Law-making through comparative international law? Rethinking the role of domestic law in the international legal system

2014 ◽  
pp. 191-210
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

This chapter briefly discusses the nature of the international legal system. The premise is that the structure of the international legal system is fundamentally different from that of national legal order: contrary to the vertical structure encountered in domestic settings, in international law the structure is horizontal. States enjoy sovereign equality, while both international law-making and international adjudication are based on the consent of the States. There are various theories that have attempted to describe the nature of the international law, including naturalism, positivism, formalism, and realism. Also significant is the existence of a certain hierarchy in the international legal system, in the sense that there are some peremptory norms of international law, such as the prohibition of torture and genocide, to which there is no derogation.


Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis

This chapter briefly discusses the nature of the international legal system. The premise is that the structure of the international legal system is fundamentally different from that of national legal order: contrary to the vertical structure encountered in domestic settings, in international law the structure is horizontal. States enjoy sovereign equality, while both international law-making and international adjudication are based on the consent of the States. There are various theories that have attempted to describe the nature of the international law, including naturalism, positivism, formalism, and realism. Significant is also the existence of a certain hierarchy in the international legal system, in the sense that there are some peremptory norms of international law, such as the prohibition of torture and genocide, to which there is no derogation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 485-501
Author(s):  
Mario Krešić

The purpose of this article is to analyze the role of peace in the theory of international law of Hans Kelsen and Hersh Lauterpacht. The 1960 shift in Kelsen' s approach to the role of peace will be elaborated in detail. Along with the theoretical account on the connection between peace and law, both authors have directed their theories to practical matters in the existing international legal system. At the end of the analysis, the similarities and differences between Kelsen and Lauterpacht will be described.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-477
Author(s):  
Ibironke Odumosu

AbstractThis article examines the future of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and its ability to meet its challenges and achieve its objectives in a hegemonic international system. It discusses the fundamental role of ideas, the challenge of ideational (and material) power, and the reconstruction of identities, in meeting the challenges of TWAIL perspectives. In discussing these components and their interaction, the article observes that while they show some promise for the future of TWAIL, they also embody severe limitations. The article concludes with some thoughts about TWAIL's future engagements and on the note that even though the challenges are arduous, TWAIL perspectives possess some potential to meet the present and future challenges of reconstructing the international legal system.


Author(s):  
A. Ya. Kapustin ◽  
I P. Zhuravleva

INTRODUCTION. The issue of implementation of international legal norms is extensive and multifaceted, and most importantly, it is always relevant. Despite the long-term development of questions of the operation of international law in national legal systems, the issue remains in the focus of researchers. Russian scholarship is quite rich in research of this area, and the practice of Russian courts is also rich in examples of the use and application of international law. Their presentation at the international level can significantly enrich the basis for analytical comparisons with the practice of other countries and further developments in this area. Nevertheless, the research of Russian authors is not well represented in the international legal discourse: the appearance of works by our compatriots in foreign editions is not so frequent. That is why monographic research papers by Russian authors published in major foreign publishing houses is of great interest to both Russian and foreign readers. At the same time, such publications implicitly set a high bar for expectations from their content.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article presents a critical understanding of the monograph of Professor S. Marochkin, published in 2019 by one of the world's oldest publishers Brill-Nijhoff (Leiden, the Netherlands) – "the Operation of international law in the Russian legal system. Changing approach". The article highlights key elements of the study. Special attention is paid to the reflections and conclusions of the author of the monograph on the theory of international law. The analysis of the research is based on general and private scientific methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. Th reviewed monograph presents to our attention a wide range of Soviet and Russian general theoretical, discipline-specific and international legal doctrines. The work covers a significant period of theoretical, normative, institutional and practical development of the issue of implementation of international legal norms – more than three decades. This corresponds to the goal set out in the study – to show a changing approach to the issue in scholarship, judicial practice, and rule-making. The monograph consistently exposes the author's idea about the essence of national implementation of the principles and norms of international law, domestic legal and institutional mechanisms for such implementation, assessment and generalization of the practice of Russian courts related to the appeal to international law and the application of international legal norms. At the same time the monograph begs some questions: 1) on the author's understanding of the content of the concerned concepts in the theory of international law; 2) on the methods of law-formation in the national and international legal system; 3) on the constituent elements of the international legal system; 4) on the meaning and nature of self-executing international legal norms; 5) on the problem of international legal personality; 6) on the author's view of the state of modern legal scholarship in Russia.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Russian scholarship, as well as practice in the law-making, law-application and law-enforcement have gone a long way in mastering and ensuring the constitutional provision on the principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation as an integral part of the national legal system. The reviewed book emphasizes the importance of theoretical justification and competent application of theoretical theses on the place and role of norms and sources of international law within national jurisdiction, on the correlation of the legal force of international and domestic norms. Indeed, both legal scholars and public institutions that directly address questions about the operation of international legal norms need to have a complete understanding about the functioning of the regulatory and institutional mechanism for implementation of international legal obligations in the domestic sphere. In this light, it is reasonable to attach particular importance to the role of the judiciary branch in appealing to and applying international law. The research paper consistently demonstrates changes in the practice and approaches to the perception of international law over time with ups and downs in the estimation of its significance and role in the country's legal order. Although the study claims to offer an exhaustive fundamental analysis of all the problems raised, the author still makes some theoretical mistakes that complicate the correct understanding of his analytical work. Thereby the author challenges himself to continue the research of the issue in order to untangle some knots of doctrinal contradictions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 11-42
Author(s):  
Joanna Dingwall

Chapter 1 places this study within its broader methodological framework. Firstly, it offers a method of analysis for evaluating the deep seabed mining regime, drawing on the international legal system more generally, and including elements of formalism and the New Haven approach. Secondly, it provides a methodological perspective on one of this study’s key strands: the role of non-state actors (specifically, corporations). It does so by addressing the terminology concerning non-state actors and corporate entities; considering the means by which corporate nationality can be established as a matter of international law (including by reference to the law of diplomatic protection, international investment law and the concept of flag state nationality); assessing the role of corporations within the international legal system; and providing an initial analysis of the necessary conditions for corporate rights and corporate obligations under international law. This analysis provides the necessary conceptual backdrop against which this book can evaluate the role of corporate activities within deep seabed mining.


2005 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Lindroos

AbstractThe increased fragmentation of international law has been accompanied by a more problematic phenomenon: institutional fragmentation that has strengthened the role of specialised regimes (e. g., WTO, EU, human rights and environmental regimes) within the international legal system. "The emergence of seemingly independent subregimes has given rise to a number of legal concerns – among these is the existence of normative conflicts between regimes." In a recent report by the Chairman of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, Martti Koskenniemi, dealt with the role of the lex specialis maxim as a means of addressing the relation between selfcontained regimes and general international law. This article argues that an application of lex specialis, although widely accepted, is impeded by its conceptual vagueness. Lex specialis may be well-suited to resolve certain types of normative conflicts, such as conflicts within sub-regimes, which may be viewed as a more traditional manifestation of normative conflicts. The fragmentation of international law, however, has also created new types of conflicts, namely those between different, seemingly independent normative orders. The article suggests that the lex specialis maxim is a less-suitable approach to normative conflicts between such unrelated normative orders. In a fragmented legal system such as that of international law, these types of conflicts may, accordingly, prove a particular challenge.


2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Linderfalk

AbstractIn the international legal literature, it is commonplace to talk about the law of state responsibility as secondary rules of law. The terminology emphasises that in some way or another the law of state responsibility is different from other rules of the international legal system – what international legal scholars refer to as primary rules of law. The present essay inquires into the soundness of this language. As argued, the primary-secondary rules terminology builds on two assumptions. First, it assumes that the law of state responsibility can be described as separate from the ordinary (or primary) rules of international law. Secondly, it assumes that the two classes of rules can be described as pertaining to different stages of the judicial decision-making process. As shown in this essay, neither assumption can be defended as correct.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander D. Beyleveld

Abstract The argument in this paper is that international lawyers—scholars and practitioners alike—should be cognisant of the fact that different economic distributions within nations will lead to the establishment of different international legal systems in terms of their formation and evolution, as well as in relation to the extent to which they are respected and adhered to. Rising economic inequality within nations is an issue of incredible systemic importance to international law; it should be pushed further up the agenda when it comes to devising the laws between them because this will, on balance, assist in creating a more peaceful and prosperous world underpinned by an effective law of nations that is up to the types of contemporary challenges which of necessity require more cooperation between states. Accordingly, from the perspective of this paper, international lawyers should, at a minimum do the following (i) give consideration to the direction of distributional trends within nations when attempting to understand how current international law works (i.e. how it formed, evolves and the extent to which it is respected and adhered to); (ii) give consideration to these same trends when conceptualising and designing the international law(s) of the future and (iii) to the extent necessary, think about the development of the mechanisms at the international law level that encourage and enable the reduction of economic inequality within nations with a view to ensuring that the better functioning, at a systemic level, of the international legal system in general, as well as the various parts of which that system is comprised.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 643-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHAN WITTICH

AbstractThis article examines the role of domestic courts in addressing questions of international law concerning the content and implementation of state responsibility. Practice shows that domestic courts only play a limited role in developing the international law of state responsibility. This is partly due to the limited number of cases decided by domestic courts. Furthermore, the practice of domestic courts is quite disparate, reducing their value in generating consistent practice. There is also a general inclination of domestic courts to apply remedies under municipal rather than international law, which reduces their significance as agents of international law. It is only in exceptional cases that domestic courts may contribute to clarifying controversial norms and support the further development of international law. Domestic courts may furthermore take on the task of fine-tuning international norms on state responsibility. Probably the most important role domestic courts may play in applying secondary rules of state responsibility is that of strengthening the effectiveness of the international legal system and its individual rules.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document