Search the repository

A+ | A- | | SLO | ENG

Abstract: Magistrsko delo sistematično obravnava montevidejske kriterije za nastanek države, ki morajo biti kumulativno izpolnjeni, da lahko govorimo o nastanku države. Poleg klasičnih montevidejskih kriterijev, osnovanih na načelu učinkovitosti, smo obravnavali tudi dodatne relevantne kriterije. Podrobneje smo proučili dodatni kriterij priznanja, razlike med deklaratorno ter konstitutivno teorijo in učinke kolektivnega (ne)priznanja. Obravnavali smo tudi razmerje med državnostjo in samoodločbo. O tej smo ugotavljali, ali jo uvrščamo med pravice ali načela. Z deduktivno-analitično metodo smo tako ugotovili, da nastanek države spada na področje mednarodnega prava, razen nekaterih izjem v povezavi s tem. Deskriptivna metoda nam je koristila za opis vseh kriterijev v povezavi z nastankom države, uvrščanje samoodločbe ter za opis mednarodnopravnih pogojev za nastanek države. Prav tako smo z opisno metodo proučili načine nastankov držav in entitet s posebnimi statusi. S primerjalno-pravno metodo smo utemeljili, kateri kriteriji za nastanek države so bili uporabljeni na konkretnih primerih. Z zgodovinsko metodo pa smo si kronološko prikazali uporabo kriterijev in drugih institutov na konkretnih primerih, pred drugo svetovno vojno in po njej. Na podlagi uporabljenih metod smo tako nazorno prikazali, da je kljub pravno določenim kriterijem včasih težko določiti, kdaj država dejansko nastane, se nadaljuje ali izumre. Proces nastanka držav tako še vedno ni popolnoma zaključen, kar je zanimivo za prihodnost obstanka države kot subjekta mednarodnega prava.
Found in: ključnih besedah
Keywords: montevidejski kriteriji, nastanek države, državnost, mednarodno javno pravo, načelo učinkovitosti
Published: 11.03.2020; Views: 2548; Downloads: 183
Fulltext (795,30 KB)

Abstract: This study focuses on the paternity suit which is one of the ways to establish the paternity between the natural child and his/her father. The aim of this study is to emphasize the importance of paternity suit and examine the reforms on paternity suit brought about by Turkish Civil Code, no. 4721. Within the scope of the study, the statements and opinions of the doctrine mentioned, the changes made in the legislation during the process were emphasized, comparisons were made with the Turkish Civil Code no. 743 and Supreme Court's decisions on the concerned portions were included. The paternity between the natural child and the father was subject to the same provisions as the relationship between the legitimate child and the father at this point after the regulations were made. Paternity suit, which is considered to be a retroactive constitutive lawsuit, aims to establish a paternity (lineage) relationship between the natural child and the father. The mother can claim material and immaterial compensation apart from or along with the paternity suit from the father or his successors. The plaintiff of the paternity suit is either the mother or the child; the defendant is the father or his successors if he is deceased. The suit is notified to the public prosecutor and the treasury, to the trustee if it is filed by the mother, to the mother if it is filed by the trustee. Those who are notified of the case, are allowed participation in the proceedings as a secondary intervening party or they can also remain indifferent. Paternity suit is filed in a one-year period of prescription as of the date of birth, at the Civil Court of First Instance located in the parties' residential area when the child is born if the parties reside in Turkey. Moreover, the law issued presumption of paternity in favour of the plaintiff. However; the plantiff may confute and rebut this presumption. In the cases where the presumption is nondemonstrable, either the mother or the child must directly prove the paternity of the plaintiff. The principle of ex officio examination is effective in paternity suit. Therefore, the judge freely appraises the demonstrations. The presumption of paternity, may be proven by cognisance, brief, definitive judgment and any kind of proof; however, it is impossible to tender an oath. Paternity, on the other hand, may be proven by expert examining. Experts determine paternity by full blood examination and similarity examination. DNA tests, a type of full blood examinations, are a much more reliable method for the determination of paternity compared to blood groups and similarity examinations. Thus, the determination of paternity through DNA tests is accurate. Paternity suit can be called off if the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit. However; the lawsuit does not terminate when the defendant accepts the lawsuit and there is not a possibility of settlement of claim. In the event that the defendant's paternity is determined in the paternity suit, the child takes the mother's surname; earns the citizenship and heirship of the father. As a rule, the mother has the custody of the child. The mother and the father cover the maintenance and education expenses of the child. The mother and the father are obliged to help, respect and understand each other, which is required for the peace and integrity of the family. Whether or not it is possible to renew the adjudication is clear after the verdict was given, by taking into account the data obtained by the methods such as DNA tests and so on, against a verdict that was definitive by the end of the paternity suit in a period where these methods were not used.
Found in: ključnih besedah
Keywords: paternity suit, medical data, Turkish civil code, family law, civil law, ugotavljanje očetovstva, družinsko pravo, civilno pravo
Published: 19.03.2020; Views: 2383; Downloads: 116
Fulltext (762,47 KB)

Found in: ključnih besedah
Keywords: mednarodno pravo, boj proti terorizmu, zapor, zaporniki, vojni ujetniki, človekove pravice, prepoved mučenja, izredne izročitve, vojaške komisije, Domovinski zakon iz leta 2006, Ženevske konvencije, Guantanamo
Published: 29.07.2020; Views: 1886; Downloads: 74
Fulltext (1,21 MB)

Abstract: Učinkovit pregon in preprečevanje kaznivih dejanj z mednarodnim elementom postavljata pred sodišča, tožilstvo ter organe pregona zahtevno nalogo, da učinkovito vodijo postopek v okviru ustavnosti in zakonitosti. Nujni predpogoj za pravilno sodno odločbo so dopustni in zakoniti dokazi. Dokazna moč dokazov iz tujine je enakovredna dokazom, ki so zbrani v domači državi. Pridobivanje dokazov iz tujine lahko poteka na podlagi medsebojnega sodelovanja večih držav ali pa dokaze v tujini pridobijo tuji preiskovalni organi brez sodelovanja države prosilke. Sodišča morajo dokaze obravnavati enakovredno, ne glede na to, kdo jih je pridobil. Pri tem preverijo, ali so dokazi iz tujine dopustni in zakoniti. V prvi fazi se preveri, ali so bili dokazi pridobljeni v skladu s kazenskoprocesno zakonodajo tuje države, v drugem delu pa se izvede test, ali so obdolžencem pri pridobivanju dokazov zagotovili človekove pravice in svoboščine, ki jim jih zagotavljajo minimum Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (EKČP), standardi EU (kot skupni %federalni% standardi) in Ustava RS. V okviru testa varovanja človekovih pravic obdolžencev v postopku pridobivanja dokazov sodi tudi nadzor, na podlagi katerega dokaznega standarda so bili pridobljeni dokazi v tujini ter kateri pravosodni organ je preiskovalne ukrepe odredil. Veliko dilemo predstavlja praksa, da je tožilec hkrati tisti organ, ki odreja preiskovalna dejanja, obenem pa je tudi garant varovanja človekovih pravic obdolžencev v postopku. Države članice EU so za sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah sprejele posebno Konvencijo o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah (%mutual legal assistance%) iz leta 2000, ki jo zamenjuje Direktiva 2014/41/EU o evropskem preiskovalnem nalogu. Ta konvencija dopolnjuje istoimensko konvencijo Sveta Evrope iz leta 1959. Z 22. majem 2017 so na ravni 26 držav EU uvedli paradigmo vzajemnega priznavanja zahtev za preiskovalna dejanja v kazenskem postopku, ki so jo implementirali s sprejemom Direktive 2014/41/EU o evropskem preiskovalnem nalogu v kazenskih zadevah. Šele sodna praksa bo pokazala, kako bo pravilo vzajemnega priznavanja dokazov zaživelo v praksi, saj imajo države članice različne (ustavne) standarde za določene posege v človekove pravice v okviru pridobivanja dokazov. Sodišča posamezne države bodo še vedno tehtala dopustnost in zakonitost dokazov, pridobljenih v drugi državi. Pri tehtanju v tujini pridobljenih dokazov se tako pojavlja vprašanje, katera merila naj upoštevajo slovenska sodišča, in sicer, kot že navedeno zgoraj, zgolj minimum EKČP, merila EU (v primeru dokazov iz drugih držav članic) ali pa tudi osrednje ustavne standarde kot nekakšno jedro lastne ustavne identitete. Prav na ta vprašanja skuša odgovoriti ta magistrska naloga. Ključne besede: dokazi iz tujine, človekove pravice in svoboščine, dokazni standardi, dopustnost in zakonitost dokazov.
Found in: ključnih besedah
Keywords: dokazi iz tujine, človekove pravice, dokazni stardardi, zakonitost dokazov, kazenski postopek, kazensko procesno pravo
Published: 29.07.2020; Views: 2733; Downloads: 219
Fulltext (1,18 MB)

Found in: ključnih besedah
Keywords: človekove pravice, delovno pravo, delovni spori, sodišča
Published: 30.07.2020; Views: 1511; Downloads: 69
Fulltext (725,31 KB)