Oppgrader til nyeste versjon av Internet eksplorer for best mulig visning av siden. Klikk her for for å skjule denne meldingen
Ikke pålogget
{{session.user.firstName}} {{session.user.lastName}}
Du har tilgang til Idunn gjennom , & {{sessionPartyGroup.name}}
(side 385-402)
av Gro Sandkjær Hanssen
Engelsk sammendrag

Abstract: The theoretical approach to democratic legitimacy of the right to effective participation for members of national minorities in international law: The right to effective participation for national minorities in International Law represents a shift in the theoretical approach to democratic legitimacy. The development of the human rights regime after World War Two was based on a liberal (or aggregative) approach to democracy. Numerous emerging minority rights instruments have been acknowledged by international law. Most instruments reflect a new theoretical approach to what makes a democratic system legitimate. The deliberative democracy approach argues that the broad and free process of discourse that takes place before decisions are taken is what gives democratic decisions legitimacy. Many of the comments on the emerging treaty acknowledge a right to effective participation for members of national minorities, and thus reflect the deliberative theoretical approach.

Keywords: Theories of democratic legitimacy, European framework Convention on National Minorities, deliberative democracy, Habermas, international law, human rights.

(side 441-455)
av Egill Aarø
Engelsk sammendrag

Abstract: War and terrorism: The objective is to show that the primitive regime of war comprising a collective responsibility for others' (wrong)doings cannot be attached to a certain state or population due to the acts of a terrorist group. In accordance with International Law regulations a terrorist is submitted to criminal law. Since war has been defined as an interaction between two or more states for the past 350 years, and terrorist groups certainly do not qualify as a state, the action of terrorist groups cannot be regarded as acts of war. According to the UN Charter article 51, self-defence is equally founded, providing no justification for a state to act in self-defence against any assault permitted by a terrorist group. After Israel's attack on Tunisia, the SC imposed Res. 573 (1985) 14-0, the US abstained, condemning a state to use military force on other states on the allegations that a terrorist group has committed several wrongdoings against the civilians in the attacking state. International conventions urging states to act in accordance with peace and good will, give no justification to wage war against states that breach such obligations. The state's breaches must amount to armed attack before self-defence can be justified. Since the NATO treaty is built on the same principles, the NATO statement supporting the US contradicts the treaty's article 5. Since terrorist groups do not have participant status, they are not combatant groups according to the law. Their logicalTitles cannot be regarded as military targets.

Keywords: Terrorist warfare, International Law, preemptive war, military targets, self-defense, combatants.

Internasjonal rettspraksis
(side 496-511)
av Lill-Tove Voje
  • ISSN Online: 1891-814X
  • ISSN Print: 1891-8131
  • DOI: https://doi.org/
  • Utgiver: Universitetsforlaget
Idunn bruker informasjonskapsler (cookies). Ved å fortsette å bruke nettsiden godtar du dette. Klikk her for mer informasjon