Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - When the Rebels Are Not Successful at Establishing a New Government

  • from Part I - Acts Committed in the Context of the Establishment of a New Government
  • Patrick Dumberry, University of Ottawa
  • Book:
    Rebellions and Civil Wars
    Published online:
    04 November 2021
    Print publication:
    18 November 2021, pp 134-298

  • Summary

    This Chapter focuses on the situation where acts by the rebels or the government are committed in the context of the insurgent’s struggle for the creation of a new State. When the rebels are successful, the new State is not responsible for the acts committed by the predecessor State while fighting the rebels. The rule is problematic is however when the predecessor State ceases to exist. Also, the acts committed by the rebels during the insurgency are attributable to the new State after their victory. The rule applies in situations of secession, dissolution and Newly independent States, but it is controversial regarding transfer of territories. When the rebels are not successful, the acts committed by them are not attributable to the State once the insurgency has failed. Responsibility arises as a result of a State’s failure to discharge its due diligence obligation of vigilance, prevention and punishment in relation to the conduct of rebels.