Suchergebnisse

The international legal liability of companies for human rights violations is a very current issue, since nowadays multinational and transnational corporations more and more frequently violate human rights. However, the establishment of the direct international legal liability of business actors for human rights violations is a long and difficult process. The present study seeks to analyse the efforts of the United Nations in this regard.

The article focuses on the judge's liability vilotaion of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. State of- ficials' wrongful acts result in liability of a state regardless of the fault of those officials are determined as axiomatic for the theory of law. The state agencies, where the officials are employed, are entitled to file regress suits in accordance with the procedure provided by law. In such a case, can- cellation or annulment of the wrongful act that causes damages, should not be regarded as a special precondition for the liability of the state official liable for committing such an act. The precondition of the liability of the official should be his or her fault. It is essential that the liability of a judge for issuing wrongful judicial acts, regarding his or her status, has its own peculiarities. First, according to international standards, liability of a judge for delivering an illegal judgment, that had causes financial damage and interfereance with personal rights and freedoms, is predetermined by his or her procedural independence and immunity. Secondly, compensation for losses incurred by the state as a result of a wrongful decision or conduct of a judge in the performance of his / her duties is established. In addition to this, the state has the right to bring regress suits against a judge who has caused such damages to individuals or legalentities.

The issue of the responsibility of states for human rights violations is examined. The issues of the recognition of human rights violations were discussed at a recent roundtable meeting at the Center for International law and International Security of the Institute for Contemporary International Studies in Russia. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines how states and international organizations can be held to account for extraterritorial human rights violations. I develop and investigate the potential of what I call an "indirect accountability" mechanism. In indirect accountability relationships, accountability fora do not directly hold states and international organizations that commit extraterritorial human rights violations to account as these are frequently immune to direct accountability claims. Instead, they hold them to account indirectly by addressing accountability claims to an implicated third party, expecting that the third party will upload the accountability claims to the state or international organization. After conceptualizing the mechanism and its scope conditions, I conduct two brief qualitative case studies using the method of deductive process tracing to explore the potential of the mechanism. The first case study traces efforts to indirectly hold the United States to account for violating foreigners' privacy rights in the context of mass surveillance. The second case study traces attempts to indirectly hold the United Nations Security Council to account for violating the due process rights of blacklisted terror suspects. Both case studies provide support for the mechanism.