Tag Archives: Joint Responsibility

13 June 2012

‘Joint Responsibility in International Law: Revisiting the Oil Platforms Case’, A Comment on Bruno Simma’s SHARES Lecture

While the ICJ’s practice of individual opinions has been criticized in the past for sending signs of divided of authority, it is generally acknowledged that these opinions offer Judges a forum to voice views that could not be accommodated in the Court’s decision for different reasons. As such, many individual opinions have made invaluable contributions to the Court’s jurisprudence, especially when expressing a more progressive stance towards the state of the law in question. A particularly illustrative example in this regard is Judge Simma’s separate opinion (pdf) in the Oil Platforms case, which he revisited in a SHARES Lecture on 24 May 2012 at the University of Amsterdam. (more…)

17 January 2012

Iceland minister calls for joint responsibility of coastal States for ensuring sustainable fishery

In a column on www.europolitics.info, the Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture of Iceland Steingrímur J. Sigfússon called for cooperative efforts of Iceland, the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands regarding the upcoming negotiations of an agreement on the regulation of mackerel fisheries in the North-East Atlantic. Sigfússon insisted that the ‘coastal states carry a joint responsibility for preventing further overfishing from the mackerel stock and ensuring sustainable fishery’ and ‘they must all contribute to reaching an agreement.

Source: http://www.europolitics.info

1 June 2011

What Responsibility for States Participating to a Lesser Extent to the NATO Operation in Libya?

As usually for international military operations led by an international organization, States participating in the NATO-led Operation Unified Protector placed their military contingents under the operational command of NATO.  However the Rules of Engagement – which define the conditions under which members of a national contingent can engage force – may differ amongst participating States.

The Netherlands, for instance, decided to send planes to Libya but limited their mission to providing support in enforcing the UNSC Resolution, while forbidding them to participate in ground bombings.  In military terms, the Dutch forces can provide surveillance, intelligence or air-to-air refuelling, but they do not engage in air-to-ground missions. This limited engagement probably stems from a will of limiting the Dutch responsibility in case of a wrongful act of the coalition. However, one can wonder to what extent the Netherlands could be held liable for the injuries resulting of wrongful acts of the Operation Unified Protector. (more…)

22 March 2011

The first days of the implementation of Resolution 1973: an unclear coalition and unclear responsibilities

In international military operations, the determination of international responsibilities for the wrongful acts committed during operations depends on cooperation settings, and notably on arrangements regarding command and control over the troops. Regarding those terms, the operation undertaken in implementation of UNSC Resolution 1973 is conspicuously unclear. (more…)