No description available.

Written for the Institute of Air and Space Law. Title from title page of PDF (viewed 2010/04/28). Includes bibliographical references.

Submitted by Rosina Valeria Lanzellotti Mattiussi Teixeira (rosina.teixeira@unisantos.br) on 2017-11-10T12:54:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciano Pereira de Souza.pdf: 2162167 bytes, checksum: 035697d20bc043f5d9b1cb45aa63617b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-10T12:54:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciano Pereira de Souza.pdf: 2162167 bytes, checksum: 035697d20bc043f5d9b1cb45aa63617b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-27 / In the view of the failure to meet the Global Objectives on Forests set forth by means of a soft law instrument approved within the United Nations, notably the failure to achieve zero deforestation in 2015, the scope of this research was to study the protection of forests under International Environmental Law, addressing as central problem the legally binding nature or not of the commitments related to the forest sector that were unilaterally established by the States in their contributions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions presented under the Paris Agreement, known as NDCs. The research adopts Norberto Bobbio's proposal that recognizes a promotional function of the Law, when it uses legal mechanisms of incentive as prize sanctions to reflect on the possibility that obligations of forest protection may acquire legally binding status, but in a form different from the traditional responsibility based on the imposition of punitive sanctions. Through this alternative pathway, the principle of good faith guiding international law of treatise, also the principle of international cooperation and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the equitable distribution of burdens and duties among states could be evoked for solving common problems of Mankind, such as the preservation and sustainable use of forests, by means of adoption of governance processes. Starting from the norm of customary International Law ruling that States have sovereignty over natural resources in their territories, including forests, but cannot make use of nor let these resources be used to the detriment of other states and of humanity itself, it is possible to establish legal expectations of State behavior in relation to forests based on soft law commitments assumed collectively or unilaterally by the States. Using bibliographical and documentary research, this study adopted a dialectical approach when inserting its object in a totality undergoing a process of transformation powered by permanent tensions.The first part of this research described an overviewed forest protection on the international global community, within and beyond international regimes, with greater attention to the climate change regime, demonstrating the existence of a global forest protection´s culture (opinio iuris et necessitatis), as well as an emerging repeated practice of conservation and sustainable use of forests. The second part of the research reflected on the concept of forests, based on the notion of geographic object found in Milton Santos and it was tried to provide a brief overview of the forest cover on the planet and especially of the Amazon Forest, over the last 25 years, revealing a scenario of permanent forest loss. The third part of the study sought to determine the legal status of forestry obligations, under ethical, scientific and legal basis, which included Human Rights and ius cogens, soft law and its obligations, international cooperation and sovereignty over natural resources, closing with the study of the NDCs as autonomous unilateral acts and their status as source of Law and obligations under International Law, seeking a response to whether the commitments, objectives and forest goals inserted in these unilateral acts under Paris Agreement are binding or not. / Diante do insucesso no cumprimento dos objetivos globais sobre florestas estabelecidos em instrumento de soft law aprovado pelas Nações Unidas, notadamente o fracasso no alcance da meta desmatamento zero em 2015, o objetivo deste trabalho foi estudar a proteção das florestas no âmbito do Direito Ambiental Internacional, tendo como problema central o caráter juridicamente vinculante ou não dos compromissos relacionados ao setor florestal que foram definidos unilateralmente pelos Estados em suas contribuições para reduzir emissões de gases de efeito estufa, apresentadas no âmbito do Acordo de Paris, conhecidas como NDCs. O trabalho adota como referencial a proposta de Norberto Bobbio que reconhece no direito uma função promocional quando utiliza mecanismos jurídicos de incentivo como sanções premiais para poder refletir sobre a possibilidade de que obrigações de proteção florestal adquiram caráter juridicamente vinculante, porém sob forma diversa da tradicional responsabilização baseada na imposição de sanções punitivas. Nessa via alternativa, evoca-se o princípio da boa-fé norteador do direito internacional pactício, o princípio da cooperação internacional e o princípio das responsabilidades comuns, porém diferenciadas na distribuição equitativa de ônus e deveres entre os Estados para a solução de problemas comuns da humanidade, como a preservação e o uso sustentável das florestas, por meio da adoção de processos de governança. Partindo da norma de direito geral internacional costumeiro de que os Estados tem soberania sobre os recursos naturais em seus territórios, inclusive as florestas, mas não podem fazer uso ou deixar que se faça uso desses recursos em prejuízo de outros Estados e da própria humanidade mostra-se possível estabelecer expectativas jurídicas de comportamento estatal em relação às florestas a partir de compromissos como soft law assumidos coletivamente ou unilateralmente pelos Estados. Utilizando pesquisa bibliográfica e documental o trabalho adotou abordagem dialética ao inserir seu objeto na totalidade em processo de transformação alimentado por tensões permanentes. Na primeira parte desse estudo foi desenvolvido trabalho descritivo sobre a proteção florestal na sociedade global no âmbito dos regimes internacionais e além deles, com maior atenção ao regime das mudanças climáticas, sendo demonstrada a existência de consciência global de proteção florestal (opinio iuris et necessitatis), bem como a prática reiterada de ações de conservação e uso sustentável das florestas. Na segunda parte do trabalho realizou-se reflexão sobre o conceito de florestas fincado na noção de objeto geográfico em Milton Santos e procurou-se estabelecer panorama global da cobertura florestal do planeta, em especial da Floresta Amazônica nos últimos 25 anos, sendo evidenciado cenário de crescente degradação. A última parte do trabalho procurou definir o estatuto jurídico das obrigações florestais, partindo de fundamentação ética, científica e jurídica, que incluiu direitos humanos e ius cogens, soft law normativo, cooperação internacional e soberania sobre recursos naturais, encerrando-se com o estudo das NDCs enquanto atos unilaterais autonormativos e seu status como fonte do direito e das obrigações no Direito Internacional, procurando-se resposta para indagação a respeito do caráter vinculante ou não que poderão assumir os compromissos florestais inseridos nesses atos unilaterais no âmbito do Acordo de Paris.

The dissertation provides a systematic analysis of global obligations relating to a decent standard of living. Global obligations represent a type of extraterritorial obligations, which does not presuppose any causal link between acts/omissions of global actors and individuals’ inability to enjoy their human rights. Global obligations are a key legal tool for empowering the most vulnerable individuals, promoting social justice, and reducing extreme poverty and inequality worldwide. Despite their importance, global obligations have not yet received adequate legal recognition, regulation, and realization. They are the least elucidated and the most unfulfilled type of extraterritorial obligations. Many scholars and practitioners highlight a major discrepancy between globalization and contemporary human rights law: socio-economic rights obligations are still often considered to be applicable only within states’ borders (if at all); obligations of intergovernmental organizations and non-state actors are frequently believed to be exhausted by negative duties to respect human rights; and contemporary mechanisms of the implementation of global obligations (for instance, obligations of development cooperation or international assistance) are insufficient, inefficient, and often violate human rights. In this context, the justification, conceptualization, and furtherance of global obligations is a task of paramount importance. The primary goals of the dissertation are, therefore: first, to justify global obligations as human rights obligations of multiple actors; second, to analyze their nature, status, types, content, scope, right-holders, and duty-bearers; and third, to examine contemporary mechanisms used for the realization of global obligations and suggest some measures for their improvement. The research is aimed at proposing a coherent and plausible framework for a reconstruction of human rights law regulating global obligations. The dissertation intends to uncover the interrelation between philosophical discourse, normative legal order, and legal practice. On the one hand, it demonstrates how contemporary theories of global justice can contribute to the justification, conceptualization, allocation, and implementation of global obligations. It translates philosophical ideas into the language of law and incorporates empirical findings in relation to global obligations. On the other hand, it explores whether human rights theory and practice are capable of, and essential to, solving the most pressing issues of global justice, extreme poverty and inequality alleviation. In particular, it shows that the existing international soft and hard law instruments, customary international law, and human rights practice also give an important framework for the legal acknowledgement, specification, and attribution of global obligations to various actors. The dissertation takes a form of three Articles. The first Article provides a legal-philosophical justification for and outlines a legal conception of global obligations of multiple actors relating to a decent standard of living. The second Article undertakes a legal analysis of global obligations for sustainable development. The third Article explores the legal theory and practice of global obligations to assist in the realization of socio-economic rights.

American policy toward the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China from 1949-1979 was geared primarily toward the accomplishment of one objective: to achieve a reorientation of Chinese Communist revolutionary foreign policy that would contribute to the establishment of a "tolerable state of order" in the international community based on the principles of respect for each nations' territorial integrity and political sovereignty. China's revolutionary approach to its foreign relations constituted a threat to this objective. During the 1960s and '70s, however, Beijing gradually began accepting views conducive to the achievement of the "tolerable state of order" that Washington hoped to create, thus contributing significantly to the relaxation of Sino-American tensions and the normalization of relations in 1979. From this basic thesis four subsidiary arguments emerge. First, the seven presidential administrations from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter pursued a common set of objectives toward which their respective China policies conformed, thus granting American China policy a degree of consistency that historians of Sino-American relations have not previously recognized. Second, the most significant dilemma American officials faced was striking an effective balance between containment (to punish aggression) and engagement (to emphasize the benefits of cooperation). Third, American policy toward the ROC throughout virtually the entire period in question remained a function of Washington's effort to reorient Beijing's foreign policy approach. Fourth, domestic American opinion was of secondary importance in determining the nature and implementation of American China policy.

Teilw. zugl.: @Cambridge, Univ., Diss., 2004. / Literaturverz. S. [593] - 613.

Univ., Diss.--Cambridge, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. [593] - 613.

LL.D. / Millions of human lives have been affected by gross human rights violations since 1945. Genocide and crimes against humanity have been perpetrated repeatedly against civilians despite the vow after the Holocaust that such atrocities would “never again” occur. The Holocaust acts were not criminalised as “genocide” in the London Charter, but as “persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds” under the broader international crime of “crimes against humanity”. “Genocide” was criminalised on 9 December 1948 by the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by the United Nations General Assembly. Two main obligations were imposed on signatory states by Article I of the Genocide Convention, namely to prevent the commission of the international crime of genocide, and the obligation to punish the perpetrators of such a crime. Both genocide and crimes against humanity form part of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”, which are also gross human rights violations. It is of interest to all states of the international community to prevent the commission of these gross human rights violations and to prosecute perpetrators. The prohibition of the international crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity is erga omnes in nature. The research objective of this doctoral thesis is to analyse the causes for the repeated failure of the international community to fulfil the erga omnes obligation to prevent and prosecute gross human rights violations. This endeavour is furthermore aimed at formulating recommendations that will enhance future compliance with the erga omnes obligation in accordance with the international legal developments that will form the subject matter of the thesis. The thesis consists of five parts. Part 1 is an introduction in which the research objective and aims of the thesis are explained and demarcated, as well as the issues focused upon. Core legal concepts, terms and notions explained in Part 1 include “gross human rightsviolations”, “erga omnes obligation”, “jus cogens norms”, “customary international law”, “states upon whom the erga omnes obligations to prevent and prosecute gross human rights violations are imposed”, “the obligation to prevent”, “the obligation to prosecute”, “state responsibility”, “individual criminal responsibility”, “state immunity”, and various other terms. Part 1 further explains the research methodology followed in the thesis and contains a brief overview of the parts and chapters.

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>