Balancing of the State Responsibility for Safety and Disaster Victims’ Right of Reconstruction: A Lesson from the Great East Japan Earthquake Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

Download Full-text

Leviathan on a Leash

10.23943/princeton/9780691206462.001.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Sean Fleming

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

Political Thought ◽

Sovereign Debt ◽

New Technologies ◽

Thomas Hobbes ◽

The State ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Modern Politics ◽

Starting Point ◽

The World

States are commonly blamed for wars, called on to apologize, held liable for debts and reparations, bound by treaties, and punished with sanctions. But what does it mean to hold a state responsible as opposed to a government, a nation, or an individual leader? Under what circumstances should we assign responsibility to states rather than individuals? This book demystifies the phenomenon of state responsibility and explains why it is a challenging yet indispensable part of modern politics. Taking Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state as a starting point, the book presents a theory of state responsibility that sheds new light on sovereign debt, historical reparations, treaty obligations, and economic sanctions. Along the way, it overturns longstanding interpretations of Hobbes' political thought, explores how new technologies will alter the practice of state responsibility as we know it, and develops new accounts of political authority, representation, and legitimacy. The book argues that Hobbes' idea of the state offers a far richer and more realistic conception of state responsibility than the theories prevalent today and demonstrates that Hobbes' Leviathan is much more than an anthropomorphic “artificial man.” The book is essential reading for political theorists, scholars of international relations, international lawyers, and philosophers. It recovers a forgotten understanding of state personality in Hobbes' thought and shows how to apply it to the world of imperfect states in which we live.

Download Full-text

Dominasi dan ketidakadilan negara dan korporasi dalam kasus bencana lumpur Lapindo

Masyarakat Kebudayaan dan Politik ◽

10.20473/mkp.v30i22017.150-161 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 30 (2) ◽

pp. 150

Author(s):

Oman Sukmana

Keyword(s):

Resource Management ◽

State Government ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

The State ◽

Group Discussions ◽

Disaster Victims ◽

The People ◽

Data Collection Process ◽

The Government

The domination of the state (government) and Corporate (PT LBI) in the oil and gas resource management lead Lapindo mudflow disaster that caused misery to the people. This study aims to assess the forms of domination and injustice by the state (government) and the corporation in the case of Lapindo mudflow disaster, and how Lapindo mudflow disaster victims negotiate (resist) against the state (government) and corporations in an effort to fight for their rights. This study used a qualitative approach with case study. Subjects and informantsresearch include: (1) Lapindo mudflow disaster victims; (2) group coordinator of Lapindo mudflow disaster victims; (3) Public figures Siring village, Tanggulangin, Renokenongo, Jabon, and Jatirejo, Porong district, Sidoarjo; (4) Representation of the corporation (PT. LBI); and (5) Representation of BPLS. The data collection process using the in-deepth interviews, observation, focus group discussions, and review documents. Stage processing and data analysis includes the coding process, memoing, and concept mapping. The results showed that the government (the state) and the corporation (PT LBI) action dominating the oil and gas resource management in the area of Porong district, Sidoarjo regency, East Java, resulting misery for the victims (people). Forms of injustice felt by residents Lapindo mudflow disaster victims not only related to the issue of compensation for land and building assets alone, but more than that, including various dimensions. Through a variety of collective action, such as demonstrations and negotiations, Lapindo mudflow disaster victims filed various charges, such as demands for payment of compensation for land and building assets destroyed.

Download Full-text

The State and Cause of Psychological Changes Seven Years after the Great East Japan Earthquake

International Journal of Nursing & Clinical Practices ◽

10.15344/2394-4978/2019/308 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Akiko Sakai ◽

Takako Shimizu ◽

Akihisa Sakai ◽

Chie Isomi ◽

Satomi Shigeta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The State ◽

Great East Japan Earthquake ◽

Psychological Changes

Download Full-text

Conclusion

Leviathan on a Leash ◽

10.23943/princeton/9780691206462.003.0007 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 175-186

Author(s):

Sean Fleming

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

New Technologies ◽

Thomas Hobbes ◽

The State ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

State Responsibility ◽

The Future ◽

International Responsibility

This concluding chapter summarizes the implications of the Hobbesian theory of state responsibility and then looks to the future. There are three ongoing trends that are likely to alter both the nature and the scope of state responsibility: the development of international criminal law, the proliferation of treaties, and the replacement of human representatives with machines and algorithms. Although the practice of holding individuals responsible for acts of state might seem to render state responsibility redundant, the rise of international criminal law will not lead to the decline of state responsibility. The two forms of international responsibility are complementary rather than competitive. If anything, the domain of state responsibility will continue to expand in the coming decades because of the proliferation of treaties. New technologies pose the greatest challenge to current understandings of state responsibility. Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state, which is mechanistic to begin with, is well suited to the emerging world of mechanized states.

Download Full-text

25. The conditions for international responsibility

Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198737445.003.0025 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 523-551

Author(s):

James Crawford

Keyword(s):

The State ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Responsibility Attribution ◽

International Obligation ◽

International Responsibility ◽

The Law

This chapter discusses the basis and character of state responsibility, attribution to the state, breach of an international obligation, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. This chapter focuses on the articulation of the law of responsibility through the ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

Download Full-text

5 Rules of Attribution

The Energy Charter Treaty ◽

10.1093/law/9780199660995.003.0005 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Hobér Kaj

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

The State ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Final Version ◽

Legal Principles ◽

Form Part ◽

Energy Charter Treaty ◽

International Law Commission ◽

Law Commission

This chapter focuses on the rules of attribution. The State is not responsible for all acts and omissions of its nationals, but only for those which can be attributed to the State. It is thus necessary to establish this link between the State and the person, or persons, committing an unlawful act or omission. The legal principles used to establish this link are usually referred to as rules of attribution. The rules of attribution form part of the law of state responsibility, which, to a large part, is reflected in the work of the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations. At its fifty-third session in 2001, the ILC adopted its final version of the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The ILC Articles are intended to cover all aspects of state responsibility under international law. The rules of attribution are laid down in Chapter II of the ILC Articles. From an Energy Charter Treaty perspective, Articles 4—8 are the most relevant ones. The central provision with respect to attribution is Article 4, which confirms the well-established principle of international law that the State is responsible for the acts of its own organs acting in the capacity of the State.

Download Full-text