This thesis begins with the observation that a gap exists between the universal consensus among all States regarding the criminalisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on the one hand, and the prevalence of impunity on the other. It then puts forward the hypothesis that this gap may be explained by the unsuitability of the approach taken by the international community to address the issue of responsibility for core international crimes. In order to test this hypothesis, this thesis critically examines the different forms of responsibility for core international crimes available in International Law. One of the important characteristics that distinguish core international crimes from other international crimes or ordinary crimes is that they are often committed with the simultaneous participation of several actors, including individual perpetrators, the State and, in some instances, non-state actors. Addressing the impunity for the commission of core international crimes cannot, therefore, be limited to the lack of consequences for individual perpetrators. This thesis challenges the focus of International Criminal Justice on individual criminal responsibility and argues for a comprehensive approach to responsibility for international crimes, including State and collective responsibility, in order to convey the collective and political features of these crimes. The issue of responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has been widely discussed in the scholarly literature, in particular with the development of International Criminal Law. One can observe, however, an imbalance between the amount of research dedicated to the issue of individual criminal responsibility for core international crimes and the issue of State responsibility for international crimes. This imbalance is partly due to the fact that the notion of State criminal responsibility was rejected by a large majority of States, and discussions on these issues were abandoned. The originality of this thesis comes from the broad approach it adopts to examine the issue of responsibility for core international crimes with the aim of bridging the gap between the distinct academic perspectives. It weaves together different approaches to responsibility, from individual responsibility to State responsibility, in order to identify the weaknesses of the current forms of responsibility and to highlight the complementary aspects of the main questions discussed in these different fields of law. The thesis goes beyond highlighting the complementary aspects of the different forms of responsibility for core international crimes and puts forward a concrete proposal to develop a comprehensive normative framework, based on the model of the Responsibility to Protect concept, to implement a comprehensive approach to responsibility. This framework relies on the emergence of a duty to end impunity that lies with the territorial State as well as the international community. The purpose of this comprehensive normative framework is to promote the cooperation and interactions between the different mechanisms available in International Law and designed to deal with issues of responsibility for core international crimes. The proposal is based on the assumption that including the different norms and measures which aim to end impunity within one framework would optimise their synergy to respond to core international crimes and protect the interests of humanity as a whole.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

A presente tese de doutorado objetiva estudar a problemática da extensão vertical da soberania estatal, acima da superfície terrestre, baseada na compreensão do território do Estado como espaço tridimensional. Se não há risco de conflito de jurisdição no sentido do subsolo, o mesmo não pode ser dito em relação ao espaço aéreo que, a partir de determinada altitude, até o momento não definida, dá lugar ao espaço ultraterrestre. De acordo com a Convenção de Chicago, de 1944, os Estados exercem soberania absoluta e exclusiva sobre a coluna de ar que se ergue acima de seus territórios. Por sua vez, o Tratado do Espaço, de 1967, dispõe que o espaço ultraterrestre não pode ser objeto de apropriação nacional por qualquer meio. Não obstante, a fronteira que distingue estes dois regimes jurídicos imiscíveis, após mais de 40 anos de discussões diplomáticas, continua em debate. No âmbito do Comitê das Nações Unidas para Uso Pacífico do Espaço (COPUOS), verificam-se duas teses em relação ao tema: a primeira, do grupo de países que recebeu a denominação de espacialistas, defende a demarcação de fronteira entre território aéreo e ultraterrestre, de forma clara, com base em critérios científicos ou acordados de comum acordo; a outra, daqueles chamados funcionalistas, entende ser desnecessária ou impossível a fixação de limites, de modo que as atividades realizadas nesses territórios deveriam ser analisadas conforme seus próprios objetivos. O impasse entre essas duas escolas de pensamento contribuiu para o estabelecimento de uma realidade contraditória: o espaço ultraterrestre, de fato, constitui a fronteira final dos territórios estatais, que, embora finitos, estendem-se verticalmente, acima da superfície, de forma indefinida. Destarte, apresenta-se tese favorável à delimitação da fronteira entre espaço aéreo e ultraterrestre, mediante tratado internacional, que igualmente inclua regras aplicáveis a direito de passagem de objetos espaciais durante fases de lançamento e reentrada, respeitando interesses do Estado territorial / This PhD thesis intends to study the problems related to the vertical extension of national sovereignty, above the Earths surface, based on the understanding of the State territory as a tridimensional space. If there is no danger of conflict of jurisdiction downwards, in direction to the subsoil, such reasoning does not apply in relation to the air space, where, from certain altitude, still undefined, gives place to the outer space. In accordance to the Chicago Convention, of 1944, States hold absolute and exclusive jurisdiction related to the column on air that arises above their territories. On the other hand, the Outer Space Treaty, of 1967, establishes that the outer space cannot be subjected to national appropriation of any kind. Nevertheless, the frontier that distinguishes these two immiscible legal regimes, after more than 40 years of diplomatic discussions, remains in debate. On the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COUPOS), it is possible to identify two approaches related to the subject matter: the first, of the group of countries recognized as spatialists, defends the demarcation of the frontier between air space and outer space, in a clear form, based on scientific or commonly accorded criteria; the other, of the ones called functionalists, sustains that the delimitation is unnecessary or impossible, and, therefore, the activities performed in those territories should be addressed in accordance to their own objectives. The stalemate between those two schools of thought contributed to a contradictory reality: outer space constitutes the final frontier of national territory, which, even though finite, extends vertically, above the surface, in an undefined form. Therefore, it is hereby presented a thesis in favor of the delimitation of the air and outer space frontier, by international agreement, that also includes rules applicable to right of passage of space objects during launching and reentry phases, respecting the interests of the territorial State