Greener insurgencies? Engaging non-State armed groups for the protection of the natural environment during non-international armed conflicts

As belligerent parties, non-State armed groups (NSAGs) contribute to environmental damage in non-international armed conflicts. Drawing from the actual practice and doctrine of NSAGs, this article unpacks the legal and policy framework for engaging them on the protection of the environment. It analyzes the international humanitarian law rules protecting the environment binding on NSAGs. To improve environmental protection, a model of environmental responsibilities under international human rights law and international environmental law based on the NSAG's level of territorial control is suggested, as a matter of policy. This article then explores how to engage NSAGs on the legal and policy framework identified and proposes a model unilateral declaration for the protection of the natural environment.

Friendly settlement of dispute in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights

The existing approaches of lawyers to understanding the characteristics, types and structure of decisions of the Court of Justice of the Council of Europe, adopted by it on the basis of amicable settlement of disputes and substantiation on this basis of the author's concept of phenomena declaration of amicable settlement and unilateral declaration of the Government. The author analyzes and critically comprehends the doctrinal conclusions and provisions of national legislation on the need to separate the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which, along with the rulings of the Court of Justice, are subject to mandatory implementation by the State party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

From ‘the people’ to the crowd: The push for independence in Catalonia

This article examines the sociological value of Elias Canetti’s work on crowds and power. It explores crowd action and imagery in the push for Catalan independence through the analysis of materials published on Twitter by Tsunami Democràtic, which emerged to coordinate the response to the sentencing of Catalan political leaders after the unilateral declaration of independence. It then goes on to discuss how a crowd-based approach offers a supplementary perspective to contemporary studies of populism, on the one hand, and to accounts that primarily focus on the role of social media in organizing political protest movements, on the other. An analysis of crowds not only avoids both methodological holism and methodological individualism. It also helps to understand why so many people were mobilized beyond the power of concepts, ideologies and discourse.

La cuestión catalana: origen, desarrollo, y perspectivas

Catalonia is one of the richest regions in Spain and, thanks to its Statute of Autonomy, it enjoys a self-government comparable to that existing in federal States. It has been part of Spain for as long as Spain exists, but in the course of history there have been several episodes of disagreement and attempts at receiving independence. Since the beginning of this century, a sovereignty process has been launched by supporters of secession, ignorant of the Constitution and Spanish legality, that culminated, in October 2017, with a unilateral declaration of independence, which involved temporary intervention by the Spanish Government and the trial and condemnation of the main leaders, in addition to not being recognized by any country or international organization in the world. Catalan society is plural, formed in part by emigrants from other parts of Spain, and is very divided on this issue. Supporters of independence have never managed to obtain 50% of the votes in any of the numerous elections carried out, although there is a majority favorable to increasing the level of autonomy. The solution to this conflict can only come with the achievement of a political agreement that establishes a new relationship between Catalonia and the rest of Spain, which satisfies a majority, without the need to break up. But this solution will be difficult because of both the radicalism of some separatist leaders and the lack of agreement between the Spanish parties on how to approach the issue.

The importance of legal positions of international and domestic judicial authorities for preventing secession: theoretical historical aspect

The legal regulation of secession – the unilateral withdrawal of a part of territory from the parent state, is carried out at the junction of two branches of law – international and constitutional. Due to the absence in most of written constitutions of norms directly related to secession, and the laconic nature of relevant principles of international law, allowing for the possibility of ambiguous interpretation, decisions of international and domestic judicial authorities on the admissibility of secession play a special role in the legal mechanisms for its prevention, which determines the relevance of the chosen themes. Based on the analysis of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations of July 22, 2010 “On compliance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo”, we formulate a conclusion about the absence of uniform international legal criteria to determine the admissibility of secession. In our opinion, the Inter-national Court of Justice has not resolved the legal issue underlying the pro-tracted political conflict, has not created a new norm of customary interna-tional law, but has not provided the supporters of the unilateral declaration of independence with the necessary and sufficient arguments for the legal justification of their position. This allows us to speak about the importance of this decision in the international legal mechanisms for the prevention of secession, which, however, are at the stage of formation. Their development should take place synchronously with the constitutional and legal intrastate mechanisms, which in modern conditions should be aimed at finding a bal-ance between the interests of the center and regional communities, establish-ing a dialogue with supporters of independence and protecting the national and cultural identity of population.

United States Relations with Southern Rhodesia during the UDI Era

The Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) era, a 14-year period from 1965 to 1979, posed an exceptional and challenging policy dilemma for four separate US presidential administrations. Presidents’ Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, and Jimmy Carter were all confronted by the presence of the internationally unrecognized pariah state in southern Africa. The shifting patterns in the US approach toward Salisbury ranging from empathy to open hostility were reflective not only of the individual viewpoints of the occupants of the Oval Office but represented the larger diverse pressures, global and domestic, shaping foreign policy during the 1960s and 1970s. The Cold War, economic interest, the need for strategic minerals, race relations, and human rights all guided White House decision making regarding Salisbury. Across the presidential administrations, the case of Rhodesia, further exposes the tension and interaction between pragmatism and morality in US foreign relations during the 1960s and 1970s. The US approach toward the UDI state not only reveals broad patterns of conflict between realpolitik and moral justice but also depicts times when pragmatism and ethical considerations aligned together to achieve mutually compatible goals. The differing polices adopted by the occupants of the Oval Office demonstrated the competing visions within Washington itself of what constituted pragmatism or morality during the decolonization era.

Can Systems Theory predict the Evolution of Secessionism in Catalonia with Respect to the Kingdom of Spain?

The tendency toward secession of approximately half of Catalan voters is a complex phenomenon that has been worsening for about 15 years, first because of the desire of the Catalan secessionists to have a new Statute of Autonomy incompatible with the rest of the autonomies, and second, for failure of the Central State to implement the promise of President Zapatero in 2011 to accept the Statute to be drafted by the Catalans. From that moment and also thanks to the political inaction of President Rajoy, the Catalan problem has only escalated until it announces a Unilateral Declaration of Independence destined to die before being born due to the illegalities that allowed it. In this situation, the Systemic Model that is presented predicts a certain evolution towards the decrease of the secessionist drive.

The Unified Patent Court and the frustrated promise of IP protection: Investors’ claims in (post-)Brexit Britain

Tensions between the EU’s legal order and the international investment law regime are not exclusive to the Brexit era, but they certainly gained momentum in the aftermath of this referendum. By incautiously declaring that the UK will remain a party to the Unified Patent System regardless of Brexit, the British government arguably shaped (il)legitimate expectations on the part of investors who aimed at exploiting their intellectual property rights in the UK while benefitting from the judicial protection of the forthcoming Unified Patent Court as much as of the European institutions (and market) as a whole. Indeed, not only the System itself will undergo a process of major rebalancing after London’s departure from the EU, but more importantly, the UK will most probably be unable to retain its membership in the System after the actual delivery of Brexit. These complications trigger a wide spectrum of fundamental dilemmas investing the definition and scope of concepts such as unilateral declaration, indirect expropriation, reasonable expectation, estoppel, and public policy exception, under both EU law and international investment law. It is therefore essential to explore these intersections as to anticipate possible scenarios in the event of both domestic court and international arbitral claims lodged by patent investors pre- and post-Brexit, having due regard for competition concerns on the side of the EU, yet referring to recent Canadian case law which opened the gate to investor-State claims in the field of intellectual property.