Search results

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

Abstract. The law of tort serves two main functions: compensation of damage and prevention of damage. During the period of industrialisation in the nineteenth century the law aimed to secure the greatest possible freedom of action for economic operators and required proof of fault. Modern laws recognise the dangers inherent in many economic activities and have increasingly objectivised the notion of fault. In addition, the special risks that attach to certain forms of activity have led to strict liability for harm arising from such activity. Czech law takes a modem approach, and indeed includes a general presumption of fault once it has been shown that damage has resulted from the infringement of a legal duty. The onus is on the tortfeasor to prove that all reasonable care has been taken. Czech law also includes a very general liability for damage caused in the course of business and a num ber of special liabilities. The relationship between the different approaches to liability is not entirely clear. Although other European states are increasing the scope of their laws on strict liability, few national laws are as wide ranging as the Czech law.
Developments at the European level are limited. Greater harmonisation of rules would increase transparency for the consumer. Such legislation and proposals for legislation as exist demonstrate the same trends as are apparent at national level. These trends include: imputation of fault either because of objective ncglect of reasonable care or because of the assumption of an unusual risk; a presumption of unlawfulness where harm to person or property occur; the need for personal capacity to bear responsibility; vicarious liability of employers; recognition of the possibility of contributory negligence.
This convergence of thought is not evident in relation to the law of unjust enrichment, and there are no moves to harmonise the law at the European level. Czech law includes a general principle that enrichment unjustly acquired must be restored. This covers acquisition of both property and other benefits.

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