追求崇高目标:国际法院、普遍义务和禁止种族灭绝

René Figueredo Corrales
{"title":"追求崇高目标:国际法院、普遍义务和禁止种族灭绝","authors":"René Figueredo Corrales","doi":"10.1163/15718034-bja10088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe ICJ has asserted that the prohibition of genocide generates both obligations erga omnes and obligations erga omnes partes. While it has recently referred to the question of standing and the erga omnes partes character of the obligations under the Genocide Convention in The Gambia v. Myanmar case, the Court has not yet addressed this question from the perspective of the prohibition of genocide as an obligation erga omnes in a broader context. Hence, the purpose of this article is to examine whether the erga omnes character of the prohibition of genocide under general international law confers upon States a right of standing to invoke State responsibility before the Court, provided that certain conditions are met. Three instances are envisaged through which this could be possible, but for the time being, The Gambia v. Myanmar case remains the most representative one in this matter.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the Pursuit of High Purposes: The International Court of Justice, Obligations Erga Omnes and the Prohibition of Genocide\",\"authors\":\"René Figueredo Corrales\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-bja10088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe ICJ has asserted that the prohibition of genocide generates both obligations erga omnes and obligations erga omnes partes. While it has recently referred to the question of standing and the erga omnes partes character of the obligations under the Genocide Convention in The Gambia v. Myanmar case, the Court has not yet addressed this question from the perspective of the prohibition of genocide as an obligation erga omnes in a broader context. Hence, the purpose of this article is to examine whether the erga omnes character of the prohibition of genocide under general international law confers upon States a right of standing to invoke State responsibility before the Court, provided that certain conditions are met. Three instances are envisaged through which this could be possible, but for the time being, The Gambia v. Myanmar case remains the most representative one in this matter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际法院断言,禁止种族灭绝既产生普遍义务,也产生各方普遍义务。虽然法院最近在冈比亚诉缅甸案中提到了《灭绝种族罪公约》规定的义务的地位问题和普遍当事方的性质,但法院尚未从禁止灭绝种族罪作为一项更广泛范围内普遍义务的角度来处理这个问题。因此,本条的目的是审查根据一般国际法禁止种族灭绝的普遍性质是否赋予各国在符合某些条件的情况下在法院援引国家责任的权利。设想有三种情况可以实现这一点,但就目前而言,冈比亚诉缅甸案仍然是这个问题上最具代表性的一个。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In the Pursuit of High Purposes: The International Court of Justice, Obligations Erga Omnes and the Prohibition of Genocide
The ICJ has asserted that the prohibition of genocide generates both obligations erga omnes and obligations erga omnes partes. While it has recently referred to the question of standing and the erga omnes partes character of the obligations under the Genocide Convention in The Gambia v. Myanmar case, the Court has not yet addressed this question from the perspective of the prohibition of genocide as an obligation erga omnes in a broader context. Hence, the purpose of this article is to examine whether the erga omnes character of the prohibition of genocide under general international law confers upon States a right of standing to invoke State responsibility before the Court, provided that certain conditions are met. Three instances are envisaged through which this could be possible, but for the time being, The Gambia v. Myanmar case remains the most representative one in this matter.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.
期刊最新文献
Situating “Deformalization” within the International Court of Justice: Understanding Institutionalised Informality The World Is Burning, Urgently and Irreparably – a Plea for Interim Protection against Climatic Change at the ICJ “Cross Treaty Interpretation” en bloc or How CAFTA-DR Tribunals Are Systematically Interpreting the FET Standard Based on NAFTA Case Law The Asian Turn in Foreign Investment, edited by Mahdev Mohan and Chester Brown Not Just a Participation Trophy? Advancing Public Interests through Advisory Opinions at the International Court of Justice
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1