scholarly journals JANKUV, Juraj. Legal Mechanisms of Protection of the Human Environmental Rights in Public International Law, Law of the European Union and Legal Order of the Slovak Republic, Leges, Praha, 2018, 200 pp.

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-317
Author(s):  
Naděžda Šišková
1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen Denza

The conclusion of the Treaty of Amsterdam and its progress through the ratification procedures of the 15 member States of the European Union provides an occasion to re-examine a familiar question. What is meant by the claim by the European Court of Justice that the European Com-munity Treaties have created “a new legal order of international law”1 or, more radically, “a new legal order”?2 Is EC law to be regarded as a particularly effective system of regional international law, or has it been created as, or mutated into, an entirely new species of law? If there are indeed two legal orders, to what extent are they still capable of cross-fertilisation? What about “European Union law”? Have the Treaty on European Union and now the Treaty of Amsterdam eroded the dichotomy between the two legal orders of public international law and EU law? Is public international law itself taking on some of the characteristics which have made EC law an attractive as well as an effective system for regulating relations between sovereign States? Are the two streams converging?


Author(s):  
Luca Prete

The enforcement of EU law on non-compliant national authorities has, at its heart, infringement proceedings brought pursuant to Articles 258 to 260 TFEU. That focus is embedded in the scheme of the EU Treaties. In that regard, infringement proceedings are a particular feature of the EU legal order. As the Court of Justice stated in one of its first cases, ‘it is a procedure far exceeding the rules heretofore recognized in classical international law, to ensure that obligations of States are fulfilled’. Indeed, under the rules of public international law, there is no obligation to settle disputes or to establish formal and legal procedures for dispute resolution, which, where they exist, always depend on the consent of the parties concerned. By contrast, the jurisdiction of the Court in cases of EU law infringements by Member States is compulsory and constitutes a corollary to membership in the European Union.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 440-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Waibel

On March 29, 2017, the U.K. Government triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) on withdrawal from the European Union following a referendum on June 23, 2016 in which 51.89 percent voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. As a hybrid provision, the much-discussed withdrawal provision in Article 50 TEU is part of EU law yet also anchored in public international law. Although the European Union is a unique, supranational organization that creates rights for individuals that are directly effective in national law, its member states created the European Union based on traditional treaties under international law.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková ◽  
Lucia Belková ◽  
Zuzana Ilková ◽  
Jana Ďurkovičová

Abstract Cross-border mergers are regulated by the Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on crossborder mergers of limited liability companies. This article deals with the issue of cross-border mergers of limited liability companies within the internal market of the European Union, more precisely it analyzes the question of the concept of a cross-border merger under the European Union law and its implementation into the national legal order of the Slovak Republic. The legal definition of a cross-border merger under the European Union law comprises three key conditions that must be met cumulatively: cross-border merger is applicable only for a business company formed in accordance with the law of an EU Member State, having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, and at the same time business company must be in an eligible legal form and a cross-border element must be given.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document