Chapter Six. The United Nations And International Law: Is World Governance The Way Forward?

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Gowlland-Debbas

The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council may be approached from the perspective of the United Nations Charter and the way it delimits competences between two principal UN organs and regulates the exercise of their concurrent powers. The Court, however, has a dual, ambivalent role. It is not only the principal judicial organ of the United Nations under Article 92 of the Charter; it is also an autonomous adjudicative body with the function, under Article 38 of its Statute, of applying international law to such disputes between states as are brought before it. Viewed in the light of Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie, the relationship between the judicial and political organs raises some fundamental questions of general international law that go beyond UN constitutional issues.


Author(s):  
Laura J. Shepherd

Chapter 5 outlines the ways in which civil society is largely associated with “women” and the “local,” as a spatial and conceptual domain, and how this has implications for how we understand political legitimacy and authority. The author argues that close analysis reveals a shift in the way in which the United Nations as a political entity conceives of civil society over time, from early engagement with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to the more contemporary articulation of civil society as consultant or even implementing partner. Contemporary UN peacebuilding discourse, however, constitutes civil society as a legitimating actor for UN peacebuilding practices, as civil society organizations are the bearers/owners of certain forms of (local) knowledge.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Rizal Abdul Kadir

After twenty-two years of negotiations, in Aktau on August 12, 2018, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, and Turkmenistan signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. The preamble of the Convention stipulates, among other things, that the Convention, made up of twenty-four articles, was agreed on by the five states based on principles and norms of the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. The enclosed Caspian Sea is bordered by Iran, Russia, and three states that were established following dissolution of the Soviet Union, namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-328
Author(s):  
Catherine O’Rourke

AbstractThe gendered implications of COVID-19, in particular in terms of gender-based violence and the gendered division of care work, have secured some prominence, and ignited discussion about prospects for a ‘feminist recovery’. In international law terms, feminist calls for a response to the pandemic have privileged the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), conditioned—I argue—by two decades of the pursuit of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda through the UNSC. The deficiencies of the UNSC response, as characterised by the Resolution 2532 adopted to address the pandemic, manifest yet again the identified deficiencies of the WPS agenda at the UNSC, namely fragmentation, securitisation, efficacy and legitimacy. What Resolution 2532 does bring, however, is new clarity about the underlying reasons for the repeated and enduring nature of these deficiencies at the UNSC. Specifically, the COVID-19 ‘crisis’ is powerful in exposing the deficiencies of the crisis framework in which the UNSC operates. My reflections draw on insights from Hilary Charlesworth’s seminal contribution ‘International Law: A Discipline of Crisis’ to argue that, instead of conceding the ‘crisis’ framework to the pandemic by prioritising the UNSC, a ‘feminist recovery’ must instead follow Charlesworth’s exhortation to refocus on an international law of the everyday.


2021 ◽  
pp. 58-62
Author(s):  
Veronika Shcherbyna ◽  
Ivanna Maryniv

Problem setting. Nowadays the problem of the provisional application of treaties can be described as actual. It is no accident that it has been the subject of the attention of the United Nations International Law Commission with the task of elaborating the most important problems of international law. Furthermore, the above-mentioned subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly recognized the need to analyze the provisional application of treaties, the need for the progressive development and codification of international law in respect of the topic dealt with in this article. Аnalysis of research and publications. Aspects of the problem of provisional application of treaties are reflected primarily in the works of in the works of I.I. Lukashuk, O.V. Kyivets, O.V. Pushniak, I.I. Maryniv, T. Leber. Target of research is to describe the legal institution of the provisional introduction of international treaties and to find reasons for its use. Article’s main body. The article is devoted to the question of the temporary use of an international treaty as a fundamental institution of international law. The study discusses the need for provisional application of treaties. Attention was paid to the works of legal academics, who had considered this issue, their works and summaries were reviewed regarding the question under consideration. The author analyzed the formulations of the article 25 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Legal aspects and shortcomings were considered. First of all, it was noted that there is no definition of the temporary application of international treaties in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and article 25 of the Convention had been criticized for being difficult to understand and lacking legal precision. In the article, the author noted that in general, the provisional use takes place before the entry into force of the treaty, when countries have not yet completed the necessary internal state procedures for its entry into force and have not internationally expressed consent to be bound. The author also stressed that the application of the treaty before it enters into force or will enter in the moment when it is implemented, the parties will address to their commitments and thus the object of the treaty would disappear. The author highlighted another legal aspect of the international legal institution under consideration is that, in order to implement the institution of provisional application of treaties, A special law and regulations may be enacted in domestic law (constitutional and legislative). What is more, the author mentioned that it is appropriate to devote attention to the work of the father of the national science on the law of international treaties I.I. Lukashuk. Conclusions. The author concluded that the institution of the provisional use of treaties is one of the key institutions in the law of treaties enabling the parties to urgently address cooperation issues. Another conclusion of the author of this article is that countries resort to this legal instrument under consideration for several reasons: urgent resolution of issues to which the relevant treaties apply; the desire of countries to adopt and immediately implement confidence-building measures; preventing time gaps in the operation of a number of international treaties, which have been successively adopted and replace each other on the same subject.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-180
Author(s):  
Bronik Matwijkiw ◽  
Anja Matwijkiw

AbstractIn this article, the two authors examine the leap from business management to contemporary international law in the context of stakeholder theory. Because stakeholder theory was developed for business management, they provide a thorough account of the original framework. Furthermore, to illustrate the theory's application as a recently adopted parameter for the United Nations, they use former Secretary-General Kofi Atta Annan's 2004-report to the Security Council, "The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies". Proceeding on the hypothesis that while all premises ultimately match traditional positions in general jurisprudence, it appears that stakeholder theory nevertheless forces the United Nations to take sides in an unprecedented manner, especially pertaining to rights-typology and the credentials-checking for this. Finally, some of the most important implications are distilled as part of an attempt to formulate a few recommendations for United Nations justice managers and administrators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document