| Summary: | <p>This DPhil is concerned with overlapping claims, in which both States and individuals are able to claim against the same respondent State for violations of international law. More particularly, it considers whether and how the conduct of either States or individuals may preclude, under the law of State responsibility, overlapping claims brought by the other. </p>
<p>It begins by outlining that such overlapping claims have been, and will likely continue to be, so brought. It then considers whether the conduct of one of those entities might enliven rules that would preclude the other’s claims. </p>
<p>First, Part B (Chapters III-VII) considers a number of rules of preclusion that have the potential to operate to preclude one of such overlapping claims: the local remedies rule; treaty provisions governing overlapping claims; waiver; res judicata and treaty provisions with similar effect; and double recovery. It highlights that there are many circumstances in which the actions of States or individuals may, under these rules, preclude the overlapping claims of the other. </p>
<p>Second, Part C (Chapter VIII) addresses circumstances precluding wrongfulness. Focusing on countermeasures and self-defence, it considers whether the conduct of either a State or an individual may, due to the operation of such circumstances, have the effect of precluding not only the claim of that entity, but also an overlapping claim belonging to the other. It concludes that, particularly as understood in light of recent practice, there is significant scope for these rules to so operate. </p>
<p>In highlighting when the actions of either States or individuals might preclude, under the law of State responsibility, overlapping claims brought by the other, this thesis aims to narrow the gap left, in this respect, by the ILC’s recent codification of the law of State responsibility, and place both States and individuals in a more certain position going forward.
</p>
|
|---|