Part V Treaty Interpretation, 22 Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: International Organizations

Author(s):  
Brölmann Catherine

International law has generally treated questions of the legal personality and legal powers of international organizations (IOs) as a distinct subject — notably one of international institutional law. However, IOs also regularly trigger questions of treaty law and practice. Most IOs are created by treaty, and that ‘constituent instrument’ provides the necessary starting point for delimiting their functions and competences. This chapter addresses treaty interpretation in the IO context, with particular attention to the interpretation of founding or constitutive treaties of international organizations. Part I examines the interpretation of constitutive treaties and IO secondary rules. Part II looks at the role of organizations as treaty interpreters. Examples are drawn predominantly from the UN context and, to a lesser degree, the European Union.

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-751
Author(s):  
Paz Andrés Sáenz De Santa María

Abstract This article examines the European Union’s (EU) treaty practice from the perspective of the international law of treaties, focusing on its most significant examples. The starting point is the EU’s attitude towards the codification of treaty law involving states and international organizations. The article discusses certain terminological specificities and a few remarkable aspects, such as the frequent use of provisional application mechanisms as opposed to much less use of reservations, the contributions regarding treaty interpretation, the wide variety of clauses and the difficulties in determining the legal nature of certain texts. The study underlines that treaty law is a useful instrument for the Union and is further enriched with creative contributions; the outcome is a fruitful relationship.


Author(s):  
Nicole Scicluna

This chapter evaluates global governance and how it relates to international law. It addresses the role of international organizations in processes of global governance, charting their rise from the nineteenth century onwards. Two international organizations exemplify semi-legalized governance beyond the state: the United Nations and the European Union. Sovereign states, of course, continue to play a central role in the institutions, processes, and mechanisms of global governance. The chapter then explores the extent to which a state’s power, influence, and legitimacy are affected by factors such as its domestic political arrangements and its adherence to the liberal, Western values that underpin the postwar order. It also assesses whether the proliferation of legalized and semi-legalized global governance regimes amounts to a constitutionalization of international relations.


2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramses A. Wessel

The question of the immunities of the European Union (‘eu’) is clearly under-researched. However, with the new global ambitions of the eu, which are even more prominent in the current — post-Lisbon Treaty — legal regime, the classic institutional law theme of the immunities of international organizations deserves to be addressed in the context of the eu as well. This contribution first of all looks into the legal position of the eu under international law. This is followed by an analysis of the legal provisions on the eu’s immunities in the treaties and other relevant documents. The paper also addresses actual and potential situations in which eu immunities are or can be invoked. It is concluded that, although the eu’s legal regime in this area follows the rules of international diplomatic law, it is special because of the extensive, yet complex, international competences of the eu as well as of the role of the organization’s own Court of Justice.


Author(s):  
Antoine Vandemoorteele

This article analyzes the role of the European Union (EU) and Canada in the promotion of Security Sector Reforms (SSR) activities in two regional organizations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The concept of SSR seeks to address the effective governance of security in post-conflict environment by transforming the security institutions within a country in order for them to have more efficient, legitimate and democratic role in implementing security. Recent debates within the EU have led to the adoption of an SSR concept from the Council and a new strategy from the European Commission on the SSR activities. Within the framework of the ESDP, the EU has positioned itself as a leading actor, in this domain, including in its crisis management operations. On the other hand, Canada, through its whole-of government and human security programs has also been an important actor in the promotion of SSR activities. Yet, even though several international organizations (including the United Nations, the OSCE and NATO) are effectively doing SSR activities on the ground, there does not exist a common framework within any of these organizations despite the role of the EU and Canada. As such, it is surprising to found no global common policy for SSR while this approach is precisely holistic in its foundations. Taking these elements into consideration, this paper analyzes two specific aspects : a) the absence of a common policy framework within international organizations and b) the major differences between the approaches of the OSCE and NATO in the domain of SSR and the implications for the EU and Canada’ roles.   Full extt available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.186


From trade relations to greenhouse gases, from shipwrecks to cybercrime, treaties structure the rights and obligations of states, international organizations, and individuals. For centuries, treaties have regulated relations among nation states. Today, they are the dominant source of international law. Thus, being adept with treaties and international agreements is an indispensable skill for anyone engaged in international relations. This revised and updated edition provides a comprehensive guide to treaties, shedding light on the rules and practices surrounding the making, interpretation, and operation of these instruments. The chapters are designed to introduce the law of treaties and offer practical insights into how treaties actually work. Foundational issues are covered, including what treaties are and when they should be used, alongside detailed analyses of treaty formation, application, interpretation, and exit. Special issues associated with treaties involving the European Union and other international organizations are also addressed. These are complimented by a set of model treaty clauses. Real examples illustrate the approaches that treaty-makers can take on topics such as entry into force, languages, reservations, and amendments. The book thus provides an authoritative reference point for anyone studying or involved in the creation or interpretation of treaties or other forms of international agreement.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARKUS PATBERG

Abstract:There is a growing sense that if the EU is to avoid disintegration, it needs a constitutional renewal. However, a reform negotiated between executives will hardly revitalise the European project. In light of this, commentators have suggested that the EU needs a democratic refounding on popular initiative. But that is easier said than done. Shaping the EU has been an elite enterprise for decades and it is hard to imagine how things could be otherwise. In this article, I map four public narratives of constituent power in the EU to sketch out potential alternatives. Political actors increasingly call into question the conventional role of the states as the ‘masters of the treaties’ and construct alternative stories as to who should be in charge of EU constitutional politics, how the respective subject came to find itself in that position, and how it should invoke its founding authority in the future. These public narratives represent a promising starting point for a normative theory that outlines a viable and justifiable path for transforming the EU in a bottom-up mode.


Author(s):  
Viktoriya Kuzma

This article presents the current issues in the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. It is pointed out that the division of international law into branches and institutions, in order to ensure the effective legal regulation of new spheres of relations, led to the emergence of autonomous legal regimes, even within one region, namely on the European continent. To date, these include European Union law and Council of Europe law. It is emphasized the features of the established legal relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union at the present stage. It is determined that, along with close cooperation between regional organizations, there is a phenomenon of fragmentation, which is accompanied by the creation of two legal regimes within the same regional subsystem, proliferation of the international legal norms, institutions, spheres and conflicts of jurisdiction between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is revealed that some aspects of fragmentation can be observed from the moment of establishing relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union, up to the modern dynamics of the functioning of the system of law of international organizations, the law of international treaties, law of human rights. Areas and types of fragmentation in relations between international intergovernmental organizations of the European continent are distinguished. One way to overcome the consequences of fragmentation in the field of human rights is highlighted, namely through the accession of the European Union to the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Considerable attention has also been paid to defragmentation, which is partly reflected in the participation of the European Union in the Council of Europe’s conventions by the applying «disconnection clause». It is determined that the legal relations established between an international intergovernmental organization of the traditional type and the integration association sui generis, the CoE and the EU, but with the presence of phenomenon of fragmentation in a close strategic partnership, do not diminish their joint contribution into the development of the law of international organizations and contemporary international law in general. Key words: defragmentation; European Union; European Court of Human Rights; Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; conflict of jurisdictions; «disconnection clause»; Council of Europe; Court of Justice of the European Union; fragmentation; sui generis.


Author(s):  
Gino Naldi ◽  
Konstantinos Magliveras

Following the 2016 referendum, the UK notified its intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 TEU. Given the political and legal consequences of a much-questioned referendum and the strong opinion of many parts of British society that the UK’s membership should not be terminated, the question arose whether such a notification could be revoked unilaterally. In the absence of any mention in Article 50, expert opinion was divided. International law – that is, the law of treaties and the law of international organizations – does not appear to provide a definite answer, while state practice is rather scarce. The constituent instruments of international and regional organizations containing withdrawal clauses are also silent, except for African organizations and development/investment organizations, which invariably allow Member States to rescind withdrawal notices. As regards the EU Treaties, before the Lisbon Treaty they did not contain a withdrawal clause. In the preliminary ruling given in Wightman v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, which concerned whether an EU Member has the sovereign power under Article 50 to revoke unilaterally a withdrawal notice, the Court of Justice helped to clarify a critical question of EU Law but also of international law.


Author(s):  
Geert De Baere

The present chapter considers the position of the European Union in other international organizations. It is based on the premise that the Union, while arguably also a federal or quasi-federal structure, is legally still itself an international organization. From the perspective of international law, that explains at least partly the complexities involved in an international organization such as the EU acquiring a status in—let alone membership of—another international organization. The term ‘status’ or ‘position’ is understood here as the influence the Union can exercise, either formally or informally, in decision-making processes in other international organizations. As an ever-increasing number of decisions having an impact on the Union’s policies originate in international organizations, its position in such fora matters.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document