Acknowledgements |
|
xiii | |
Preface |
|
xv | |
Introduction |
|
1 | (8) |
|
1 The interpretive framework |
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
2 The substantive concept |
|
|
4 | (5) |
|
1 Breaking state accountability down to its conceptual parts |
|
|
9 | (25) |
|
|
9 | (19) |
|
1.1.1 Linguistic interpretation |
|
|
11 | (2) |
|
1.1.1.1 The difference between accountability and responsibility |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
1.1.1.2 The relationship between accountability and impunity |
|
|
14 | (4) |
|
1.1.2 A trend toward bottom-up accountability? |
|
|
18 | (2) |
|
1.1.3 Interpreting accountability in the context of human rights |
|
|
20 | (6) |
|
1.1.4 Is there a legal obligation to ensure accountability? |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
1.1.5 A working understanding of accountability |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
|
28 | (4) |
|
|
32 | (2) |
|
2 State accountability as a conceptual whole |
|
|
34 | (27) |
|
2.1 The scope of the ad hoc accountability practice for analysis |
|
|
35 | (6) |
|
2.2 A tentative set of acountability criteria |
|
|
41 | (18) |
|
2.2.1 Is state accountability associated with criminal accountability? |
|
|
42 | (8) |
|
2.2.2 Is state accountability associated with state responsibility? |
|
|
50 | (2) |
|
2.2.3 Is state accountability associated with the particular law breached? |
|
|
52 | (3) |
|
2.2.4 Is state accountability solely associated with legal accountability? |
|
|
55 | (2) |
|
2.2.5 Is state accountability associated with political or moral accountability? |
|
|
57 | (2) |
|
|
59 | (2) |
|
3 The relationship between state accountability and jus cogens norms |
|
|
61 | (13) |
|
3.1 Jus cogens as the link between conceptual state accounlability and established international law |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
3.2 The debate and attempting to define jus cogens |
|
|
62 | (8) |
|
3.2.1 Distinguishing jus cogens norms from standard norms |
|
|
63 | (2) |
|
3.2.2 The source and substance of jus cogens |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
3.2.3 Are states under a positive duty to comply and ensure compliance with jus cogens norms? |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
3.2.4 Which norms are jus cogens norms? |
|
|
68 | (2) |
|
3.3 A working definition of jus cogens |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
4 The relationship between conceptual state accountability and doctrinal state responsibility |
|
|
74 | (20) |
|
4.1 An introduction to the doctrine of state responsibility |
|
|
74 | (4) |
|
4.2 State responsibility under the ILC's Draft Articles |
|
|
78 | (11) |
|
4.2.1 Can the international community as a whole invoke state responsibility? |
|
|
79 | (3) |
|
4.2.2 Is state responsibility for violating an erga omnes obligation effectual in terms of holding states accountable for breaching the underlying jus cogens norm? |
|
|
82 | (2) |
|
4.2.3 How effective is reparation under the Draft Articles in holding states accountable? |
|
|
84 | (5) |
|
4.3 Juridical support for state accountability in the context of the state responsibility doctrine |
|
|
89 | (4) |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
5 State accountability in state practice |
|
|
94 | (61) |
|
5.1 Setting the scene to analyse state accountability in practice |
|
|
94 | (6) |
|
5.1.1 Who determines whether a state breached international law? |
|
|
95 | (4) |
|
5.1.2 What forms of redress ensure the breaching state is held accountable? |
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
5.1.3 Is state accountability solely a state prerogative? |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
|
100 | (52) |
|
5.2.1 Armenian massacre 1915 |
|
|
100 | (10) |
|
5.2.2 Crimes against humanity by the USSR - Holdomor famine 1933 and the Katyn Forest massacre 1940 |
|
|
110 | (10) |
|
5.2.3 Apartheid in South Africa |
|
|
120 | (9) |
|
5.2.4 Comparing responses to state aggresion in the 20th century |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
5.2.4.1 Invasion of the Republic of Korea 1950 |
|
|
130 | (3) |
|
5.2.4.2 Bombing of the Osiraq Nuclear Reactor 1981 |
|
|
133 | (2) |
|
5.2.4.3 Invasion of Kuwait 1990 |
|
|
135 | (5) |
|
5.2.4.4 Conclusions on the responses to state aggression |
|
|
140 | (2) |
|
5.2.5 Australia's `stolen generation' |
|
|
142 | (10) |
|
|
152 | (3) |
|
Conclusion: An accountability epoch? |
|
|
155 | (11) |
|
1 State accountability has no normative standing |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
2 State practice is indicative rather than determinative of state accountability |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
3 State accountability is a legal, political and moral concept |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
4 State accountability represents a continuum of answerability |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
5 State accountability is sought on the basis of a norm's substance, not its jus cogens status |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
6 Characterstics of state accountability |
|
|
162 | (2) |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
6.2 A mix of accountability seekers |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
|
163 | (1) |
|
7 Moving from lex feranda to lex lata? |
|
|
164 | (2) |
Bibliography |
|
166 | (15) |
Index |
|
181 | |