The European Union (EU) is based on the inclusive core values ​​of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights enshrined in article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union. If there is a risk that these values ​​are systematically threatened within a member state or when breaches are a fact, the EU may act by applying legal and political mechanisms. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the problem with EU member states abandoning the democratic principles in favor of the illiberal, as exemplified by a case study on Hungary whose constitution and national identity are based on exclusionary values, which consequently has implications for human rights. The main focus of the thesis is the article 7 procedure which has a sanctioning mechanism that may result in the member state concerned being wholly or partly deprived of its voting rights in the Council of the European Union. Article 7 has been criticized for being ineffective and too political. In September 2018, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which activated the preventive mechanism of the procedure against Hungary which is about deciding whether there is a risk of breaches of article 2. The main ambition of the study is to discuss to what extent article 7 can protect the EU's core values. For these purposes, a jurisprudence method that examines EU law has been applied and, through a political science approach, the application of article 7 against Hungary has been investigated. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the procedure, a field study trip was made to the European Parliament in Brussels, where interviews were conducted with people with insight into the work of Parliament and the Council. I was also given the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament, in which representatives of the European Commission and the European Union Council also participated. The theme for the discussion was the article 7 procedure against Hungary. The findings of the survey show that, due to the political nature, article 7 is not sufficiently capable of protecting the fundamental values ​​of the EU. What is needed is a new independent mechanism to review all member states' compliance with democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

No description available.

No description available.