When UN peacekeeping forces engage in unauthorized actions the question of which entity, the UN or the troop contributing nation, can be held responsible arises. UN peacekeeping forces are generally not considered to be UN subsidiary organs, but organs of the state put at the disposal of the UN. Therefore, a conduct of the peacekeeping force is attributable to the UN if it exercises effective control over that conduct.  The presumptive view of the effective control test consists of a presumption and a rebuttal phase. The conduct of a UN peacekeeping force is presumed to be attributable to the UN. If national contingents follow instructions from their contributing state and therefore fall out of the effective control of the UN, the presumption is rebutted. The presumptive view may, however, lead to responsibility gaps by presuming attribution to the UN, which enjoys immunity in national courts leaving victims without effective remedies. Dual attribution creates a possibility of attributing one conduct not only to the UN but also to the troop contributing nation. By applying dual attribution on conduct of UN Peacekeeping Forces some responsibility gaps could be avoided. If this possibility will be used in the future to ensure victims effective remedies, is up to the courts to decide.

Summaries in Afrikaans and English / Text in Afrikaans / In hierdie ondersoek is daar navorsing gedoen oor die aard en rol van fisiese beheer in die sakereg met die oog daarop om dit te omskryf en die funksies daarvan te identifiseer. By die verkryging van eiendomsreg word net vereis dat die fisiese beheer wat ten aansien van die saak uitgeoefen word, effektief moet wees. Of 'n saak effektief beheer word al dan nie, word aan die hand van die heersende verkeersopvattings getoets. Hierdie verkeersmaatstawwe wat in die praktyk ten aansien van bepaalde soorte sake uitgekristalliseer het, is buigsaam en veranderlik en dit maak dit moontlik dat die reg by maatskaplike en ekonomiese veranderinge aanpas. Die funksie van fisiese beheer in gevalle van verkryging is altyd publisiteit. In die geval van die beskerming van eiendomsreg word fisiese beheer besonder breed omskryf en daar word slegs verwag dat die persoon van wie die saak teruggeeis word, genoegsame beheer daaroor moet he om dit te kan teruggee. Die funksie van beheer is hier suiwer funksioneel. By die verlies van eiendomsreg speel fisiese beheer nie juis 'n besondere rol nie aangesien die verlies van beheer nie noodwendig op die verlies of beeindiging van eiendomsreg dui nie. Wanneer dit wel ter sprake kom, is die funksie daarvan publisiteit. In die geval van die verkryging van besit en houerskap, dien daarop gelet te word dat die enigste vereiste is dat beheer effektief moet wees en dit word weer eens aan die hand van verkeersmaatstawwe bepaal. Fisiese beheer word strenger omskryf vir verkryging as vir behoud. By die beskerming van besit en houerskap is die enigste vereiste wat gestel word dat beheer vreedsaam en ongestoord moes gewees het. Wanneer beheer oor 'n saak verloor word, gaan dit gewoonlik gepaard met die verlies van besit of houerskap. Die funksie van fisiese beheer is deurgaans publisiteit. Fisiese beheer word redelik streng omskryf vir doeleindes van 'n gewone pand en daar word gewoonlik vereis dat die pandsaak gelewer en gehou moet word vir die vestiging en behoud van 'n pandreg. Die funksies van beheer is hier sekuriteit en publisiteit. / This study examines the nature and role of physical control in the law of property with a view to defining this concept and identifying its functions. The only requirement for the acquisition of ownership is the exercise of effective physical control of the thing in question. Whether or not a thing is physically under control, is determined by the application of legal indicators deriving from use and custom. Such indicators as have cristallised in practice in respect of certain classes of things, are flexible and variable and enable the law to adjust to social and economical changes. The function of physical control in cases of acquisition is always publicity. The definition of physical control in cases of protection of ownership is particularly wide, the only requirement being that the person from whom the thing is reclaimed must have sufficient physical control of it to enable him to return it. The function of control is purely functional. Since loss of control does not necessarily indicate the termination or loss of ownerhip, physical control has no significant part to play in respect of loss, of ownership. Where it does come into play, however, its function will be publicity. In cases of acquisition of possession and holdership it is essential that physical control of the thing is effective and once again this will be determined by application of legal indicators. The definition of physical control is much narrower in respect of acquisition than in respect of retention. The only requisite for the protection of possession and holdership is peaceful and undisturbed physical control. Loss of control of a thing is usually indicative of loss of possession or holdership. Throughout the function of control is publicity. Physical control is quite narrowly defined in cases of ordinary pledge insofar as delivery and retention of the pledge object are usually required for the establishment and continuation of the pledge. In this instance, physical control serves the functions of both publicity and security. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

Summaries in Afrikaans and English / Text in Afrikaans / In hierdie ondersoek is daar navorsing gedoen oor die aard en rol van fisiese beheer in die sakereg met die oog daarop om dit te omskryf en die funksies daarvan te identifiseer. By die verkryging van eiendomsreg word net vereis dat die fisiese beheer wat ten aansien van die saak uitgeoefen word, effektief moet wees. Of 'n saak effektief beheer word al dan nie, word aan die hand van die heersende verkeersopvattings getoets. Hierdie verkeersmaatstawwe wat in die praktyk ten aansien van bepaalde soorte sake uitgekristalliseer het, is buigsaam en veranderlik en dit maak dit moontlik dat die reg by maatskaplike en ekonomiese veranderinge aanpas. Die funksie van fisiese beheer in gevalle van verkryging is altyd publisiteit. In die geval van die beskerming van eiendomsreg word fisiese beheer besonder breed omskryf en daar word slegs verwag dat die persoon van wie die saak teruggeeis word, genoegsame beheer daaroor moet he om dit te kan teruggee. Die funksie van beheer is hier suiwer funksioneel. By die verlies van eiendomsreg speel fisiese beheer nie juis 'n besondere rol nie aangesien die verlies van beheer nie noodwendig op die verlies of beeindiging van eiendomsreg dui nie. Wanneer dit wel ter sprake kom, is die funksie daarvan publisiteit. In die geval van die verkryging van besit en houerskap, dien daarop gelet te word dat die enigste vereiste is dat beheer effektief moet wees en dit word weer eens aan die hand van verkeersmaatstawwe bepaal. Fisiese beheer word strenger omskryf vir verkryging as vir behoud. By die beskerming van besit en houerskap is die enigste vereiste wat gestel word dat beheer vreedsaam en ongestoord moes gewees het. Wanneer beheer oor 'n saak verloor word, gaan dit gewoonlik gepaard met die verlies van besit of houerskap. Die funksie van fisiese beheer is deurgaans publisiteit. Fisiese beheer word redelik streng omskryf vir doeleindes van 'n gewone pand en daar word gewoonlik vereis dat die pandsaak gelewer en gehou moet word vir die vestiging en behoud van 'n pandreg. Die funksies van beheer is hier sekuriteit en publisiteit. / This study examines the nature and role of physical control in the law of property with a view to defining this concept and identifying its functions. The only requirement for the acquisition of ownership is the exercise of effective physical control of the thing in question. Whether or not a thing is physically under control, is determined by the application of legal indicators deriving from use and custom. Such indicators as have cristallised in practice in respect of certain classes of things, are flexible and variable and enable the law to adjust to social and economical changes. The function of physical control in cases of acquisition is always publicity. The definition of physical control in cases of protection of ownership is particularly wide, the only requirement being that the person from whom the thing is reclaimed must have sufficient physical control of it to enable him to return it. The function of control is purely functional. Since loss of control does not necessarily indicate the termination or loss of ownerhip, physical control has no significant part to play in respect of loss, of ownership. Where it does come into play, however, its function will be publicity. In cases of acquisition of possession and holdership it is essential that physical control of the thing is effective and once again this will be determined by application of legal indicators. The definition of physical control is much narrower in respect of acquisition than in respect of retention. The only requisite for the protection of possession and holdership is peaceful and undisturbed physical control. Loss of control of a thing is usually indicative of loss of possession or holdership. Throughout the function of control is publicity. Physical control is quite narrowly defined in cases of ordinary pledge insofar as delivery and retention of the pledge object are usually required for the establishment and continuation of the pledge. In this instance, physical control serves the functions of both publicity and security. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

L’adoption définitive en 2001 du Projet d’articles sur la responsabilité des organisations internationales par la Commission du Droit International constitue incontestablement un pas important dans l’élaboration d’un régime général de responsabilité, applicable à des entités fondamentalement hétérogènes du fait de leur capacité fonctionnelle. À l’heure de l’externalisation du maintien de la paix, les principes d’attribution de la responsabilité sont plus que jamais sollicités pour répondre à des situations nouvelles et inédites. Dans ce contexte, la question se pose de savoir dans quelle mesure ils permettent de répondre aux attentes d’un domaine en constante évolution, et dans lequel les organisations internationales sont de plus en plus nombreuses à intervenir. Il sera alors possible de montrer qu’un certain nombre de solutions peuvent en être dégagées. Néanmoins, ces principes mériteraient d’être précisés à certains égards, afin de pouvoir répondre à l’ensemble des nouvelles problématiques relatives à l’attribution de responsabilité qui sont susceptibles de se poser dans le cadre d’un maintien de la paix externalisé. / The final adoption in 2001 of the Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations by the International Law Commission is indisputably a major step in the drafting of a general regime of responsibility, applicable to fundamentally heterogeneous entities owing to their functional capacity. In these times of peacekeeping externalization, the attribution of responsibility principles are more than ever called upon to provide an answer to new and unprecedented situations. In this framework, the question arises of whether these principles are able to give an answer to the expectations of an evolving area, in which the number of international organizations involved is increasing. It will then be possible to demonstrate that some solutions can be found. Nevertheless, these principles need to be clarified, in order to provide with a solution for all the new sets of problems that may arise regarding the attribution of responsibility, in an externalized peacekeeping framework.

The thesis answers the question "How does the change in effective control affect investment protection mechanisms in the Ukraine - Russia BIT against the temporal scope of when investment was made?". The essence of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, territorial and temporal scope of the Ukraine - Russia BIT were analyzed according to the rules of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Relevant case law, doctrine and available information on the awards in "Crimean cases" were also parts of the analysis. A conclusion was made that changes in effective control activate BIT protection for Ukrainian investors in Crimea against actions of Russian Federation. As a result, investment arbitral tribunals have jurisdiction in cases where investment has not been initially made in the territory of the host state. The date of Russian Federation consent to arbitrate with Ukrainian investors in Crimea is the date of actual change in effective control.

While there are many examples to turn to regarding the thriving phenomenon of private persons being exploited to launch cyber attacks on behalf of states, this thesis will direct it’s attention onto two special cases. Russia has been accused of being the state actor behind the cyber attacks on Estonia in 2007 and Georgia in 2008. The cases are chosen as Estonia have been recognised as the first coordinated cyber attack on a foreign country, and Georgia being the first case were cyber attacks have been utilised in synchronisation with military action. The purpose of the thesis is to analyse the facts of each case in relation to the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (DARSIWA). The analysis will work through article 4, article 5, article 8 and article 11. The main question is how Russia may be hold as legally responsible under international law for the private conduct of ’patriotic’ hackers, the Nashi Youth Group and the Russian Business Network. The thesis concludes that while the circumstances of each case highly indicate state-involvement, this cannot be proven under the respective criterias of the articles and Russia does therefore not bear legal responsibility.