Enis Omerović
Associate Professor in Public International Law. Assistant Professor in International Criminal Law. Vice Dean for Science and Research at the University of Zenica, Faculty of Law (2018-2021). President of the Council of Doctoral Studies of the Faculty of Law of the University of Zenica and a Member of the Governing Board of the University of Zenica.
Associate Professor at Prince Sultan University, College of Law, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2021 until 2023. Visiting Professor at the University of Tuzla, University of Džemal Bijedić in Mostar, and the University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Political Sciences. Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo. Visiting Professor at the PhD studies at the Faculty of Law of the University in Osijek (Croatia) in 2023. Erasmus Professor at the University of Wroclaw, Poland, in 2021.
LLM degree from the University of Glasgow (UK). (Post)PhD Colloquium from the University of Saarland (Europa Institute, Germany). A student of The Hague Academy of International Law (The Netherlands).
One of the directors of the course "Crime prevention through criminal law and security studies" of the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb at the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik. A member of the Committee for Legal Science of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea within the International Maritime Organization (UN). Member of the Legal Team of Bosnia and Herzegovina over Trgovska Gora international dispute with the Republic of Croatia.
Judge at the International Criminal Law Moot Court Competition in The Hague and the Monroe E Price Media Law Moot Court Competition (Regional rounds in Budapest). Coach for the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. Co-editor of the Springer Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law (BYEIL). Member of the Scientific Board of the American Yearbook of International Law; Member of the Editorial Board of the University of Niš Facta Universitatis: Law&Politics; Member of the Editorial Board of Anali Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici.
Member of the European Society of International Law (ESIL).
Supervisors: LLM Supervisor Prof Dr Rebecca M. M. Wallace and PhD Supervisor Prof Dr Vesna Crnić-Grotić
Address: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Associate Professor at Prince Sultan University, College of Law, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2021 until 2023. Visiting Professor at the University of Tuzla, University of Džemal Bijedić in Mostar, and the University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Political Sciences. Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security Studies of the University of Sarajevo. Visiting Professor at the PhD studies at the Faculty of Law of the University in Osijek (Croatia) in 2023. Erasmus Professor at the University of Wroclaw, Poland, in 2021.
LLM degree from the University of Glasgow (UK). (Post)PhD Colloquium from the University of Saarland (Europa Institute, Germany). A student of The Hague Academy of International Law (The Netherlands).
One of the directors of the course "Crime prevention through criminal law and security studies" of the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb at the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik. A member of the Committee for Legal Science of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea within the International Maritime Organization (UN). Member of the Legal Team of Bosnia and Herzegovina over Trgovska Gora international dispute with the Republic of Croatia.
Judge at the International Criminal Law Moot Court Competition in The Hague and the Monroe E Price Media Law Moot Court Competition (Regional rounds in Budapest). Coach for the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. Co-editor of the Springer Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law (BYEIL). Member of the Scientific Board of the American Yearbook of International Law; Member of the Editorial Board of the University of Niš Facta Universitatis: Law&Politics; Member of the Editorial Board of Anali Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici.
Member of the European Society of International Law (ESIL).
Supervisors: LLM Supervisor Prof Dr Rebecca M. M. Wallace and PhD Supervisor Prof Dr Vesna Crnić-Grotić
Address: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
less
Related Authors
Interests
Uploads
Papers by Enis Omerović
odgovornosti države. U radu propitujemo da li je jedan od glavnih pravnih argumenata za brisanje člana 19. iz konačnoga teksta Pravila 2001. bio već tada prevladavajući stav da odgovornost države nije krivične naravi, što se protiv države na međunarodnoj razini, na primjer, pred Međunarodnim sudom u Hagu (ICJ), ne void krivični postupak, niti joj se izriču krivične sankcije. U današnjem međunarodnopravnom poretku krivična je odgovornost zadržana kod pojedinca. Tako se individualizacija krivične odgovornosti u međunarodnom pravu odvijala simultano i za svoju je posljedicu imala dekriminalizaciju odgovornosti države. No, čini se da ove rasprave o gornjim pitanjima nisu išle u smjeru da se sistem nacionalnog krivičnog prava prenese u međunarodno pravo o odgovornosti niti da se instituti međunarodnog prava promatraju kroz prizmu domaćeg prava, već je, držimo, naglasak bio na stvaranju
strožijih pravnih posljedica za povrede koje konstituiraju međunarodne zločine, te na isticanju da se takve povrede ne mogu reducirati na dvostrani odnos između države povrediteljice i povrijeđene države. Član je 19. prijašnjega Nacrta Pravila želio naznačiti da postoje i ona protupravna djela koja se od međunarodne zajednice smatraju ozbiljnijim od drugih, budući da pogađaju fundamentalne interese na kojima ona počiva. Ako je član 19. i sadržavao neodrživo ili nezgrapno određenje, to nije značilo odustajanje od njegove suštine – da država može počiniti tešku povredumeđunarodne obaveze koja derivira iz imperativne norme općeg međunarodnog prava (jus cogensa), koja vrijeđa glavne vrijednosti međunarodne zajednice i gdje, uvjetno iznijeto, svaka država može pokrenuti pitanje formalnopravnog utvrđivanja odgovornosti one države koja krši jus cogens, poput činjenice da je zapadnoafrička država Republika Gambija pred ICJ 2019. tužila azijsku državu Mijanmar (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar)). Stoga se u ARSIWA-i 2001., u članovima 40. i 41., raspravljaju ozbiljne povrede obaveza iz peremptornih normi općeg međunarodnog prava te specifične posljedice povreda takvih međunarodnih obaveza, što ide u prilog našoj tezi da danas raspravljamo o međunarodnoj odgovornosti država za sve vrste međunarodnih protupravnih djela, budući da međunarodno pravo ima svoje pravne izvore, izraze, pojmove, načela, određenja, institute, ustanove i svoje zakonitosti.
U kontekstu državne imovine pred Bosnom i Hercegovinom se nalazi nekoliko izazova po pitanju uređenja i upravljanja državnom imovinom. Ovi izazovi se ogledaju u normativnopravnom aspektu, kao i u nastojanju entiteta da pripoje državnu imovinu. Jasna slika o ovim izazovima te o potencijalnim solucijama i perspektivama za pitanje državne imovine Bosne i Hercegovine je moguće predstaviti samo putem pregleda i analize faktora koji sačinjavaju poziciju Bosne i Hercegovine u odnosu na državnu imovinu kao što su: faktičko stanje državne imovine, normativnopravni okvir koji uređuju državnu imovinu, praksa države i entiteta u pogledu državne imovine, sudski postupci povodom državne imovine, te ustavne i međunarodne obaveze države u kontekstu njene imovine.
Ključne riječi: država, državna imovina, pravo vlasništva, društvena imovina, suverenitet, državni teritorij
Abstract
State property is a complex term that includes many property categories, such as agricultural land, forest land and waters. Throughout the history of state and law and in the modern era, this ownership category enjoys the highest degree of protection. Special concern for state property is a natural consequence of the fact that state property not only has a close and inseparable connection with the sovereignty of a state and its existence but also represents an invaluable and irreplaceable resource that is equal measure useful and necessary for the state to realize its basic goals and functions in society.
In the context of state property, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces several challenges regarding the arrangement and management of state property. These challenges are reflected in the normative legal aspect, as well as in the efforts of entities to annex state property. A clear picture of these challenges, as well as potential solutions and perspectives for the issue of state property in Bosnia and Herzegovina, can only be presented through a review and analysis of the factors that make up the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in relation to state property, such as the factual state of state property, normative legal the framework that regulates state property, state and entity practice regarding state property, court proceedings regarding state property, and constitutional and international obligations of the state in the context of its property.
Keywords: State, State property, property rights, social property, sovereignty, State territory
The paper deals with the issue of the responsibility of the main subjects of international law for grave breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law in relation to the commission of the crime of genocide. The focus of this paper is in certain aspects of the relationship between individual criminal responsibility and the international responsibility of States and international organizations, which should be interpreted as two separate systems of responsibility in international law. Each system has its own special fundaments, features and characteristics. Consequently, the starting point is that the responsibility of States for genocide does not depend on the responsibility of individuals for the crime, although the International Court of Justice has made extensive use of the conclusions of the chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Judgment from 2007). The paper therefore analyzes the question of the existence of a theoretical legal possibility for the so-called indirectly proving the responsibility of States (and international organizations) for genocide through a prior examination of the criminal responsibility of leaders, but also through proving a joint criminal enterprise for the purposes of committing the crime, or do these conceptions represent a starting point for the responsibility of the main subjects of international law or they are simply "proof" of the attribution of the act to a State? In this paper, we examine whether a joint criminal enterprise could be a reflection of a State plan and/or policy forcommitting the crime of genocide and how a collective plan or policy for committing that crime could be interpreted. After all, are they actually a dolus specialis of this crime, that is, whether a genocidal intent is manifested in a State precisely in a plan or policy?
Methods: To uncover scientific knowledge and results, the authors apply qualitative research methods such as content analysis, the legal dogmatic method, and methods of induction and deduction. Essential tools that authors use in this research are primary legal texts of the International Criminal Court (ICC ) and other international treaties, as well as the case law of the ICC, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ad hoc and internationalised and mixed (hybrid) tribunals, and secondary legal sources.
Results and Conclusions: This paper is based on the hypothetical situation of the deliberate creation and spread of a pandemic that resulted in enormous human losses. The authors examine the central question, which is whether viral homicide could be prosecuted as a crime against humanity before the ICC. The authors conclude that existing provisions of Art. 7 of the Rome Statute could not be interpreted so broadly as to encompass viral homicide as a crime against humanity. Expanding the scope of Art. 7 of the Rome Statute to cover viral homicide would violate basic principles of criminal law such as nullum crimen sine lege and lex certa.
znači da će samo najviši dužnosnici država biti krivično odgovorni za odnosni zločin?
odgovornosti države. U radu propitujemo da li je jedan od glavnih pravnih argumenata za brisanje člana 19. iz konačnoga teksta Pravila 2001. bio već tada prevladavajući stav da odgovornost države nije krivične naravi, što se protiv države na međunarodnoj razini, na primjer, pred Međunarodnim sudom u Hagu (ICJ), ne void krivični postupak, niti joj se izriču krivične sankcije. U današnjem međunarodnopravnom poretku krivična je odgovornost zadržana kod pojedinca. Tako se individualizacija krivične odgovornosti u međunarodnom pravu odvijala simultano i za svoju je posljedicu imala dekriminalizaciju odgovornosti države. No, čini se da ove rasprave o gornjim pitanjima nisu išle u smjeru da se sistem nacionalnog krivičnog prava prenese u međunarodno pravo o odgovornosti niti da se instituti međunarodnog prava promatraju kroz prizmu domaćeg prava, već je, držimo, naglasak bio na stvaranju
strožijih pravnih posljedica za povrede koje konstituiraju međunarodne zločine, te na isticanju da se takve povrede ne mogu reducirati na dvostrani odnos između države povrediteljice i povrijeđene države. Član je 19. prijašnjega Nacrta Pravila želio naznačiti da postoje i ona protupravna djela koja se od međunarodne zajednice smatraju ozbiljnijim od drugih, budući da pogađaju fundamentalne interese na kojima ona počiva. Ako je član 19. i sadržavao neodrživo ili nezgrapno određenje, to nije značilo odustajanje od njegove suštine – da država može počiniti tešku povredumeđunarodne obaveze koja derivira iz imperativne norme općeg međunarodnog prava (jus cogensa), koja vrijeđa glavne vrijednosti međunarodne zajednice i gdje, uvjetno iznijeto, svaka država može pokrenuti pitanje formalnopravnog utvrđivanja odgovornosti one države koja krši jus cogens, poput činjenice da je zapadnoafrička država Republika Gambija pred ICJ 2019. tužila azijsku državu Mijanmar (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar)). Stoga se u ARSIWA-i 2001., u članovima 40. i 41., raspravljaju ozbiljne povrede obaveza iz peremptornih normi općeg međunarodnog prava te specifične posljedice povreda takvih međunarodnih obaveza, što ide u prilog našoj tezi da danas raspravljamo o međunarodnoj odgovornosti država za sve vrste međunarodnih protupravnih djela, budući da međunarodno pravo ima svoje pravne izvore, izraze, pojmove, načela, određenja, institute, ustanove i svoje zakonitosti.
U kontekstu državne imovine pred Bosnom i Hercegovinom se nalazi nekoliko izazova po pitanju uređenja i upravljanja državnom imovinom. Ovi izazovi se ogledaju u normativnopravnom aspektu, kao i u nastojanju entiteta da pripoje državnu imovinu. Jasna slika o ovim izazovima te o potencijalnim solucijama i perspektivama za pitanje državne imovine Bosne i Hercegovine je moguće predstaviti samo putem pregleda i analize faktora koji sačinjavaju poziciju Bosne i Hercegovine u odnosu na državnu imovinu kao što su: faktičko stanje državne imovine, normativnopravni okvir koji uređuju državnu imovinu, praksa države i entiteta u pogledu državne imovine, sudski postupci povodom državne imovine, te ustavne i međunarodne obaveze države u kontekstu njene imovine.
Ključne riječi: država, državna imovina, pravo vlasništva, društvena imovina, suverenitet, državni teritorij
Abstract
State property is a complex term that includes many property categories, such as agricultural land, forest land and waters. Throughout the history of state and law and in the modern era, this ownership category enjoys the highest degree of protection. Special concern for state property is a natural consequence of the fact that state property not only has a close and inseparable connection with the sovereignty of a state and its existence but also represents an invaluable and irreplaceable resource that is equal measure useful and necessary for the state to realize its basic goals and functions in society.
In the context of state property, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces several challenges regarding the arrangement and management of state property. These challenges are reflected in the normative legal aspect, as well as in the efforts of entities to annex state property. A clear picture of these challenges, as well as potential solutions and perspectives for the issue of state property in Bosnia and Herzegovina, can only be presented through a review and analysis of the factors that make up the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in relation to state property, such as the factual state of state property, normative legal the framework that regulates state property, state and entity practice regarding state property, court proceedings regarding state property, and constitutional and international obligations of the state in the context of its property.
Keywords: State, State property, property rights, social property, sovereignty, State territory
The paper deals with the issue of the responsibility of the main subjects of international law for grave breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law in relation to the commission of the crime of genocide. The focus of this paper is in certain aspects of the relationship between individual criminal responsibility and the international responsibility of States and international organizations, which should be interpreted as two separate systems of responsibility in international law. Each system has its own special fundaments, features and characteristics. Consequently, the starting point is that the responsibility of States for genocide does not depend on the responsibility of individuals for the crime, although the International Court of Justice has made extensive use of the conclusions of the chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Judgment from 2007). The paper therefore analyzes the question of the existence of a theoretical legal possibility for the so-called indirectly proving the responsibility of States (and international organizations) for genocide through a prior examination of the criminal responsibility of leaders, but also through proving a joint criminal enterprise for the purposes of committing the crime, or do these conceptions represent a starting point for the responsibility of the main subjects of international law or they are simply "proof" of the attribution of the act to a State? In this paper, we examine whether a joint criminal enterprise could be a reflection of a State plan and/or policy forcommitting the crime of genocide and how a collective plan or policy for committing that crime could be interpreted. After all, are they actually a dolus specialis of this crime, that is, whether a genocidal intent is manifested in a State precisely in a plan or policy?
Methods: To uncover scientific knowledge and results, the authors apply qualitative research methods such as content analysis, the legal dogmatic method, and methods of induction and deduction. Essential tools that authors use in this research are primary legal texts of the International Criminal Court (ICC ) and other international treaties, as well as the case law of the ICC, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ad hoc and internationalised and mixed (hybrid) tribunals, and secondary legal sources.
Results and Conclusions: This paper is based on the hypothetical situation of the deliberate creation and spread of a pandemic that resulted in enormous human losses. The authors examine the central question, which is whether viral homicide could be prosecuted as a crime against humanity before the ICC. The authors conclude that existing provisions of Art. 7 of the Rome Statute could not be interpreted so broadly as to encompass viral homicide as a crime against humanity. Expanding the scope of Art. 7 of the Rome Statute to cover viral homicide would violate basic principles of criminal law such as nullum crimen sine lege and lex certa.
znači da će samo najviši dužnosnici država biti krivično odgovorni za odnosni zločin?
jedne od recenzija ovoga udžbenika iz područja međunarodnoga prava, to je pravo najlakše odrediti kao skupinu pravila koja uređuju pravni odnos između nacijâ i državâ. No, u stvarnosti, taj je odnos složen, višeslojan,
multidimenzionalan, višestrukturalan, kompleksan, zamršen i prožet je skupinom najraznolikijih i najraznovrsnijih političkih, diplomatskih i socioekonomskih čimbenika koji utječu na formiranje i donošenje međunarodnopravne norme. Ova grana prava nije samo jedna od najdinamičnijih, već pripada porodici najkompliciranijih pravnih disciplina, upravo temeljem razloga što je nekada teško shvatiti proces nastanka, djelovanja i izvršavanja pravila ponašanja u toj disciplini. A nekako ponajviše takvo što dolazi do izražaja kada se izučava opće običajno međunarodno pravo i odnos naspram dvostranih, višestranih i mnogostranih međunarodnih ugovora.
Studenti pravnih fakulteta vrlo često znaju isticati da je ovo mnogo više
politološko nego pravno područje te da je međunarodno pravo, po prirodi stvari, jednako međunarodnoj politici. Znajući da je generalizacija i relativizacija opasna per se, posebno u nauci i kao zaključak u naučnim zapažanjima, ipak bi se dalo priznati da međunarodno pravo ponekada posjeduje tu tanku granicu ili graničnu vrijednost s politikom, koja svoje manifestacijske oblike ostvaruje poglavito na međunarodnoj razini, ali se može shvatiti i kao posljedica nacionalnih politika državâ. Jednako tako, međunarodno se pravo može podijeliti u dvije skupine: prvoj pripadaju područja u kojima, kada dođe do kršenja normi, sankcija se ne može izvršiti ili jednostavno postoje vrlo slabašni prinudni mehanizmi, dok su drugoj svojstvena područja u kojima postoji visok stepen poštivanja i izvršavanja onoga što je propisano. Slijedom dugogodišnje prakse
utvrđujemo da države same odlučuju, na osnovu svojih interesa, koje će pravne norme bezuvjetno slijediti, a koje će međunarodne obaveze ponekada vrlo mudro zaobilaziti.
Prikaz knjige: Rebecca M. M. Wallace, Olga Martin-Ortega (2009) International Law, 6th ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Summary
Provides an exhaustive annual review of cases and developments in European and international law across the Balkans.
Lays a focus on the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre administered arbitration rules.
Explores contemporary issues across various fields of European and international law.
Lays a focus on the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre administered arbitration rules
Explores contemporary issues across various fields of European and international law
The first issue of the Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law (BYEIL) focuses on international commercial and investment arbitration as one of the fastest developing fields of law in Southeast Europe. Covering a range of topics, the contributions analyze transparency and confidentiality in international commercial and investment arbitration in national, EU and international contexts. In addition, it compares the commercial arbitration laws and rules in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the international developments in this area. The papers published in the permanent sections on European Law and International Law explore contemporary challenges in public and private law disciplines, offering new perspectives on old concepts.
Sadržajno promatrajući Prva izmijenjena optužnica protiv Radovana Karadžića je obuhvatala jednu tačku za teške povrede Ženevskih konvencija iz 1949, tri tačke za kršenje zakona i običaja ratovanja, dvije tačke za genocid i pet tačaka za zločine protiv čovječnosti. Radovan Karadžić se teretio na osnovu individualne krivične odgovornosti, te njenog posebnog oblika - komandne odgovornosti. Dana 29. augusta 2008. optuženik Radovan Karadžić nije se izjasnio o krivnji, te je u njegovo ime izneseno da se ne osjeća krivim za tačke Prve izmijenjene optužnice iz 2000. (...) (iz Predgovora)
This project is part of a wider UNESCO initiative to assess the strengths and weaknesses of national media sectors worldwide using a common analytical framework: the UNESCO Media Development Indicators (MDI). This framework and its set of indicators were endorsed by the Organization’s Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) in 2008.
We thank all those who took part in the process of this study, including the research team, the participants in the workshops and the respondents to surveys and interviews. Their contributions have significantly enriched this report.
da li države postupaju po njima i mogu li ove mjere, poput onih koje se
uobičajeno izriču u predmetima kršenja Konvencije o sprječavanju i kažnjavanju zločina genocida iz 1948., doista spriječiti odnosno zaustaviti
činjenje ovog međunarodnog zločina. Znakovito je da je Sud u predmetu
Južnoafrička Republika protiv Izraela 26. januara 2024. izrekao Izraelu
mjeru da se akti genocida moraju spriječiti, dok se istovremeno uzdržao
od naloga da se oružane snage ove države imaju povući s područja Gaze
(Palestine) te da prestanu s vršenjem vojnih operacija, što Sud u istom
predmetu nije odredio ni u drugoj odluci za izricanje privremenih mjera
od 28. marta 2024., dok je potonje mjere izrekao u predmetu Ukrajina
protiv Ruske Federacije 16. marta 2022. U radu se istražuje koliko je
Sud slijedio vlastitu praksu i svoje odluke o privremenim mjerama u predmetima Bosna i Hercegovina protiv Srbije i Crne Gore (povreda Konvencije o genocidu) od 8. aprila 1993. te 13. septembra 1993., kao i u
predmetu Gambija protiv Mijanmara od 23. januara 2020. Istraživanjem
se uočava tendencija povećanja broja sudskih postupaka u pogledu povredâ Konvencije o genocidu, dok paralelno opada procent postupanja po naloženim privremenim mjerama. Sudija ovoga Suda, Japanac Shigeru
Oda, svojevremeno je tvrdio da će „ponavljajuće neizvršavanje presudâ
ili nalogâ Suda od stranaka neminovno narušiti dignitet Suda i proizvesti
sumnju u sudsku ulogu Međunarodnog suda u međunarodnoj zajednici.“
No, Sud će zasigurno nastaviti s praksom izricanja privremenih mjera
– vjerovatno radi svoje posvećenosti očuvanju i konsolidaciji međunarodnog prava te kako bi omogućio drugim međunarodnim tijelima da provode međunarodnopravna pravila i izvršavaju svoje međunarodne
obaveze, neovisno o posvećenosti država da se povinuju privremenim
mjerama. Ovome svjedoči ne samo recentna Rezolucija Opće skupštine
Ujedinjenih nacija od 20. maja 2024. o Međunarodnom danu sjećanja na
genocid u Srebrenici 1995., u kojoj se, inter alia, pozivaju sve države
da u potpunosti ispunjavaju obaveze u skladu s Konvencijom o genocidu
te općim običajnim međunarodnim pravom o sprječavanju i kažnjavanju
genocida, već i Savjetodavno mišljenje Suda od 19. jula 2024. o Pravnim
posljedicama politika i praksi Izraela na okupiranoj palestinskoj teritoriji,
uključujući Istočni Jeruzalem, u kojem je Sud načelno potvrdio svoje
prethodno Savjetodavno mišljenje o kršenju međunarodnog prava u Pravnim posljedicama izgradnje zida na okupiranoj palestinskoj teritoriji,
donesenog dvadeset godina ranije, 9. jula 2004.
Therefore, this paper will scientifically present the definition of an internationally wrongful act, which is further observed as the basis for establishing the responsibility of states and international organizations, particularly given the fact that there is still no single definition of international crime in international law. However, by abandoning Article 19 of the final Draft Articles of the Responsibility of States, it is prudent to pose and consider the following questions: whether international crime is nowadays synonymous with serious breaches of obligations arising from the imperative norms of general international law, and whether such acts have more serious consequences than (other) internationally wrongful acts.
Keywords: internationally wrongful act, international crime, international delict, state responsibility, the responsibility of an international organization, UN International Law Commission, jus cogens.
The fundamental argument for the criminalisation of genocide denial might be that this represents very dangerous social phenomenon, which should be criminally sanctioned, and therefore it should gain all the determinants of an international criminal act, due to many reasons, particularly as genocide denial might be considered as the last stage in the execution of the crime of genocide. The phenomenon of denial may lead to reperpetration of the crime of genocide, and could also be considered as an obvious indicator for a possible prediction of a new crime of genocide.
Some countries already possess legal sanctions for genocide denial, as this phenomenon is recognised as a crime/criminal act within their national legal systems through a special code addressing denial only (lex specialis), through criminal code, or as the hatred speech. However, there are countries (e.g. USA) which do not accept the concept of the criminalisation of genocide denial and which take criminalisation as an attack to the basic human rights and freedoms such as a freedom of speech and expression. Taking into account the abovementioned, the author of the paper is therefore introducing a new concept on how this phenomenon could be regulated on international level, suggesting that the international community (i.e. United Nations) could adopt an international convention on the prohibition of genocide denial. International convention on the prohibition of genocide denial must provide answers to many, still controversial questions: what is exactly meant by the notion of genocide denial; which particular form of genocide denial has to be expressed or committed in order to be forbidden and punishable by law; could the crime of genocide denial
be committed by natural persons or legal entities or both; what kind of penalties/sanctions should be envisaged for the crime of genocide denial. Furthermore, should this convention be mandatory for all countries in the world or one country could make a reservation on it, and should this convention be incorporated into national legal systems or to be directly applicable are also issues of a great significance and importance for the presented concept.