Režimy správního práva

The administrative law regime means a typical legal construction, which expresses the way of connecting an administrative law norm with this norm anticipated administrative law relationship through a certain legally significant fact. From the point of view of public administration addressees, it is appropriate to differ regimes of granting rights and regimes of imposing obligations primarily. Many regimes have a superstructure (secondary) nature, they assume the earlier existence of other (primary) rights and obligations. In addition to unilateral regimes, there are also bilateral or multilateral regimes of administrative law, which are an expression of cooperation in connection with the performance of public administration. From the point of view of public administration bodies, it is possible to distinguish several (administrative) regimes of exercise of their competence (powers). A kind of complement is the regimes that determine the boundaries of administrative regulation (between public law and civil law; between national law and European law). The application of some regimes or their combination typically results in the general administrative law concepts (= the tangles of administrative law norms cemented by the need and effort to solve certain idealized situations, deprived of their specific content). The research of administrative law regimes may perhaps contribute to a more plastic and systematic doctrinal characterization of material administrative law.

India’s Rise from a Regional to a Global Power

Most economic forecasts made after the trans-Atlantic fi nancial crisis of 2008 – 2009 have suggested that by 2030 China and India will overtake the United States to become the world’s largest and second-largest economies, respectively. This is why India is viewed as a global power, graduating from its regional role. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing “Cold War” between the United States and China could present new challenges and open up new opportunities for India. While dealing with short-term economic and geopolitical challenges, India will continue to carve out its path in its relations with the world that is defi ned by its civilizational inheritance, its core national interests and its economic performance and capabilities. This article discusses why, given India’s focus on its economic development and growth, the country seeks a regional and global economic and security environment that would be conducive to attaining these objectives. The author suggests fi rst, that as a rising power, India has remained committed to multilateralism in both the economic and security fi elds. It has adhered to the discipline of existing multilateral regimes, including in trade, fi nance and nuclear non-proliferation. India has also actively supported a global solution to the challenge of global warming and climate change. Second, that even as India pursues a policy of multi-alignment in a world marked by a multipolar balance of power, the viability of its policy will hinge upon how China responds to India’s rise and its core national security concerns. Finally, that as Big Power rivalries return and a new Cold War may be in the offi ng, India will have to reassess its options given its developmental aspirations. An assertive China seeking hegemonic dominance in Asia could reduce India’s options and encourage it to build new alliances that are aimed at enhancing national security and ensuring a more balanced distribution of power.

USA, China and Global Leadership: Analysis in the Perspective of Conceptualisation

In recent years, the Trump administration, embracing the principle of ‘America First’, adopts protectionism, doubts climate change and withdraws from many multilateral regimes in fields of trade, security, politics and global governance, while China firmly supports economic globalisation and free trade, adheres to peaceful development and advocates cooperation, openness, inclusiveness and mutual benefits. In these circumstances, there appears a heated debate on the shift of global leadership in academia and media, focusing on China. Beginning with summing up typical opinions about the issue of global leadership concerning the USA and China, the author conceptualises ‘global leadership’, analyses the nature and state of USA’s global leadership, discusses the Trump administration’s foreign policies and USA’s global leadership and comments China’s views and policies concerning global leadership. This article primarily argues that leadership, unlike hegemony, is not a zero-sum relationship, and there may be more than one country harmoniously and complementarily exerting leading roles in global affairs. Only by clearly differentiating hegemony and leadership can great powers better deal with their relations.

Mandatory Multilateralism

This Article challenges the conventional wisdom that states are always free to choose whether to participate in multilateral regimes. International law often mandates multilateralism to ensure that state laws and practices are compatible with sovereign equality and joint stewardship. The Article maps mandatory multilateralism's domain, defines its requirements, and examines its application to three controversies: the South China Sea dispute, the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement, and Bolivia's case against Chile in the International Court of Justice.

Seemingly Connected, Obviously Separate: The Parallel Realities of the UN Global Compact and the Multilateral Regimes in Water Governance

The UN Global Compact, being an institutional innovation in global governance, invites businesses to voluntarily commit to a selection of principles, rooted in multilateral regimes. Such commitment is expected to improve business practices and by that to close gaps in global governance. This spawns an expectation that through UN Global Compact business and multilateral treaty regimes will engage in mutually fertilizing and potentially coherent interaction to overcome the shortfalls of global governance. The current paper looks into this alleged interaction in the field of water stewardship and access to water. It explores first, the conceptual interdependence of the UN Global Compact and multilateral regimes in the respective fields and second, the ways in which the business practices reported under the UN Global Compact contribute to the advancement of the rules and principles thereof. The paper finds that the traditional multilateral systems and the innovative governance platform share an identical conceptual narrative but exist as separate realities on operational level. From the latter perspective the UN Global Compact might risk deepening governance gaps rather than close them.

Developing Powers in Multilateral Regimes: Brazil’s Foreign Policy in the Climate Change and Peace and Security Regimes

Developing powers are able to influence the evolution of the liberal order. In their multilateral engagements, they can employ a variety of foreign policy and negotiation strategies, voice their preferences and strengthen their bargaining power. This study examines how developing powers interact with the principles and norms of multilateral regimes. It analyzes Brazil’s behavior and negotiation power in the climate change and peace and security regimes. More specifically, it focuses on two concepts recently asserted by Brazil: ‘concentric circles’ and ‘responsibility while protecting.’ While the former addresses the division of responsibilities in the climate change realm, the latter approaches the norm of responsibility to protect. A comparative analysis is conducted with respect to three explanatory indicators, two domestic and one structural. One of the conclusions is that Brazil has behaved in such a way as to uphold a legalistic stance towards the global order.

Channeling Unilateralism

56 Harvard International Law Journal 297 (2015)When crime reaches across borders to threaten human security or undermine democracy, states often respond by adopting multilateral treaties that obligate each of them to suppress the transnational crime at home. These treaties help, but only to the extent that parties comply with them. Because states generally cannot enforce their laws outside their own territory, transnational criminals can evade prosecution as long as some states are unable or unwilling to meet these treaty commitments. One solution for improving compliance with these treaties may be, counterintuitively, more unilateralism. Using case studies on transnational bribery and drug trafficking, as well as thick descriptions of several more transnational criminal regimes, this Article develops a theory of “channeled unilateralism” to explain how multilateralism and unilateralism can reinforce one another to the same ends. Treaties that channel unilateralism are structured to help motivated states apply their laws to crimes that reach beyond their borders. Specifically, the treaties endorse extraterritorial application of prescriptive jurisdiction and encourage the use of bilateral agreements for enforcement cooperation. These treaty provisions lower reputational and transaction costs for motivated states to expand their enforcement efforts as long as those efforts remain within the framework set by the treaty. Over time, these expanded unilateral efforts may promote broader compliance with the treaty regime by improving information, peer-to-peer contacts, and technical capacity. When channeled effectively, strong unilateral policies may strengthen rather than weaken multilateral regimes.