Search

A great deal of international conduct escapes international legal regulation. This is because international law systematically only regulates relations between states. While other actors may have certain international obligations, these are not general in nature and are limited by the functional purpose of such actors. At the same time, the threshold for attribution of non-state conduct to states remains rather demanding. Non-state conduct that is not attributed to a state in most circumstances cannot constitute an internationally wrongful act. Although international legal doctrine has been reluctant to modify the general attribution test based on the ICJ’s Nicaragua judgment, state practice indicates that new attribution standards have been silently developed, at least where omissions are concerned. While actions are generally subjected to a high attribution bar, omissions have sometimes been subjected to the concept of strict liability. This leads to a clear imbalance and even lack of legal certainty. It is doctrinally unclear which, if any, international legal obligations even carry strict liability. At present, it seems that such a determination is political rather than legal in nature. This article thus demonstrates that the current attribution theory in international law is in need of systemic change. Otherwise, international law risks a situation where states will increasingly resort to political criteria to determine when conduct is attributable to a certain state.

A great deal of international conduct escapes international legal regulation. This is because international law systematically only regulates relations between states. While other actors may have certain international obligations, these are not general in nature and are limited by the functional purpose of such actors. At the same time, the threshold for attribution of non-state conduct to states remains rather demanding. Non-state conduct that is not attributed to a state in most circumstances cannot constitute an internationally wrongful act. Although international legal doctrine has been reluctant to modify the general attribution test based on the ICJ’s Nicaragua judgment, state practice indicates that new attribution standards have been silently developed, at least where omissions are concerned. While actions are generally subjected to a high attribution bar, omissions have sometimes been subjected to the concept of strict liability. This leads to a clear imbalance and even lack of legal certainty. It is doctrinally unclear which, if any, international legal obligations even carry strict liability. At present, it seems that such a determination is political rather than legal in nature. This article thus demonstrates that the current attribution theory in international law is in need of systemic change. Otherwise, international law risks a situation where states will increasingly resort to political criteria to determine when conduct is attributable to a certain state.

A great deal of international conduct escapes international legal regulation. This is because international law systematically only regulates relations between states. While other actors may have certain international obligations, these are not general in nature and are limited by the functional purpose of such actors. At the same time, the threshold for attribution of non-state conduct to states remains rather demanding. Non-state conduct that is not attributed to a state in most circumstances cannot constitute an internationally wrongful act. Although international legal doctrine has been reluctant to modify the general attribution test based on the ICJ’s Nicaragua judgment, state practice indicates that new attribution standards have been silently developed, at least where omissions are concerned. While actions are generally subjected to a high attribution bar, omissions have sometimes been subjected to the concept of strict liability. This leads to a clear imbalance and even lack of legal certainty. It is doctrinally unclear which, if any, international legal obligations even carry strict liability. At present, it seems that such a determination is political rather than legal in nature. This article thus demonstrates that the current attribution theory in international law is in need of systemic change. Otherwise, international law risks a situation where states will increasingly resort to political criteria to determine when conduct is attributable to a certain state.

Submitted by Ana Clara CCS/C (ccsc@uerj.br) on 2021-07-23T18:01:22Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação - Luis Canjongo Januário - 2020 - Total.pdf: 2042028 bytes, checksum: c7e74fe5dcd05d69e7f5baa5bc58b895 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2021-07-23T18:01:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação - Luis Canjongo Januário - 2020 - Total.pdf: 2042028 bytes, checksum: c7e74fe5dcd05d69e7f5baa5bc58b895 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020-03-24 Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - FAPERJ The present dissertation has as study subject the destruction and protection of the cultural patrimony in light of international law: An analyze of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi case. The record of the destruion of cultural heritage is, until today, the problem that the international community seeks to solve. The destruction of the common cultural patrimony of the humanity in Tombuctu is a loss for all of us, However, for a local population it also mean negation of their identity, their beliefs, their history and their dignity. It is undeniable the preoccupation with the cultural patrimony in times of armed conflict international or not, nevertheless, the protection of cultural patrimony from destroyers or extremist groups is a relevant defense effort and promotion of human rights. The first objective is to present the concepts of cultural patrimony, cultural assets and armed conflict as a purpose to clarify some difficulties in relation to the terms. Then, will be done a study the framework of international legal instruments in comparison of the cultural patrimony, with special attention of 1954 Haia conventions relative to protection of 1972 World cultural and natural heritage and the resolution nº 2347 of 2017 of the United Security Council. In the third moment, Cases of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia are analyzed wich had interference of the 1949 Geneva Convetion. In the fourth and last moment will be done a study of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, analyzing the perfomance of the International Criminal Court given the seriousness of the crime committed. In summary the judgment of Al Mahdi in the international Criminal Court still incomplete due to the non-deepening of the crime committed by the accused, motivated by the lack of recourse and limited jurisdiction. In this sense, is defended the necessity to have another system of protection for cultural heritage, which is more appropriate and effectively allows holding a State that is involved in financing these terrorist groups to account. A presente dissertação tem como objeto de estudo a destruição e proteção do patrimônio cultural à luz do direito internacional: uma análise do caso Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi. O registro de destruições de patrimônios culturais é, até hoje, um problema que a comunidade internacional procura solucionar. A destruição do patrimônio cultural comum da humanidade em Tombuctu é uma perda para todos nós, mas para a população local também significa a negação de sua identidade, suas crenças, sua história e sua dignidade. É inegável a preocupação com o patrimônio cultural em tempo de conflito armado quer internacional ou não, porém, a proteção do patrimônio cultural de destruidores ou grupos extremistas é um esforço relevante de defesa e promoção dos direitos humanos. Objetiva-se primeiro apresentar os conceitos de patrimônio cultural, bens culturais e conflito armado com intuito de clarificar algumas dificuldades em relação aos termos. Em seguida, estudar-se-á o quadro dos instrumentos jurídicos internacionais em relação ao patrimônio cultural, com especial atenção às Convenções da Haia de 1954 e a relativa à Proteção do Patrimônio Cultural e Natural do Mundo de 1972, e a Resolução n° 2347 de 2017 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas. No terceiro momento, analisam-se casos do Tribunal Penal Internacional para a antiga Iugoslávia que tiveram interferência da Convenção de Genebra de 1949. No quarto e último momento, estudar-se-á o caso Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, analisando a atuação do Tribunal Penal Internacional diante da gravidade do crime praticado. Em síntese, o julgamento de Al Mahdi no Tribunal Penal Internacional ainda é incompleto por conta do não aprofundamento do crime praticado pelo acusado, motivado pela falta de recurso e limitação de jurisdição. Neste sentido, defende-se a necessidade de se ter outro sistema de proteção para o patrimônio cultural, que seja mais adequado e permita de forma eficaz responsabilizar um Estado que esteja envolvido no financiamento destes grupos terroristas.