Shared Non-responsibility in International Law? Defences and the Responsibility of Co-perpetrators and Accessories in the Guiding Principles: Afterword
In: (2020) 31(4) European Journal of International Law
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: (2020) 31(4) European Journal of International Law
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal on the Use of Force in International Law
SSRN
In: European journal of international law, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 1263-1275
ISSN: 1464-3596
Abstract
This comment assesses the approach to the reach of defences beyond the international legal person(s) who is (or are) the author(s) of the internationally wrongful act articulated in Guiding Principle 5 of the Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law. It will focus on three main points: (1) whether the choice in respect of the reach of defences in Principle 5 is justifiable for the international legal order; (2) the reach of defences in cases of coercion, where the coerced party may benefit from a defence due to the coercion (in the form of a force majeure defence); and (3) the 'blindspot' in the Guiding Principles in relation to defences of accessories, in particular where the conditions for accessorial liability are defined broadly as in the case of Principle 6 on aid and assistance.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 114, Heft 4, S. 698-707
ISSN: 2161-7953
AbstractThis Essay considers how adjudicators could determine the end of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Considerable work examines the beginning and existence of pandemics and emergencies. By contrast, when either of these two phenomena end remains underexplored—creating legal uncertainty. This Essay reviews how pandemics as biological and social events end, considers how international bodies have approached the end of emergencies, and assesses what this might mean for adjudicators deciding on the end of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic and related public health emergency.