scholarly journals A Study on the State Responsibility about Fukushima’s the Ocean Dumping of Nuclear Polluted Water

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 651-671
Author(s):  
권오성 ◽  
김나현
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Polluted Water ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Ocean Dumping

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt 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

Leviathan on a Leash

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.

Conclusion

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.

25. The conditions for international responsibility

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.

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.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN KORBAN MELALUI KOMPENSASI DALAM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Hafrida Hafrida ◽  
Helmi Helmi
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Crime Victim ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Empirical Condition

ABSTRAKArtikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis konsep perlindungan korban melalui kompensasi dalam peradilan pidana anak sebagai wujud tanggungjawab negara. Peradilan Pidana Anak di Indonesia melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 mengedepankan penyelesaian perkara anak melalui keadilan restoratif yang memberikan perlindungan yang seimbang antara perlindungan pelaku anak melalui diversi dan perlindungan korban tindak pidana anak. Diversi yang memberikan perlindungan yang seimbang antara pelaku dan korban ini merupakan pembaharuan dalam hukum pidana anak yang berkeadilan untuk semua pihak (Victim-offender oriented). Keterlibatan korban/keluarganya dan pelaku/keluarganya sangat menentukan berhasil atau tidaknya diversi dalam penyelesaian perkara anak. Posisi pelaku/keluarganya dan korban/keluarganya adalah sejajar. Kepentingan kedua belah pihak harus sama dan seimbang. Perlindungan korban melalui kompensasi merupakan wujud tanggungjawab negara terhadap warga negara yang menjadi korban tindak pidana. Kondisi empirik menurut data Badilum MA menunjukan rendahnya keberhasilan diversi (4%), kegagalan diversi ini penyebab utamanya adalah tidak tercapainya kesepakatan ganti kerugian karena kesepakatan diversi hanya diserahkan sepenuhnya pada kesepakatan pelaku dan korban. Disinilah menunjukan bahwa negara abai terhadap perlindungan korban, seharusnya ketika negara melindungi kepentingan pelaku anak melalui diversi maka seharusnya negara juga menjamin perlindungan korbannya melalui kompensasi, sehingga ke depan diharapkan tingkat keberhasilan diversi akan semakin baik. Kata kunci: kompensasi; korban tindak pidana; peradilan pidana anak; perlindungan korban. ABSTRACT This article aimed to analyze the concept of victim protection through compensation in juvenile criminal justice as a form of state responsibility. Juvenile Criminal Court in Indonesia through Law Number 11 of 2012 prioritizes the settlement of juvenile cases through restorative justice providing balanced protection between juvenile offenders through diversion and protection for victims of juvenile crimes through reform of juvenile criminal law that is just for all parties (victim-offender oriented). The involvement of the victim and his family and the perpetrator and his family will greatly determine the success or failure of diversion in solving juvenile cases. The position of the perpetrator and his family and the victim and his family are equal. The interests of both parties should be equal and balanced. Protection of victims through compensation is a form of state responsibility towards citizens who are victims of criminal acts. The empirical condition according to Badilum's data showed the low success of diversion (4%). The failure of this diversion is the main cause of the failure to reach an agreement for compensation because the diversion agreement is only left to the agreement of the perpetrator and victim. This showed that the state was ignorant of victim protection. When the state protects the interests of juvenile through diversion, the state should also guarantee the protection of the victims through compensation. Hence, the success rate of diversion will hopefully be better in the future. Keywords: compensation; juvenile criminal court; victims of crime; victim protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document