Proces vnitrostátního projednávání mezinárodních smluv v ČR. 1. část. Historický a komparativní kontext
The Process of National Negotiation of International Treaties in the Country. 1st Part. Hitorical and Comparative Context

Summary/Abstract: The aim of the first part of this article is to illustrate the historical and comparative context of the ratification procedure of international agreements in the Czech Republic. Since this procedure in every country involves interplay between several bodies, the proper evaluation of historical context may enable brief constitutional regulation in the Czech Republic to be construed. One of the main questions of the ratification procedure, which the authors address, is the role of the president of the Czech Republic in the ratification procedure of international agreements. On the basis of historical and current constitutional regulation, the authors conclude that the competence of the president related to international agreements cannot be considered to be a presidential prerogative. According to the authors, the president’s act of ratification is the formal conclusion of the internal consultation procedure of the international agreement in the Czech Republic. In exercising this competence, the president has a very limited margin of discretion. As for the role of parliament, the authors compare the involvement of parliamentary bodies in various states, which may take place on both the formal and informal level. In some states parliaments tend to be more involved in the stage of negotiations when the mandate for the executive is created. Other countries, including the Czech Republic, tend to involve the parliament after the international agreement is concluded. The first part of the article ends with the authors’ comparative study based on the questionnaire circulated via the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation. Besides general questions on the role of the government, parliament and the head of state in the ratification procedure of international treaties, the authors specifically dealt with two major issues. The first is the legal ability of the head of state to refuse to ratify an international agreement that has been approved by the parliament, and the second is practice in countries with bicameral parliaments where one of the chambers approves the international treaty and the other does not. The outcome of the questionnaire shows some similarities as well as the diversity of states’ practices.

• Details
• Contents