Humanities and Social Sciences

Polish Yearbook of International Law

Content

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2023 | No XLIII

Authors and Affiliations

Karolina Wierczyńska
ORCID: ORCID
Łukasz Gruszczyński
ORCID: ORCID
Aleksandra Mężykowska
ORCID: ORCID
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The violation of the rule of law in Poland (2015–2023) was related to the relationship between national law, especially constitutional law; and international law, especially European Union (EU) law. This article focuses on the issue of constitutional review in the context of concepts such as sovereignty and conferral of competences, as well as the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of application of international rules and principles. Sovereignty, a qualitative feature of the State, operates within the law, not outside of it. EU (international) law does not limit sovereignty, but the sovereign nature of the State cannot justify violations of the applicable law. Situating the relationship between international (EU) law and the national constitution in the perspective of the supremacy of one order over the other leads in practice to a collision and/or a stalemate. Rather, we should be guided by the principle of primacy as an “existential requirement” for the functioning of the Union, and more broadly, of international law. The primacy of application does not imply the supremacy of EU law over national law, nor the derogation of national law norms. Constitutional supremacy, on the other hand, is a principle of domestic law which does not have external legal effects and does not exempt a State from its international legal responsibility. The concepts of priority and supremacy coexist, but they fulfil different functions and express different perspectives – primacy does not prejudge supremacy, and supremacy does not exclude primacy. What is problematic is not so much the review of constitutionality per se, but the scope of that review and its effects. Once a national court has found a conflict between EU law and the national Constitution, should we accept the effect of selective refusal to apply EU law on the grounds of constitutional supremacy and sovereignty? The answer to this question is negative.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jerzy Kranz
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Kozminski University (Poland)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

How should citizens respond to UN governance failures with respect to preventing climate change, wars of aggression, global health pandemics, and violations of human rights like access to food and public health protection? Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism has enabled the European Union (EU) to exercise a leadership role for realizing the universally agreed “sustainable development goals” (SDGs), including in the external relations of the EU. But democratic constitutionalism – as a political and legal strategy for protecting rights of citizens and supporting rules-based, democratic governance – remains contested by governments prioritizing authoritarian and neo-liberal policies. As an analytical research method, constitutionalism explains “market failures”, “governance failures” and “constitutional failures” – as well as related remedies – more convincingly than alternative methods like “realism” and “welfare economics”. The more power politics impedes UN and WTO reforms, the more necessary become second-best plurilateral governance reforms which make membership conditional on promoting human rights and rules-based, multilevel private-public partnerships for realizing the SDGs. Europe’s economic and “environmental constitutionalism” illustrates how constitutionalism can also facilitate sustainable development reforms in the UN, WTO and the plurilateral governance of global public goods, like climate change mitigation and transnational rule-of-law.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Law Department, European University Institute (Italy)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Despite the mushrooming literature on the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and its numerous problems, little attention has been given to the analysis of its origins. Upon examining the scholarship, two contending explanations emerge regarding the policy’s formulation stage. While one perspective maintains that the policy was influenced by the European Commission’s past experience, the other highlights how the policy was affected by the European Commission’s desire to expand its powers vis-à-vis other European Union (EU) actors. Against this backdrop, this paper first seeks to frame both perspectives in theoretical terms. Then, through process-tracing analysis and elite interviews, it aims to determine which theoretical model not only better explains the structure of the Neighbourhood Policy, but also evaluates the nature of the interaction between European Union Member States and the European Commission throughout the policy’s formulation stage. In doing so, the paper seeks to expand our knowledge of the ENP’s genesis, as well as highlight the efficacy of institutionalist analysis of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mor Sobol
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Department of Diplomacy & International Relations, Tamkang University (Taiwan)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The question of the function of European criminal law has dominated recent doctrinal thinking. In order to answer that question, a thorough study on the guiding principles of criminalisation and their applicability to the European Union’s legislative process was necessary. This article focusses first on the concept of legitimacy and the need for a European criminal policy, and then on some principles that already exist in the EU’s legal order and their ability to provide said legitimacy. Following the conclusion that the existing principles are insufficient, it is suggested that the harm principle and the principle of protection of legal goods would be more appropriate to evaluate the material legitimacy of European criminal law. For that purpose, the multiple categories of interests that coexist in the EU will be analysed according to the allocation of responsibility for their protection. That distinction will, in turn, lead to the proposal of a three-step process to assess any given instance of criminalisation stemming from the EU. Finally, the practical consequences of such a process will be mentioned in the conclusion.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Raquel Cardoso
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Faculty of Law of Lusíada University (Portugal)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article analyzes the recently adopted European Union State aid rules designed to facilitate the implementation of “green” technologies. This initiative is in line with European objectives to combat climate change and transition to an emission-free economy. By contextualizing State aid rules within the broader regulatory policy landscape, the author aims to assess the inherent limitations of these tools. Based on this evaluation, the article attempts to determine if and to what extent EU State aid law can be successfully utilized to promote environmental objectives. The analysis begins with an overview of the State aid toolbox and its role in regulatory policies, situated on a spectrum between incentive-based and obligation-based approaches. Subsequently, it delves into the evaluation of potential consequences, encompassing risks such as the deepening disparities between wealthier and poorer Member States, inadequate safeguards against offshoring in pursuit of lenient environmental norms, and the peril of fostering subsidy dependence.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jakub Kociubiński
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics, University of Wrocław (Poland)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In the past 15 years, Georgia and Ukraine have both brought cases against Russia before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Georgia’s 2008 application ad¬dressed the separatist movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ukraine’s 2017 case (Ukraine v. Russian Federation I) accuses Russia of discriminating against Crimean Tatars, supporting terrorism in Eastern Ukraine and downing Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17. The 2022 case (Allegations of Genocide) claims that Russia’s war against Ukraine violates the Genocide Convention. This article examines Russia’s role in these disputes, comparing outcomes in Georgia v. Russian Federation and Ukraine v. Russian Federation I, both alleging breaches of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Only the latter reached the merits phase. The article also analyses the controversial judgment on preliminary objections in Allegations of Genocide. It argues that the ICJ’s consensual jurisdiction limits its effectiveness, restricting its ability to rule on Russia’s actions against Ukraine. Additionally, it assesses Russia’s strategies in these proceedings, focussing on the “rhetorical adaptation” of international norms.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Nikolay A. Marin
1
ORCID: ORCID
Bilyana Manova
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Faculty of Law and History, South-West University Neofit Rilski (Bulgaria)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article explores Russia’s official discourse on democracy in international law, addressing the following questions: When Russia speaks of democracy in the context of international law, what precisely does it mean and what does it advocate for? What do these discussions truly signify regarding Russia’s understanding and interpretation of democracy in international law? What are the potential consequences of Russia’s interpretation for the discourse on democracy in international law? The central hypothesis of this study suggests that Russia strategically leverages the counter-Western democratic discourse within international law to secure its position as a great power rather than offer a meaningful alternative to the Western “hegemonic” ideas of democracy. This study is novel, as Russia’s discourses on democracy have received little attention in international legal scholarship. It is relevant in light of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which is often framed within the broader context of the struggle between autocracy and democracy. The main analysis is construed around the official discourse of Russia’s high-ranking officials. The research highlights that although Russia’s discourse is directed against the Western liberal “hegemonic” idea of democracy, it does not offer any substantive alternative to it and aligns with the paradigm of realpolitik. Instead, it inadvertently reinforces the fundamental principles of Western liberal democracy.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Sevanna Poghosyan
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. School of Law, University of Tartu (Estonia)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

When the International Court of Justice issued its Arrest Warrant Judgment in 2002, it indicated that personal immunities do not prevent proceedings in front of “certain international criminal courts” and provided three demonstrative examples of such courts. After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine commenced in February 2022, debates ensued regarding the elements necessary to qualify a court within the meaning of the Arrest Warrant Judgment. They particularly concern two types of tribunals (“fully international” and “hybrid / internationalized”). This article suggests that only fully international courts qualify as “certain international criminal courts”, while hybrid tribunals are far too attached to the sovereignty of State(s) to meet its criteria. The determination of a court as hybrid or international is rather fluid however, and the qualification as “a certain international criminal court” depends on various elements (the establishing mechanism; applicable law; and reflection of the will of the international community) in each individual case.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Milan Lipovský
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Department of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, Charles University in Prague (Czech Republic)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The divergence between Russia and Western States on the question whether international humanitarian law (IHL) applies to cyber space is still omnipresent in the debates at the UN Open-ended Working Group. Russia has several times submitted a draft or a concept for a binding legal instrument; however, they have not included considerable suggestions on IHL. Furthermore, Russia is actively using cyber means in an aggressive war against Ukraine, which makes its calls sound hollow. How then can one explain Russia’s quest for a treaty for cyberspace, especially regarding IHL? This article aims to shed some light on this question in the broader context of Russian approaches to international law-making and its historic role in developing IHL rules.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Liina Lumiste
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Tartu (Estonia)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has caused serious harm to the environment, resulting in the destruction of ecosystems, a reduction in biodiversity, and damage to natural reserves and protected ecosystems. This type of damage may fall under the jurisdiction of both the International Criminal Court (ICC) under Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute regarding war crimes and the Ukrainian domestic courts under Art. 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (CCU) regarding ecocide. However, while Ukrainian domestic judicial authorities are already conducting investigations under Art. 441 CCU, the prosecution by the ICC for environmental damage should satisfy the high threshold imposed by Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute. It would be interesting to see whether the ICC Prosecutor will initiate an investigation into the Kakhovka dam bombing, just like Ukrainian domestic authorities have already done.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Khrystyna Gavrysh
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Law Department, University of Ferrara (Italy)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article explores the role of Lithuania in seeking accountability for Russia’s crimes in Ukraine since 2022. This small Baltic state, being both an EU and NATO member for twenty years now, is advocating on behalf of their Ukrainian colleagues in many international arenas and forums. However, more than two years into the brutal war, some organisational and legal challenges have started to emerge. These include the challenges resulting from the complex international institutional framework, as well as legal ones related to universal jurisdiction and the scope of crimes included under current criminal investigations.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Dovilė Sagatienė
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Centre for Military Studies, Department of Political Science, Copenhagen University (Denmark)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The crime of aggression is an international crime that for various legal, political and practical reasons can be difficult to successfully and legitimately prosecute at the domestic level against nationals of aggressor or third states. This article considers the legality and legitimacy of domestic prosecutions initiated by third states regarding the crime of aggression against Ukraine and the role that the newly established International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression could have in increasing the legitimacy not only of domestic prosecutions by third states, but of the future Special Tribunal as well.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Gabija Grigaite-Daugirde
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Law Faculty, Vilnius University (Lithuania)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article addresses the complex issue of immunity for State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, with a focus on the ILC’s role in codifying and ensuring the compatibility of international legal acts. It underscores the calls for exceptions to functional immunity, particularly concerning ius cogens norms, and it highlights how the current framework often impedes accountability for international crimes. However, the ILC’s limitation of Art. 7 to immunity ratione materiae, excluding jurisdictional immunities, presents a legislative gap that hampers prosecution under universal jurisdiction. This underscores the need for international codification and progressive development to reconcile immunity doctrines with the imperative of accountability for serious international crimes. The article highlights the lack of a clear international position due to: (1) the absence of uniform definitions for immunity ratione personae, ratione materiae and jurisdictional immunity, (2) the identification of various exceptions limiting the invocation of immunities in domestic and third-State courts and (3) the inconsistent interpretation of immunity exclusions for ius cogens violations. It argues for harmonising legal norms at the international level to adequately initiate and conduct criminal proceedings by specifying the circumstances that exclude jurisdictional, ratione materiae and ratione personae immunities, thus re-establishing criminal accountability for international crimes.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Małgorzata Biszczanik
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Law Discipline, Department of Administrative Law and Public Policy, Faculty of Administration and Social Sciences, Warsaw University of Technology (Poland)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article explains the legal basis and reasons for establishing a Joint Investigation Team by the Polish Prosecutor’s Office, investigating crimes committed as a result of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. It analyses the reasons why this investigation is so highly demanding and describes how it requires an unconventional approach to work from investigators, as well as enormous coordination efforts and support from the EU organs. Other states are involved in the JIT on an unprecedented scale, as well as the OTP ICC, and unconventional support has been offered by the EU organs, especially in the area of digitalisation of the exchange of evidence. The article highlights the state and picture of investigations conducted into crimes committed in Ukraine, both in domestic jurisdictions and before the ICC, as well as possibly before an international or internationalised tribunal established to adjudicate the crime of aggression. It explains how the Polish investigation – conducted within the framework of a JIT – has become an important element of ‘strategic litigation networks’ for serious international crimes.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Hanna Kuczyńska
1
ORCID: ORCID
Michał Nasiłowski
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Poland)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the efforts to prosecute the perpetrators have renewed the debate regarding domestic and international criminal jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Given the inter-state nature of this crime and its link to an act of aggression, the existence of which can be determined by the Security Council, the International Law Commission’s (ILC) relatively restrictive approach to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction prevailed, at least until 2022. Against this background, the discussion regarding the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine has significantly influenced the trajectory of the understanding of general international law concerning individual criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression. The interpretative paths adopted in the mid-1990s are gradually being abandoned. At the same time, an intense ongoing debate concerning the understanding of the phrase “international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction” has not led to any conclusive arrangements. Still, what is known is that there is a certain group of states for which such courts can be created through bilateral agreement between the state concerned and the United Nations, on the recommendation of the UN General Assembly.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Łukasz Kułaga
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Department of International and European Law, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University (Poland)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article consists of two parts, the first of which discusses the problems associ ated with implementing the provisions of international law in the Ukrainian legal system regarding the understanding of the concept of “international crimes”. It underscores that the different definitions are due to the fact that Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute. However, it should be noted that most provisions of international law regarding interna tional crimes regarding war crimes, the crime of aggression and the crime of genocide are part of the Ukrainian legal system. At the same time, there are no crimes against human ity in Ukrainian national criminal law. The second part addresses the issues regarding Ukrainian courts’ interpretation of the national criminal law and international treaties on international crimes: interpreting the provisions of United Nations acts and the Rome Statute, applying the principle of “nullum crimen sine lege”in the context of prosecuting the crime of Holodomor, interpreting the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the use of trial in absentia in the case of Russian war criminals and interpreting provisions regarding universal jurisdiction in Ukrainian law.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Andriy Kosylo
1
ORCID: ORCID
Anastasiia Dmytriv
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. International Crimes Studies Center, Institute of Social Prevention and Resocialisation, University of Warsaw (Poland)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article explores the genesis of Russian aggression against Ukraine, tracing its origins from the unprovoked illegal invasion initiated in February 2014 to the full-scale invasion in 2022. Despite initial international responses, the lack of significant sanctions against Russia or efforts to prosecute its leaders for the crime of aggression persisted until the 2022 invasion. The international community’s condemna tion of the brutality accompanying this invasion underscored the need for accountability mechanisms within the existing international legal framework. However, limitations in prosecuting aggression within the International Criminal Court, coupled with chal lenges in amending the Rome Statute, have led to proposals for an ad hoc mechanism to address aggression gaining traction. These proposals highlight the urgency of holding aggressors accountable and safeguarding victims’ rights. Concurrently, Ukrainian ju risdiction incorporates the concept of the crime of aggression in its Criminal Code but lacks clarity on essential elements necessary for prosecuting such crimes, including the leadership element. An analysis of court verdicts reveals discrepancies in interpreting the crime of aggression, emphasising the necessity of adopting a unified approach that is consistent with international law. The article underscores the critical importance of enhancing legal frameworks, building capacity and encouraging international cooper ation to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression and to preserve the rule of law.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Anton Korynevych
1
ORCID: ORCID
Oksana Senatorova
2
ORCID: ORCID
Mykhaylo Shepitko
3
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Institute of International Relations, Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University (Ukraine)
  2. International and European Law Department, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine)
  3. Department of Criminal Law, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University (Ukraine)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The accountability response to Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine attests to the growing importance of regional accountability frameworks in the fight against impunity. Many Member States of the European Union have taken active steps towards accountability for core international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine by initiating domestic criminal investigations. The creation of centralised justice hubs, such as the International Centre for the Prosecution of Russia’s Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine, can bridge the knowledge gap between different accountability actors involved in international investigations, and additionally contribute towards developing best practices and the universalisation of investigative standards. In this context, new technology infrastructure and expertise play the role of an accelerant, actively contrib-uting to the coordinated fight against impunity and fostering information exchange and collaboration on an increasingly global scale.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Karolina Aksamitowsk
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn University (Estonia)
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article raises the issue of the proper publication of international treaties and their presence in the Polish legal system. The authors analyze this issue based on re¬search conducted on Polish-Russian treaties from 1944–1960. Their research has shown that, during this period, only 11% of treaties were properly published. The research – conducted on a very limited subject: only bilateral agreements between Poland and the USSR – leads to the pessimistic conclusion that in Poland it is customary practice to refrain from publishing an international agreement in the Journal of Laws and that citizens do not have at their disposal a single official or unofficial source to reconstruct Poland’s current obligations, which may indeed directly concern them. Also this finding raises important questions about the accessibility and enforceability of international treaties in the Polish legal system. At the international level, the consequences of failing to publish an act and to ensure official promulgation can be much more serious. In the absence of information about published agreements, it is not possible to sufficiently and completely determine the obligations between states nor to reconstruct the relations binding them. It is also impossible to clearly determine which international agreements are still in force between countries, which are invalid and which have expired.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Grzegorz Wierczyński
1
ORCID: ORCID
Karolina Wierczyńska
2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Gdańsk (Poland)
  2. Institute for Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Authors and Affiliations

Andrzej Jakubowski
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Department of Public International Law, Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Poland)

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 (pyil@inp.pan.pl) or through the ExpressO submission system (https://www.bepress.com/products/expresso/).

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