Gay Rights in Russia? Russia's Ban on Gay Pride Parades and the General Principle of Proportionality in International Law

Author(s):  
Eric Engle
2013 ◽  
pp. 1019-1054
Author(s):  
Srikanth Hariharan

This paper argues the possibility of application of principle of proportionality, as a general principle of international law, for actions of the Host-State in pursuance of the contract with the investor, without abrogating the distinction between contract and treaty-based rights and obligations. The task would be to probe whether breach of contract with investor entails an international obligation of balancing the excess of exercise of contractual authority by the State with the investor’s contractual rights and delimit the ex ante discretionary powers of Host-State, which principle of proportionality seeks to promote.


2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Ratcliff ◽  
Kimberly Gawron
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
Maria Inês de Oliveira Martins

Abstract The need of private insurers for information on the candidate’s health risks is recognized by the law, which places pre-contractual duties of disclosure upon the candidates. When the risks are influenced by health factors, e.g. in the case of life- and health insurances, it implies the provision of health information by the candidates, who thus voluntarily limit their right to privacy. This consent, however, often happens in a context of factual coercion to contract. Next to this, from a legal standpoint, the collection of personal information must respond to the principle of proportionality. Against this background, this article assesses the compatibility of questionnaire techniques that rely on open-ended health related questions with the right to privacy, as protected by Portuguese and international law. It then analyses the extent of pre-contractual duties of disclosure as defined by the Portuguese Insurance Act, which requires the candidate to volunteer all the relevant information independently of being asked for it. In doing so, the article also refers to some other European countries. It concludes that the relevant Portuguese legislation is incompatible both with Portuguese constitutional law and with international law.


2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (879) ◽  
pp. 569-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe ◽  
Carl Bruch ◽  
Jordan Diamond ◽  
David Jensen

AbstractThere are three key deficiencies in the existing body of international humanitarian law (IHL) relating to protection of the environment during armed conflict. First, the definition of impermissible environmental damage is both too restrictive and unclear; second, there are legal uncertainties regarding the protection of elements of the environment as civilian objects; and third, the application of the principle of proportionality where harm to the environment constitutes ‘collateral damage’ is also problematic. These gaps present specific opportunities for clarifying and developing the existing framework. One approach to addressing some of the inadequacies of IHL could be application of international environmental law during armed conflict. The detailed norms, standards, approaches, and mechanisms found in international environmental law might also help to clarify and extend basic principles of IHL to prevent, address, or assess liability for environmental damage incurred during armed conflict.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Paweł Majka

<p>The subject of the study is to outline the boundaries within the legislator may sanction the obligations to provide information to tax authorities using tax sanctions. The author analyzes tax sanctions as instruments guaranteeing the effectiveness of legal norms related to information obligations in the light of the protection of the taxpayer’s rights. In the author’s opinion, there is a clear outline of the possible shape of the sanction, which limits the legislator in excessive interference with the rights of taxpayers. These limits, both in national and international law, are determined primarily by the principle of proportionality, which is decisive for the degree of discomfort associated with the application of sanctions. It should be indicated that the shape limits of these sanctions, characterized in this study, guarantee, in turn, the protection of the rights of these entities. At the same time, it should be emphasized that tax sanctions are, in principle, a complementary element of the system of the guarantees of the law effectiveness and the legislator deciding on their wider use should properly balance the degree of “saturation” of tax law with sanctions taking into account its nature.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-414
Author(s):  
Miles Jackson

Abstract It is widely believed that international law imposes no general prohibition on instigation – no general prohibition on states inducing, inciting or procuring other states to breach their international obligations. The absence of a prohibition on instigation stands in contrast to the now entrenched prohibition on the provision of assistance to another state that facilitates an internationally wrongful act. In this article, I argue that the orthodox position on instigation is incorrect. I argue that a prohibition on instigation is founded on a general principle of law, as envisaged in Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and that it would be appropriate to transpose that general principle to the international legal system. To sustain this argument, I first construct a representative set of domestic jurisdictions for comparative analysis. Second, through a brief comparative survey, I assess whether in each of these domestic jurisdictions it is wrongful, in one way or another, for an actor to instigate another to commit an act that it would be wrongful for it to do itself. And, third, I argue that the transposition of this principle from domestic law to international law is conceptually and normatively appropriate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document