State Succession to International Responsibility: Second Edition: Theory and Practice of Public International Law, cartea 9
Autor Patrick Dumberryen Limba Engleză Hardback – 5 sep 2024
Preț: 924.50 lei
Preț vechi: 1127.44 lei
-18% Nou
Puncte Express: 1387
Preț estimativ în valută:
176.93€ • 184.32$ • 147.11£
176.93€ • 184.32$ • 147.11£
Carte disponibilă
Livrare economică 17-28 ianuarie 25
Livrare express 04-10 ianuarie 25 pentru 358.52 lei
Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76
Specificații
ISBN-13: 9789004703803
ISBN-10: 9004703802
Pagini: 532
Dimensiuni: 150 x 235 mm
Greutate: 0.9 kg
Ediția:Nouă
Editura: Brill
Colecția Brill | Nijhoff
Seria Theory and Practice of Public International Law
ISBN-10: 9004703802
Pagini: 532
Dimensiuni: 150 x 235 mm
Greutate: 0.9 kg
Ediția:Nouă
Editura: Brill
Colecția Brill | Nijhoff
Seria Theory and Practice of Public International Law
Notă biografică
Patrick Dumberry, Ph.D., Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland, is Professor at the University of Ottawa (Law Faculty, Civil Law Section). He is the author of more than 90 publications in the fields of international investment law and international law, including nine books.
Cuprins
Foreword to the First Edition (2007)
Acknowledgments to the Second Edition
Abbreviations
Part 1
General Introduction
General Introduction of Part 1
1 The Issue Addressed in This Study
2 The Objective of This Study
3 Relevance of This Study When I Wrote the First Edition of This Book
3.1The Question Had Never Been Addressed by the ilc or by Any International Law Scientific Institution
3.2The Doctrinal Analysis Was Very Limited and Generally Unsatisfactory
4 Scope of This Study
4.1Meaning of State Succession
4.2Classification of the Different Types of Succession of States
4.3Fundamental Principles of State Responsibility in International Law
4.4The Term “Internationally Wrongful Act” Should Be Used Instead of “Tort”
4.5This Study Does Not Deal with the Regime of State Responsibility for Breaches of Rules of State Succession
4.6This Study Does Not Deal with the Issues of “Odious Debts” and “War Damage” between the Predecessor State and the Successor State
4.7This Study Does Not Deal with Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by the Predecessor State against Its Own Nationals/Corporations
4.8This Study Does Not Deal with Wrongs Committed by Non-state Actors
Part 2
Succession of States to the Obligation to Repair
General Introduction of Part 2
1Analysis of Scholarship
1 Introduction
2 The Doctrine of Non-succession
2.1General Overview of the Doctrine
2.2The Arguments Invoked in Support of the Doctrine
3 Challenges and Criticisms of the Doctrine of Non-succession
2Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
1 Introductory Remarks on the Doctrinal Analysis of State Practice
2 Incorporation of State
2.1Older Examples of Annexation of States Support the Principle of Non-succession
2.2The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
2.3Modern State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
3 Unification of States
3.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
3.2State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
4 Dissolution of State
4.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
4.2Ancient State Practice Generally Supports the Principle of Non-succession
4.3Modern State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
5 Cession and Transfer of Territory
5.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
5.2The Continuing State Remains Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
5.3A Special Case: Acts Committed by Autonomous Entities
6 Separation
6.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
6.2The Continuing State Remains Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
6.3Examples Where the Principle of Succession Was Applied
7 Newly Independent States
7.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
7.2Examples Where the Continuing State Remained Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
7.3Examples where the Successor State Took Over the Obligations Arising from the Commission of Internationally Wrongful Acts
8 Conclusion to Chapter 2
3Analysis of Specific Issues
1 Introduction
2 The Predecessor State Recognises Its Liability for an Internationally Wrongful Act
3 A Judicial Body Finds the Predecessor State Responsible for an Internationally Wrongful Act
4 The Successor State Accepts to Take Over the Responsibility for an Internationally Wrongful Act
5 The Successor State Continues an Internationally Wrongful Act Committed by the Predecessor State
5.1Acts Committed by the Successor State after the Date of Succession
5.2Acts Committed by the Predecessor State before the Date of Succession
6 An Insurrectional Movement Commits an Internationally Wrongful Act during its Struggle to Establish a New State
7 An Autonomous Government Commits an Internationally Wrongful Act
7.1The Position Adopted by the Institute and the ilc
7.2The Application of This Principle to Different Types of Succession
8 The Use of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
8.1The Principle of Unjust Enrichment
8.2The Principle Has Been Mentioned by Courts Dealing with Issues of State Succession
8.3Analysis of Scholarship and the Position Adopted in This Study
8.4Application of the Principle to Different Types of Succession of States
9 The Use of the Principle of Equity to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
10 The Relevance of the Territorial Factor to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
10.1The Existence of a “Direct Link” between the Consequences of a Wrongful Act and a Territory
10.2Violation of Territorial Regime Obligations
11 The Relevance of Treaty Succession to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
12 Internationally Wrongful Acts Having a Special Character
12.1Commission of “Odious” Acts
12.2 Breach of jus cogens Norms
4General Conclusion to Part 2
Part 3
Succession of States to the Right to Reparation
General Introduction of Part 3
5The Commission of an Internationally Wrongful Act Directly Affecting the Predecessor State
1 Introduction
2 Analysis of Scholarship
2.1The Doctrine of Non-succession
2.2Challenges and Criticisms of the Doctrine of Non-succession
3 Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
3.1Unification and Incorporation of States
3.2Dissolution of State
3.3Separation
3.4Newly Independent States
4 Conclusion to Chapter 5
6The Commission of an Internationally Wrongful Act Affecting a National of the Predecessor State
1 Introduction
2 Analysis of Scholarship
2.1The Rule of Continuous Nationality in Diplomatic Protection
2.2The Application of the Rule of Continuous Nationality in the Context of State Succession
2.3The Parties Are Free to Exclude the Application of the Rule of Continuous Nationality
2.4The Rule of Continuous Nationality Is Not Appropriate in the Context of State Succession
2.5The Successor State Has a Right to Claim Reparation on Behalf of Its New Nationals for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
3 Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
3.1Cases Where Successor States Have Submitted Claims on Behalf of Their New Nationals
3.2State Practice Where Reparation Was Provided to the Successor State for Its New Nationals
3.3Cases Where the Rule of Continuous Nationality Was Applied
3.4The Specific Problem of Reparation Claims against the Former State of Nationality
4 Conclusion to Chapter 6
Part 4
General Conclusion
General Conclusion
1 The Foundations of the Doctrine of Non-succession Are Not as Solid as They Appear to Be
2 The Doctrine of Non-succession Remains supported by Many States
3 Succession to the Obligation to Repair Essentially Depends on the Type of Succession Involved and on Whether the Predecessor State Continues to Exist
4 State Succession to the Obligation to Repair Depends on the Different Factors and Circumstances Involved in Each Case
5 The Issue of State Succession to the Obligation to Repair should Ultimately be Resolved Based on the Application of Three Fundamental Equitable Principles
6 Solutions to Problems of State Succession to the Obligation to Repair Remain Largely Based on the Consent of the Successor State
7 The Successor State Has the Right to Claim Reparation for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by a Third State before the Date of Succession
8 The Tendency in Favour of Continuity of Rights and Obligations Is in Accordance with Modern State Practice in Other Fields of State Succession
Annexes 1 to 3
Index
Acknowledgments to the Second Edition
Abbreviations
Part 1
General Introduction
General Introduction of Part 1
1 The Issue Addressed in This Study
2 The Objective of This Study
3 Relevance of This Study When I Wrote the First Edition of This Book
3.1The Question Had Never Been Addressed by the ilc or by Any International Law Scientific Institution
3.2The Doctrinal Analysis Was Very Limited and Generally Unsatisfactory
4 Scope of This Study
4.1Meaning of State Succession
4.2Classification of the Different Types of Succession of States
4.3Fundamental Principles of State Responsibility in International Law
4.4The Term “Internationally Wrongful Act” Should Be Used Instead of “Tort”
4.5This Study Does Not Deal with the Regime of State Responsibility for Breaches of Rules of State Succession
4.6This Study Does Not Deal with the Issues of “Odious Debts” and “War Damage” between the Predecessor State and the Successor State
4.7This Study Does Not Deal with Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by the Predecessor State against Its Own Nationals/Corporations
4.8This Study Does Not Deal with Wrongs Committed by Non-state Actors
Part 2
Succession of States to the Obligation to Repair
General Introduction of Part 2
1Analysis of Scholarship
1 Introduction
2 The Doctrine of Non-succession
2.1General Overview of the Doctrine
2.2The Arguments Invoked in Support of the Doctrine
3 Challenges and Criticisms of the Doctrine of Non-succession
2Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
1 Introductory Remarks on the Doctrinal Analysis of State Practice
2 Incorporation of State
2.1Older Examples of Annexation of States Support the Principle of Non-succession
2.2The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
2.3Modern State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
3 Unification of States
3.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
3.2State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
4 Dissolution of State
4.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
4.2Ancient State Practice Generally Supports the Principle of Non-succession
4.3Modern State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
5 Cession and Transfer of Territory
5.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
5.2The Continuing State Remains Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
5.3A Special Case: Acts Committed by Autonomous Entities
6 Separation
6.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
6.2The Continuing State Remains Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
6.3Examples Where the Principle of Succession Was Applied
7 Newly Independent States
7.1The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the ilc
7.2Examples Where the Continuing State Remained Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
7.3Examples where the Successor State Took Over the Obligations Arising from the Commission of Internationally Wrongful Acts
8 Conclusion to Chapter 2
3Analysis of Specific Issues
1 Introduction
2 The Predecessor State Recognises Its Liability for an Internationally Wrongful Act
3 A Judicial Body Finds the Predecessor State Responsible for an Internationally Wrongful Act
4 The Successor State Accepts to Take Over the Responsibility for an Internationally Wrongful Act
5 The Successor State Continues an Internationally Wrongful Act Committed by the Predecessor State
5.1Acts Committed by the Successor State after the Date of Succession
5.2Acts Committed by the Predecessor State before the Date of Succession
6 An Insurrectional Movement Commits an Internationally Wrongful Act during its Struggle to Establish a New State
7 An Autonomous Government Commits an Internationally Wrongful Act
7.1The Position Adopted by the Institute and the ilc
7.2The Application of This Principle to Different Types of Succession
8 The Use of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
8.1The Principle of Unjust Enrichment
8.2The Principle Has Been Mentioned by Courts Dealing with Issues of State Succession
8.3Analysis of Scholarship and the Position Adopted in This Study
8.4Application of the Principle to Different Types of Succession of States
9 The Use of the Principle of Equity to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
10 The Relevance of the Territorial Factor to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
10.1The Existence of a “Direct Link” between the Consequences of a Wrongful Act and a Territory
10.2Violation of Territorial Regime Obligations
11 The Relevance of Treaty Succession to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
12 Internationally Wrongful Acts Having a Special Character
12.1Commission of “Odious” Acts
12.2 Breach of jus cogens Norms
4General Conclusion to Part 2
Part 3
Succession of States to the Right to Reparation
General Introduction of Part 3
5The Commission of an Internationally Wrongful Act Directly Affecting the Predecessor State
1 Introduction
2 Analysis of Scholarship
2.1The Doctrine of Non-succession
2.2Challenges and Criticisms of the Doctrine of Non-succession
3 Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
3.1Unification and Incorporation of States
3.2Dissolution of State
3.3Separation
3.4Newly Independent States
4 Conclusion to Chapter 5
6The Commission of an Internationally Wrongful Act Affecting a National of the Predecessor State
1 Introduction
2 Analysis of Scholarship
2.1The Rule of Continuous Nationality in Diplomatic Protection
2.2The Application of the Rule of Continuous Nationality in the Context of State Succession
2.3The Parties Are Free to Exclude the Application of the Rule of Continuous Nationality
2.4The Rule of Continuous Nationality Is Not Appropriate in the Context of State Succession
2.5The Successor State Has a Right to Claim Reparation on Behalf of Its New Nationals for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
3 Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
3.1Cases Where Successor States Have Submitted Claims on Behalf of Their New Nationals
3.2State Practice Where Reparation Was Provided to the Successor State for Its New Nationals
3.3Cases Where the Rule of Continuous Nationality Was Applied
3.4The Specific Problem of Reparation Claims against the Former State of Nationality
4 Conclusion to Chapter 6
Part 4
General Conclusion
General Conclusion
1 The Foundations of the Doctrine of Non-succession Are Not as Solid as They Appear to Be
2 The Doctrine of Non-succession Remains supported by Many States
3 Succession to the Obligation to Repair Essentially Depends on the Type of Succession Involved and on Whether the Predecessor State Continues to Exist
4 State Succession to the Obligation to Repair Depends on the Different Factors and Circumstances Involved in Each Case
5 The Issue of State Succession to the Obligation to Repair should Ultimately be Resolved Based on the Application of Three Fundamental Equitable Principles
6 Solutions to Problems of State Succession to the Obligation to Repair Remain Largely Based on the Consent of the Successor State
7 The Successor State Has the Right to Claim Reparation for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by a Third State before the Date of Succession
8 The Tendency in Favour of Continuity of Rights and Obligations Is in Accordance with Modern State Practice in Other Fields of State Succession
Annexes 1 to 3
Index