Suchergebnisse

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

ABSTRACT: The object of this paper is the tort liability, which represents an important element of the legal relationships. This paper refers at the legal regulation of the tort liability, as well as its scope. This paper also refers at the two types of liability, representing the general liability that we find in the civil law, which is the relation between the tort liability and the contractual liability. This paper also presents the comparison between the tort liability and the criminal liability, as well as the relation between the tort liability and the patrimonial liability specific to the labour law. We shall speak of the types of tort liability and their classification, referring at the hypotheses regulated by the Civil Code and the related legislation, as well as of the criterion of the fundamental principle of liability. KEYWORDS: criminal liability, contractual liability, patrimonial liability, tort liability, unlawful act

Examines the "jus in bello" prohibition against injuring and killing innocents; argues that only individuals who actively and directly engage in conflict may be classified as combatants, only "unjustifiable combatants" waging a war of aggression can be targeted, and all others are noncombatants. Noncombatants include the aggressor nation's military, political elite, munitions workers, and others; issues include morality, self-defense, national defense, and retribution.

Abstract: Should states be liable towards individuals for failure to provide justice, good roads, or timely administrative decisions? In this article, we show that state liability can serve three different purposes, none of which implies that the state should be liable in tort, unless other specific conditions are met. One purpose is to provide incentives for state agencies and private individuals to act efficiently. Here, the effectiveness of liability depends on the channelling of incentives down the chain of command to the acting state employee. The second purpose of state liability is to remove incentives for private parties, when these incentives are distorted, as when compensating for wrongful conviction. The third aim of state liability is to allow a higher level of the administration to monitor the behaviour of a lower level. In this case, the judicial system and private parties are means towards the end of generating information about wrongful behaviour by public bodies and agencies. Within this framework, we discuss substantive and procedural aspects of state liability in torts. We provide an economic argument for court specialization in administrative law and explain why the different solutions around the world could be appropriate under local determinants.
Résumé: Les Etats devraient-ils être tenus responsables envers les individus pour leurs manquements à assurer une bonne justice, des voiries en bon état, ou à rendre des décisions administratives dans des délais raisonnables? Dans cet article il est démontré que la responsabilité de l'Etat peut servir trois objectifs différents, aucun d'entre eux n'impliquant la responsabilité civile de l'Etat, excepté dans les cas où certaines conditions spécifiques sont réunies. L'un des objectifs est d'inciter les institutions de l'Etat et les individus à agir efficacement. Ici, une responsabilité effective dépend de la canalisation des motivations le long de la chaîne de prise de décisions jusqu'au fonctionnaire chargé d'agir. Le deuxième objectif de la responsabilité de l'Etat est d'éliminer toute incitation pour les personnes privées, lorsque leurs motivations sont perverties, comme dans le cas de compensation pour erreur judiciaire. Le troisième objectif de la responsabilité de l'Etat est de permettre à l'échelon supérieur de l'administration de superviser la conduite des échelons inférieurs. Dans ce cas, le système judiciaire et les parties personnes privées constituent des outils d'information sur le comportement fautif des institutions et services publics. Dans ce contexte, il est discuté les aspects matériels et procéduraux de la responsabilité civile de l'Etat. Cet article fournit un argument économique en faveur de cours et tribunaux spécialisés en droit administratif et envisage la possibilité d'adapter les différentes solutions appliquées dans le monde à des facteurs locaux.