The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism also provides that, over and above the acts mentioned, providing or collecting funds toward any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in the situation of armed con.ict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, would be deemed an offence under the Convention.
The United Nations has given effect to this principle in 1970 when it proclaimed that:
Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State. Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.110
Here, the words encouraging and acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts have a direct bearing on the
107Hyde
(1928,
pp.
140–142).
108International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999.
109A/52/653, 25 November 1997.
110Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-
operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) 24 October 1970.
concept of condonation and would call for a discussion about how States could overtly or covertly encourage the commission of such acts. One commentator111
identi.es three categories of such support: Category I support entails protection, logistics, training, intelligence, or equipment provided terrorists as a part of national policy or strategy; Category II support is not backing terrorism as an element of national policy but is the toleration of it; Category III support provides some terrorists a hospitable environment, growing from the presence of legal protections on privacy and freedom of movement, limits on internal surveillance and security organizations, well-developed infrastructure, and e′migre′ communities
Another commentator112
discusses what he calls the separate delict theory’ in State responsibility, whereby the only direct responsibility of the State is when it is responsible for its own wrongful conduct in the context of private acts, and not for the private acts themselves. He also contends that indirect State responsibility is occasioned by the State’s own wrong-doing in reference to the private terrorist conduct. The State is not held responsible for the act of terrorism itself, but rather for its failure to prevent and/or punish such acts, or for its active support for or acquiescence in terrorism.113
Arguably the most provocative and plausible feature in this approach is the introduction by the commentator of the desirability of determining State liability on the theory of causation. He emphasizes that:
中國航空網(wǎng) m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(39)
