The procedural rules of international courts are key to the ability of such courts to adjudicate questions of shared responsibility. These procedural rules, as well as the practice of international courts, vary widely and have not yet been subject of … Read more
The concept of shared responsibility seeks to capture the situation where a multiplicity of actors contribute towards a single harmful outcome. This paper examines the procedural aspects of shared responsibility as they appear in the United Nations Convention on the … Read more
International arbitration is a particularly suitable dispute resolution mechanism for addressing shared responsibility issues, due to its flexible procedural rules allowing for a multitude of parties, including States and non-State actors. This paper analyses six procedural rule-sets (UNCITRAL, PCA, ICSID, … Read more
This article explores how the European Court of Human Rights handles human rights complaints that involve multiple responsible entities and how its procedural organisation influences its capability to allocate responsibility amongst different entities. It identifies to what extent relevant procedural … Read more
An international actor is responsible under international law when an act attributable to it causes a breach of an obligation by which it is bound. Sometimes third party actors can share elements of that responsibility. At the one end of … Read more
In recent years, the International Court of Justice has been increasingly asked to adjudicate upon claims of State responsibility that raise or at least touch upon the possibility of international responsibility of multiple entities. In different substantive contexts, these cases … Read more
21 November 2012
On 9 November 2012, the European Court of Human Rights rendered its judgment in Alisic and others v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a high profile case concerning lost savings of citizens in former Yugoslavia. The savings were frozen when the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s also resulted in the splitting up of two former state banks, raising complex issues of liability. (more…)
14 April 2013
The Journal of International Dispute Settlement has published a collection of papers on Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in International Adjudication that was written in the context of the SHARES project online here. The collection of papers is published in: 4(2) Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2013) and contains contributions written by:
André Nollkaemper (Introduction: Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in International Adjudication); Martins Paparinskis (Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in the International Court of Justice); Lorand Bartels (Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in the WTO Dispute Settlement System); Freya Baetens (Procedural Issues Relating to Shared Responsibility in Arbitral Proceedings); Maarten Den Heijer (Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in the European Court of Human Rights); and Ilias Plakokefalos (Shared Responsibility Aspects of the Dispute Settlement Procedures in the Law of the Sea Convention).
Source : Journal of international Dispute Settlement | Advance Access articles
7 January 2013
On 14 December, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) ruled that the Dutch Sanction regulation, that was intended to give effect to UN Security Council Resolution 1737, violated the prohibition of discrimination under Article 26 ICCPR.
Resolution 1737 imposed sanctions on Iran in connection with the Iranian nuclear programme. Implementing the Resolution, the Netherlands blocked access of Iranian nationals to specialised education that could contribute to nuclear activities/developing nuclear weapons. The Supreme Court found that the State did not do everything it could to harmonise the obligations it has under international law. The Court referred in this context to the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Nada v. Switzerland (12 September 2012, application no. 10593/08).
Source: Hoge Raad | Judgment, 14 December 2012 | LJN: BX8351 | 11/03521 (in Dutch)
Source: Sanctieregeling tegen Iraniërs maakt onnodig onderscheid (Press Release in Dutch)
17 December 2012
On 13 December, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously decided in the case of El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, that Macedonia was responsible for different human rights violations committed in relation to Mr. El-Masri’s capture in Macedonia, and subsequent transfer to CIA detention facilities in Afghanistan.
The Court found that Macedonia had violated Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Source: The Guardian | European court of human rights finds against CIA abuse of Khaled el-Masri
Source: Grand Chamber judgment El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | 13.12.2012 | Press Release
Source: Council of Europe | Human Rights Europe | Khaled El-Masri: Macedonian government responsible for torture, ill-treatment and secret rendition
8 November 2012
On 31 October 2012, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UK) rendered a decision in Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another (Appellants) v Yunus Rahmatullah (Respondent), Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another (Respondents) v Yunus Rahmatullah (Appellant). The case concerns the obligations of the UK vis-à-vis Yunus Rahmatullah, who had been handed over by the UK to the United States (US) and who arguably was treated by the US in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, that had granted the writ of habeas corpus, was upheld by the Supreme Court. The decision by the Court of Appeal was commented on at: http://www.sharesproject.nl/obligations-of-the-uk-in-respect-of-a-pakistani-national-detained-by-the-us-in-afghanistan/.
Source: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another (Appellants) v Yunus Rahmatullah (Respondent), Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another (Respondents) v Yunus Rahmatullah (Appellant), Appeal Judgment, UK Supreme Court, 31 October 2012,  UKSC 48