Search results

The Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2005 on the protection of the environment1, stipulates in art. 95: (1) liability for damage to the environment has an objective character, independent of guilt. In case of several authors, the liability is a joint responsibility; (2) as an exception, liability is subjective for the prejudice caused to protected species and to natural habitats, in accordance with the specific regulations; (3) the prevention and remedy of the damage done to the environment are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the present emergency ordinance and specific regulations. From this text, it results that the rule in environmental law is represented by objective liability, independent of guilt (and the exception is subjective liability) and joint liability (in case of plurality of authors). Objective liability and joint liability are the expression of the fundamental "polluter pays" principle (stipulated under art. 3 letter e of GEO no. 195/2005 on the protection of the environment), actually meeting the needs of the victim who, on the one hand does not have to prove the guilt of the doer and, on the other hand, in case of plurality of authors, has the possibility to claim full remedy for damage from any of them. Keyword: ecological prejudice; the abuse of right; the damage risk; the guarantee theory

Introduction -- Delimiting the subject : promise as a unilateral act -- A history of promises -- The law on promises -- Looking ahead : a 'promising' future?

Armed groups have played a predominant role in the violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law committed in conflict settings. The increase in the number of non-international armed conflicts during the past decades has emphasised the need to address the multiple legal challenges posed by the actions of armed groups. In particular, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the framework of responsibility for armed groups in international law. While much has been written regarding their international (primary) obligations, the possibility of developing a responsibility framework for armed groups under international law has been underexplored. Consequently, the aim of this book is to examine how the principles of international responsibility could be developed and adjusted to account for armed groups as collective entities. This general aim has been divided into three specific objectives. First, the book analyses the concept of responsibility in international law and assesses the legal and practical reasons in favour of developing such a regime for armed groups. Second, it examines the viability of establishing a responsibility regime for armed groups based on rules of attribution. Third, it explores the possible legal consequences of responsibility applicable to armed groups, with a particular focus on the obligation to provide reparations to victims. In doing so, this book will argue that certain non-traditional sources of international law could be used to interpret and adapt international law to the current conditions of contemporary armed conflict.

2.1.1 A passing away of the rules of neutrality?2.1.2 Complicity, solidarity and good faith; 2.2 Public interest norms; 2.2.1 The effects of jus cogens; 2.2.2 Obligations erga omnes as obligations for third States?; 2.2.3 Developments in the law of State responsibility; 3 Conclusion; 3 Complicity and the international rule of law; 1 The international rule of law; 1.1 Preliminary issues; 1.2 Individualism or dédoublement fonctionnel?; 1.3 The material completeness of the international legal order; 1.4 The 'climatic' function of the rule of law; 2 The principle of abuse of rights.

"The last decade has witnessed an increasing focus on the relationship between climate change and human rights. Several international human rights bodies have expressed concern about the negative implications of climate change for the enjoyment of human rights, and the Paris Agreement is the first multilateral climate agreement to refer explicitly to states' human rights obligations in connection with climate change. Yet despite this, there are still significant gaps in our understanding of the role of international human rights law in enhancing accountability for climate action or inaction. As the Paris Agreement has shifted the focus of the climate change regime towards voluntary action, and the humanitarian impacts of climate change are increasingly being felt around the world, accountability for climate change has become an increasingly salient issue. This book offers a timely and comprehensive analysis of the legal issues related to accountability for the human rights impact of climate change, drawing on the state responsibility regime. It explains when and where state action relating to climate change may amount to a violation of human rights, and evaluates various avenues of legal redress available to victims. The overall analysis offers a perceptive insight into the potential of innovative rights-based climate actions to shape climate and energy policies around the world"--Bloomsbury Publishing

State responsibility in international law is considered one of the cornerstones of the field. For a long time it remained the exclusive responsibility system due to the primacy of States as subjects of international law. Its unique position has nonetheless been challenged by several developments both within and outside the international legal order, such as the rise of alternative responsibility ideas and practices, as well as globalization and its consequences. This book adopts a critical and holistic approach to the law of State responsibility and analyzes the functionality of the general rules of State responsibility in a changed international landscape characterized by the fragmentation of responsibility. It is argued that State responsibility is not equally relevant across the broad spectrum of international obligations, and that alternative constructions of responsibility, namely international criminal law and international liability, have increased in standing.