Country Report Portugal
The implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC changed considerably the legal regulation of clinical trials in Portugal. The rights of the participants in research, including minors and incompetent adults, are now more accurately described and the possibility of non-therapeutic research with minors was introduced. Moreover, the new administrative procedure and the role of ethics committees changed substantially, since the new National Ethics Committee for Clinical Research was given extensive power and the traditional local ethics committees have seen a decrease in their functions and activities.
Promises of States under International Law
Introduction I The Presumed Rareness of Promises II A Legal Framework with Many Open Questions: A First Look III The Need for a Clear Assessment of the Applicable Law IV Approaching the Topic 1 Delimiting the Subject: Promise as a Unilateral Act I Drawing from the Definition of Unilateral Acts II Distinguishing Promises from Other Classes of Unilateral Acts III A Manifestation of Will to Create a Legal Obligation IV Unilateral V Promises of States Only 2 A History of Promises I Important Cases and State Practice II Concluding Remarks on the History of Promises 3 The Law on Promises I Promises and the Sources of International Law II The ILC's Guiding Principles III Legal Basis for the Bindingness of Unilateral Promises IV On the Intention to be Legally Bound V Further Requirements VI The Revocability of Promises VII Modifying Promises VIII Promises and Estoppel IX Summarising the Legal Framework 4 Looking Ahead: A 'Promising' Future? I Straitjacket vs Empowering Rule II Unilateral Promises and Bilateral Commitments Concluding Remarks
Mutual trust and rights in EU criminal and asylum law: Three phases of evolution and the uncharted territory beyond blind trust
This article examines the evolving relationship of mutual trust and fundamental rights in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The ECJ has long prioritized the effectiveness of instruments based on mutual trust through an unimpeded system of mutual recognition. Arguments based on a violation of fundamental rights were taken to contradict the presumption of compliance, refute mutual trust, and hinder automatic mutual recognition. The ECJ has now accepted, both in criminal and asylum law, that the presumption of compliance is not conclusive and mutual trust is not blind. The article observes an emergent, but carefully controlled dynamic of rights-based assessment through case-by-case analysis, illustrating three phases of mutual trust, but argues that this dynamic is slow, unclear and inadequate. It suggests that national authorities should take a proactive role, promoting real and constructive relationships of trust, allowing an individual assessment of rights violations via rights-based review. The latter is based on a proper understanding of trust, as an evolving concept based on evidence. Respect for rights, terminological clarity, enhanced judicial communication, and acknowledgment of shared values are the way forward.