Везде
Shared Responsibility v. Individual Responsibility: Search of Fairness and Multilateralism in the Implementation of International Responsibility
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Shared Responsibility v. Individual Responsibility: Search of Fairness and Multilateralism in the Implementation of International Responsibility
Annotation
PII
S1605-65900000622-5-1
DOI
10.61205/jrp.2023.121
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Maria Keshner 
ORCID: 0000-0003-3649-2206
Occupation: Associate Professor at the Department of International and European Law, Faculty of Law
Affiliation: Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University
Address: Kazan, Russia
Edition
Volume 27 No. 10
Pages
148-162
Abstract

In international practice, there are situations when the result of joint activities of several States and international organizations is damage to a third party. Such precedents are characteristic of violations of the norms of the law of armed conflict, international humanitarian, environmental, and migration law. The question arises: who is responsible for joint activities and how should the responsibility for damage be distributed among multiple actors? The author formulates the issue on conformity of the individual responsibility practice, as well as the implementation of the principle of plurality of responsible states codified in the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts to the principle of justice and full compensation for harm in situations and its relevance to the current stage of development of the law of international responsibility.

The methodological basis of the research was made up of general scientific (analysis, synthesis, systematic approach) and private legal methods of cognition (formal legal, comparative legal).

The legal nature of the responsibility of states for joint activities is investigated; its qualifying features are highlighted. The normative value of joint responsibility is substantiated, which consists in solving the problem of implementing responsibility in a situation of multiple attribution of behavior when causing indivisible damage to a third party. On the basis of a critical analysis of Articles on State Responsibility, Guidelines on Joint Responsibility, international judicial practice, the possibilities and limits of joint responsibility in resolving the noted problem and eliminating gaps in individual responsibility in situations of concerted actions in general are identified. The necessity of developing the key issue of the joint responsibility regime — criteria for the distribution of responsibility between multiple actors — is argued. In the absence of such criteria, the implementation of the abstract idea of shared responsibility potentially creates a new set of gaps in responsibility. A methodology for developing criteria for the distribution of joint responsibility is proposed.

Keywords
international responsibility, attribution of international responsibility, shared responsibility, indivisible harm, implementation of shared responsibility, criteria of distribution of shared responsibility, Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law
Date of publication
25.10.2023
Number of purchasers
10
Views
111
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf
1

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Boisson de Chazournes L. United in joy and sorrow: Some considerations on responsibility issues under partnerships among international financial institutions. In: Ragazzi M. (ed. ). Responsibility of international organization: Essays in memory of Sir Ian Brownlie. Leiden, 2013. 
2. Buchanan A., Keohane R. The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics and International Affairs, 2009, vol, 20, iss. 4. 
3. Cane P. Responsibility and fault: A relational and functional approach to responsibility. In: P. Cane, J. Gardner (eds). Relating to responsibility. Oxford, 2001. 
4. Crawford J. The Law of International Responsibility. Ed. by J. Crawford, A. Pellet, S. Olleson. Oxford, 2010. 
5. Economides C. Content of the obligation: Obligations of means and obligations of result. In: Crawford J., Pellet A., Olleson S. (eds). The law of international responsibility. Oxford, 2010. 
6. Erskine T. (ed. ) Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? London, 2003. 
7. Erskine T. T. Locating responsibility: The problem of moral agency in international relations. In: Reus-Smit C., Snidal D. (eds). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford, 2008. 
8. Erskine T. T. “Coalitions of the willing” and the shared responsibility to protect. In: Nollkaemper A., Jacobs D. (eds). Distribution of responsibilities in international law. Cambridge, 2015. 
9. Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law. The European Journal of International Law, 2020, vol. 31, iss. 1. 
10. Klabbers J. Distribution of Responsibilities in International Law. European Journal of International Law, 2016, vol. 27, iss. 2. 
11. Linklater A. The problem of harm in world politics: Theoretical investigations. Cambridge, 2011. 
12. Lucas J. R. Responsibility. Oxford, 1995. 
13. Miller D. National responsibility and global justice. Oxford, 2007. 
14. Naftali O. B. The obligation to prevent and to punish genocide. In: Gaeta P. (ed. ). The genocide convention: A commentary. Oxford, 2009. 
15. Nollkaemper A. Issues of Shared Responsibility before the International Court of Justice. In: Rieter E., Waele H. de (eds). Evolving Principles of International Law: Studies in Honour of Karel C. Wellens. Leiden, 2012. 
16. Petersmann E. U. International economic law, “public reason”, and multilevel governance of interdependent public goods. Journal of International Economic Law, 2011, vol. 14, iss. 1. 
17. Stern B. A plea for “reconstruction” of international responsibility based on the notion of legal injury. In: Ragazzi M. (ed. ). International responsibility today: Essays in memory of Oscar Schachter. Leiden; Boston, 2005. 
18. Thompson D. F. The moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands. American Political Science Review, 1980, vol. 74, iss. 4. 
19. Van Aaken A. Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Political Economy Analysis. In: Nollkaemper A., Jacobs D. (eds). Distribution of responsibilities in international law. Cambridge, 2015. 
20. Van de Poel I., Fahlquist J. N., Doorn N., Zwart S., Royakkers L. The problem of many hands: Climate change as an example. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2012, vol. 18, iss. 1. DOI: 10. 1007/s11948-011-9276-0. 
21. Abashidze A. K. Principles of international law: conceptual and substantive problems. Moscow Journal of International Law, 2017, iss. 4, pp. 19—30. (In Russ. ) 
22. Malysheva N. I., Pustynnikova T. I. The principle of justice in international law. Russian Yearbook of International Law. St. Petersburg, 2020. (In Russ. ) 
23. Romashev Yu. S. General Principles of Law in the System of International Law. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2021, no. 3, pp. 148—174. (In Russ. )

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate