TOPICAL ISSUES OF DOCTRINE AND COURT PRACTICE ON THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN NON-STATE ARMED GROUPS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The article examines the topical issues of doctrine and international judicial practice regarding the determination of the State's responsibility for international wrongful acts, in particular, those related to the activities of foreign non-State armed groups. The authors analyse the international legal framework of State responsibility for international wrongful acts, as well as individual criminal liability of individuals. The paper substantiates a set of economic and legal instruments for the implementation of international responsibility (reparations, satisfaction, restitution, economic sanctions) as a mechanism for ensuring compliance with international law by States. The study identifies the legal positions of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the European Court of Human Rights and other international judicial institutions on the application of the concepts of "effective control" and "overall control" in judicial practice, as well as problematic issues of law enforcement.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
international law, international court, state, control, foreign entities, jurisdiction, international crime, economic and legal liability, restitution, economic sanctions, reparations, satisfaction
Crawford, J. (2013). State Responsibility: The General Part.
Quéguiner, J.-F. (2003). Dix ans après la création du Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie: évaluation de l'apport de sa jurisprudence au droit international humanitaire. Revue Internationale de la CroixRouge, Volume 85. Issue 850, June, p. 271–311.
Robert Kolb (2017). The International Law of State Responsibility: An Introduction.
Meron, T. (1998). Сlassification of Armed Conflict in the FormerYugoslavia: Nicaragua’s Fallout. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 2, April, p. 236–242.
Stewart, J. G. (2003). Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: A critigue of internationalized armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 85. Issue 850, June. P. 313–350.
Zyberi, G. (2008). The Humanitarian Face of the International Court of Justice. Its Contribution to Interpreting and Developing International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Rules and Principles. Antwerpen – London – Portland: Intersentia, 523 p.
Cullen, A. (2010). The Concept of Non- International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press, 219 p.
Vite´ S. (2009). Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 91. Issue 873, March. P. 313–350.
Andreichenko, S. S. (2015). International legal concept of attribution of state behaviour: dissertation of Doctor of Juridical Sciences: 12.00.11. Odesa, 428 p.
Bazov, V. P. (2020). Theory and principles of international humanitarian law: a monograph. Kyiv: Fenix Publishing, 512 p.
Vasylenko, V. A. (1976). State responsibility for international offences. Kyiv.
Hnatovskyi, M. M. (2012). Qualification of international armed conflicts in the practice of international judicial institutions. Current Problems of State and Law, Vol. 65, p. 139–146.
The Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice of 26.06.1945. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_010
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of May 23, 1969. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_118
UN. General Assembly. Fifty-sixtx session. Resolution 56/83. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. 2001. UN Doc. A/RES/56/83. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/477/97/PDF/N0147797.pdf?OpenElement
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986.
Prosecutor v. Tadic, ICTY (Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-94-1"Prijedor", Judgement of 15 July 1999.
Prosecutor v. Tadic, ICTY (Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-94-1"Prijedor", Judgement of 15 July 1999, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para. 17.
Stewart, J. G. (2003). Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: A critique of internationalized armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 85. Issue 850, June. P. 313–350.
Moir, L. (2004). The Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press, XIX, 306 p.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43.
Cassese, A. (2007). The Nicaragua and Tadic Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment on Genocide in Bosnia. The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 4, p. 649–668.
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, International Criminal Court (ICC) (Pre-Trial Chamber), Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 29 January 2007.
International Court of Justice. Judgment 31 January 2024. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/166/166-20240131-jud-01-00-en.pdf
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on the decision of the International Court of Justice in the case against the Russian Federation of February 1, 2024. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Official website. Available at: https://mfa.gov.ua
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004
Cyprus v. Turkey (I) and (II), Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, European Commission of Human Rights Decision of May 26, 1975.
ECtHR. Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (applications Nos. 8019/16, 43804/14 and 28525/20). Decision of 25.01.2023. Information bulletin of the Court's case-law. Available at: https://cas.coe.int
ECtHR. Georgia v. Russia (II) [GC] – 38263/08. Judgment of 21.01.2021 [GC]. European Court of Human Rights. Information bulletin of the Court's case law 247. Available at: https://cas.coe.int
Bazov, O. V. (2023). International legal framework for the organisation and operation of international criminal courts: a monograph. Kyiv: Alerta, 628 p.
Die EU-Sanktionen gegen Russland im Detail. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/sanctions-against-russia/sanctions-against-russia-explained/#sanctions
FACT SHEET: United States, G7 and EU Impose Severe and Immediate Costs on Russia. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/06/fact-sheet-united-states-g7-and-eu-impose-severe-and-immediate-costs-on-russia/
Deutsche Teilung – Deutsche Einheit. Available at: https://www.bpb.de/themen/deutsche-einheit/deutsche-teilung-deutsche-einheit/
Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, E. (2023). Sanctioning Iran: Implications and Consequences. Oxford Research Group. October. P. 16–17.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.