Pravni zapisi

RESISTING THE ALLURE OF FUTURE GENERATIONS’ “RIGHTS”

Luísa Pinto e Netto — 2026-06-05

The language of future generations (FG) has become prominent in climate litigation; they are increasingly being treated as present rightsholders. Using a constitutional perspective, the paper argues that FG cannot function as present right- sholders since the category is legally vague, conceptually unstable, and epistemically indeterminate, preventing identification of rightsholders, specification of the scope of rights, and their operationalization in adjudication. The paper further shows that reliance on FG rights is neither necessary nor effective in tackling climate change, risking the shift of attention away from present duties and responsibility. Constitutional rights frameworks already contain objective norms and state duties that can safeguard future conditions without attributing rights to non-existing individuals. The paper argues we should resist the allure of FG rights and focus on legally coherent tools capable of advancing inter- and intragenerational justice.

PEACE TREATIES IN THE 21st CENTURY: TREATY VALIDITY AT THE CROSSROADS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF FORCE

Anikó Szalai — 2026-06-06

Peace treaties remain the central instruments of war termination, yet their legal nature is under-theorized in light of the UN Charter’s prohibition of the use of force and the duty of peaceful settlement. This article traces the historical evolution of peace treaties, analyzes their changing subject matter and third-party involvement, and examines how the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) regulates their conclusion and validity. Focusing on coercion and jus cogens, it argues that Articles 52, 53 and 75 VCLT, read together with the Charter regime, delegitimize results of aggression while preserving room for stabilising peace settlements. Drawing on Security Council practice and selected post-Cold War agreements, the article shows why states almost never invoke treaty invalidity against peace treaties and proposes criteria for distinguishing lawful stabilization from impermissible consolidation of aggression.

THE ECONOMICS OF THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE: CONTRIBUTION TO THE EUTHANASIA DEBATE

Boris Begović — 2026-06-05

The paper examines the economics of the value of human life, seeking a suitable input that would make a relevant contribution to the euthanasia debate, focusing on the legal status of euthanasia, specified in the paper as “voluntary as- sisted dying”, especially in the key disputes in that debate. The paper looks at three economic models of the value of human life: the model of the value of statistical life, the model of the objective value of human life, and the model of the subjective value of human life. These models were evaluated for their suitability in providing inputs to the euthanasia debate, and only the subjective value model passed the evaluation. The most significant input from the economic model is the proposition that only “voluntary euthanasia” should be legalized as a last resort measure and that the decision-making process should be strictly regulated and specified in detail in legislation. Regulation guidelines are provided, as are guidelines for further research.

JUDICIAL NARRATIVE SOVEREIGNTY: NORMALIZATION OF EMERGENCY THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN TIMES OF CRISIS

Martin Belov — 2026-06-05

This paper explores the role of the courts in times of crisis and emergency. It focuses on the tension between the imaginary conceptualizations regarding the status of courts in times of normalcy and emergency that exist in the theoretical discourse and the constitutional anthropology and the empirical ways the courts contribute to the normalization of emergency in socio-legal practice by justifying crisis and emergency as “the new normal”. The paper outlines several key constitutional imaginaries related to the courts in times of normalcy. The imaginaries are structured through analytical reconstruction of the main approaches to the concept of courts provided in modern consti- tutionalism in pursuit of justifying the proper engagement of courts in the constitutional crisis management. This reconstruction is meant to produce both novel approaches to the role of the courts and an original typology of the imaginaries of the courts.

CIVIC V. NATIONAL STATE: A FALSE DILEMMA

Petar Antic — 2026-06-05

This paper critically reexamines the dichotomy between the civic state and the national state, arguing that it is both empirically inadequate and normatively misleading. It conceptualizes these approaches as normative models and highlights their internal limitations: the civic model may conceal cultural dominance, while the national model risks hierarchical inclusion. Through a comparative analysis of France, Serbia and Hungary, the paper examines their effects on social cohesion, ethnic distance and perceptions of discrimination. The findings show that neither model, when applied in isolation, ensures inclusive political belonging. The paper concludes that this dichotomy should be reconsidered in favor of a more nuanced approach combining universal rights and recognition of collective identities.

THE SURVIVAL OF ACCRUED DELAY PENALTIES AFTER CONTRACT TERMINATION UNDER SERBIAN LAW

Marija Karanikić Mirić — 2026-06-05

This article examines whether creditors lose the right to an accrued con- tractual penalty for delay upon termination of the contract for breach. The Serbian Law on Obligations (LO) contains no provision extinguishing that right upon termination. Penalties survive termination based on the systematic reading of the LO, legal doctrine, judicial practice, comparative materials, and the role of contractual penalties in commercial practice. A contractual penalty is accessory at inception; once due, however, it becomes an independent right. Delay gives rise to legal consequences that termination does not erase retroactively. Just as termination does not affect accrued default interest or damages, it does not affect the accrued amount of a contractual penalty for delay, but only prevents its further increase. The contrary view would force the creditor to choose between terminating the contract to obtain restitution and retaining the right to the penalty.