Coming in from the Shadow of the Law: The Use of Law by States to Negotiate International Environmental Disputes in Good Faith

2006 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 101-143
Author(s):  
Cameron Hutchison
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Migratory Species ◽  
Know How ◽  
Environmental Disputes ◽  
Discursive Interaction ◽  
Legitimate Interests

SummaryInternational law increasingly obliges states to negotiate in good faith environmental disputes that arise in connection with the use and protection of shared or common property natural resources — that is, watercourses, fisheries, and migratory species. Articulation of this duty to negotiate in good faith has been vague, and, perhaps as a consequence, disputes have been protracted or have gone unresolved. Part of the problem may be that states do not know how to interpret their competing rights in the resource. This article explores the facilitative potential of international authoritative soft law to good faith negotiation where rights and obligations of resource use and protection are broadly stated and their relationship to one another is unclear. In this context, our understanding of the relevance, sources, and use of law in the negotiation process contributes to whether law functions to facilitate or frustrate dispute resolution. Through discursive interaction undertaken in good faith, states should look to international authoritative soft law to explicate, integrate, and reconcile their legitimate interests within their competing rights and obligations, according to prescribed legitimacy criteria.

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE THEORY OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY

2021 ◽  
pp. 148-161
Author(s):  
Alesya V. Demkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Special Rules

The article deals with the relatively new rules of Art. 434.1 the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the conduct of negotiations. Taking into account the current wording of the said rule and the experience of foreign legislation on pre-contractual liability, the article argues for different theories justifying the nature of pre-contractual legal relations and liability and gives different positions of the authors on this issue. Proceeding from the doctrinal concept of obligation and characteristics of pre-contractual relations themselves the conclusion is made that these relations, firstly, are regulated by law and, secondly, they are not simply a legal relation but an obligation. It is based on certain actions of the negotiating partners that give rise to such an obliga-tion. As such, any action that is sufficiently certain (in some cases it may be required by law) and expresses the intention of the person to regard himself as negotiating with the addressee, who will in return perform the same sufficiently certain action, can be regarded as such. The specified characteristics of an action allow us to conclude that, from the point of view of classification of legal facts, this action is an act (because it is performed with a certain in-tention evident to other participants of civil turnover) and, moreover, it is also a transaction. Special rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulate that the actions performed to enter into negotiations (for example, if the conclusion of a contract is binding on one party) or the actions of both partners entail legal consequences - the obligation to negotiate in good faith. The analysis of these legal relationships identifies three stages in their development, charac-terises them and attempts to answer more precisely the question of who can be a participant in the negotiation process depending on the stage of the negotiation process. The subject matter of an obligation arising during pre-contractual contacts will be actions aimed at negotiating and concluding a contract. The content of the obligation arising in the course of pre-contractual contacts, based on Art. 434.1 of the Civil Code will be the obligation to negotiate in good faith (paragraph 2 of the above rule). Assuming that the legislator provides an indicative list of actions that should fall within the scope of bad faith conduct, an indicative list of the "standard" of good faith conduct at the negotiation stage is given. This includes the obligation to provide full and truthful information to a party, including the reporting of circumstances that, due to the nature of the contract, must be brought to the attention of the other party (e.g. in a sale, all encumbrances on the subject of the contract must be reported). In addition, persons are obliged to negotiate only if they intend to conclude a contract, not to terminate negotiations suddenly and unjustifiably, and to take into account the rights and legitimate interests of the other party to the negotiation. The obligation under this obligation may also include a requirement not to disclose infor-mation obtained during the negotiation of the contract.

Treaty Interpretation And The Incorporation Of Extraneous Legal Rules

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan French
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Environmental Disputes ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Interpretative Approach

AbstractThis paper considers under what circumstances, and for what reasons, an international tribunal may want to range beyond the primary text of a treaty to determine its ‘correct’ meaning; such extraneous legal material potentially including rules of customary international law, other treaties between the parties, general principles of law, and documents of a ‘soft law’ nature. The paper suggests a variety of ‘mechanisms’ by which a tribunal may undertake a broader interpretative approach, though all ultimately raise the same inevitable tension between accusations of judicial activism and counter-arguments of inflexibility and insularity. Nevertheless, many tribunals and individual judges continue to utilize such techniques, particularly noticeable in some recent environmental disputes. The paper will conclude with a note of caution; that though such interpretations are becoming an increasingly significant part of modern judicial decision-making—something that is generally to be welcomed—tribunals must concurrently take care to ensure that they remain within the accepted parameters of the adjudicative function.

scholarly journals The Importance Of Enforcing The Fundamental Principles Of International Law During The Negotiation Process

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 436-441
Author(s):  
Dan Gună
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
International Law ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Power Balance ◽  
International Conflicts ◽  
Extra Time ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sovereign Equality

Abstract Diplomatic negotiations represent the most frequently regulated and used method when it comes to states settling their international conflicts. The negotiation process can be influenced by many factors, such as: the characteristics of the conflict, the power balance, the relation between the parties in conflict. From the perspective of international law, a significant importance for the success of negotiations is held by the observance of some principles such as: sovereign equality of the parties, the absence of force or threat to use the force, good faith, lack of interference in internal affairs, abstention from committing any act capable to worsen the conflict. For a solid lengthy settlement of a conflict, no solution can be imposed by using the force or threatening to use it and, hence, transgressing the essential attribute of states – sovereignty. States must show a good faith attitude during negotiations and use this diplomatic method with the real intent of settling the conflict and not for other strategic reasons, like getting extra time or creating a good faith appearance in front of the public opinion as they were looking for a solution.

«Soft law» in the law of the Eurasian Ec onomic Union: place and possibility of challenging

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
P.P. Myslivsky ◽  
◽  
I.N. Shchurova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
Economic Commission ◽  
Economic Union ◽  
The Law

In international law, there are sources that do not formally have binding force, but may indicate the emergence of the opinio juris of states, as well as emerging practice. The Eurasian Economic Union also issues acts that are not formally binding: they are adopted by the Eurasian Economic Commission in the form of recommendations. In addition, the Union takes into account the recommendatory acts of other international organizations. At present, the practice of the EAEU Court indicates that this body takes into account “soft law” in the course of argumentation, but proceeds from the impossibility of challenging acts that are recommendations of the EEC. The authors give ways to establish the possibility of challenging the EEC recommendations in the EAEU Court.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: a kaleidoscope of international law

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-268
Author(s):  
Vincent Chetail
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Hybrid Character ◽  
Normative Content

AbstractThe Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration has prompted an intense political debate at both the international and domestic levels. Most controversies focus on its legal stance and highlight the hybrid character of the Compact as a soft-law instrument. While acknowledging the political nature of the Compact, this paper delves into its legal dimensions from the perspective of international law. This inquiry into its normative content discloses three main features: (1) the Compact is not a codification of international legal norms governing migration; it is an instrument of both (2) consolidation and (3) expansion of international law to foster inter-governmental co-operation and promote safe, orderly and regular migration.

Criminogenic Policy Antithetical to Peace Policy: A Case Study of NAFTA as a Violation of International Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 016059762093289
Author(s):  
Daniel Patten
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Study Analysis ◽  
Business Investment ◽  
Written Text ◽  
Case Study Analysis

Successful peace policy that enshrines human rights allows individuals to thrive economically, politically, and socially with minimal conflict. Building from literature on crimes of globalization, genocide, and human rights, the current research investigates the concept of a criminogenic policy that at its core is antithetical to peace policy. Using case study analysis, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is found to be both criminal and criminogenic in violation of international law for two primary reasons. First, the NAFTA negotiation process was criminal and criminogenic for three interrelated reasons: (1) powerful elites heavily influenced the outcome, (2) it was undemocratic, and (3) the opposition was often repressed. Second, the NAFTA policy itself was criminal and criminogenic for two reasons: (1) NAFTA as a policy ignored all of the critical voices that predicted negative outcomes and (2) the written text of NAFTA is criminal for failing to include human rights protections while offering a litany of rights to protect business investment.

scholarly journals The Hague Judgments Convention and How We Negotiated It

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin Sun ◽  
Qiong WU
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Global Circulation ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Hague

Abstract In July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. As an outcome of the Judgments Project, this Convention will exert a great influence on the global circulation of foreign judgments. China attached great importance to the Judgments Project and participated in the full negotiation process. This paper is a reflection of some of the Chinese negotiators’ approaches in handling certain very difficult but important issues in the process, with the hope that it may shed some light on China’s negotiation practice and the principles it adheres to in the international law arena, which are fully in line with the principles of equity and justice, mutual benefit, and win-win outcome.

Piercing the Corporate Veil: The Responsibility of Member states of an International Organization

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Odette Murray
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Member States ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Legal Limit ◽  
Primary Rule

AbstractThis paper applies two manifestations of the principle of good faith – pacta sunt servanda and the doctrine of abuse of rights – to the complex relationship between member states and international organizations. The paper argues that these existing doctrines operate as a legal limit on the conduct of states when creating, controlling and functioning within international organizations. The paper begins by exploring an innovative provision in the International Law Commission's recently finalised Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations – Draft Article 61 – according to which a member state will bear international responsibility for the act of an international organization where the member state uses the organization to circumvent its own international obligations. Examining the development of Draft Article 61 and the jurisprudence upon which it is based, this paper argues that the principle which the Commission in fact seeks to articulate in Draft Article 61 is that of good faith in the performance of treaties. As such, being based on a primary rule of international law, this paper queries whether Draft Article 61 belongs in a set of secondary rules. The paper then considers the role of states in the decision-making organs of international organizations and argues that the widely held presumption against member state responsibility for participation in decision-making organs can and should be displaced in certain cases, in recognition of the various voting mechanisms in international organizations and the varied power which certain states may wield. The paper argues that the doctrine of abuse of rights operates as a fundamental legal limit on the exercise of a member state's voting discretion, and thereby forms a complementary primary obligation placed on states in the context of their participation in international organizations.

Nuclear Powers' Disarmament Obligation under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: Interactions between Soft Law and Hard Law

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALESSANDRA PIETROBON
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Test ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Hard Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Test Ban ◽  
Nuclear Test Ban ◽  
Test Ban Treaty

AbstractThe Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will not be effective until all the 44 states listed in its Annex 2 ratify it. A special link has been established between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the CTBT. The disarmament obligation set by Article VI of the NPT, which has not yet been complied with, remains highly controversial. The relevant subsequent practice of the states parties to the NPT shows that the ratification of the CTBT is to be considered the first of the practical steps towards compliance with Article VI. However, as the practical steps do not set any legally binding norms, there is no legal obligation to ratify the CTBT, not even for the 44 states listed in Annex 2 whose ratification is essential. The paper deals with the position of nuclear powers party to the NPT that have not yet ratified the CTBT (most prominently the US and China) and demonstrates that these states should at least provide detailed motivation for their conduct. Otherwise, other states parties to the NPT could consider them as not complying in good faith with Article VI of the NPT and invoke the inadimplenti non est ademplendum rule to justify breaches of their own obligations under the same treaty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document