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.
Relatively wide-ranging debate about implementing the introduction of criminal liability of legal persons in Slovak, but also in Czech legal system has been going on since the end of the year 1990, and however this discussion does not stop, which is benefit to criminal jurisprudence. Author in his article interprets this aspect positively and assesses that it is important above all to look for leading arguments and needs of application praxis that would require implementation of criminal liability of legal persons. It characterizes possible accordance of individual criminal responsibility with criminal liability of legal persons. In article author drafted also possible worries of its implementation, mostly if it deals with criminalization of business environment within competitive fight and security of third persons.
Legal responsibility is important element of legal development of every state. Authors consider theprinciple of subsidiarity in the aspects of the legal development. There are many problems in this field. Authorsuppose that main problem in this case is a providing of obey law. Legal responsibility is basic legal instrumentfor providing of obey law.