COLLISIONS BETWEEN THE LEGAL ACTS OF EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION AUTHORITIES AND THE LEGAL ACTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA AND THEIR SETTLEMENT BY THE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

For a comprehensive study of collisions between the legal acts of the EEU authorities and legal acts of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the issues of their settlement by the RA courts, the author analyzes the regulations for the direct application of legal acts of the EEU authorities in the territory of the Republic of Armenia. There are no collision norms in the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, resolving the contradictions between the legal acts of the EEU bodies and the legal acts of the RA authorities (except the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia). The paper analyzes the positions of the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court of the Republic of Armenia on these issues. Before enshrining the collision norms in legislation, the author suggests the Armenian courts select one of the following options for resolving the issue. Option one: the court enshrines an independent lex superior collision rule in its judicial act, according to which the legal acts of the EEU authorities have the priority over those of the RA bodies, therefore in the case of such a contradiction, the legal acts of the EEU authorities are applied. The main disadvantage of this option is that there is difficulty in substantiating the validity (legitimacy) source of the collision rule established by the court. Option two: the legal characteristics of the EEU authorities’ acts are being equated with international treaties in a judicial act by legal fiction. Option three: the court states that there is a gap in the RA positive law concerning the settlement of contradictions between the legal acts of the EEU authorities and the legal acts of the Republic of Armenia, as neither Article 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, nor the decision of the Constitutional Court No. ՍԴՈ-1175 and the Law of the Republic of Armenia “Concerning Normative Legal Acts” envisage the hierarchy and collision norm for the legal acts of the EEU authorities and those of the bodies of the Republic of Armenia. Subsequently, guided by Article 39 of the Law “Concerning Normative Legal Acts” (application of legal analogy) and resolving a conflict between the legal acts of the EEU authorities and the legal acts of the Republic of Armenia, part 3 of Article 5 of the RA Constitution should be analogically applied.

Lattice Boltzmann Models without Underlying Boolean Microdynamics

Chapter 12 showed how to circumvent two major stumbling blocks of the LGCA approach: statistical noise and exponential complexity of the collision rule. Yet, the ensuing LB still remains connected to low Reynolds flows, due to the low collisionality of the underlying LGCA rules. The high-viscosity barrier was broken just a few months later, when it was realized how to devise LB models top-down, i.e., based on the macroscopic hydrodynamic target, rather than bottom-up, from underlying microdynamics. Most importantly, besides breaking the low-Reynolds barrier, the top-down approach has proven very influential for many subsequent developments of the LB method to this day.

‘Contested Collisions’: Conditions for a Successful Collision Management – The Example of Article 16 of the Rome Statute

This article examines the problem of colliding international regimes by reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council. Given the different logics or rationalities of these institutions – the Security Council is first and foremost a (power) political organ, while the ICC is in charge of legal assessments – the collision potential is high. A collision rule was therefore introduced into the Rome Statute in the form of Article 16; however, all instances of its application so far have been highly controversial. While norm application is always controversial to some extent, we argue – in reference to Thomas Franck's work on the legitimacy of international norms – that regime responsiveness, secondary rules or a neutral application control of Article 16 could contribute to successful collision management.