Basis Of Treaty Research Articles

Galimybės tobulinti tarptautinio teisinio bendradarbiavimo baudžiamosiose bylose pagrindus Lietuvos teisėje

The topicality of the issue concerning the international legal cooperation in criminal cases did not fade away until the beginning of the 19th century when on 2nd March 1802 the first multilateral international treaty intended for the extradition question was signed. Nevertheless, the fact that on the basis of this treaty neither person was surrendered actually became a significant signal that the fluency of the legal cooperation in criminal cases of states may be ensured only with the alternative of the international treaty – national law. Despite the fact that in 1994 Lithuania sent a message to the world that the legal cooperation at least in the sphere of extradition shall take place on two legal grounds (international treaty or national law), in the real world the second ground of legal aid in principle was not developed. The reason of such situation is that in Lithuania the regulation of this question regarding the international legal cooperation of states in criminal cases did not have nor has coherent concept. Breaches of legal regulation and discrepancies as well as Lithuania’s practice initiating extradition procedures in the absence of international treaty, in author’s opinion, enable to speak more decidedly about the necessity to build the so called unconventional bridge of legal cooperation in criminal cases with foreign states. Only under this condition Lithuania has a right to speak about concrete and not illusory actions securing efficient crime control based on the principle aut dedere aut iudicare. It is assumed that improving Lithuania’s legal base it would be useful to refine cases when international legal aid in criminal cases is possible only on the basis of international treaty and when on the basis of national law. The question regarding the content of corresponding national legislation is an issue of a wider discussion. Points of view may be diverse. For every form of the international legal aid in criminal cases a separate law (special procedural legislation) may be adopted or one specialised procedural law regulating all issues related to the international legal cooperation may be passed. Moreover, the question of the status of legal aid requests received by foreign states may also be a debatable matter. In this case, author offers to draw attention to the practice of Canada when extradition requests presented not on the grounds of international treaty are regarded as ad hoc contracts. Arguing the need of the national extradition law or the law standardizing questions of other international legal aid forms, the author suggests solving series of important issues among which the most urgent are the following: concept of the political offence, term of the reciprocal criminalisation, humanitarian conditions prohibiting the legal cooperation. Furthermore, in the opinion of the author, resolving the valid problems of states’ international legal cooperation, Lithuania should also improve norms regulating criminal jurisdiction principles as the existing system of these principles does not ensure the inevitability of responsibility. The other author’s position of principle concerns the fact that issues of states’ legal aid in criminal cases should not be regulated by the norms of the Criminal Code as they have no direct connections neither to the purpose of the Criminal Code nor to main regulations of the criminal liability, nor to the validity of the criminal law. Meanwhile, the procedural nature of norms regulating legal grounds and order of states’ international legal aid in criminal cases is evident because concerned norms inter alia help shortly and comprehensively to disclose offences and properly apply the law.

Readings and Misreadings?: The GDR and the GSA

Readings and Misreadings?The GDR and the GSA Marc Silberman (bio) When the Western Association of German Studies (WAGS)—the forerunner organization of the German Studies Association—was founded in 1976, its vision was to provide a space for interdisciplinary encounters around issues of teaching and researching “things German.” In the mid-1970s there was hardly a consensus that “things German” included a focus on all German-speaking areas, as stated in the front matter of each annual conference program until 1993: “The interest of the Association spans the period from early times to the present German Federal Republic, German Democratic Republic, Austria, and Switzerland, and includes Germans and German culture in other countries.” By embracing the GDR from the outset in its mission, the association was in the academic vanguard and responding to a palpable upswing in this broadening of the geographical and political inclusiveness of “things German.” The end of World War II and the Allied occupation of Germany yielded the Soviet Occupation Zone (SBZ) and in fall 1949 the GDR and FRG as two separate German states. But the combination of America’s postwar introversion, the cold war stand-off, and West Germany’s 1955 Hallstein Doctrine that divided the world into the friendly nations that did not recognize the GDR and unfriendly ones that did, contributed to the erasure of East Germany in the West. With the passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958 the US government began to invest significant funding in area studies to guarantee a future pool of foreign language experts and scholarly expertise deemed strategic for US interests abroad. However, in this context the GDR was considered to be a German-German issue, with the result that it was excluded from eastern European studies because “Germany” was equated with West Germany, and treated as a footnote in western European studies because East Germany was considered to be in the Soviet Bloc. A few specialists in GDR affairs, journalists, and political scientists who worked generally on German issues, published the first books treating East Germany in the late 1960s, yet both the academe and the broader public knew virtually nothing about this terra incognita. The key year for GDR studies in the US was 1974, a full twenty-five years after the state was founded. What might seem like a dramatic onset of scholarly interest, [End Page 611] in retrospect emerges from a context growing out of various factors. First and foremost, the modification of cold war confrontation through a policy of détente in the early 1970s resulted in the signing in December 1972 of the Grundlagenvertrag, the “Basic Treaty” in which the two German states mutually recognized their sovereignty. Thereupon the US followed in September 1974 by officially recognizing the GDR. This in itself, however, cannot explain the remarkable concatenation of scholarly energies in the course of that year. The newly launched journal New German Critique published its second issue in spring 1974 as a focus issue on the GDR—the very first of its kind in the US—introduced by the editorial collective as “a first attempt of New German Critique to open discussion of this largely neglected moment in the development of socialism” (3). In April the first major conference on the GDR took place at Washington University in St. Louis with over 150 Germanists in attendance.1 Also in spring 1974 the literary scholar Robert Weimann of the Zentralinstitut für Literaturgeschichte held guest lectures at the University of Virginia, and writer Christa Wolf and her writer-critic husband Gerhard Wolf were in residence at Oberlin College in Ohio, followed by Ulrich Plenzdorf one year later and Jurek Becker in 1978. In addition, a session arranged by the American Society for the Study of the GDR focused for the first time on the GDR in a conference of the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG) at Fairfield University in Connecticut. Finally, at the Modern Language Association (MLA) annual convention held in New York City at the end of December 1974 a GDR seminar was scheduled for the first time as part of the German literature offerings. The accumulation of events in 1974 did not...

CONCEPT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM OF THE ECOLOGICAL DISCOURSE

The article deals with the structural-and-semantic characteristics of the concept SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT as one of the basic world outlook concepts of the modern global conceptual sphere. It is a complex, multi-layer mental unit that has a diversified mental space. The objectification of the concept is implemented on the extensive basis of international treaties, academic, and applied publications in traditional and electronic media. The content of the concept is characterized by a certain hierarchy and consists of the nuclear (the basic concept), near nuclear zone (the derived concepts of the first level), close periphery (the derived concepts of the second level), distant periphery (the derived concepts of the third level), and the outermost periphery or adjacent concepts. The basic concept SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT forms its nuclear; thus, a terminological word combination explicates the primary nomination of the concept. The near nuclear zone consists of the derived concepts of the first level that conceptualize the main cognitive characteristics of the basic concept, they are as follows: SUSTAIN (SUSTAINABLE), DEVELOP (DEVELOPMENT), COMMUNITY, ECONOMY, COMMUNITY CAPITAL, CARRYING CAPACITY, EQUITY. These concepts are marked by a considerable concept- forming potential: when combining with one another they form new derived concepts differentiating new notions and further building up the notional basis of the sustainable development concept. The following mechanism of enriching the basic component with new meanings has been observed: a content segment of the interpretative field of a concept gets further development and starts functioning as a new derived concept of the next level. The interpretative fields of the concepts of the second level intersect. The notions of the primary and final interpretative fields and their definitions are introduced. Some concepts of the near nuclear zone demonstrate a multi-module structure of the informative content: the modules of the derived concepts expand the cognitive characteristics and foster the further development of the key notions of the conceptual system forming cognitive chains from a narrower notion to a broader one. The derived forms of the concept SUSTAINABILITY (SUSTAINABLE, SUSTAINABLY, UNSUSTAINABLE, UNSUSTAINABLY) get evaluative meanings and create separate segments of the evaluative zone of the concept. Further perspectives of the research are connected with the complex analysis of the concept SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT as a coherent mental unit and the investigation of its macrostructure, it is also important to expand the language basis of the nominative field of the concept under research.

Most Favoured Nation Clause in Investment Treaties

International investment law has undergone through enormous changes within the course of the preceding century. Along with the growth of trade and commerce, BITs between Host State and the investors’ home State have been developed since the earliest of the twelfth century to serve the protection of investors’ rights and maintain the sovereignty of the Host States.It is in the context of balancing the investor power and the Host State freedom that the application of the Most Favored Nation clauses to procedural rights to dispute resolution has become to prominence. Basically, the MFN clauses located in the basic treaty is a promise between the Home and Host States that any favorable conditions that have been accorded to any third-party shall also be granted to the counterparty to the treaty containing the MFN clause. On its face the inclusion of an MFN clause within an investment treaty might not seem problematic; however, the potential application of an MFN clause to dispute resolution procedures runs the risk of breaking the balance between investors’ rights and the State freedom that underlies the acceptability to States of investor-State arbitration.

THE VARIABLE GEOMETRY IN THE EXPERIENCE OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Differentiation represents a structural feature not only of the European integration but also of the regional organizations established outside Europe. Indeed most of them, operating in developing countries are based on the principle of variable geometry. In practice the latter translates in the fact that each act, produced within the institutional structure in order to pursue the organization’s aims, is ‘submitted’ for consideration to the member states, who are ‘free to accept it’ and, then, to incorporate it into the national legal system with a further approval given in accordance with domestic law. This approach implies that all the member States are bound only by provisions originally set out in the basic treaty, while the secondary law adopted to implement statutory rules concerning both substantial and institutional matters bind only the ‘willing’ States which have given their consent. So, even if the variable geometry is formally intended as a principle of flexibility allowing for progression in cooperation among a sub-group of members, in practice it leads to the fragmentation of the integration process by instituting differences and preventing a real in-depth interstate cooperation.

“Each year the Indians flexed their muscles a little more”: The Maliseet Defence of Aboriginal Fishing Rights on the St. John River, 1945–1990

Abstract: As in the rest of Canada in the postwar period, Aboriginal resistance to state fishing regulations in New Brunswick intensified. This article explores the conflict between Maliseet, commercial and sports fishers, and the state on the Kingsclear Reserve on the St. John River between 1945 and 1990. While the province's Aboriginal population had long asserted their fishing rights on the basis of eighteenth-century treaties, the modern struggle reflected the new challenges of the modernization era when water pollution, over-fishing by an industrial offshore fishery, and construction of hydroelectric dams reduced the river's Atlantic salmon population. Encouraged by an influential angling lobby, state authorities attempted to restrict Aboriginal fishing, especially at Kingsclear, located at the foot of the Mactaquac dam. As they had in the past, the Maliseet resisted enforcement of fisheries regulations, but a new generation of leaders, working closely with other Canadian Aboriginal organizations, also challenged the state in the courts and media. Faced with growing opposition both locally and nationally, and a judiciary increasingly sensitive to Aboriginal issues, federal enforcement declined, setting the stage for a negotiated settlement with the province. This study also shows that Maritime First Nations were active participants in the national wave of Aboriginal resistance and militancy during the 1970s and 1980s.

PROPOSALS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE ARISING OUT OF THE FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Appeared with the declared intention to ”meet the requirements of a dynamicpresent”, by: “the newly promoted solutions, the revision of some classical institutions oremphasis on certain internationally recognized principles, not implemented in the Romanianspace yet”, the new Civil Code does not seem to integrate the environmental and relatedissues in the dynamics of the present. Moreover, except for some modest norms – such as art.539 par. 2 which includes in the category of movables “the electromagnetic waves or thoseassimilated to them, as well as the energy of any kind” and art. 603 which provides theobligation of the owner to “observe the tasks concerning the protection of the environmentand the action of ensuring good neighbourhood” – nothing entitles us to assert that the newCivil Code “makes valuable use of provisions of European law instruments”. It is known thatthe basic treaties of the European Union – the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty onthe Functioning of the European Union – in numerous articles, establish the sustainabledevelopment of Europe and of the planet, the promotion of solidarity between generations anda high level of protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment as primaryobjectives of the European Union. This is the reason why art. 11 TFEU imposes that“environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition andimplementation of the Union policies and activities”.

The eu Seasonal Workers Directive: When Immigration Controls Meet Labour Rights

The Seasonal Workers Directive combines immigration law, which regulates entry and stay in a territory, with labour law, which governs the rights of workers. The different interests and expertise of the various eu institutions involved in the Directive’s drafting and adoption exacerbated the tension between these two legal fields. In turn, this tension compromised the achievement of several of the eu’s explicit objectives, namely, creating a level playing field for the recruitment of seasonal migrant workers across the Member States, instituting a circular migration program, and protecting migrant workers from economic and social exploitation. This article focuses on the extent to which the Directive has the capacity to protect seasonal migrant workers. To do so, it sketches the history of the Directive and discusses some consequences of its treaty basis, which provides the context for our analysis and evaluation of the substantive provisions of the Directive.

The International Law Commission Reinvents Itself?

For most of its history, the International Law Commission has been in the business of producing draft articles. Yet, Sean Murphy’s coverage of the Commission’s sixty-fifth session reveals that the Commission has decisively turned away from this format. As Jacob Katz Cogan’s earlier post observes, the Commission is demonstrating a new-found preference for outputs that are explicitly non-binding and betray no aspiration to form the basis for multilateral treaties. The Commission’s embrace of alternative formats is a promising response to some of the risks and criticisms associated with producing draft articles. But it is also an incomplete response. To ensure that its work continues to be relevant, ambitious, and influential, the Commission must revise its working methods as well as its outputs. In particular, the Commission should develop procedures for engaging with and soliciting input from the non-state actors who are becoming an increasingly important audience for the Commission’s work.

Application of MFN Clauses to Dispute Settlement Provisions in BITs and its Consequences for Investor-State Arbitration

This note provides a policy perspective to the debate of applying MFN clauses to dispute settlement provisions in BITs, and addresses some of the ramifications associated with such application. Several tribunals have had a difficult time addressing this dilemma. The paper extrapolates the very nature of dispute resolution clauses and consent to international arbitration as evinced in those clauses. This consent is binary in nature – either it is present or it is absent. Moreover, dispute settlement clauses contain conditions which must be fulfilled before consent can be construed as present, and before the tribunal can even interpret a treaty’s MFN provisions. Therefore, the paper argues, unless a dispute resolution clause explicitly provides for an MFN treatment, ratione consensus should not be modified to presume a State’s consent to a new set of conditions absent in the basic treaty. Secondly, the paper approaches MFN debate from a wider perspective. It presents that such application jeopardizes the very future of investment arbitration by fostering distrust of investor state arbitration and encouraging nations to withdraw from this mechanism. Moreover, broad interpretation of MFN clauses and treaty preambles besmirches the perception of arbitrator neutrality by incentivizing a tribunal to rule in favor of the investor at the jurisdictional stage. I address these concerns and argue that this debate must end before it further jeopardizes investor-state arbitration.

Handle with care: Umbrella clauses and MFN treatment in investment arbitration

A large number of BITs concluded by France contain quite a peculiar clause (for instance Article 10 BIT with Argentina), which has been recently the object of questionable interpretations and applications in EDF International S.A. et al. v. Argentina and Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova. Both tribunals allowed the claimants to benefit, through the MNF clause, from umbrella clauses contained in BITs with third States. It is argued that neither tribunal has rigorously interpreted the relevant provisions in the basic treaty, nor ensured compliance with the ejusdem generis principle. The legal uncertainty that surrounds these provisions is detrimental for foreign investors and States alike. Concerned States should consider taking the measures necessary to clarify, jointly or individually, the content of these provisions and of the obligations stemming from them.

Non-Compliance – a Pivotal or Secondary Function of CoP Governance?

Abstract This article seeks to assess the extent to which Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), rather than other treaty bodies established within MEA regimes, have played and continue to play a role in the establishing and operation of compliance systems and techniques. The roles of plenary bodies of a number of earlier MEAs adopted in the 1970s provide the particular focus of discussion (CITES, RAMSAR, the CMS Convention, LRTAP and the Berne Convention). Discussion will focus on the given plenary body’s role in the following areas: clarification of compliance by means of the interpretation of primary rules; the monitoring and verification process; establishing reporting requirements and improving reporting by parties; the facilitation of compliance by means of capacity-building and funding; the establishment and development of non-compliance procedures and mechanisms without an express treaty basis; and, finally, determining the consequences of non-compliance.

Divergence Between Investment and Commercial Arbitration

INTRODUCTION A central question about the emerging system of international arbitration is whether we are likely to witness growing uniformity and convergence or increasing specialization and divergence. In addressing this question, I am going to focus on the growing divergence between commercial and investment arbitration, which I believe is occurring due to differences in the fields' substantive law and professional communities. In doing so, I will focus on two phases: where we have come from and where we are heading. WHERE WE HAVE COME FROM Investment treaty arbitration grafts public international law (as a matter of substance) onto international commercial arbitration (as a matter of procedure). It has also historically married two professional communities, one coming from the world of inter-state dispute resolution and the other from private contractual arbitration. The fact that investment and commercial arbitration involve similar, and sometimes identical, dispute resolution procedures has led many to see them as two sides of the same coin. But the influence of public international law qualifies this approach. First, investment and commercial arbitration differ in their applicable substantive law. Commercial arbitration is typically characterized by an emphasis on private law, private contracts, and private parties. Even when states take part in commercial arbitration, they are generally understood to be acting in their private capacity. Investment treaty arbitration, by contrast, involves public international law rather than private law, treaties in addition to or instead of contracts, and states acting in their public capacity as sovereigns (which enter into treaties) and regulators (which govern populations). These substantive differences have, in turn, led to procedural divergences between investment and commercial arbitration. As investment treaties typically have similar provisions and investment awards often become public, investment treaty arbitration has developed a robust system of quasi-precedents, with the citation to and analysis of previous awards becoming a routine feature of investment pleadings and awards. The public interest in investment treaty arbitration has also led to procedural tweaks, such as the publication of many awards and some pleadings, as well as the opening of certain hearings and the participation of amici. In terms of professional communities, many advocates and arbitrators cross-specialize in investment and commercial arbitration, while others cross-specialize in inter-state dispute resolution and investment arbitration. As the investment treaty field has undergone a process of professionalization, an increasing number of arbitrators have been drawn from private practice rather than from, for instance, the ranks of ex-judges from Western states. However, a significant minority has always come from academia and public international law, much more so than in commercial arbitration. The profile of arbitrators has important effects on how the investment treaty field is developed because people with different professional backgrounds often approach the system in different ways. While some arbitrators are truly bilingual in public international law and international commercial arbitration, most have a pronounced mother tongue. Although any analysis of the connection between one's background and one's approach involves stereotyping and will be subject to exceptions, some broad trends can be discerned: * Arbitrators with a background in public international law often focus on the interstate treaty basis of the system; the intention and wishes of the treaty parties; how the system is embedded within a broader framework of public international law; and the importance of individual decisions contributing to a growing body of jurisprudence. * Arbitrators with a background in international commercial arbitration, by contrast, often focus on the investor-state dispute resolution relationship; the equality and autonomy of the disputing parties; the significance of commercial expectations; and the importance of deciding the particular case rather than contributing to a broader system. …

The Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty: The European Union in Retrospect and Prospect

SummaryThe history of European integration unmistakably shows that it has progressed step by step and is indeed an ongoing and irreversible process. One such step is the conclusion of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force on 1 December 2009, following negotiations spanning nearly a decade. The treaty aims, inter alia, at improving the functioning of the European Union (EU) and significantly amends the treaty basis of the EU as a supranational organization. It formally establishes the EU as a legal entity under public international law, strengthens the role of the European Parliament, and significantly reforms the role of the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. Moreover, the treaty has made the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights a legally binding and enforceable instrument and has expanded the competences of the EU in the fields of trade and other external commercial relations by providing it with exclusive competence to conduct the EU’s Common Commercial Policy. The author reviews these and other innovations of the Lisbon Treaty and briefly evaluates the treaty and its implications for the EU.

Mission accomplished? The questions of Hungary’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic community

Almost each of the political forces and the great majority of the public saw no alternative to Euro-Atlantic integration, that is, accession to NATO and the EC (after 1992 the EU) when Hungary regained its independence in 1990. Membership in both organizations had a number of internal and external implications too. Budapest had to introduce sweeping reforms in practically all walks of life. Thus, for instance, NATO-membership required the establishment of a parliamentary democracy, a functioning market economy, and the observance of civil and human rights. At the same time, Hungary had to sign so-called basic treaties with three of its neighbors in which it again committed itself to peaceful relations and the renunciation of any attempt to regain territories it had lost to the countries affected after the First and the Second World Wars. EU-membership needed even more extensive restructuring of the various Hungarian institutions from law enforcement through finances to social services. In addition, Budape...

Contextualizing the Centennial of Japanese Colonial Rule in Korea

This article examines the 2010 commemoration of the centennial of Japanese colonialism in Korea. Prime Minister Kan Naoto’s apology generated controversy, exposing the longstanding domestic divide within Japan over the imperial past. The politicization of history, apologies and acts of contrition impedes reconciliation between Japan and its Asian neighbours. Apologies and acts of contrition may not be sufficient to advance reconciliation, but remain essential elements of that process. Japan’s legalistic position based on the 1965 Basic Treaty may protect it from further compensation claims, but also precludes the grand gestures that are essential to reconciliation.

Does the Emperor Have Financial Crisis Clothes? Reflections on the Legal Basis of the European Banking Authority

The European Union institutional package launched in response to the financial crisis used Article 114 TFEU as its legal basis. The author explores the legal basis for one of the European Supervisory Authorities recently established – the European Banking Authority (EBA). The use of Article 114 TFEU, the main Treaty basis used to harmonise laws in order to further the internal market, as the foundation for the EBA, is considered in detail. A paradox of contemporary EU institutional law is assessed here, considering whether on the one hand, the EBA is functionally both too narrow and too broad as a matter of law, while on the other hand, it may prove to be central to restoring confidence in EU regulatory powers, rendering it ‘too big to fail,’ despite its slender foundations in Article 114 TFEU.

The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation Off the Rails

In this article the author revisits the vexed question of whether the jurisdiction of an international tribunal, established in accordance with the terms of the basic treaty, can be expanded by reference to the terms of a third treaty through the investor’s reliance upon the MFN clause in the basic treaty. The recent line of cases suggesting that no general answer to that question can be provided in view of the nuanced differences in the wording of MFN clauses is considered and criticized as failing to pay adequate attention to the principles of general international law as mandated by Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The application of those principles leads to a negative answer to the question. A claim for MFN treatment secures the treatment represented by the third treaty, it does not effect the automatic incorporation of the terms of the third treaty into the basic treaty before the investor files its claim. Moreover, for the investor to assert a claim for MFN treatment it must first accept the standing offer of international arbitration in accordance with the terms of the basic treaty and at that point an arbitration agreement comes into existence. The terms of that agreement cannot be amended retroactively at the suit of one of the parties. There is a fundamental distinction in general international law between the substantive obligations in a treaty, which are addressed to the state parties, and the provisions that create a jurisdictional mandate for an international tribunal, which are addressed to the tribunal and to the disputing parties, who enter into a relationship of procedural equality once arbitration proceedings have been commenced. This distinction must be respected by investment treaty tribunals in confronting the question of the scope of MFN clauses.

Does the Emperor Have Financial Crisis Clothes? Reflections on the Legal Basis of the European Banking Authority

The European Union institutional package launched in response to the financial crisis used Article 114 TFEU as its legal basis. The author explores the legal basis for one of the European Supervisory Authorities recently established- the European Banking Authority (EBA). The use of Article 114 TFEU, the main Treaty basis used to harmonise laws in order to further the internal market, as the foundation for the EBA, is considered in detail. A paradox of contemporary EU Institutional law is assessed here, considering whether on the one hand, the EBA is functionally both too narrow and too broad as a matter of law, while on the other hand, it may prove to be central to restoring confidence in EU regulatory powers, rendering it “too big to fail,” despite its slender foundations in Article 114 TFEU.

Korea-Japan Basic Treaty and North Korea Problem: the Only Lawfulness Provision and it's Implications

Korea-Japan Basic Treaty and North Korea Problem: the Only Lawfulness Provision and it's Implications