Humanities and Social Sciences

Polish Yearbook of International Law


Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2010 | No XXX |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


This Article investigates how the European Court of Human Rights becomes competent to make decisions in cases concerning (or taking roots in) “historical situations” preceding the ratifi cation of the European Convention by a given Member State or even the enactment of the Convention. “Historical situations” refer to events that occurred in the period of Second World War or shortly thereafter. In all such cases, the preliminary question arises whether the Court is competent temporally (ratione temporis) to deal with the application. This group of cases concerned usually allegations touching upon the right to life and the right to property. The Court had to decide if the allegation in question related to a temporally closed event (making the Court not competent) or rather to a continuous violation (where the Court could adjudicate). A specifi c set of legal questions arose vis-à-vis the right to life, fi rst of all that of the autonomy of the procedural obligation to conduct an effi cient investigation. The Strasbourg case law did not provide a clear answer. However, following two crucial judgements rendered by the Grand Chamber, the Court has established an interesting legal framework. Article analyses also two other situations having a historical dimension: bringing to justice those accused of war crimes or other crimes under international law (in light of the alleged confl ict with the principle of nullum crimes sine lege) and pursuing authors of pro-Nazi statements or speech denying the reality of Nazi atrocities.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Ireneusz C. Kamiński
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


Historic title is just one of many legal instruments which may be raised by parties and used by judges to decide a territorial dispute. If a claim of historic title in given circumstances may be deemed to have been extinguished as a result of its relative weakness, the elements advanced in support of its construction, for example uti possidetis or eff ective occupation, may be used to support other types of legal claims. Taking into account its construction and its systemic conditional criteria, historic title gains maximum eff ectiveness when conditions exist which would support a fi nding of its incremental consolidation. This involves a multi-dimensional interpretation in reliance on particular elements which, taken together, create a complicated factual state in a particular territorial dispute. On the other hand, consolidation of historic title is not an argument which can be used by the indigenous native inhabitants of a territory, since their arguments are not based on claims of sovereignty.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Artur Kozłowski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex


Article 51 of the UN Charter, in affi rming the inherent right of self-defence of each UN Member State “against which an armed attack has occurred”, clearly indicates that the concept of armed attack plays a key role in delineating the right of self-defence. The concept in question was not, however, defi ned in the UN Charter, and no universally acceptable defi nition has yet emerged either in practice or in doctrine. One of the fundamental questions to be addressed in this context is who must engage in armed activity for it to qualify as an armed attack. This question is of particular relevance today because of the threat of international terrorism and the expansion of the concept of armed attack through the inclusion of an act of terrorism. The article discusses in some detail the emerging legal framework for attribution of actions undertaken by non-state actors to states.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Michał Kowalski

Instructions for authors

Guidelines on the submission of articles to PYIL and the review process

General rules

1. In order to reduce instances of research and publication misconduct, the PYIL staff strictly follows the principles listed below. By submitting an article to PYIL, an author agrees to comply with those principles. The same applies to reviewers upon the acceptance of arequest for review.

2. All submissions should comply with the relevant requirements set outin the document entitled “Information for authors”, which is available on the PYIL’s webpage.

3. Manuscripts need be submitted in Microsoft Word format (any version). Unless specifically indicated otherwise, the deadline for submitting articles is 31 January of each year. The yearly volume of PYIL is normally published between June and July of the same year.

4. Submissions should not exceed 10,000 words (including footnotes), although in exceptional cases PYIL may accept longer works. All submissions should be sufficiently referenced. The Editorial Board assesses manuscripts on a rolling basis. It will consider requests for expedited review in appropriate instances (for example, pending acceptance for publication from another journal).On averageit takes about45 days to complete the evaluation of a text, although in some instances this process may be longer, depending on the availability of reviewers.

5. Manuscripts may besubmitted by e-mail ( or through the ExpressO submission system (

6. All reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially. Members of the Eduitorial Board must not use materials disclosed in a submission for their own research unless the text is published.

7. All submissions are subject to initial verification by the Editorial Board to determine whether they meet basic editorial requirementsand are compatible with the scientific interests of the journal. This assessment also aims at eliminating those papers where research misconduct occurred. If the Editorial Board’s assessmentis positive, submitted articles are sent out to two independent reviewers,who are identified by PYIL’s specialist editors taking into account the rules setout here.

8. The reviewers cannot be affiliated with the institution with which the author is affiliated. The reviewers assess the text based on the double blind-peer review principle, i.e. the name of the author is not revealed to the reviewers nor are the reviewers’ names revealed to the author or the other reviewer. In case of articles submitted by a foreign authorat least one of the reviewers must be affiliated with a foreign institution other than that of the author.

9. Reviews are submitted in written form, which also encompasses electronic and/or e-mail communications. The reviewer must submit his or her review on aReview form provided to the reviewer together with the text for review. A Review form is available on thePYIL’s webpage. The principles governing a review are set forth below.

10. The review should clearly indicate whether, in the reviewer’s opinion, the textshould be published. The reviewer may also indicate changes which should be made to the text prior to its publication. These changes may be noted in the Review form or may be offered in the form of commentaries in the text of the article.

11. The Editorial Board will accept a submitted text if both reviewers recommend publication. In the event the reviewers indicate that changes are necessary, the acceptance of the article is conditional upon the author responding to the suggested changes, either by implementation of the same or offering an explanation why they may be not acceptable to the author, in whole or in part. The Editorial Board may, to the extent it deems necessary and following consultation with the specialist editor(s), send the revised text back to the original reviewers for their further opinion.

12. In the event of receipt of a single negative review, the Editorial Board will decide the issue of publication of the text in consultation with the specialist editor. The Editorial Board may also send the text to a third reviewer. In the event both original reviewers give a negative opinion of asubmitted article, it will be automatically rejected.

13. An author of atext submitted to PYIL is obliged to cooperate with the Editorial Board as well as with reviewers. In particular,an author shall participate in the peer-review process to the extent required to make his/her submission ready for publication. This includes, inter alia, implementation of changes suggested by the reviewers or offering an explanation why such changes, in whole or in part,may be not acceptable toanauthor.

14. Authors are under an obligation to report to the Editorial Board any significant errors in their submissions, whether discovered during the review process or after publication. If significant errors are found after publication, authors agree to either retract the paper or publish a correction/clarification.The detailed procedure for retraction and corrections is included in the document entitled “Information for authors”.

15.Texts already published shall not be accepted,but PYIL does not prohibit parallel submissions. Copyright and licensing information is included in the document entitled “Information for authors”.

Guidelines for reviewers

1. The PYIL Editorial Board requests a professional review of asubmitted article with regard to its scholarly merits.

2. The object of the requested review is todeterminewhether the submitted article meets the scholarly standards for a scientific article of its type. In particular,the reviewer is asked to assess:

a.whether the title of the article is correct and accurately reflects its contents;

b.whether the article is clear and concise (a reviewer may suggest shortening the article or certain parts thereof);

c.whether the conclusions presented by the author are consistent with the data contained in the article;

d.whether the author useda proper methodology;e.whether the article is original and contains new information;

f.whether the article accurately presents the current state of knowledge and research in a given area (including appropriate citations of and referrals to the existing literature).

3. The reviewer is requested to perform his or her review according to the above criteria in an objective and unbiased fashion. In addition,the reviewer is asked to indicate any and all places where, in the reviewer’s opinion, the author violated any norms of fair, diligent, and accurate scientific research (for example, instances of plagiarism). The review should be neutral and objective, internally consistent, and end with a clear conclusion concerning the usefulness of the text for scientific purposes. The reviewer may also suggest amendments to the text, including indicationsof any relevant published work which isnot citedin the text.

4. Although the review process in based on the double blind-peer review principle, reviewers should refuse the review request if they are aware of any conflict of interest that may exist.

5. Reviewers shall notify the Editorial Board if they feel unqualified to conduct a review of a particular submission.

6. Reviewers should complete their reviews within a timeframe specified by the Editorial Board or one of its members.

7. Reviewers must treat the submissions received for review as confidential documents and must not disclose any information about them to anyone other than the Editorial Board.

8. Reviewers must not use materials disclosed in a submission for their own research unless the text is published.

9.The list of the reviewers is published in each volume and on the PYIL’s webpag

Additional info

PYIL indexed in ERIH PLUS

The Polish Yearbook of International Law is pleased to announce that it has been accepted for indexing in the European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS). ERIH was initially created by the Science Foundation (ESF), which subsequently transferred the database to the Norwegian Centre for Research Data for the maintenance and operations. The name of the new database is ERIH PLUS.

The inclusion of the Polish Yearbook of International Law in the ERIH PLUS demonstrates our continuous dedication to providing high quality content to our readers.

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more