Изабери језик:
Тема броја

ПРАВО, ПОЛИТИКА И ЕКОНОМИЈА

ОДГОВОРНОСТ МЕЂУНАРОДНИХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЈА СА ОСВРТОМ НА ЗАХТЕВЕ РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРБИЈЕ

Сажетак

Рад анализира правила о одговорности међународних организација као једно од најкомплекснијих питања међународног права. Анализа обухвата тумачење Нацрта правила о одговорности међународних организација усвојеног од стране Комисије за међународно право, али и праксу Међународног суда правде која нуди конкретна решења за бројна спорна питања. Указује се на аналогна решења у погледу правила о одговорности држава, која имају сигурније утемељење у међународном праву, али и неопходност што брже изградње механизама на међународном плану за реализацију одговорности међународних организација које у садашњем систему немају locus standi пред Међународним судом правде. Нарочита пажња посвећена је захтевима Републике Србије у погледу одговорности Уједињених нација и НАТО савеза у случају интервенције на СРЈ, према актуелним правилима о одговорности која постоје на нивоу општег обичајног међународног права, али и одредбама Нацрта правила о одговорности међународних организација из 2011. године.

кључне речи:

Референце

    1. Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v France, App, No 71412/01, Ruzhdi Sarmati v. France, Germany and Norway, App No. 78166/01, Grand Ghamber Decision As to The Admissibility, 2007.
    2. Annacker, Claudia, „Part Two of the ILC’s Draft Articles on Stare Responsibility“, 37 German Yearbook of International Law,
    3. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007.
    4. Aust, Helmut, “Through the Prism of Diversity: the Articles on Stare Responsibil­ity in the Light of the ILC Fragmentation Report” 49, German Yearbook of International Law,
    5. Boyle, Alan E., „State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Con­sequences of Acts not Prohibited by International Law: A Necessary Distinc­tion?“, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 39, 1/1990.
    6. Case Concerning Legality Of Use Of Force, Yugoslavia v. Spain, Provisional Mea­sures, Order of 2 June 1999.
    7. Case Concerning Legality Of Use Of Force, Yugoslavia v. United States Of Amer­ica, Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999.
    8. Corfu Channel, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949.
    9. Crawford, James, The International Law Commission s Articles on State Responsi­bility, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
    10. Crawford, James, The lLC Articles on State Responsibility, Cambridge, 2002.
    11. Crawford, James, “Revising the Draft Articles on State Responsibility”, 10 The European Journal of International Law,
    12. Daugirdas, Kristina, Reputation and the Responsibility of International Organiza­tions, The European Journal of International Law, 25 no. 4.
    13. Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, II, Part Two.
    14. Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, The International Law of States Responsibility: Revolution or Evolution, Michigen Yearbook of International law, 1989-1990.
    15. Factory at Chorzow, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9.
    16. Factory at Chorzow, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21; and ibid., Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17.
    17. Fry, James, Attribution of Responsibility, SHARES Research Paper, 2014.
    18. Garcia-Amador, Francisco, State Responsibility in the Light of the New Trends of International Law, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 49, 3/1955.
    19. Hessbruegge, Jan Arno, The Historical Development of the Doctrines of Attribu­tion and Due Diligence in International Law, Y.U. J. Int’l. L. & Pol. 2003­2004.
    20. ICJ Reports, Case Concerning The Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), (Merits), 1986.
    21. ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries Yearbook of the ILC (2001), Vol. II, Part 2.
    22. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Second Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950.
    23. Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, ICJ, 1980.
    24. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, ICJ, 1996.
    25. Legality of the Use of Force, Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium, Preliminary Ob­jections, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2004.
    26. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986.
    27. Mustafic – Mujic v the State of the Netherlands, no. 020.173/01, judgment Supreme Court of the Netherlands 2013.
    28. Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, 1938, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 74.
    29. Przetacznik, Franciszek, The International Responsibility of United States for the Unauthorized Acts of their Organs, 1 Sri Lanka J. Int’l L. 151 1989.
    30. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949.
    31. Resolution 1244, Adopted by the Security Council at its 4011th meeting, on 10 June 1999.
    32. Responsibility of International Organizations, Comments and observations re­ceived from Governments A/CN.4/636/Add.1, 2011.
    33. S. “Wimbledon”, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 1, p. 15.
    34. S/1994/653, paras. 243 – 244.
    35. Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2004.
    36. Serbia and Montenegro v. France, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2004.
    37. Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Re­ports, 2004.
    38. Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2004.
    39. Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Re­ports, 2004.
    40. Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Re­ports, 2004.
    41. Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 2004.
    42. Starke, Joseph G., Imputability in International Delinquencies, British Yournal of International Law, 19/1938.
    43. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1970, II, p. 306, document A/8010/Rev.l.
    44. Zagel, Gudrun, “Agreements Between the European Community and One or More Member States or International Organizations: A Commentary on Art. 300 TEC”, Law of the European Union, 2005, Internet, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228175891_Agreements_Between_the_European_Community_and_One_or_More_Member _States_or_International_Organizations_A_ Commentary_on_Art_300_TEC.
    45. Ле Фир, Луј, Међународно јавно право, Издавачка књижарница Геце Кона, Београд, 1934.
    46. Милисављевић, Бојан, Нове мировне мисије Организације Уједињених нација, Правни факултет, Београд, 2007.
    47. Милисављевић, Бојан, „Приписивост као услов одговорности државе у међународном праву“, Анали Правног факултетаа Универзитета у Београду, број 2 из

     

периодика Српска политичка мисао 2/2016 УДК 341.1+341.645.2]:341.62(497.11) 131-145
ç