TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2018
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/689
AB  - The principle of subsidiarity embodies the idea of conferring a specific power to the higher level or wider community only provided that it is more effective for accomplishing the envisaged objectives than the action taken at the lower level of authority. Taken from the constitutions of some of the EU Member States, this principle was first introduced into the primary law of the European Communities, although without an explicit reference, as a guiding principle in the field of environmental protection. With the establishment of the European Union, the subsidiarity principle has substantially developed, both as a main principle of political organisation for the EU and as a governing principle in the exercise of non-exclusive powers which are conferred to the EU. The Lisbon Treaty has retained the principle of subsidiarity in both aforementioned forms, but it extends the scope of its application to all areas of the EU activities, including the former second and the third pillar. Concurrently, it establishes mechanisms which enable the implementation and continuous monitoring of the application of the subsidiarity principle in the process of adopting legislative acts. It is actually a mechanism that ensures ex ante control, which entails an early warning system involving the scrutiny of national parliaments of Member States. On the other hand, the judicial or ex post control is carried out by the Court of Justice in the process of judicial review, on the basis of filed actions for annulment on the ground of violation of the subsidiarity principle. In addition to the Members States, the applicants authorized to initiate this proceeding are also the national parliaments, their chambers or the Committee of the Regions.
AB  - Načelo supsidijarnosti izražava ideju da se višem nivou ili široj zajednici prepušta samo ono što se može bolje i efikasnije ostvariti nego na nižem nivou vlasti. Preuzeto iz ustavnog prava pojedinih država članica, ovo načelo ušlo je bez izričitog pominjanja u primarno pravo Evropskih zajednica kao rukovodni princip u oblasti zaštite životne sredine. Sa osnivanjem Evropske unije načelo supsidijarnosti je doživelo značajan razvoj postajući kako politički princip njene organizacije, tako i rukovodeće načelo u vršenju ovlašćenja koja nemaju isključivi karakter. Lisabonski ugovor zadržava supsidijarnost u oba ova vida, ali proširuje domen njene primene na sve oblasti delovanja Evropske unije, uključujući bivši drugi i treći stub. U isto vreme uspostavljaju se mehanizmi koji omogućavaju implementaciju i stalni nadzor nad primenom načela supsidijarnosti u postupku usvajanja zakonskih akata. Radi se zapravo o mehanizmu koji obezbeđuje ex ante kontrolu, odnosno sistem ranog upozoravanja u koji su uključeni nacionalni parlamenti država članica. S druge strane, pravosudnu ili ex post kontrolu vrši Sud pravde u postupku ocene zakonitosti legislativnih akata povodom podnetih tužbi za poništaj zbog povrede načela supsidijarnosti. Kao ovlašćeni tužioci u ovom postupku, pored država članica, pojavljuju se nacionalni parlamenti, njihovi domovi ili Komitet regiona.
PB  - Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
T1  - The principle of subsidiarity and its application in European Union law
T1  - Načelo supsidijarnosti i njegova primena u pravu Evropske unije
EP  - 990
IS  - 3
SP  - 977
VL  - 52
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfns52-19530
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2018",
abstract = "The principle of subsidiarity embodies the idea of conferring a specific power to the higher level or wider community only provided that it is more effective for accomplishing the envisaged objectives than the action taken at the lower level of authority. Taken from the constitutions of some of the EU Member States, this principle was first introduced into the primary law of the European Communities, although without an explicit reference, as a guiding principle in the field of environmental protection. With the establishment of the European Union, the subsidiarity principle has substantially developed, both as a main principle of political organisation for the EU and as a governing principle in the exercise of non-exclusive powers which are conferred to the EU. The Lisbon Treaty has retained the principle of subsidiarity in both aforementioned forms, but it extends the scope of its application to all areas of the EU activities, including the former second and the third pillar. Concurrently, it establishes mechanisms which enable the implementation and continuous monitoring of the application of the subsidiarity principle in the process of adopting legislative acts. It is actually a mechanism that ensures ex ante control, which entails an early warning system involving the scrutiny of national parliaments of Member States. On the other hand, the judicial or ex post control is carried out by the Court of Justice in the process of judicial review, on the basis of filed actions for annulment on the ground of violation of the subsidiarity principle. In addition to the Members States, the applicants authorized to initiate this proceeding are also the national parliaments, their chambers or the Committee of the Regions., Načelo supsidijarnosti izražava ideju da se višem nivou ili široj zajednici prepušta samo ono što se može bolje i efikasnije ostvariti nego na nižem nivou vlasti. Preuzeto iz ustavnog prava pojedinih država članica, ovo načelo ušlo je bez izričitog pominjanja u primarno pravo Evropskih zajednica kao rukovodni princip u oblasti zaštite životne sredine. Sa osnivanjem Evropske unije načelo supsidijarnosti je doživelo značajan razvoj postajući kako politički princip njene organizacije, tako i rukovodeće načelo u vršenju ovlašćenja koja nemaju isključivi karakter. Lisabonski ugovor zadržava supsidijarnost u oba ova vida, ali proširuje domen njene primene na sve oblasti delovanja Evropske unije, uključujući bivši drugi i treći stub. U isto vreme uspostavljaju se mehanizmi koji omogućavaju implementaciju i stalni nadzor nad primenom načela supsidijarnosti u postupku usvajanja zakonskih akata. Radi se zapravo o mehanizmu koji obezbeđuje ex ante kontrolu, odnosno sistem ranog upozoravanja u koji su uključeni nacionalni parlamenti država članica. S druge strane, pravosudnu ili ex post kontrolu vrši Sud pravde u postupku ocene zakonitosti legislativnih akata povodom podnetih tužbi za poništaj zbog povrede načela supsidijarnosti. Kao ovlašćeni tužioci u ovom postupku, pored država članica, pojavljuju se nacionalni parlamenti, njihovi domovi ili Komitet regiona.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad",
title = "The principle of subsidiarity and its application in European Union law, Načelo supsidijarnosti i njegova primena u pravu Evropske unije",
pages = "990-977",
number = "3",
volume = "52",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfns52-19530"
}

Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2018). The principle of subsidiarity and its application in European Union law. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad., 52(3), 977-990.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns52-19530

Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. The principle of subsidiarity and its application in European Union law. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad. 2018;52(3):977-990.
doi:10.5937/zrpfns52-19530 .

Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "The principle of subsidiarity and its application in European Union law" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, 52, no. 3 (2018):977-990,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns52-19530 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
PY  - 2018
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/647
AB  - The limits of EU competencies are determined by the principle of conferral, which is a fundamental principle of the law of international organizations. According to this principle, the Union has no general and unlimited competence, but disposes only of the powers entrusted to it by the Member States according to the founding treaty. Although it has never been disputed and challenged, this principle entered the founding treaties of the former European Communities and the current EU at a very slow pace and with considerable difficulty. In the initial stage of European integration, the treaty framers did not consider it necessary to incorporate the principles on the delimitation of competencies between the EC and the Member States, i.e. the principle of vertical division of power. As the basic principle for determining the limits of competencies of these organizations, the principle of conferral was for the first time explicitly mentioned in the Treaty establishing the EU. Thus, it became the basic principle of communitarian law, but not of the entire EU law. The constitutionalization of the principle of conferral ensued within the reform implemented by the Lisbon Treaty, when it has become a constitutional principle of the entire EU. After reviewing the provisions explicitly referring to or elaborating on this principle, the authors focus on the concept of implied powers and the flexibility clause, which have been modelled in the post-Lisbon era. The former, taken from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, has enabled the EU to exercise competencies other than those it had been explicitly entrusted, which may stem from correlating the founding treaty to a legally relevant fact, such as the objective and effet utile of its provisions. The latter, however, implies a residual power that can be used in the absence of a specific legal basis when there is an agreement between the Member States and the EU institutions on the need for action in order to achieve one of the goals stipulated by the founding treaties. The authors' discussion on the limits of EU competencies is followed up by exploring the types of powers, based on the classification adopted in the Lisbon Treaty. This typology, which relies on the previous practice of the EU, distinguishes exclusive and non-exclusive powers. The second category includes shared, complementary and coordinating powers.
AB  - Granice nadležnosti Evropske unije određene su načelom poverenih ovlašćenja koje predstavlja temeljni princip prava međunarodnih organizacija. Prema tom načelu, EU nema opštu i neograničenu nadležnost već raspolaže samo onim ovlašćenjima koja su joj poverile države članice osnivačkim ugovorom. Iako nikada osporavano i dovođeno u pitanje prilikom regulisanja nadležnosti, to načelo se dosta teško i sporo probijalo u osnivačke ugovore ranijih Evropskih zajednica i sadašnje EU. U početnoj fazi evropskih integracija tvorci tih ugovora nisu smatrali da je potrebno da u tekst unose principe o razgraničenju nadležnosti između EZ i država članica, odnosno načela vertikalne podele vlasti. Načelo poverenih ovlašćenja našlo je prvi put svoj eksplicitni izraz u Ugovoru kojim je osnovana EU. Tom prilikom ono postaje princip komunitarnog prava, ali ne i načelo celokupnog prava EU. Načelo poverenih ovlašćenja konstitucionalizovano je tek reformom izvršenom Lisabonskim ugovorom kada je preraslo u ustavni princip čitave EU. Posle pregleda odredaba u kojima se izričito pominje ili razrađuje to načelo, predmet pažnje autora rada su koncept impliciranih ovlašćenja i klauzula fleksibilnosti. Prvi od njih, preuzet iz jurisprudencije Suda pravde, omogućio je EU da, osim ovlašćenja koja su joj izričito poverena, vrši i ona ovlašćenja koja se mogu izvesti dovođenjem u vezu osnivačkog ugovora sa nekom pravno relevantnom činjenicom, kao što su cilj i korisno dejstvo njegovih odredaba. Kod klauzule fleksibilnosti, pak, reč je o rezidualnom ovlašćenju koje se može koristiti u slučaju da ne postoji specifičan pravni osnov kada među državama članicama i institucijama EU postoji saglasnost o potrebi delovanja radi ostvarivanja nekog od ciljeva propisanih osnivačkim ugovorom. Rasprava o granicama nadležnosti EU završava se razmatranjem vrsta njenih ovlašćenja na osnovu klasifikacije usvojene u Lisabonskom ugovoru. Prema toj podeli, koja se oslanja na dosadašnju praksu delovanja EU, razlikuju se isključiva i neisključiva ovlašćenja, pri čemu ova druga kategorija obuhvata podeljena, komplementarna i koordinirajuća ovlašćenja. .
PB  - Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd
T2  - Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
T1  - The limits of the European Union's competence: The principle of conferral
T1  - Granice nadležnosti Evropske unije - načelo poverenih ovlašćenja
EP  - 128
IS  - 3
SP  - 108
VL  - 66
DO  - 10.5937/AnaliPFB1803108K
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Knežević-Predić, Vesna and Radivojević, Zoran",
year = "2018",
abstract = "The limits of EU competencies are determined by the principle of conferral, which is a fundamental principle of the law of international organizations. According to this principle, the Union has no general and unlimited competence, but disposes only of the powers entrusted to it by the Member States according to the founding treaty. Although it has never been disputed and challenged, this principle entered the founding treaties of the former European Communities and the current EU at a very slow pace and with considerable difficulty. In the initial stage of European integration, the treaty framers did not consider it necessary to incorporate the principles on the delimitation of competencies between the EC and the Member States, i.e. the principle of vertical division of power. As the basic principle for determining the limits of competencies of these organizations, the principle of conferral was for the first time explicitly mentioned in the Treaty establishing the EU. Thus, it became the basic principle of communitarian law, but not of the entire EU law. The constitutionalization of the principle of conferral ensued within the reform implemented by the Lisbon Treaty, when it has become a constitutional principle of the entire EU. After reviewing the provisions explicitly referring to or elaborating on this principle, the authors focus on the concept of implied powers and the flexibility clause, which have been modelled in the post-Lisbon era. The former, taken from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, has enabled the EU to exercise competencies other than those it had been explicitly entrusted, which may stem from correlating the founding treaty to a legally relevant fact, such as the objective and effet utile of its provisions. The latter, however, implies a residual power that can be used in the absence of a specific legal basis when there is an agreement between the Member States and the EU institutions on the need for action in order to achieve one of the goals stipulated by the founding treaties. The authors' discussion on the limits of EU competencies is followed up by exploring the types of powers, based on the classification adopted in the Lisbon Treaty. This typology, which relies on the previous practice of the EU, distinguishes exclusive and non-exclusive powers. The second category includes shared, complementary and coordinating powers., Granice nadležnosti Evropske unije određene su načelom poverenih ovlašćenja koje predstavlja temeljni princip prava međunarodnih organizacija. Prema tom načelu, EU nema opštu i neograničenu nadležnost već raspolaže samo onim ovlašćenjima koja su joj poverile države članice osnivačkim ugovorom. Iako nikada osporavano i dovođeno u pitanje prilikom regulisanja nadležnosti, to načelo se dosta teško i sporo probijalo u osnivačke ugovore ranijih Evropskih zajednica i sadašnje EU. U početnoj fazi evropskih integracija tvorci tih ugovora nisu smatrali da je potrebno da u tekst unose principe o razgraničenju nadležnosti između EZ i država članica, odnosno načela vertikalne podele vlasti. Načelo poverenih ovlašćenja našlo je prvi put svoj eksplicitni izraz u Ugovoru kojim je osnovana EU. Tom prilikom ono postaje princip komunitarnog prava, ali ne i načelo celokupnog prava EU. Načelo poverenih ovlašćenja konstitucionalizovano je tek reformom izvršenom Lisabonskim ugovorom kada je preraslo u ustavni princip čitave EU. Posle pregleda odredaba u kojima se izričito pominje ili razrađuje to načelo, predmet pažnje autora rada su koncept impliciranih ovlašćenja i klauzula fleksibilnosti. Prvi od njih, preuzet iz jurisprudencije Suda pravde, omogućio je EU da, osim ovlašćenja koja su joj izričito poverena, vrši i ona ovlašćenja koja se mogu izvesti dovođenjem u vezu osnivačkog ugovora sa nekom pravno relevantnom činjenicom, kao što su cilj i korisno dejstvo njegovih odredaba. Kod klauzule fleksibilnosti, pak, reč je o rezidualnom ovlašćenju koje se može koristiti u slučaju da ne postoji specifičan pravni osnov kada među državama članicama i institucijama EU postoji saglasnost o potrebi delovanja radi ostvarivanja nekog od ciljeva propisanih osnivačkim ugovorom. Rasprava o granicama nadležnosti EU završava se razmatranjem vrsta njenih ovlašćenja na osnovu klasifikacije usvojene u Lisabonskom ugovoru. Prema toj podeli, koja se oslanja na dosadašnju praksu delovanja EU, razlikuju se isključiva i neisključiva ovlašćenja, pri čemu ova druga kategorija obuhvata podeljena, komplementarna i koordinirajuća ovlašćenja. .",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd",
journal = "Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu",
title = "The limits of the European Union's competence: The principle of conferral, Granice nadležnosti Evropske unije - načelo poverenih ovlašćenja",
pages = "128-108",
number = "3",
volume = "66",
doi = "10.5937/AnaliPFB1803108K"
}

Knežević-Predić, V.,& Radivojević, Z.. (2018). The limits of the European Union's competence: The principle of conferral. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
Univerzitet u Beogradu - Pravni fakultet, Beograd., 66(3), 108-128.
https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1803108K

Knežević-Predić V, Radivojević Z. The limits of the European Union's competence: The principle of conferral. in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu. 2018;66(3):108-128.
doi:10.5937/AnaliPFB1803108K .

Knežević-Predić, Vesna, Radivojević, Zoran, "The limits of the European Union's competence: The principle of conferral" in Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu, 66, no. 3 (2018):108-128,
https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1803108K . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2018
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/671
AB  - After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion.
AB  - Posle stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora postupak zaključivanja međunarodnih ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacija pretrpeo je značajne promene. Najznačajniju novinu na proceduralnom planu predstavlja uspostavljanje redovnog postupka kojim su obuhvaćeni gotovo svi sporazumi EU sa trećim subjektima. Prema slovu Lisabonskog ugovora, ovaj postupak podrazumeva faze pregovora, potpisivanja sporazuma i donošenje odluke o zaključivanju sporazuma. Za zaključivanje sporazuma čiji predmet isključivo ili pretežno spada u oblast zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike predviđeno je nekoliko odstupanja od jedinstvenih pravila procedure. Istom odredbom osnivačkog ugovora regulisani su postupci za izmene i dopune i suspenziju sporazuma na snazi, kao i postupak pravosudne kontrole sporazuma koji tek treba da budu zaključeni. Izvan redovne procedure ostala su dva posebna postupka koji se odnose na zaključenje sporazuma u oblasti zajedničke trgovinske politike i sporazuma o kursu evra u odnosu na valute država nečlanica. Na institucionalnom planu kao najvažniji akteri u postupku zaključivanja ugovora EU pojavljuju se Savet, Komisija i Evropski parlament. Centralno mesto u svim vrstama ugovorne procedure zadržao je Savet koji odlučuje o svim bitnim pitanjima vezanim za tok i ishod ugovornog procesa. Komisija je ostala glavni, ali ne više isključivi inicijator i pregovarač u ugovornom procesu, jer se kao novi učesnici u toj ulozi, zavisno od predmeta ugovora, pojavljuju Visoki predstavnik za spoljne poslove i politiku bezbednosti i Evropska centralna banka. Evropski parlament ojačao je svoju poziciju u postupku zaključenja ugovora, posebno kroz povećanje broja slučajeva u kojima je njegov pristanak neophodan za donošenje konačne odluke o zaključenju sporazuma. Značajan položaj u ovom postupku ima i Sud pravde EU, čiji je zadatak da kontroliše saglasnost sporazuma sa osnivačkim ugovorima pre nego što budu zaključeni.
PB  - Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
T1  - Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations
T1  - Postupak zaključivanja ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacijama
EP  - 66
IS  - 78
SP  - 47
VL  - 57
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfni1878047R
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2018",
abstract = "After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion., Posle stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora postupak zaključivanja međunarodnih ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacija pretrpeo je značajne promene. Najznačajniju novinu na proceduralnom planu predstavlja uspostavljanje redovnog postupka kojim su obuhvaćeni gotovo svi sporazumi EU sa trećim subjektima. Prema slovu Lisabonskog ugovora, ovaj postupak podrazumeva faze pregovora, potpisivanja sporazuma i donošenje odluke o zaključivanju sporazuma. Za zaključivanje sporazuma čiji predmet isključivo ili pretežno spada u oblast zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike predviđeno je nekoliko odstupanja od jedinstvenih pravila procedure. Istom odredbom osnivačkog ugovora regulisani su postupci za izmene i dopune i suspenziju sporazuma na snazi, kao i postupak pravosudne kontrole sporazuma koji tek treba da budu zaključeni. Izvan redovne procedure ostala su dva posebna postupka koji se odnose na zaključenje sporazuma u oblasti zajedničke trgovinske politike i sporazuma o kursu evra u odnosu na valute država nečlanica. Na institucionalnom planu kao najvažniji akteri u postupku zaključivanja ugovora EU pojavljuju se Savet, Komisija i Evropski parlament. Centralno mesto u svim vrstama ugovorne procedure zadržao je Savet koji odlučuje o svim bitnim pitanjima vezanim za tok i ishod ugovornog procesa. Komisija je ostala glavni, ali ne više isključivi inicijator i pregovarač u ugovornom procesu, jer se kao novi učesnici u toj ulozi, zavisno od predmeta ugovora, pojavljuju Visoki predstavnik za spoljne poslove i politiku bezbednosti i Evropska centralna banka. Evropski parlament ojačao je svoju poziciju u postupku zaključenja ugovora, posebno kroz povećanje broja slučajeva u kojima je njegov pristanak neophodan za donošenje konačne odluke o zaključenju sporazuma. Značajan položaj u ovom postupku ima i Sud pravde EU, čiji je zadatak da kontroliše saglasnost sporazuma sa osnivačkim ugovorima pre nego što budu zaključeni.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu",
title = "Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations, Postupak zaključivanja ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacijama",
pages = "66-47",
number = "78",
volume = "57",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfni1878047R"
}

Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2018). Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš., 57(78), 47-66.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1878047R

Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. 2018;57(78):47-66.
doi:10.5937/zrpfni1878047R .

Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, 57, no. 78 (2018):47-66,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1878047R . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
PY  - 2016
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/553
AB  - The distinctive character of the European Union (EU) is indisputable. May it be denoted as a supranational or as a sui generis organization (which is a preferred designation of the European Court of Justice), it is considered to be the result of particular features pertaining to the competences, structure and decision making-process of the EU. It is a truism that other international intergovernmental organizations do share some or all of these features. Almost all of them have at least one institution which is obliged to act independently of the member states; at least some of their decisions are rendered by majority voting, at least some of which are legally binding. What makes the EU truly and genuinely a unique phenomenon in the field of inter-state organization is a strong and independent judicial system, established to 'ensure that in the interpretation and application of this treaty the law is observed'. In effect, it implies establishing a strong and independent judicial system able to enforce the EU law against all those who are under its domain and, above all, to enforce it against the EU Member States. In order to enable the European Court of Justice (the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialized courts) to perform this duty, the Court has been conferred a range of specific powers under the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in particular. The Court is empowered to declare that a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation under the Treaties. The founding fathers of the EU designed three different procedures leading to that effect. The first one has proved to be fairly effective; on the grounds of an action brought by the Commission, it enables the Court to adjudge whether a Member State did comply with its obligations stemming from the EU law. The next one provides légitimation active for the other Member State but it has been very rarely used in the whole history of EU integration and can hardly be considered effective. The last one, possibly the most effective in terms of the accomplishment of the Court's paramount goal, enables the Court to respond to questions referred to the Court by national courts about the effect of EU law in cases pending before the national courts. Having in mind that the procedure before the Court is just part of the litigation proceeding pending in the national court, in this analysis we will set aside the preliminary ruling procedure and focus on the so-called direct actions: Commission v. Member state, and Member State v. Member State. In this paper, we will also focus on Member State's légitimation active versus EU institutions. The founding treaties provide for the procedures that enable Member States to initiate judicial review of the EU institution compliance with EU law. The action for annulment, the action for failure to act, and the claims relating to compensation for damage caused by the EU institutions or its civil servants in performance of their duties proved to be effective tools for keeping the EU institutions within the limits of competences coffered upon them by the Treaties. In view of the extensive legislative powers which the Treaties have vested in political institutions and given the fact that their scope has been a matter of great controversy, légitimation active of a Member State has proved to be an important element of a sophisticated and balanced system of judicial control.
AB  - Osobeni karakter Evropske unije danas više niko ne dovodi u pitanje. Bez obzira na to da li se naziva supranacionalnom ili sui generis organizacijom, ono što Uniju čini jedinstvenom pojavom u oblasti međudržavnog organizovanja jeste snažan i nezavistan sistem pravosudne kontrole uspostavljen sa ciljem da se'obezbedi poštovanje prava u tumačenju i primeni' osnivačkih ugovora. U njegovom središtu nalazi se Sud pravde kome osnivački ugovori poveravaju niz posebnih ovlašćenja. Sud je pre svega ovlašćen da presudi da li je država članica propustila da izvrši obaveze koje proističu iz Ugovora. Tvorci Unije su stvorili nekoliko postupka koji vode tom cilju. Prvi omogućava Sudu da po tužbi Komisije presudi da li je država članica poštovala obaveze koje proističu iz prava EU. Sledeći, koji je tokom čitave istorije evropskih integracija krajnje retko upotrebljavan, dodeljuje aktivnu legitimaciju drugoj državi članici. Treći postupak, koji ovom prilikom ostavljamo po strani, ovlašćuje Sud da odgovori na pitanja koja su mu postavili nacionalni sudovi o učincima prava EU na postupke koji se vode pred njima. Pored slučajeva kada se država članica pojavljuje pred Sudom kao pasivno legitimisana strana, osnivački ugovori propisuju nekoliko postupakau kojima se državama članicama omogućava da pokrenu pravosudnu kontrolu poštovanja prava EU od strane njenih institucija. Tom prilikom državama članicama kao aktivnolegitimisanim subjektima stoje na raspolaganju tri vrste pravnih sredstava koje mogu podneti Sudu. To su tužba za poništaj, tužba zbog propuštanja i tužba za naknadu štete koju su prouzrokovale institucije EU ili njihovi službenici u vršenju svojih ovlašćenja.
PB  - Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
T1  - Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state
T1  - Pravosudna kontrola u Evropskoj uniji - procesna legitimacija države članice
EP  - 111
IS  - 74
SP  - 91
VL  - 55
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfni1674091K
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Knežević-Predić, Vesna and Radivojević, Zoran",
year = "2016",
abstract = "The distinctive character of the European Union (EU) is indisputable. May it be denoted as a supranational or as a sui generis organization (which is a preferred designation of the European Court of Justice), it is considered to be the result of particular features pertaining to the competences, structure and decision making-process of the EU. It is a truism that other international intergovernmental organizations do share some or all of these features. Almost all of them have at least one institution which is obliged to act independently of the member states; at least some of their decisions are rendered by majority voting, at least some of which are legally binding. What makes the EU truly and genuinely a unique phenomenon in the field of inter-state organization is a strong and independent judicial system, established to 'ensure that in the interpretation and application of this treaty the law is observed'. In effect, it implies establishing a strong and independent judicial system able to enforce the EU law against all those who are under its domain and, above all, to enforce it against the EU Member States. In order to enable the European Court of Justice (the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialized courts) to perform this duty, the Court has been conferred a range of specific powers under the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in particular. The Court is empowered to declare that a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation under the Treaties. The founding fathers of the EU designed three different procedures leading to that effect. The first one has proved to be fairly effective; on the grounds of an action brought by the Commission, it enables the Court to adjudge whether a Member State did comply with its obligations stemming from the EU law. The next one provides légitimation active for the other Member State but it has been very rarely used in the whole history of EU integration and can hardly be considered effective. The last one, possibly the most effective in terms of the accomplishment of the Court's paramount goal, enables the Court to respond to questions referred to the Court by national courts about the effect of EU law in cases pending before the national courts. Having in mind that the procedure before the Court is just part of the litigation proceeding pending in the national court, in this analysis we will set aside the preliminary ruling procedure and focus on the so-called direct actions: Commission v. Member state, and Member State v. Member State. In this paper, we will also focus on Member State's légitimation active versus EU institutions. The founding treaties provide for the procedures that enable Member States to initiate judicial review of the EU institution compliance with EU law. The action for annulment, the action for failure to act, and the claims relating to compensation for damage caused by the EU institutions or its civil servants in performance of their duties proved to be effective tools for keeping the EU institutions within the limits of competences coffered upon them by the Treaties. In view of the extensive legislative powers which the Treaties have vested in political institutions and given the fact that their scope has been a matter of great controversy, légitimation active of a Member State has proved to be an important element of a sophisticated and balanced system of judicial control., Osobeni karakter Evropske unije danas više niko ne dovodi u pitanje. Bez obzira na to da li se naziva supranacionalnom ili sui generis organizacijom, ono što Uniju čini jedinstvenom pojavom u oblasti međudržavnog organizovanja jeste snažan i nezavistan sistem pravosudne kontrole uspostavljen sa ciljem da se'obezbedi poštovanje prava u tumačenju i primeni' osnivačkih ugovora. U njegovom središtu nalazi se Sud pravde kome osnivački ugovori poveravaju niz posebnih ovlašćenja. Sud je pre svega ovlašćen da presudi da li je država članica propustila da izvrši obaveze koje proističu iz Ugovora. Tvorci Unije su stvorili nekoliko postupka koji vode tom cilju. Prvi omogućava Sudu da po tužbi Komisije presudi da li je država članica poštovala obaveze koje proističu iz prava EU. Sledeći, koji je tokom čitave istorije evropskih integracija krajnje retko upotrebljavan, dodeljuje aktivnu legitimaciju drugoj državi članici. Treći postupak, koji ovom prilikom ostavljamo po strani, ovlašćuje Sud da odgovori na pitanja koja su mu postavili nacionalni sudovi o učincima prava EU na postupke koji se vode pred njima. Pored slučajeva kada se država članica pojavljuje pred Sudom kao pasivno legitimisana strana, osnivački ugovori propisuju nekoliko postupakau kojima se državama članicama omogućava da pokrenu pravosudnu kontrolu poštovanja prava EU od strane njenih institucija. Tom prilikom državama članicama kao aktivnolegitimisanim subjektima stoje na raspolaganju tri vrste pravnih sredstava koje mogu podneti Sudu. To su tužba za poništaj, tužba zbog propuštanja i tužba za naknadu štete koju su prouzrokovale institucije EU ili njihovi službenici u vršenju svojih ovlašćenja.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu",
title = "Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state, Pravosudna kontrola u Evropskoj uniji - procesna legitimacija države članice",
pages = "111-91",
number = "74",
volume = "55",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfni1674091K"
}

Knežević-Predić, V.,& Radivojević, Z.. (2016). Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš., 55(74), 91-111.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1674091K

Knežević-Predić V, Radivojević Z. Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. 2016;55(74):91-111.
doi:10.5937/zrpfni1674091K .

Knežević-Predić, Vesna, Radivojević, Zoran, "Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, 55, no. 74 (2016):91-111,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1674091K . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2014
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/444
AB  - Legal remedies applied in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union have some distinctive features as compared to the legal remedies used in the national judicial systems. At first, the communitarian justice system originally did not envisage the possibility of filing an appeal with this Court as a regular legal remedy but there were other remedies that could be pursued in respect of the judgments issued by the Court. After the establishment of the Court of First Instance, the Procedural Law of the European Union introduced the possibility of filing an appeal with the Court of Justice against the judgments of the Court of First Instance. Later, the Court of First Instance became competent to decide on appeals against the judgments rendered by the judicial panels, which were established in the meantime. The Court of First Instance and judicial panels reserved the possibility of using other legal remedies against the final decisions rendered by these judicial authorities. In this respect, the Lisbon Treaty did not bring any significant changes, except that the Court of First Instance was renamed into the General Court whereas the judicial panels were designated as specialized courts. Taking into account the system of legal remedies recognized by the Procedural Law of the European Union, the first part of the paper deals with appeals as a regular legal instrument for bringing the case before a higher instance court which is to review the judgment of a lower instance court, including appeals against the decisions of the General Court and specialized courts. In the second part of the paper, the authors focus on the legal remedies which are awarded by the same court that issued the judgment. This category includes the application of a third party and revision, which may be considered as extraordinary legal remedies, as well as the objection against the judgment by default, judgment interpretation, judgment rectification and supplementing the judgment, which are considered to be extraordinary procedural remedies.
AB  - Sistem pravnih lekova u procesnom pravu Evropske unije ima specifičnosti u poređenju sa nacionalnim pravosudnim sistemima. U prvo vreme u postupku pred Sudom pravde nije postojala žalba kao redovno pravno sredstvo, već su predviđeni drugi pravni lekovi koji su se mogli podneti Sudu upravo povodom njegovih konačnih presuda. Posle osnivanja Prvostepenog suda u procesno pravo Evropske unije uvedena je mogućnost podnošenja žalbi protiv njegovih presuda Sudu pravde. Kasnije je Prvostepeni sud postao nadležan da odlučuje o žalbama koje su, u međuvremenu osnovani, sudski paneli doneli u prvom stepenu. U postupcima pred Prvostepenim sudom i sudskim panelima zadržana je mogućnost korišćenja drugih pravnih lekova protiv njihovih konačnih odluka o kojima su odlučivali isti ovi sudovi. U tom pogledu Lisabonski ugovor nije ništa značajnije izmenio, osim što je Prvostepeni sud preimenovao u Opšti sud, a sudske panele u specijalizovane sudove.
PB  - Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
T1  - Legal remedies in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union
T1  - Pravni lekovi u postupku pred Sudom pravde Evropske unije
EP  - 823
IS  - 68
SP  - 807
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfni1468807R
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2014",
abstract = "Legal remedies applied in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union have some distinctive features as compared to the legal remedies used in the national judicial systems. At first, the communitarian justice system originally did not envisage the possibility of filing an appeal with this Court as a regular legal remedy but there were other remedies that could be pursued in respect of the judgments issued by the Court. After the establishment of the Court of First Instance, the Procedural Law of the European Union introduced the possibility of filing an appeal with the Court of Justice against the judgments of the Court of First Instance. Later, the Court of First Instance became competent to decide on appeals against the judgments rendered by the judicial panels, which were established in the meantime. The Court of First Instance and judicial panels reserved the possibility of using other legal remedies against the final decisions rendered by these judicial authorities. In this respect, the Lisbon Treaty did not bring any significant changes, except that the Court of First Instance was renamed into the General Court whereas the judicial panels were designated as specialized courts. Taking into account the system of legal remedies recognized by the Procedural Law of the European Union, the first part of the paper deals with appeals as a regular legal instrument for bringing the case before a higher instance court which is to review the judgment of a lower instance court, including appeals against the decisions of the General Court and specialized courts. In the second part of the paper, the authors focus on the legal remedies which are awarded by the same court that issued the judgment. This category includes the application of a third party and revision, which may be considered as extraordinary legal remedies, as well as the objection against the judgment by default, judgment interpretation, judgment rectification and supplementing the judgment, which are considered to be extraordinary procedural remedies., Sistem pravnih lekova u procesnom pravu Evropske unije ima specifičnosti u poređenju sa nacionalnim pravosudnim sistemima. U prvo vreme u postupku pred Sudom pravde nije postojala žalba kao redovno pravno sredstvo, već su predviđeni drugi pravni lekovi koji su se mogli podneti Sudu upravo povodom njegovih konačnih presuda. Posle osnivanja Prvostepenog suda u procesno pravo Evropske unije uvedena je mogućnost podnošenja žalbi protiv njegovih presuda Sudu pravde. Kasnije je Prvostepeni sud postao nadležan da odlučuje o žalbama koje su, u međuvremenu osnovani, sudski paneli doneli u prvom stepenu. U postupcima pred Prvostepenim sudom i sudskim panelima zadržana je mogućnost korišćenja drugih pravnih lekova protiv njihovih konačnih odluka o kojima su odlučivali isti ovi sudovi. U tom pogledu Lisabonski ugovor nije ništa značajnije izmenio, osim što je Prvostepeni sud preimenovao u Opšti sud, a sudske panele u specijalizovane sudove.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu",
title = "Legal remedies in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, Pravni lekovi u postupku pred Sudom pravde Evropske unije",
pages = "823-807",
number = "68",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfni1468807R"
}

Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2014). Legal remedies in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš.(68), 807-823.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1468807R

Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. Legal remedies in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. 2014;(68):807-823.
doi:10.5937/zrpfni1468807R .

Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "Legal remedies in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, no. 68 (2014):807-823,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1468807R . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2013
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/421
AB  - Unlike the traditional law of war, which recognized only interstate wars, the threshold of applicability of International humanitarian law (IHL) is linked to armed conflicts whereas its substantive domain excludes the situations related to internal disturbances and tensions. The concept of armed conflict, introduced by the Geneva Conventions, reaffirmed by the Additional Protocols, and further reiterated in other international treaties and the jurisprudence of international courts, is broader and much more comprehensive than the traditional concept of war. It is a generic or "umbrella" term, which encompasses not only the international armed conflicts between states resorting to armed force but also the non-international conflicts resulting in armed violence either between the government authorities and organized armed groups or among such armed groups within the territory of a single state. During the last decade of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of armed conflict underwent a legal evolution progressing in two directions. The first one involves precise definition of the threshold of its application by setting the lowest limits of an armed conflict; thus, the threshold has become much clearer and more definable due to vigorous interpretation by the international judicial bodies. The second line of development rendered the internal structure of an armed conflict more complex by means of clarifying the concepts of an internationalized armed conflict and a mixed armed conflict. This has apparently strengthened the ability of IHL to identify and regulate situations typical of contemporary armed conflicts.
AB  - Međunarodno humanitarno pravo, za razliku od klasičnog ratnog prava koje je poznavalo samo međudržavne ratove, prag svoje primene vezuje za oružane sukobe, dok se izvan njegovog materijalnog domena nalaze situacije unutrašnjih nemira i zategnutosti. Koncept oružanog sukoba, uveden Ženevskim konvencijama, a potvrđen Dopunskim protokolima, drugim međunarodnim ugovorima i praksom međunarodnih sudova, sveobuhvatniji je i širi u odnosu na tradicionalni pojam rata. Radi se zapravo o generičkom ili --"kišobran--" pojmu koji obuhvata kako međunarodne oružane sukobe u kojima postoji posezanje za oružanom silom između država, tako i sukobe koji nemaju međunarodni karakter kod kojih je došlo do oružanog nasilja između vlade na vlasti i organizovanih oružanih grupa ili između takvih grupa unutar teritorije jedne države. Koncept oružanog sukoba tokom poslednje decenije prošlog i početkom ovog veka doživeo je svojevrsnu pravnu evoluciju koja se kretala u dva pravca. Prvi pravac izražava se kroz preciziranje praga njegove primene povlačenjem donje granice oružanog sukoba koja, zahvaljujući intenzivnom tumačenju od strane međunarodnih pravosudnih tela, postaje mnogo jasnija i odredivija. Druga linija razvoja dovela je do usložnjavanja unutrašnje strukture oružanog sukoba kroz kristalizaciju koncepta internacionalizovanog i mešovitog oružanog sukoba čime je bez ikakve sumnje ojačana sposobnost međunarodnog humanitarnog prava da prepozna i reguliše situacije koje odlikuju savremene oružane sukobe.
PB  - Univerzitet u Nišu, Niš
T2  - Teme
T1  - The threshold of applicability of international humanitarian law
T1  - Prag primene međunarodnog humanitarnog prava
EP  - 403
IS  - 1
SP  - 383
VL  - 37
UR  - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfpn_421
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2013",
abstract = "Unlike the traditional law of war, which recognized only interstate wars, the threshold of applicability of International humanitarian law (IHL) is linked to armed conflicts whereas its substantive domain excludes the situations related to internal disturbances and tensions. The concept of armed conflict, introduced by the Geneva Conventions, reaffirmed by the Additional Protocols, and further reiterated in other international treaties and the jurisprudence of international courts, is broader and much more comprehensive than the traditional concept of war. It is a generic or "umbrella" term, which encompasses not only the international armed conflicts between states resorting to armed force but also the non-international conflicts resulting in armed violence either between the government authorities and organized armed groups or among such armed groups within the territory of a single state. During the last decade of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of armed conflict underwent a legal evolution progressing in two directions. The first one involves precise definition of the threshold of its application by setting the lowest limits of an armed conflict; thus, the threshold has become much clearer and more definable due to vigorous interpretation by the international judicial bodies. The second line of development rendered the internal structure of an armed conflict more complex by means of clarifying the concepts of an internationalized armed conflict and a mixed armed conflict. This has apparently strengthened the ability of IHL to identify and regulate situations typical of contemporary armed conflicts., Međunarodno humanitarno pravo, za razliku od klasičnog ratnog prava koje je poznavalo samo međudržavne ratove, prag svoje primene vezuje za oružane sukobe, dok se izvan njegovog materijalnog domena nalaze situacije unutrašnjih nemira i zategnutosti. Koncept oružanog sukoba, uveden Ženevskim konvencijama, a potvrđen Dopunskim protokolima, drugim međunarodnim ugovorima i praksom međunarodnih sudova, sveobuhvatniji je i širi u odnosu na tradicionalni pojam rata. Radi se zapravo o generičkom ili --"kišobran--" pojmu koji obuhvata kako međunarodne oružane sukobe u kojima postoji posezanje za oružanom silom između država, tako i sukobe koji nemaju međunarodni karakter kod kojih je došlo do oružanog nasilja između vlade na vlasti i organizovanih oružanih grupa ili između takvih grupa unutar teritorije jedne države. Koncept oružanog sukoba tokom poslednje decenije prošlog i početkom ovog veka doživeo je svojevrsnu pravnu evoluciju koja se kretala u dva pravca. Prvi pravac izražava se kroz preciziranje praga njegove primene povlačenjem donje granice oružanog sukoba koja, zahvaljujući intenzivnom tumačenju od strane međunarodnih pravosudnih tela, postaje mnogo jasnija i odredivija. Druga linija razvoja dovela je do usložnjavanja unutrašnje strukture oružanog sukoba kroz kristalizaciju koncepta internacionalizovanog i mešovitog oružanog sukoba čime je bez ikakve sumnje ojačana sposobnost međunarodnog humanitarnog prava da prepozna i reguliše situacije koje odlikuju savremene oružane sukobe.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Nišu, Niš",
journal = "Teme",
title = "The threshold of applicability of international humanitarian law, Prag primene međunarodnog humanitarnog prava",
pages = "403-383",
number = "1",
volume = "37",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfpn_421"
}

Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2013). The threshold of applicability of international humanitarian law. in Teme
Univerzitet u Nišu, Niš., 37(1), 383-403.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfpn_421

Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. The threshold of applicability of international humanitarian law. in Teme. 2013;37(1):383-403.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfpn_421 .

Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "The threshold of applicability of international humanitarian law" in Teme, 37, no. 1 (2013):383-403,
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfpn_421 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2011
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/281
AB  - The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the 'independence' of the European Atomic Energy Community, constituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, constituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed.
AB  - Lisabonski ugovor doneo je značajne promene u pogledu arhitekture Evropske unije. Najvažniju novinu, svakako, predstavlja njeno značajno pojednostavljenje čime se praktično gube tri stuba na kojima je do sada EU počivala. Uspostavljanje jedinstvene strukture Unije ostvareno je stvaranjem novih i jačanjem postojećih elemenata jedinstva. Nestanak Evropske zajednice, 'osamostaljivanje' Evropske zajednice za atomsku energiju, konstituisanje Evropske unije kao jedinstvenog pravnog subjekta i uvođenje jedinstvenih vrednosti novi su elementi njenog jedinstva. U isto vreme Lisabonskim ugovorom ojačani su već postojeći elementi izraženi kroz jedinstveni institucionalni mehanizam i jedinstvena pravila o izmeni osnivačkih ugovora i članstvu. Međutim, konstituisanje Unije kao jedinstvenog entiteta nije potpuno dokinulo elemente ranije trostubne arhitekture. U oblastima koje su i pre Lisabonskog ugovora odstupale od komunitarnog stuba ostala su značajna odstupanja u pogledu prirode i domašaja ovlašćenja koja su poverena glavnim organima Unije. Reč je najpre o zajedničkoj spoljnoj politici i politici bezbednosti, kojoj je sada pridodata i odbrambena politika, i gde je postojeći model međudržavne saradnje tek neznatno načet. Nasuprot tome, u oblasti policijske i pravosudne saradnje u krivičnim stvarima, koja je postala deo šire oblasti slobode, bezbednosti i pravde, međudržavni model je napušten u nekim svojim najvažnijim elementima, s tim što je odložena primena određenih bitnih elemenata naddržavnog modela saradnje.
PB  - Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
T1  - The new architecture of the European Union
T1  - Nova arhitektura Evropske unije
EP  - 37
IS  - 1
SP  - 11
VL  - 45
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfns1101011R
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2011",
abstract = "The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the 'independence' of the European Atomic Energy Community, constituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, constituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed., Lisabonski ugovor doneo je značajne promene u pogledu arhitekture Evropske unije. Najvažniju novinu, svakako, predstavlja njeno značajno pojednostavljenje čime se praktično gube tri stuba na kojima je do sada EU počivala. Uspostavljanje jedinstvene strukture Unije ostvareno je stvaranjem novih i jačanjem postojećih elemenata jedinstva. Nestanak Evropske zajednice, 'osamostaljivanje' Evropske zajednice za atomsku energiju, konstituisanje Evropske unije kao jedinstvenog pravnog subjekta i uvođenje jedinstvenih vrednosti novi su elementi njenog jedinstva. U isto vreme Lisabonskim ugovorom ojačani su već postojeći elementi izraženi kroz jedinstveni institucionalni mehanizam i jedinstvena pravila o izmeni osnivačkih ugovora i članstvu. Međutim, konstituisanje Unije kao jedinstvenog entiteta nije potpuno dokinulo elemente ranije trostubne arhitekture. U oblastima koje su i pre Lisabonskog ugovora odstupale od komunitarnog stuba ostala su značajna odstupanja u pogledu prirode i domašaja ovlašćenja koja su poverena glavnim organima Unije. Reč je najpre o zajedničkoj spoljnoj politici i politici bezbednosti, kojoj je sada pridodata i odbrambena politika, i gde je postojeći model međudržavne saradnje tek neznatno načet. Nasuprot tome, u oblasti policijske i pravosudne saradnje u krivičnim stvarima, koja je postala deo šire oblasti slobode, bezbednosti i pravde, međudržavni model je napušten u nekim svojim najvažnijim elementima, s tim što je odložena primena određenih bitnih elemenata naddržavnog modela saradnje.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad",
title = "The new architecture of the European Union, Nova arhitektura Evropske unije",
pages = "37-11",
number = "1",
volume = "45",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfns1101011R"
}

Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2011). The new architecture of the European Union. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad., 45(1), 11-37.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns1101011R

Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. The new architecture of the European Union. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad. 2011;45(1):11-37.
doi:10.5937/zrpfns1101011R .

Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "The new architecture of the European Union" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, 45, no. 1 (2011):11-37,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns1101011R . .