Law Commons^™

International Abductions, Low Intensity Conflicts, And State Sovereignty: A Moral Inquiry, Fernando R. Tesón

Scholarly Publications

What are the moral principles bearing on operations such as an international abduction? International abductions are part of a larger category of international acts referred to as "low-intensity" operations. Can these acts be morally justified in time of peace? Can one nation, for example, rightfully claim that abductions of persons who are suspected of horrendous crimes by agents of another country violate the first country's sovereignty? Does the interest of the other country in bringing such persons to trial outweigh that sovereignty claim? If not, what interest of the second country could possibly justify the abduction? In any case, are …

Subsidiarity And Competition: Decentralized Enforcement Of Eu Competition Laws, Roger P. Alford

Journal Articles

The purpose of this article is to examine how the European Union has applied, and potentially will apply, the principle of subsidiarity in the enforcement of EU competition laws. This article thus focuses on how the Union envisages national court participation in the application and enforcement of EU competition laws rather than how, in practice, Member State courts have exercised their concurrent jurisdiction in enforcing Articles 85 and 86. Part One provides a brief introduction to EU competition law enforcement and examines two recent decisions by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance clarifying the relationship between …

Obstacles To The Creation Of A Permanent War Crimes Tribunal, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

Individual liability for war crimes is difficult to enforce and is unlikely to be accepted uniformly by states.

Individual criminal responsibility is the cornerstone of any international war crimes tribunal. Nuremberg Principle I provides that “[a]ny person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.” Acts by heads of state or other government officials, even if committed in an official capacity, may not constitute an immunity defense to or mitigate criminality. These officials, therefore, could also be held responsible for offenses committed pursuant to their orders. Additionally, liability for criminal …