Regulating Land Grabs: Third Party States, Social Activism and International Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 123-146
Author(s):  
Lea Brilmayer ◽  
William J. Moon
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Social Activism ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Land Grabs

scholarly journals Selling international law enforcement: Elite justifications and public values

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802095678
Author(s):  
Melissa M. Lee ◽  
Lauren Prather
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Public Support ◽  
International Order ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Values ◽  
Norm Enforcement ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
Order Increase

International law enforcement is an understudied but indispensable factor for maintaining the international order. We study the effectiveness of elite justifications in building coalitions supporting the enforcement of violations of the law against territorial seizures. Using survey experiments fielded in the USA and Australia, we find that the effectiveness of two common justifications for enforcement—the illegality of a country’s actions, and the consequences of those actions for international order—increase support for enforcement and do so independently of two key public values: ideology and interpersonal norm enforcement. These results imply elites can build a broad coalition of support by using multiple justifications. Our results, however, highlight the tepidness of public support, suggesting limits to elite rhetoric. This study contributes to the scholarship on international law by showing how the public, typically considered a mechanism for generating compliance within states, can impede or facilitate third-party enforcement of the law between states.

scholarly journals International Law and dispute settlement mechanism

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Ricardo Caichiolo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
21St Century ◽  
International Conflict ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
Feasible Solutions ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Settlement Mechanism

The DSM, or Dispute Settlement Mechanism, in the absence of a judicial body, is the closest representation of a supreme court or judicial institution in a regional bloc or other international organisation. The search for a peaceful settlement of disputes in the international arena had led to the development of the DSM during the 20th and into the 21st century. The DSM acts as an impartial third party, wherein it intervenes in any international conflict to offer feasible solutions for both sides.O MSC, ou Mecanismo de Solução de Controvérsias, na ausência de um órgão judicial, é a representação mais próxima de uma Corte Suprema ou de instituição judiciária em um bloco regionl ou em organização internacional diversa. A busca por um meio pacífico de solução de disputas no meio internacional levou à criação do MSC ao longo dos séculos XX e XXI. O MSC age como um terceiro imparcial, na medida em que ele intervém em conflitos internacionais com o intuito de ofertar soluções possíveis para as partes envolvidas.

The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Advocacy

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabinder Singh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Impact

This chapter reflects on the impact of the Human Rights Act (HRA) in its first 10 years on litigation and, in particular, on advocacy. It suggests that the impact has been important but not revolutionary: the HRA has fitted into the existing legal landscape and has not required radical changes to the rules on procedure and evidence. It examines four areas in which its impact can be felt: the nature of the evidence required in human rights cases; disclosure and candour in judicial review proceedings; the increased need for cross-examination of witnesses; and the role of third-party interveners because human rights cases tend to raise issues of importance to the wider public. Finally, it examines the increasing importance of international law in domestic cases, which can be attributed in part to the impact of the HRA.

The Need to Amend Article 12 of the ICC Statute: Remedying the Effects of Multilateral Treaties upon Third Parties

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-497
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Peacekeeping Missions ◽  
Multilateral Treaties

The rule in the ICC Statute whereby a third party national may be validly surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court by a member state offends a most fundamental rule of international law, which is moreover of a customary nature. In addition, it causes more conflicts as compared to its purported benefits, given that it constitutes a major stumbling block for the United States and has upset the U.N.'s peacekeeping missions. The rule should therefore be abandoned in order to alleviate these concerns.

How to Uphold the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikulas Fabry
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Roll Back

AbstractRussia's absorption of Crimea violated the norm of territorial integrity, which protects states against involuntary loss of territory to other states. This article addresses two different arguments on how to deal with this violation: (1) That Ukraine lost Crimea for good and that this should be acknowledged, both politically and legally, if one seeks to forestall forcible change of interstate boundaries elsewhere; and (2) that third party countermeasures against Russia can roll back its territorial gains in Ukraine, but only if they are much more materially robustthanthey have been so far. Whilemutually incompatible, the arguments raise an important issue—how to uphold international legal norms in particular situations—an issue to which scholars of international law do not pay much detailed attention. Yet doing so is important because international legal norms leave governments with wider decision-making discretion than is commonly presumed, and different ways of upholding a norm are predisposed to generate different effects, including legal effects. Having examined the two approaches, the article argues that the best way to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine is by staking a middle ground between them, placing emphasis on the policy of non-recognition.

Cyberspace will evade international legal framework

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Content Type ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Government Level

Subject International law for cyberspace. Significance Currently there is significant uncertainty about the scope and applicability of traditional international law to cyber operations. Several multilateral and government-level efforts are underway to bring greater clarity to this new domain of geostrategic activity. Impacts The ability of victim states to take countermeasures for offensive cyber operations will be impeded by the lack of international rules. Western states will publicly attribute damaging cyber operations to specific actors, but the deterrence impact will be limited. Any consensus on international law will have implications for third-party contractors who provide cybersecurity services to state actors.

scholarly journals Necessity and Proportionality and the Right of Self-Defence in International Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris O'Meara
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Total Force ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Defensive Action ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conceptual Meaning ◽  
Self Defence

States invariably justify using force extraterritorially by reference to their inherent right of self-defence. In so doing, they accept that the exercise of such right is conditioned by the customary international law requirements of necessity and proportionality. To date, these requirements have received little attention. They are notorious for being normatively indeterminate and operationally complex. As a breach of either requirement renders ostensibly defensive action unlawful, increased determinacy regarding their scope and content is crucial to how international law constrains military force. This book examines the conceptual meaning, substance and practical application of necessity and proportionality as they relate to the right of self-defence following the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945. It provides a coherent and up-to-date description of the applicable contemporary international law and proposes an analytical framework to guide its operation and appraisal. This book contends that necessity and proportionality are conceptually distinct and must be applied in the foregoing order to avoid an insufficient ‘catch-all’ description of (il)legality. Necessity determines whether defensive force may be used to respond to an armed attack and where it must be directed. Proportionality governs how much total force is permissible and prohibits excessive responses. Both requirements are shown to apply on an ongoing basis throughout the duration of an armed conflict prompted by self-defence. Compliance with necessity and proportionality ensures that the purposes of self-defence are met (and nothing more) and that defensive force is not unduly disruptive to third-party interests and to international peace and security.

Part III Observance and Application of Treaties, 11 Consistency among Treaty Obligations

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conforti Benedetto
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Over Time

International law regime of conflicts between treaties is obtained by combining the principles of the succession of treaties over time (the later treaty abrogates the earlier one) and the principle concerning the effects of treaties on third-party States (Pacta tertiis neque nocent neque prosunt). In fact, conflicts between treaties are not frequent as states prefer to negotiate in order to avoid them. Most of the time, negotiations lead to the inclusion in a treaty of declarations of ‘compatibility’ or ‘subordination’ with another or a series of other treaties. Some of them are analysed in this chapter.

Dispute Settlement in International Law

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loris Marotti ◽  
Paolo Palchetti
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Interstate Disputes ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
Recent Trends

The basic principles and methods governing the settlement of international disputes today—particularly interstate disputes—are substantially the same as those that were identified and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. Parties to a dispute are under a duty to settle it in a peaceful way (Article 2, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter). While barred from resorting to armed force, the parties remain however, at least in principle, “masters” of the procedure for dispute settlement, and of the outcome. In the absence of a precise treaty obligation, they are free to decide the particular means of dispute settlement they prefer (Article 33 of the UN Charter). More broadly, any settlement will inevitably depend, directly or indirectly, on the agreement of the parties. Thus, the whole edifice of dispute settlement at the international level is characterized by an inherent tension between a legal duty to settle disputes in a peaceful way and the absence of any real compulsory mechanism that may render such obligation effective. Against this legal background, the notion of dispute settlement covers a great variety of different settlement devices. Such procedures can be distinguished one from the other on the basis of different criteria, such as whether they contemplate the intervention of a third party, whether the settlement is based on the application of rules of international law, or whether the final outcome of the procedure has a binding or nonbinding character. The classification of these different procedures; the identification of their respective merits and shortcomings, in absolute or comparative terms; their suitability in relation to different categories of disputes—these are all issues that have been traditionally the object of a vast body of literature. On a broader perspective, recent trends, which have brought some changes in the field of the international dispute settlement, have also attracted the attention of doctrine. These trends include the progressive institutionalization of the procedures, thanks also to the growing role of international organizations in this area, the multiplication of settlement mechanisms and the ensuing problem of the possible interaction or conflict between them, the creation of new courts and tribunals, and the rise of adjudication as a means of dispute settlement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document