Suchergebnisse

"The ever-growing interaction between member States and international organisations results, all too often, in situations of non-conformity with international law (eg peacekeeping operations, international economic adjustment programmes, counter-terrorism sanctions). Seven years after the finalisation of the International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations (ARIO), international law on the allocation of international responsibility between these actors still remains unsettled. The confusion around the nature and normative calibre of the relevant rules, the paucity of relevant international practice supporting them and the lack of a clear and principled framework for their elaboration impairs their application and restricts their ability to act as effective regulatory formulas. This study aims to offer doctrinal clarity in this area of law and purports to serve as a point of reference for all those with a vested interest in the topic. For the first time since the publication of the ARIO, all international responsibility issues dealing with interactions between member States and international organisations are put together in one book under a common approach. Structured around a systematisation of the interactions between these actors, the study provides an analytical framework for the regulation of indirect responsibility scenarios. Based on the ideas of the intellectual fathers of international law, such as Scelle's 'dédoublement fonctionnel' theory and Ago's 'derivative responsibility' model, the book employs old ideas to add original argumentation to a topic that has been dealt with extensively by recent commentators."--Bloomsbury Publishing

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with some information on the development of liability of legal persons for violations of international criminal law, its implementation practice in common and civil law countries as well as its perspectives of development in the European Union.

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the law of State responsibility. It addresses fundamental questions such as: which subjects of international law are entitled to invoke the responsibility of the author state; the forms of reparation demands which may be made; and the means and counter-measures (including the use and level of force) which may be employed to enforce demands. Audience: Academics and researchers in international law

Washington's waiver of sovereign immunity has been in force for nearly forty-five years, during which time many questions have been answered. New litigation, however, continues to expand the scope of the waiver, and the extent of liability continues to raise new questions and present difficult problems. Major problems include the uncertainty of case-by-case determinations of government liability and the cost of liability for inherently risky governmental programs, such as corrections and child welfare. Part I of this Article examines the waiver against the background of prior Washington law and the pattern of immunity waivers in other jurisdictions. This examination reveals surprising features of prior Washington law, such as the narrow scope of liability for local governments which lacked sovereign immunity before 1961. It also reveals fundamental differences between waivers in Washington and in other states. Washington's waiver contains no partial immunities, no limits on claims or damages, and no liability standards for government; it requires neither legislative review and approval of claims, nor adjudication of claims by special tribunals. Waivers in other states contain at least one of these features; most contain two or more. Part II of the Article summarizes three very different periods of development of government liability law following the 1961 waiver. This part of the Article includes summaries of state experience with claim and defense costs, the effect of two tort reform acts (1981 and 1986), and three proposals for legislative control of government tort liability. Part II also summarizes the substance of Washington's governmental liability law and compares it to the laws in other jurisdictions. In the public duty doctrine, for example, Washington law is similar to other jurisdictions. In other areas, including crimes committed by released criminal offenders, Washington law is very different. These differences have proved controversial because they have generated high costs and affected ...

The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines in how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. This is, however, not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: In the political sphere their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted. In the legal sphere populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of non-intervention and foreign funding for NGOs.

Abstract
The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. However, this is not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: in the political sphere, their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted and, in the legal sphere, populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of non-intervention and foreign funding for non-governmental organizations.