It could be argued that the practice of international organizations, in particular the United Nations, as reflected in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, constitutes an additional source of international law, even if it is not referred to as such in article 38, paragraph 1, of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. Article 38, paragraph 1, closely follows the corresponding provision of the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, thus preceding the role played by international organizations at the international level. That is, the provision of article 38, paragraph 1, could be considered „obsolete“, which was particularly evident in the reference to „civilized nations“, a reference that seemed all the more curious after the decolonization process in the early 1960s and the participation of almost all the nations of the world in the United Nations. While bilateral treaties or treaties between only a few States most closely resemble a treaty between individuals, multilateral treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are often referred to as „legislative treaties“ because they are as close to international law as the international legal order. Widely accepted multilateral treaties, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties itself, are often seen as clear indicators of the content of customary international law in this area. Read Ireland`s statements on specific issues of international law International treaties, state customs and practice, and judicial decisions are important sources of international law. With regard to the question of preference between sources of international law, the rules set forth in treaties would prevail if such an instrument existed. However, it is also argued that international treaties and practices are equally valid sources of international law; This means that new customs can replace old contracts and new contracts can replace old customs. The ius cogens (mandatory standard) is also a custom, not a contract. Admittedly, judicial decisions and doctrine are regarded as auxiliary sources of international law, while it is not clear whether the general principles of law recognized by „civilized nations“ should be recognized as the principal or auxiliary source of international law.
Nevertheless, treaties, customary law and general principles of law are generally recognized as primary sources of international law. Customary international law consists of rules derived from „general practice recognized as law“ and existing independently of treaty law. Unlike treaties, customary international law is not written. To prove that a particular rule is common, (1) there must be objective evidence of government practice and (2) the international community must believe that such a practice is required by law – this subjective element is known as opinio juris (as formulated by the Court in the British case West Rand Central Gold Mining Co v. The King [1905] 2 KB 391). The criteria for the two elements required to identify the right were established in 1969 in the cases of the continental shelf of the North Sea (FRG v. Denmark; FRG v. the Netherlands). See Officially Reported Judgment – North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, (1969) ICJ Reports 3. During the 19th century, it was recognized by legal positivists that a ruler can limit his authority to act by accepting an agreement based on the principle pacta sunt servanda. This consensual conception of international law was reflected in the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice of 1920 and was subsequently retained in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice of 1946.
[2] The importance of general principles has undoubtedly been diminished by the increasing intensity of contractual and institutional relations between States. Nevertheless, the terms confiscation and fairness are used in the settlement of international disputes. For example, a State which, by its conduct, has encouraged another State to believe in and rely on the existence of a particular legal or factual situation may be prevented from asserting a contrary situation in its actions. [25] The principle of good faith has been described by the ICJ as „one of the fundamental principles for the establishment and performance of legal obligations.“ [26] Justice was also frequently mentioned. [27] He agreed that fairness should not be used to undermine (i.e., operate contra legem). [28] This notion of „justice as justice“ is reinforced by references to just principles in the text of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, although this may be little more than an admission of the existence and legitimacy of the arbitrator`s discretion. Derived from the established practice of Western states (originally), accompanied by opinio juris (the belief of states that consistent practice is required by a legal obligation), customary international law differs from acts of accommodation (mutual recognition of governmental acts) in the presence of opinio juris (although, in some cases, acts of comity have evolved into customary international law). i.e.
diplomatic immunity). Treaties have gradually supplanted much of customary international law. This development is similar to the replacement of customary or customary law by law codified in the domestic legal environment, but customary international law continues to play an important role in international law. There is no central international body that creates international law; It is created by several sources. For more information on these sources, see the titles and links listed below in this research guide: The writings of jurists are important for describing and analyzing evolving norms and identifying general legal principles. In the absence of decisions of international tribunals, international legal doctrine depends on the articulation of jurisprudence in books and journal articles. Memoranda of Understanding – Simple political commitment or established category of international contract law? (What distinguishes a legally binding agreement from a non-legally binding agreement?) International law, also known as „international law“, is the name of a set of rules that govern the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with each other. [1] Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, generally accepted principles of law, decisions of national and lower courts, and academic writings.
These are the materials and processes from which the rules and principles that govern the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a number of political and legal theories. The concept of practice, which establishes a rule of custom, implies that the practice is followed regularly or that such State practice must be „customary, consistent and consistent“. [10] Given the size of the international community, the practice does not need to encompass all states or be completely uniform. There must be a sufficient level of participation, in particular on the part of States whose interests are likely to be most affected[11] and that there is no substantial contradiction. [12] There have been a number of occasions when the ICJ has rejected claims that a customary rule exists because the practice brought to its attention is inconsistent. [13] A dissenting state has the right to challenge the contestability of a rule in question if it can prove its persistent objection to that rule,[15] either as a member of a regional group[16] or by virtue of its membership in the international community. [17] It is not easy for a single state to maintain its dissent. The rules of jus cogens are also universal in character and apply to all States, regardless of their wishes.
[18] In accordance with Article 103 of Chapter XVI of the Charter of the United Nations, obligations under the Charter of the United Nations take precedence over the provisions of any other treaty. In the meantime, its preamble reaffirms the definition of obligations arising from treaties and sources of international law. The decisions of international and municipal courts and the publications of doctrine cannot be described as a source of law as such, but as a means of recognizing the law established in other sources. In practice, the International Court of Justice does not refer to domestic judgments, although it does refer to its previous jurisprudence. Non-legally binding international agreements are becoming increasingly important in day-to-day relations between States. However, there is no consensus among practitioners and academics on what exactly constitutes such non-legally binding „agreements“, nor is there any discernible uniform practice among states. Due to the widespread use of these instruments, this inconsistent image can lead to misunderstandings and thus possible (legal) arguments. Therefore, in the course of two rounds of discussions, the workshop answered questions about how to distinguish between non-legally binding and legally binding agreements and whether these instruments, despite their intended non-legal nature, can have legal effects and what conclusions can be drawn from current government practice regarding the use of these instruments.
Komentari su zatvoreni.