درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Oil and Gas exploration and exploitations have been ongoing for more than half a century in the Gulf of Guinea (GoG). However, recent discoveries of oil and gas deposits deep offshore along the coast of the GoG has increased exploration activities. Removal of offshore installation is a rigorous and complicated process which needs stringent regulations to ensure environmental protection of marine life and ensure safety of navigation at sea among other issues. Therefore, as these oil and gas installations approach the end of their productive life, removal of these installations from the marine environment becomes inevitable. Consequently, the need for the existence of a regional legal framework or policy to govern the removal process within the GoG becomes imperative. Using the doctrinal approach, the paper examines treaty provisions which are binding on individual member States, as well as their obligations under the GoG Commission in relation to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf (GCS), the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1972 London Dumping Convention, and the 1981 Abidjan Convention. The paper finds that the absence of a regional protocol or legal framework on removal of offshore installations creates chaos for the marine environment when removal issues arise in the future along the coast of the GoG. It concludes by making recommendations for a regional legal framework to ensure the smooth removal of installations in the future.

In the current globalized scenario, in view of the existence of phenomena and dynamics that go beyond state territories, of the integration of States in supranational and globally considered political systems, it is possible to perceive the emergence of new forms of political-legal organization in the international community that raise constitutionals conceptions beyond the classical perspective of the State-centered Constitution Theory. Thus, in view of the manifestation of a quantitative and qualitative growth of international law based on the identification of constitutional elements, an issue that has been gaining importance in debates and in the internationalist agenda, the problem to be developed asks: how is the development of Global Constitutionalism composed? considering the common challenges of the globalized world that transcend state borders, the confusion between external and internal limits, as well as the transformations of law in the international order, it is necessary to analyze the present content due to the need to point out directions by where you can tread the reflection in relation to the development of Global Constitutionalism. In this sense, the present study intends to find theoretical trends that compose the identification of the development process of the Global Constitutionalism paradigm. To answer the exposed problem, some objectives need to be achieved. Initially, an overview of the perspective of classical constitutional theory will be carried out. Then, we move on to the observation of the manifestation of Constitutionalism beyond the State. Finally, trends and aspects of the development of Global Constitutionalism will be examined.

The International Criminal Court (ICC, the Court) enables States to pursue the ideal of international criminal justice without imposing formal conditions. Since only States can become members of the Court, a fundamental question arises: is statehood necessary for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction according to the provisions of public international law? This paper hypothesizes that the primary criterion for the Court is its objectives and the existence of conditions for exercising territorial jurisdiction, even in the absence of clearly defined borders. Employing a descriptive-analytical research method, this study draws upon legal doctrine, international documents, and general legal principles. It examines two perspectives within public international law and international criminal law to critically analyze the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I regarding Palestine. The findings suggest that in exercising its jurisdiction, the Court operates independently of the rigid criteria traditionally associated with the concept of statehood in public international law.

The conception of nationality is about the place someone is born— in reality the place of his/her birth land. Hence Nationality is relating to the place of birth and can often be regarded as ethnic or racial matter. The right of nationality is the most important and cardinal title of human right. Therefore, International law assigns that States provisions to the persons nationalities is not arbitrary and they have to observe their human rights obligations relating the grant and loss of people nationality. Hence, lack of nationality for someone, make him/her have no chance for school, doctor appointment, job, bank account, or even marriage right_ all the most necessary rights_. Nevertheless, Millions of people all over the world are out of nationality and are regarded stateless ! The conception of stateless is about one who is considered as a nationless, without any legal and political support and protection by a Sovereignty. For more explication of nationality importance, there is a number of regional and international human rights concerning the right to a nationality. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicate “[e]veryone has the right to a nationality” and that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality