scholarly journals The Binding Force of the Nuclear Disarmament Obligation upon North Korea and Its Legal Implication under International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Diajeng Christianti ◽  
Jaka Rizkullah
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapon ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Status ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
Legal Implication

Article VI of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires all state parties to disarm nuclear weapon. Following its official withdrawal from NPT in 2003, North Korea maintains to develop its nuclear weapon and conducts several nuclear tests. Moreover, it even proudly declared as a nuclear state in its Constitution's preamble. It also argues that the nuclear weapon developments and tests were conducted within their territory and, currently, North Korea is not bound by any treaty prohibiting such developments and tests. The statement is strongly opposed by the international community, particularly their neighboring states: Japan and South Korea. This article argues that the obligation to disarm nuclear weapon deriving from the NPT still binds North Korea since such obligation has reached the status of customary international law and consequently binds every state unless such state persistently objects the rule from the beginning of its formation. In this case, North Korea has failed to prove itself as a persistent objector due to the fact it used to be a party to the NPT. This article also argues that, according to 2001 ILC Articles, Japan and South Korea still have a proper legal basis to claim for reparation against North Korea despite the fact that they are not specifically affected by North Korea’s conducts.

scholarly journals The Legal Dimensions of the Principle of Non-refoulement in International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-96
Author(s):  
Ahmed El-MohtadyBellah
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Asylum ◽  
International Protection ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Status ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The Right

The article deals with the principle of non-refoulement, which is widely recognized as indispensable for providing an effective international protection for refugees. Considering the fact that the right to asylum remains within the discretion of the receiving State, some exceptions to this principle have been recognized in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Although the principle of non-refoulement was adopted by an international convention (the 1951 Convention), it has considerably developed since then until it became a part of customary international law. This means that its binding force extends to all states of the international community, even those that are not bound by the terms of the Convention. Indeed, there has been controversy in jurisprudence on the extent to which the principle of non-refoulement has evolved as one that owns jus cogens character within the rules of international law, which means that its application will not be confined to persons who acquire the status of refugees, but extends to all persons whose lives, freedoms or safety are at risk. The State of Qatar issued Law No. (11) of 2018 regulating political asylum, affirming the principle of non-refoulement in Article (15). The Law did not provide for any exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement, as the case within article (33) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. This reflects State of Qatar’s commitment as to current developments regarding the principle of non-refoulement.

scholarly journals THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN NORTH KOREA: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Yordan Gunawan ◽  
Rima Ayu Andriana
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
North Korea ◽  
International Community ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The North ◽  
Compliance Behavior ◽  
The Status

The proliferation issue of nuclear weapons in North Korea is becoming a more serious problem to the international community. North Korea has been manufacturing and developing nuclear weapons technology, which receives many critics by the international community expressing that North Korea is being non-compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 1968. The criticism emerged following the North Korea withdrawal from the NPT 1968. Its withdrawal reasoning seems very hard to be justified after series of non-compliance behavior conducted by North Korea and the legitimacy of its withdrawal is being debated. By using normative legal research, the research aims to determine the status of North Korea upon its withdrawal from the NPT 1968 based on the withdrawal procedure that is required in the Article X of the NPT 1968. The result shows that North Korea is still a member and it is bound by the obligations contained in the Treaty and to make progress on a complete nuclear disarmament regime.

International Human Rights Law

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aryeh Neier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civilized Society ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on the two sources of international law: custom and treaties. Customary international law is the term used to describe rules that are so widely accepted and so deeply held that they help to define what it means to belong to a civilized society. The question of whether customary international law is binding on the United States came before the U.S. Supreme Court as long ago as 1900 in a case called Paquete Habana. Whereas treaty law often covers the same ground as customary international law. Torture is forbidden by customary international law, for example, and prohibitions against torture are also set forth in several multilateral treaties. The effect is to reinforce recognition that a particular norm set forth in a treaty has the status of customary law.

International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 94-116
Author(s):  
Aryeh Neier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civilized Society ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses custom and treaties as the two sources of international law. It explains the customary international law as the term used to describe rules that are widely accepted and deeply held and are used to define what it means to belong to a civilized society. It also recounts the case called “Paquete Habana” in the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses the question of whether customary international law is binding on the United States. The chapter talks about the treaty law or conventional law as the source of multilateral conventions that often covers the same ground as customary international law. It analyzes the prohibitions against “torture” that are set forth in several multilateral treaties and reinforce recognition that a particular norm set forth in a treaty has the status of customary law.

Slav non-citizens in the Baltics

1994 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-137
Author(s):  
Bart Driessen
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Baltic States ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
Large Groups

AbstractThis study argues that customary international law obliges the Baltic states to accept the Slav populations as an integral part of the Baltic peoples. The history and collapse of the Soviet Union has produced large groups of Slav immigrants to remain in the Baltic states. They are not automatically granted citizenship rights in Estonia and Latvia, as they have to prove to qualify for naturalisation. People descending from the inter-War citizenry do ipso facto qualify for citizenship. First the nature of the coming-to-independence of the Baltic states is analysed, after which the law on self-determination is investigated. The de facto recognition of the Soviet annexation by most of the international community is seen as the watershed as far as the status of the Baltic states is concerned; from then on they were for all practical purposes part of the Soviet Union. Following an analysis of the applicable norms of customary international law, a scrutiny of relevant Baltic legislation is presented.

On the Evidence of U.S. Treaty Law

1972 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-367
Author(s):  
Salo Engel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
National Level ◽  
General Interest ◽  
International Level ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Creation ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

According to Article 24 of its Statute, the International Law Commission “shall consider ways and means for making the evidence of customary international law more readily available”. The existence of such law is indeed difficult to prove even at the national level; how much more so in the international sphere. This, however, should not mislead one to think that there are no problems with regard to treaty law. On the international level it may not be too difficult to determine whether a treaty exists on a particular question, but information about the exact status of the treaty (its entry into force, the parties thereto, the amendments thereof, etc.) in most cases is not easily available. Wherefore, I proposed many years ago the creation of an International Legislation Register which would contain up-to-date information at least about the status of multi-partite treaties of general interest.

scholarly journals Interpretation of the Constitutional provisions relating to international law

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Michele Olivier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
South African ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
First Time ◽  
Domestic Law

The 1993 Constitution,1 for the first time in South African history accorded constitutional recognition to international law, thereby bringing an end to the debate on the status of international law in South African domestic law. This step was a symbolic break from the apartheid legal system, which was closely associated with the violation of international law and indicated to the international community that South Africa was willing to abide by internationally accepted rules. More important, however, for South African lawyers are the fundamental changes the constitutional regulation of international law introduced into South African law. The 1993 Constitution dealt with the conclusion of international agreements (sections 82(1)(i) and 231(2)), the status of international law in South African law (section 231(3) and (4)) and the role of international law in interpreting the chapter on fundamental rights (section 35(1)). These provisions were substantially taken over by the 1996 Constitution. The provisions relating to the entry into international agreements and the status thereof in terms of South African law are once again dealt with under section 231. The provisions on customary international law are dealt with separately under section 232. Section 233 deals with the role of international law in the interpretation of legislation, whilst section 39, the equivalent of section 35 of the 1993 Constitution, provides for international law in interpreting the Bill of Rights.

The Persistent Objector Rule in International Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Green James A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Detailed Understanding ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Conceptual Role ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Way

The persistent objector rule is said to provide states with an ‘escape hatch’ from the otherwise universal binding force of customary international law. It provides that if a state persistently objects to a newly emerging norm of customary international law during the formation of that norm, then the objecting state is exempt from the norm once it crystallises into law. The conceptual role of the rule may be interpreted as straightforward: to preserve the fundamentalist positivist notion that any norm of international law can only bind a state that has consented to be bound by it. In reality, however, numerous unanswered questions exist about the way that it works in practice. Through focused analysis of state practice, this book provides a detailed understanding of how the rule emerged and operates, how it should be conceptualised, and what its implications are for the binding nature of customary international law. It argues that the persistent objector rule ultimately has an important role to play in the mixture of consent and consensus that underpins international law.

Part 1 The Cold War Era (1945–89), 14 The USS Pueblo Incident—1968

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
von Heinegg Wolff Heintschel
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Cold War

This contribution discusses the 1968 USS Pueblo Incident by assessing the factual background on the basis of available documents and by providing a legal analysis on the basis of the then applicable international law. In view of the contentious issue of the USS Pueblo’s location at the time of the attack and her seizure by the armed forces of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, the discussion of the legal issues at stake is not limited to the ius ad bellum but must be extended to the law of the sea, in particular the breadth of the territorial sea according to customary international law recognized in 1968 and the status of foreign warships. As regards the ius ad bellum, the unjustified use of force against a sovereign immune warship is considered an armed attack triggering the flag state’s right of self-defence.

Part I The UNDRIP’s Relationship to Existing International Law, Ch.1 Who Are ‘Indigenous Peoples’?: An Examination of Concepts Concerning Group Membership in the UNDRIP

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Castellino Joshua ◽  
Doyle Cathal
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Group Membership ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The People ◽  
The Status ◽  
United Nations Declaration ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Continuum

This chapter assesses the question of the people and peoples to whom the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) applies, tracking the concepts of person, persons, groups, people, and peoples in international law, and the UNDRIP's contribution to these concepts. The opening section of the chapter illustrates that the status of indigenous peoples in customary international law stands closer to peoples in the continuum between minorities and peoples. Minorities, while gaining the right to protection and promotion of their group identity, do not automatically gain the right to self-determination. Indigenous peoples ought to, but their rights towards this are constrained by state interests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document