Causal Nexus By Martin Jan D. Espinosa The article posits that the criterion used by the court in determining who to blame in a Genocide is inapt. The author, in trying to address the problem, used the Naulilaa Incident to showcase Genocide and prove that the causal nexus test will fails to identify the actors who are directly responsible for the crimes committed in a genocide. The author claims that to prove responsibility in genocide, there should be sufficiently direct causation that links the damage incurred by the victims and the perpetrator’s breach of the obligation to prevent genocide. In applying this test, the court established a standard, according to the author, […] a difficult, if not impossible, to meet; alas, a test that does not fit the task at hand, as by the very nature of the act involved, an unbroken link between it and the supposed damage is already precluded [emphasis supplied] 1 Following the author’s opinion, the cause of a chain of events that will lead to a series of events, by its very nature, cannot be set-off by inaction or omission – a direct cause-and-effect cannot be obtained. I am of the opinion that the author is correct in pointing out that the causal nexus cannot be used as a test to determine responsibility in genocide cases. The 1 Bagares, Romel R. When Satisfaction is (Not) Satisfactory: The Requirement of Causal Nexus in Claims for Reparation for Breaches of the Duty Not to Provide Impunity Under the Genocide Convention 2007. p5.

Causal Nexus

Download DOCX Report

Upload
martin-espinosa
View
43
Download
1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

PIL

Citation preview

Causal NexusBy Martin Jan D. Espinosa

The article posits that the criterion used by the court in determining who to blame in a Genocide is inapt. The author, in trying to address the problem, used the Naulilaa Incident to showcase Genocide and prove that the causal nexus test will fails to identify the actors who are directly responsible for the crimes committed in a genocide.

The author claims that to prove responsibility in genocide, there should be sufficiently direct causation that links the damage incurred by the victims and the perpetrators breach of the obligation to prevent genocide. In applying this test, the court established a standard, according to the author,

[] a difficult, if not impossible, to meet; alas, a test that does not fit the task at hand, as by the very nature of the act involved, an unbroken link between it and the supposed damage is already precluded [emphasis supplied][footnoteRef:1] [1: Bagares, Romel R. When Satisfaction is (Not) Satisfactory: The Requirement of Causal Nexus in Claims for Reparation for Breaches of the Duty Not to Provide Impunity Under the Genocide Convention 2007. p5.]

Following the authors opinion, the cause of a chain of events that will lead to a series of events, by its very nature, cannot be set-off by inaction or omission a direct cause-and-effect cannot be obtained.

I am of the opinion that the author is correct in pointing out that the causal nexus cannot be used as a test to determine responsibility in genocide cases. The author posits that the language of direct causation is [] usually a positive act, [] thus kinetically setting off a chain of events that resulted in an injury to another state.[footnoteRef:2] And this positive act cannot be done through inaction or omission thereof. [2: Ibid.]

Atty. Bagares also pointed out in class that the court in coming up with this test used a scientific word to coin the test simply because they try to sway form morality by using scientific terms. The cause and effect theory is borrowed from physics where an unbroken chain of events are being set off by a proximate act that is directly connected to the positive act. On its face, the theory or the test might actually work but in reality, how can someone be responsible in international law for something he did not do to ought to do to prevent a wrong. I am of the opinion that the author is correct and there should be a better criterion for proving responsibility in cases of genocide.

Generalizability in Causal Inference - Carlos Cinelli and Bareinboim...Cinelli, Bareinboim, SoCal 2019 - Generalizability in Causal Inference Causal inference: causal models Inputs:

Documents

Bayesian Generic Priors for Causal Learningcvl.psych.ucla.edu/papers/GenericPrior.psychreview08.pdf · judgments of both causal strength and causal structure (whether a causal link

Documents

Causal KL: Evaluating Causal Discovery

Documents

The causal nexus between trust, institutions and ...download.xuebalib.com/5i1t7eHzGB51.pdf · empirical potential of bringing trust from the periphery to the centre of our debates

Documents

EXPLAINING THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION OF ANIMALS€¦ · as a way of capturing some of the essence of the causal nexus that underlies the Cambrian “explosion,” even if much detail

Documents

“Causal Nexus of Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence for Eight Selected Asian Countries,” by Matiur Rahman and Prashanta K. Banerjee

Documents

$Causal Inference with Observational Datajustinesarey.com/causal-inference.pdf · 1 What is \causal inference?" As Sekhon1 notes in his essay on causal inference, every student of$