System Values and Understanding Legal Language

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
MAKSYMILIAN DEL MAR
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Legal Language ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
The Ideal

AbstractThis paper argues that the concerns and methodology of the recently completed Report of the International Law Commission (ILC) over the fragmentation of international law presuppose a particular way of understanding legal language which tends to separate the understanding of rules from their factual adaptability to certain recurring social problems faced within specific institutional contexts. The paper argues that separating rules from their factual adaptability focuses the analysis on surface coherence – coherence at the level of abstract terms and phrases. It is the argument of this paper that this presupposition is not warranted, and that the understanding of rules cannot be thus separated. An alternative model of the understanding of legal language is developed on the basis of the work of Bernard Jackson and Geoffrey Samuel. This is further supplemented by the approach to the study of institutional contexts in the recent work of Robert Summers and John Bell. Together, these resources can lead to the analysis of the deep coherence of the international legal order, that being one that prioritizes not the unity of that order, but its responsiveness. The ideal of responsive law is elaborated upon by reference to the work of Philip Selznick and Philippe Nonet. Finally, a different agenda for the ILC is offered on the basis of the methodology of deep coherence. The upshot is that the paper calls for a reorientation of international legal theory, away from concerns about ‘the law itself’ and towards an engagement with the responsiveness of legal work performed in international legal institutions.

scholarly journals How far does the Systemic Approach to Immunities take us?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 16-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Webb
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Systemic Approach ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Draft Article ◽  
Criminal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Systemic Nature ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission (ILC) explains in its 2017 Commentary to Draft Article 7 of its Draft Articles on the Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction that the draft articles are “intended to apply within an international legal order whose unity and systemic nature cannot be ignored.” The quest for coherence is admirable. It enhances legal certainty and predictability in an evolving area of the law. But a systemic approach can also go too far—stretching analogies and ignoring differences, seeing a trend where there is none. The trajectory of the ILC's work on Draft Article 7 illustrates certain dangers.

The Fifty-Sixth Session of the International Law Commission

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Sixth Session ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission held its fifty-sixdi session in Geneva from May 3 to June 4, and from July 5 to August 6, 2004, under the chairmanship of Teodor Melescanu of Romania. The Commission completed its first reading of draft principles on international liability for transboundary harm and draft articles on diplomatic protection, which have now been submitted for comment by states with a view to their completion in 2006. The Commission also continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, unilateral acts of states, fragmentation of international law, and shared natural resources. In addition, the Commission decided to start work next year on the effect of armed conflict on treaties and the expulsion of aliens, and to recommend adding a new topic—the obligation to prosecute or extradite—to its long-term program. The following is a summary of where each topic stands and what issues are likely to be most prominent at the Commission's 2005 session.

scholarly journals Die Zukunft des Völkerrechts

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
World Order ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
Normative Growth ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

The international legal order today constitutes a truly universal legal system. It has received guiding principles through the United Nations Charter: ever since this ‘Constitution for the world’ began operating, sovereign equality of states, self‑determination of peoples, and human rights have been key components of this architecture, which has reached a state of ‘conceptual unity’ belying the talk of ‘fragmentation’ of international law that so fascinated scholars in their debates only a short while ago. The great peace treaties of 1648, 1815, and 1919, as Euro‑centric instruments influenced by the interests of the dominant powers, could not bring about a peaceful world order. After World War II, it was, in particular, the inclusion of the newly independent states in the legislative processes that has conferred an unchallenged degree of legitimacy on international law. Regrettably, its effectiveness has not kept pace with its normative growth. Some islands of stability can be identified. On the positive side, one can note a growing trend to entrust the settlement of disputes to formal procedures. Yet the integration of human rights in international law – a step of moral advancement that proceeds from the simple recognition that, precisely in the interest of world peace, domains of domestic and international matters cannot be separated one from the other as neatly as postulated by the classic doctrine of international law – has placed enormous obstacles before international law. It must be expected that the demand for more justice on the part of developing nations will subject the international legal order to even greater strain in the near future. Currently, chances are low that the issue of migration from the poorer South to the ‘rich’ North can be resolved.

The Role of Treaties in Pursuing the Objectives of the UN Charter

2019 ◽  
pp. 68-86
Author(s):  
Christian J. Tams
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Master Plan ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Binding Mechanisms ◽  
Law Commission

Treaties are a central building block of the United Nations legal order. They have particular significance for the objectives set out in the UN Charter: these need to be implemented and effectuated, and treaties concretizing the Charter’s broad objectives can help achieve that aim. The Charter text, perhaps surprisingly, does not reflect this adequately. Unlike constituent documents of other international organizations, the Charter formulates no master plan for the UN’s use of treaties, and only occasionally mentions treaties explicitly. Its guidance is primarily indirect: some Charter objectives are formulated in such vague terms that without follow-up action, including follow-up action that takes the form of treaties, they would be meaningless. The drafter’s surprising caution means that the role of treaties in pursuing UN objectives is primarily shaped by practice rather than the Charter text. In the seven decades since the UN’s establishment, treaties—prepared in highly diverse processes, including by the International Law Commission (ILC) and within specialized agencies—have sprawled. In the absence of a Charter master plan, they have grown to cover large parts of the continent of international law. A sole focus on the gigantic network of treaties, however, risks overlooking the fact that more often than not, member states and UN organs prefer other means of pursuing Charter objectives (resolutions, statements, and other non-binding mechanisms). The landscape of treaties is as uneven as it is diverse.

The Fifty-Eighth Session of the International Law Commission

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-441
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Transboundary Aquifers ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations held its fifty-eighth session in Geneva from May 1 to June 9, and from July 3 to August 11, 2006. This was the final year of the Commission's most recent five-year term (or quinquennium), and it finished work on several topics by completing sets of draft articles on diplomatic protection, principles on international liability for transboundary harm, “guiding principles” on unilateral acts, and conclusions on fragmentation of international law. The Commission also completed its first reading of articles on transboundary aquifers; continued its work on reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, and the effect of armed conflict on treaties; began its consideration of the obligation to extradite or prosecute and the expulsion of aliens; and added a variety of new topics to its long-term program.

scholarly journals The Right of Intervention for the Protection of Nationals : Reassessing the Doctrinal Debate

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-493
Author(s):  
Jean Raby
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
The Past ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Self Defence

The legality of a forceful intervention by a state to protect its nationals has been the subject of a continuing controversy over the past 15 years. Many see it as an unlawful use of force prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations, others see it as a lawful exercice of a self-standing right recognized under contemporary international law, some finally claim it falls under the scope of self-defence. The author proposes not to restate that debate, but more to reassess it, examining and challenging some of the arguments raised on both sides of the question. Within that debate, it will be concluded that the international legal order does indeed recognize the validity of the use of force for such a purpose : if the avenue of self-defence is rejected, for conceptual as well as practical reasons, the right of intervention to protect nationals is indeed, for the author, part of the comtemporary international legal order. Then, the author wishes to broaden the debate and proposes another option, which has not been explored by scholars and publicists but which is found more satisfactory than any other approach : intervention to protect nationals can be justified under international law because of the existence, in a particular case, of a "state of necessity" as defined by the International Law Commission.

The Fifty-Seventh Session of the International Law Commission

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 416-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
International Liability ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission held its fifty-seventh session in Geneva from May 2 to June 3, and from July 11 to August 5, 2005. The Commission continued its work on shared natural resources, reservations to treaties, responsibility of international organizations, unilateral acts of states, and fragmentation of international law. It began work on the effect of armed conflict on treaties and expulsion of aliens, and decided to begin work next year on the obligation to prosecute or extradite. It took no further action for the time being on diplomatic protection or on international liability for transboundary harm, pending the receipt of comments from governments on the texts adopted on first reading in 2004.

scholarly journals Validity Of The 1918 Unification of Montenegro And Serbia - An International Legal Theory Approach

Eudaimonia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 143-164
Author(s):  
Matija Stojanović
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Logical Inconsistency ◽  
International Legal Order

In this paper, the author will critically reexamine the 1918 unification of Montenegro and Serbia, challenging the views which claim that it had no legal basis in the then-valid (international) legal order. The author disregards these claims made by the critics of the unification by exposing their methodological and logical inconsistency. In doing so, by citing original documents the author attempts to actually recreate the adjudicating process by which this question had been solved within the realm of the international law and, in doing so, he brings the reader’s attention to certain theoretically interesting aspects of the international law, such as its overall nature, its adjudicating process and its adjudicating bodies (institutions), which are of utmost theoretical importance.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE CONDITIONS OF TRANSFORMATION OF CONTEMPORARY WORLD ORDER

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Анатолий Капустин ◽  
Anatoliy Kapustin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
World Order ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
International Policies ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Relationship

The article discusses the role and function of international law in the transformation of the modern world order. A brief description of the main features of international contemporary international relations and the role of international law in maintaining international legal order is given. The relationship and interaction of international policies of States and international law is examined. Scientific schools of international law exploring the relationship of international law and foreign policy are analyzed. In this regard, the author draws attention to the problem of the legitimacy of international law and established international legal order. The assessment of challenges to the legitimacy of international law and its reflection in the current international legal theory is made.

Farewell to the f-word? fragmentation of international law in times of the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. e20210007
Author(s):  
Sivan Shlomo Agon
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Test Case ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
International Response ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

The proliferation of international legal regimes, norms, and institutions in the post-Cold War era, known as the ‘fragmentation’ of international law, has sparked extensive debate among jurists. This debate has evolved as a dialectical process, seeing legal scholarship shifting from grave concern about fragmentation’s potentially negative impacts on the international legal order to a more optimistic view of the phenomenon, with recent literature suggesting that the tools needed to contain fragmentation’s ill-effects are today all at hand, thus arguing that the time has come ‘to bid farewell to the f-word.’ Drawing on the COVID-19 crisis as a test case and considering the unresolved problems in existing fragmentation literature that this crisis brings to the fore, this article asks whether such calls have perhaps been premature. Existing works on fragmentation, the article submits, including those bidding farewell to the f-word, have mainly focused on the problems of conflicts between international norms or international institutions, especially conflicts between international courts over competing jurisdictions and interpretations of law. But, as the COVID-19 case – and, particularly, the deficient cooperation marked between the numerous international organizations reacting to the crisis – shows, the fragmentation of the international legal order does not only give rise to the potential consequences of conflicts of norms and clashes between international courts. Fragmentation also gives rise to pressing challenges of coordination when a proactive and cohesive international response is required to address global problems like COVID-19, which cut across multiple international organizations playing critical roles in the creation, administration, and application of international law. By foregrounding cooperation between international organizations as a vital-yet-deficient form of governance under conditions of fragmentation, the article argues, the COVID-19 crisis not only denotes that the time is not yet ripe to bid farewell to the f-word. It further points to the need to expand the fragmentation debate, going beyond its conflict- and court-centred focus, while probing new tools for tackling unsettled problems that arise from the segmentation of international law along sectoral lines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document