The International Responsibility of States for Planetary Defence Activities

2021 ◽  
pp. 338-353
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Davanlou ◽  
Dr. Abbas Poorhashemi ◽  
Ali Zare ◽  
Mohsen Abdollahi

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-335
Author(s):  
Lawrence Li

Human space activities have grown rapidly in recent decades, but the international legal framework, comprising of the five space treaties, has largely remained unchanged since the 1980s. One of the consequences is that international responsibility and liability for space debris, which is a major hazard to space activities, have also remained uncertain for years. Nonetheless, States have responded to these problems by implementing national voluntary measures. More importantly, two major non-binding international instruments have been laid down by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee and the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, respectively. This article argues that, in light of recent States practice established under these international instruments, and a proper interpretation of the space treaties, it has been recognised by the international community that States are obliged to mitigate the generation of space debris, a failure of which will lead to international liability.


Politeia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Kotzé

This article argues that the international community is increasingly becoming involved in the domestic affairs of states and that this involvement can be described as part of international responsibility to promote peace and security. The role that an external party plays as a mediator in a transition or peace process is by definition a form of intervention. This article argues that this understanding of mediation should be broadened to include the responsibility to oversee the implementation (or enforcement) of the mediated agreement. The case of Madagascar (2009–2013) is used to investigate whether such enforcement is already accepted in practice and what some of the complications are. The article’s conclusions acknowledge that such a view of the mediator’s enforcement responsibility will be controversial, especially when mediation is used as a strategic instrument of power politics. In mediation, more attention is normally paid to its preparations and the negotiation process than to the implementation phase. Elections, as part of a transition process, create a critical tipping point for external enforcement, because after elections an external presence will be an unpopular idea for the national role players. Enforcement by actors who have sufficient power leverage is more viable than enforcement by mediators who have little power but a great deal of political or diplomatic authority (such as former presidents or senior diplomats). Implementation enforcement is more likely when it is motivated by interest-based considerations than by normative values. In conclusion, enforcement of agreement implementation is generally supported by the international community as a rhetorical exercise, but it is not yet embraced as a norm for international behaviour.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2020) ◽  
pp. 186-202
Author(s):  
Ion GÂLEA ◽  

The study examines possible defences that States could invoke in order to justify or excuse measures designed to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, which prima facie might not be in conformity with certain international obligations. The study examines only defences available in general international law – beside certain exceptions that might be provided by the clauses of the respective treaties. Two grounds for suspending international obligations, stemming from the law of treaties – impossibility of performance and rebus sic stantibus – and three circumstances precluding wrongfulness, stemming from the law of international responsibility – force majeure, distress and state of necessity – are subject to examination. The study argues that, even if “common sense” might draw the public opinion towards the plausibility of invoking force majeure, impossibility of performance or fundamental change of circumstances, such a conclusion does not reflect general international law. In reality, the “best candidate” as a justification or excuse is distress, while the “second best candidate” might be represented by the state of necessity.


Author(s):  
James Pattison

Abstract This article considers the implications of a post-liberal order for the international responsibility to protect. It focuses on two questions. First, what challenges will the international responsibility to protect face in a post-liberal order? Second, in light of these challenges, how would the requirements of the international responsibility to protect differ in the post-liberal order? In response to the first question, the article argues that in a post-liberal order the international responsibility to protect is likely to be subject to the “Influence Challenge,” whereby its ability to constrain and influence states decreases. In response to the second question, it argues that the requirements of the international responsibility to protect would be affected in several ways, including necessitating greater consideration of questions of prioritization and requiring a re-evaluation, and potential abandonment, of the currently predominant approach to the responsibility to protect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document