Freedom of contract and the coexistence of trademark registrations in Colombia

In trademark systems such as the Andean Community, a state authority verifiesthat the marks are distinctive, lawful and do not affect third parties, and after that,given their ownership. In this context, particular interest has sparked the possibilityof individuals by agreements or statements of co-existence, are who ensure that theirsigns meet the conditions for simultaneous registrations.Such agreements for the coexistence of marks are problematic if one thinks thatthe holders of interests that would be available also seem to matter to consumers,competitors and the market. Therefore, define the scope of contractual freedom inthe field of trademark law, whose rules are considered imperative, acquire practicaland theoretical importance because its realization i) recognizes the risks that maybe relevant to evaluating trade agreements and ii) contributes to debates on the roleof private autonomy in areas reserved for non-derogable norms. Thus, this researchputs the declarations of consent for the coexistence of registrations in Colombia, ina larger scope of the limits of freedom of contract.

Towards an understanding of “crimes againsthumanity” since Nuremberg

This article makes an historical analysis of the manner in which crimes againsthumanity have acquired an independent status from crimes of war and aggressionever since the concept was first introduced in discussions between the Allies duringthe establishment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It describes themanner in which the concept has evolved and been discussed in several internationalbodies, and how it was finally included in the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt. The article shows how the Nuremberg trials have a fundamental legaland historical meaning in that they institutionalized individual responsibility for anew category of crimes before an international tribunal. It also shows how after theNuremberg trials, crimes against humanity have been gradually withdrawn fromthe competency of government sovereignty to become a matter for the internationalcommunity of nations.

Paradoxes of resilience: lessons learnt from a comparison between Columbia and France

This paper investigates a discrepancy concerning resilience. International institutions such as ISDR try to promote resilience as a notion useful for preventing disasters. And some searchers, mainly coming from ecology, such as Resilience Alliance group, found the notion relevant enough to promote it as a brand for their studies on disaster prevention. Yet, the second part of the paper will verify how other searchers are still not convinced by the relevance of the notion. Territorial managers are reluctant as well, in line with the poor number of policies trying to bring resilience to reality, be it in Columbia or in France. How can we make sense of this discrepancy? The paper will stress on various political, institutional and cultural conditionings hidden behind the notion. It will also enlighten the contradictions embedded within the notion, because resilience, as disaster, depends on the scales and the actors the analysis relies on first. Which resilience to whom and at what scale? These are critical questions that should be addressed in order to give sense to these contradictions. Resilience has no absolute meaning. However, it helps identifying trends towards future disasters. This is one of the main reasons why it may be found useful.