scholarly journals STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MODERN SLAVERY: UNCOVERING AND BRIDGING THE GAP

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 539-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Webb ◽  
Rosana Garciandia
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Global Movement

AbstractInternational law prohibits slavery and slavery-like practices under treaties that have been in force for more than a century. Yet, contemporary forms of slavery are one of the prevailing challenges for the international community, with 40.3 million people in modern slavery on any given day in 2016. The State has been largely overlooked as a perpetrator or accomplice in the global movement to eradicate modern slavery. The hand of the State can however be found in contemporary cases of modern slavery. This article identifies five scenarios of State involvement in modern slavery and aims to uncover and bridge the responsibility gap.

State Responsibility for COVID-19: Does International Contagion Constitute Transboundary Harm?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Sophie CAPICCHIANO YOUNG
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
International Community ◽  
The State ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Current Article ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Do So

Abstract As the damage caused by COVID-19 has increased exponentially, so too has the insistence that China bears some international responsibility for the unquantifiable damage sustained as a direct result of the state having failed to contain the virus, and to notify the international community of its existence. Some have suggested that the international contagion of the virus may be classified as transboundary harm. The current article analyses the law of transboundary harm, and proposes a set of criteria based on treaty and precedent that may be relied on to properly classify an event as such. It concludes that it is not only incorrect to classify international contagion as transboundary harm, but that to do so would pose a significant risk to the position and treatment of the individual in international law.

5 Rules of Attribution

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.

Book I Diplomacy in General, 4 The State: Its Concept as a Legal Person in International Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fox Hazel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
The State ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Role Of The State

This chapter addresses the State as the prime actor in the conduct of diplomacy and examines the State’s status as a legal person as defined by international law. To understand the role of the State in international affairs, it is essential to appreciate that it is both a maker and a subject of international law. It has been and continues to be instrumental in the formation of public international law. The chapter thus presents four topics to explain the nature and scope of the powers and activities of the State in international affairs. These are: the qualifications for statehood, recognition of the State as a member of the international community, the State compared to an international organization as a legal person and other entities having lesser rights in international law, and sovereignty as an attribute of the State.

scholarly journals Scope of State Responsibility Against Terrorism in International Law Perspective; Indonesian Cases

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dian Purwaningrum Soemitro ◽  
Indra Wahyu Pratama
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Global Terrorism ◽  
International Conventions

Abstract: Scope of State Responsibility Against Terrorism in International Law Perspective; Indonesian Cases. The emergence of global terrorism cases within more than a decade, marked by the tragedy of 9/11, making the issue of it being a big problem. The State as one of the subjects of International Law, into the spotlight. One of the problems that developed was the extent of the responsibility of the State towards acts of terrorism that occurred in the region of his sovereignty, which caused casualties both its own citizens or foreign nationals. In the case of terrorism that happened in Indonesia, the State's responsibility to the International Conventions implementation are very insufficient and the efforts from the country by creating a system of criminal justice to the criminal offence of terrorism has not been a maximum. There should be an obligation of the internationally imposed on it. The problem is if the terrorism was occurred will be submitted to the International Law are likely to be open to foreigners intervention. This is of course contrary to the principles of International Law. However, in the development of International Law as it has evolved in the Principle of the Responsibility to Protect and that should be accepted by any countries in order to attract the embodiment of the country against the security and Human Rights Abstrak: Lingkup Pertanggungjawaban Negara Terhadap Terorisme dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional pada Kasus Indonesia. Munculnya kasus terorisme global dalam satu dekade, ditandai dengan tragedi 9/11 yang menjadi masalah besar. Salah satu masalah yang berkembang adalah sejauh mana tanggung jawab negara terhadap aksi terorisme yang terjadi di wilayah kedaulatannya, yang menyebabkan timbulnya korban, baik warga negaranya sendiri atau warga negara asing. Dalam kasus terorisme yang terjadi di Indonesia, pertanggungjawaban negara terlihat dalam pelaksanaan Konvensi Internasional dan upaya menciptakan sistem peradilan pidana bagi pelaku tindak pidana terorisme. Jika permasalahan terorisme diserahkan kepada Hukum Internasional, maka cenderung akan membuka intervensi asing. Hal ini tentu saja bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Hukum Internasional. Namun, dalam perkembangan Hukum Internasional telah berevolusi dalam Prinsip Tanggung Jawab untuk melindungi, selain adanya keharusan setiap negara untuk menjaga keamanan dan Hak Asasi Manusia  DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i1.1841

11. State Responsibility

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Obligation

State responsibility arises from the violation by a State (or other international legal person) of an international obligation that can be one of customary international law or arising from a treaty. The violation must be due to conduct attributable to a State. This chapter discusses the nature of State responsibility; attribution; breach of an international obligation of the State; circumstances precluding wrongfulness (defences); consequences of a breach; enforcement of a claim; and treatment of aliens.

“Do Not Do Abroad What You Would Not Do at Home?”: An Exploration of the Rationales for Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction over a State’s Nationals

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
FRÉDÉRIC MÉGRET
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
The State ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Host State ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
Normative Account ◽  
At Home

AbstractCompared to universal jurisdiction, active nationality jurisdiction remains one of the least understood and written about forms of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. This article seeks to offer a normative account of the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by states over their nationals for crimes committed abroad such as sexual offences against minors, bribery of foreign public officials, or medical “circumvention” tourism. It highlights all of the reasons that militate against such assertions of jurisdiction as a matter of policy and law. It goes on to argue that the assertion of criminal jurisdiction over nationals for crimes committed abroad must be understood beyond its permissibility under international law as a modality that manifests the interests of the state of nationality, the territorial (host) state on occasion, the relevant individuals, and, increasingly, the international community.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Cyber Espionage Berdasarkan Hukum Internasional

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 2141
Author(s):  
Aldo Rahmandana
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Economic Threat ◽  
Cyber Espionage ◽  
Per Se ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Rapid Transformation

AbstractDue to the rapid transformation of technology causing a subliminal changes on how states spy upon each other. With the help of technology and cyber infrastructure, states tend to use cyber technology as its main facility to conduct an espionage towards other states. Cyber espionage has come to represent national security and economic threat, due to all the classified information that already been massively stolen by another country. The aim of this research paper is to analyze and clarify pertaining the role of International law specifically towards this kind of act of espionage, and perceive the state responsibility of perpetrator which is states. It can be concluded that cyber espionage does not per se regulated under international law, but its lawfulness depends on the way in which it operation carried out may violate specific international conventions or any other international law principles.Keywords: Cyberlaw; Cyber Espionage; International Law.AbstrakPesatnya perkembangan teknologi dan digitalisasi mengakibatkan terjadinya perubahan metode dan cara dalam pelaksanaan tindakan spionase oleh negara terhadap negara lain guna mengumpulkan fakta dan informasi yang berkaitan dengan perkembangan politik, ekonomi, teknologi, dll melalui kapabilitas teknologi siber atau kerap disebut sebagai cyber espionage. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis terkait peranan hukum internasional dalam mengatur tindakan tersebut dalam tataran internasional dan bagaimana pertanggungjawaban dari negara pelaku tindakan cyber espionage. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa belum ada konvensi international khusus yang mengatur mengenai cyber espionage sehingga tindakan cyber espionage itu sendiri merupakan tindakan yang masih belum diatur secara international.Kata Kunci: Hukum Siber; Cyber Espionage; Hukum Internasional.

La sentenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia relativa al caso Germania c. Italia: profili di diritto intertemporale

2012 ◽  
pp. 335-349
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
World War ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Law ◽  
Jus Cogens

The author comments on the judgment delivered by the ICJ on 3rd February 2012 in the case of Germany v. Italy, concerning jurisdictional immunity of the State against actions for compensation in respect of crimes committed during World War II. The article focuses on the intertemporal law aspects of the case, commenting that the ICJ, while correctly identifying State immunity rules as having a procedural nature, failed in clarifying that whenever their application requires a qualification of the relevant facts, this is to be performed pursuant to the law in force at the time they were committed. Arguably, at the time of the conflict, the category of jus cogens norms had not yet been sufficiently established, nor had a special regime of State responsibility for international crimes or for serious breaches of peremptory rules of general international law developed yet. Therefore, the supposed prevalence of the breached norms on State immunity rules, which the ICJ has correctly excluded due to the different nature of either set of rules, arguably was to be excluded for intertemporal reasons altogether.

MNSS BV and Recupero Credito Acciaio NV v. Montenegro

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 749-773
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Financial Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment

749Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Additional Facility — Contract — Waiver — Whether a waiver must be explicit and entered freely — Whether a waiver must be consistent with the public interest pursued by the parties to the BITJurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Additional Facility — Municipal law — Whether municipal law on foreign investment contained an offer of consent to arbitrationJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Corporate nationality — Good faith — Whether the BIT excluded claims by shell companies — Whether assuming corporate nationality for the purposes of obtaining treaty protections breached good faith requirements — Whether the claimants obtained protection after the disputeJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Additional Facility — Interpretation — Whether the meaning of investment under the ICSID Convention applied in ICSID Additional Facility arbitrationJurisdiction — Investment — Loans — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test – Whether loans qualified as protected investmentsJurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Municipal law — General principle of international law — Whether a legality requirement was implied by the BIT — Whether a legality requirement was a general principle of investment lawJurisdiction — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether a requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted could be implied into the BIT — Whether a requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted existed as a matter of customary international lawFair and equitable treatment — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Breach of contract — Whether the treaty standard of fair and equitable treatment required a lower threshold for breach than the customary minimum standard of treatment — Whether breach of contract may result in State responsibility for breach of fair and equitable treatmentFair and equitable treatment — Financial institutions — Whether States were under a duty to warn investors of the condition of the financial system or of a specific bank — Whether the State acted reasonably in its regulatory supervision of financial institutionsState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — Financial institutions — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Direct control — Whether the conduct of a private financial institution was attributable to the State — Whether the supervision of a private financial institution by a central bank rendered its conduct under the direct control of the State750 Fair and equitable treatment — Contract — Whether refusal by a State to reduce the workforce was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether a refusal by the State to allow a company to scrap obsolete machinery was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the refusal by the State to approve refinancing proposals was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether delays associated with governmental approval of transfers of funds amounted to a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatmentFair and equitable treatment — Labour dispute — Whether the support by the State to a labour union amounted to a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the State was under an obligation to publicly support a restructuring plan to which it had agreed — Whether the refusal to approve financing proposals was a matter for the State in its capacity as shareholder or in a public capacity — Whether the State failed to maintain a stable legal and business environmentState responsibility — Attribution — Bankruptcy administrator — Whether the conduct of a bankruptcy administrator was attributable to the StateFull protection and security — Interpretation — Whether the standard of most constant protection and security was equivalent to the standard of full protection and security under international law — Whether the provision of no or inadequate police presence breached the standard — Whether claimants proved loss from breachMost-favoured-nation treatment — Like circumstances — Whether the standard applied to investments only or also to investors — Whether investors in different industries were in like circumstances — Whether investors in like circumstances were treated more favourablyFree transfer — Whether refusal by the State to approve payments constituted a breach of the treaty standardExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether the conduct constituted a deprivation of the economic use and benefit of the investmentsExpropriation — Direct expropriation — Judicial act — Whether transfer of title by a bankruptcy administrator constitutes a direct expropriation — Whether a court decision may constitute a judicial expropriation in the absence of a denial of justiceCosts — ICSID Additional Facility — Whether parties should bear their own costs when the State was successful in some jurisdictional objections and the claimants proved breach but no loss

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document