‘Common Interests’ as an Evolving Body of International Law: Applications to Arctic Ocean Stewardship

Author(s):  
Paul Arthur Berkman
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-189
Author(s):  
Claudia Cinelli

Unique geographical and physical specificities characterize the Arctic as an extreme and fragile marine environment. Arctic specificities differ from those of any other environment in relation to which most general principles of international law have developed. International law is usually related to the regulation of the physical environment including the distinct issues of soil, water and the atmosphere rather than a combination of these components, as is the case in the ice-covered marine areas such as those composing most of the Arctic Ocean. From both historical and contemporary perspectives, the ‘Arctic question’ has typically been: does the presence of ice change the legal status of the Arctic Ocean? The answer is decidedly no. The so-called Arctic exception, relating to Article 234 UNCLOS, is clearly the exception that proves the rule. This study focuses on how both the sovereignty-based approach and the general interest approach each address the dynamic evolution of Arctic marine environmental challenges in line with UNCLOS, the “Constitution for the Oceans”. This, however, does not preclude the special conditions of the Arctic environment being factored in when Arctic and non-Arctic entities seek feasible ad hoc solutions for cooperation on common interests and concerns.


Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro

The chapter discusses the philosophical foundations of the current regulation of the use of force. The chapter argues that, in correspondence with the emergence of a sphere of substantive rules protecting common interests of humankind, international law is also gradually developing a system of protection against egregious breaches of these interests. This conclusion is reached through an analysis of the law and practice governing the action of the UN Security Council as well as the law of state responsibility concerning individual and collective reactions to serious breaches of common interests. This system is based on positive obligations imposed upon individual states as well as UN organs, and it appears to be still rudimentary and inefficient. However, the chapter suggests that the mere existence of this system, these shortcomings notwithstanding, has the effect of promoting the further development of the law in search for more appropriate mechanisms of protection.


Politik ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Jacobsen ◽  
Jeppe Strandsbjerg

By signing the Ilulissat Declaration of May 2008, the five littoral states of the Arctic Ocean pre-emptively desecuritized potential geopolitical controversies in the Arctic Ocean by confirming that international law and geo-science are the defining factors underlying the future delimitation. This happened in response to a rising securitization discourse fueled by commentators and the media in the wake of the 2007 Russian flag planting on the geographical North Pole seabed, which also triggered harder interstate rhetoric and dramatic headlines. This case, however, challenges some established conventions within securitization theory. It was state elites that initiated desecuritization and they did so by shifting issues in danger of being securitized from security to other techniques of government. Contrary to the democratic ethos of the theory, these shifts do not necessarily represent more democratic procedures. Instead, each of these techniques are populated by their own experts and technocrats operating according to logics of right (law) and accuracy (science). While shifting techniques of government might diminish the danger of securitized relations between states, the shift generates a displacement of controversy. Within international law we have seen controversy over its ontological foundations and within science we have seen controversy over standards of science. Each of these are amplified and take a particularly political significance when an issue is securitized via relocation to another technique. While the Ilulissat Declaration has been successful in minimizing the horizontal conflict potential between states it has simultaneously given way for vertical disputes between the signatory states on the one hand and the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic on the other.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
VASSILIS P. TZEVELEKOS ◽  
LUCAS LIXINSKI

AbstractThe article argues that, by bringing a number of changes of systemic proportions in the order of international law, the internationalization of national constitutional human rights law has led to the ‘constitutionalization’ of international law. To build that argument, the paper first critically assesses the constitutionalization narrative. To that end it explains the reasons for its agnostic stance vis-à-vis the constitutionalization narrative and highlights the fact that international law has always contained some general, “constitutional” features that are particular to its systemic physiognomy. The article then explains how human rights law, as a special branch of international law, expands beyond the so-called humanization of international law narrative, acting as an important ingredient in a number of other narratives such as the constitutionalization of international law and the ones that are comparable to it, like legal pluralism and fragmentation. As to the systemic changes the internationalization of human rights has brought to the order of public international law, the examples given are those of collective enforcement at the decentralized level for the protection of common interests/values, sui generis normative hierarchy beyondjus cogensand the idea of the responsibility of states to act in a protective manner linked with the principle of due diligence and the so-called positive effect that human rights develop.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (9) ◽  
pp. 63-76
Author(s):  
N. N. Lipkina

Human rights are playing an increasingly important role in the functioning and development of society, and the international legal regulation of the sphere of inter-State cooperation on human rights has acquired a number of specific features that have a significant impact on the development of various institutions of international law, including the law of international responsibility. The purpose of the article is to analyze the features and problems of implementation of the methodology of ensuring the common interest of the international community as a whole that includes protection of human rights under the law of international responsibility. The author considers the category “common interests of the international community as a whole,” and explores its importance in the process of intensification of interstate cooperation in the field of human rights. It is noted that such instruments of ensuring the implementation of the common interests of the international community as a whole as norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes predetermine the specifics of the content of the secondary rules of the law of international responsibility. These include rules establishing circumstances precluding the wrongfulness of an act, establishing the consequences of serious breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms of international law governing the invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State. The author emphasizes the significance of the instruments under consideration in the process of establishing the features of the content of individual constructions of the law of international responsibility. Attention is drawn to the fact that implementation of the common interest of the international community as a whole ensuring promotion and protection of human rights in the law of international responsibility entails some difficulties arising due to the lack, inter alia, of consensus concerning methodology for classifying international law as jus cogens norms and the existence of different approaches to understanding the content and structure of human rights per se. It is concluded that, despite the existence of these problems, it is impossible to deny the significant influence of norms of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes on the content of international legal regulation of various areas of international cooperation in the context of the growing trend towards the communitarization of international law and humanization of international relations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document