Public Procurement Principles Generated by the Treaty of Rome

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
Ioan-Gabriel Popa
Keyword(s):  
European Economic Community ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
European Directives ◽  
Community Institutions ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The One

AbstractIn order to understand the principles of public procurement in Romania, it is necessary to analyze, on the one hand, the European directives that regulate the actual public procurement and, on the other hand, the context in which the European directives were adopted. Even with the directives in force, the more general provisions contained in the Treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC) in Rome, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, are applied, as well as many more general principles of law that will guide the interpretation of these directives. The Treaty was adopted in Rome, in 1957 and became applicable from January 1, 1958. It is considered that the source of the principles of public procurement is the Treaty. Even if in Treaty contained no specific provisions regarding the field of public procurement, it reflects the principles and the general framework for the functioning of the single market, a market characterized through the prism of the fundamental freedoms established by the Treaty: the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. As the field of public procurement is closely linked to the free movement of goods, this principle is promoted and implemented in the practice of this field based on the regulations, directives and decisions of the Community institutions. The role of the free movement of goods is to harmonize the relationships involved in the process of purchasing goods, but also to ensure the homogeneity, coherence and balance of this process.

General Principles of Law as Applied by the Conciliation Commissions Established Under the Peace Treaty with Italy of 1947

1959 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 853-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern
Keyword(s):  
Majority Vote ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Modest Contribution ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Droit International

The present study is intended to be a modest contribution to Schlesinger’s research project concerning the “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” At the same time it tends to comply with the voeu recommended by Jenks to the Institut de Droit International concerning the desirability of better information on the decisions of international arbitral tribunals. It is the aim of the present study to trace all explicit or implied references to these “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” which may be found in the hitherto published decisions of the Conciliation Commissions established under Article 83 of the Peace Treaty with Italy of February 10, 1947. These Commissions consist of one member appointed by each of the states concerned. If these two members fail to agree, they draft a “statement of disagreement,” whereupon a third member,5 citizen of a third state, is added to the Commission, which shall then decide the case concerned by a majority vote.

THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS AND INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION: A LIMITED RELATIONSHIP

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-933
Author(s):  
Jarrod Hepburn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

AbstractThe UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts have appeared in a small but steady trickle of investment treaty arbitrations over the last decade. This article considers the use of the Principles by investment tribunals on questions of both domestic law and international law. It suggests that reference to the Principles can play an important legitimating role on questions of domestic law, but that this should not replace reference to the applicable law. On questions of international law, reference to the Principles may be justified by resort to the general principles of law. However, the article contends that there is only a limited role for the UNIDROIT Principles where the primary and secondary rules of investment protection are already found in treaties and custom. In addition, while general principles have historically been drawn from domestic private law, there is increasing recognition that general principles of public law are more relevant to investment arbitration. Given this, arbitrators resolving questions of international law must be cautious in references to the UNIDROIT Principles, a quintessentially private law instrument.

scholarly journals Unmuddying the Waters: Evaluating the Legal Basis of the Human Right to Water Under Treaty Law, Customary International Law, and the General Principles of Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 455
Author(s):  
Ndjodi Ndeunyema
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Sliding Scale ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Water Provision ◽  
The Right

This article evaluates the existence of a freestanding, general human right to water under each of the three principal sources of international law: treaty, customary international law, and the general principles of law. To date, the right to water has been derived from treaty law, most prominently as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (as implied by General Comment 15 to the ICESCR). The potential importance of a non-treaty based right to water––as a matter of customary international law or a general principle of law––is that it would bind all states, including states that are not parties to treaties with right to water provisions. Therefore, this article evaluates the state practice and opinio juris elements of custom supporting a right to water. Recognizing the disputed nature of how these two elements generally interact to crystallize into a customary norm, the article considers the problem using two distinct methodological approaches: the sliding scale approach and the reflective equilibrium approach. Finally, the paper considers whether a right to water is supported by the general principles of law. Although the right to water is not directly created by the general principles of law, the principles can nevertheless be applied to develop states’ positive and negative obligations for water provision.

Constitutions, EU Law and Judicial Strategies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARCIN MATCZAK ◽  
MATYAS BENCZE ◽  
ZDENEK KÜHN
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
East Central Europe ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
East Central ◽  
Institutional Effects ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Rule Approach ◽  
General Principles Of Law

AbstractGiven far-reaching changes in the legal systems of East Central Europe since the mid-1990s, one might expect administrative court judges to have modified the way in which they decide cases, in particular by embracing less formalistic adjudication strategies. Relying on an original dataset of over one thousand business-related cases from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, this article shows that – despite some variation across countries and time – judges have largely failed to respond to the incentives contained in the new constitutional frameworks. They continue to adopt the most-locally-applicable-rule approach and are reluctant to apply general principles of law or to rely on Dworkinian ‘policies’ in deciding hard cases. The analysis links these weak institutional effects to the role of constitutional courts, case overload and educational legacies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document