Suchergebnisse

Recent developments regarding the Convention on Cluster Munitions highlight an important shift in thinking relating to the harm caused by cluster munitions, particularly post-military conflict. That said, the Convention will only bind those who ratify it and arguments remain that governments around the world should reassess their positions regarding the legality of using such weapons. This article argues that cluster munitions are illegal under contemporary international law and their classification as a conventional weapon of war should be reclassified. Neueste Entwicklungen betreffend das Übereinkommen über Streumunition betonen eine wichtige Veränderung des Denkens bezüglich des Leides, welches durch Streumunition hervorgerufen wird, besonders nach militärischen Auseinandersetzungen. Nichtsdestoweniger wird das Übereinkommen nur die Staaten binden, die es ratifizieren und es verbleiben Argumente, dass Regierungen überall auf der Welt ihre Position bezüglich der Legalität der Benutzung solcher Waffen überprüfen sollten. Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass Streumunition nach heutigem Völkerrechtsverständnis illegal ist und dass die Einordnung als herkömmliche Waffe überholt werden sollte.

The primary goal of this new edition of A Guide to Legal Research in Virginia is to expand coverage in several chapters and to add a new chapter covering legal ethics materials. This edition also notes changes in the URLs for many Virginia government websites. Most of these changes are likely based on changes in administrations and technological upgrades. The researcher should be aware that there is a lack of consistency among Virginia government web addresses. Changes in the operation and coverage of the major legal databases are noted where appropriate. Today, Virginia practitioners have a wide variety of resources, both print and online, available to help them with their research needs. This edition will help researchers use these resources in a more efficient manner.

AbstractIn Jogee and Ruddock, the Supreme Court/Privy Council decided that the law on secondary liability took a "wrong turn" in 1984 in the Privy Council's decision in Chan Wing-Siu. Chan Wing-Siu's contemplation/foresight-based fault element for secondary liability was alleged by the Supreme Court/Privy Council to have bucked a legal trend towards requiring that the secondary party intended to encourage or assist every one of the principal's offences. This article presents an alternative history of secondary liability that explains a wider selection of cases from 1553–1984 than were considered in Jogee and Ruddock. On this alternative account, Chan Wing-Siu was simply a more explicit and intellectually honest decision than its predecessors. If this alternative view of history is accepted, the Supreme Court/Privy Council's claim to be merely "correcting" (rather than substantively reforming) the law of secondary liability should be rejected. Doing so would make more critical a question that was side-stepped in Jogee and Ruddock, namely whether this reform should have been undertaken by the judiciary, rather than the legislature. ; This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cambridge University Press via https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197316000611

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection —
Criteria — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Forum
prorogatum — State consent to jurisdiction of
International Court of Justice — Rules of the Court, Article 38 — Risk of
irreparable prejudice — Link between risk of prejudice and rights claimed in
the Application — Relevance of full extent of possible harm — Relevance of
wider political consequences — Urgency — Non-extension and non-aggravation
of dispute — Whether provisional measures required to prevent aggravation or
extension of dispute — Removal of case from List
State immunity — Head of State — Senior officials — Sovereign equality
of States — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials
violating principle of sovereign equality — Whether risk of irreparable
prejudice to immunities
Diplomatic relations — Risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic
relations — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials
constituting risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations between
States
Relationship of international law and municipal law — Head of State
immunity — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with principle of head
of State immunity — Sovereign equality — Compatibility of domestic criminal
powers with the principle of sovereign equality