Search result: 24 articles

x
The search results will be filtered on:
Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law x
Literature Review

The 2019 Henry Wheaton Prize

An Introduction to Katalin Sulyok’s Award-Winning PhD Dissertation

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2020
Keywords Henry Wheaton prize, environmental disputes, scientific argument, judicial interaction, burden of proof
Authors Gabriella Szamek
AbstractAuthor's information

    Katalin Sulyok, senior lecturer at ELTE Law School, Department of International Law was awarded the Henry Wheaton Prize by the Institut de Droit International in 2019; this prize is awarded by an international jury to the best English, German, French, Italian or Spanish language PhD dissertation in the field of international environmental law. This article presents and evaluates the major findings of the award-winning dissertation entitled ‘Scientific Engagement of International Courts and Tribunals in Environmental Disputes – Science and the Legitimacy of Adjudicatory Reasoning’.


Gabriella Szamek
Gabriella Szamek: chief legal advisor, Secretariat of the Ombudsman for Future Generations, Budapest.
Article

Investment Arbitration and the Public Interest

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2020
Keywords BIT, ILA, ISDS, unclean hands, regulatory chill
Authors Gábor Hajdu
AbstractAuthor's information

    The study focuses on analyzing conflicts between (international) investment arbitration and the public interest, dividing its contents into five substantive sections. First, it summarizes the common characteristics of international investment arbitration (distinguishing procedural and substantive elements), followed by its most pressing issues (including frequent criticism such as lack of consistency, asymmetrical proceedings, regulatory chill, etc.). Afterwards, selected investment arbitration cases are examined, grouped based on which areas of public interest they affected (environmental protection, employee rights, public health). These cases all hold relevance and offer different insights into the workings of investment arbitration, which serve to illuminate the complex interplay between foreign investor and public interest. The cases also provide the foundation for the study’s conclusions, where key observations are made on the central subjects.


Gábor Hajdu
Gábor Hajdu: PhD student, University of Szeged.
Article

The CETA Investment Court and EU External Autonomy

Did Opinion 1/17 Broaden the EU’s Room for Maneuver in External Relations?

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2020
Keywords EU investment treaties, investment arbitration, EU external relations, EU treaty-making capacity, level of protection of public policy interests
Authors Wolfgang Weiss
AbstractAuthor's information

    The present contribution analyzes Opinion 1/17 of the CJEU on CETA, which, in a surprisingly uncritical view of conceivable conflicts between the competences of the CETA Investment Tribunal on the one hand and those of the CJEU on the other hand, failed to raise any objections. First reactions welcomed this opinion as an extension of the EU’s room for maneuver in investment protection. The investment court system under CETA, however, is only compatible with EU law to a certain extent. This was made clear by the Court in the text of the opinion, and the restrictions identified are likely to confine the leeway for EU external contractual relations. Owing to their fundamental importance, these restrictions, inferred by the CJEU from the autonomy of the Union legal order form the core of this contribution. In what follows, the new emphasis in the CETA Opinion on the external autonomy of Union law will be analyzed first (Section 2). Subsequently, the considerations of the CJEU regarding the delimitation of its competences from those of the CETA Tribunal will be critically examined. The rather superficial analysis of the CJEU in the CETA Opinion stands in stark contrast to its approach in earlier decisions as it misjudges problems, only seemingly providing for a clear delimitation of competences (Section 3). This is followed by an exploration of the last part of the CJEU’s autonomy analysis, in which the CJEU tries to respond to the criticism of regulatory chill (Section 4). Here, by referring to the unimpeded operation of EU institutions in accordance with the EU constitutional framework, the CJEU identifies the new restrictions for investment protection mechanisms just mentioned. With this, the CJEU takes back the earlier comprehensive affirmation of the CETA Tribunal’s jurisdiction with regard to calling into question the level of protection of public interests determined by the EU legislative, which raises numerous questions about its concrete significance, consequence, and scope of application.


Wolfgang Weiss
Wolfgang Weiss: professor of law, German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer.
Article

The Impact of the Achmea Ruling on Intra-EU BIT Investment Arbitration

A Hungarian Perspective

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2020
Keywords Achmea, Intra-EU BIT, investment arbitration, investment protection, Hungary
Authors Veronika Korom
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Achmea judgment of the CJEU brought the worlds of EU law and investment arbitration on a collision course. The judgment sent shockwaves through the EU investment arbitration community, which feared that Achmea would be the death knell of intra-EU BIT arbitration. In the years since Achmea, however, arbitral tribunals, ad hoc committees and national courts have found ways around Achmea, effectively eliminating its practical impact on intra-EU investment disputes. On 5 May 2020, the majority of EU Member States adopted a multilateral agreement that seeks to terminate intra-EU BITs and provides for a transitional regime for pending arbitrations in order to give effect to Achmea. This agreement, once ratified, will mark the end of intra-EU BIT arbitration in the future, although its impact on pending proceedings remains unclear. With its 22 intra-EU BITs and several arbitration proceedings pending under these treaties, Hungary has relied heavily (albeit unsuccessfully thus far) on Achmea in recent years as part of its defense strategy. The final termination of intra-EU BITs will be a win for Hungary in the short term, as no new investment arbitrations can be pursued by EU investors against Hungary. In the long term, however, the termination of intra-EU BITs will leave Hungarian companies who invest in the EU without sound legal protection and may even adversely impact Hungary’s standing as an attractive place for EU investment.


Veronika Korom
Veronika Korom: assistant professor of law, ESSEC Business School.
Article

The CETA Opinion of the CJEU

Redefining the Contours of the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2020
Keywords CETA, settlement of investment disputes, autonomy of EU law, Achmea, multilateral investment court
Authors Tamás Szabados
AbstractAuthor's information

    In its Opinion 1/17, the CJEU confirmed that the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA or the Agreement) entered into between Canada and the EU is compatible with EU law. In the view of the CJEU, the CETA does not have an adverse effect on the autonomy of the EU legal order; it does not violate the principle of equality, the effectiveness of EU law and the right of access to an independent tribunal. Some of the findings of the Opinion are, however, controversial. In particular, it is questionable whether the autonomy of EU law is indeed unaffected by the Agreement, because it seems that in certain situations an interpretation of EU law is hardly avoidable for the CETA Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal to make. With its Opinion, the CJEU not only lends support to similar trade and investment protection agreements, but it also paves the way for the participation of the EU in creating a multilateral investment court as long as the limits set by the CJEU are observed.


Tamás Szabados
Tamás Szabados: associate professor of law, ELTE Law School, Budapest.
Article

Certain Factors Influencing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2019
Keywords implementation of international humanitarian law, compliance measures and mechanisms, enforcement of international humanitarian law, non-state actors, individual criminal responsibility
Authors Réka Varga
AbstractAuthor's information

    There are various mechanisms within and outside the sphere of international humanitarian law (IHL) which contribute to a better application, respect and enforcement of its rules. The present study takes stock of specific factors or mechanisms that may have an effect on better respect. This analysis attempts to demonstrate that even though states could not agree on the setting up of a permanent mechanism to meet regularly and discuss IHLrelated issues (the so-called Compliance process), there are certain instruments which could lead to similar result. The UN’s role with respect to IHL is examined. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also briefly analyzed from this perspective, bearing in mind the international politics within which it has to function. The International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission (IHFFC) that has successfully completed its first mandate is a string of hope if more frequently used. Soft law documents are filling a void caused by the fatigue of states in adopting new rules, at the same time they start to have a similarly binding effect as legally binding obligations. All these factors become especially interesting if we understand that most conflicts today are fought with the involvement of non-state armed groups who are not involved in law-making. This reality gives training, both within state and non-state armed forces a special significance. States should also make efforts to undertake enquiries in cases of serious violations of IHL, as well as through exercising jurisdiction to repress violations, be they their own nationals or not.


Réka Varga
Associate professor, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest; Member of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission.

Tamás Szabados
Senior lecturer, ELTE Law School, Budapest.
Article

Fair Trial under Scrutiny

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2019
Keywords Constitutional Court of Hungary, right to a fair trial, Article 6 ECHR, Article XXVIII of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure
Authors Ágnes Czine
AbstractAuthor's information

    The right to a fair trial has an eminent position in the Fundamental Law of Hungary both because of the importance of the right and the great number of applications and jurisprudence it has been the subject of. This study presents the legal background of fair trial and its place in the Hungarian legal system, analyzing the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court on the right to fair trial, and in particular, the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time. While the Constitutional Court has developed a consistent practice in this regard, there are nevertheless new issues that may make the amendment of certain pieces of legislation necessary. This paper presents a case-study on a new development in the Constitutional Court’s practice on the issue of deciding the case within a reasonable time.


Ágnes Czine
Justice, Constitutional Court of Hungary.
Article

ECtHR Advisory Opinion and Response to Formal Requests Given by the Jurisconsult

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2019
Keywords ECtHR advisory opinion, Protocol No. 16 ECHR, Superior Courts Network, Article 47 ECHR, interaction between courts
Authors Tamás Tóth
AbstractAuthor's information

    The aim of this article is to present the role of the Superior Courts Network (SCN) launched by the ECtHR in preparation of national request for an advisory opinion issued by the ECtHR. The actuality of the topic is given by Protocol No. 16 of the ECHR that entered into force on 1 August 2018 and the issuance of the first advisory opinion published on 10 April 2019. Hungary has not acceded to Protocol No. 16, so this option is currently not available for the Hungarian courts. Actually, there is another way to assist the domestic courts in understanding the principles of the ECtHR’s case-law that are relevant to the case pending before them. This option is the so-called formal request for case-law information that could be submitted by a national court to the Directorate of Jurisconsult of the Registry of ECtHR with the help of SCN. Later, after acceding to Protocol No. 16, this channel of information could be helpful in preparation of request for advisory opinion.


Tamás Tóth
Chief counselor, Constitutional Court of Hungary; National Focal Point of the Superior Courts Network.
Article

Languages and Linguistic Issues before the International Criminal Court

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2019
Keywords linguistic issues, ICC, language of criminal procedure, local languages, use of own language
Authors Péter Kovács
AbstractAuthor's information

    The present article deals with some of the language issues present before the International Criminal Court (ICC). These issues do not simply result from the challenges of translation to/from English and French but also from the fact that the English and French used before the ICC are specialist legal languages with centuries-old practice behind their well-established notions (e.g. ‘no case to answer’). There are numerous other languages used by witnesses and victims with various backgrounds in the different cases and situations. They are mostly local, sometimes tribal languages often lacking the vocabulary necessary to describe complex legal issues, to deal with notions and phenomena of modern substantive or procedural law. It is equally important to note that there are always special local notions, which are impossible to translate with a single term, sometimes becoming a part of the English or French language of the procedure. Other languages, however, may bring with them their own special legal or historical-legal vocabulary, which must be reflected on in order to unpack its proper meaning. As such, language issues are omnipresent before the ICC, having also an impact on the budget of the Court. The efficient and accurate work of interpreters and translators is of outmost importance from the point of view of fair trial, rights of the accused but also from the perspective of access to information for victims, witnesses or local communities who are following the judicial procedure from home.


Péter Kovács
Professor of law, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest; judge at the International Criminal Court (2015-2024).
Book Review

Eszter Kirs: Perpetrators and Accessories in the Yugoslav Wars

The International Criminal Law Background of the Acquittal of Gotovina, Perišić, Šešelj and Orić

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2018
Authors Barbara Bazánth
Author's information

Barbara Bazánth
Researcher, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest.

Péter Kovács
Professor of law, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest; judge of the International Criminal Court (2015-2024).
Article

Parliament versus Constitutional Court

Selected Issues Pertaining to the Constitutional Dispute in Poland

Journal Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law, Issue 1 2016
Authors Marcin Stębelski
Author's information

Marcin Stębelski
Assistant professor, Department of Constitutional Law Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw.

Nikolett Papp
PhD student, University of Debrecen, Géza Marton Doctoral School of Legal Studies.

Christina Binder
Professor of International Law at the University of Vienna.

Thomas Schobesberger
Research Assistant in International Law at the University of Vienna.

Réka Varga
PhD, senior lecturer, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Department of Public International Law; international law advisor to the Hungarian Red Cross; former legal advisor of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Zsuzsanna Miszti-Blasiusné Szabó
Junior lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Debrecen.

Snežana Trifunovska
Associate Professor, Radboud University, Law Faculty.

Francesco Seatzu
Professor of International and EU Law, University of Cagliari, Italy.

Paolo Vargiu
Lecturer, University of Leicester, United Kingdom.

Gábor Sulyok
Head of department, Senior research fellow, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies; Associate professor, Széchenyi István University, Deák Ferenc Faculty of Law and Political Sciences.
Showing 1 - 20 of 24 results
« 1
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.