Russian Journal of Comparative Law

120-128

Authors: Dusan D. Dabovic

The aim of this work is to determine, from a legal point of view, validity of the CEFTA 2006 ten years after it started, that is, whether this agreement fulfilled its essential goal as well as declared main objectives. The essential goal of the CEFTA 2006 is harmonization of trade regulations of the CEFTA 2006 parties to the international legislation and proper implementation of the regulations. Namely, the parties are in the similar stages of the process of joining the EU market and their cooperation under the agreement should prepare them for participation in the market. The main objectives are improvements of the parties in the fields of liberalization, trade in services, investment, public procurement and intellectual property rights. In the article it was researched whether in the given period any improvement was accomplished in the observed areas of the parties. According to the results obtained, it is concluded that the CEFTA 2006 in general met the expectations during the previous decade. Namely, there were significant results achieved in the observed areas of the parties. However, it is concluded that there is a space for further improvement, especially regarding investment, public procurement and protection of intellectual property rights.

134-139

Authors: Augusto Sinagra

The present article studies and criticizes the “right to peace” as an individual's fundamental right, as claimed by the resolution of 24 June 2016 of the UN Human Rights Council. The criticism concerns problems of content and method of the aforesaid Resolution (to be approved or not by the UN General Assembly), and this also with regard to the so-called “soft law” especially with regard to the difficulty of identifying the subject holder of the so called “right to peace” and even more the difficulty of enforceability in judgment of such a supposed “right to peace”. This, both with regard to the identification of the competent judicial instance and the identification of the subject responsible for the breach of law, as well as the assessment of the specific facts at which the “right” in question can be considered as violated. It is no coincidence that it is included in the category of “soft law” which, having no binding force, cannot certainly be understood as a legal category.