Rad se bavi analizom reakcija Ujedinjenih naroda na zločin terorizma u obliku inkriminacije terorizma u nizu konvencija prihvaćenih u krilu te organizacije, no još više u obliku moralnih, ali i pravnih sankcija sadržanih u političkim osudama neobvezujućih rezolucija Opće skupštine, posebice tijekom hladnog rata, kao i u obvezujućim sankcijskim rezolucijama Vijeća sigurnosti počevši od 90-ih godina prošlog stoljeća. Pritom rad upućuje na specifičan razvojni proces koji počinje sankcijama prema državama odgovornima za tzv. „državni terorizam“, a u posljednjih 15-ak godina sankcije su se gotovo potpuno usmjerile prema terorističkim organizacijama kao nedržavnim akterima te su razvojem međunarodnoga kaznenog pravosuđa otvorile prostor i individualnoj međunarodnoj kaznenoj odgovornosti za taj zločin.

Zaokret u primjeni sankcija Vijeća sigurnosti od općih, usmjerenih protiv država, prema ciljanim (pametnim) sankcijama usmjerenima izravno i isključivo protiv pojedinaca koje se dovodi u vezu s terorizmom, osim pozitivnih izazvao je i određene negativne učinke koji su doveli u pitanje zakonitost i pravednost ciljanih sankcija. Zbog nepostojanja odgovarajućega kontrolnog mehanizma u sustavu Ujedinjenih naroda koji bi pojedincima pogođenim sankcijama omogućio barem kvazisudsku kontrolu odluka Sankcijskog odbora o uvrštavanju njihova imena na, tzv. sankcijsku listu, u praksi je došlo do kršenja njihovih ljudskih prava, poput prava na pristup sudu, prava na pravično suđenje, prava na učinkovit pravni lijek. Autorica u radu analizira sankcijski režim Vijeća sigurnosti u borbi protiv terorizma koji je uveden Rezolucijom 1267 (1999); zatim se kroz relevantnu sudsku praksu prikazuju konkretne povrede ljudskih prava do kojih u praksi dolazi u provedbi sankcija Vijeća sigurnosti; analizira se uvođenje instituta Ombudsmana te se ocjenjuje uspješnost reformi u sankcijskom režimu kao iskoraka prema transparentnijoj i učinkovitijoj borbi protiv terorizma.

Maintenance of international peace and security has been the principal goal of the international community for centuries, but after the end of the Second World War States were determined more than ever to achieve that goal by creating firm legal, political, and institutional foundations for long-lasting peace. The international community committed itself to the international cooperation through organs and mechanisms of global and regional organizations. Particular significance was given to the formation of the international and regional legal framework of human rights protection, emphasizing that the respect of human rights is one of the main preconditions for fruitful interna- tional cooperation and a long-lasting peace. The United Nations serves as the global co-ordinator of the application of States’ obligations under international law through the collective security system and the network of subsidiary bodies. On the other hand, the role of regional international organiza- tions in establishing an adequate legal framework for the preservation of peace and security, as well as for the respect of human rights and the rule of law, is of immeasurable importance. This chapter seeks to explore the efficiency of the international legal framework as well as institutional and diplo- matic mechanisms provided by the United Nations and the leading regional organizations (NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) that are responsible for the promotion, protection, and supervision of the Member States’ compliance with their international obligations, particularly from the point of view of Central European States. The author concludes that the most significant role of international organizations is in the continuous advancement of the responsibility of all actors involved to create a solid and long-lasting basis for the maintenance of international peace and security through the respect for human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law.

This paper explores the current level of legal protection of climate migrants in international and EU law and the repercussions that the present approach might have on the rule of law. It first analyses whether the current binding instruments of refugee and climate change law offer any protection for climate migrants and identifies a legal gap in this regard. It then briefly addresses the progress made by recently adopted soft law instruments and the UN Human Rights Committee decision in the Teitiota case, at the same time pointing out that the latter decision has set criteria which might jeopardise the realisation of the non-refoulement right which it aims to guarantee. The paper then analyses the literature on the link of climate change and migration, using the example of the Syrian civil war, the rise of anti-immigration populism which subsequently occurred, as well as the threat that such movements might pose for the rule of law. The authors conclude that the planned and systematic response of the international community to climate migration and continued good regional and bilateral practices are more likely to prevent sudden spikes in mass migration which could lead to anti-immigration populist movements.

No abstract