Towards Dual or Multiple Attribution

The Strasbourg Court and the Liability of Contracting Parties’ Troops Contributed to the United Nations

in International Organizations Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The Strasbourg Court is dealing with situations arising out of the military conduct of Contracting Parties abroad. Some of this conduct arises from European troops acting within the framework of international multinational forces under the UN’s auspices. While the Strasbourg Court in the Behrami and Saramati case started by attributing exclusive liability to the UN — in an attempt to stay clear of interfering with the UN’s universal peace and security mission —, its latest case-law has moved away from that path. In the Al-Jedda case, the Strasbourg Court admits the possibility of dual or multiple attribution, which means that the same conduct can be attributed both to the UN and to one or more Contracting Parties. Through dual or multiple attribution, the Strasbourg Court has opened a way to avoid confrontations with the UN’s universal mission, and has returned to supervising the conduct of the individual Contracting Parties that send troops to be part of the UN multinational forces, improving the protection offered to victims of those Contracting Parties in foreign lands.

Towards Dual or Multiple Attribution

The Strasbourg Court and the Liability of Contracting Parties’ Troops Contributed to the United Nations

in International Organizations Law Review

Sections

References

8

Wilde (2006)supra note 7 p. 400.

15

Wilde (2006)supra note 7 p. 404.

22

Lock (2010) supra note 11 p. 531; see also C Costello ‘Case Comment: The Bosphorus Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental Rights and Blurred Boundaries in Europe’ (2006) 6 Human Rights Law Review p. 130.

47

Milanovic and Papic (2009) supra note 39 p. 280; Bodeau-Livinec Buzzini & Villalpando supra note 45 p. 328.

49

Blokker (2000) supra note 43 pp. 563–564; Milanovic & Papic (2009) supra note 39 p. 285.

97

Smyth (2008)supra note 95 p. 620.

129

Lawsonsupra note 6 p. 120.

131

Wellens (2004)supra note 10 p. 1179.

137

Lawson (2004)supra note 6 p. 120.

142

DARIO 2011supra note 41.

157

Nolkaempersupra note 152 p. 1149.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 15 15 5
Full Text Views 23 23 18
PDF Downloads 4 4 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0