The Unification of Italy and International Law

Author(s):  
Sergio Marchisio

This chapter analyses the legal implications of the Italian political unification occurred in 1861 as it emerges from the relevant—and not yet fully analysed—practice. The main objective is to ascertain whether the process of the Italian unification was realized within the empire of international law and, in the affirmative, to what extent the juridical categories of international law were used to achieve the objective of independence and to consolidate the new unitarian State in the international community. Thus, three issues are clearly relevant in this respect: the first concerns the conduct of the Kingdom of Sardinia in its relations with the pre-unitary States in the light of the norms of international law in force at the time of the facts; the second is the emergence of the principle of nationality and its consequences on the legal conceptions of the statehood; and, finally, the legal consequences of the alleged continuity between the Kingdom of Sardinia and the new Italian State.

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 168
Author(s):  
Winardi Winardi ◽  
Chomariyah Chomariyah

<p>South China Sea (SCS) dispute has been running for so long. The claimant states keeps endeavoring various resolutions to settle that dispute, either through reconcilement by their own choice or under several compulsory procedures provided by UNCLOS 1982 (Convention). Considering the content of UNCLOS 1982, one of the claimant states, Philippines, brought the dispute to PCA unilaterally against China which objected the jurisdiction along with its final award through official government statements and verbal notes. China was found violating International Law based on the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda. Nine Dash Lines claimed based on Historic Rights are still retained by China. The procedures should lead to a permanent resolution by International Community to avoid any possible armed conflicts, including the likelihood that Historic Rights turned into Customary International Law.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-103
Author(s):  
Komang Sukaniasa

International agreements are agreements between international subjects that give rise to binding obligations in international rights, which can be bilateral or multilateral. Based on these opinions, an understanding can be taken that international treaties are agreements or agreements entered into by two or more countries as subjects of international law that aim to cause certain legal consequences. International agreements, whether ratified or through approval or acceptance or accession, or other methods that are permitted, have the same binding force as ratified international treaties established in the Ratification Law of International Treaties. Once again, it is equally valid and binding on the state. Therefore, the authors consider that the position of international treaties are not made in the form of the Ratification Act of the International Agreement but are binding and apply to Indonesia. Then Damos Dumoli Agusman argues that ratification originates from the conception of international treaty law which is interpreted as an act of confirmation from a country of the legal acts of its envoys or representatives who have signed an agreement as a sign of agreement to be bound by the agreement.


Author(s):  
Rüdiger Wolfrum

This chapter explores the general question of how to establish that the regulation of a certain matter constitutes a matter of community-wide concern, which is the necessary step for the recognition of community obligation. The hypothesis is that such a qualification must, first, be well founded factually and, secondly, accepted as such in a legal or political legitimizing process. On this basis, the chapter suggests that the governance of spaces beyond national jurisdiction constitutes a community interest and has to be guided by the interests of the international community. Exploring this question with respect to key common spaces and particular issues, the chapter notes the difficulty of most of the dispute settlement systems, which, being bilateral, are not fully adequate to address questions related to the management of global commons as well as for the protection of the environment. To avoid this difficulty, the chapter suggests greater reliance on advisory opinions where available.


2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (905) ◽  
pp. 709-733
Author(s):  
Grażyna Baranowska

AbstractThis article analyzes the evolution in international law of the obligation to search for and return the remains of forcibly disappeared and missing persons. Receiving the remains of forcibly disappeared and missing persons is one of the primary needs of their families, who bring the issue to international courts and non-judicial mechanisms. This obligation has been incrementally recognized and developed by different human rights courts, which have included the obligation to search for and return the remains of disappeared persons in their remedies. In parallel to the development of the obligation by international courts, the international community has begun to become more involved in assisting in return of the remains of forcibly disappeared and missing persons to their families.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
LOQMAN RADPEY

AbstractHaving been supressed and denied their rights by successive Syrian governments over the years, Syrian Kurds are now asserting ade factoautonomy. Since the withdrawal of the Syrian President's forces from the ethnically Kurdish areas in the early months of the current civil war, the inhabitants have declared a self-rule government along the lines of the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq. For Syrian Kurds, the creation of a small autonomous region is a dream fulfilled, albeit one unrecognized by the international community. Some 15% to 17% of the Syrian population is Kurdish. Whether they can achieve statehood will depend on a reading of international law and on how the international community reacts. There are certain aspects which differentiate Kurdish self-rule in Syria from its counterpart in Iraq.


2014 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Krisch

The consensual structure of the international legal order, with its strong emphasis on the sovereign equality of states, has always been somewhat precarious. In different waves over the centuries, it has been attacked for its incongruence with the realities of inequality in international politics, for its tension with ideals of democracy and human rights, and for standing in the way of more effective problem solving in the international community. While surprisingly resilient in the face of such challenges, the consensual structure has seen renewed attacks in recent years. In the 1990s, those attacks were mainly “moral” in character. They were related to the liberal turn in international law, and some of them, under the banner of human rights, aimed at weakening principles of nonintervention and immunity. Others, starting from the idea of an emerging “international community,” questioned the prevailing contractual models of international law and emphasized the rise of norms and processes reflecting community values rather than individual state interests. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the focus has shifted, and attacks are more often framed in terms of effectiveness or global public goods. Classical international law is regarded as increasingly incapable of providing much-needed solutions for the challenges of a globalized world; as countries become ever more interdependent and vulnerable to global challenges, an order that safeguards states’ freedoms at the cost of common policies is often seen as anachronistic. According to this view, what is needed—and what we are likely to see—is a turn to nonconsensual lawmaking mechanisms, especially through powerful international institutions with majoritarian voting rules.


2003 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-303
Author(s):  
Ruwantissa Abeyratne

Several air disasters involving loss of lives of passengers and others on the ground have illustrated the key role expected of airlines in ensuring the security of aircraft and the safety of those affected by the contract of carriage by air. The culmination of these expectations came immediately after 11 September 2001 when aircraft were used as weapons of mass destruction against passengers of the aircraft concerned and those on the ground. Sustained debate followed between the air transport industry and regulators as to whether airlines could justifiably be expected to bear full responsibility for the safety of those on board and on the ground who may be affected by an air disaster. The international community now recognizes that the airlines have to bear some responsibility in the decision-making process regarding persons boarding their aircraft. Modern techniques for passenger screening include the use of machine readable travel documents (MRTDs) and advance passenger information (API). In addition, the practice of passenger profiling is not uncommon among some carriers who cooperate with customs and immigration authorities to identify possible offenders, with a view to preventing them from boarding their aircraft. The process of refusal to board, however, may entail legal consequences, particularly in the context of the contract which has already passed between the air carrier and passenger prior to boarding. Although usually a contract can be frustrated thus affecting the performance of that contract, the instance of a potential offender is unique in that refusal of carriage is based on conjecture rather than empirical evidence. This article examines this issue with a focus on developments in some European and United States jurisdictions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 801-832
Author(s):  
Lene Korseberg

AbstractThe second half of the twentieth century saw major improvements in the legal regime for fisheries management. This notwithstanding, the deep seas remain largely unregulated under international law, until recently only being covered by the general environmental and management provisions found in UNCLOS. In light of this regulatory gap, this article evaluates the potential law-making effects, if any, of the FAO Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines, a voluntary instrument designed to provide States with a regulatory framework for the management of their deep-sea fisheries. It considers how the Guidelines may inform, interpret and influence the content of the general high-sea obligations in UNCLOS. Despite the vagueness and generality of those provisions, some indication of their substantive content has been given in recent decisions, particularly the South China Sea Arbitration. By assessing their compatibility, and their level of acceptance by the international community, this article argues that the FAO Deep-Sea Guidelines are beginning to have a law-making effect by providing an authoritative interpretation of the general high-sea obligations found in UNCLOS relating to deep-sea fisheries.


2020 ◽  
pp. 23-27
Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv ◽  
Alyona Morozova

Formulation of the problem. The article deals with general theoretical issues related to the institution of international legal recognition. The basic theories of state recognition, problems arising in connection with their practical application and forms of state recognition are studied. Questions are raised about the problem of codification of this institution. Particular attention is paid to the practice of forced relations with unrecognized states. With the growth of globalization, the question of the formation of unrecognized states is becoming more frequent and more acute. In an interdependent, interconnected world that is gaining global integrity, one of the highest values has become independent statehood. The emergence of unrecognized states is a global problem for the international community, which cannot always be resolved even by such influential and powerful organizations as the UN and NATO. Analysis of recent research and publications. Among scholars who specialize in international law, there are many scientific papers on the problems of recognition. M. Aleksievets, S. Vidnyansky, V. Golovchenko, A. Zlenko, O. Ivchenko, B. Korneenko, Y. Makar, V. Matvienko, L. Chekalenko and many other domestic authors devoted their works to this issue. The purpose of the scientific article is a general overview of theories, procedures, forms of recognition of states, and the study of relevant practices in this area. Article’s main body. The article deals with issues related to the international recognition of the newly created states by other states. In this regard, there are a number of unresolved issues in international law in terms of their justification and regulation. The authors point out that when a new state is created, the international community should cooperate in some way with it, and there are no certain international norms on how to act. The article examines the main provisions of theories of recognition of states: constitutive and declarative, and the problems that arise in connection with their practical application. The authors consider the thesis that there is a world practice when states can enter into certain relations with other states before their official recognition, explaining this by the existence of three possible forms of recognition: “de jure”, “de facto”, “ad hoc”. At the same time, diplomatic relations and exchange of embassies arise only during the official recognition – recognition “de jure”. Conclusions and prospects for the development: The lack of an international act that would define the procedure and criteria for the recognition of states is due to the uniqueness of each case and the complex system of international relations. Currently, there are no clear and specific criteria that would determine when and under what conditions a new state can be recognized or not recognized by the international community. The emergence of an increasing number of unrecognized states in the international arena requires new approaches and research.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-63
Author(s):  
Stefania Kolarz

Since the late 80s, the Armenian inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh, a region situated within the internationally recognised borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan, have been struggling for creating their own state – the Republic of Artsakh. The fact that this self-proclaimed entity was not recognised by any of the international actors has not prevented it from constantly committing to intervene on the international plane, separately from Yerevan and Baku. For instance, it is the co-signatory of the Bishkek Protocol. On the other hand, it was refused participation in the core undertaking of the international community designed to settle the dispute – the OSCE Minsk process. The aforementioned situation raises the question as to who shall act as a legal representative of this quasi-state on the international plane? Azerbaijan, as the official centre of authority within the region, Armenia, or rather the separatist government of Nagorno-Karabakh?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document