The revival of the UN Security Council’s regulatory powers after the end of the Cold War as well as new challenges to international peace and security have led to the development and diversification of UN operational tools. In the absence of United Nations’ own material capacities to undertake necessary military action, due to the non-conclusion of agreements provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter by which UN Member States would commit to provide the necessary force and other assistance to the Security Council upon its call, the latter developed other means. Today, there co-exist two mandated operations by the Security Council vested with the power to use force, each however within a different scope, limits and objective: UN-led “Blue Helmets” and UN-authorized military operations. This functional rapprochement causes nevertheless a great confusion, both in practice and recently in the judicial sphere. Hence, the clarification of the legal regime of each is essential. While the UN-led Blue Helmets vested with the limited power to use force represent the new generation of peacekeeping operations, the UN-authorized operations constitute a decentralized execution of the Council’s enforcement measure. In the latter case the Security Council turns to UN Member States or regional organizations and delegates them its exclusive power to use force under Article 42 of the UN Charter to execute it under set conditions. The limitation of the use of force by the UN-led operation to the strict defence of its civilian mandate does not exempt it from the regime of coercion established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter either. This raises a question of the legal status of this UN-led operation and whether possibly such tool approaches the original concept of UN enforcement forces laid down in Article 43. Analysis of the converging and diverging elements of both operations shows the complexity of this operational domain, the clarification of which is proposed in this article via a legal perspective.
The cyber sphere forms a fifth domain of activities were interactions between state and non-state actors could happen. It starts to play an important role within the conflicts and hostilities. Especially in these situations, international society does not have a unified view on the question how to deal with the activities in cyberspace. We could see the different forms of abuse of cyberspace also within the crisis in Ukraine. This crisis is a good example of the complexity of the legal approach and the (non)capability of the legal understanding of cyber operations and attacks. The goal of this article is to highlight this complexity and to determine the status of cyber incidents realized in the Ukraine from the perspective of international law., Jozef Valuch, Ondrej Hamuľák., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Článek se zaměřuje na postupně se formující mezinárodní právo obětí terorismu.Na úvod jsou rozebrány faktory, jež vedly k nárůstu zájmu o danou problematiku – vedle uvědomění si zvláštních potřeb obětí terorismu mezi ně patří celkový trend posilování práv obětí na mezinárodní scéně.Následuje přehled základních pramenů mezinárodněprávní úpravy práv obětí terorismu. Článek se též zamýšlí nad otázkou, jakou povahu práva obětí vlastně mají, tj. zda se jedná o práva lidská, jak jsou tato práva konstruována a zda již tvoří součást právní úpravy de lege lata. Poslední část je věnována obsahu mezinárodněprávní úpravy,a to konkrétně vymezení pojmu „oběti terorismu“ a určení katalogů práv, která jsou, popř.by mohla být těmto obětem přiznána. Článek se celkově k právnímu vývoji v oblasti práv obětí terorismu staví skepticky. Ačkoli tento vývoj má mnohé pozitivní aspekty, v konečném důsledku hrozí vést k fragmentaci mezinárodního práva, resp. práva lidských práv a ztěžuje zformování mezinárodního práva obětí, jehož vznik by byl žádoucí. and The paper scrutinizes the emerging international law on victims of terrorism. It starts by laying out the main factors which have provoked the normative development in this area. In addition to the acknowledgment of special needs of victims of terrorism, these factors encompass a more general turn towards the rights of victims at the international level. An overview of the main sources of the legal regulation relating to victims of terrorism is then offered, followed by an analysis of more theoretical aspects of the topics.More specifically, the article contemplates the nature of the rights
of victims of terrorism discussing whether these rights are in fact human rights, how they are legally construed and to what extent they make part of the lex lata of international law. Finally, the article analyses the content of the emerging legal regulation, focusing on the concept of “victim of terrorism”
and the content of the rights accorded to these victims. In general, the article takes a rather critical stance towards the emergence of a new international law on victims of terrorism. It argues that although such a development would have positive aspects, it would also entail the risk of enhancing fragmentation of international law, and of human rights law, thus hindering the creation of a more general international law of victims.
The presidency of the Council of the European Union is responsible for the functioning of the Council of the EU and is rotated between EU member states every six months. Beginning in January 2009 the Czech Republic will take over the EU Council Presidency. The Czech Republic´s motto for their Presidency is Europe without barriers. Its message and hope is to break down the barriers which still exist between member states including the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. and Jarmila Tiosavljevičová.