Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- The tort framework -- A tort-based approach to human rights damages -- The public law-private law distinction -- Human rights damages and "just satisfaction" : the "mirror" approach -- Interest-balancing approaches -- Other methods of limiting human rights damages -- Conclusion.

The global business environment has changed rapidly in the past decades, but the human rights and business discourse has often lagged behind. At the international level, hard law regulations still seem decades away. United Nations initiatives such as the Guiding Principles and the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises are more than a step in the right direction. However, they alone are insufficient to prevent violations and ensure victims receive justice. This edited book uses a broad and pluralistic understanding of direct human rights obligations, concentrating on legally enforceable standards. The enforceability can come directly from international law, through national legislation, or through non-state actors. The contributions engage both with the law as it is as well as the law as it needs to be developed. In doing so, the book challenges the current reticence to recognise direct human rights obligations of corporations by highlighting the various tools already available for remedying corporate human rights impacts while pushing for the development of further mechanisms

Human Rights Violations focuses on denials of human rights, with an emphasis on major assaults on rights. Particular attention is paid to events involving government and other large-scale abuses of rights.

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.

State responsibility in international law is considered one of the cornerstones of the field. For a long time it remained the exclusive responsibility system due to the primacy of States as subjects of international law. Its unique position has nonetheless been challenged by several developments both within and outside the international legal order, such as the rise of alternative responsibility ideas and practices, as well as globalization and its consequences. This book adopts a critical and holistic approach to the law of State responsibility and analyzes the functionality of the general rules of State responsibility in a changed international landscape characterized by the fragmentation of responsibility. It is argued that State responsibility is not equally relevant across the broad spectrum of international obligations, and that alternative constructions of responsibility, namely international criminal law and international liability, have increased in standing.

Advancing a bold theory of the relevance of tort law in the fight against human rights abuses, celebrated US law professor George Fletcher here challenges the community of international lawyers to think again about how they can use the Alien Tort Statute. Beginning with an historical analysis Fletcher shows how tort and criminal law originally evolved to deal with similar problems, how tort came to be seen as primarily concerned with negligence and how the Alien Tort Statute has helped establish the importance of tort law in international cases. In a series of cases starting with Filartiga and culminating most recently in Sosa, Fletcher shows how torture cases led to the reawakening of the Alien Tort Statute, changing US law and giving legal practitioners a tool with which to assist victims of torture and other extreme human rights abuses. This leads to an examination of Agent Orange and the possible commission of war crimes in the course of its utilisation, and the theory of liability for aiding and abetting the US military and other military forces when they commit war crimes. The book concludes by looking at the cutting-edge cases in this area, particularly those involving liability for funding terrorism, and the remedies available, particularly the potential offered by the compensation chamber in the International Criminal Court. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1072/thumbnail.jpg

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.