scholarly journals Implementation of Human Rights and the Mandatory Precedents in Foreign Trade, Legal Effectiveness: Mexico Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 153-164
Author(s):  
Laura Hernandez Ramirez

We make an analysis of the implementation of human rights and the mandatory precedent in matters of Mexican foreign trade, in an administrative and judicial context in the search for legal effectiveness with constitutional control, highlighting the implementation of human rights contained in treaties commercial, such as access to justice and prompt and expeditious; We point out a recent case of human rights and foreign trade, with the implementation in the Mexican legal system, of the Free Trade Agreement Mexico United States Canada, before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, as well as a possible proposal before the provisions of its Article 14.D.5, regarding the right of access to prompt and expeditious justice in investment matters, and avoiding the resolution of controversies before international arbitration panels that have been questioned.

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-406
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni

With Judgment No. 238/2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter Court) quashed the Italian legislation setting out the obligation to comply with the sections of the 2012 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening) (Jurisdictional Immunities or Germany v. Italy) that uphold the rule of sovereign immunity with respect to compensation claims in Italian courts based on grave breaches of human rights, including—in the first place—the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found the legislation to be incompatible with Articles 2 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, which secure the protection of inviolable human rights and the right of access to justice (operative paras. 1, 2).


Author(s):  
Maria Fanou

In its recent Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) examined the compatibility of an external judicial body, the Investment Court System (ICS) under the EU–Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), with EU law. At a time when judicial independence has arisen as one of the main challenges for the rule of law in the EU, this article discusses the Court’s findings in relation to the compatibility of the ICS with the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.


Significance Canada has a temporary exemption, but Trump is calling for North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiations to be completed speedily. The NAFTA and tariffs issues have, therefore, become fused, raising questions about the outlook for Canada-US foreign relations. Impacts In the short term, Canadian steel companies may benefit from reduced foreign providers’ presence in the United States. Canada’s NAFTA negotiators will not respond to the Trump team’s threat to impose tariffs. Canadian businesses will begin to migrate south to take advantage of the new and more competitive US tax regime. Canada’s efforts to diversify its foreign trade and decrease US dependence will further accelerate, but still face hurdles.


2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Bettauer

The North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (NAFTA) entered into force on January 1, 1994. Chapter Eleven of NAFTA contains provisions governing investment protection and investor-state arbitration. In general, NAFTA provides investors of one of the parties protections for their investments in another NAFTA party, guaranteeing: treatment at least as good as that of host or third country investors (NAFTA articles 1102-1104); treatment in accordance with the minimum standards of customary international law (NAFTA article 1105); and compensation for expropriation (NAFTA article 1110). NAFTA article 1139 defines “investment” broadly but excludes contracts for the sale of goods or services. After meeting specified threshold requirements, such an investor has the right to international arbitration against the host state to vindicate these protections.


2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Charles Poncelet

Abstract The right of access to justice in environmental matters constitutes one of the three pillars enshrined by the Århus Convention to which the European Union is a Party. This article will examine a recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, the latter appears to play an important role in the implementation of this procedural right.


Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 56-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Vilkova

The article is devoted to the analysis of the stances developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the content, scope, general principles of ensuring the right of access to justice, and permissible limits applied to restrict the right in question. The author has substantiated the conclusion that the European Court of Human Rights associates access to justice with Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Thus, the concept of access to justice includes a number of elements: the right to have recourse to court; the right to have a case heard and resolved in compliance with the requirements of a fair trial; the right to have the judgment enforced; the set of safeguards that allow the person to exercise the rights under consideration effectively. According to the European Court of Human Rights, access to justice should be ensured at all stages including pre-trial (criminal) proceedings and reviewing of court decisions by higher courts. However, the right of access to justice is not absolute. The restrictions imposed must have a legitimate purpose and reasonable proportionality must be obtained between the means used and the goal determined. In view of the requirement mentioned above, the national legislation may provide for the particularities of application of Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings in different types of courts and at different stages, for example, by establishing a certain procedure for the court to grant individuals the right to appeal to a higher court. The author has demonstrated the main directions of applying the legal stances of the European Court of Human Rights regarding access to justice to improve the Russian criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practices, as well as for further scientific research.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-100
Author(s):  
Juliane Caravieri Martins ◽  
◽  
Igor Vinícius de Lima Afonso ◽  

This research examines the right of access to justice – fair, effective and timely judicial protection – from the perspective of the American Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San José of Costa Rica, and Brazilian constitutional norms, verifying wether they protected the right to health in order to realize social justice. Furthermore, this study questiones whether this Pact contributed to the protection of the right to health for Brazilians. In other words, this paper investigates if this international treaty contributed to the promotion of the right to health in Brazil by allowing citizens, through the phenomenon of judicialization of public policies, access to fairer and more effective judicial protection.


Author(s):  
Schmitt Pierre

This 1966 case constitutes one of the first cases in which UN immunity from jurisdiction was challenged. Apart from the question whether the UN had legal personality under domestic law, all other arguments raised by the plaintiff in this case—seeking to restrict UN immunity from jurisdiction—are still debated nowadays before domestic jurisdictions. The Brussels Civil Tribunal notably examined whether the UN’s immunity was conditional upon the latter’s respect of art. VIII, Section 29 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, whether the immunity could be rejected in favour of a human rights argument based on the right of access to justice, and whether it could only be invoked in relation to actions or situations that were necessary for the UN to achieve its goals. Finally, it assessed the existence of a waiver in this particular case.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Spiga

The latest attempt by the relatives of the victims of the Srebrenica massacre to hold the UN accountable for the inaction of UNPROFOR while the Bosnian enclave was attacked has once again proven unsuccessful. In a unanimous decision in the Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and others v. the Netherlands case, the European Court of Human Rights declared the application to be ill-founded, finding that the decision of Dutch courts to grant immunity to the UN did not violate the applicants’ right of access to a court. An intrinsic tension between two contemporary trends seems to be embodied in this recent decision. On the one hand the decision follows established and authoritative practice according to which a civil claim cannot override immunity from jurisdiction even though no alternative means of redress is available. On the other hand it conflicts with the growing emphasis placed on the right of access to justice and the right to remedy for victims of gross violations of human rights in the last decade. This note aims to provide a critical review of the decision, focusing on the “alternative means of remedy” test in cases involving the immunity of international organizations. In doing so, the note questions whether such a test must always be a prerequisite for the effective enjoyment of the right of access to a court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document