Pub Date : 2019-12-04DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04404001
P.-E. Thévenin
The new Caspian Sea Convention signed in Aktau, Kazakhstan, on the 12th of August 2018 puts an end to almost three decades of legal uncertainty and complex negotiations that were by the question of the exploitation of the rich Caspian seabed. Although the significance of the Aktau Convention should not be understated, this article will show that rather than providing a new legal framework for the Caspian Sea, it validates the North Caspian Sea agreements previously signed between Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia. As a result, these countries stand to benefit the most from this convention, as opposed to Iran, whose propositions do not appear in the final version of the instrument.
{"title":"The Caspian Sea Convention: New Status but Old Divisions?","authors":"P.-E. Thévenin","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04404001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04404001","url":null,"abstract":"The new Caspian Sea Convention signed in Aktau, Kazakhstan, on the 12th of August 2018 puts an end to almost three decades of legal uncertainty and complex negotiations that were by the question of the exploitation of the rich Caspian seabed. Although the significance of the Aktau Convention should not be understated, this article will show that rather than providing a new legal framework for the Caspian Sea, it validates the North Caspian Sea agreements previously signed between Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia. As a result, these countries stand to benefit the most from this convention, as opposed to Iran, whose propositions do not appear in the final version of the instrument.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78803607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-04DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04404003
Antonija Ivančan, Davor Petrić
This article discusses compliance with the interpretive obligation by Croatian courts five years into Croatia’s membership in the EU. Our aim is to analyze whether Croatian courts have (and, if so, to what extent) accepted this obligation. We will first review the Croatian courts’ record of compliance with the interpretive obligation during the pre-accession period, and revisit some of the existing findings. In the second part, we turn to analysis of the Croatian courts’ record of compliance with the interpretive obligation following accession. Some of the key findings are: higher national courts have accepted that the EU interpretive obligation binds all national courts; lower national courts have fully embraced this obligation; the Constitutional Court struggles with adopting a clear position on the interpretive obligation. We conclude by observing whether EU membership has contributed to the transformation of legal culture and the relationship between different judicial instances in Croatia.
{"title":"Are Croatian Courts Prepared for the Interpretive Obligation?","authors":"Antonija Ivančan, Davor Petrić","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04404003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04404003","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses compliance with the interpretive obligation by Croatian courts five years into Croatia’s membership in the EU. Our aim is to analyze whether Croatian courts have (and, if so, to what extent) accepted this obligation. We will first review the Croatian courts’ record of compliance with the interpretive obligation during the pre-accession period, and revisit some of the existing findings. In the second part, we turn to analysis of the Croatian courts’ record of compliance with the interpretive obligation following accession. Some of the key findings are: higher national courts have accepted that the EU interpretive obligation binds all national courts; lower national courts have fully embraced this obligation; the Constitutional Court struggles with adopting a clear position on the interpretive obligation. We conclude by observing whether EU membership has contributed to the transformation of legal culture and the relationship between different judicial instances in Croatia.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88290225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04403006
E. Sherstoboeva
This paper explores, mainly from a legal perspective, the extent to which Russian regulation of traditional TV and online audiovisual media policies has been consistent with Council of Europe (hereinafter CoE) standards. The study compares the CoE and Russian approaches to specific aspects of audiovisual regulation including licensing, media ownership, public service media, digitalization, and national production. The paper first studies the CoE perspective through examining its conventional provisions related to audiovisual media regulation, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as CoE non-binding documents. The study proceeds to consider Russian national law governing audiovisual media and the practice of Russian courts of general jurisdiction on broadcast licensing. The paper suggests that Russian audiovisual regulation is insufficiently compatible with CoE standards and mainly seeks to maintain excessive governmental control over the audiovisual sector in a digital environment.
{"title":"Audiovisual Regulation in Russia in the Context of Council of Europe Standards","authors":"E. Sherstoboeva","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403006","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores, mainly from a legal perspective, the extent to which Russian regulation of traditional TV and online audiovisual media policies has been consistent with Council of Europe (hereinafter CoE) standards. The study compares the CoE and Russian approaches to specific aspects of audiovisual regulation including licensing, media ownership, public service media, digitalization, and national production. The paper first studies the CoE perspective through examining its conventional provisions related to audiovisual media regulation, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as well as CoE non-binding documents. The study proceeds to consider Russian national law governing audiovisual media and the practice of Russian courts of general jurisdiction on broadcast licensing. The paper suggests that Russian audiovisual regulation is insufficiently compatible with CoE standards and mainly seeks to maintain excessive governmental control over the audiovisual sector in a digital environment.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89752000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04403003
Thomas Kruessmann
Rule-of-law dialogue between the West and Russia has effectively run into a dead end. This paper attempts to open up a new perspective by addressing the corporation as a sub-unit of society. Observing that Russia, before adopting a comprehensive legal framework for risk management in Summer 2018, has had almost 20 years of experience in various approaches to risk management and corporate compliance, the question is whether corporate law has finally reached the point of shedding some of the characteristic features of Russian law in general to turn the corporate sphere into a space in which citizens are able to pursue their business interests in a safe and legally protected manner. Thus, we may be on the eve of witnessing the emergence of a rule-of-law culture outside the traditional domain of citizen-state relations. This would open up avenues for a renewed dialogue on rule of law between the West and Russia.
{"title":"Towards a Fresh Engagement in Rule-of-Law Cooperation: Supporting the Compliance Movement in Russia","authors":"Thomas Kruessmann","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403003","url":null,"abstract":"Rule-of-law dialogue between the West and Russia has effectively run into a dead end. This paper attempts to open up a new perspective by addressing the corporation as a sub-unit of society. Observing that Russia, before adopting a comprehensive legal framework for risk management in Summer 2018, has had almost 20 years of experience in various approaches to risk management and corporate compliance, the question is whether corporate law has finally reached the point of shedding some of the characteristic features of Russian law in general to turn the corporate sphere into a space in which citizens are able to pursue their business interests in a safe and legally protected manner. Thus, we may be on the eve of witnessing the emergence of a rule-of-law culture outside the traditional domain of citizen-state relations. This would open up avenues for a renewed dialogue on rule of law between the West and Russia.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86484595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04403005
J. Kahn
This article is based on a keynote address given at the 10th Annual Conference on the Development of Russian Law held at the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, on 20–21 November 2017, by Professor Marianna Muravyeva. The article, which reflects political developments at the time of its delivery, explores the origins and consequences of the decision to accept Russia’s application for membership in the Council of Europe.
{"title":"The Rule of Law under Pressure: Russia and the European Human Rights System","authors":"J. Kahn","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403005","url":null,"abstract":"This article is based on a keynote address given at the 10th Annual Conference on the Development of Russian Law held at the Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki, on 20–21 November 2017, by Professor Marianna Muravyeva. The article, which reflects political developments at the time of its delivery, explores the origins and consequences of the decision to accept Russia’s application for membership in the Council of Europe.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91259657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04403002
Grigory Vaypan
This contribution discusses the recent Dubovets case before both the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court, and its implications for the changing design of Russian property law as increasingly shaped by international human rights law and good governance principles. Communicated in December 2016, the application in Dubovets v. Russia continues the line of the European Court’s cases against Russia on the protection of good faith private owners of real estate against property claims by the government. Prompted by this case law, the Russian Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 22 June 2017 No 16-P struck down Article 302 of the Russian Civil Code as unconstitutional insofar as it entitled the government to reclaim possession of state property that had been previously alienated due to the government’s own negligence. This judgment manifests the increasing interdependence between private and public law – of classical property law, on the one hand, and international human rights law and good governance principles, on the other hand. It also contributes to ongoing evolution in the understanding of the state’s property rights in Russia: from the superior status of public property in Soviet times – to formal equality between public and private property rights in the landmark legal instruments of the 1990s – and now to the growing need for special protection of individual property rights vis-à-vis the state, in light of the latter’s double role as both the largest owner and the (quite unrestrained) regulator.
{"title":"Good Governance and Property Rights of the State: The Dubovets Case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court","authors":"Grigory Vaypan","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403002","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution discusses the recent Dubovets case before both the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court, and its implications for the changing design of Russian property law as increasingly shaped by international human rights law and good governance principles. Communicated in December 2016, the application in Dubovets v. Russia continues the line of the European Court’s cases against Russia on the protection of good faith private owners of real estate against property claims by the government. Prompted by this case law, the Russian Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 22 June 2017 No 16-P struck down Article 302 of the Russian Civil Code as unconstitutional insofar as it entitled the government to reclaim possession of state property that had been previously alienated due to the government’s own negligence. This judgment manifests the increasing interdependence between private and public law – of classical property law, on the one hand, and international human rights law and good governance principles, on the other hand. It also contributes to ongoing evolution in the understanding of the state’s property rights in Russia: from the superior status of public property in Soviet times – to formal equality between public and private property rights in the landmark legal instruments of the 1990s – and now to the growing need for special protection of individual property rights vis-à-vis the state, in light of the latter’s double role as both the largest owner and the (quite unrestrained) regulator.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88349805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04403007
Marianna Muravyeva
Globalization challenges many of the traditional assumptions about domestic law, international law, their relationships, the ways in which law is created and the methods of its enforcement.1 Law has traditionally been the province of the nation state, whose courts and police enforce legal rules. By contrast, international law has been comparatively weak, with little effective enforcement powers. But globalization is changing the contours of law and creating new global legal institutions and norms. It also brings universal concepts such as rule of law and good governance to national systems and local legal environments.2 As ‘rule of law’ has become part of the global lexicon, its precise meaning has become increasingly opaque.3 There is an agreement with the principle that law should apply in equal measure to everyone, irrespective of wealth or political status; ‘equal justice under law’ is generally accepted as the foundational principle of the rule of law. Coupled with good governance principles, the application of these concepts to the Russian legal context reveals complex issues that need to be discussed beyond the Russian domestic sphere. Such discussion is even more important in situations leading to global law or universal law concepts, which require a diverse set of legal systems that
{"title":"Is There Rule of Law in Russia: Revisiting the Concept and Practice","authors":"Marianna Muravyeva","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403007","url":null,"abstract":"Globalization challenges many of the traditional assumptions about domestic law, international law, their relationships, the ways in which law is created and the methods of its enforcement.1 Law has traditionally been the province of the nation state, whose courts and police enforce legal rules. By contrast, international law has been comparatively weak, with little effective enforcement powers. But globalization is changing the contours of law and creating new global legal institutions and norms. It also brings universal concepts such as rule of law and good governance to national systems and local legal environments.2 As ‘rule of law’ has become part of the global lexicon, its precise meaning has become increasingly opaque.3 There is an agreement with the principle that law should apply in equal measure to everyone, irrespective of wealth or political status; ‘equal justice under law’ is generally accepted as the foundational principle of the rule of law. Coupled with good governance principles, the application of these concepts to the Russian legal context reveals complex issues that need to be discussed beyond the Russian domestic sphere. Such discussion is even more important in situations leading to global law or universal law concepts, which require a diverse set of legal systems that","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78216360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-05DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04403004
Sergey Marochkin
The main purpose of this article is to analyze the correlation between ‘black letter’ law and its real-life implementation. The correlation is to be examined in light of countries’ and the international community’s proclaimed goal, namely to embed and implement the ‘rule of law’ principle domestically and internationally. Within the context of legal and political documents, as well as statements by political personalities, the rule of law has become the dominant vector for development. It is proclaimed to be one of the basic principles of legal orders in many countries and in the international community. But is the rule of law the most important characteristic of legal orders inside of states and, what is more important, between them? Is there an actual willingness on the part of states to strengthen the international rule of law? This article observes the origins and characteristics of the rule of law in particular with respect to Russia. Both domestic and international rule of law impact each other. Some forms of this interaction and their mutual influence are characterized below. The study also traces intent as formalized in international declarations and their de-facto stance toward the rule of law and international law. This scrutiny enables the conclusion that ‘black letter law’ and real-life application do not currently coincide. There are clear contradictory trends relating to this basic principle at both national and international levels. The first contradiction lies in the entrenchment and implementation of the principle by regulatory means. The second contradiction reveals discrepancies between regulatory instruments and real actions and policies. The article evaluates predispositions for these opposing tendencies; it also assesses alternative prospects for the development of international law and the rule of law.
{"title":"National and International Rule of Law: Proclaimed Adherence and Real-Life Policies","authors":"Sergey Marochkin","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04403004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04403004","url":null,"abstract":"The main purpose of this article is to analyze the correlation between ‘black letter’ law and its real-life implementation. The correlation is to be examined in light of countries’ and the international community’s proclaimed goal, namely to embed and implement the ‘rule of law’ principle domestically and internationally. Within the context of legal and political documents, as well as statements by political personalities, the rule of law has become the dominant vector for development. It is proclaimed to be one of the basic principles of legal orders in many countries and in the international community. But is the rule of law the most important characteristic of legal orders inside of states and, what is more important, between them? Is there an actual willingness on the part of states to strengthen the international rule of law?\u0000This article observes the origins and characteristics of the rule of law in particular with respect to Russia. Both domestic and international rule of law impact each other. Some forms of this interaction and their mutual influence are characterized below.\u0000The study also traces intent as formalized in international declarations and their de-facto stance toward the rule of law and international law.\u0000This scrutiny enables the conclusion that ‘black letter law’ and real-life application do not currently coincide. There are clear contradictory trends relating to this basic principle at both national and international levels. The first contradiction lies in the entrenchment and implementation of the principle by regulatory means. The second contradiction reveals discrepancies between regulatory instruments and real actions and policies. The article evaluates predispositions for these opposing tendencies; it also assesses alternative prospects for the development of international law and the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86177816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-11DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04402004
A. D. Gregorio
This paper analyses the use of the rule-of-law principle in the jurisprudence of the constitutional courts of the new Member States of the European Union. The purpose is to discover whether past or recent decisions could clarify the use of the principle in these countries. An example is the legalistic concept of the rule of law as expressed by the Hungarian and Polish constitutional courts in examining the constitutionality of lustration laws. On the other hand, some constitutional courts (such as the Czech one) have used a wider and more sophisticated application of the rule of law. Considering the severe rule-of-law crisis which has been taking place in Hungary and Poland in recent years, this recognition is particularly important in order to avoid cumulative judgments that could devalue the former communist countries in general, trivializing the harsh path of democratic conditionality with its strengths and weaknesses.
{"title":"Constitutional Courts and the Rule of Law in the New EU Member States","authors":"A. D. Gregorio","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04402004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04402004","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the use of the rule-of-law principle in the jurisprudence of the constitutional courts of the new Member States of the European Union. The purpose is to discover whether past or recent decisions could clarify the use of the principle in these countries. An example is the legalistic concept of the rule of law as expressed by the Hungarian and Polish constitutional courts in examining the constitutionality of lustration laws. On the other hand, some constitutional courts (such as the Czech one) have used a wider and more sophisticated application of the rule of law. Considering the severe rule-of-law crisis which has been taking place in Hungary and Poland in recent years, this recognition is particularly important in order to avoid cumulative judgments that could devalue the former communist countries in general, trivializing the harsh path of democratic conditionality with its strengths and weaknesses.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90714240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-11DOI: 10.1163/15730352-04402001
Paul Gragl
Seeing that a bilateral agreement between the EU and Russia on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is highly unlikely to be concluded due to political considerations, this paper enquires which existing legal regime is applicable to the governing of this pipeline, especially in order to guarantee solidarity and security within the EU energy market through third-party access and unbundling requirements. The question is whether EU law in general (which the Council denies) or international law applies, and if the latter, which specific regime(s): the Energy Charter Treaty, wto law, the law of the sea, or a combination of regimes? Lastly, this paper also investigates whether and to what extent these international law regimes might guarantee the same solidarity and energy security standards as EU law.
鉴于欧盟和俄罗斯之间关于北溪2号管道项目的双边协议由于政治考虑极不可能达成，本文探讨了现有的法律制度适用于该管道的管理，特别是为了通过第三方准入和分拆要求来保证欧盟能源市场内的团结和安全。问题是，究竟是欧盟的一般法律(欧盟理事会对此予以否认)还是国际法适用?如果适用后者，应适用哪一种具体制度:《能源宪章条约》(Energy Charter Treaty)、世界贸易组织法(wto)、海洋法，还是多种制度的结合?最后，本文还探讨了这些国际法制度是否以及在多大程度上可以保证与欧盟法律相同的团结和能源安全标准。
{"title":"The Question of Applicability: EU Law or International Law in Nord Stream 2","authors":"Paul Gragl","doi":"10.1163/15730352-04402001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-04402001","url":null,"abstract":"Seeing that a bilateral agreement between the EU and Russia on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project is highly unlikely to be concluded due to political considerations, this paper enquires which existing legal regime is applicable to the governing of this pipeline, especially in order to guarantee solidarity and security within the EU energy market through third-party access and unbundling requirements. The question is whether EU law in general (which the Council denies) or international law applies, and if the latter, which specific regime(s): the Energy Charter Treaty, wto law, the law of the sea, or a combination of regimes? Lastly, this paper also investigates whether and to what extent these international law regimes might guarantee the same solidarity and energy security standards as EU law.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90315731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：