DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2022.3.38525

EDN: PAYFRB

Abstract: A comparative analysis of the organizational and legal foundations of the protection of World Natural Heritage sites in Canada and the Russian Federation (on the example of Lake Baikal) is presented. The legal positions of the World Heritage Committee on the implementation of international obligations for the preservation of World Natural Heritage sites are analyzed. The problem of formal definiteness of the boundaries of World Heritage sites and awareness of them by the public and government bodies is highlighted. The question of the expediency of excluding the territories of settlements from the World Heritage sites is being investigated. The approaches of the World Heritage Committee to the implementation of extractive industry and hydropower projects both within the boundaries of World Heritage sites and in adjacent territories are considered. As a way of implementing the international legal regime for the protection of unique natural objects, the regime of the buffer zone of the World Heritage site receives a positive assessment, however, there is a lack of elaboration of this concept. Proposals are formulated on possible measures of an intra-national nature aimed at solving issues of protection of territories bordering on World Heritage sites (transfer to the federal level of the decision on the creation of protected areas in order to fulfill international obligations; formation of a protected zone of the World Heritage site). The importance of environmental assessment as a standard of international legal protection of unique natural objects and the need for its more detailed regulation in national legislation are stated. Attention is focused on the position of the World Heritage Committee on the issue of taking into account the views of the local population and indigenous peoples in the management and protection of World Natural Heritage sites.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2022.3.38589

EDN: QSATMX

Abstract: The subject of the study is the conventional regulation of relations arising in connection with multiple and dual citizenship. The emphasis in the modern international regulation of issues of dual and/or multiple citizenship is generated by the progressive increase in actual states when a person has two or more nationalities, which affects the interests of several States. Such a phenomenon is accompanied by the emergence of a wide range of problems requiring interstate interaction, which, as a rule, is expressed in the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral treaties on bi- and polypatrism. Such treaties concluded within the framework of modern international law reflect either the negative attitude of the signatory States towards dual and multiple citizenship, or the desire of States to find relevant ways to eliminate the consequences of these phenomena, which are often caused by disputes between States. The article examines the practice of conventional resolution of problems caused by the presence of bi- and poly-patrid status, the changed vectors of the settlement of issues of dual and multiple citizenship, as well as priority areas of modern international law in this area. The article concludes that bilateral cooperation in the field of bipatrism is more effective, which nevertheless will not solve the problem of dual and multiple citizenship at the global level. In addition, the conclusion of a universal international agreement on bi- and polypatrism also does not seem to be an effective means of resolving disputes arising due to significant economic, political, ethno-cultural, historical and legal differences between States, in particular in matters of regulating citizenship. The author considers it necessary to develop new approaches to ensure greater effectiveness of the mechanism of international legal regulation of bi- and polypatrism.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2022.3.28070

EDN: NFDVXT

Abstract: The authors of the article present a comprehensive study of doctrinal approaches concerning the problem of the correlation of international and domestic law, based on multilevel, non-linearity of legal norms. The object of the article is the traditional doctrines of dualism (pluralism) and monism, an assessment of the circumstances of their emergence, the essence of approaches and subsequent transformation under the influence of globalization and integration processes. The authors analyze the theoretical foundations of the methods and conditions for integrating the norms of international law into the national legal system and the role of international law for the modern legal order. The authors were based on the methods of theoretical synthesis, induction and generalization, the principle of historicism. Among the special-legal - method of comparative jurisprudence, the main conclusions of the study are the assessment of traditional doctrines from the modern perspective of globalization and the integration existing in the modern international community. The practical situation continues to provide the ground not so much for the "improvement" of the doctrine, but for its revision and modern assessment, which makes it possible to designate the role of the international legal order for national jurisdictions.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2022.3.33217

EDN: NFHXLY

Abstract: The article analyzes the subject jurisdiction of ICSID in relation to investments. The determination of the existence of an investment in a particular dispute belongs to the exclusive competence of the arbitration itself, since the concept of "investment" is not disclosed in the text of the Washington Convention. The authors analyze in detail the criteria of the Salini test, which determine the subject jurisdiction of ICSID in relation to investments. The authors evaluate the main features of investment activity used by arbitrators in the qualification of certain transactions for their compliance with the requirements of Article 25 of the Washington Convention. The article presents an analysis of ICSID decisions, starting with the Fedex case, where for the first time the need to use objective criteria to determine jurisdiction was noted, and the Salini case, where the arbitrators disclosed the content of these criteria, as well as the subsequent ICSID practice.            The application of the Salini test is carried out by different arbitration structures in different ways. Despite the fact that the arbitrators using the Salini criteria differ in their number, content and method of determining the criteria (intuitive and deductive), the basis of the Salini Test (conditions of contribution, duration, presence of risks, contribution to the economy of the host state) remains unchanged. The authors pay special attention to the methodology of applying these criteria, noting that in each of the criteria, the arbitrators identify their own structure. The authors come to the conclusion that the Salini test, without having a regulatory character, allows to objectively distinguish investments protected at the level of international agreements from ordinary commercial transactions, provides potential investors with the opportunity to assess risks even before the start of investment activity on the territory of a foreign state, as well as to protect the parties to the investment legal relationship from abuse by the other party.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0633.2022.3.38662

EDN: OSMFNX

Abstract: In this article, the author investigated the legality and legitimacy of the African Criminal Court. Despite the immunity provision criticized by the international community, its legality is consistent with international law, while it cannot be argued that the African Criminal Court is an African "panacea" for combating impunity for serious international crimes. The initial support of the International Criminal Court by the African Union and its member States in the process of creation turned into strained relations after the indictment of the International Criminal Courts mainly against high-ranking African government officials. Contrary to many critics, the Malaba Protocol on the Establishment of the African Criminal Court satisfied the requirements of both legality and legitimacy as an international criminal court. Consequently, since the African Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court have joint jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of international concern, the harmonization of the African Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court on the basis of complementarity and cooperation will lead to the formation of a tandem to combat impunity for the most serious crimes affecting the international community. The article analyzes that, despite the tense relations, the coordinated work of the African Union and the International Criminal Court is necessary in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern. The author comes to the conclusion that the African Criminal Court is not an African alternative, but an addition to the International Criminal Court.