The Legal Status of the 1996 Declaration on Space Benefits : Are Its Norms Now Part of Customary International Law ?

2012 ◽  
pp. 289-314
Author(s):  
Brian D. Lepard
Author(s):  
Longobardo Marco ◽  
Fleck Dieter

This chapter provides an overview of treaty and customary international law rules applicable to means of combat. Belligerents do not need an authorization from international humanitarian law in relation to a specific means of combat. Rather, they are free to develop, produce, stockpile, transfer, or use any particular weapon, except for those cases in which a prohibitive rule of international humanitarian law dictates to the contrary. In order to guarantee effective implementation of the prohibition of certain means and methods of warfare, it is necessary to provide for an efficient procedure to ensure the legality of new weapons. This procedure is preventive in nature and aims at providing the belligerents with means of combat that do not violate international law prohibitions. The chapter discusses the prohibition of certain conventional weapons and then looks at weapons of mass destruction, which are simply defined as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. While the production, possession, and use of chemical weapons and biological weapons is prohibited under treaty law, the legal status of nuclear weapons is more complex.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
David H. Moore

Transnational human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been plagued by the overarching question of the domestic legal status of customary international law (CIL). Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is the Supreme Court's second installment on the ATS. Like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machainbefore it, Kiobel does not expressly address the domestic legal status of CIL, but it does provide clues. Those clues suggest two insights: the Court views CIL as external to U.S. law, rather than as part of federal common law, and the role of CIL in future cases may be affected less by arguments about CIL's status as federal common law than by arguments about congressional intent.


Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A

This chapter considers the status in the U.S. legal system of customary international law, which was historically referred to as part of the “law of nations.” After considering what the text of the Constitution suggests about this issue, the chapter discusses how courts historically applied customary international law in cases in which it was relevant and how courts referred to it (in cases such as The Paquete Habana) as “part of our law.” The chapter also recounts the modern debates and uncertainties about the current domestic legal status of customary international law. In particular, the chapter explores the possibility that customary international law might have the status of post-Erie “federal common law” and what such a status might mean for questions of jurisdiction, preemption of state law, and limitations on congressional and executive authority. It also discusses various ways in which customary international law can be important in the U.S. legal system even if it is not applied directly by the courts, such as through the Charming Betsy canon of construction. The chapter concludes by discussing controversies concerning the Supreme Court’s consideration of foreign and international law materials when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-351
Author(s):  
Ntombizozuko Dyani-Mhango

This article reflects on South Africa's International Crimes Bill 2017 in relation to the customary international law immunities of sitting heads of states. It revisits the discussion on these immunities and examines their legal status in South Africa. It argues that if South Africa adopts the International Crimes Bill, subject only to the procedural prescripts of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, this will have the effect of recognising customary international law immunities for sitting heads of state in South Africa thereby resolving the legal conundrum arising from the non-recognition of immunities for sitting heads of state.


Author(s):  
Shea Esterling

Abstract Two of the most laudable achievements of human rights are the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (udhr) and the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (undrip). Aside from advancing human rights, both are examples of soft law. For the undrip, this soft law status has generated significant controversy which is evocative of the earlier debate surrounding the legal status of the udhr. Yet unexamined, this article analyses this contemporary controversy surrounding the undrip in light of the historical debate surrounding the legal status of the udhr. Fleshing out points of convergence and divergence, these debates unearth narratives which shed light on the claims and advocacy strategies of Indigenous Peoples and the role of customary international law within human rights. Ultimately, it reveals that these narratives do little to secure the enforcement of indigenous rights.


2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Eve Loiselle

The responsibility to protect concept has evolved rapidly in the last decade but its normative and legal status is still disputed. This paper assesses the degree of recognition the concept has attracted since its inception and the significance of resolutions 1970 and 1973 for the transformation of the responsibility to protect into a new norm of customary international law. It argues that despite claims about the centrality of the concept in the decision to intervene in Libya, the language of both resolutions, and the statements made by members of the Security Council surrounding their adoption, indicate that member states did not consider that they were legally bound to protect the population of Libya. Consequently, the intervention in Libya has not promoted the development of a legal obligation upon the international community to protect the world’s populations against gross violations of human rights.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Tichy ◽  
Catherine Quidenus

On 14 June 2017, a Headquarters Agreement between Austria and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (‘osce’) was signed. This is remarkable in that the osce, unlike other international organisations, lacks a generally acknowledged international legal status. This View from Practice charts the history of the multilateral efforts to grant a clear legal status to the osce, the recognition by Austria that it considers the osce as having obtained international legal personality on the basis of customary international law by offering to conclude a Headquarters Agreement, and the contents of this Agreement.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvanus Gbendazhi Barnabas

This article explores the legal status or effect of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (undrip) in contemporary international human rights law. As a United Nations General Assembly (unga) resolution, the legal significance of undrip may appear uncertain on the surface. However, several unga resolutions do carry some legal weight with far-reaching legal implications in international law. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (udhr) has been widely accepted, at least in part, as forming part of customary international law. Through a critical examination of relevant literature and some decisions of international, regional and national courts, this article examines whether the undrip, in whole or in part, reflects customary international law. It also considers the relationship of the undrip with other international human rights instruments, and whether it should be applied as part of general principles of law on issues that are essential to indigenous peoples such as non-discrimination, self-identification, land rights and development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document