State Responsibility for Genocide

Milanović, Marko

doi:10.1093/ejil/chl019

Cited by 72 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…116-145. judgment, and according to some scholars this case law may have been misinterpreted. 1555 It should also be noted that much time has passed since delivery of the Tadic judgment: equally much has happened in that time, and these events have affected the regime of State responsibility as well.…”

Section: Preliminary Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ambivalence of Armed Intervention by Invitation: Caught between Sovereign and Global Interests

Tuura¹

2021

The Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Vol 26, 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This dissertation concerns armed intervention by invitation in international law. In its essence, intervention by invitation entails the use of force with the consent of the territorial State, which appears simple. However, the modern form of the concept is fraught with legal complexities, including its relationship with the United Nations Charter. The instrument, which should regulate the use of force and make it a collective matter, does not mention unilateral intervention by invitation, leaving its legal basis complicated. Still, this impasse has been bypassed, allowing the concept to exist despite its inherent contradictions.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ambivalence of Armed Intervention by Invitation: Caught between Sovereign and Global Interests

Tuura¹

2021

The Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Vol 26, 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…129 However, 'international humanitarian law is in no way lex specialis to the law of state responsibility'. 130 The ICTY's analysis is thus marred by a misunderstanding of the distinction between primary and secondary rules of international law. 131 While the nature of an armed conflict is determined by the primary rules of international law systematically belonging to the body of law known as IHL, 132 the question of State responsibility is determined by the secondary rules of international law, which govern whether international law obligations have been violated and the consequences of such violations.…”

Section: Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decoding Article 8 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Attribution of Cyber Operations by Non-State Actors

Mačák¹

2016

J Conflict Security Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cyber operations pose a set of novel challenges to the generally conservative body of the law of State responsibility. Central among them is the problem of attribution, which lies at the intersection of technology and law. This article reflects the recent developments in the States' technological capacity to identify the sources of cyber attacks from the perspective of international law. It revisits Article 8 of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility in order to 'decode' its contents vis-à-vis its drafting history and with an eye on its future application to the conduct in cyberspace. The article argues that there are three autonomous standards of attribution built into that provision: instructions, direction, and control. It then demonstrates the utility and limitations of each of them against the backdrop of actual and hypothetical cyber operations. The article concludes with suggestions for further development of the law in this area, focussing on the missing potential of the law to regulate instigation of wrongful cyber conduct and on the prohibitively strict test of control applicable de lege lata.

show abstract

“…82 The effective control is therefore beneficial because it affords the possibility of attributing unlawful acts committed by peacekeepers to both the UN and the troop contributing country, ie those actors that jointly control the conduct and activities of a peacekeeping force. However, these advantages aside, the effective control test is still hugely problematic because it requires such an 'exceptionally high' degree of factual control to be exercised; 83 an international organisation will only be liable for those unlawful acts that it has specifically directed or enforced. According to Cassese, 'the fundamental problem' with this test is that it requires an 'unrealistically high standard of proof'.…”

Section: Support For the Overall Control Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

UN peacekeeping operations: when can unlawful acts committed by peacekeeping forces be attributed to the UN?

Buchan

2012

Legal stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UN peacekeeping missions operate under the authority of the UN. However, the military personnel that constitute a UN peacekeeping mission remain organs of the states from which they are contributed. Thus, whether unlawful acts committed by peacekeepers can be attributed to the UN is dependent upon whether the peacekeeping force can be regarded as being under the direction and control of the UN. This is a question of fact. According to the ICJ and the International Law Commission, unlawful acts committed by peacekeeping forces will be attributed to the UN only where the UN exercised ‘effective control’ over the commission of the unlawful act. In contrast, the ECtHR has consistently propounded a very different test, asserting that unlawful acts will be attributed to the UN only where the UN retained ‘ultimate authority and control’ over the peacekeeping mission. I argue, however, that neither of these tests provides a suitable legal framework for determining attribution of unlawful conduct in the context of UN peacekeeping missions. After outlining the deficiencies of these tests, I submit that a more suitable approach to determining attribution would be based upon the overall control test as outlined by the ICTY in Tadić.

show abstract

State Responsibility for Genocide

Cited by 72 publications

References 4 publications

The Ambivalence of Armed Intervention by Invitation: Caught between Sovereign and Global Interests

The Ambivalence of Armed Intervention by Invitation: Caught between Sovereign and Global Interests

Decoding Article 8 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Attribution of Cyber Operations by Non-State Actors

UN peacekeeping operations: when can unlawful acts committed by peacekeeping forces be attributed to the UN?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About