USLUGE U DIGITALNOM OKRUŽENJU: NOVI ASPEKT MEĐUNARODNOG SUBJEKTIVITETA NEDRŽAVNIH SUBJEKATA?

Sadašnjost i budućnost uslužnog prava (2022) str. 389-403

AUTOR(I): Dragan Dakić

Download FullPdf 

DOI: 10.46793/XVIIIMajsko.389D

SAŽETAK:

Predmet istraživanja u ovom radu jeste mogućnost nedržavnih subjekata, korporacija, da pružaju ius ad bellum usluge u digitalnom okruženju i to ne samo državama već i drugim nedržavnim subjektima. Ius ad bellum usluge u digitalnom okruženju se odnose na mogućnost posmatranih subjekata da putem njihovog pružanja učestvuju u sajber sukobima koji se zbog svoje razorne moći na imovinu i ljudske živote mogu izjednačiti sa oružanim sukobima. U navedenom nalazimo osnov da posmatrane usluge podvedemo pod aktivnosti iz ius ad bellum domena. Razlog za ovakvo definisanje predmeta istraživanja je u činjenici da je digitalno okruženje omogućilo ovim nedržavnim subjektima preduzimanje akata koji su tradicionalno svrstani u domen državnog međunarodnog subjektiviteta. Glavni rezultati istraživanja su da se kroz pružanje posmatranih usluga drugim nedržavnim subjektima zasnivaju međunarodni odnosi između ovih subjekata međunarodnog prava i to sa punom pravnostvarajućom sposobnošću. Na ovaj način došlo je do nadogradnje međunarodnog subjektiviteta kompanija iz pasivne sposobnosti koja podrazumjeva njihovu direktnu obavezanost normama međunarodnog prava ali isključuje njihovu mogućnost stvaranja međunarodnog prava ka aktivnom subjektivitetu koji podrazumjeva međunarodnopravnu legislativnu sposobnost. Dakle, zahvaljujući razvoju digitalnih usluga, korporacije su kao nosioci pasivnog subjektiviteta stekle i aktivni međunarodni subjektivitet ili su makar razvile novi aspekt postojećeg međunarodnog subjektiviteta.

KLJUČNE REČI: 

digitalne usluge, ius ad bellum, nedržavni subjekti, međunarodni subjektivitet.

LITERATURA:

  • A terminology glossary to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2021). General Comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment available at Treaty bodies Download (ohchr.org).
  • Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain, Award rendered on 14 September 1872 by the Tribunal of arbitration established by Article I of the Treaty of Washington of 8 May 1871, RIAA, Vol. XXIX.
  • Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (Eds. Niklas Lidströmer, Hutan Ashrafian), Springer, 2022. Ambos, K., International criminal responsibility in cyberspace at International Law and
  • Cyberspace, (Research Handbook, eds. Tsagourias and Buchan), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2021.
  • Bannelier K., Christakis, T., Cyber-Attacks – Prevention-Reactions: The Role of States and Private Actors, Les Cahiers de la Revue Défense Nationale, Paris, 2017.
  • Behdadi, D., Munthe, C., Artificial Moral Agency: Philosophical Assumptions, Methodological Challenges, and Normative Solutions, 2018. This is a ”postprint”, the authors’ submitted manuscript after peer review to a scientific journal. Citations should refer to the published version of the article, once that exists.
  • Thomas D. Grant, D. T., Wischik, J. D., OnthepathtoAILaw’spropheciesandtheconceptual foundationsofthemachinelearningage, Springer Nature, 2020.
  • Dickinson, L., (2018). Drones,AutomatedWeapons,andPrivateMilitaryContractors, in Land, M., Aronson, J., (Eds.), New Technologies for Human Rights Law and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  • DMA: significant additions made it into the final text – EURACTIV.com.
  • International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II. Part. 2.
  • Dinstein, Y., Cyber war and international law: Concluding remarks at the 2012 Naval War College International Law Conference, International Law Studies, no. 89/2013.
  • Dimitrijević, V. i dr., Osnovi međunarodnog javnog prava, Beograd, 2012.
  • Dakić, D., Sajber napadi i međunarodno javno pravo, Zbornik radova: Otvorena pitanja međunarodnog krivičnog prava i reforma krivičnog zakonodavstva Republike Srbije, Zlatibor, 2022. (u štampi).
  • Direktiva 95/46/EC (Opšta uredba o zaštiti podataka). Identification and assessment of existing and (europa.eu).
  • Kelly, J. M., Prosecuting Corporations for Genocide, Oxford Scholarship Online, 2016.
  • Kreća, M., Međunarodno javno pravo, Beograd, 2020.
  • Luttikhuis, B., Moses, A. D., (2012), MassviolenceandtheendoftheDutchcolonialempirein Indonesia, Journal of Genocide Research,, no. 14:3-4/2012.
  • Lustig, D., The Nature of the Nazi State and the Responsibility of Corporate Officials at Nuremberg, at Lustig, D., Veiled Power: International Law and the Private Corporation 1886- 1981, Oxford University Press, 2020.
  • Predlog Uredbe Evropskog parlamenta i Saveta o utvrđivanju usaglašenih pravila o veštačkoj inteligenciji (Zakon o veštačkoj inteligenciji) i izmenama pojedinih zakonskih akata sindikata, COM (20 21) 206 final, Brisel, 21.4.2021.
  • Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex VIII Article 3.3
  • Regulations on Medical Devices (Regulation (EU) 2017/745) and on In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices (Regulation (EU) 2017/746).
  • Roscini, M., Cyberoperationsas a use of force at International Law and Cyberspace, (Research Handbook, eds. Tsagourias and Buchan), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2021.
  • Savin, A., EU Internet Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
  • Shaw, M., International Law (9th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  • Texts adopted – Digital Services Act and fundamental rights issues posed – Tuesday, 20 October 2020 (europa.eu)
  • The UN Human Rights Council established a Working Group on on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises in 2011, A/HRC/17/4. www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/WGHRandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness.aspx
  • Treaty bodies Download (ohchr.org)
  • The European Parliament Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a civil liability regime for artificial intelligence (2020/2014(INL) Procedure File: 2020/2014(INL) | Legislative Observatory | European Parliament (europa.eu) (Resolution on liability)
  • UN Doc A/66/152/Add.1, 16 September 2011.
  • UNHCR, The Corporate Responsibility to Protect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide, New York, 2012.
  • United States of America v. Iran, Judgment of 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports 1980. C-203/99 Veedfald, and C-495/10, Dutrueux
  • Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, DRAFT REPORT http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=//EP//NONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-582.443%2B01%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0//EN
  • Corfu Channel Case, Judgment of 4 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949.
  • Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products. Directive 1999/34/EC extended the scope of liability to agricultural and fishery products).