International Law Final Review

International Law - Traditionallawvs.ModernLaw TraditionalLaw immutability; Piracy: ModernLaw NoWARtoso

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
International Law Final Review Traditional law vs. Modern Law Traditional Law Modern Law - Use of war to occupy territory - War to conduct diplomacy - Individual responsibility did not exists;  immutability ; state for individual commitment - Piracy: individuals not states were liable - No WAR to solve int’l dispute (UN) - Individual responsibility -More rules - Aggravated resp: gross and massive violation of  fundamental int’l law - Ordinary resp: violation of ordinary rules  - Int’l Law Committee (ILC)       * Primary rules: set down duties, obligations,  and rights for state       * Secondary rules: establishes (a) WHEN  there is a violation of Primary rules (rights of  victim) and (b) WHAT is the consequences of  these violations (consequences of delinquent) Ordinary Responsibility Violate spreaded actions; sporadic  - To know if there has been a BREACH of int’l law, something wrong must be committed and it needs 2  different conditions, subjective and objective.   * Subjective elements 1. The immutability to a state of an act committed by a state official or an individual • Immediate; acting in official capacity; we don’t know if it has happened 2. The fault of state official or individual performing that act • Fault is not a necessary element to talk about the violation of int’l law * Objective elements : 1. Inconsistency of int’l obligation 2. Material/ Mortal damage • Never a constitute element of int’l breach • Don’t really need a damage as an objective element • Material: seriously injure/damage in economic and patrimonial interest of a state  (es. Damage to an airport)   • Mortal: breach of states honor / dignity - Some jurists believe the damage is a necessary element to talk about violation - Most jurists believe that the breach already constitutes a damage 3. Absence of any circumstances precluding wrongfulness •Circumstances that once occurring, wrongdoer eliminates state responsibility;  State reforming violation is not considered responsibility at all
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
• Circumstances precluding wrongfulness (a) Content of the victim (b) Compliance with Jus Cogens Norms (c) Self defense (d) Counter-majors in respect to an int’l wrong (in response to a previous violation;  breaking a law in response to a law that was already broken) (e) Force majeure (unforeseen event that render the effect of int’l duty Impossible; it state  has not contribute to this) (f) Distress: the author of an activity had no other reasonable way of saving the author’s  life and the one of other people (my life was in danger (g) State of necessity: act is performed to safeguard an essential interest against a great 
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2010 for the course LEGGE ? taught by Professor ? during the Spring '09 term at Università degli Studi di Firenze.

Page1 / 13

International Law - Traditionallawvs.ModernLaw TraditionalLaw immutability; Piracy: ModernLaw NoWARtoso

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online