Rules of Procedure Concerning Recommendations to Member States and International Conventions Covered by the Terms of Article IV, Paragraph 4, of the Constitution

2009 ◽  
pp. 754-758
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
International Conventions

International Instrument for the Protection of Translators

Babel ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-65
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Report ◽  
Director General ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Special Committee ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
International Conventions

At its eighteenth session, the General Conference adopted resolution 6.13, in which it considered it desirable thatan international instrumenton the protection of translators be prepared without in any way diminishing the protection which may be derived from existing international conventions relating to copyright, and that such an instrument should take the form of a recommendation to Member States within the meaning of Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Constitution. Pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Rules of Procedure concerning Recommendations to Member States and International Conventions covered by the terms of Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, the Director-General has prepared this preliminary report setting forth the position withregardto theproblem to be regulated and to the possible scope of the regulating action proposed. This preliminary report, together with the first draft of a recommendation on this subject, is submitted to Member States for their comments and observations. A final report containing a draft textof a recommendation will be prepared on the basis of these comments and observations and will be submitted to a special committee of governmental experts which is scheduled to meet from 28 June to 7 July 1976. This special committee will submit a dra ft which has its appro val to Member States, with a view to its consideration by the General Conference at its nineteenth session.

Situation-Oriented Designation of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction by Non-Member States

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hadi Zakerhossein
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
State Party ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Article 5

Abstract Rule 44 of the icc Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that non-state parties to the Rome Statute may accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in Article 5 of relevance to the situation by lodging a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Statute. The ending phrase of this provision gives rise to the speculation that a non-member state has a power to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in a partial way, namely over a specific situation. To examine this feasibility, the present article will: (i) explain the functions of the Article 12(3) mechanism; (ii) discuss the possibility of making a situational acceptance; and (iii) contemplate the meaning of the concept of situation. This article suggests that a non-state party can exclusively accept the Court’s jurisdiction over a specific situation, and that is a concrete crisis within a territory.

The Evolving Nature of the Jurisdiction of the Security Council

2019 ◽  
pp. 480-503
Author(s):  
Georg Kerschischnig ◽  
Blanca Montejo
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Security ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The Way

This chapter studies the original conception of the Security Council’s jurisdiction and contrasts it with the way its jurisdiction has developed and expanded in practice since the end of the Cold War. The Security Council’s jurisdiction—which is principally political and informed primarily by political rather than legal considerations—rests on a limited legal framework consisting of provisions in the UN Charter and of the Council’s own provisional rules of procedure. Nevertheless, the Security Council’s jurisdiction has expanded considerably since the end of the Cold War and has expanded into areas beyond international security. One notable area in which the Council’s competence has increased in this period is that of sanctions. These jurisdiction-related developments in the Council’s practice reflect a world in which the line between national and international jurisdiction are no longer clear or desirable. At the same time, the Council has also increased its interaction with UN Member States and with civil society.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-148
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Director General ◽  
Executive Board ◽  
Member States ◽  
United Nations Educational ◽  
Cultural Organization ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
General Organization

The Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization held its 36th session in Paris, November 30 through December 9, 1953, under the chairmanship of General Sir Ronald Adam. The Board requested the Director-General to submit detailed proposals for the organization of the eighth session of the General Conferenceto the Board's 37th session. In preparing these, he was to take into account the views expressed by the Board, particularly those concerng arrangements for discussion of the Director-General's report, discussion of the draft program and budget estimates, general organization of meetings, voting procedure, and documents and records. organization of meetings, voting procedure, and documents and records. The Board recommended that the eighth session of the General Conference revise its rules of procedure to provide that, in case of doubt as to whether a proposed amendment was an amendment of substance or an amendment of form, it be deemed an amendment of substance unless a two-thirds majority favored interpreting it otherwise. The Board also requested member states to submit their reports for the eighth session of the Conference to the Director-General not later than April 15, 1954.

scholarly journals COVID- 19 PANDEMIC AND THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ABORTION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivana Tucak ◽  
Anita Blagojević
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Health States ◽  
Member States ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Legal Difficulties ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Right Of Access

The COVID - 19 pandemic that swept the world in 2020 and the reactions of state authorities to it are unparalleled events in modern history. In order to protect public health, states have limited a number of fundamental human rights that individuals have in accordance with national constitutions and international conventions. The focus of this paper is the right of access to abortion in the Member States of the European Union. In Europe, the situation with regard to the recognition of women's right to abortion is quite clear. All member states of the European Union, with the exception of Poland and Malta, recognize the rather liberal right of a woman to have an abortion in a certain period of time after conception. However, Malta and Poland, as members of the European Union, since abortion is seen as a service, must not hinder the travel of women abroad to have an abortion, nor restrict information on the provision of abortion services in other countries. In 2020, a pandemic highlighted all the weaknesses of this regime by preventing women from traveling to more liberal countries to perform abortions, thus calling into question their right to choose and protect their sexual and reproductive rights. This is not only the case in Poland and Malta, but also in countries that recognize the right to abortion but make it conditional on certain non-medical conditions, such as compulsory counselling; and the mandatory time period between applying for and performing an abortion; in situations present in certain countries where the problem of a woman exercising the right to abortion is a large number of doctors who do not provide this service based on their right to conscience. The paper is divided into three parts. The aim of the first part of the paper is to consider all the legal difficulties that women face in accessing abortion during the COVID -19 pandemic, restrictions that affect the protection of their dignity, right to life, privacy and right to equality. In the second part of the paper particular attention will be paid to the illiberal tendencies present in this period in some countries of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Poland. In the third part of the paper, emphasis will be put on the situation in Malta where there is a complete ban on abortion even in the case when the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.

ASEAN asWayang Kulit: A Critique of the Constitutional, Extra-constitutional, and Practical Fetters of ASEAN

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Duke BAGULAYA
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Structural Control ◽  
World Politics ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Wayang Kulit

AbstractInternational organizations have been described metaphorically as the Frankenstein of international law. They are created by states and yet more often than not they assume powers that humble their creators. This paper presents a different metaphor to describe the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN]. Created in 2007, ASEAN, it is argued, resembles the fetteredwayang kulitin Indonesian theatre. It is an international organization which is controlled by its Member States in various ways. This paper analyzes three forms of ASEAN's fetters: constitutional, extra-constitutional, and practical. Constitutional fetters refer to the structural control embedded in the ASEAN Charter. Extra-constitutional fetters refer to rules of procedure that close the openness of the constitutional text. Finally, practical fetters refer to the ways the Member States limit ASEAN's legal personality in practice. Through these control mechanisms, ASEAN has so far acted on the stage of world politics according to the narrative of its puppet masters.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Sanctions Against the Russian Federation in Response to the Crisis in Ukraine

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-91
Author(s):  
Antonino Alì
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Core ◽  
European Project ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Heads Of State

The article examines the actions taken by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) against the delegation of the Russian Federation in response to the crisis in Ukraine. In 2014 the Assembly decided to suspend some of the rights of the Russian delegation and menaced to annul the credentials of the delegation if an effective effort was not made on the part of Russia to sort out the situation and to reverse the annexation. The adoption of sanctions against the Russian delegation raised several legal issues related to the very existence of a sanctioning power of the CoE and in particular of the Assembly. The question is whether the powers to “penalize” the parliamentary delegation have been exercised by PACE in conformity with the Statute. The Statute of the CoE does not attribute sanctioning powers to the Assembly in order to target the states which are in breach of Article 3 or international law more generally. This power falls firmly in the hands of the Committee of Ministers as a way to put pressure on, deter, and eventually punish a state which has seriously violated the core of the principles of the CoE system. PACE, in the exercise of its functions, may certainly contribute to activating procedures to monitor the activities of the member states, but the last word is in the hands of the Committee which may suspend the rights of representation of a state and request that the offending state withdraw from the Committee entirely. The Statute plainly does not attribute this power to PACE. In the absence of the jurisdiction of a Court to deal with the problems caused by the lack of harmonisation between the sanctions adopted by the Committee of Ministers and the ones introduced by the Parliamentary Assembly through some modifications of the Rules of Procedure, the recent call for a 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the CoE by the Assembly in order to “preserve and further strengthen this unparalleled pan-European project currently threatened by divisions and a weakening of member States’ commitment” by “harmonising[…] the rules governing participation, representation and responsibilities of member States in both statutory organs, while fully respecting the autonomy of these bodies” should be welcomed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document