International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: an Ideology Critique

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ntina Tzouvala ◽  
Robert Knox
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Ideology Critique

scholarly journals International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: An Ideology Critique

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-121
Author(s):  
Robert Knox ◽  
Ntina Tzouvala
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Ideology Critique ◽  
Capitalist Production ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
The Us ◽  
The One

Abstract Despite minimal prospects of success, international lawyers spent the first few months of the global pandemic discussing whether the rules of state responsibility could be invoked against states, especially China, for their acts and omissions regarding COVID-19. In this piece, we take these debates seriously, if not necessarily literally. We argue that the unrealistic nature of these debates does not make them irrelevant. Rather, we propose an ideology critique of state responsibility as a legal field. Our approach is two-fold. First, we argue these debates need to be situated within the rise of geopolitical competition between the US and its allies on the one hand and China on the other. In this context, state responsibility is always laid at the feet of one’s opponents. Secondly, we posit that my emphasising the role of states, recourse to state responsibility renders invisible the role of transnational processes of capitalist production and exchange that have profound effects on nature and set the stage for the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. Drawing from the work of the geographer Neil Smith, we argue against the ‘naturalisation’ of disasters performed much of the international legal discourse about COVID-19.

Common Interests of Humankind and the International Regulation of the Use of Force

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mere Existence ◽  
Further Development

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.

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

scholarly journals Responsibility of Serbia for genocide: Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Reconciliation Process

On February 26th 2007, International Court of Justice claimed Serbia responsible for failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators underlining its' responsibility to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Although it was confirmed genocide has been committed in Srebrenica 1995, Serbia is not obliged to pay financial reparations. Judgment makes distinction between individual and three-fold state responsibility for genocide, based on Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other sources of international law. There are evident disagreements among judges on jurisdiction, interpretation rules, even on meritum of the case. Many questions still remain open especially what precedent effects will have on establishment of state's dolus specialis and how it will influence the reconciliation process in the region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document