What a Pity! Sovereign Immunity, State Responsibility, and the Diminution of Accountability Under International Human Rights Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-459
Author(s):  
Mark Gibney ◽  
Erik Roxström
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Human

scholarly journals Containment Instead of Refoulement: Shifting State Responsibility in the Age of Cooperative Migration Control?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-332
Author(s):  
Annick Pijnenburg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Training

Abstract Containment policies whereby destination States provide funding, equipment and training to transit States that intercept refugees on their behalf suggest that destination States try to circumvent the prohibition of refoulement and raise the question to what extent destination States can avoid responsibility for violations of the rights of migrants and refugees by cooperating with transit States. Answering this question requires broadening the analysis beyond the principle of non-refoulement, including not only international human rights law, especially the right to leave and the concept of jurisdiction, but also the law of State responsibility, notably the prohibition of complicity. This article argues that, although it remains debatable whether the principle of non-refoulement applies when transit States intercept migrants and refugees on behalf of sponsoring destination States, the wider network of international law rules constrains the latter’s ability to avoid responsibility when implementing cooperative migration control policies.

scholarly journals THE OBLIGATION TO REFRAIN FROM ASSISTING THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharat Malkani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Law

AbstractIn this paper, I assert that the prohibition on the death penalty brings with it an obligation on abolitionist States to refrain from assisting the use of the death penalty in retentionist States. By considering the law on complicity and State responsibility, the obligation to protect under international human rights law, and the practice of States, I argue that although there are jurisdictional issues and although the death penalty is not prohibited under general international law, an obligation to refrain from being complicit in the death penalty is developing in international law.

Nuremberg 50 Years Later: The Restitution of Jewish Property and Norwegian Justice

1998 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Life ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Seven Principles ◽  
International Human

AbstractNorway, under the Nazi rule of Vidkun Quisling, was one of the first of the Occupied Countries to enact a Nuremberg-type Race Law, delegitimizing and disenfranchising Norwegian Jewry. From 24 till 26 November 1942, the arrest and deportation of Norwegian Jewry to Nazi death camps took place, followed by the systematic plundering of their property by Norwegian authorities. The latter was based on an Act of 26 October 1942, ordering all property of any kind belonging to a Jew to be confiscated and taken over by the Norwegian State treasury. After the War, a Reparations Board was established, but failed to properly indemnify most of the Norwegian Jewry claimants for the plundering of their property. This paper sets out what the legal basis is for ``restitution'' for these Nuremberg crimes committed by Norwegian authorities under the Nazi rule of Vidkun Quisling. The author identifies seven principles on which state responsibility for war crimes and the ensuing restitution are based. The author concludes that the obligation of restitution is not only the redress of a historical wrong, but one clearly anchored in international human rights law – and the inherent dignity and worth of every human life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document