State Responsibility, International Law and the COVID-19 Crisis

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-140
Author(s):  
Sarah Heathcote

Abstract Disruptions caused by the global spread of COVID-19 have generated different types of responsibility claims at both the domestic and international levels. Alleged breaches of the law have resulted from the immediate reactions to the pandemic’s emergence and spread, as well as from less proximate adjustments made to the ongoing crisis. This contribution begins by briefly surveying the types of responsibility relevant to the crisis with a view to identifying systemic legal issues, particularly at the international level. It then focusses on the law of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, not to resolve the various claims that are or can be made, but in order to identify what this crisis reveals about the trends in the law of responsibility, the opportunities for its invocation, and indeed, state tactics in engaging with this body of law. Just as the pandemic has been revelatory of social trends, so too it has highlighted trends in the law and its operation.

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmina Krštenić ◽  

Giving attention to the legal relations in special international public law branch which its existence connects to the biggest part of the Planet, unresearched completely, it is absolutely important for modern way of living. In a period of questioning of boundaries and possibilities of future existence of ancient principles of legitimate rule, we need to pay attention to, at least for a glance, issues which tangle the subjects of legal relations regulated by rules under law of the sea. Lot of people use sea routes, a certain part of population of continental states uses the benefits of the sea although they do not ask themselves about order and way of functioning that huge system which demands obeying rules defined on international level. Struggle to reach an agreement was long and difficult, results are visible and used, and agreed terms and established rules, could be changed. It is important to know certain circumstances, some demands and the essence of the agreement reached. The sea as a road, the source of life, and this time, the source of international rules governing legal order on sea’s surface and endless depths. We will get acquainted with the basics of the law of the sea and some sorts of sea related services. We will consider some problems and ways of solving these problems with the provision of proposed guidelines for future action within the framework of the international law of the sea.


Author(s):  
Luís Duarte d’Almeida

Ongoing discussions among international lawyers on defences in state responsibility have close analogies with debates in two other fields: debates in general legal theory on defeasibility in law, and debates in criminal law theory (and philosophy) on the elements of criminal responsibility. The similarities are not surprising. But it is striking how little cross-fertilization there seems to have been. For jurisprudence and criminal law scholars have developed a number of points and distinctions that international law theorists working on defences should find helpful. This chapter illustrates these claims. Section 2 looks at defences from the point of view of general legal theory, and section 3 does the same from the point of view of criminal law theory, recommending specific solutions to particular problems. Section 4 then shows how these contributions can help to answer some persistent questions surrounding defences in the law of state responsibility.


Author(s):  
Giovanni Distefano ◽  
Robert Kolb

This chapter deals with the contribution of Italian scholarship to public international law. Its approach is two-fold. First, adopting an “external” perspective, the contribution of Italian scholars to the highly esteemed series of Hague Courses of the famous eponymous Academy may shed some light on what the Italian conception brought to international legal scholarship but also on how Italian scholars were perceived by their foreign brethren, and in what context they were quoted. Second, selecting a specific issue, the chapter focuses on the influence of Italian legal thinking on the shaping of doctrines of State responsibility. Among all the many areas of international law, this is one where the Italian school is constantly viewed as pioneering (together with the German school). For example, the writings of Anzilotti or Cavaglieri are often quoted as astonishingly modern exposés of that branch of the law, providing thus a test-case to verify the contribution and influence of the Italian doctrine of international law.


Author(s):  
Dominique Gaurier

This chapter observes that early writers on the law of war or on the law of peace offered their contributions in an intellectual context that was very different from our own. They were attempting to provide explanations for the questions related to war and peace, and in doing so drew upon interesting elements in Roman or canon law. Yet, none of the sources available to them were sufficient to offer a comprehensive response to related legal issues. Although these authors were all largely relying on the Bible and on ancient or contemporaneous history, some also drew information from their own life experiences. The majority, however, built their theories on the basis of their own readings and legal knowledge. Furthermore, only very few authors addressed the question of the sources of international law.


2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-585 ◽  

The Board of Editors is pleased to announce that the Francis Deák Prize for 2012 was awarded to Robert D. Sloane for his article entitled On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility, which appeared in the July 2012 issue.The prize was established by Philip Cohen in memory of Dr. Francis Deák, an international legal scholar and lifelong member of the American Society of International Law, to honor a younger author who has published a meritorious contribution to international legal scholarship in the American Journal of International Law.


2004 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-369
Author(s):  
Keneth Mengjo

This paper attempts an explanation to some of the complex legal issues surrounding the whole concept of responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law. The arguments here are based on reflections on the draft articles on the responsibility of states for the violations of international humanitarian law adopted by the international law commission as well as opinions of experts on the subject, treaties, conventions international jurisprudence, and internationally recognized principles and customs that govern conduct in armed conflicts so as to limit human suffering particularly of non combatants.


Author(s):  
Sabahi Borzu

The modern doctrines of State responsibility and reparation are the result of more than 2,000 years of human thought. This chapter traces the history of some of the most important components of State responsibility and reparation. The origins of these concepts are found in the historical roots of the civil law doctrines of extra-contractual liability and the remedy of restitutio in integrum, from Roman times until their entry into European civil codes. It explains how the private law notions discussed entered into international law and how, from the fusion of these notions and concepts with those supplied through the evolving doctrines of reprisals, denial of justice, and diplomatic protection, the modern doctrines of State responsibility and reparation were born.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-467
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka

Abstract The existence of a sense of common or community interests is a prerequisite to establishing an order in a society, national or international. In this connection, it is notable that the protection of community interests is increasingly important in international law and the law of the sea is no exception. The increasing need for protecting community interests necessitates a new paradigm in the law of the sea. The legal issues regarding the marine Arctic should also be considered in the context of changing paradigms in the law of the sea. Thus this article seeks to overview principal issues of the international law governing the marine Arctic from the viewpoints of a dual paradigm, that is, the law of divided oceans (paradigm I) and the law of our common ocean (paradigm II).


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-187
Author(s):  
Rosana Garciandia

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) follows its own rules regarding the responsibility of states, although the international law of state responsibility enshrined in the International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) remains, as general international law, relevant to its decisions. However, case law of the ECtHR shows that the Court is departing from certain ARSIWA principles as it adopts a broad interpretation of rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) giving rise to positive obligations.1Exploring those trends in the state responsibility regime of the ECHR, this article argues that, by clarifying certain ARSIWA provisions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can play an important role by contributing to a higher degree of judicial integration on the law of state responsibility. It is desirable that the ICJ takes any upcoming opportunity to provide greater clarity on the challenges and nuances of the applicability of the law of state responsibility, in particular as it relates to positive obligations. That would contribute to a more systematic use of those rules by regional courts such as the ECtHR, and ultimately to guaranteeing a greater protection of human rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document