Acts Adopted By Bodies Created By International Agreements
The conflict between international law and national sovereignty is the subject of heated debate and scientific, diplomatic and political conflicts. Admittedly, there is a growing tendency to judge the national action of a State in the light of international law and norms. Many people today regard the nation-state as the primary unit of international affairs and believe that only States can voluntarily choose to voluntarily assume international obligations and that they have the right to follow their own advice when interpreting their obligations. Some scholars and political leaders believe that these modern developments endanger nation-states by depriving state governments of power and ceding them to international bodies such as the United Nations. and the World Bank assert that international law has developed to such an extent that it exists separately with the mere consent of States and recognizes a legislative and judicial procedure with international law that parallels these procedures in national law. This is particularly the case when States violate or derogate from the standards of conduct expected of all civilized nations. Alleged violations of the Charter may also be invoked by States in the Security Council. The Security Council could then adopt resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to recommend the settlement of Pacific disputes. These resolutions are not binding under international law, although they are generally the expression of the Council`s convictions. In rare cases, the Security Council may adopt resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter concerning “threats to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression” that are legally binding under international law and can be followed by economic sanctions, military actions and other similar uses of force under the auspices of the United Nations. The EU judicial system has played an important role in the development of EU legislation. It interprets the treaties and has accelerated economic and political integration.
 Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is the most important judicial body where there is a Supreme Court of Justice that deals with cases of greater public importance and a court that deals with matters of detail but of no general importance, and then a separate Court of Auditors. In accordance with Article 19(2) of the Treaty on European Union, there is a judge from each Member State at the Court of Justice and the General Court (currently 28). Judges should have “the qualifications required to be appointed to the highest judicial office” (or for the court the “capacity necessary for appointment to a senior judicial position”).  A president is elected by the judges for a term of three years. While Article 19(3) TEU provides that the Court of Justice is the supreme court for the interpretation of questions of EU law, most EU law is applied in practice by the courts of the Member States (e.g. B.dem English Court of Appeal, the German Bundesgerichtshof, the Belgian Labour Court, etc.).  The courts of the Member States may refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The ECJ`s duty is to “ensure that the interpretation and application of treaties respect the law”, while it is realistically capable of extending and developing the law according to the principles it develops in accordance with democratic values. Van Gend en Loos (EU law aimed at creating a new legal order and citizens could take legal action against contract law)  Mangold v Casque  and Kadi v Commission (confirmation that international law should be in line with the fundamental principles of EU law).
 Until 2016, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal dealt with personnel matters of the European Union institutions. . . .