States have captured the imagination of international legal scholars, to the extent that for a variety of non-state actors (NSAs), statehood may appear to be the ultimate prize. This contribution sheds some light on how the epistemic community has come to venerate the state as the structural embodiment of politico-legal order, as ‘the hero’ in international law narratives and how, nevertheless, NSAs have been allowed to carve out a space for themselves. It is argued that in spite of NSAs’ gradual emancipation, to this very day, the presence of the state continues to loom large in discussions on international legal subjectivity.
相似文献That we consider the state-based system as best representing the individual is the product of a particular world view. A ‘naturalized myth’ renders inevitable the link between the physicality of the observable landscape and the state as a means of organizing a polity. This myth lingers on in international legal scholarship, although it has been debunked in other disciplines, notably in critical political geography. (Public) international lawyers can learn from their brethren in other disciplines and problematize the territorial state as a contingent political concept. Awareness of the social production of space may allow lawyers to imagine practices of resistance to the spatial status quo, in particular rights of non-state actors in the production of international law, alongside states, and obligations and responsibilities of non-state actors, especially where states have proved unable to properly assume roles of protection vis-à-vis individuals under their formal jurisdiction.
相似文献This article provides a critical reading of the judgments of The Hague District Court and especially The Hague Court of Appeal in the case of Mothers of Srebrenica v. the State of the Netherlands, which concerned the liability in tort of the Dutch State for facilitating the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in 1995. It engages with the courts’ considerations regarding the attribution of conduct to the State in UN peacekeeping operations, the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties, the State obligation to prevent genocide, and the State’s liability for damages. While not fully agreeing with the courts’ argumentation, the author concludes that the judgments contribute to the refinement of the law and practice of State responsibility in respect of wrongful acts committed in complex multinational peace operations.
相似文献