How are private wrongs possible?

Author(s):  
Alan Brudner
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Sandy Steel
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 989-1007
Author(s):  
DANIELE AMOROSO

AbstractAccording to the agency paradigm enshrined by the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, private conducts are attributed to a state when they are carried out on the state's behalf or under its tight control. On closer look, this legal framework proves to be unable to deal with state involvement in human-rights violations perpetrated by powerful non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or transnational corporations. These wrongs, indeed, are often put in place with the fundamental contribution of – but not on behalf of (or under the control of) – a state, with the consequence that, under the traditional paradigm, they could not be attributed to the latter. Against this backdrop, the present paper argues that a new secondary norm has been developing that provides that private wrongs are to be imputed to a state if the latter knowingly facilitated (or otherwise co-operated in) their commission. Although international practice will be duly taken into account, the analysis will be focused mainly on US case law concerning corporate liability for international human-rights violations.


Res Publica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-485
Author(s):  
Brian Kin Ting Ho
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Paul B. Miller ◽  
Jeffrey A. Pojanowski
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  

This chapter argues that the dominant “interpersonal accountability model of tort law” must be significantly amended to accommodate tort law’s protection of the interests of artificial persons. The chapter focuses on protection of state interests, in particular. It begins with a critical exposition of the interpersonal accountability model, highlighting the extent to which leading tort theorists share the assumption that torts are wrongs that are suffered by natural persons alone. Next, the chapter shows that and how the interpersonal accountability model neglects torts against the state, and offers a schema for categorizing these torts. The chapter concludes by tracing the implications of arguments developed in it. Among other things, it notes that understanding that tort law includes torts against the state calls into question the tendency to gloss torts as “private wrongs” and supports the practice of treating them as “civil wrongs.”


Author(s):  
Arthur Ripstein
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Wall

There are a set of wrongs that are normatively distinct as ‘criminal wrongs’, and yet, there is disagreement as to ‘the basic features of criminal liability’ that explain this normative distinctiveness. The only consensus has been that criminal wrongs are ‘public wrongs’. For some, they are public wrongs in the sense that they infringe the values and interests for which the community has a shared and mutual concern. For others, they are public wrongs in the sense that they are the wrongs that public officials are responsible for punishing. A third view is that they are public wrongs in the sense that there are procedural advantages of having public officials empowered to address the wrongdoing. I argue here that the first two views are analytically inseparable: the considerations that explain the wrongs that merit social prohibition are the same considerations that explain the censuring and punitive response of the criminal law. I also argue here that, contrary to the third view, the powers of public officials in criminal law procedures follow from, rather than explain, the concept of a crime being a public wrong. Procedural advantages can explain how criminal wrongs are public wrongs, but they cannot explain why criminal wrongs are public wrongs.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Brysk
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-530
Author(s):  
Erin Sheley

This article argues that in England over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the understanding of adultery as a tort was complicated by an accompanying discourse of what I will call “quasi-criminality.” Specifically – while formally trivialized – adultery remained linked to a threat to English kingship. The tension between the weight of relevant monarchical history and the absence of contemporary criminal enforcement created a new cultural narrative about adultery which attempted, itself, to serve a penal function. Examining the development of this discourse alongside the relevant law illuminates the complex social process through which public and private wrongs become distinguished – or conflated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document