INP PAN Czasopisma
Not a member yet
3761 research outputs found
Sort by
Legal Succession in Polish Administrative Law
No full textThe implementation of succession of rights in administrative proceedings raises many controversies in science and case law. The article presents key controversial issues in a comparative approach. The author defends the thesis on the effectiveness of civil law actions for rights and obligations in the sphere of public law
Prosecuting Individuals for Environmental Harm in the Armed Conflict between Russia and Ukraine: The Case of Destruction of the Kakhovka Dam
No full textThe ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has caused serious harm to the environment, resulting in the destruction of ecosystems, a reduction in biodiversity, and damage to natural reserves and protected ecosystems. This type of damage may fall under the jurisdiction of both the International Criminal Court (ICC) under Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute regarding war crimes and the Ukrainian domestic courts under Art. 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (CCU) regarding ecocide. However, while Ukrainian domestic judicial authorities are already conducting investigations under Art. 441 CCU, the prosecution by the ICC for environmental damage should satisfy the high threshold imposed by Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute. It would be interesting to see whether the ICC Prosecutor will initiate an investigation into the Kakhovka dam bombing, just like Ukrainian domestic authorities have already done
Domestic and International Criminal Jurisdiction in the Context of the Initiative for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression
No full textRussia’s aggression against Ukraine and the efforts to prosecute the perpetrators have renewed the debate regarding domestic and international criminal jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Given the inter-state nature of this crime and its link to an act of aggression, the existence of which can be determined by the Security Council, the International Law Commission’s (ILC) relatively restrictive approach to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction prevailed, at least until 2022. Against this background, the discussion regarding the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine has significantly influenced the trajectory of the understanding of general international law concerning individual criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression. The interpretative paths adopted in the mid-1990s are gradually being abandoned. At the same time, an intense ongoing debate concerning the understanding of the phrase “international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction” has not led to any conclusive arrangements. Still, what is known is that there is a certain group of states for which such courts can be created through bilateral agreement between the state concerned and the United Nations, on the recommendation of the UN General Assembly
Implementation and Interpretation of the Definitions of International Crimes in the National Jurisdiction of Ukraine
No full textThe article consists of two parts, the first of which discusses the problems associated with implementing the provisions of international law in the Ukrainian legal system regarding the understanding of the concept of “international crimes”. It underscores that the different definitions are due to the fact that Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute. However, it should be noted that most provisions of international law regarding international crimes regarding war crimes, the crime of aggression and the crime of genocide are part of the Ukrainian legal system. At the same time, there are no crimes against humanity in Ukrainian national criminal law. The second part addresses the issues regarding Ukrainian courts’ interpretation of the national criminal law and international treaties on international crimes: interpreting the provisions of United Nations acts and the Rome Statute, applying the principle of “nullum crimen sine lege”in the context of prosecuting the crime of Holodomor, interpreting the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the use of trial in absentia in the case of Russian war criminals and interpreting provisions regarding universal jurisdiction in Ukrainian law
Administrative Fines as Instruments of Legal Influence
No full textAdministrative power is an attribute of public administration which is a reflection of state power. Thanks to it, the administration can unilaterally shape the legal situation of the administered persons, exercising the powers granted to it. However, the scope and manifestations of power must be regulated in statutes, which is a prerequisite for exercising control over the administration in a democratic state ruled by law. The functions, goals and tasks of the administration evolve, the intensity and manifestations of administrative power also change, yet it is still a permanent feature of administration and there is no indication that this will change.
The article shows the evolution of power in various manifestations of administration activity, both in legal and factual activities. The changing models of the administrative procedure and, consequently, the degree of intensification of the authoritative actions in the classical sense of authority in the issuance of administrative acts were analysed. The characteristic types of authority were also indicated, such as: planning authority, statutory authority, organizational and functional authority, plant authority
Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression in International and Ukrainian Jurisdiction: Challenges and Prospects
No full textThis article explores the genesis of Russian aggression against Ukraine, tracing its origins from the unprovoked illegal invasion initiated in February 2014 to the full-scale invasion in 2022. Despite initial international responses, the lack of significant sanctions against Russia or efforts to prosecute its leaders for the crime of aggression persisted until the 2022 invasion. The international community’s condemnation of the brutality accompanying this invasion underscored the need for accountability mechanisms within the existing international legal framework. However, limitations in prosecuting aggression within the International Criminal Court, coupled with challenges in amending the Rome Statute, have led to proposals for an ad hoc mechanism to address aggression gaining traction. These proposals highlight the urgency of holding aggressors accountable and safeguarding victims’ rights. Concurrently, Ukrainian jurisdiction incorporates the concept of the crime of aggression in its Criminal Code but lacks clarity on essential elements necessary for prosecuting such crimes, including the leadership element. An analysis of court verdicts reveals discrepancies in interpreting the crime of aggression, emphasising the necessity of adopting a unified approach that is consistent with international law. The article underscores the critical importance of enhancing legal frameworks, building capacity and encouraging international cooperation to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression and to preserve the rule of law
Supremacy Over Primacy...? Reflections on Legal Controversies between Poland and the European Union (2015–2023)
No full textThe violation of the rule of law in Poland (2015–2023) was related to the relationship between national law, especially constitutional law; and international law, especially European Union (EU) law. This article focuses on the issue of constitutional review in the context of concepts such as sovereignty and conferral of competences, as well as the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of application of international rules and principles.Sovereignty, a qualitative feature of the State, operates within the law, not outside of it. EU (international) law does not limit sovereignty, but the sovereign nature of the State cannot justify violations of the applicable law. Situating the relationship between international (EU) law and the national constitution in the perspective of the supremacy of one order over the other leads in practice to a collision and/or a stalemate. Rather, we should be guided by the principle of primacy as an “existential requirement” for the functioning of the Union, and more broadly, of international law.The primacy of application does not imply the supremacy of EU law over national law, nor the derogation of national law norms. Constitutional supremacy, on the other hand, is a principle of domestic law which does not have external legal effects and does not exempt a State from its international legal responsibility. The concepts of priority and supremacy coexist, but they fulfil different functions and express different perspectives – primacy does not prejudge supremacy, and supremacy does not exclude primacy.What is problematic is not so much the review of constitutionality per se, but the scope of that review and its effects. Once a national court has found a conflict between EU law and the national Constitution, should we accept the effect of selective refusal to apply EU law on the grounds of constitutional supremacy and sovereignty? The answer to this question is negative
State Aid for Green Technologies in the European Union: Limitations and Risks
No full textThis article analyzes the recently adopted European Union State aid rules designed to facilitate the implementation of “green” technologies. This initiative is in line with European objectives to combat climate change and transition to an emission-free economy. By contextualizing State aid rules within the broader regulatory policy landscape, the author aims to assess the inherent limitations of these tools. Based on this evaluation, the article attempts to determine if and to what extent EU State aid law can be successfully utilized to promote environmental objectives.The analysis begins with an overview of the State aid toolbox and its role in regulatory policies, situated on a spectrum between incentive-based and obligation-based approaches. Subsequently, it delves into the evaluation of potential consequences, encompassing risks such as the deepening disparities between wealthier and poorer Member States, inadequate safeguards against offshoring in pursuit of lenient environmental norms, and the peril of fostering subsidy dependence
Russia’s Discourse on Democracy in International Law
No full textThis article explores Russia’s official discourse on democracy in international law, addressing the following questions: When Russia speaks of democracy in the context of international law, what precisely does it mean and what does it advocate for? What do these discussions truly signify regarding Russia’s understanding and interpretation of democracy in international law? What are the potential consequences of Russia’s interpretation for the discourse on democracy in international law? The central hypothesis of this study suggests that Russia strategically leverages the counter-Western democratic discourse within international law to secure its position as a great power rather than offer a meaningful alternative to the Western “hegemonic” ideas of democracy.
This study is novel, as Russia’s discourses on democracy have received little attention in international legal scholarship. It is relevant in light of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which is often framed within the broader context of the struggle between autocracy and democracy. The main analysis is construed around the official discourse of Russia’s high-ranking officials. The research highlights that although Russia’s discourse is directed against the Western liberal “hegemonic” idea of democracy, it does not offer any substantive alternative to it and aligns with the paradigm of realpolitik. Instead, it inadvertently reinforces the fundamental principles of Western liberal democracy