Примеры использования International criminal responsibility на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The international criminal responsibility of individuals did not provide any foundation for"crimes of States.
Include in article 42(and not merely in article 58)an express reference to the provisions on international criminal responsibility under the Rome Statute. Spain.
Relationships between the international criminal responsibility of States and certain cognate concepts.
This is not an exhaustive list of acts thatthe Commission condemned and brought into the ambit of international crimes the commission of which invokes international criminal responsibility.
Since the international criminal responsibility of individuals was involved, the Swiss Government believed that that question should be answered in the affirmative.
The Second Protocol to the Hague Convention(from 1999),which introduces international criminal responsibility of persons who destroy, or order destruction of protected cultural property;
The international criminal responsibility of States was clearly one of those cases where the transposition of domestic law concepts into the international field required careful reflection.
Given that the objective of the draft statute is precisely to establish the international criminal responsibility of individuals, in the Swiss Government's view, there can be no reason whatsoever to deny them this option.
Consequently, the commission of any of the statutory crimes without necessarily threatening the establishment andimplementation of the peace process would not detract from the international criminal responsibility otherwise entailed for the accused.
Under the Convention, international criminal responsibility for such conduct attaches not to States, but to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State.
Also relevant is the fact that certain acts committed by individuals can attract international criminal responsibility regardless of whether the individual acts on behalf of a State or not.
See Rosenstock,“An International Criminal Responsibility of States?”, in International Law on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1997, pp. 265, 270:“[Article 19] is as clear a statement of a primary rule as one can imagine”.
The national court proceedings were not impartial or independent,were designed to shield the accused from international criminal responsibility, or the case was not diligently prosecuted.
However, in certain cases the international criminal responsibility of some individuals may arise, for instance when they have been instrumental to the serious breach of an obligation under a peremptory norm in the circumstances envisaged in article 41.
The proceedings in the other court were not impartial or independent orwere designed to shield the accused from international criminal responsibility or the case was not diligently prosecuted.
Such initiatives contribute to translating international criminal responsibility standards into guidelines for companies on how to conduct their business in order to avoid responsibility for violations and abuses, for example through due diligence.
Thus, the fact that the conduct of an individual isattributed to an international organization or a State does not exempt that individual from the international criminal responsibility that he or she may incur for his or her conduct.
International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they.
However, noted that a possible solution would be to provide for the court to try a person already tried in another court,only if the proceedings in the other court manifestly intended to shield the accused from his/her international criminal responsibility.
What these offences should be has been the subject of considerable controversy among States,showing that even on matters in respect of which the international criminal responsibility of individuals is widely accepted, there can be substantial disagreement on the content and scope of this responsibility. .
It had once been generally accepted that neither common article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol II thereto could trigger the exercise of a universal jurisdiction andthat those provisions did not constitute a sufficient basis for international criminal responsibility.
Consequently, the international criminal responsibility of individuals derived from the responsibility of the State, and there could not be a situation in which individual criminal responsibility on the part of the organizers of aggression would be recognized without recognizing at the same time the responsibility of the State.
With the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and, now, the ICC, individuals andmembers of a group can attract international criminal responsibility regardless of whether they are acting as official government agents or not.
In addition to the international criminal responsibility of perpetrators, persons that knowingly supply arms used to commit atrocities can be prosecuted in national and international tribunals under the general principle of complicity in the commission of a crime.
This Convention classifies as a crime policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination which are similar to apartheid(arts. I and II). Both individuals andrepresentatives of the State who are responsible for the commission of these crimes bear international criminal responsibility art. III.
On the other hand,now that“the international legal order tends to draw a clear distinction between the international responsibility of the State and the international criminal responsibility of individuals, it does not seem advisable to apply to the former a terminology appropriate to the latter”.
Targeted shooting of individuals by the IDF or by settlers or by sharpshooters of either side amounts to extrajudicial execution, which is a gross violation of the right to life, constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law andwould attract international criminal responsibility.
It was also pointed out that the fact that an individual bore international criminal responsibility for certain acts did not signify the absence, or dissolution, of the responsibility of the State for those same acts; such responsibilities overlapped but each one had a separate existence.
The establishment of the ad hoc Tribunals had demonstrated that the international community could no longer tolerate flagrant violations of international law andwas prepared to establish the international criminal responsibility of individuals for crimes under international law.