Violation – infringement – contravention

Lawyer – jurist

Act – action

g Explain the meaning of these sentences, in simplier words and translate the sentences into Russian:

1 International lawyers have increasingly addressed the problem of low-level uses of force.

2 French action clearly fell within the broad concept of «international delinquency».

3 This concept encompasses acts short of belligerency.

4 The attack was universally condemned as contrary to international law.

5 The abuse of New Zealand sovereignty was illegal.

6 The goverment initially claimed the agents had merely engaged in «surveillance».

7 A more accurate description would be spying.

8 International law is oblivious to the peacetime practice of espionage.

h Summarise the text in English and translate it into Russian.

i Complete the following sentences the way you think appropriate:

This law review article says that..............................................................................................................

2 The article adds that.................................................................................................................................

3 The article also mentions that..................................................................................................................

4 It stresses that...........................................................................................................................................

5 It underlines that......................................................................................................................................

Text 4

The concept of State criminality although widely used in propaganda is not strongly supported in law. State responsibility for delicts is limited to liability for reparations. It is also an established principle that a State which sends agents to commit an acta jure imperii abroad is liable rather than the agents who should enjoy immunity from local courts.

After Mafart and Prieur had been charged with murder and arson but before standing trial, the French government admitted responsibility for the act and was willing to apologise. Consequently, so France claimed, the trial in New Zealand was unjustified and contrary to international practice.

There is a view that individuals are increasingly recognised as subjects of international law, and that agents are liable because they are the means by which acts of State are carried out. On the question of superior orders precepts of the Nü rnberg Charter (adopted by a UN Resolution on 11 December 1946) are commonly regarded as part of positive international law.

New Zealand's Memorandum to the Secretary-General cited the International Treaties to support the argument that superior orders was no defence, either in international law or in New Zealand law which the agents were subjected.

New Zealand treated the two agents as common criminals.

International law is inadequate to cope with perpetrators of sporadic violence across State boundaries. Besides the situations including the Rainbow Warrior incident, it has been impossible to establish immunity from local jurisdiction for perpetrators making unauthorised, illegal entries with the official purpose of committing unlawful acts.

The principle of agent immunity cannot apply since officially spies do not exist in time of peace. Sponsoring States typically disown them. For example in the Powers case of 1960 President Eisenhower broke with usual practice and admitted that Powers was spying in plain clothes in a camouflaged U2 plane. American officials justified the espionage, but Powers still stood trial in the then Soviet Union.

When a Soviet submarine ran aground inside a Swedish military security area which it had entered without consent on 27– 28 October 1981, the Swedish authorities assumed jurisdiction over the vessel and crew without Soviet permission. Though for political reasons Sweden made only limited use of its rights.