The relation between politics and international law, when it comes to influence or determine a state’s decision, has always been a controversial topic. The aim of this article is to talk about the nature of this relation and the changes that currently are taking place. State decisions have always been determined by national interests, even if, sometimes, abstract concepts like peace or equality were invoked. Internal decisions can be justified by the national legislation or the legitimacy of the deciding institution or individuals.

Qualified law is a special category of statutes with clear constitutional background, which covers certain domains of crucial subject matters, and which is adopted with stricter procedural rules, than the ordinary legislative process (Camby, 1998). This article will compare two forms of qualified majority requirement, and will argue against the introduction of two-thirds majority. For this purpose, I compare three national solutions: the French, the Spanish and the Hungarian experience.

Very often we hear people complain about how their rights are not respected. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, as many may want, but this is what the judicial system is for, whose role is to straighten any situation that does not correspond to legal norms. And yet we have to talk about the situation when, although people have rights, they do not take occasion to use them. People themselves should understand that the rights they have are just as important, whether we speak of the right to life or about the right to vote. 

Our Supporters Opportunities Masters Abroad Newsletter