A special role amongst various efforts to combat transnational criminal activity belongs to extradition, which has transformed into a form of international cooperation and became an indispensable tool for ensuring criminal responsibility in any part of the world. However, for a long period of time, an individual in the process of extradition has been treated as a passive object of intergovernmental relations which have a significant political component. In this thesis, the claim is that treatment of an individual as a rights bearer and an active subject of legal relationships among other parties of the process, combined with transfer of final decision-making right from the executive to judiciary branch of power, is capable to enable application of the Rule of law principles to particular extradition cases, limit broad discretion of decision makers and minimize political component of extradition.

A special role amongst various efforts to combat transnational criminal activity belongs to extradition, which has transformed into a form of international cooperation and became an indispensable tool for ensuring criminal responsibility in any part of the world. However, for a long period of time, an individual in the process of extradition has been treated as a passive object of intergovernmental relations which have a significant political component. In this thesis, the claim is that treatment of an individual as a rights bearer and an active subject of legal relationships among other parties of the process, combined with transfer of final decision-making right from the executive to judiciary branch of power, is capable to enable application of the Rule of law principles to particular extradition cases, limit broad discretion of decision makers and minimize political component of extradition.

The Status of Non-governmental Organizations in International Law Abstract Non-governmental Organizations and particularly International Non-governmental Organizations are important players in international relations as well as other stakeholders like States, International Governmental Organizations and Supranational Corporations. Each of these actors has a unique role in international relations, but the role of these actors can overlap each other. Where the interests of these entities overlap, the interaction between actors takes the place. The aim of this thesis was the historical evaluation of the status of International Non- governmental Organizations till the present, settle up with the theoretical basis of legal doctrine on international legal subjectivity and the classification and division of International Non-governmental Organizations. Another objective of the thesis was the definition of individual actors of international relations and embracing of organizations "sui generis" and the most important non-governmental organizations from different sectors and (by using a uniform methodology) compare these organizations and theirs influence on the international public law. In the next part, the thesis pursued with the extraction of statistical data and their placement into the historical context,...

The Status of Non-governmental Organizations in International Law Abstract Non-governmental Organizations and particularly International Non-governmental Organizations are important players in international relations as well as other stakeholders like States, International Governmental Organizations and Multinational Corporations. Each of these actors has a unique role in international relations, with different impacts into the international law. This thesis has mapped international NGOs in detail, from the beginning of their origin to the present. NGOs were divided and classified according to several selected criteria and finally, the definition of NGOs was made. In the next part of the work, has been identified a group of non-governmental organizations sui generis. Although they are non-governmental organizations, enjoy international legal subjectivity. This thesis dealt with elements of the sociological method, so it dealt much more with the facts why the document was created in such a form and how it is actually fulfilled, rather than what is the content of the document itself and how it should be interpreted. With regard to the chosen method, causal cases are placed in historical contexts. The second part of the work dealt mainly with sports organizations, which were the initial impulse to write this...

This dissertation examines the idea of constitutionalisation of international law in light of concerns of fragmentation. It focuses on the dynamic of fragmentation in the international legal system. It shows that arguments about constitutionalism do not represent a remedy to the phenomenon of fragmentation. Consequently, the dissertation advances arguments of integrity of international law. Further, the dissertation examines new developments in constitutionalisation practices that support a normative, teleological approach to constitutionalisation in the international legal system. The dissertation offers insights on both the autonomy of the concept of international constitutionalism and the idea of fragmentation as a universally recognised characteristic of modern international law. It offers recommendations on how to address charges of fragmentation in international law in light of the dominant conception of modern international law.

This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

La personnalité juridique internationale se définit comme la capacité à être titulaire de droits et à se voir imposer des obligations. La théorie classique ne reconnaît la qualité de sujet du droit international qu’aux États et pardérivation aux organisations intergouvernementales. D’autres acteurs, privés, les organisa-tions non gouvernementales, les entreprises, les individus ou encore des groupes armés non étatiques sont aujourd’hui de plus en plus présents sur la scène internationale. Nombre d’instruments convention-nels ont ainsi été développés pour tenir compte de leurs spécificités. C’est essentiellement avec le déve-loppement du droit international pénal, institutionnalisé avec la création de juridictions pénales interna-tionales, que la capacité de certains de ces acteurs à être titulaires de droits et débiteurs d’obligations internationales s’est accrue. Si le statut international des individus, des ONG ou des entreprises soulève moins de difficultés, les contours de celui des organisations armées (au sens large) demeurent encore flous. Leurs activités militaires sont potentiellement génératrices de crimes internationaux; des crimes « belliqueux»d’une part (crimes de guerre, crimes d’agression), d’autres crimes d’autre part (génocides, crimes contre l’humanité). Si le droit des conflits armés reconnaît l’existence de droits et d’obligations à des acteurs privés, il convient de s’interroger sur la relation entre le droit international pénal et la reconnaissance de la personnalité juridique internationale à des organisations armées. La Cour pénale internationale étant à la croisée des différentes branches du droit international, sa possible contribution à une subjectivisation internationale des organisations armées questionne,tant du point de vue de leur rôle dans la commission des crimes, que de leur capacité à en répondre. / International legal personality is defined as the capacity to be a holder of rights and to have obligations imposed on it. Classical theory recognizes only to States as international law subjects and by derivation to intergovernmental organizations. Other private actors, such as non-governmental organizations, com-panies, individuals and non-state armed groups, are nowincreasingly present on the international scene. Many conventional instruments have beendeveloped to consider their specificities. It is mainly with the development of international criminal law, institutionalized with the creation of international criminal courts, that the capacity of some of these actors to be rights holders and duty bearers has increased. While the international statusof individuals, NGOs or companies raises fewer difficulties, the scope of the international status of armed organizations (broadly speaking) remains unclear. Their military activ-ities potentially generate international crimes; « belligerent»crimes on the one hand (war crimes, ag-gression crimes), othercrimes on the other hand (genocides, crimes against humanity). While the law of armed conflict recognizes the existence of rights and obligations of private actors, the link between international criminal law and the recognition of the international legalpersonality to armed organiza-tions must be examined. As the International Criminal Court is at the crossroads of the various fields of international law, its potential contribution to the international subjectification of armed organizations raises questions, both in terms of their role in the commission of crimes and theirability to respond to them.

La guerre de 33 jours qui s’est déroulée au Liban en juillet-août 2006 a donné lieu à une panoplie de questions sur la légitimité du recours à l’usage de la force dont a fait preuve Israël au nom de son droit à la légitime défense. La problématique découlait surtout du fait que l’attaque initiale ayant déclenché cette guerre, en date du 12 juillet 2006, avait été menée par le Hezbollah, un groupe armé dont le statut étatique ou non étatique demeure difficile à cerner. Cette étude propose d’analyser si le Liban doit être tenu responsable pour le comportement du Hezbollah. Un survol de l’histoire du Liban et de la création du Hezbollah illustrera que la relation existant entre ces deux acteurs est d’une rare complexité, faisant en sorte que le rôle du Hezbollah au Liban est contesté de toutes parts. Ce débat aura une incidence certaine sur la question à savoir si le comportement du Hezbollah est attribuable à l’État libanais. Une étude approfondie des règles internationales régissant l’acte « d’attribution », notion centrale au droit de la responsabilité internationale des États, démontrera que la détermination de la nature du lien existant entre un État et une entité dont le comportement est contesté est d’une importance fondamentale. Dans une ère où les acteurs non étatiques sont devenus omniprésents sur la scène internationale et dans le cas du Hezbollah au Liban – une milice armée opérant au sein d’un État particulièrement à souveraineté limitée – le concept de l’attribution lui-même deviendra peut-être obsolète. / The 33 days of war that took place in Lebanon in the months of July and August 2006 have given rise to a wide range of questions about the legality of Israel’s use of force on behalf of its so-called right to self-defence. The issue at stake is mostly the result of the fact that the attack which provoked the beginning of the hostilities, on 12 July 2006, was performed by Hezbollah, an armed group whose status as a State or non-State actor remains difficult to pinpoint. This study puts forward the analysis of whether Lebanon must be held accountable for Hezbollah’s actions. A review of the history of Lebanon and of Hezbollah’s creation illustrates that the relationship between these two actors is particularly complex and that Hezbollah’s status is still widely contested. This will directly influence the answer to the question of the attribution of Hezbollah’s actions to the Lebanese State. An in-depth study of the international principles regulating the act of « attribution », a pivotal concept in the international law on the responsibility of States, will reveal that discerning the nature of the link between a State and an entity whose actions are contested is extremely important. In today’s world, where non-State actors have a major role on the international scene, and in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon – an armed militia operating from within a State with limited sovereignty – the notion of attribution itself might lose much of its significance.

La guerre de 33 jours qui s’est déroulée au Liban en juillet-août 2006 a donné lieu à une panoplie de questions sur la légitimité du recours à l’usage de la force dont a fait preuve Israël au nom de son droit à la légitime défense. La problématique découlait surtout du fait que l’attaque initiale ayant déclenché cette guerre, en date du 12 juillet 2006, avait été menée par le Hezbollah, un groupe armé dont le statut étatique ou non étatique demeure difficile à cerner. Cette étude propose d’analyser si le Liban doit être tenu responsable pour le comportement du Hezbollah. Un survol de l’histoire du Liban et de la création du Hezbollah illustrera que la relation existant entre ces deux acteurs est d’une rare complexité, faisant en sorte que le rôle du Hezbollah au Liban est contesté de toutes parts. Ce débat aura une incidence certaine sur la question à savoir si le comportement du Hezbollah est attribuable à l’État libanais. Une étude approfondie des règles internationales régissant l’acte « d’attribution », notion centrale au droit de la responsabilité internationale des États, démontrera que la détermination de la nature du lien existant entre un État et une entité dont le comportement est contesté est d’une importance fondamentale. Dans une ère où les acteurs non étatiques sont devenus omniprésents sur la scène internationale et dans le cas du Hezbollah au Liban – une milice armée opérant au sein d’un État particulièrement à souveraineté limitée – le concept de l’attribution lui-même deviendra peut-être obsolète. / The 33 days of war that took place in Lebanon in the months of July and August 2006 have given rise to a wide range of questions about the legality of Israel’s use of force on behalf of its so-called right to self-defence. The issue at stake is mostly the result of the fact that the attack which provoked the beginning of the hostilities, on 12 July 2006, was performed by Hezbollah, an armed group whose status as a State or non-State actor remains difficult to pinpoint. This study puts forward the analysis of whether Lebanon must be held accountable for Hezbollah’s actions. A review of the history of Lebanon and of Hezbollah’s creation illustrates that the relationship between these two actors is particularly complex and that Hezbollah’s status is still widely contested. This will directly influence the answer to the question of the attribution of Hezbollah’s actions to the Lebanese State. An in-depth study of the international principles regulating the act of « attribution », a pivotal concept in the international law on the responsibility of States, will reveal that discerning the nature of the link between a State and an entity whose actions are contested is extremely important. In today’s world, where non-State actors have a major role on the international scene, and in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon – an armed militia operating from within a State with limited sovereignty – the notion of attribution itself might lose much of its significance.