A short introduction in using Brussels 1 and Rome 1 in the context of private international law. For the expert!
Depending on the University you visit, some students (including my own) may experience the sheer joy of doing some exams these days. That includes law and ethics exams. Here’s a myth busted, and some tricks.
In the media, we see some surprised responses to the fact that the Walloon parliament in southern Belgium is able to veto an international trade agreement on behalf of Belgium. This concerns the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) closed between the EU and Canada. The surprise does not come from the fact that people or parliamentarians oppose to big trade agreements, but rather that the Walloon parliament is able to resist to such an agreement, being a regional (and not a national) legislature. However, this is not so surprising when we take a closer look at the Belgian constitutional system and its current political climate.
Each year, on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, The Americans elect their public officials. However, upcoming Tuesday 8 November is a special Election Day. Not only will the next President of the United States be elected, but also the new Members of the House of Representatives as well as one third of the Senators. Due to different election methods however, the party who wins the presidential elections does not automatically gains a majority in the two houses. This is what happens.
Recently, the headlines of the news have been dominated by all kinds of remarkable details regarding our politicians. However, they usually are not about the political ideas of the politicians or the party they represent, but rather about funny details and edgy characteristics. For instance, why is it so important that Hillary Clinton’s best friend was in a relation with a pervert? And why does Donald Trump keep emphasizing how successful and rich he is as a businessman? And why is the sexual orientation of the Dutch President more important than his liberal ideas on business? And how come that the news regarding the latest AESEAN summit was dominated by a silly remark of the President of the Philippines on Barack Obama, instead of the more pressing issues such as climate change and North Korea’s latest nuclear tests?
The worldwide phenomenon that is called Pokémon Go is not only an interesting hype from a sociological perspective, but also from a legal point of view. The virtual reality game seems innocent at first glance: people are trying to catch Pokémon on a sunny Sunday afternoon, and get some fresh air as a side effect. However, due to the fact that the players only pay attention to their smartphone, and not to their surroundings, some serious things have happened. These include traffic jams, car crashes, and even the loss of life. It is only a mater of time before the first court cases against the creators of Pokémon Go are filed.
‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’ is a famous quote of the President of the National Rifle Association (Wayne LaPierre) that embodies the debate on owning weapons in the U.S. Supporters claim that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, which even extends to students who should be able to wear a gun while going to college. Opponents claim that this right is the cause for so many school shootings, and want to restrict the free circulation of weapons.
In this blog I do not wish to repeat that discussion or comment on it. Instead, I would like to reflect on the underlying dispute, which is actually about the fundamental meaning of the word ‘freedom’. The ‘right to bear arms’-discussion says it all: should someone have the right to protect her/himself against evil, or should someone have the right to live in a society in which this is not necessary?
In this vlog I briefly explain how international law ends up in the domestic legal order of States. In general there are two approaches: a monistic and a dualistic approach. But what is the difference?