8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

1/24

Ali je MP pravo?

D ga malo spotujejo ker nisupranacionalnega sistema sankcij.

Dokaz nespotovanja so pogoste vojne.

Kritve pogosto ostajajo nekaznovane. Zakaj D (pogosto) spotujejo MP?

1

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

2/24

Neka konvencija se sklene med dravamiAI. Na kaj se bo sklicevala tonica v

sporu pred meddravnim sodiem vHaagu, e gre za spor meddravama:A in E

F in L L in

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

3/24

Veleposlaniki e ve desetletij hodijo nadelovne obiske k ministrom in dravnim

poglavarjem drav gostiteljic v obleki skravato ali metuljkom. Pravila gledeoblaenja veleposlanikov niso doloena v

nobeni mednarodni konvenciji. Ali lahko izpovedanega ugotovite kakno pravilomednarodnega prava?

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

4/24

Trditve & Vpraanja:1. Pojem Mednarodno pravo praviloma vkljuuje mednarodno javno in

mednarodno zasebno pravo.2. Nujni elementi za nastanrek pravil mednarodnega obiajnega prava so: 3. Konvencije so hierarhino nad mednarodnim obiajnim pravom.4. Resolucije, GS OZN so soft law in ne morejo sluiti kot dokaz da je neko

pravilo del mednarodnega obiajnega prava.

5. Ali lahko deklaracije postanejo vir MP? Kako,e sploh?6. Mednarodno obiajno pravo ni tisto, kar drave govorijo, ampak tisto, kardrave ponejo.

7. Razlika med pravilom MOP in kurtoazijo (comity)?8. Mednarodne konvencije lahko povzroijo nastanek pravil MOP.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

5/24

1. S sodnimi odlobami, ki jih navaja 38. len StatutaMeddravnega sodia kot vire mednarodnega prava somiljene odlobe mednarodnih in ne nacionalnih sodi.

2. Razmerje med mednarodnim in nacionalnim pravomdoloa mednarodno pravo.

3. Mednarodne konvencije ne morejo biti nad nacionalnoustavo

4. Pravo EU zahteva od D monizem glede prava EU.5. Pravo EU je del mednarodnega prava.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

6/24

1. Krenje obstojeih mednarodnopravnih pogodbenihobveznosti ne more privesti do nastanka pravilmednarodnega obiajnega prava.

2. Pravila mednarodne konvencije lahko derogira lekasneja konvencija ali kasneji ius cogens.

3. Pravila mednarodnega obiajnega prava lahko derogirale kasneja konvencija ali kasneji ius cogens.

4. Mednarodne konvencije so hierarhino nad pravilimednarodnega obiajnega prava.

5. Mednarodne konvencije so hierarhino nad pravilimednarodnega obiajnega prava, razen e je pravilo

mednarodnega obiajnega prava ius cogens.6. Multilaterale mednarodne konvencije so hierarhino

nad bilateralnimi mednarodnimi konvencijami.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

7/24

S sodnimi odlobami, ki jih 38. len StatutaICJ navaja kot vir MJP, so miljene:

Samo odlobe in svetovalna mnenja ICJ. Odlobe ICJ in drugih mednarodnih sodi. Odlobe vseh mednarodnih sodi in

odlobe nacionalnih sodi. Samo odlobe ICJ.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

8/24

Viri - Primeri:

Paquete Habana (US Supreme Court) Lotus (France v Turkey)

Asylum (Colombia v Peru)

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

9/24

Paquete Habana 175 U.S. 677 (1900)

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertainedand administered by the courts of justice of appropriatejurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it areduly presented for their determination. For this purpose, wherethere is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative actor judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs andusages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the

works of jurists and commentators, not for the speculations oftheir authors concerning what the law ought to be, but fortrustworthy evidence of what the law really is.

At the present day, by the general consent of the civilizednations of the world and independently of any express treatyor other public act, it is an established rule of international lawthat coast fishing vessels, with their implements and supplies,cargoes and crews, unarmed and honestly pursuing theirpeaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh fish, areexempt from capture as prize of war.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

10/24

And this rule is one which prize courts, administering thelaw of nations, are bound to take judicial notice of, andto give effect to, in the absence of any treaty or otherpublic act of their own government in relation to thematter.

On her return, with her cargo of live fish, along the coastof Cuba, and when near Havana, each was captured byone of the United States blockading squadron. Neitherfishing vessel had any arms or ammunition on board,had any knowledge of the blockade, or even of the war,until she was stopped by a blockading vessel, made anyattempt to run the blockade, or any resistance at thetime of her capture, nor was there any evidence thatshe, or her crew, was likely to aid the enemy. Held thatboth captures were unlawful, and without probablecause.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

11/24

Lotus (France v Turkey) 1927, France

v. Turkey, PCIJ

Now the first and foremost restriction imposedby international law upon a State is that failing

the existence of a permissive rule to thecontrary it may not exercise its power in anyform in the territory of another State. In thissense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot

be exercised by a State outside its territoryexcept by virtue of a permissive rule derivedfrom international custom or from a convention.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

12/24

It does not, however, follow that international law prohibits a Statefrom exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of anycase which relates to acts which have taken place abroad, and inwhich it cannot rely on some permissive rule of international law.

Such a view would only be tenable if international law contained ageneral prohibition to States to extend the application of their lawsand the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and actsoutside their territory, and if, as an exception to this generalprohibition, it allowed States to do so in certain specific cases. Butthis is certainly not the case under international law as it stands atpresent.

Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that Statesmay not extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction oftheir courts to persons, property and acts outside their territory, itleaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion, which isonly limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards othercases, every State remains free to adopt the principles which it

regards as best and most suitable. This discretion left to States byinternational law explains the great variety of rules which they havebeen able to adopt without objections or complaints on the part ofother States

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

13/24

In these circumstances all that can be required of a State is that it

should not overstep the limits which international law places uponits jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction

rests in its sovereignty. International law governs relations between independent States.The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from theirown free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generallyaccepted as expressing principles of law and established in orderto regulate the relations between these co-existing independentcommunities or with a view to the achievement of common aims.

Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore bepresumed.

show that States had often, in practice, abstained from institutingcriminal proceedings, and not that they recognized themselves asbeing obliged to do so; for only if such abstention were based ontheir being conscious of having a duty to abstain would it be

possible to speak of an international custom. The alleged fact doesnot allow one to infer that States have been conscious of havingsuch a duty; on the other hand, as will presently be seen, there areother circumstances calculated to show that the contrary is true.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

14/24

Asylum (Colombia v Peru) 1950 ICJRep 266

The facts brought to the knowledge of the Court disclose so muchuncertainty and contradiction, so much fluctuation and discrepancy in theexercise of diplomatic asylum and in the official views expressed on variousoccasions, there has been so much inconsistency in the rapid succession ofconventions on asylum, ratified by some States and rejected by others, andthe practice has been so much influenced by considerations of political

expediency in the various cases, that it is not possible to discern in all thisany constant and uniform usage, accepted as law, with regard to thealleged rule of unilateral and definitive qualification of the offence.

The Court cannot therefore find that the Colombian Government has provedthe existence of such a custom. But even if it could be supposed that such acustom existed between certain Latin-American States only, it could not beinvoked against Peru which, far from having by its attitude adhered to it,

has, on the contrary, repudiated it by refraining from ratifying theMontevideo Conventions of 1933 and 1939, which were the first to includea rule concerning the qualification of the offence in matters of diplomaticasylum.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

15/24

Subjekti MP

Drave so edini subjekti MP, ki tudi ustvarjajopravila MP. Posameznik ni subjekt MP, zato mu MP ne more

nalagati nobenih pravic ali obveznosti.

Pod pojmom posameznik v MP razumemo fizinein ne pravnih oseb (npr. gospodarskih drub). Temeljni elementi drave so Drave so dolne podeliti svoje dravljanstvo

osebam, ki se rodijo na njihovem teritoriju.

Drave lahko povsem samostojno odloajo o tem,kdo ima njihovo dravljanstvo in kdo ne.

15

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

16/24

Primeri

Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) Micheletti

Barcelona Traction (Belgium v Spain)

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

17/24

Nottebohm (Liechtenstein vGuatemala) I.C. J. Reports 1955, p. 4.

It is for Liechtenstein, as it is for every sovereignState, to settle by its own legislation the rulesrelating to the acquisition of its nationality, andto confer that nationality by naturalizationgranted by its own organs in accordance withthat legislation. It is not necessary to determine

whether international law imposes anylimitations on its freedom of decision in thisdomain.

17

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

18/24

On the other hand, a State cannot claim that the rules it hasthus laid down are entitled to recognition by another Stateunless it has acted in conformity with this general aim ofmaking the legal bond of nationality accord with theindividual's genuine connection with the State which assumes

the defence of its citizens by means of protection as againstother States.

Naturalization was asked for not so much for the purpose ofobtaining a legal recognition of Nottebohms membership infact in the population of Liechtenstein, as it was to enable himto substitute for his status as a national of a belligerent Statethat of a national of a neutral State, with the sole aim of thuscoming within the protection of Liechtenstein but not ofbecoming wedded to its traditions, its interests, its way of lifeor of assuming the obligationsother than fiscal obligationsand exercising the rights pertaining to the status thusacquired.

Guatemala is under no obligation to recognize a nationalitygranted in such circumstances. Liechtenstein consequently isnot entitled to extend its protection to Nottebohm vis -a-visGuatemala and its claim must, for this reason, be held to beinadmissible.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

19/24

Micheletti (C-369/90) The provisions of Community law concerning freedom of

establishment preclude a Member State from withholding thatfreedom from a national of another Member State who at the sametime possesses the nationality of a non-member country, on theground that the legislation of the host State deems him to be anational of the non-member country.

Whenever a Member State, having due regard to Community law,has granted its nationality to a person, another Member State maynot, by imposing an additional condition for its recognition, restrictthe effects of the grant of that nationality with a view to theexercise of a fundamental freedom provided for in the Treaty,particularly since the consequence of allowing such a possibilitywould be that the class of persons to whom the Community rules onfreedom of establishment were applied might vary from oneMember State to another.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

20/24

1. Dravljan drave A ima pravico zahtevati oddrave A da mu nudi diplomatsko zaitozaradi kritev mednarodnega prava, ki jih proti

njemu stori drava B.2. Diplomatski predstavnik drave A v dravi B

ima pravico zahtevati od drave A da mu nudidiplomatsko zaito zaradi kritevmednarodnega prava, ki jih proti njemu storidrava B.

3. Ga je drava sprejemnica dolna nuditi tujimdiplomatom.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

21/24

Priznanje

1. Entiteta, ki izpolnjuje pogoje, ki jih doloakonvencija iz Montevidea, ima pravico, dazahteva od drugih drav, da jo priznajo.

2. Dravo je treba priznati izrecno. Zgolj navezavadiplomatskih odnosov ne pomeni hkratipriznanja.

3. Priznanje je dovstranski akt drave, ki priznava

in drave, nakatero se priznanje nanaa.4. Priznanje drave je enostranski akt drugedrave.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

22/24

1. Vlada, ki je prila na oblast na neustavennain, lahko veljavno zavezuje svojodravo proti drugi dravi.

2. Vlada, ki je prila na oblast na neustavennain, ne more veljavno zavezovati svojedrave proti drugi dravi.

3. Vlada, ki je prila na oblast na neustaven

nain, veljavno zavezuje svojo dravoproti drugi.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

23/24

Kateri od natetih subjektov NI subjektmednarodnega prava?

Svetovna banka. Evropski svet. Svet Evrope.

Svetovna trgovinska organizacija.

8/12/2019 Vaje_MP01

24/24

Imuniteta Policija drave A pokodujejo avto tujega turista X, ki vloi odkodninski

zahtevek v svoji domai dravi. Drava A sklene konstrukcijski posel in pri javnem razpisu nedopustno

diskriminira tujega ponudnika. Ta vloi tbo pred sodiem v dravi A. Drava A kupi reaktivno letalo za vlado v dravi B. Prodajalec,

gospodarska druba s sedeem v dravi B, vloi tobo zaradi kritvepogodbe pred svojim domaim sodiem.

Enako kot zgoraj, z razkiko, da prodajalec sproi arbitrani postopek v

skladu z arbitrano klavzulo, ki je bila dogovorjena hkrati s prodajo. Drava A kupi slubene prenosne raunalnike za poslance v dravi B.Prodajalec, gospodarska druba s sedeem v dravi B, vloi tobo zaradikritve pogodbe pred svojim domaim sodiem.

Drava A kupi Patriev dravi B. Prodajalec, gospodarska druba ssedeem v dravi B, vloi tobo zaradi kritve pogodbe pred svojimdomaim sodiem.

V zadevi Littrell vs. USA je angleko sodie v odloilo, da se tipinoneoblastno dejanje kot je zdravljenje bolezni in/ali pokodb ne more tetiza akt iure imperii.