استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Article 21 of the Rome Statute, in defining the applicable sources of law for the International Criminal Court (ICC), breaks with the practice of the ad hoc tribunals by treating customary international law as only a secondary authority. Nonetheless, customary international law still has an acknowledged role in ICC jurisprudence in filling lacunae in the Rome Statute and aiding in its interpretation. One can also predict other instances in which the application of customary international law will be required. It remains to be seen, however, whether the ICC's use of customary law will lead to that law's further fragmentation or whether that use will instead modify customary law to reflect the ICC Statute.

The legal response to terrorism in international law had been represented for decades only by the adoption of both regional & global conventions to improve co-operation between States to react to & prevent single & specific acts of terrorism, without giving a global answer to the phenomenon, as the facts occurred on September 11th 2001 would have more appropriately required. Despite the ratification of such international instruments, there is still no common legal definition of terrorism even if such a definition is essential to assess the commission of an international crime & thus to satisfy the principle of legality ('nullum crimen sine lege'). Nevertheless, after the attack on the Twin Towers, different principles of international law have been questioned, such as legitimate self-defense & the prohibition of the use of force, to which the two basic concepts of 'armed attack' & 'indirect aggression' are strictly linked in the UN Charter system. In the recent practice of the Security Council an evolution toward an 'acceptance' of the use of force as a response against terrorism can be detected, even when the aggression is not actual but only potential & a State feels to be exposed to a possible terrorist attack to be committed not by another State but also by an organized group of persons. Thus terrorism has become relevant to define the modern 'jus ad bellum', which traditionally comprises the rules governing the starting phase of armed conflicts as well as the legitimacy of war operations & con-duct. At the same time, some important consequences as to the rules applicable during military operations (the so called 'jus in bello') could arise. The fundamental questions to be addressed are, firstly, whether the captured terrorist is to be considered 'war prisoner' (under the Geneva Conventions) or 'illegitimate combatant' (following the US approach), & secondly, whether the definition of terrorism elaborated in a different context by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (followed by the Special Court for Sierra Leone) can be applied to determine the responsibilities of States & individuals committing this kind of acts. Finally, the question of the identification of the more appropriate authority for the punishment of these crimes remains still open to the opposite solutions of affirming the jurisdiction of international courts or of national judges. Adapted from the source document.

The legal response to terrorism in international law had been represented for decades only by the adoption of both regional and global conventions to improve co-operation between States to react to and prevent single and specific acts of terrorism, without giving a global answer to the phenomenon, as the facts occurred on September 11th 2001 would have more appropriately required. Despite the ratification of such international instruments, there is still no common legal definition of terrorism even if such a definition is essential to assess the commission of an international crime and thus to satisfy the principle of legality ('nullum crimen sine lege'). Nevertheless, after the attack on the Twin Towers, different principles of international law have been questioned, such as legitimate self-defence and the prohibition of the use of force, to which the two basic concepts of 'armed attack' and 'indirect aggression' are strictly linked in the UN Charter system. In the recent practice of the Security Council an evolution toward an 'acceptance' of the use of force as a response against terrorism can be detected, even when the aggression is not actual but only potential and a State feels to be exposed to a possible terrorist attack to be committed not by another State but also by an organised group of persons. Thus terrorism has become relevant to define the modern 'jus ad bellum', which traditionally comprises the rules governing the starting phase of armed conflicts as well as the legitimacy of war operations and conduct. At the same time, some important consequences as to the rules applicable during military operations (the so called 'jus in bello') could arise. The fundamental questions to be addressed are, firstly, whether the captured terrorist is to be considered 'war prisoner' (under the Geneva Conventions) or 'illegitimate combatant' (following the US approach), and secondly, whether the definition of terrorism elaborated in a different context by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (followed by the Special Court for Sierra Leone) can be applied to determine the responsibilities of States and individuals committing this kind of acts. Finally, the question of the identification of the more appropriate authority for the punishment of these crimes remains still open to the opposite solutions of affirming the jurisdiction of international courts or of national judges.

In light of the borderless nature of cyber-crime, international legislation and action are essential to combat the phenomenon. Current legal instruments, as well as continuing efforts of international organizations, provide a significant basis in this area. However, important issues are still open, such as a uniform or harmonized definition of the crimes and of the sanctions to be imposed on perpetrators, which are a prerequisite for avoiding domestic legislation taking different approaches to the subject matter. The clarification of these issues is also a prerequisite for enhancing international cooperation and making it effective, if this has to be based on the respect for the principle of dual criminality. In this context, it must also be stressed that interstate cooperation may not be sufficient if the private sector, including companies producing hardware and software, are not involved. Finally, a harmonized approach to jurisdictional issues, including careful consideration of the universality principle, would also play a critical role in combating cyber-crime. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

\"Will the new Rome I Regulation meet its goals - to improve the predictability of the outcome of litigation?- to bring certainty as to the law applicable and the free movement of judgments?- to designate the same national law irrespective of the country of the court in which an action is brought?The most important features of this instrument were outlined and discussed by distinguished legal experts from all over Europe and beyond at the conference \"\"The Rome I Regulation\"\", held in Verona on March 2009. This first book in English on the Rome I Regulation contains the papers submitted to that conference.\"