Suchergebnisse

In 1999, the Alliance mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Around the same period, allegations were made regarding its involvement in human trafficking and forced prostitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A decade later, NATO airplanes hit a fuel truck causing significant civilian casualties in Kunduz, Afghanistan. After more than 60 years of existence and a track-record of more than 30 missions performed worldwide, it is surprising that there is still uncertainty on the scope and content of NATO's responsibility for wrongful conduct during its military operations. This timely book deals with the international responsibility of NATO during military operations. It examines, the status of the Alliance, the existence of international obligations and conditions of attribution of conduct in NATO.

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? This text provides a new conceptual framework to study pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations.

The Portuguese Constitution, in article 22, instituted the general principle of tort liability of the State and other public law entities. Consequently, ordinary legislation established the tort liability of the State into the Portuguese Legal Order, by means of Decree-Law 48051, of 1967. This decree, which was criticised extensively, was amended by virtue of Law 67/2007, of 31st December, establishing the regime for tort liability arising from losses caused by third parties, due to the acts of public management in relation to all the functions of the State, i.e. i) administrative, ii) legislative, and iii) jurisdictional.

This article discusses issues of tort liability surrounding trade unions and collective bargaining in Canada. In particular, it examines the impact of compulsory collective bargaining legislation upon the common law. Through a discussion of several cases, the author examines the various techniques by which the common law imposes liability for strikes. Specifically, he discusses the tort doctrines currently employed by the courts such as the doctrine that breach of the Labour Relations Act per se confers a civil cause of action, the doctrine of civil conspiracy, as well as the doctrine of intentional interference. The author then discusses two particular decisions as a means of examining arbitration as an alternative to litigation in such cases. He concludes with a discussion of the physical, institutional, and analytical difficulties arising from cases imposing liability for strikes in Canada, and offers some of his own suggestions for counteracting such difficulties.