State Responsibility and the Criminal Liability of the Individual

2017 ◽  
pp. 5-18
Author(s):  
Thomas Rauter
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The Individual

The First Pinochet Case: Immunity of a Former Head of State

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Hazel Fox
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

The case of Pinochet has aroused enormous interest, both political and legal. The spectacle of the General, whose regime sent so many to their deaths, himself under arrest and standing trial has stirred the hopes of the oppressed. His reversal of fortune, loss of liberty with a policeman, on the door, has been heralded by organisations for the protection of human rights as one small step on the long road to justice. For lawyers generally, the House of Lords' majority decision of 1998 that General Pinochet enjoyed no immunity signalled a shift from a State-centred order of things.1 It suggested that the process of restriction of State immunity, so effectively begun with the removal of commercial transactions from its protection, might now extend some way into the field of criminal proceedings. And it further posed the intriguing question whether an act categorised as within the exercise of sovereign power, so as to relieve the individual official of liability in civil proceedings, may at the same time, as well as subsequent to his retirement, attract parallel personal criminal liability.

Criminal law measures to combat provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals

2021 ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Viktor N. Borkov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Actual Problem ◽  
The Individual

The article examines the criminal-legal aspects of the actual problem of protecting the inviolability of the individual from the unacceptable activity of state representatives in the exercise of law enforcement functions. Topical issues for theory and practice of the legal nature of the provocation of crime and the falsification of criminals remain debatable. There are no unified approaches to the qualification of provocative and inflammatory actions and cases of "throwing" objects to citizens, for the turnover of which criminal responsibility arises, there is no theoretical justification for the criminal legal status of persons provoked to commit a crime. The article shows that the qualification of common cases of provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals according to the norms providing for liability for abuse of official authority, falsification of evidence or the results of operational investigative activities should be recognized as not accurate. At the same time, responsibility for these actions committed by subjects who are not officials, and without the participation of the latter, has not been established at all. The author proposes a draft criminal law provision providing for liability for inducing to commit a crime or its staging in order to illegally create grounds for criminal prosecution. The paper questions the approach according to which a person provoked by law enforcement officers to commit a crime is not subject to criminal liability regardless of the specifics of the encroachment.

Artificial intelligence and human rights: a comprehensive study from Indian legal and policy perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheshadri Chatterjee ◽  
Sreenivasulu N.S.
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
Comprehensive Study

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the human rights issue. This study has also examined issues with AI for business and its civil and criminal liability. This study has provided inputs to the policymakers and government authorities to overcome different challenges. Design/methodology/approach This study has analysed different international and Indian laws on human rights issues and the impacts of these laws to protect the human rights of the individual, which could be under threat due to the advancement of AI technology. This study has used descriptive doctrinal legal research methods to examine and understand the insights of existing laws and regulations in India to protect human rights and how these laws could be further developed to protect human rights under the Indian jurisprudence, which is under threat due to rapid advancement of AI-related technology. Findings The study provides a comprehensive insight on the influence of AI on human rights issues and the existing laws in India. The study also shows different policy initiatives by the Government of India to regulate AI. Research limitations/implications The study highlights some of the key policy recommendations helpful to regulate AI. Moreover, this study provides inputs to the regulatory authorities and legal fraternity to draft a much-needed comprehensive policy to regulate AI in the context of the protection of human rights of the citizens. Originality/value AI is constantly posing entangled challenges to human rights. There is no comprehensive study, which investigated the emergence of AI and its influence on human rights issues, especially from the Indian legal perspective. So there is a research gap. This study provides a unique insight of the emergence of AI applications and its influence on human rights issues and provides inputs to the policymaker to help them to draft an effective regulation on AI to protect the human rights of Indian citizens. Thus, this study is considered a unique study that adds value towards the overall literature.

Challenges to Criminalizing State Responsibility for Genocide

Postgenocide ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 33-62
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

This chapter shows that although often states are parties in a genocide enterprise, the centrality—and responsibility—of states for genocide does not receive attention commensurate with the severity of the problem. Indeed, genocidal states are not held criminally responsibility for genocide. Underscoring difficulties at proving state criminal responsibility for genocide, the analysis compares and contrasts individual criminal responsibility and state criminal responsible for genocide. Whereas in the former case the matter has been dealt with by domestic and international criminal courts and tribunals, in the latter case there is no international judicial authority which can try states for criminal responsibility. However, non-state corporate criminal liability, and evolution of this institute in international law, may provide some transferable lessons for state responsibility for genocide. The chapter highlights the nexus between individual responsibility and state responsibility, and the failures of international genocide law in establishing state responsibility for genocide.

8. Corporate and vicarious liability

2021 ◽  
pp. 259-291
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Identity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter focuses on the potential criminal liability of organizations, particularly corporations. Corporations have a separate legal identity and are treated in law as having a legal personality distinct from the people who make up the corporation. Therefore, in theory at least, criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation separately from any liability imposed on the individual members. There are currently six ways in which a corporation or its directors may be prosecuted: personal liability of corporate directors, etc; strict liability offences; statutory offences imposing duties on corporations; vicarious liability; the identification doctrine; and statutory liability of corporate officers. The chapter also discusses the limits of corporate liability, the distinction between vicarious liability and personal duty, the application of vicarious liability, the delegation principle and the ‘attributed act’ principle. The chapter examines the failure to prevent offences found in the Bribery Act 2010 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

State Responsibility and the Individual Right to Compensation Before National Courts

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Tort Claims

Normally, states parties to an armed conflict settle the financial consequences of that conflict in the traditional way, if ever they reach agreement, by concluding comprehensive treaties that embrace also all the claims that their nationals may have acquired on account of the conflict. The most common form of reparation consists of lump sum payments that do not differentiate between the different groups of victims. Remedies for individuals are not available within the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL) at the international level. This chapter explores state responsibility and the individual right to compensation before national courts, in particular violations of IHL. It looks at compensation claims before the courts of the alleged wrongdoing state, as well as those claims outside the alleged wrongdoing state. It considers national reparation programmes, tort claims arising from military operations during non-international armed conflict, tort claims arising from international armed conflict, the territorial clause,jus cogensversus jurisdictional immunity, implications for public policy, and universal jurisdiction for reparation claims.

On Some Problematical Aspects of the Crime of Aggression

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO CASSESE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Degree Of Certainty ◽  
Definition Of

The essay argues that the absence of an international treaty definition of aggression in international law should not preclude the prosecution of its perpetrators. Two legal regimes of responsibility, namely the prohibition against aggression as an international wrongful act and the crime of aggression have been entangled. Once one separates the criminal liability of individuals from state responsibility, a definition of the crime of aggression can be seen. According to the author, the contours of such a new definition contain the requisite degree of certainty for judicial approaches instead of merely political approaches. Consideration is also given as to whether conspiracy to wage a war of aggression may also be regarded as a separate crime within international criminal law.

The Bosnia Genocide Case

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. AMERASINGHE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
International Law Commission

AbstractThe Bosnia Genocide case dealt with several important matters of international law, apart from the issue of responsibility proper for genocide. The Court began by addressing issues of state succession in order to identify the proper respondent. It then found that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondent was res judicata. It held that the Genocide Convention created state responsibility in addition to international criminal responsibility of the individual. The contribution of the judgment to the law of evidence, in particular with reference to the standard and methods of proof, is significant. Finally, the Court applied the codification by the International Law Commission of attribution in state responsibility to the situation before it in deciding that the genocidal acts subject of the case were not attributable to Serbia, while also holding that Serbia was, nevertheless, responsible for omitting to prevent genocide.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document