Hybrid Warfare or Hybrid Threat – The Weaponization of Migration as an Example of the Use of Lawfare – Case Study of Poland

Hybrid Warfare ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Law Of Armed Conflict ◽

The Republic ◽

Court Proceeding

This article aims to address the issue of alleged hybrid warfare attacks on Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland. The scope of the article covers the Belarus operations conducted in 2021. Firstly, the author addresses the issue of pushing migrants from a descriptive perspective. Secondly, he debates whether Belarus operation was conducted within the scope of hybrid warfare, hybrid threat, and lawfare? The author concludes that the Republic of Belarus has operated lawfare falling within the hybrid threat spectrum. It means that the situation is not to be classified under the law of armed conflict from the perspective of international and non-international armed conflicts and ius ad bellum violation. Thirdly, the author claims that Belarus has violated international law, so certain legal redress is appropriate and justified. Belarus's actions may result in a court proceeding before the International Court of Justice and before other international institutions.

Oppenheim's International Law: United Nations

10.1093/law/9780198808312.001.0001 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Higgins Rosalyn ◽

Webb Philippa ◽

Akande Dapo ◽

Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽

Sloan James

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Legal Issues ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Extra Information ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Personal Opinion ◽

Complex Organization

The United Nations (UN) has expanded beyond all recognition since its founding in 1945. This volume represents a study that is entirely new, but is prepared in the way that has become so familiar over succeeding editions of Oppenheim’s International Law. It covers the formal structures of the UN as it has expanded over the years, and all that this complex organization does. All substantive issues are addressed in separate sections, including the responsibilities of the UN, financing, immunities, human rights, preventing armed conflicts, peacekeeping, and judicial matters. In examining the evolving structures and ever-expanding work of the UN, this volume follows the long-held tradition of Oppenheim by presenting facts uncoloured by personal opinion, in a succinct text that also offers in the footnotes extra information and ideas to be explored. It is a book that, while making all necessary reference to the UN Charter, the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and other legal instruments, tells of the realities of the legal issues as they arise in the day-to-day practice of the UN.

Assessing the Role of Resolutions in the ilc Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law

International Organizations Law Review ◽

10.1163/15723747-2017002 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 227-253 ◽

Author(s):

Rossana Deplano, PhD

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

State Practice ◽

International Law Commission

On 30 May 2016, the International Law Commission (‘ilc’) adopted a set of 16 Draft Conclusions providing a methodology on how to identify customary international law. Although largely based on the two elements approach set forth in article 38(1)(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the ilc study pushes the boundaries of the formal sources of international law beyond the realm of state practice by recognising that the practice of international organizations (‘ios’) as such may be constitutive of custom. This article critically examines the ilc Draft Conclusions concerning the role of ios in the process of custom creation. It examines the concept of resolution adopted by the ilc and assesses the coherence of the interpretive methodology devised by the ilc using the un General Assembly resolutions as a case study. The findings show that the Draft Conclusions fall short of expectation in providing authoritative guidance to scholars and practitioners alike.

Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibiuty

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2202749 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 83 (2) ◽

pp. 353-357 ◽

Author(s):

David J. Bederman

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Law And Order ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Military Forces ◽

International Court ◽

The Republic ◽

The Government

On July 28, 1986, the Republic of Nicaragua filed an application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Honduras in the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua alleged that Honduras had allowed armed bands, known as contras, to operate from its territory to the detriment of Nicaraguan sovereignty, that Honduran military forces had directly participated in attacks on Nicaragua and that the Government of Honduras had given material aid and logistical support to the rebels. Nicaragua requested that the Court declare the acts and omissions of Honduras to be violations of international law and order it to desist from all such activities and to make reparations to Nicaragua. Honduras objected to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Application. The parties subsequently agreed that the Court should first decide these questions before proceeding to the merits. Relying on the Pact of Bogotá for its jurisdictional rationale, the Court unanimously held: that it had jurisdiction and that the Application could be entertained.

III. Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria:: Equatorial Guinea Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 10 October 2002

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1093/iclq/52.3.788 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 52 (3) ◽

pp. 788-797 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Malcom D Evans ◽

JG Merrills

Keyword(s):

Federal Republic ◽

International Law ◽

Equatorial Guinea ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Maritime Boundary ◽

The Republic ◽

Eventual Outcome ◽

Significant Bearing

On 10 October 2002 the International Court of Justice gave its decision on the merits in the case brought by the Republic of Cameroon against the Federal Republic of Nigeria over their land and maritime boundary. The judgment, which addresses a number of issues of general international law concerning maritime boundaries and territorial sovereignty, as well as providing a detailed treatment of the particular facts, concludes a case that began in 1994 and has had an unusual history. As this background had a significant bearing on the eventual outcome, a brief recapitulation may be useful.

Equity in International Law

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700016575 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 161-183 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ruth Lapidoth

Keyword(s):

Burkina Faso ◽

International Law ◽

The Other ◽

Applicable Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Other Hand ◽

International Court ◽

The Law ◽

The Republic

In its judgment concerning the frontier dispute between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali (1986), the Chamber ot the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) summarized its opinion on the applicability of equity as follows:It is clear that the Chamber cannot decideex aequo et bonoin this case. Since the Parties have not entrusted it with the task of carrying out an adjustment of their respective interests, it must also dismiss any possibility of resorting to equitycontra legem. Nor will the Chamber apply equitypraeter legem. On the other hand, it will have regard to equityinfra legem, that is, that form of equity which constitutes a method of interpretation of the law in force, and is one of its attributes. As the Court has observed: “It is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution but an equitable solution derived from the applicable law”.

Judicial Settlement of Armed Conflicts in International Law: Reflecting the 2005 International Court of Justice Decision in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Nordic Journal of International Law ◽

10.1163/090273507x249219 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 76 (4) ◽

pp. 407-434 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Andrew Mollel

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Democratic Republic ◽

Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Republic Of Congo ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

The Icj

AbstractThe duty of states to settle their disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law is emphasized in a number of important provisions enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and state practices. Adjudication is one among a range of existing means of pacific settlement of disputes. This article analyzes the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in pacific settlement of international disputes. It critically examines judicial settlement of armed conflicts, taking the ICJ decision in the Case Concerning Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda) as a focal point. The main argument of the author is that while the adjudicatory role of the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the UN is a crucial method in the pacific settlement of international disputes, it is unlikely to suit armed conflicts situations. Jurisdictional limitations of the ICJ in adjudication of armed conflicts situations is pointed out. The article points to the preclusion of the Court from adjudicating the other cases brought by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) against Rwanda and Burundi as an illustration of such limitations. It, however, stresses that the very outcome of the 2005 ICJ decision in the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda case is another clear example of such shortcomings. Without getting into detailed discussions of theories of compliance with international law, the article further discusses the question of compliance with the current ICJ decision in the light of previous state practices. Since there are no established enforcement mechanisms in the international system akin to those in national legal systems, the question whether decisions of international judicial bodies (the ICJ in this case) are complied with remains at the mercy of condemned states. In the final analyses, the author points to the current weaknesses and limitations of the international legal system as a whole in the administration of justice.

Sources of International Law in the Light of the Article 38 of the International Court of Justice

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.1877123 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Shagufta Omar

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court

Introductory Note

10.1093/oso/9780190848194.003.0015 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

John G. Merrills

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Introductory Note

In 2015 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave three judgments and made a number of orders. In various ways this jurisprudence, although modest in extent, contributed to the elucidation of international law on several procedural, as well as substantive matters. In that year no new cases were begun, but one case was discontinued. At the beginning of 2016 there were therefore ten cases on the Court’s docket. The Court’s work in 2015 demonstrates that through its decisions it continues to assist states to resolve their international disputes peacefully and at the same time to contribute to the clarification and development of international law.

Consolidation of Statehood through Membership in the UN: Some Remarks on Kosovo, Democracy and International Law

Review of Central and East European Law ◽

10.1163/15730352-04303005 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 43 (3) ◽

pp. 331-349

Author(s):

Iliriana Islami ◽

Remzije Istrefi

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

State Building ◽

Former Yugoslavia ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Building Process

Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008. Subsequently, one of the aims of Kosovo’s foreign policy was to further consolidate this position and to justify Kosovo’s prospective membership in the United Nations. This article examines the issue of recognition, elucidating how Kosovo is different from other countries and comparing it with the case of the former Yugoslavia. Other aspects in the state-building process such as ‘building constitutionalism’ will be presented as a step toward justifying recognition and membership. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 8 October 2008 will be presented as evidence of Kosovo’s strengthening international position in its quest for further recognition. Thus, the article will discuss and analyze the arguments in favor of Kosovo being admitted to the UN.

Remarks by Maria Flores

Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting ◽

10.1017/amp.2018.16 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 112 ◽

pp. 79-82

Author(s):

Maria Flores

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

Global Scale ◽

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.