Hagan, J. Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 1974, pp. 8, pp. 357-384. The procedural nature of the question of attribution has been examined in detail by the courts.4 Some have found it useful to deal with the issue sometimes at the stage of jurisdiction,5 in particular with regard to personal jurisdiction.6 (See also Jurisdiction ratione personae, Section VII) Others have found it more convenient to analyse it on the merits.7 The articles of the ILC also regulate other forms of attribution, which occurred less frequently in practice and as “special cases” in the ILC commentary. Attribution doctrines are legal doctrines according to which responsibility is extended to a defendant who did not actually commit the crime. : 347 : 665 Examples are vicarious liability (when acts of others are imputed or “attributed” to a defendant), attempt to commit a crime (although it has never been completed), and conspiracy to commit a crime (if it is not performed or committed by another in the conspiracy).  : 665 Sulzer, J.Heider`s “level model” of responsibility allocation. Paper presented at the Symposium on Attribution of Responsibility Research, Williamsburg, Virginia, July 1971. II.
Legal framework and scope of attribution rules However, a work in the public domain that is not protected by copyright is not required to be mentioned in most parts of the world. This is the distinguishing factor between plagiarism, which is not a crime, and copyright infringement, which can be a ground for legal action on the part of the author. Shaw, M. & Sulzer, J. An empirical test of Heider levels in the assignment of responsibilities. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 39-46. Hoiberg, B., and Stires, L. The effect of several types of pre-trial publicity on the recriminations of simulated jurors. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Sozialpsychologie, 1973, 3, 267-275.
Perlman, D. Attribution in the criminal justice process: Concepts and empirical illustrations. In P. Lipsitt and B. Sales (Eds.). New avenues in psychosynlegal research. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York 1979. The term “attribution” means “the operation of linking a particular act or omission to a State” under international law.1 According to article 2 of the draft articles on State responsibility, attribution is one of the elements for establishing an act contrary to international law;2 Therefore, “all international claims are based on attribution”.3 Ross, L.
The intuitive psychologist and its shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (ed.)Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 1977. The rules of attribution under international law were reflected in the articles of the International Law Commission on State responsibility (“articles of the Commission”). The relevant provisions of the draft articles of the ILC have been recognized as the most authoritative legal declaration, a codification of customary international law10 or “general principles of law”.11 Arbitration tribunals have referred to these rules, as most investment treaties and the ICSID Convention do not contain rules on attribution.12 Many jurisdictions have concluded that the attribution of legislative acts to the State is based on its legislative authority;28 but hesitated. attribute the conduct of members of parliament to the state.29 Other courts have held that a separate legal personality is a strong indication of the absence of a state organ, but is not determinative.48 “Right to attribution”. Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/right%20of%20attribution. Retrieved 5 January 2022. The concept of attribution has been used by some courts not only to attribute wrongful conduct to the host State, but also to define whether the claimant is an investor in a Contracting State and not the Contracting State itself.8 However, it has been decided that attribution rules cannot be used to prevent an investor from bringing a claim on the basis of a BIT.9 (For more jurisprudence, complex theories of guilt have emerged in the law that specify the circumstances in which an act must be considered intentional or involuntary and justified or unjustified.
Legal theories also distinguish the different degrees of responsibility for criminal acts that depend on the mental state of the accused. These theories were developed largely on the basis of logical analysis.