zločin genocida u pravu o odgovornosti / the crime of genocide in law of responsibility

E. Omerović
{"title":"zločin genocida u pravu o odgovornosti / the crime of genocide in law of responsibility","authors":"E. Omerović","doi":"10.48052/19865244.2023.2.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper deals with the issue of the responsibility of the main subjects of international law for grave breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law in relation to the commission of the crime of genocide. The focus of this paper is in certain aspects of the relationship between individual criminal responsibility and the international responsibility of States and international organizations, which should be interpreted as two separate systems of responsibility in international law. Each system has its own special fundaments, features and characteristics. Consequently, the starting point is that the responsibility of States for genocide does not depend on the responsibility of individuals for the crime, although the International Court of Justice has made extensive use of the conclusions of the chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Judgment from 2007). The paper therefore analyzes the question of the existence of a theoretical legal possibility for the so-called indirectly proving the responsibility of States (and international organizations) for genocide through a prior examination of the criminal responsibility of leaders, but also through proving a joint criminal enterprise for the purposes of committing the crime, or do these conceptions represent a starting point for the responsibility of the main subjects of international law or they are simply \"proof\" of the attribution of the act to a State? In this paper, we examine whether a joint criminal enterprise could be a reflection of a State plan and/or policy for committing the crime of genocide and how a collective plan or policy for committing that crime could be interpreted. After all, are they actually a dolus specialis of this crime, that is, whether a genocidal intent is manifested in a State precisely in a plan or policy?","PeriodicalId":143585,"journal":{"name":"Pregled: časopis za društvena pitanja / Periodical for social issues","volume":" 48","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ZLOČIN GENOCIDA U PRAVU O ODGOVORNOSTI / THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN LAW OF RESPONSIBILITY\",\"authors\":\"E. Omerović\",\"doi\":\"10.48052/19865244.2023.2.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper deals with the issue of the responsibility of the main subjects of international law for grave breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law in relation to the commission of the crime of genocide. The focus of this paper is in certain aspects of the relationship between individual criminal responsibility and the international responsibility of States and international organizations, which should be interpreted as two separate systems of responsibility in international law. Each system has its own special fundaments, features and characteristics. Consequently, the starting point is that the responsibility of States for genocide does not depend on the responsibility of individuals for the crime, although the International Court of Justice has made extensive use of the conclusions of the chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Judgment from 2007). The paper therefore analyzes the question of the existence of a theoretical legal possibility for the so-called indirectly proving the responsibility of States (and international organizations) for genocide through a prior examination of the criminal responsibility of leaders, but also through proving a joint criminal enterprise for the purposes of committing the crime, or do these conceptions represent a starting point for the responsibility of the main subjects of international law or they are simply \\\"proof\\\" of the attribution of the act to a State? In this paper, we examine whether a joint criminal enterprise could be a reflection of a State plan and/or policy for committing the crime of genocide and how a collective plan or policy for committing that crime could be interpreted. After all, are they actually a dolus specialis of this crime, that is, whether a genocidal intent is manifested in a State precisely in a plan or policy?\",\"PeriodicalId\":143585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pregled: časopis za društvena pitanja / Periodical for social issues\",\"volume\":\" 48\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pregled: časopis za društvena pitanja / Periodical for social issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48052/19865244.2023.2.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pregled: časopis za društvena pitanja / Periodical for social issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48052/19865244.2023.2.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该文件讨论了国际法主要主体对严重违反一般国际法有关犯下灭绝种族罪的必要准则所产生的义务的责任问题。本文的重点是个人刑事责任与国家和国际组织的国际责任之间关系的某些方面,这应被解释为国际法中两种独立的责任制度。每个系统都有自己特殊的基础、特点和特点。因此,出发点是国家对种族灭绝的责任并不取决于个人对该罪行的责任,尽管国际法院广泛利用了前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭各分庭的结论。(2007年判决书)因此,本文件分析了所谓通过事先审查领导人的刑事责任而间接证明国家(和国际组织)对种族灭绝负有责任的理论法律可能性的存在问题,同时也通过证明为实施该罪行的目的存在一个共同犯罪企业。或者这些概念是国际法主体责任的起点,还是仅仅是将行为归责于一个国家的“证据”?在本文中,我们研究了共同犯罪企业是否可以反映国家实施灭绝种族罪的计划和/或政策,以及如何解释实施该罪行的集体计划或政策。毕竟,它们实际上是这一罪行的特别犯吗?也就是说,一个国家的种族灭绝意图是否恰恰表现在一项计划或政策中?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ZLOČIN GENOCIDA U PRAVU O ODGOVORNOSTI / THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN LAW OF RESPONSIBILITY
The paper deals with the issue of the responsibility of the main subjects of international law for grave breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law in relation to the commission of the crime of genocide. The focus of this paper is in certain aspects of the relationship between individual criminal responsibility and the international responsibility of States and international organizations, which should be interpreted as two separate systems of responsibility in international law. Each system has its own special fundaments, features and characteristics. Consequently, the starting point is that the responsibility of States for genocide does not depend on the responsibility of individuals for the crime, although the International Court of Justice has made extensive use of the conclusions of the chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Judgment from 2007). The paper therefore analyzes the question of the existence of a theoretical legal possibility for the so-called indirectly proving the responsibility of States (and international organizations) for genocide through a prior examination of the criminal responsibility of leaders, but also through proving a joint criminal enterprise for the purposes of committing the crime, or do these conceptions represent a starting point for the responsibility of the main subjects of international law or they are simply "proof" of the attribution of the act to a State? In this paper, we examine whether a joint criminal enterprise could be a reflection of a State plan and/or policy for committing the crime of genocide and how a collective plan or policy for committing that crime could be interpreted. After all, are they actually a dolus specialis of this crime, that is, whether a genocidal intent is manifested in a State precisely in a plan or policy?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信