Conformity with human rights norms is currently a standard component of demo cratic states' policies. However, this conformity is reflected not only in domestic bind ing catalogues of human rights embodied in constitutions, but also in the continuous rise of international control and treaty commitments. States are widely expected to commit to and ratify international human rights documents. Nevertheless, a great deal of the research on state commitments disregards the effects and changes which might be brought upon these ratifications by the submission of reservations. This arti cle proposes an in-depth analysis of state commitments and the practice of submit ting reservations in two case studies: the Czech Republic and Slovakia, together with their common predecessor, communist (and, briefly, democratic) Czechoslovakia, and maps the way these regimes, in their different stages of transitional development, worked with reservations.

No abstract

The article deals with deterrence of terrorism. The aim is to assess validity of a proposition that it is possible to deter terrorist groups, but there are some specifics in comparison to the deterrence of states. First, we determine deterrence threats which can be applied in relation to terrorist groups and discuss possible restraints of their application in practice. This is followed by an analysis of whether deterrence can be applied against all types of terrorist groups without distinction, where we develop a model of classification of terrorist groups according to the goals which they pursue. So far, the topic of deterrence of terrorism has not been discussed in detail in the Czech academic texts. This article thus seeks to fill this lacuna and highlight the benefits of applying deterrence strategy to the terrorist groups.

This article investigates the development of national litigation against the Czech Republic’s governmental policy to detain asylum seekers under the Dublin III Regulation, as a means to address the so-called refugee crisis. The outcome of this litigation has been the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Al Chodor case, which has been praised for enhancing domestic standards of protection of asylum seekers and returnees’ right to liberty across the EU. The article demonstrates that this preliminary ruling has been a catalyst for domestic legislative and jurisprudential reforms across the EU, improving to a certain extent the protection of the right to liberty of asylum seekers. However, it is argued that in the Czech Republic the case has not initiated a change in the legislation, nor has it reduced the systematic use of asylum detention. The article identifies some important legal, political and social factors from within and beyond courtrooms that have contributed to this ambiguous outcome of the Czech litigation. It concludes by identifying circumstances that need to be taken into account when using the preliminary reference procedure as a tool for strategic litigation.