State Responsibility

Page 20 of 20

Filter category

Old Law and New Trends – A Rejoinder to Professor Cryer and Hannah Tonkin

Both Professor Cryer's post, as well as Hannah Tonkin's reply to my article (introduced here) raise very interesting issues. I am thankful for their contributions to this discussion and happy to offer my reactions to some of the points they raise. Before reacting to their specific arguments, I believe a note of clarification is in order. As I argue in my article under the heading "Back to the Basics: Responsibility for the Armed Forces", I do not believe positive obligations are truly our best hope for  plugging the responsibility gap. Rather, I argue that while these obligations are important, establishing state responsibility under the rule contained in Art. 3 Hague IV and Article 91 AP I is the more effective way to go. Tadic redivivus - Are we using the wrong test? In my opinion Tadic is not the law with respect to attribution for the purposes of state responsibility, and I do not have much hope this will change…

Read more

Response to Carsten Hoppe: Some other Possible State Responsibility Issues

Editors note: Professor Robert Cryer is Professor of International and Criminal Law at the University of Birmingham Law School, UK. He is the author of…

Read more

A Response to Carsten Hoppe: Minimising the regulatory gap – a flexible interpretation of Article 5 of the ILC Articles

Editors note: Hannah Tonkin is currently a Law Clerk to President Judge Kirsch in the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court. She is also writing a DPhil at the University of Oxford on States' International Obligations to Control Private Military and…

Read more

The Buck Stops Here: State Responsibility and PMCs

Editors note: Carsten Hoppe is on the Project Management team of the Priv-War Project  and Executive Director of the European Society of International Law. He is currently writing a PhD, on the same topic as his article, at the European…

Read more
  • First
  • Page 20 of 20