Автореф. дис. доктора юрид. наук : 12.00.11 /
Андрейченко Світлана Сергіївна. - Одеса, 2015. - 44
с.
Дисертація присвячена розробці міжнародно-правової концепції
атрибуції державі поведінки державних та недержавних акторів.
Основою концепції виступають два підходи: державно-орієнтований та
індивідуально-орієнтований, при визначенні яких були застосовані
критерій статусу суб’єкта діяння, яке суперечить
міжнародно-правовим зобов’язанням держави (державні та недержавні),
та критерій зв’язку суб’єкта діяння, що суперечить
міжнародно-правовим зобов’язанням держави, – з останньою
(функціональний та фактичний). Акцентується на розумінні та
співвідношенні категорій «атрибуція» («аttribution»), «ставлення у
вину» («imputatіon»), «вина» у міжнародно-правовій доктрині та
практиці. Досліджуються класичні (теорія суб’єктивної
відповідальності, теорія об’єктивної відповідальності) та
некласичні (еклектичний підхід, теорія «належної обачності»)
концепції щодо розуміння вини держави. Встановлюються особливості
міжнародно-правової регламентації та практики застосування правил
атрибутування державі поведінки державних та недержавних, зокрема,
приватних акторів в умовах сучасної політико-правової
дійсності.
Диссертация посвящена разработке международно-правовой концепции атрибуции государству поведения государственных и негосударственных акторов. Основой концепции являются два подхода: государственно-ориентированный и индивидуально-ориентированный, при определении которых были применены критерий статуса субъекта поведения, противоречащего международно-правовым обязательствам государств (государственные и негосударственные), и критерий связи субъекта деяния, противоречащего международно-правовым обязательствам государства, − с последним (функциональная и фактическая). Акцентируется на понимании и соотношении категорий «атрибуция» («аttribution»), «вменение в вину» («imputation»), «вина» в международно-правовой доктрине и практике. Исследуются классические (теория субъективной ответственности, теория объективной ответственности) и неклассические (эклектический подход, теория «должной осмотрительности») концепции понимания вины в международном праве. Определяются особенности международно-правовой регламентации и практики применения правил атрибутирования государству поведения государственных и негосударственных, в том числе, частных акторов в условиях современной политико-правовой действительности.
The thesis is dedicated to developing the concept of attribution of conduct to the state in inteational law. Two approaches are the basis for the concept: the state focused one and the individual-based one in which definition the criterion of the status of the subject of accomplishment of a concrete conduct violating the inteational obligations of states (state and non-state) and the criterion of the way of connection of the subject of commission of the concrete conduct with the state (functional and non-functional) have been applied. The attention is focused on understanding of the concepts of «fault» of a state and «imputation». It has been proved that the essence of the up-to-date concept of «fault» of the inteational law consists in its autonomy from the criteria which define mens rea of an individual in a national criminal right. The definition of «imputation» is provided as necessary for the purposes of further qualification of conduct of the state as inteationally illegal and legal operations which allows attributing actions or inaction of state or non-state entities and state structures, due to which conduct of such state is its own. Correlation of category «fault» with the categories «imputation» and «attribution» is revealed in the context of inteational legal responsibility of the state under globalization. The feasibility of using in the Ukrainian language the term «attribution» for establishing the fact of attributing a particular State action or inaction is proved. Both traditional (the theory of subjective responsibility, the theory of objective responsibility) and compromising concepts (the eclectic approach, the theory of «proper circumspection» («due diligence») conceing understanding of the concept of fault in the inteational law have been investigated in details. A conceptual distinction between the categories of state and non-state actors, unlawful behavior of which is attributing to the state for the purpose of bringing to inteational justice is done. Two categories of non-state actors are discovered for purposes of attribution: persons and entities that carry out certain elements of the govement under certain circumstances and with functional or actual relationship with the state; and individuals and movements whose behavior violates the interests of a foreign state, the rights and interests of other individuals in the absence of any real communication with carriers of state functions. An attribution rules classify all four main groups depending on the subject committing specific conduct that violates the inteational obligations of communication and the way of connection the entity with the state. It is proved that the application of the rule of attribution of wrongful conduct of non-state actors who are authorized to perform state power which is the basis of Art. 5 of Articles on responsibility of States for inteationally wrongful acts, complicated by the fact that, firstly, attribution depends on the vague notion of the state power, and secondly, because of the uncertainty range and nature of the services that are considered as public. Special attention is devoted to the problem of the inteational responsibility of a state in connection with actions of individuals or formations (by no means connected with the state apparatus) which caused violation of inteational legal obligations of the state both before other states and certain individuals. The position of the application of the concept of the attribution in case of commissioning of an illegal conduct by private actors in the absence of any communication with carriers of state functions only under certain conditions is taken a strong stand. The concept of «drittwirkung» is substantiated for attribution to the state acts of individuals that violate the rights and interests of other individuals on the basis of the practice of inteational human rights bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights, which affirms «horizontal effect» of human rights. The strengthening trend in inteational law of significance due diligence standard is proved as a legal basis for evaluating the behavior of the state and the question of bringing it to inteational responsibility for the activities of individuals and entities, proof of which is considered by inteational judicial and arbitration practice. The application of the principle of due diligence by certain defined limits is revealed and it largely depends on the political will of states.
Диссертация посвящена разработке международно-правовой концепции атрибуции государству поведения государственных и негосударственных акторов. Основой концепции являются два подхода: государственно-ориентированный и индивидуально-ориентированный, при определении которых были применены критерий статуса субъекта поведения, противоречащего международно-правовым обязательствам государств (государственные и негосударственные), и критерий связи субъекта деяния, противоречащего международно-правовым обязательствам государства, − с последним (функциональная и фактическая). Акцентируется на понимании и соотношении категорий «атрибуция» («аttribution»), «вменение в вину» («imputation»), «вина» в международно-правовой доктрине и практике. Исследуются классические (теория субъективной ответственности, теория объективной ответственности) и неклассические (эклектический подход, теория «должной осмотрительности») концепции понимания вины в международном праве. Определяются особенности международно-правовой регламентации и практики применения правил атрибутирования государству поведения государственных и негосударственных, в том числе, частных акторов в условиях современной политико-правовой действительности.
The thesis is dedicated to developing the concept of attribution of conduct to the state in inteational law. Two approaches are the basis for the concept: the state focused one and the individual-based one in which definition the criterion of the status of the subject of accomplishment of a concrete conduct violating the inteational obligations of states (state and non-state) and the criterion of the way of connection of the subject of commission of the concrete conduct with the state (functional and non-functional) have been applied. The attention is focused on understanding of the concepts of «fault» of a state and «imputation». It has been proved that the essence of the up-to-date concept of «fault» of the inteational law consists in its autonomy from the criteria which define mens rea of an individual in a national criminal right. The definition of «imputation» is provided as necessary for the purposes of further qualification of conduct of the state as inteationally illegal and legal operations which allows attributing actions or inaction of state or non-state entities and state structures, due to which conduct of such state is its own. Correlation of category «fault» with the categories «imputation» and «attribution» is revealed in the context of inteational legal responsibility of the state under globalization. The feasibility of using in the Ukrainian language the term «attribution» for establishing the fact of attributing a particular State action or inaction is proved. Both traditional (the theory of subjective responsibility, the theory of objective responsibility) and compromising concepts (the eclectic approach, the theory of «proper circumspection» («due diligence») conceing understanding of the concept of fault in the inteational law have been investigated in details. A conceptual distinction between the categories of state and non-state actors, unlawful behavior of which is attributing to the state for the purpose of bringing to inteational justice is done. Two categories of non-state actors are discovered for purposes of attribution: persons and entities that carry out certain elements of the govement under certain circumstances and with functional or actual relationship with the state; and individuals and movements whose behavior violates the interests of a foreign state, the rights and interests of other individuals in the absence of any real communication with carriers of state functions. An attribution rules classify all four main groups depending on the subject committing specific conduct that violates the inteational obligations of communication and the way of connection the entity with the state. It is proved that the application of the rule of attribution of wrongful conduct of non-state actors who are authorized to perform state power which is the basis of Art. 5 of Articles on responsibility of States for inteationally wrongful acts, complicated by the fact that, firstly, attribution depends on the vague notion of the state power, and secondly, because of the uncertainty range and nature of the services that are considered as public. Special attention is devoted to the problem of the inteational responsibility of a state in connection with actions of individuals or formations (by no means connected with the state apparatus) which caused violation of inteational legal obligations of the state both before other states and certain individuals. The position of the application of the concept of the attribution in case of commissioning of an illegal conduct by private actors in the absence of any communication with carriers of state functions only under certain conditions is taken a strong stand. The concept of «drittwirkung» is substantiated for attribution to the state acts of individuals that violate the rights and interests of other individuals on the basis of the practice of inteational human rights bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights, which affirms «horizontal effect» of human rights. The strengthening trend in inteational law of significance due diligence standard is proved as a legal basis for evaluating the behavior of the state and the question of bringing it to inteational responsibility for the activities of individuals and entities, proof of which is considered by inteational judicial and arbitration practice. The application of the principle of due diligence by certain defined limits is revealed and it largely depends on the political will of states.