V. CASES BEFORE THE COURT

2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 762-767
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Made In

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings against Yugoslavia on 20 March 1993 alleging violations of the 1949 Genocide Convention and requesting an indication of provisional measures which was made in an order of 8 April 1993.1 This was reaffirmed in an order of 13 September 1993,2 following a second request for provisional measures made by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 July 1993 and a request made by Yugoslavia on 10 August 1993.3 By an order of 16 April 19934 the following time limits were set for the filing of the written pleadings: Bosnia and Herzegovina, memorial, 15 October 1993; Yugoslavia, counter-memorial, 15 April 1994. By an order of 7 October 19935 these were extended to: Bosnia and Herzegovina, memorial, 15 April 1994; Yugoslavia, counter-memorial, 15 April 1995 and, by order of 21 March 1995,6 the date for the submission of the Yugoslavian counter-memorial was again extended to 30 June 1995. On 26 June 1995 Yugoslavia submitted preliminary objections which were rejected by the Court in its order of 11 July 1996.7 By an order of 23 July 19968 the time limit for filing the Yugoslav counter-memorial was fixed as 23 July 1997. The counter-memorial was filed on 22 July 1997 and contained counterclaims against Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in an order of 17 December 1997,9 the Court held them to be admissible and that they formed a part of the current proceedings. These counter-claims were subsequently withdrawn at the request of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this being noted by the Court in its order of 10 September 2001.10 The order of 17 December 199711 set the following time limits for the written pleadings on the merits: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reply, 23 January,1998; Yugoslavia, rejoinder, 23 July 1998. By an order of 22 January 199812 these were extended to: Bosnia and Herzegovina, reply, 23 April 1998; Yugoslavia, rejoinder, 22 January 1999. By an order of 11 December 199813 the time limit for the submission of the Yugoslav rejoinder was further extended, to 22 February 1999.

International Court of Justice

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-217 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.

scholarly journals Państwa o proweniencji jugosłowiańskiej w procesie rozszerzania Unii Europejskiej – refleksja politologiczna

Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (54) ◽  
pp. 5-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Bujwid-Kurek
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Eu Enlargement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Republic Of Macedonia ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Status ◽  
Research Goal ◽  
The Republic

Post‑Yugoslav States in the EU Enlargement Process – Political ReflectionThe main research goal of the article is the assessment of the degree of preparation Post‑Yugoslav state for accession to the European Union. The analysis included states such as the Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbia, Montenegro and the Republic of Kosovo (in the order of announcing independence). An in‑depth analysis confirms that the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro have the status of EU candidate states. The other two: Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Kosovo have the status of potential EU candidates. According to the European Commission, the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro have the highest chances of EU membership, probably in 2025. There are many problems that the Post‑Yugoslav states are struggling with. These states have to “learn” democracy. It should underline that there are still unregulated matters as like as rule of law (implementation in practice), corruption or crime (including organized crime) as well.

scholarly journals Ethnic cleansing of Bosniak population 1992-1995. (methods, directions, statistical indicators)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-413
Author(s):  
Senija Milišić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Human Migration ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Bare Life ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Religious Buildings ◽  
Definitive Solution ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Statistical Indicators

Aggression on Bosnia and Herzegovina marked the last decade of the 20th century. Aggression was carried out by Serbia and Montenegro in order to realize the project of creating a "Greater Serbia". Since the preparation of the aggression was in progress, the agreement was reached between the Serbian and Croatian leaders on the division of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the goal, as they said, the definitive solution of the Serbo-Croatian issue, and in the essence of rounding up "their big states" to the account of Bosnia and Herzegovina it is to aggression both from the east and from the west. Aggression was also supported by traitors from Bosnia as well. Aggression resulted in the occupation of a large part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the goal was fully realized, the Bosniak population was eliminated. A part of the population was killed, a part was imprisoned in the camps, and a part expelled. The expulsion meant saving only the bare life and leaving the entire property to the aggressor. All the property was looted, and after that, the aggressor tried to destroy everything that could testify that the Bosniaks lived there (from cemeteries to religious buildings). So it was about ethnic cleansing carried out by doing all kinds of crimes, including genocide. In the expulsion operation or to use the euphemism of displacement (that is, the "human migration of the population", as the aggressor called it), the International community was implicated through some of its organizations (Red Cross, UNHCR, etc.). The expelled population in the first phase ended in territory controlled by the forces of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), and after that part was moved to the so-called " third country”. In very rare cases, the prisoners detained in the camps, if they declared that they would go to third countries immediately, were moved from the camp in accelerated procedure. The idea was that the Bosniak population had to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this way, more than 70% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was "cleared" from Bosniaks. In this paper, we will focus on ethnic cleansing (displacement), methods and directions of displacement, and on statistical indicators of the number of displaced persons.

Has Pandora's Box Been Closed? The Decisions on the Legality of Use of Force Cases in Relation to the Status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) within the United Nations

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIA CHIARA VITUCCI
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Status ◽  
The United Nations

In its judgments on the preliminary objections in the Legality of Use of Force cases, the Court held that the FRY was not a UN member in the period between 1992 and 2000. This finding is controversial, at odds with previous decisions of the Court, and has indeed attracted criticism from various judges. This article proposes a different construction of the question of the FRY's membership within the UN and reviews arguments that allow doubts to be cast on the reasoning of the Court. Because of the link between UN membership and the FRY's participation in the Genocide Convention, the Court's finding in the Legality of Use of Force cases may have some implications for two sets of proceedings still pending before the Court (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia v. Serbia and Montenegro). In the former case, an interpretation of the extent of the res judicata principle may allow the Court not to reopen the issue of jurisdiction, already decided in 1996 on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention. In the latter case, various options might allow the FRY to be regarded as a party to the Genocide Convention.

scholarly journals Skutki prawne naruszenia terminów w postępowaniu legislacyjnym

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 249
Author(s):  
Robert Orłowski
Keyword(s):  
Time Limit ◽  
Independent Basis ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Specific Activities ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

<p>The aim of the article is to present the issues related to the time limits set for individual organs of public authority (the Sejm, the Senate, the President of the Republic of Poland) for the performance of specific activities within the legislative procedure. These time limits should be calculated according to conventional rules, that is, from the beginning of the day following the day on which the act on which the legal provisions are binding begins. However, the action will also be effective if it is performed on the same day on which the said event occurred. Violation of the time limit in legislative proceedings is of fundamental importance for the act, as a normative act, within the scope of its validity. As part of the review of the constitutionality of the law, the Constitutional Tribunal also examines the correctness of the proceedings in which the law was adopted. According to the latest jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal, violation of the minimum time limits required for the performance of individual activities, which have only been specified in the Rules of Procedure of the Sejm, may constitute an independent basis for declaring the entire act unconstitutional. This view differs significantly from the existing, well-established approach to this subject. The effects of violating the time limits of the legislative procedure can also be considered at the level of the rights (competences) of individual authorities within a specific proceeding. The signing of the act by the President after the expiry of the constitutional time limit should be deemed legally effective. The admissibility of issuing by the Constitutional Tribunal of scope judgements should be considered in cases of violation of the rules of correct legislation, leading to the omission or reduction of <em>vacatio legis</em>.</p>

Development of Interethnic Relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the First Decades after the Second World War

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
Elena Yu. Guskova
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Identity ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Second World War ◽  
The State ◽  
World War ◽  
Interethnic Relations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
First Time ◽  
Second World

The article is devoted to the analysis of interethnic relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in the 1940s and 1960s. The article is based on materials from the archives of BiH, Croatia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia. The documents show the state of affairs in the Republic – both in the economy and in ideology. In one or another way, all of them reflect the level of tension in the interethnic relations. For the first time, the article presents the discussion on interethnic relations, on the new phenomenon in multinational Yugoslavia – the emergence of a new people in BiH under the name of “Muslim”. The term “Muslims” is used to define the ethnic identity of Bosniaks in the territory of BiH starting from the 1961 census.

Efectele pandemiei SARS-CoV-2 asupra activității și procedurii în fața Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2021) ◽  
pp. 147-163
Author(s):  
Corneliu-Liviu POPESCU ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
European Court ◽  
Procedural Time

At the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the European Court of Human Rights ruled and then extended the decision to suspend part of its activity, as well as certain procedural time-limits, including time-limit for referral to the Court through the means of a state or an individual application. These measures do not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, nor with the Rules of the Court. The control of the regularity of these measures may be exercised by the judicial formations of the Court, acting in the specific cases.

PSYCHOLOGY IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE - 16th Days of Applied Psychology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grupa Autora
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Applied Psychology ◽  
Ministry Of Education ◽  
International Conference ◽  
The World ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Education Science

The International Thematic Proceedia titled „Psychology in the world of science” is a publication from the 16th International Conference “Days of Applied Psychology” held on September 25th & 26th 2020 at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš. This is a traditional annual nonprofit conference which has been organized since 2005 by the Department of Psychology of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš, with the support and co-financing of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. The conference started with the idea of gathering researchers and practitioners who discuss the link between science and practice in different psychological areas. From the very start, this gathering has welcomed international participants, and year after year this number is on the rise. This scientific publication contains 18 peer-reviewed articles which can be classified as original scientific papers and as review papers. The authors of these manuscripts come from six countries: Portugal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Republic of Serbia.

Glosa do Wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z dnia 16 maja 2018 r., sygn. akt SK 18/17

2021 ◽  
Vol 4(165) ◽  
pp. 147-158
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Kawałko
Keyword(s):  
Family Relationship ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Biological Origin ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Civil Status ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Age Of Majority

The commented ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal concerns the constitutionality of the provision of Article 70(1) of the Family and Guardianship Code, which provided that the time limit for a child to bring an action to deny the paternity of his or her mother’s husband is three years and runs from the moment the child reaches the age of majority, regardless of the child’s know-ledge of his or her biological origin, i.e. regardless of whether the child within that time limit acquired knowledge that he or she did not come from his or her mother’s husband and whether the child could decide to bring an action. The expiry of the three-year period resulted in the expiry of the child’s right to claim the denial of paternity of the mother’s husband and, consequently, precluded the possibility of a positive determination of the paternity of a man other than the mother’s husband. The Constitutional Tribunal found this provision to be inconsistent with Article 30 in conjunction with Article 47 in conjunction with Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The author agrees with the position expressed by the Constitutional Tribunal in the judgment in question, which in this case provides a basis for consideration of the relationship between the right to know one’s biological origin and the value of stabilising the civil status of a child and persons remaining in an established family relationship with him or her.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document