Suchergebnisse

This article focuses on the liability issues arising from the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The radioactivity released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant inflicted catastrophic harm to people, industries, and the environment. Under Japanese law, a nuclear operator bears strict, channeling, and unlimited liability for nuclear damage unless the damage is caused by a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character. This article concludes the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami that triggered this nuclear accident do not fall within this exemption because neither of them were unforeseeable nor far beyond the design basis for the reactors at the plant. Therefore, Tokyo Electric Power Company ("TEPCO") must compensate any damages if the nuclear accident is the legally sufficient cause of them. Additionally, this article argues two entities should be legally responsible for the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The Government of Japan can be liable for the nuclear damage if it failed to exercise its regulatory power over the Tokyo Electric Power Company or if its errant acts expanded the damage. General Electric, the designer of the reactors at the plant, might also be liable for the nuclear damage under U.S. law, assuming the reactors had any weaknesses in their design.

"Press release regarding filing of Cuban claims." ; "Public notice of filing date for Cuban claims." ; Mode of access: Internet.

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

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.

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.