Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law
Reference:

Sazonova K.L. Concept of “International State Crimes” as the Basis of International Responsibility: Comparative Analysis of the Doctrinal Positions

Abstract: This article devotes to the one of the most controversial concepts of comparative international law — the concept of “international state crimes”. The author examines the views of representatives of both domestic and foreign schools of international law concerning this concept, and highlights key issues and controversial aspects. The article also contains the analysis of the Report of the International Law Commission “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts” of 2001. The special attention is devoted to the category “serious breach of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law”. The author assesses the applicability of the concept of “international state crimes” to the existing international realities in the context of the frequent use of force in international relations. Moreover, the author analyzes what kind of responsibility can be realized by state which committed serious breach of international norms; examines the forms and types of international responsibility of states, and also compares the positions of the various researchers upon this issue. The problem of international responsibility of states for the use of force is also important because, despite its obvious relevance, in the domestic doctrine in recent years there has been a lack of publications upon this theme, especially in comparison with the western doctrine.


Keywords:

comparative law, crime, state responsibility, force, doctrine, offense, genocide, aggression, law.


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Barsegov Yu.G. Genotsid armyan — prestuplenie po mezhdunarodnomu pravu. M., 2000. 272 s.
2. Bartosh M. Raznorodnye pravovye istochniki v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave // Mezhdunarodnaya poli-tika. ¹ 575. Belgrad, 1974.
3. Brounli Ya. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Kn. 1. M., 1977. 535 s.
4. Vystuplenie i otvety na voprosy Ministra inostrannykh del Rossii S.V. Lavrova na vstreche so studentami i kollektivom Diplomaticheskoy akademii MID Rossii, Moskva, 25 fevralya 2013 g. // http://www.mid.ru/brp_4. nsf/0/AD5CCC0AF4E15AEC44257B1D003DA311
5. Doklad Komissii mezhdunarodnogo prava OON «Otvetstvennost' gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivoprav-nye deyaniya» 2001 g. (s kommentariyami).
6. Kuris P. Mezhdunarodnye pravonarusheniya i otvetstvennost' gosudarstva. Vil'nyus, 1973. 280 s.
7. Levin D.B. Otvetstvennost' gosudarstv v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave. M., 1966 152 s.
8. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti. M., 2004.
9. Moshenskaya N.V. Problema otvetstvennosti za genotsid. M., 2008.
10. Oppengeym L. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. M., 1948.
11. Traynin A.N. Zashchita mira i ugolovnyy zakon. M., 1969.
12. Tunkin G.I. Teoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava. M., 1970.
13. Ustav OON Ustav Organizatsii Ob'edinennykh Natsiy 1945 g. //http://www.un.org/ru/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
14. Ushakov N.A. Osnovaniya mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti gosudarstv. M, 1983.
15. Farukshin M.Kh. Mezhdunarodno-pravovaya otvetstvennost': (Sushchnost' i osnovanie) // Mezhdunarodnaya pravo-sub'ektnost'. M., 1971. S. 165.
16. Fisenko I.V. Bor'ba s mezhdunarodnymi prestupleniyami v mezhdunarodnom ugolovnom prave. Minsk, 2000. 336 s.
17. Ago R. Scritti sulla resposabilita internazionale degli stati. T. 1-2. Naples, 1986.
18. Anzilotti D. Teoria generale della responsabilita dello Stato nel diritto internazionale. Firenze, 1902.
19. Cassese A. International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, 2003.
20. Cherif Bassiouni M.Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1999. 610 r.
21. Cryer R. International Criminal Law vs. State Sovereignty: Another Round? //The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16, n. 5 2006.
22. De Hoogh A. Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: A Theoretical Inquiry Into the Implementation and Enforcement of the International Responsibility of States. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996. P. 465.
23. Dupuy P.-M. Dionisio Anzilotti and the Law of International Responsibility of States Vol. 3, n.1, 1992. P. 139-148.
24. Gilbert G. The Criminal Responsibility of States//International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 39. n. 2, April 1990. P. 345-369.
25. Nollkaemper A. Systemic Effects of International Responsibility for International Crimes // Santa Clara Journal of International Law 313, 2010. P. 313-352.
26. Spinedi M. State Responsibility v. Individual Responsibility for International Crimes: Tertium Non Datur? // The European Journal of International Law. Vol. 13, n. 4. 2002.
27. Tammes A. Decisions of International Organs as a Course of International Law // Recueil de Cours de l’Academie de droit International. La Haye, 1958. Vol. 94. P. 265-266.
28. Wyler E. From ‘State Crime’ to Responsibility for ‘Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law’ // The European Journal of International Law Vol. 13, n. 5, 2002.
29. Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Vol. II. 1956