The objects and effects of non-party intervention before the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice recognized the legitimacy of ‘non-party intervention’ under Article 62 of the Statute in its 1990 landmark decision on Nicaragua’s intervention in the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras). Such form of intervention ‘is not intended to enable a third State to tack on a new case, to become a new party, and so have its own claims adjudicated by the Court’. Its purpose is ‘protecting a State’s “interest of a legal nature” that might be affected by a decision in an existing case’. Whereas non-party intervention under Article 62 now forms part of the law in action within the Court’s system, its precise features and regime remain uncertain. Doubts concern the identification of its precise objects and the potential binding effects for a non-party intervener of the judgment issued between the original parties. The present article explores these issues in the light of the Court’s case law and state practice. It demonstrates that non-party intervention can have various potential objects, depending on how the intervener intends to influence the future judgment between the original parties. Building on the identification of these objects, it then questions the traditional construction denying any binding effect of the decision for a non-party intervener and argues that a judgment issued following intervention is binding as between the original parties and the intervener in so far as this judgment, whether expressly or by implication, decides issues related to the object of intervention.

Prologue to truth: Argentina’s National Commission on the Disappeared and the authority of international law

Argentina’s 1980s transition to democracy is globally admired for pioneering a state-led process addressing the 1976–1983 dictatorship’s state-violence. The role of international law in the transition is well documented, especially through human rights and crimes against humanity. Yet, the extent to which Argentina’s transition was intertwined with international law and subject to its jurisdictional force deserves greater attention. This article analyses how the Argentinian truth commission (TC) accounts for the dictatorship’s state-violence, and how international law is implicated in the making of this account. It argues that the TC’s account draws on the authority of international law to establish the unlawfulness of the dictatorship’s state-violence. In turn, the TC subjects the meaning and interpretation of the dictatorship’s state-violence to a Eurocentric/Anglo-American lawfulness embedded in, and mobilized by, international law in the late-Cold War. To examine this, the article re-reads the Prologue to the TC’s Report as a literary text that does international legal work, harnessing the authority of international law in a way that has enabled the TC to deploy an authoritative, internationally acceptable, account of the unlawfulness of the dictatorship’s state-violence. This reading is based on original archival research, on scholarship in the fields of ‘law and literature’ and the history and theory of international law.

Protecting concessionary rights: General principles and the making of international investment law

This article engages with the history of international investment law in the first half of the twentieth century. It traces how international lawyers inscribed their vision of an international legal order protecting private property of Western companies against attempts at nationalization in the wake of socialist revolutions and the decolonization of large parts of the world. The article focuses on the role of ‘general principles of law as recognized by civilized nations’ as building blocks for an international legal order today called international investment law. Rather than describing a direct line between contemporary standards of protection and the invocation of general principles, the article develops conditions of possibility for the emergent field of international investment law. These conditions are located both in arbitral practice, as well as in international legal scholarship of the early twentieth century. Based on the analysis of such arbitrations over disputes resulting from concession agreements and scholarly writings in the interwar period, the contribution draws out the modes of authorization upon which the legal claims advanced by international lawyers rested. At the heart of the vision were ideas of ‘modernity’, ‘civilization’, ‘equity’, and ‘justice’ that enabled a hierarchization of difference, locating Western claims to legality above rivalling claims of socialist and ‘newly independent’ states. These ideas ultimately constituted the paradox of a ‘modern law of nature’ that claimed timeless universality while authorizing the ordering of foreign property in line with Western conceptions of modernity.

Unilateral declarations excluding bilateral relations under a multilateral treaty

Bilateral relations between states which are parties to a multilateral treaty may not be governed by that treaty. This may depend on an agreement between the two states concerned, which could subject their bilateral relations to a different regime that is considered to suit their specific needs better. The exclusion of bilateral relations under the multilateral treaty may also be the consequence of a unilateral expression of the will of one of these states, for instance in view of its non-recognition of the other state. The present article seeks to examine the conditions under which bilateral relations may be excluded on the basis of the unilateral determination of one of the states concerned.

The international law of jurisdiction: A TWAIL perspective

The concept of jurisdiction is a relatively undertheorized category of international law. Mainstream international law scholarship advances an ahistorical and asocial account of the rules of jurisdiction in international law. The present article contends that any serious understanding of the categories and rules of jurisdiction, in particular that of extraterritorial jurisdiction, calls for deep appreciation of the evolving material structures over time. It argues that the key factors that have influenced the evolution and development of the doctrine, rules, and practices of jurisdiction are the emergence of the modern state, capitalism, and imperialism. In order to appreciate this contention there is a need to undertake on the one hand a genealogical analysis of modern state and capitalism and on the other hand problematize the categories ‘territory’ and ‘extraterritorial’. The internal relationship between capitalism and imperialism has meant that, despite the territorial organization of the international system, a process of harmonization of legal rules has taken place across geographical spaces in both colonial and postcolonial eras. The outcome is a critical loss of policy and legal space for nations of the Global South. In the colonial era the outcome was achieved through legislation in the instance of colonized nations and through capitulation regimes in the case of semi-colonies. The strategy of advanced capitalist states in the postcolonial era for achieving harmonization of laws has been multi-layered and multi-dimensional. The article concludes by touching on two models of reform of the rules and practices of jurisdiction viz., liberal and subaltern internationalism.

Outer limits of the continental shelf beyond CLCS recommendations and Article 76(8) of UNCLOS: With reference to Japan’s Cabinet Order No. 302

In 2014 Japan’s Cabinet Order No. 302 declared the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (OL) to the west and north of Oki-no-Tori Shima (Area 302). Oki-no-Tori Shima consists of two small, barren, and uninhabitable rocks in the West Pacific. The northern part of Area 302 is broader than what the 2012 recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) specify. A question arises whether Order No. 302 violates Article 76(8) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides that the OL established by a coastal state ‘on the basis of’ the CLCS recommendations shall be final and binding. Another question is the role played by the CLCS in ‘assisting’ the coastal states to delimit their national jurisdiction so as to know where the Area (i.e., the Common Heritage of Mankind under UNCLOS Articles 1(1)(1) and 136) begins. The essential questions arising from Area 302 concern how well the UNCLOS mechanism can perform to safeguard the Common Heritage of Mankind through preventing encroachment thereupon by individual coastal states. This article looks at the context and explores the obligations implied by Article 76(8) for coastal states to ‘follow’ the recommendations in establishing the OL, with special reference to the northern part of Area 302. The article also examines legal consequences arising from a breach of these obligations.