Responsibility In International Law Research Articles

On the Problem of Determining International Legal Responsibility in Public International Law

One of the ways to ensure order in international relations from ancient times to the present day is to use the institution of responsibility. Most lawyers who devote their work to international law in general and to its individual branches. To one degree or another, these works deal with the issue of international responsibility.
 To date, the issue of liability under international law has been one of the least developed, although the problem of international legal liability is becoming increasingly important in the practice of international relations as one of the security institutions that help maintain a certain legal order in the world.
 The issues of international responsibility are equally important both in the field of public law and private law relations. Moreover, liability in these two branches of international law has much in common and is closely interrelated, which is clearly evident in the process of analyzing liability issues in various branches of international law.
 The definition of responsibility in international law is a key topic that determines the legal order and relations between states and other actors of the international community. One of the key aspects is the consideration of the principles of determining responsibility in international law.
 The definition of responsibility in international law is a key topic that determines the legal order and relations between states and other actors of the international community. One of the key aspects is the consideration of the principles of determining responsibility in international law.
 The article examines the essence and main aspects of the concept of international legal responsibility, which is one of the first principles of international law.
 First of all, the article examines the principles of responsibility, such as the principles of sovereignty, equality of states and non-interference, and how these principles shape legal standards and mutual relations between states and other subjects of international law.
 Special emphasis is placed on the current challenges facing the concept of international legal responsibility. In particular, the author analyzes new forms of responsibility, such as cybersecurity, human rights violations and other aspects arising from the development of globalization and technology.
 The article also emphasizes the need for continuous analysis and adaptation of the concept of international legal responsibility to changes in the modern world, emphasizing the importance of developing effective tools and mechanisms to address the challenges arising in a globalized and technologically advanced society.

International legal regulation of the use of reprisals as a form of political responsibility of states

The article attempts to determine the principles of international legal regulation of the use of reprisals as a form of political responsibility in international law, since reprisals are illegal actions committed in response to previous illegal actions of the state, proportional to the initial offense. International law has changed the application of the doctrine of retaliation to avoid an upward spiral of violence where one side retaliates against the illegal actions of another, causing ever more violent bloodshed, while the laws of war are meant to regulate and limit such harm. Theoretical provisions regarding the international legal regulation of the use of reprisals as one of the forms of political responsibility according to international law are analyzed. In order for reprisals against permitted categories of persons and objects not to be illegal, five conditions must be met. Most of these conditions are laid down in military instructions and confirmed by official statements. The following conditions: the purpose of reprisal (can be used only in response to a previous serious violation of international law and only to induce the adversary to comply with the law); last resort (can only be used as a last resort when there are no other legal measures), proportionality (measures must be proportionate to the violation it aims to stop), decision at the highest level of government (the decision must be taken at the highest level of government), termination (must be terminated as soon as the adversary begins to enforce the law). The occurrence of reprisals in real cases is analyzed - Naulilaa Incident (When Portugal was neutral, in October 1914, a German group entered the Portuguese-African territories from German South­West Africa) and «Israel against Palestine» (After the Second World War the Jews wanted their own country. They were given a large part of Palestine, which they considered their traditional home, but the Arabs did not accept the new country. In 1948, both sides went to war); the use of reprisals in today's world is analyzed.

Pertanggungjawaban Terhadap Pelanggaran Penggunaan Bom Cluster Menurut Hukum Humaniter Internasional

Introduction: Cluster bombs have quite a dangerous effect on civilians and can take lives because when these bombs are launched into the target area they usually do not explode simultaneously, even the explosions can occur at a later date or even when the war is over.Purposes of the Research: This writing aims to examine and find out the forms of violations of the law on the use of cluster bombs in war according to humanitarian law, to study and find out about the accountability for the use of cluster bombs assigned to perpetrators and as one of the requirements for completing studies at the Faculty of Law, Pattimura University.Methods of the Research: The Juridical-Normative research method with the type of doctrinal research is also known as library research or document study because this research is carried out or shown only on written regulations or other legal materials.Results of the Research: The results of the study show that the prohibition of the use of cluster bombs according to International Humanitarian Law has been regulated in the 2008 Convention On Cluster Munitions (CCM), namely each country promises to clean up and destroy, or ensure the cleaning and destruction of, the remains of cluster ammunition located in cluster munitions. Contamination under its jurisdiction or control. And the form of responsibility for the perpetrators is the responsibility of the state, namely the state that violates international agreements. As well as sanctions that can be given for the use of cluster bombs that are given by the United Nations in the form of reducing the degree of diplomatic relations or attacks using armed power by the UN security council, sanctions can also be given based on humanitarian law in particular Additional Protocol I of 1977 and International Humanitarian Law customs in relation to state responsibility in international law, which can be in the form of compensation, in the form of satisfaction given through acknowledgment of actions, expressions of remorse and official apologies by the state relating to the International Criminal Court.

ZLOČIN GENOCIDA U PRAVU O ODGOVORNOSTI / THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN LAW OF RESPONSIBILITY

The paper deals with the issue of the responsibility of the main subjects of international law for grave breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law in relation to the commission of the crime of genocide. The focus of this paper is in certain aspects of the relationship between individual criminal responsibility and the international responsibility of States and international organizations, which should be interpreted as two separate systems of responsibility in international law. Each system has its own special fundaments, features and characteristics. Consequently, the starting point is that the responsibility of States for genocide does not depend on the responsibility of individuals for the crime, although the International Court of Justice has made extensive use of the conclusions of the chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Judgment from 2007). The paper therefore analyzes the question of the existence of a theoretical legal possibility for the so-called indirectly proving the responsibility of States (and international organizations) for genocide through a prior examination of the criminal responsibility of leaders, but also through proving a joint criminal enterprise for the purposes of committing the crime, or do these conceptions represent a starting point for the responsibility of the main subjects of international law or they are simply "proof" of the attribution of the act to a State? In this paper, we examine whether a joint criminal enterprise could be a reflection of a State plan and/or policy for committing the crime of genocide and how a collective plan or policy for committing that crime could be interpreted. After all, are they actually a dolus specialis of this crime, that is, whether a genocidal intent is manifested in a State precisely in a plan or policy?

Some Aspects of the Concept of State Responsibility for Internationally Illegal Acts

The article examines some topical issues of the theory and practice of state responsibility for internationally illegal acts, which is of great importance in the doctrine of modern international law. Doctrinal approaches to defining the concept of internationally illegal action of the state are analyzed. The importance of codification and further development of international law in the field of responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts is noted. It is noted that due to the systematization of doctrine and judicial practice in 2001 it was possible to substantiate the latest doctrinal definition of responsibility in international law for international illegal actions of the state, which found its implementation and enshrined in the Articles of UN Resolution56/83 of 12 December 2001. The Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts stipulate that every State that has committed an internationally wrongful act is liable for it. The Articles define the elements of internationally illegal actions of the state. It is noted that an internationally wrongful act of a state occurs when any conduct constituting an act or omission is a) appropriated to a state under international law; and(b) constitutes a violation of that State’s international legal obligation. Thus, the illegal behavior of the state can be both active and in action of the state. An important role in the preparation of the Articles belongs to the Commission on International Law. The scientific views of the members of the UN International Law Commission on international legal activities of states are analyzed. Thus, the modern doctrine of the state’s responsibility in international law for international illegal acts is based on the recognition of the state’s illegal behavior inviolation of the international legal obligations of this state under international law. Therefore, the issues of international legal responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts need to be enshrined in the Universal International Convention on the Liability of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which will contribute to the progressive development of the law of international responsibility. Key words: international law, state, responsibility, international wrongful act, doctrine.

The Higher Law and the Principle of Non-Recognition

Abstract The principle of non-recognition represented, and still represents, one of the most relevant legality-checking instruments that the legal order has set. The principle is always triggered by the existence of a conflict involving a higher norm, a conflict which can be normative or material. Its general function is preventing the consolidation of legal consequences deriving from acts or situations that are contrary to higher rules. Just as higher rules cut across the boundaries between the law of treaties and the law of international responsibility, the presence and the effects of the principle of non-recognition are to be found in the three main functions: creation of the law, ascertainment of a wrongful act and enforcement of the law.

Circumstances precluding State responsibility in international law

Circumstances precluding State responsibility in international law

The Assessment of The Covid-19 Pandemic in Terms of Responsibility in International Law and Due Diligence

Covid-19 Salgınından kaynaklanan uluslararası sorumluluğun nasıl belirleneceği uluslararası hukuk açısından önemli bir tartışma konusudur. Bu çalışma dâhilinde bu tartışlarının sebep olduğu ihtilaflar ve neticeler değerlendirilecektir. Sorumluluğun kime ait olduğu kadar zararın tazmini konusu da mühimdir. Ayrıca devletlerin ve uluslararası örgütlerin uluslararası hukuk açısından sorumluluklarının nasıl düzenlediği genel çerçevede incelenecektir. Sorumluluk kavramı kadar sistematik biçimde düzenlenmemiş olsa dahi özen yükümlülüğü uluslararası hukuk açısından zararın tazminine ilişkin üstünde durulması gereken önemli bir konudur. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü'nün uluslararası sorumluluklarını gerektiği gibi yerine getirememesi ve Covid-19 Salgını'nın yayılması noktasında gereken özeni göstermemesi, uluslararası sorumluluğun belirlenmesi noktasında gözden kaçırılmamalıdır. Bütün dünyayı etkileyerek milyonlarca insanın hayatını kaybettiği ve devletlerin ekonomik zarara uğradığı Covid-19 Salgını’na ilişkin sorumluluğun kime ait olduğu tartışmaları çalışmamıza dâhil edilen sorumluluk hukukunu tekrardan gündeme getirmiştir.

Concepts and Elements of International Illegal Action of the State

The article examines the concept and elements of international illegal action of the state. Doctrinal approaches to defining the concept of internationally illegal action of the state are analyzed. The importance of codification and further development of international law in the field of responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts is noted. It is noted that due to the systematization of doctrine and judicial practice in 2001 it was possible to substantiate the latest doctrinal definition of responsibility in international law for international illegal actions of the state, which found its implementation and enshrined in the Articles of UN Resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001. The Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts stipulate that every State that has committed an internationally wrongful act is liable for it. The Articles define the elements of internationally illegal actions of the state. It is noted that an internationally wrongful act of a state occurs when any conduct constituting an act or omission is a) appropriated to a state under international law; and (b) constitutes a violation of that State’s international legal obligation. Thus, the illegal behavior of the state can be both active and inaction of the state. An important role in the preparation of the Articles belongs to the Commission on International Law. Thus, the modern doctrine of the state’s responsibility in international law for international illegal acts is based on the recognition of the state’s illegal behavior in violation of the international legal obligations of this state under international law. Therefore, the issues of international legal responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts need to be enshrined in the Universal International Convention on the Liability of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which will contribute to the progressive development of the law of international responsibility. Key words: internationally illegal act of the state, responsibility of the state, International Law Commission.

The European Peace Facility and the UN Arms Trade Treaty: Fragmentation of the International Arms Control law?

Abstract In March 2021, the European Council set up the European Peace Facility (EPF), to serve as a legal instrument for the provision of security and peace assistance measures. It includes the supply of military and defence-related equipment to the European Union’s partner countries worldwide. The official aim of the EPF is to prevent conflict, preserve peace and strengthen international security and stability. The European Council assures its Member States that these measures will be accompanied by risk assessments and legal safeguards that respect international law, and comply with arms export control laws. However, the EPF’s biggest challenge is circumnavigating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which primarily aims to prevent the diversion of and illicit trade in conventional arms. This article examines the legality of the EPF’s assistance measures by referring to the ATT, and the law of international responsibility. This timely analysis will be relevant to policymakers and lawyers responsible for regulating the international transfer of conventional arms.

“Reason to know” in the international law of command responsibility

AbstractA recent report by the Australian Defence Force arrived at a conclusion that further investigation was not warranted of commanders regarding their responsibility for failing to investigate suspicious behaviour of subordinates in Afghanistan, who were accused of violations of international humanitarian law. This troubling conclusion calls for a better analysis and understanding of command responsibility in international law and gaps in the law of command responsibility. This article identifies the conflicting precedents and scholarship regarding the law of command responsibility, which create uncertainty, and proposes a clarification of that law, with a special focus on the “reason to know” standard that triggers responsibility for failing to prevent or punish war crimes. It refutes the popular claim that commanders must act wilfully, and it rejects the common dichotomy between a commander who orders or otherwise directly participates in the war crimes of subordinates and one who unwittingly fails to prevent or punish such crimes. Using the empirical psychological literature, the article further explains how commanders can insidiously signal toleration of war crimes without giving direct orders. Finally, the article argues that international law, by absolving commanders who fail to properly train their subordinates to respect the law of armed conflict, misses a rare opportunity to deter war crimes, and offers some suggestions to fill this gap in the law.

Методологічне підґрунтя дослідження відповідальності держав за міжнародним правом

The complexity of modern political and legal relations that arise with the onset of international responsibility significantly increases the importance of developing a methodological basis for the concept of state responsibility under international law. The article highlights the methodological basis of the study of the sphere of international responsibility of states. The article reveals the content of civilizational, axiological, historical-legal and conceptual-comparative approaches, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of international law and the essence of international responsibility, the patterns of functioning and the development of norms on the international responsibility of states. It has been established that the main principles of the civilizational approach contribute to considering the peculiarities of understanding and applying the main categories of international responsibility through the prism of the interaction of civilizations and their dialogue. From the standpoint of the axiological approach, the value of a number of categories significant for the sphere of international legal responsibility is revealed, in particular, the term "responsibility" itself, as well as such political and legal values as freedom, equality, justice, solidarity, tolerance, respect for all human rights. The application of the historical-legal approach allows, among others, to investigate of the development of international legal opinion regarding the concept of "responsibility" in international law from the earliest times; to analyze the stages of the UN International Law Commission's work on the codification of norms on the international responsibility of states; to trace the evolution of the concept of an internationally wrongful act of the state and highlight the issue of its normative consolidation, to investigate the development of the concept of the responsibility of states for lawful activity. The toolkit of the conceptual-comparative approach with its methods of macro- and micro-comparison, synchronic and diachronic, normative, textual, and doctrinal comparisons is helpful in comparing the studied phenomena. The application of the approaches analyzed in the article allows for a comprehensive study of the issues of state responsibility, to develop an international legal concept of state responsibility in international law, to consider the specifics of state responsibility for the illegal conduct of state and non-state actors in conditions of modern political and legal processes.

Global Citizenship: Transnational Corporation’s Social Responsibility in International Law

Global Citizenship: Transnational Corporation’s Social Responsibility in International Law

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASPECTS OF ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATES

The subject of the article is international legal aspects of economic responsibility of states. The aim of the article is to find an answer to the problematic issues of economic responsibility of states and its international legal aspects. Different concepts of economic responsibility are analyzed due to the lack of a unified approach to it both in economics and in related branches of law. It is noted that the institution of economic responsibility is designed to stabilize the relations of socio-economic development, the interests of participants in social exchange and to achieve the goals of sustainable development. From the international legal point of view of understanding economic responsibility, the state bears two types of responsibility – material (economic) and non-material (political). And international legal responsibility of the state is considered as an institution of the law of international responsibility. It is from this point of view the economic responsibility of the state is considered by international lawyers and specialists in the field of international relations. The methodology of the article is based on the fact that there are three basic mechanisms of liability – derivative of property rights, contracts, and torts. Contract law deals with breaches of duty, tort law deals with accidental or intentional injury to persons or property, and property law deals with misappropriation or interference with property rights. It is concluded that the state is the same economic entity in terms of economics as all equal economic entities. However, the applicability of the means of economic responsibility in the international legal aspect is complicated by the immunity of the state with regard to its property. Therefore, there are signs of liability not for all property, but only for that which has certain signs of applicability – use for commercial purposes, connection with the subject matter of the claim. In the aspect of economic responsibility, there is a distinction between immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from enforcement. The problem of differentiation of commercial and state property is outlined, attention is focused on the existence of certain categories of state property, the public nature of which is not in doubt and which are not considered possible for economic (property) responsibility for the conduct of diplomatic and consular activities of their missions, consulates, special missions, etc., whose immunity is enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961; military property, as well as property used for military purposes; property that is part of the cultural heritage of a foreign state or part of its archives, as well as property that is part of an exhibition of items of scientific, cultural or historical significance. It is also concluded that economic responsibility in international law is not always associated with the negative consequences of unlawful behavior, because it can also be applied as a result of lawful behavior, leading to the infliction of harm to other subjects. Thus, the economic responsibility of the state is on the verge of regulation of public and private law. This is its peculiarity and complexity of its application to the state.

THE MAIN STAGES OF FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The main stages of the formation and development of the institution of criminal liability of the individual in international law are studied in the article, features and characteristic features of each of the studied stages are clarified, as well as various doctrinal approaches to the recognition or non-recognition of the individual, the subject of international law analyzed, and consequently, the subject of international crime within the framework of the International criminal law. It has been shown that the primary responsibility for persecuting individuals lies with the state. However, individuals are prosecuted in accordance with international criminal law. The expansion of this practice is a manifestation of the further formation and implementation of the principle of punishing individuals for committing international crimes recognized by the world community as international crimes. The institute of international criminal responsibility of individuals for committing international crimes is a significant deterrent to modern international law to prevent violations of its most important norms. The statutes of the tribunals oblige states to provide assistance, including search and identification, obtaining evidence and finding evidence, arresting and detaining, and transferring the accused to the tribunal. All this requires the introduction of appropriate provisions in the criminal and criminal procedural law of states. It is concluded that the formation and development of the institution of individual criminal responsibility in international law has come a long way from complete non-recognition and denial to the emergence of a permanent judicial institution to which international crimes fall and individuals are recognized as perpetrators. An individual becomes a subject of international law and will be held accountable if he or she commits international crimes. It is confirmed that the principle of inevitability of criminal punishment has the ability to be implemented in any case. which is a progressive phenomenon of modern reality.

AGGRESSION AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

AbstractThe definition of the crime of aggression in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) stipulates that a State act of aggression is a material element of the crime, suggesting an intrinsic link between individual criminal responsibility and State responsibility for aggression. This article argues that the Rome Statute provides a legal basis for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to determine State responsibility for aggression when considering the material elements of the crime of aggression, which has important practical and conceptual implications for the law of international responsibility. Although the content of State responsibility flows automatically from the breach of the obligation, it is argued that a finding of aggression pursuant to Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute may be considered as a form of satisfaction for the purposes of Article 37 of the 2001 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001 ILC Articles). Furthermore, the material element of the crime in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute requires the act of aggression by its character, gravity, and scale to constitute a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations, in line with the nomenclature used within the 2001 ILC Articles regarding serious breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). The article considers the important role that the ICC may play in relation to serious breaches of the jus cogens obligation to refrain from an act of aggression.

International Responsibility of State for the Acts of an Unsuccessful Insurrectional Movement: Case of ISIS in Iraq

Abstract ISIS, as an insurgent movement, announced its presence in Iraq in 2013, and, after extensive military and non-military activities in the country, its suppression was officially declared by the Prime Minister in 2017. The main question is whether the actions of this failed insurgent movement can be attributed to Iraq under international law of responsibility? This study shows that, since the Iraqi Government has taken due diligence to suppress the movement and prosecute its members, and has not granted amnesty, acts of ISIS are not attributed to it. But governmental acts of ISIS including legislative, executive and judicial ones can be attributed to state if they has taken in absence or default of government officials and in response to a request for such acts. Some of ISIS’s acts in Iraq especially in Mosul have these characteristics and are accordingly attributed to Iraq.

Functions of compensation for human rights violation in international and national judicial decisions

When establishing human rights violations committed by the state, should it be violation of internationally protected rights or constitutional rights, the violator is obliged to compensate for the harm caused. In the meantime, neither international sources, nor national legal acts and case law answer the question whether the obligation to compensate is exhausted by the compensation awarded in accordance with a decision of an international judicial body or such a payment has punitive nature, and the state keeps the obligation to compensate the damage within the frameworks of national proceedings. Following the first part of opening remarks the second part of the article studies universal international law approach towards the state obligation to compensate for human rights violations, it reviews positions of the International Court of Justice, the model established in international customary law of international responsibility. The third part discusses the compensation mechanism of the European Court of Human Rights and a number of cases where the Russian Federation was the respondent state. The forth part considers national regulation of the Council of Europe states and case law thereof. The author argues that the established international case law in respect of awarding compensations for human rights violations is too restrictive – it does not take into account a complex nature of this phenomenon which includes both correction of the individual applicant situation (restitution of the pre-existed situation) and prevention of similar situations in the future. It is concluded that awarding the compensation by an international body primarily constitutes a measure of international responsibility whereas consideration by a national court is a more effective means of restitution of the applicants rights and that the national court shall not deny consideration of applicants claims due to the fact that they have already been awarded compensation by the international judicial body including the European Court of Human Rights.

On the Benefit of Reinventing the Wheel: The Notion of a Single Internationally Wrongful Act

Abstract This article is a critical reaction to the 2020 EJIL Foreword titled ‘Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law’. It focuses on Principle 3, concerning a ‘single internationally wrongful act’, and it is divided into its constitutive elements: the meaning of same conduct (Section 2), the attribution to multiple persons (Section 3), the breach of obligations (Section 4) and the indivisible injury (Section 5). The main criticism is that the Guiding Principles make things more complex than they already are. The established principles of international responsibility provide simpler and more effective answers. This is particularly the case for Principle 3, which concerns multiple responsibilities arising from the same conduct. There are two main elements through which the Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility seek to provide guidance in the case of a plurality of internationally responsible persons. First, they employ the comprehensive notion of an internationally wrongful act, while ARSIWA and ARIO distinguish between the two elements of attribution of conduct and the breach of an obligation. Second, the Guiding Principles consider the injury to be a constitutive element included in the definition of shared responsibility, while ARSIWA and ARIO only employ it in the context of reparation and countermeasures. There are no actual benefits coming from these attempts of clarification.

The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law: Too Much or Too Little?

Abstract The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility aim to ‘substantiate the existing rules of the law of international responsibility’ as they are codified in the International Law Commission’s 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the 2011 Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. This article examines the contribution of the Guiding Principles to the law of international responsibility and analyses some of their more controversial features, where the Guiding Principles seek to significantly expand the scope of the existing rules and, conversely, where they could have been much more ambitious.