4,992 research outputs found
“The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A Challenge for the European Union or Only for Its Member States? Towards a EU National Action Plan”
No full textWith my essay in the festschrift for Professor Stelios Perrakis, I wish to advocate the periodic elaboration of a comprehensive EU National Action Plan to implement the UNGPs (i.e. the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) as if the EU was a federal state. As a matter of fact, there are many policies and activities that the EU is doing or has already done to implement, even ex ante and spontaneously, the UNGPs. Thus, to avoid the risk of fragmentation of actions and policies between the EU level and the Member States, such a living document would serve as a compass for policy action and would increase the consistency and coherence of the EU as a whole. It would also help Member States to understand their respective policy space and responsibilities to complement and effectively support EU action to fully implement the UNGPs.
But are the UNGPs applicable to the EU or rather are they addressed solely to its Member States? This will form the first part of this essay. Here, it will become evident that the EU has developed many activities even before the UNGPs were elaborated.
In the second part, my essay turns less optimistic. The role of the EU may be put to a test when dealing with UNGPs Pillar three, namely the “access to remedies” pillar. Under this perspective it emerges that Member States cannot do much today since fundamental matters such as “private international law” including “conflict of jurisdiction” rules have been largely regulated by the EU. Beyond EU private international law there are national solutions which provide a scattered and unsatisfactory picture facilitating forum and law shopping. Hence, any reform of EU Private International Law as a whole should be considered under the light of the UNGPs.
All in all, since the EU and its Member States operate in different spheres of competence (exclusive, shared, supporting) it necessarily follows that the responsibility to fully implement the UNGPs may be exclusive or shared
Florence Barber Diary, 1902, 1901
No full textThis diary was formerly described as an unattributed diary and entitled: Diary (Portsmouth, Va.), 1901, but has now been attributed to Florence Barber of Norfolk, Virginia. In brief daily entries she talks about the weather, chores, and social life, trips to town, church, attending meetings, etc. In August she went to visit churches and schools in Georgia and Alabama, like Atlanta University and Spelman College, both historically black schools. She also mentions teaching music, attending educational meetings in Portsmouth and being elected president of the local YMCA. September 3 is the last entry in this diary.Research conducted by William and Mary students in 2011 pointed to Florence Barber as the owner and author of this diary. Their research also corrected that the diary was actually from 1902, not 1901 and that the author lived in Norfolk, not Portsmouth, Virginia. The diary was transcribed and made available online in 2012.For a more detailed description from staff as well as description and excerpts from the diary provided by the seller, please see digital item:
Florence Barber Diary (1902) identification and Transcription, 2011-2012
http://hdl.handle.net/10288/1706
Chronique Union européenne et droits fondamentaux - Confiance mutuelle le dialogue entre la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme et la Cour de justice
No full textInternational audience(CEDH, gr. ch., 23 mai 2016, n° 17502/07, AJDA 2016. 1738, chron. L. Burgorgue-Larsen ; D. 2017. 1011, obs. H. Gaudemet-Tallon et F. Jault-Seseke ; J.-S. Bergé, Avotins ou le calme qui couve la tempête, ELSJ 26 mai 2016 ; F. Benoît-Rohmer, Les cours européennes face au défi de la confiance mutuelle, RTDH 2017. 391 ; M. Guiresse, Confiance mutuelle et mandat d'arrêt européen : évolution ou inflexion de la Cour de justice ?, ESLJ 12 avr. 2016
Preporuke Stalne međuvladine grupe ‘Europe de l’Enfance’ za politiku ranog djetinjstva u Europi 2010. - 2020.
No full textFlorence Pirard i Benoit Parmentier izvještavaju o preporukama koje su
usuglašene od strane Stalne međuvladine grupe ‘Europe de l'Enfance’ na
sastanku u Bruxellesu u studenome 2010. godine
Annual budget (Florence, Arizona)
No full textabstract: A statement of the estimated revenues and expenditures of the town of Florence, Arizona, including data from the previous fiscal year
Les « droits sexuels » : un nouveau paradigme dans le système de protection des droits humains ?
No full textDroits de l'Homm
The right to self-determination and restitution: the matter of the people of the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)
No full textCette thèse traite du déplacement involontaire et de l’exil forcé de la population entière de l’archipel des Chagos, « les Ilois » , de leur territoire qui forme aujourd’hui une partie du nouveau « Territoire britannique de l’océan Indien» (ou BIOT) afin qu’y soit construite une base militaire américaine. Le déplacement forcé et le non-respect de leur droit à l‘auto-détermination constituent en soi une violation de plusieurs principes de droit international. Le problème chagossien soulève un nombre important de questions en droit international, en particulier tous les aspects liés au droit des peuples autochtones qui, une fois étudiées séparément, constituent autant de sujets d’étude majeurs. Certains spécialistes de la question aimeraient par exemple mener une étude sur le fait que les Chagossiens satisfont à la définition internationale des peuples autochtones, puisque leur occupation de l’archipel des Chagos précède la colonisation de l’archipel par les colons britanniques ; ils sont aujourd’hui en exil dans des territoires indépendants contre leur gré et demeurent assujettis au pouvoir colonial britannique en tant que « citoyens ». Mais l’objectif principal de cette étude est de déterminer s’il s’agit d’un peuple ayant droit à l’autodétermination dans le contexte de la décolonisation. La légalité ou non de la façon dont l’Ile Maurice a perdu la souveraineté sur l’archipel des Chagos intéressera probablement les spécialistes dans les années à venir. Le litige de l’Ile Maurice qui souhaite se voir réattribuer la souveraineté sur le Territoire britannique de l’océan Indien est en soi un domaine de recherche, qui va au-delà de la portée de cette étude...This study concerns the forcible removal and displacement of the Ilois people, who now prefer to be called Chagossians, from their homeland to make way for the US military base on their land, the Chagos Archipelago, today called the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Their forcible removal was in violation of several international instruments and human rights law that prohibit the forcible transfer of populations and forced exile. It is also a violation of their right tot self-determination. The Chagos matter raises a number of important questions in international law that, if taken separately, are major areas of study in themselves. Some scholars may wish to undertake a study on whether the Chagossians would satisfy the United Nations ‘definition’ of indigenous people since their occupancy of the Chagos Archipelago predates British colonisation of the territory; they are currently in exile in independent countries -Seychelles and Mauritius- to which they were brought against their will; and they are still subject to the colonial power of the UK Government as citizens. The central argument in this study is that they are a ‘people’ entitled to self-determination in the context of decolonization. The legality or otherwise of how Mauritius lost sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago will probably interest scholars for some time to come. The contention by Mauritius that she be allowed to resume sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is in itself a major area of research, which goes beyond the scope of the current study
The potential role of the Horizontal Social Clauses (Art. 9 TFUE) on social rights protection
No full textAffidavit of Florence Scrivner Toye re: transfer of Lease D, Carson Estate Company to Lor Tsan Yow, October 26, 1942
No full textDescribes one-half interest transfer of Lease D with the Carson Estate Company from Florence Scrivner Toye to Lar Tsan Yaw. Signatures representing Florence Scrivner Toye, Lar Tsan Yaw and Hamilton H. Cotton of the Carson Estate Company are included
Affidavit of Florence Scrivner Toye re: transfer of Lease D, Carson Estate Company to Quan Bros., February 25, 1943
No full textDescribes transfer of Lease D with the Carson Estate Company from Florence Scrivner Toye to the Quan Bros. company; Quan Him Wong, George G. Quan. Signatures representing Florence Scrivner Toye, Harry G. Toye, Quan Him Wong, George G. Quan and Hamilton H. Cotton of the Carson Estate Company are included
- …
