Item Infomation
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Kamminga, Menno T. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-26T07:23:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-09-26T07:23:54Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-023-00231-7 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://dlib.phenikaa-uni.edu.vn/handle/PNK/9245 | - |
dc.description | CC-BY | vi |
dc.description.abstract | The war of aggression by a permanent member of the Security Council, combined with the availability of its assets on the territory of other states, creates an opportunity to solve one of international law’s enigmas: the legality of third-party countermeasures in the general interest. Would confiscating Russia’s frozen Central Bank assets and making the proceeds available to repair the war damage in Ukraine be permissible as such a countermeasure? This paper argues that state immunity cannot be relied upon to prevent the freezing or confiscation of foreign central bank assets by direct executive action; that freezing foreign state assets is permissible as a third-party countermeasure to stop a serious case of aggression; and that confiscation would not qualify as a countermeasure but may be permissible as a ‘lawful measure’ to repair the damage. | vi |
dc.language.iso | en | vi |
dc.publisher | Springer | vi |
dc.subject | Permissible Third-Party Countermeasure | vi |
dc.title | Confiscating Russia’s Frozen Central Bank Assets: A Permissible Third-Party Countermeasure? | vi |
dc.type | Book | vi |
Appears in Collections | ||
OER - Pháp luật - Thể chế xã hội |
Files in This Item: