This Note contributes to the literature in three ways. Part I of this Note defines and describes the targeted context, provides examples of state/municipal delegation, discusses the underlying tension between vindicating federal rights and respecting states' rights to structure their own internal governance, and observes that courts have taken a nuanced approach to resolving this tension analogous to § 1983's standards supervisory liability. Part II describes judicial approaches to state/municipal liability and analyzes two proposed theoretical frameworks. Part III examines the history and function of § 1983's "supervisory liability" standards, looks at recent state/municipal delegation cases through the lens of supervisory liability, and argues for the adoption of an analogous standard to govern state/municipal delegation.
ÖZET'Havayolu ile Taşıyanın Uluslarası Hukukta, Avrupa Hukukunda, ve Türk Hukukunda Sorumluluğu' başlığı altındaki bu tezi yazmaktaki amacım hava taşıyanın sorumluluğunu Uluslarası hukuk, Türk hukuku ve Avrupa Birliği hukuku açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Yedi bölümde ele alınan bu tez, hava taşımacılığı geniş bir çalışma alanını kapsadığından, esas olarak hava yük taşıyanının sorumluluğunu incelemektedir. Bu nedenle çalışmanın amacı öncelikle 1929 Varşova Konvansiyonu ile düzenlenen uluslararası havayolu ile yük taşımacılığıdır. Çalışmanın birinci bölümünde uluslararası sivil havacılıkta havayolu ile taşıyanın sorumluluğunun gelişimini, La Haye 1955 Protokolünden başlayarak 1999 Montreal Konvansiyonuna kadar olan Varşova Konvansiyonun tarihi gelişimini temel kaynaklarını, yapılan değişikleri incelenmektedir. Ayrıca bu bölümde Intercarrier Agreements (Taşıyanlar arası anlaşmalar) ve Avrupa Birliği tüzükleri incelenmektedir. İkinci bölümde Türk Sivil Havacılık Kanunu ele alınmaktadır. Üçüncü bölümde, havayolu ile yük taşıma sözleşmesi ve hava yük senedi incelenmaktedir. Dördüncü bölümde, taşıyanın borçları ve hakları ele alınmaktadır. Beşinci bölümde, taşıtanın hak ve borçları ele alınmaktadır. Altıncı bölümde, gönderilenin hak ve borçları ele alınmaktadır. Yedinci ve son bölümde, taşıyanın sorumluluğu, sorumluluk halleri ve şartları, sorumluluğun sınırlandırılması, sınırsız sorumluluk ve sorumluluk davası incelenmektedir. ABSTRACTWith this research under the title "Air Carrier Liability in International Law, European Law and in Turkish Law' my purpose is to analyze liability of the carrier by air by comparing and contrasting the International and Turkish law and the European Union Legislation.The thesis, which is organized in seven parts, examines mainly the liability of the air cargo carrier, since the air transport covers a large concept of study. Therefore, the object of this study is the uniform law governing international carriage by air during international transportation of cargo which is primarily regulated by the Warsaw Convention, 1929. The first part of the thesis looks the evolution of the concept of air carrier liability in international law of civil aviation, the history of the Warsaw Convention including basic sources and subsequent amendments to the Warsaw Convention beginning from the Hague Protocol 1955 to the Montreal Convention 1999. It is also dealing with the Intercarrier Agreements and European Regulations. The second part deals with Turkish Civil Aviation Act. The third part deals with the contract for the carriage of cargo by air, and the air waybill. The fourth part deals with the rights and obligations of the carrier. The fifth part deals with rights and obligations of the consignor. The sixth part deals with the rights and obligations of the consignee. The seventh and last part deals with the liability of the carrier, liability grounds and conditions, principles of limitation of liability, unlimited liability and liability suit.
Defence date: 3 March 2015 ; Examining Board: Professor Martin Scheinin, European University Institute (Supervisor); Dr Markus Gehring, University of Cambridge (External Supervisor); Professor Marise Cremona, European Universtiy Institute; Professor Frédéric Mégret, McGill University. ; The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated in numerous reports that unless urgent action is taken to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, irreparable damage will be done to the Earth's ecosystems, with major implications for human rights. The IPCC's reports also demonstrate that developing nations are most severely affected by the consequences of climate change, whereas developed nations have reaped the most benefits from the greenhouse gas-producing activities that led to climate change. This thesis considers the relevance of international human rights law to this equity challenge, paying particular attention to the inter-relationship between international human rights law, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the general law of State responsibility. The rules of attribution contained in the general law of State responsibility are used to explain how action and inaction that contributes to climate change can be attributed to States. The analysis of substantive rules leads us to believe that the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol provide minimum standards of protection against dangerous climate change, the breach of which is likely to interfere with the enjoyment of human rights. Accordingly, a breach of the substantive provisions of the UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol could highlight a violation of human rights obligations related to climate change. The integrative approach presented in the thesis potentially enhances the effectiveness of each framework, as it leads to more specific standards of care for individual States as well as a broader framework for enforcing obligations.
The principle of actio libera in causa or the effect of a perpetrator's voluntary intoxication on the existence of a criminal act is controversial in international criminal law. The present legislation, as contained in the Rome Statute, is a compromise between different legal systems. It allows the exclusion of a criminal act based on the fact that the perpetrator was involuntarily intoxicated and he or she cannot be ascribed guilt for the act of intoxication and the criminal act. In the Rome Statute the actio libera in causa principle has three elements, composed similarly of the insanity defence due to biological (intoxication), or psychological (the inability to control actions or understand their consequences), and the third negative condition (nonexistence of guilt for the criminal act). The Rome Statute does not deal with diminished mental capacity due to intoxication and also does not contain stipulations regarding the conditions of a generally diminished mental capacity. I propose that the International Criminal Court finds support in the above-mentioned three elements of the principle of actio libera in causa by acknowledging that a perpetrator's capacity to understand or control his or her actions is partially diminished, not totally absent.
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.
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
Considers (89) S.J. Res. 13, (89) S.J. Res. 32, (89) S. 1826, (89) S. 1935, (89) S. 2064. ; Considers. S.J. Res. 13 and S.J. Res. 32, to authorize Ryukyu Islands inhabitants compensation for death and injury, and for use of and damage to private property, arising from acts of U.S. armed forces between Aug. 15, 1945 and Apr. 28, 1952. Gut Dam Claims Agreement with Canada (Exec Doc C, 89-1). S. 1935, to amend International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 to provide for settlement of claims of American nationals under U.S.-Polish Claims Agreement of July 16, 1960. S. 1826, to amend International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 relating to claims against Cuba. S. 2064, to amend International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 relative to return of alien property interests seized during WWII. ; Record is based on bibliographic data in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index. Reuse except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; Indexed in CIS US Congressional Committee Hearings Index Part VIII ; Considers (89) S.J. Res. 13, (89) S.J. Res. 32, (89) S. 1826, (89) S. 1935, (89) S. 2064. ; Considers. S.J. Res. 13 and S.J. Res. 32, to authorize Ryukyu Islands inhabitants compensation for death and injury, and for use of and damage to private property, arising from acts of U.S. armed forces between Aug. 15, 1945 and Apr. 28, 1952. Gut Dam Claims Agreement with Canada (Exec Doc C, 89-1). S. 1935, to amend International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 to provide for settlement of claims of American nationals under U.S.-Polish Claims Agreement of July 16, 1960. S. 1826, to amend International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 relating to claims against Cuba. S. 2064, to amend International Claims Settlement Act of 1949 relative to return of alien property interests seized during WWII. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Dr. Wallace Gulia was born in Paola on the 4th of March 1926. In 1945, he took his first degrees from University, the B.Sc; and Ph.C., finishing first in order of merit. In 1947, he obtained, through a correspondence course the Diploma in Public Administration (London). He obtained his B.A. from the Royal University of Malta in 1949, again finishing up first in order of merit. In 1952, he graduated as a lawyer. ; N/A
"This pamphlet contains the text of the Yugoslav Claims Agreement of November 5, 1964, and of Title I of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, governing the receipt and settlement by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of Claims against Yugoslavia. Also included are the pertinent regulations of the Commission concerning the filing of claims, procedure for determination of claims, hearings, etc." ; Mode of access: Internet.
While Virginia is not typically seen as "progressive" in the field of product liability law, the Commonwealth is nonetheless a forum in which these product liability battles take place. This article summarizes selected decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, federal district courts in Virginia, and courts of the Commonwealth issued between July 1, 2004 and May 15, 2005. This article also includes a discussion of the most relevant legislative changes made by the Virginia General Assembly over the same time period. While a complete analysis of every decision and statute affecting product liability is not possible, this article summarizes those which should be the most useful to practitioners in Virginia.
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.
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.
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 nonintervention and foreign funding for NGOs.
