Perspective of the Newly Independent States on the Binding Quality of International Law

1965 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Prakash Sinha
Author(s):  
Ingo Venzke

This chapter investigates the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the battle for international law circa the years of 1955–1975. It first draws attention to newly independent states that saw the Court in its role of reinforcing international law’s colonial imprints. The chapter then focuses on the Court’s captivating highpoint during the battle for international law: its 1962 and 1966 Judgments in South West Africa, and the jarring 1966 decision which, in the eyes of many states, presented the ICJ as a ‘white man’s court’ in a white man’s world. The chapter then shows the effects of the 1966 decision in judicial elections and the quest to change the composition of the bench. Finally, the chapter argues that the present inquiry serves as a vivid reminder that international law and its institutions are the product of a veritable struggle, then as now.


Author(s):  
Pocar Fausto

This chapter explores how the proliferation of newly independent states and state dissolution has resulted in greater complexity on the issue of state succession of treaty obligations. In particular, between the theories of tabula rasa succession and automatic state succession. The Human Rights Committee, the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, and the development of customary international law all bolster the imposition of automatic state succession with respect to international human rights and humanitarian law treaties. Automatic state succession is required by the special nature of human rights and humanitarian law. Thus, once a population is granted the protection of such rights, these rights devolve with the territory and a state cannot deny them. Furthermore, other international institutions have enforced these obligations resulting in the continuity of international human rights and humanitarian law treaties.


The so-called ‘decolonization era’ witnessed a fundamental challenge to (legalized) Western hegemony through a new vision of the institutional environment and political economy of the world. It is during this era, arguably couched between classic European imperialism and a new form of US-led Western hegemony, that fundamental legal debates took place over a new international legal order for a decolonized world. These debates consist in essence of a battle that was fought by diplomats, lawyers and scholars over, in particular, the premises and principles of international law. In a moment of relative weakness of European powers, ‘newly independent states’ and international lawyers from the South fundamentally challenged traditional Western perceptions of international legal structures engaging in fundamental controversies over a new international law. This book argues that international legal structures in many areas of international relations, including international economic law, the use of force, international humanitarian, the law of the sea, and human rights have been transformed during this era. The effect of this transition, however, was enabling the change from classic European imperialism to new forms of US-led Western hegemony. It draws on Koselleck’s Sattelzeit concept—bridging two different forms of global Western dominance—in which fundamental concepts of international law were re-imagined, politicized, and transformed. All aspects of this battle are of vital importance for any future project aiming to address and alter the relationship between international law and fundamental inequalities in this world.


2021 ◽  
pp. 189-212
Author(s):  
Grégoire Mallard

This chapter analyses how the context of decolonization gave rise to a new discourse in international public law on the legitimacy and legality of sovereign debts contracted during the colonial times. It focuses on the international doctrine of state succession created by ‘third-world’ legal scholars within the context of the United Nations (UN), at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), and the International Law Commission (ILC). This chapter focuses in particular on the twenty-year-long effort started in the 1960s by the ILC to codify the doctrine on the law of State Succession in respect to State Property, Archives and Debts, which led to the adoption of the so-named Convention by a majority of newly independent states in 1983. In doing so, it highlights the tools that international public law gave to the global movement in favour of the cancellation of sovereign debts contracted during colonial times. The chapter is based on archival research as well as extensive interviews with the concerned lawyers, in particular, with foremost foreign policy architect and prominent international law scholar Mohamed Bedjaoui (1929–) who opposed the continuity in sovereign debt obligations that former empires wanted to impose on newly independent states.


Author(s):  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah

In the years following decolonization the divisions between the United States and Latin America became universalized when the newly independent states of Africa and Asia espoused the Calvo Doctrine and the European states, seeking to retain control over their former colonies, adopted the externalization of the foreign investment process. In foreign investment protection decolonization did not destroy the hegemonic structures of imperial international law; the same objectives were achieved more indirectly. International law remains the purveyor of poverty and the instrument of small interest groups in alliance with the elite of the developing world. After decolonization these same objectives continued via more sophisticated structures constructed with rules that overtly seemed justifiable, but covertly ensured an exploitative system. This chapter explores the period between 1955–1975 in which the struggle was between the insulation and externalization of the process and when its subjection to host state sovereignty became clearly entrenched.


Author(s):  
Jochen von Bernstorff ◽  
Philipp Dann

The so-called ‘decolonization era’ witnessed a fundamental challenge to (legalized) Western hegemony through a new vision of the institutional environment and political economy of the world. Couched between classic European imperialism and a new form of US-led Western hegemony, fundamental legal debates took place over a new international legal order for a decolonized world. ‘Newly independent states’ and international lawyers from the South fundamentally challenged traditional Western perceptions and beliefs, which led to a discursive ‘battle for international law’. This chapter argues that underlying structures in many areas of international relations were transformed during this era, enabling a transition from classic European imperialism to new forms of US-led Western hegemony. The underlying aspirations, strategies and failures related to the battle for international law are of vital importance for any future project aiming to address and alter the relationship between international law and fundamental inequalities in this world.


Author(s):  
Bill Bowring

This chapter suggests that the right of people to self-determination is the ‘revolutionary kernel’ of post-Second World War international law, and which both reflected and energized the struggles of national liberation movements for independence from colonial empires. The USSR played a leading role in bringing about this extraordinary success against fierce resistance from the great colonial powers. In particular, the USSR, by leading the newly independent states and a sustained diplomatic effort, contributed materially to the national liberation movements of the time. This is problematic, given that the USSR, together with the territories occupied by it as a result of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, constituted the greatest extent of Russian imperial power. The chapter explores how the USSR positioned itself in these legal debates and explains the unexpected Russian contribution to the battle for international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document