Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn the wake of the mandate of the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Business and Human Rights (SRSG), international criminal law looks set to play a role in measures towards the legal accountability of business actors involved in gross human rights and humanitarian law violations. Against the backdrop of the SRSG's now completed mandate, this article looks at three recent developments in international criminal law to consider the field's potential relevance to business actors involved in conflict. The first is the newest mode of liability recently adopted by the International Criminal Court, indirect perpetration through an organisation. The second is the aiding and abetting doctrine as applied by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in theCharles Taylorcase. The third is the potential uptake of a practice of thematic prosecutions focusing on particular under-regulated issues of concern for the international community.

The post Jindal Society of International Law Blog: International Legal Consortium appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking, risks a number of dangerous environmental consequences. Notably, fracking operations can contaminate the underlying water table. Contamination of groundwater can disrupt the access of a nearby property to both potable drinking water and viable commercial irrigation. Usually, when a fracking operation results in this kind of groundwater contamination, affected plaintiffs sue the operator of the rig. This Note proposes that similarly situated plaintiffs also name a new defendant in these actions: the state agency that granted the fracking permit. The governmental actor could bear liability under a constitutional theory of inverse condemnation. Where contamination interferes with an individual's use and enjoyment of property, the government actor bears responsibility for orchestrating the activity that caused the interference. In short, the government should be more discerning when granting permits to frack, because it can be held financially responsible for the fallout.

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): In an order of June 10, 1960, the International Court of Justice, having received the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand to its jurisdiction within the timelimit fixed for the filing of the countermemorial, set July 22, 1960, as the timelimit within which the government of Cambodia might present a written statement of its observations and submissionson the objections.