scholarly journals Back to the Future of a Multilateral Dimension of the Law of State Responsibility for Breaches of 'Obligations Owed to the International Community as a Whole'

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 1059-1069
Author(s):  
P.-M. Dupuy
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 273
Author(s):  
Idris Idris ◽  
Taufik Rachmat Nugraha

Through the United Nations, the international community is seriously paying attention to the use of seabed areas as regulated by the Law of the Sea Convention 1982, which states that the area and its resources are the common heritage of humankind.  The 1994 Agreement has implemented chapter XI. The resources are relating to the state's interests in terms of energy exploration and environmental impact aspects. An increasing need for global electronic products by many countries in which of the components are rare minerals. Various minerals such as manganese, polymetallic nodules, and polymetallic sulphur are lying down in the seabed. However, seabed also had an essential role in keeping the marine ecosystem balanced. On the one hand, the human's need for those minerals also cannot be denied. Draft of regulations by the International Seabed Authority to manage deep-sea mining are still insufficient to prevent irrevocable damage to the marine ecosystem and loss of essentials species for the next. On the other hand, the spirit of Sustainable Development Goals 14 concerns life underwater. This paper examines deep-sea mining science from a legal perspective to protect and preserve seabed for the future generation using normative approach describing norms and principles in the Law of the Sea Convention 1982. As a result, the commercialisation of deep-sea mining violates the principle of the convention. Thus, it needs to encourage ISA to enhance the minimum requirements for all contracting parties in the future.


2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 792-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock

The handling by the International Law Commission (ILC) of state responsibility, hazardous activities, and strict liability reveals in many ways the Commission’s strengths and limitations. This work also tells much about the development of international law and the extent to which there is—or is not—an international community. The Commission’s work on state responsibility in particular also illustrates the validity of Holmes’s immortal statement about logic and the life of the law, the utility of Occam’s razor, and the value of William James’s pragmatism. Even if Philip Allott were close to the mark—as he often is—in calling the draft articles, as they then were, “bland gruel,” it is hard to ignore the need for the articles or their contribution to the unification of international law. Both are witnessed by tribunals’ eagerness to cite the Commission’s texts even before their formal adoption. While this practice has upset some as premature, it reflects the symbiotic process that has evolved over time as both the Commission and courts and tribunals labor to clarify existing law. Codification of lex lata may be no less effective if contained in a paragraph of a report rather than in an article of a multilateral treaty.


Author(s):  
Kimberley N. Trapp

This chapter examines state responsibility issues in respect of a state’s exercise of jurisdiction through the prism of several themes, including shifting approaches to sovereignty and the increasing pluralism of the international community. These competing paradigms are, in some respects, reflected in the substantive law of jurisdiction, or might help to navigate between possible approaches to jurisdiction where positive law does not settle the matter. These paradigms may also have implications for the way in which the secondary rules of state responsibility do or should apply to internationally wrongful acts in respect of jurisdiction, and in turn the practice of state responsibility may support or provide evidence for the governing paradigm. The chapter then considers the law of criminal jurisdiction through the prism of state responsibility, particularly regarding the practice of state responsibility for excessive jurisdiction and the implications of the competing paradigms of international law in respect thereof.


Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro

The chapter discusses the philosophical foundations of the current regulation of the use of force. The chapter argues that, in correspondence with the emergence of a sphere of substantive rules protecting common interests of humankind, international law is also gradually developing a system of protection against egregious breaches of these interests. This conclusion is reached through an analysis of the law and practice governing the action of the UN Security Council as well as the law of state responsibility concerning individual and collective reactions to serious breaches of common interests. This system is based on positive obligations imposed upon individual states as well as UN organs, and it appears to be still rudimentary and inefficient. However, the chapter suggests that the mere existence of this system, these shortcomings notwithstanding, has the effect of promoting the further development of the law in search for more appropriate mechanisms of protection.


1963 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 393
Author(s):  
Walter V. Schaefer ◽  
Bernard Botein ◽  
Murray Gordon
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document