Suchergebnisse

This edited volume examines the experiences and the roles of the police deployed on peacekeeping and intervention missions in Afghanistan, Bougainville, Cyprus, Haiti, Kosovo, Namibia, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, and Ukraine. Despite the extensive literature that has examined the role of the military in peacekeeping and intervention operations, little literature or information that investigates the role and the work of the police or the methods that they use to assist in the reformation of local police is available. This book provides an overview of the history and role of the police in peacekeeping missions, and discusses the principle factors of police reform and development in post-conflict nations. It includes case studies assessing the background of the conflict and the police deployments, as well as their role, contributions, and achievements. Including two in-depth surveys of police officer experiences on peacekeeping missions, this volume will be of great value to policing researchers and law enforcement leadership, police historians, and students and researchers of post-conflict development. Examines and critiques approaches to the reform of police organizations in post-conflict nations; Develops detailed case studies of the role of police in international peacekeeping missions and post-conflict assistance; Analyses two extensive surveys of the experiences of police officers deployed to peacekeeping missions

The article will endeavour to examine the claims in some doctrinal writing that the 'principle of origin' in fact contains a hidden conflict rule which directly renders applicable the country of origin's law. When examining this question, a distinction has to be drawn between the principle as it can be found in primary European Community law (the Treaty freedoms) on the one hand, and the principle as it was implemented in several instruments of secondary Community law. These correspond to the two main parts of the article. The second part will however only deal with one example of a secondary instrument implementing the principle of origin, namely the 'Directive on electronic commerce'.

This new open access book provides a valuable restatement of the current law of armed conflict regarding hostilities in a diverse range of contexts: outer space, cyber operations, remote and autonomous weapons, undersea systems and devices, submarine cables, civilians participating in unmanned operations, military objectives by nature, civilian airliners, destruction of property, surrender, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, cultural property, the natural environment, and more. The book was prepared by a group of experts after consultation with a number of key governments. It is intended to offer guidance for practitioners (mainly commanding officers); facilitate training at military colleges; and inform both instructors and graduate students of international law on the current state of the law.

This article compares Owen v. Galgey under Article 4 Rome II Regulation and YANG Shuying v. British Carnival Cruise under Article 44 Chinese Conflicts Act in the context of cross-border multi-party litigation on tort liability. The questions raised in these two cases include how to interpret the tort conflicts rules of lex loci delicti, lex domicilii communis and the closer/closest connection test when determining the applicable law. In particular, as regards the meaning of lex loci delicti, the notion of 'damage', the common habitual residence of the parties and the criteria to determine the closer/closest connection, different interpretations were provided in these two cases. In order to clarify certain ambiguity of tortious applicable law rules in cross-border multi-party litigation, a comparative study of Chinese and European tort conflicts rules is conducted. This article does not intend to make a conclusion, between Rome II Regulation and Chinese Conflicts Act, which law is better, but rather highlights on a common challenge faced by both Chinese courts and English courts in the field of international tortious litigation on personal injury and how to tackle such challenge in an efficient way under current legislation.

This open access book provides a valuable restatement of the current law of armed conflict regarding hostilities in a diverse range of contexts: outer space, cyber operations, remote and autonomous weapons, undersea systems and devices, submarine cables, civilians participating in unmanned operations, military objectives by nature, civilian airliners, destruction of property, surrender, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, cultural property, the natural environment, and more. The book was prepared by a group of experts after consultation with a number of key governments. It is intended to offer guidance for practitioners (mainly commanding officers); facilitate training at military colleges; and inform both instructors and graduate students of international law on the current state of the law.

One of the dangers of harmonisation and unification processes taking place within the framework of the EU is that they may result in the codification of the lowest common denominator. This is precisely what is threatening to happen in respect of assignment. Referring the transfer of receivables by way of assignment to the law of the assignor's residence, as article 13 of the Proposal does, would be opting for the most conservative solution and would for many Member States be a step backward rather than forward. A conflict rule referring assignment to the law of the assignor's residence is too rigid to do justice to the dynamic nature of assignments in cross-border transactions and it is unjustly one-sided. It offers no real advantages when compared to other conflict rules; it even has serious disadvantages which make the conflict rule unsuitable for efficient assignment-based cross-border transactions. It is not unconceivable that this conflict rule would even be contrary to the fundamental freedoms of the ECTreaty. The Community legislators in particular should be careful not to needlessly adopt rules which create insurmountable obstacles for cross-border business where choice-of-law by the parties would perfectly do. Community legislation has a special responsibility to create a smooth legal environment for single market transactions.

This article compares Owen v. Galgey under Article 4 Rome II Regulation and YANG Shuying v. British Carnival Cruise under Article 44 Chinese Conflicts Act in the context of cross-border multi-party litigation on tort liability. The questions raised in these two cases include how to interpret the tort conflicts rules of lex loci delicti, lex domicilii communis and the closer/closest connection test when determining the applicable law. In particular, as regards the meaning of lex loci delicti, the notion of 'damage', the common habitual residence of the parties and the criteria to determine the closer/closest connection, different interpretations were provided in these two cases. In order to clarify certain ambiguity of tortious applicable law rules in cross-border multi-party litigation, a comparative study of Chinese and European tort conflicts rules is conducted. This article does not intend to reach a conclusion as to which law is better between the Rome II Regulation and the Chinese Conflicts Act, but rather highlights a common challenge faced by both Chinese courts and English courts in the field of international tortious litigation on personal injury and how to tackle such challenge in an efficient way under current legislation.