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
Towards the end of mutual trust? Prison conditions in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the transfer of prisoners framework decisions
This article contends that the presumption of mutual trust between the European Union Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, a failure of the latter can have detrimental effects on judicial cooperation and, especially, on the functions of punishment. In particular, mutual recognition and mutual trust create a bridge between the external limits of punishment (fundamental rights) and the internal limits to the functions of punishment (retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation). The non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights undermines the very social functions of punishment. Such a failure can only be prevented if the Member States and the European Union endeavour to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy with concerns for individuals at its very core.