scholarly journals Customary International Rules in Contemporary International Law // Međunarodna običajna pravila u savremenom međunarodnom pravu

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 136
Author(s):  
Duško Glodić
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Community ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Practical Point ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Creation

This article explores the role and importance accorded to customary international law in contemporary international law. First of all, the author has explored a number of issues related to this topic. Particluarly, the manner in which norms of customary international law are being established through the relevant State practice and the formation of opinio juris, as well as how the changes in contemporary international relations generated some chages in custromary international law were examined from both theretical and practical point of view. Than, the article elaborated, in a more concrete manner, different ways of impact of changes in international relations and subjects of international law to the formation of customary international rules. It has also paid attention to the evolution in international law and its reflection to the creation of international legal norms, including customary rules. The article concluded that, despite an ever increasing number of treaties, customary rules are still present in international law and are important for regulation of international relations, thus ensuring that dynamics and developments within the international community are followed by the development of legal framework.

Sources of International Law in Domestic Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Municipal Court ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter maintains that as both municipal and international law use legal norms to regulate social relationships, a space for inter-systemic interaction between both legal spheres emerges. Municipal legal practice can have an ‘upstream’ impact on the formation of the content of the sources of international law, where these require proof of State practice and/or opinio juris for valid norms to be generated. Particularly, domestic court decisions can have a jurisgenerative effect on customary international law, where they become part of a transnational dialogue between domestic and international courts on questions of international law determination. Admittedly, this dialogical process is hamstrung by the particularities of domestic law and the hard-to-eradicate selection bias of international law-appliers. However, a more objective comparative international law process can be grounded, geared to effective problem-solving guided by the persuasiveness and quality of reasoning of municipal court decisions relevant to international law.

The Effects of a State of War or Armed Conflict

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Mancini
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter explores how a state of war or armed conflict affects the relations between belligerents, between belligerents and third states, and the belligerents’ subjects. It begins by describing how a state of war arose between two states, along with its far-reaching consequences, in classical international law. The effects on diplomatic relations, trade relations, treaties, and contracts are highlighted. The chapter then considers the prohibition on the use or threat of armed force in international relations and its implications for the concept of a state of war as well as the consequences traditionally attached to it. It also looks at state practice regarding the creation of a state of war in the United Nations era and concludes by analysing the effects of an interstate armed conflict in contemporary international law.

Great Britain, International Law, and the Evolution of Maritime Strategic Thought, 1856–1914

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela A. Frei
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Maritime Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Sea Power ◽  
Maritime Strategy ◽  
Strategic Thought

The book addresses the interaction between international maritime law and maritime strategy in a historical context, arguing that both international law and maritime strategy are based on long-term state interests. Great Britain as the predominant sea power in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries shaped the relationship between international law and maritime strategy like no other power. The book explores how Great Britain used international maritime law as an instrument of foreign policy to protect its strategic and economic interests, and how maritime strategic thought evolved in parallel to the development of international legal norms. The book offers an analysis of British state practice as well as an examination of the efforts of the international community to codify international maritime law in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As the predominant sea power and also the world’s largest carrier of goods, Great Britain had to balance its interests as both a belligerent and a neutral power. With the growing importance of international law in international politics, the book examines the role of international lawyers, strategists, and government officials who shaped state practice. Great Britain’s neutrality for most of the period between 1856 and 1914 influenced its state practice and its perceptions of a future maritime conflict. Yet, the codification of international maritime law at The Hague and London conferences at the beginning of the twentieth century demanded a reassessment of Great Britain’s legal position.

scholarly journals Kurdish Regional Self-rule Administration in Syria: A new Model of Statehood and its Status in International Law Compared to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
LOQMAN RADPEY
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
Autonomous Region ◽  
New Model ◽  
Northern Iraq ◽  
Syrian Population ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Self Rule

AbstractHaving been supressed and denied their rights by successive Syrian governments over the years, Syrian Kurds are now asserting ade factoautonomy. Since the withdrawal of the Syrian President's forces from the ethnically Kurdish areas in the early months of the current civil war, the inhabitants have declared a self-rule government along the lines of the Kurdistan regional government in northern Iraq. For Syrian Kurds, the creation of a small autonomous region is a dream fulfilled, albeit one unrecognized by the international community. Some 15% to 17% of the Syrian population is Kurdish. Whether they can achieve statehood will depend on a reading of international law and on how the international community reacts. There are certain aspects which differentiate Kurdish self-rule in Syria from its counterpart in Iraq.

(Dis)solving the Chronological Paradox in Customary International Law: A Hartian Approach

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Lefkowitz
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Resolution Function ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Normative Standard

As traditionally conceived, the creation of a new rule of customary international law requires that states believe the law to already require the conduct specified in the rule. Distinguishing the process whereby a customary rule comes to exist from the process whereby that customary rule becomes law dissolves this chronological paradox. Creation of a customary rule requires only that states come to believe that there exists a normative standard to which they ought to adhere, not that this standard is law. What makes the customary rule law is adherence by officials in the international legal system to a rule of recognition that treats custom as a source of valid law. Confusion over this distinction arises because in the international legal system the same agents whose beliefs give rise to a customary rule are the legal officials whose adherence to the rule of recognition leads them to deem that rule legally valid. The proposed solution to the chronological paradox employs H.L.A. Hart’s analysis of the concepts of law and a legal system, and in particular, the idea of a rule of recognition. Yet Hart famously denies the existence of a rule of recognition for international law. Hart’s denial rests on a failure to distinguish between the ontological and authoritative resolution functions of a rule of recognition, however. Once such a distinction is drawn, it can be argued that customary international law rests on a rule of recognition that serves the ontological function of making customary norms legal, though not the authoritative resolution function of settling disputes over the alleged legality of particular norms.

Violation of Treaties by Adverse National Action

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denys P. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Practical Point ◽  
Adverse Action ◽  
Vital Interest ◽  
The Government ◽  
Political Character

The shade of distinction sought to be shown by the title of this paper may require explanation. Imperfect wording involves either carelessness or ignorance; bad faith indicates dishonesty; nonexecution or disregard implies laxness in the government, if not carelessness; adverse or hostile municipal or judicial action connotes lack of coordination between the internal and external affairs of the State. It follows that such adverse action may be considered from a practical point of view as almost a normal kind of violence against international contracts. It is not to be excused on that account, but it may be considered as a frictional incident almost inseparable under some conditions from the existence of a State. Given either a government of definitely separated elements, such as the United States, or a government without much stability, or a State founded on a type of civilization different from the European order, and this sort of violation of treaty may be forecasted with certainty. Fortunately, however, the instances that cause contractual friction of this sort are of the grosser kinds of personal violence, or are commercial; they are not of a political character, cannot be said to involve policy, and only by a stretch of the imagination involve the tweedledum and tweedledee of international relations, “national honor and vital interest.” They are consequently extremely susceptible to simple and orderly solution.

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

scholarly journals Revisiting the Case of Customary International Tax Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-103
Author(s):  
Dirk Broekhuijsen ◽  
Irma Mosquera Valderrama
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Taxation ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Creation ◽  
International Tax

Abstract Customary international tax law has traditionally not received a lot of acclaim in international tax law literature. However, the infrastructure of international tax law is becoming increasingly multilateral. The recent adoption of the Multilateral Instrument and the creation of the Inclusive Framework, two initiatives related to the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, have accelerated the width of cooperation on international tax matters. For that reason, the authors (re)consider the existence of customary international law in the area of international tax law. They conclude that, perhaps contrary to the intuition of tax lawyers, the evidence in favour of customary international tax law is building up. The question whether customary law exists within the area of international taxation is therefore not misplaced.

scholarly journals Limits of Targeted Killing in Counterterrorism Operations: An International Law Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Brian Sang YK
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Clear And Present Danger

Despite criticism of targeted killing of suspected terrorists, states continue to justify extensive bases for lethal-force responses to terrorism by arguing that rigid adherence to prescriptive law cannot always be observed in the context of clear and present danger. But, while seemingly cogent, this view wrongly presumes the mutual exclusivity of security considerations and the imperatives of law. It risks exceeding the limits of permissible use of lethal force prescribed in conventional and customary international law. A contrary and more balanced view is advanced in this article. It argues that current international law protecting individuals against intentional killing offers sufficient and practicable guidance for states confronting terrorism. Systematic legal criteria are thus expounded to clarify the legality and admissible limits of targeted killing of suspected terrorists in three contexts: law enforcement, self-defence and armed conflict. With reference to treaties, policy documents and state practice, the article critically examines the preconditions for lawful state-sanctioned killings in counter-terrorist operations. It also identifies the legal challenges and policy implications of resorting to targeted killing. Using comparative case law and operational practice, a legal basis is offered on which Kenya and other nations can effectively tackle the spectre of terrorism within the fair strictures of the law. Every struggle of the state – against terrorism or any other enemy – is conducted according to rules and law. There is always law which the state must comply with.

La disciplina dei militari impegnati all'estero in missioni umanitarie: in margine al caso Lozano

2009 ◽  
pp. 565-590
Author(s):  
Raffaella Nigro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Functional Immunity ◽  
Head Of Government ◽  
Domestic Law

- In the well-known Lozano case, an Italian intelligence agent, Mr Nicola Calipari, remained killed in 2005 by an American soldier, Mr Mario Luis Lozano, while entering a US checkpoint on the way to the Baghdad airport soon after securing the release of an Italian journalist from Iraqi kidnappers. In the ensuing case, Italian courts addressed a number of sensitive questions, including that of jurisdiction over national troops involved, directly or indirectly, in so-called "humanitarian missions" abroad. Italian courts did have jurisdiction over the killing under Italian domestic law. Indeed, the murder of Mr Calipari can be regarded as a "political crime" under Article 8 of the Italian penal code. On such a premise, the question is whether Article 8 was superseded by a customary international law rule under Article 10 of the Italian Constitution aimed at excluding jurisdiction over Mr Lozano. State practice suggests that neither a customary rule on the exclusive jurisdiction of the sending State (as claimed by the Court of Assise of Rome in 2007) nor a customary rule on Mr Lozano's functional immunity (as claimed by the Court of Cassation in 2008) are established in customary international law. Rather, State practice reveals that a number of States are likely to recognize immunity from jurisdiction to the armed forces only in certain specific circumstances. Moreover, such immunity is quite different from the functional immunity traditionally enjoyed by diplomatic and consular agents, as well as from the immunities enjoyed by other high-ranking State officials, such as the Head of State, the Head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document