Search Results

Author: Tom Dannenbaum

attribution to the troop contributor unless the recipient “directed or enforced the perpetration of [the wrongful] acts”. 20 This would either preclude dual attribution, on the assumption that the recipient’s effective control would displace the ordinary attributive links recognized in Article 4 of the

In: International Organizations Law Review

In two cases lodged by victims (or their relatives) of the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has taken a progressive stance on the interpretation of international law on the responsibility of States and international organizations for wrongful acts. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decisions of The Hague Court of Appeal, confirming that the Netherlands can be held responsible for the death and injuries of these victims, despite the fact that the Dutch troops employed to protect this enclave were part of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force. By accepting the possibility of dual attribution of an internationally wrongful act to both the UN and the troop-sending State, it has departed from the restrictive approach adopted in current judicial practice, in particular by the European Court of Human Rights. In this note, the Supreme Court’s judgments are discussed, focusing on (i) the question of dual attribution of an international wrongful act, and (ii) the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. It concludes that, although the Supreme Court’s reliance on two sets of Draft Articles of the International Law Commission without referring to any State practice is surprising, these judgments should be welcomed as significant precedents, which may contribute to the development of a norm of customary international law. They also constitute an important step towards ensuring access to justice and reparation for the victims of gross human rights violations, such as those committed in Srebrenica.

In: The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online
In: International Organizations and Member State Responsibility
Author: Heike Krieger

of a responsibility of the Troop Contributing Nations. Th eir responsibility is either based on dual attribution or on the jurisprudence of the Court on the transfer of powers to international organisations. Th e Court’s intention is under- standable to protect the universal UN security system by not

In: Journal of International Peacekeeping
International Organizations and Member State Responsibility: Critical Perspectives is the first international public law book entirely devoted to the topic of member state responsibility. Throughout its ten contributions, it takes stock of the legal developments brought about by the International Law Commission’s work on international responsibility, and critically unveils the major remaining conceptual gaps in the field.
The novel approaches offered in the book serve as a repository of the various understandings within academia and legal practice that reflect the evolution of the contemporary law of international (member state) responsibility.

Contributors: Ana Sofia Barros, Cedric Ryngaert, Jan Wouters, Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Catherine Brölmann, Esa Paasivirta, Francesco Messineo, Ige Dekker, Jean d’Aspremont, Niels Blokker, Paolo Palchetti, Ramses Wessel, Tom Dannenbaum

This Volume was previously published as International Organizations Law Review Vol. 12, issue 2 (2015).

the Institutional Veil 358 Catherine Brölmann International Responsibility and the Constitution of Power: International Organizations Bolstered 382 Jean d’Aspremont Dual Attribution in the Context of Military Operations 401 Tom Dannenbaum

In: International Organizations Law Review
Author: Cedric Ryngaert

and its member State(s). This dual attribution could result in the international organization and the member State(s) sharing responsibility. It is cautioned, however, that international organizations and member States should not too readily share responsibility, particularly not when one of the

In: International Organizations Law Review

. Kim H. Sikkink K. 2010 . “ Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions ,” International Studies Quarterly , Vol. 53 , N. 4 : 951 . Nollkaemper A. 8 July 2011 . “ Dual attribution: liability of the Netherlands for removal of individuals from the compound of Dutchbat

In: Southeastern Europe
Author: Marek Szydło

Court does not mention at all such a legally admissible option as the dual attribution of Multi-National Force’s conduct to both the United Kingdom and the United Nations. This dual attribution of the same conduct can never be excluded from the outset. Thus, attribution of conduct to a State does not

In: International Criminal Law Review

protection against which is provided by TC training. The significance of the failure to properly train such troops cannot therefore be underestimated and presumably carries more weight in the extent of effective control equation than the act of placement. These factors thus result in the dual attribution

In: International Organizations Law Review