Attribution in Public International Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-95
Author(s):  
Carlo de Stefano
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Article 5

Chapter II illustrates the application of attribution rules in public international law, as resulting from the early arbitral practice, the decisions of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the awards of the Iran–US Claims Tribunal, and eventually codified by ARSIWA. Accordingly, it explains the tests for attribution of conduct of State organs (de jure and de facto) under ARSIWA Article 4, ‘State entities’ under ARSIWA Article 5, and individuals under ARSIWA Article 8. The rule of attribution of acts ultra vires under ARSIWA Article 7 is also analysed, which applies to the conduct of State organs and ‘State entities’, but not of (private) individuals.

The International Court of Justice and Cultural HeritageInternational Cultural Heritage Law Through the Lens of World Court Jurisprudence?

2020 ◽  
pp. 223-242
Author(s):  
Gabriele Gagliani
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The International Court of Justice, and its predecessor court, the Permanent Court of International Justice, have dealt with cultural heritage issues in a number of cases extending back over a century. Scholars’ attention to this case law appears fragmentary. This chapter intends to fill this gap and analyze the ICJ jurisprudence involving cultural heritage. Through the analysis of ICJ case law on cultural heritage and cultural heritage-related arguments resorted to by States in ICJ disputes, this chapter wishes to prove the relevance of cultural heritage issues for public international law and the key, often-underestimated role of the ICJ for international law on cultural heritage.

scholarly journals Remarks by Maria Flores

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 79-82
Author(s):  
Maria Flores
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Small Department ◽  
The University

I first became involved with international law while I was at university. After graduating, I decided to teach public international law. As an undergraduate, I particularly enjoyed this branch of study. I was attracted to it because it helped me to understand the problems, challenges, and breakthroughs in the field of international relations on a global scale. Therefore, after facing a competitive entry process, I joined the international law department of the Universidad de la República. It was a small department, but the university had produced some well-known scholars like Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, who became a judge at the International Court of Justice, and Hector Gross Espiell, who served as a judge at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The Completeness of International Law and Hamlet's Dilemma

1999 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Current State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Self Defence

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to examine whether the possibility of a genuine non liquet is ruled out by a so-called ‘closing rule’underlying public international law. The answer to this question largely determines the relevance of the debate on the legality and legitimacy of the pronouncement of a non liquet by an international court. This debate was recently provoked by the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons. In this opinion, the Court held that it could not definitively conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was contrary to international law in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the survival of a state is at stake. Nevertheless, some authors have argued that, since international law contains a closing rule stating that the absence of a prohibition is equivalent to the existence of a permission (or vice versa), the Court had in fact decided the legality of nuclear weapons. By virtue of this closing rule, the pronouncement of a non liquet would be impossible. In our analysis, we have taken issue with this view and claim that there are no a priori reasons for the acceptance of a closing rule underlying international law. It is possible indeed that a legal system is simply indifferent towards a certain type of conduct. Moreover, even if a closing rule would be assumed, this rule would be of no help in determining the legality or illegality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons, since the Court asserted that the current state of international law and the facts at its disposal were insufficient to enable it to reach a definitive conclusion. Nothing follows from this assertion, except the assurance that international law cannot definitively settle the question of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons: to be permitted or not to be permitted, that is still the question. Hamlet's dilemma precisely.

Fuzzy Statehood: An International Legal Perspective on Kosovo's Declaration of Independence

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Knoll
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Norm ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Perspective

AbstractThis contribution subjects Kosovo's declaration of independence of 2008 to a comprehensive and detailed analysis from the perspective of international law. It begins with a reflection on Kosovo's status process as it unfolded in 2006 and discusses some of the challenges that Serbia faced when it proposed that Kosovo be vested with “more than autonomy, less than independence”. The main body of the article speculates on some of the implications that Kosovo's independence may have in public international law, especially with a view to the forthcoming International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the matter. It concludes that the resolution of Kosovo's status has to be seen in the context of a decreasing reliance on the international norm that has hitherto protected the territorial integrity of states.

The main approaches to the definition of the international courts’ competence

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Yu. Klyuchnikov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Interpretative Framework

The rules on the competence of international courts determine the nature of the cases they resolve and the conditions for their admission to proceedings. The possibility composition of the court considers each case individually following the principle of jurisdiction to decide the jurisdiction due to the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Each international court of justice, relying on the international law, is solely competent to resolve doubts as to its own jurisdiction. This study aims to identify the approach of courts to solving jurisdictional problems in practice. The material for the study includes the cases of international courts, doctrinal comments, and legal positions of prominent researchers of international justice. The author describes the basic interpretative framework procedure, restraint, activism in the justification, and the lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, if the international court of justice has no confidence in the existence of competence on the subject of the dispute, it will not take measures to justify it. The brevity of the position on the issue will be due to interpretative restraint. Activism arises when the international court of justice seeks to achieve a procedural result, substantiate the rationality of the result of interpretation or the impossibility of achieving it. Science has not resolved the issue of factors that may affect the limits of interpretation by international courts of their own competence.

Principles of Evidence in Public International Law as Applied by Investor-State Tribunals: Burden and Standards of Proof

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Kabir Duggal ◽  
Wendy W. Cai
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Insight Into

AbstractPrinciples of Evidence in Public International Law as Applied by Investor-State Tribunals explores the fundamental principles of evidence and how these principles relating to burden of proof and standards of proof are derived.By tracing the applications of major principles recognized by the International Court of Justice and applied by investor-state tribunal jurisprudence, the authors offer valuable insight into the interpretation, understanding, and nuances of indispensable principles of evidence, an area that has been ignored in both investor-state arbitration and public international law more generally. Each principle is analyzed through historical and modern lenses to provide clarity and cohesion in understanding how fundamental principles of evidence will affect evidentiary dispositions of parties in investment arbitration and public international law cases.

Sir Hersch Lauterpacht’s Concept of the Task of the International Judge

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Deep Understanding ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Law

When the late Sir Hersch Lauterpacht became a member of the International Court of Justice in February, 1955 (a position he was to fill effectively for barely five years, until the fall of 1959), he went to The Hague with some thirty years of devoted study and practice of international law behind him. As teacher and student of international law, as a most highly qualified publicist (in the words of Article 38(1) (d) of the Statute of the Court) of recognized universal authority, he had devoted himself both to the law in general and in particular to the problems of the judicial settlement of international disputes, whether by the Permanent Court of International Justice and its present-day successor, the International Court of Justice, or by ad hoc arbitration tribunals. Indeed, his writings as a whole display a rare preoccupation with the entire philosophy and the practical problems of the judicial settlement of international disputes, together with a deep understanding of its limitations and a satisfying freedom both from putting forward extravagant claims in its behalf and from purely theoretical speculations.

Judge Peter Kooijmans

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Law ◽  
Great Pleasure ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

When Peter Kooijmans took up his position as judge in the International Court of Justice on 6 February 1997, a formal end came to a career of about 30 years of teaching public international law in the Netherlands. This is why the Leiden Journal of International Law has asked me to write a few words about the work and person of Peter Kooijmans as a teacher of public international law, a task which I accepted with great pleasure, also on behalf of other staff members who have worked with Peter Kooijmans for many years.

International Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
pp. 189-211
Author(s):  
Charlotte Ku
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

This article traces the development of the International Court of Justice from the establishment of its predecessor in 1919, the Permanent Court of International Justice. The article explores the place of the ICJ in the international settlement of disputes including issues relating to the proliferation of international courts and tribunals; the selection and impartiality of judges; provisional measures; the willingness of states to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ; compliance with the Court’s rulings; and where the ICJ has seen the greatest success in developing its jurisprudence. Specific attention is paid to the ICJ’s advisory and contentious jurisdictions. The article concludes with an assessment of its contribution to international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document