Conflitos armados e responsabilização estatal: uma análise das abordagens adotadas pelas Cortes Internacionais

Abstract

This study investigates international legal mechanisms for dispute resolution, focusing on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). By analyzing the cases "Nicaragua vs. United States" and "Tadić", the dissertation explores how these international courts addressed the classification of armed conflicts and state responsibility. The ICJ, in the "Nicaragua vs. USA" case, applied the concept of "effective control" to attribute state responsibility, while the ICTY, in the "Tadić" case, introduced the concept of "overall control", allowing for a more practical and comprehensive attribution. The study highlights the importance of these decisions for the evolution of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and their implications for the application of international norms. The distinction between "effective control" and "overall control" reflects an adaptive and more comprehensive approach, essential for addressing the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts and ensuring proper state accountability. However, applying these concepts presents challenges such as the potential politicization of international law and the erosion of state sovereignty. The dissertation concludes that the continuous adaptation of norms and international cooperation are essential to strengthen IHL and ensure justice in armed conflict contexts.