scholarly journals The Proposed EU Human Rights Sanctions Regime

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 56-71
Author(s):  
Nienke van der Have
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Potential Effectiveness ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Do So ◽  
Individual Human

The initiative for a European Union (EU) human rights sanctions regime that targets individual human rights offenders builds upon an interesting trend set by the United States’ Magnitsky Act. It has the potential to contribute to the development of international law and allow states and the EU to take on a more progressive attitude in relation to gross human rights violations committed worldwide. As an EU-wide initiative, it also has the opportunity to break with the muddled past and set a positive example. To do so, there are several important factors to consider related to the conceptual aim of the regime, its demarcation and potential effectiveness in practice.

The Fourth Restatement, International Law, and the “Terrorism” Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

2020 ◽  
pp. 391-410
Author(s):  
Beth Stephens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

This chapter evaluates the “terrorism” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Fourth Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out to “restate” the law of the United States and “relevant portions of international law,” not to critique U.S. law or settle debates about the content of international law. However, that task is complicated when the law of the United States triggers questions about unresolved international law issues. The “terrorism” exception to the FSIA illustrates this complexity. Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary have employed the exception as a politically motivated weapon to target disfavored states, while excluding U.S. allies, politically powerful states, and the United States itself from the reach of the statute. The text of the Fourth Restatement merely restates the U.S. law governing the “terrorism” exception, without identifying international law concerns or analyzing the issues they raise. The chapter, by contrast, offers a critique of the “terrorism” exception, focusing on the statute as written, as amended to reach particular targets, and as applied in practice. A well-crafted statutory exception to sovereign immunity for state human rights violations would be a welcome addition to human rights accountability. The “terrorism” exception falls far short of that goal.

Drafting an International Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 466-485
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Karska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Legal Grounds

Abstract This article deals with the process of creating a convention in the field of human rights, the working name of which is the ‘International Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights’. The author analyses the existing legal grounds for the responsibility of business for human rights violations in international law. She has assessed non-binding instruments, leading her to draw the conclusion that mechanisms strengthening protection are required in human rights protection law. The process of the creation of a new convention itself is subjected to an in-depth review. A special place is given to the issue of the position of a victim of human rights violations committed as a result of the activity of transnational enterprises, the rights of the victims of such violations and the mechanisms of international cooperation in the combatting thereof. In the conclusion the author states that human rights require actions that move beyond existing divisions, and that the work of the intergovernmental group led by Ecuador should be seriously supported by the European Union and the United States.

Constitutional and Legal Restrictions in the European Union Countries in the Context of the COVID 19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
A. V. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
European Union Countries ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the norms of international law and the legislation of the EU countries. The list of main provisions of constitutional and legal restrictions in the European Union countries is presented. The application of the norms is described Human rights conventions. The principle of implementing legal acts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered. A comparative analysis of legal restrictive measures in the States of the European Union is carried out.

scholarly journals The Trend of Scientific Productivity of Chinese, EuropeanUnion, and United States Universities and Private Companies: Does the Future Belong to E-Technology Companies?

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
American Universities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Parametric Statistics ◽  
The Eu

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.

The EU's Economic Cooperation with North Korea: The Possibility as a Useful Tool to Complement Korea-US Cooperation

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Sue Lee
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Position ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The North ◽  
The Eu

North Korea conducted 2nd nuclear test on May 25, 2009. It made a vicious circle and continued military tension on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea regime got a question on the effectiveness of the six party talks and ‘security-economy exchange model’. In addition, the North Korea probably disappointed about the North Korea issue has been excluded from the Obama administration's policy position. So the dialogue or relationship recovery with the United States and North Korea through six-party talks or bilateral talks will be difficult for the time being. This paper examines the EU policy on North Korea. Based on the results, analyzes the EU is likely to act as a balancer on the Korean Peninsula. Through the procedure of deepening and expanding the economic and political unification, the EU utilizes their cooperative policies towards North Korea as an ideal opportunity to realize their internal value and to confirm the commonness within the EU members. The acceleration of the EU's unification, however, began to focus on human rights, and this made their official relationship worse. Yet, the EU is continuously providing food as wells as humanitarian and technological support to North Korea regardless of the ongoing nuclear and human rights issues in North Korea. Also, the number of multinational corporations investing in North Korea for the purpose of preoccupying resources and key industries at an individual nation's level has been increasing. The European Union has unique structure which should follow the way of solving the problem of member states like subsidiary principle. It appears to conflict between normative power of the European Union and strategic interests on member states. This paper examines if the European Union is useful tool to complement Korea-US cooperation in the near future.

Negotiating 21st Century Rules on Energy: What Is at Stake for the European Union, the United States and the BRICS?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Espa ◽  
Kateryna Holzer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Energy Trade ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European Union (EU) has taken the lead in promoting the inclusion of a specific chapter on energy trade and investment in order to enhance energy security and promote renewable energy. Irrespective of the success of the TTIP negotiations, the EU proposal can contribute to developing multilateral rules on energy trade and investment. This is especially important given the increased number of energy disputes filed by the EU and the United States against other leading energy market players, including the BRICS. This article provides a normative analysis of the new rules proposed by the EU and reflects on potential responses of BRICS energy regulators. It argues that, while these rules are unlikely to immediately affect BRICS energy practices, they may eventually be ‘imported’ in BRICS domestic jurisdictions in order to promote renewable energy and attract investment in energy infrastructure.

scholarly journals Legal substantiation of retaliatory measures of the Russian Federation to economic sanctions of the United States, European Union, and their allies

2020 ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
Larisa Yur'evna Dobrynina ◽  
Anna Viktorovna Gubareva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors examine the economic sanctions introduced nu the U.S., EU and their allies against the Russian Federation, as well as the legal mechanism of retaliatory measures taken by Russia on the nationwide scale. The changes in the international legal regulation derailed the vector of global development, which was bringing real freedom of economic activity. Establishment of the sanction regime by the aforementioned parties signifies a struggle for own influence, weakening of the positive trade and economic ties, as well as an attempt to institute a regime of protectionism within the international trade turnover exclusively for their own benefit. Based on the analysis of the normative-legal documents, an assessment is made on the legal legitimacy of the introduced discriminatory measures of the allies from the perspective of the norms of international law. This article presents the analysis of the positions of federal laws and other legislative bills of the Russian Federation, establishing gradual constraining countermeasures for foreign subjects in various spheres of activity. The authors substantiate the fact that introduction of retaliatory economic sanctions by the Russian Federation with regards to the United States, European Union, and their allies is directly related to the implementation of the principle of reciprocity, currently existing within private international law. It is noted that all these actions on protection from illegitimate sanctions are realized by Russia practically without participation of UN, WTO and other reputable international organizations in regulation of the “sanctions” issue. The extraterritorial measures introduced by the United States and the European Union justifies the movement of Russian into a new stage of evolution of legal regulation of the foreign economic activity, and in foreign trade – establishment of new markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

scholarly journals US and EU politics «eastern partnership»

2016 ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olena Skrypnyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Situation ◽  
Eastern Partnership ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

In this article to analyzes the policy of the European Union’s «Eastern Partnership». Determined US relation to the initiative of the EU. Characterized four summits the EU «Eastern Partnership» and followed the US response to these summits. The attention to Ukraine’s participation in the summit of the EU and the US position on this issue. Determined that the United States strongly supports the EU initiative «Eastern Partnership», especially in order to spread in the countries of the «Eastern Partnership» democracy, ensure human rights and freedoms, and to improve the socio-economic situation of these countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document