International Law

AKEHURST’S MODERN
INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW
‘Professor Malanczuk has written a new edition of Michael Akehurst’s

textbook which maintains its high traditions of clarity, precision and
coherence. The new edition, more detailed and more widely referenced,
will appeal to a wider audience of students than its predecessor, while
still satisfying the needs of those seeking an accessible introduction to
International Law, whether lawyers or not.’
Colin Warbrick, University of Durham
First published in 1970, A Modern Introduction to International Law

rapidly established itself as the most widely used and successful textbook
in its field. It covers a variety of topics from diplomatic immunity to
human rights and from recognition of governments to war crimes. This
new edition is now completely revised and updated to take account of
many new developments and includes additional chapters on human
rights, state responsibility, the environment and the economy.
Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law is ideal for

students concerned with the relationship between international politics
and international law and provides clear and authoritative guidance
through a complex and ever changing field of study.
Peter Malanczuk is Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty

of Erasmus University Rotterdam.
AKEHURST’S MODERN
INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Seventh revised edition
Peter Malanczuk
Assessor iur., Dr. iur.,
Professor of International Law, Law Faculty, Erasmus University
Rotterdam,
Former Legal Assistant to the President of the Iran-United States
Claims Tribunal,
Counsel, Lalive & Partners, Attorneys-at-Law, Geneva,
Member, Tianjin Board of Arbitration, China
London and New York

First published in 1970 by HarperCollins Academic
Second edition 1971
Third edition 1977
Fourth edition 1982
Fifth edition 1987
Sixth edition 1987
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

by Routledge
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Seventh edition 1997
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002.
© 1997 Routledge
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 0-415-16553-9 (hbk)

ISBN 0-415-11120-X (pbk)
ISBN 0-203-42771-8 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-73595-1 (Glassbook Format)
Contents
Preface xiii
Abbreviations xvii
1 Introduction 1
The problem of defining international law 1
General and regional international law 2
Characteristics of international law 3
International law as ‘law’ 5
The scope of international law 7
2 History and theory 9

The formation of European international law 10
Features of European international law in state practice after 1648 11
Colonization and the relation to non-European powers 12
The Western hemisphere 14
Theory: naturalists and positivists 15
The theory of sovereignty 17
Legal results of the period up to the First World War 18
The unlimited right to use force 19
The peaceful settlement of disputes 20
Prohibition of the slave trade 21
Humanization of the law of warfare 21
First forms of international organizations 22
The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 22
The watershed after the First World War 23
The League of Nations 23
The attempt to restrict the use of force 24
Other functions of the League 24
The Permanent Court of Justice 24
Failure of the League system 25
Development after the Second World War 26
The prohibition of the use of force and collective security in the United
Nations Charter 26
Decolonization and change in the composition of the international
community 28
Attitudes of Third World states towards international law 28
Universality and the challenge to the unity of international law 30
New developments in theory 32
vi CONTENTS
3 Sources of international law 35

Treaties 36
Law-making treaties and ‘contract treaties’ 37
Parties to international treaties and ‘internationalized contracts’ 38
Custom 39
Where to look for evidence of customary law 39
The problem of repetition 41
What states say and what states do 43
The psychological element in the formation of customary law (opinio iuris) 44
‘Instant’ customary law 45
Universality and the consensual theory of international law 46
General principles of law 48
Judicial decisions 51
Learned writers 51
Other possible sources of international law 52
Acts of international organizations 52
‘Soft’ law 54
Equity 55
The hierarchy of the sources 56
Ius cogens 57
Obligations erga omnes and ‘international crimes’ 58
Codification of international law 60
4 International law and municipal law 63

Dualist and monist theories 63
The attitude of international law to municipal law 64
The attitude of national legal systems to international law 65
Treaties 65
Custom and general principles 68
Conclusions 71
Public international law and private international law 71
5 States and governments 75

States 75
Defined territory 75
Population 76
Effective control by a government 77
Capacity to enter into relations with other states 79
Self-determination and recognition as additional criteria 80
Federal states 81
Governments 81
Recognition of states and governments in international law 82
Recognition of states 82
Legal effects of recognition in international law 83
Legal effects in domestic law 86
Recognition of governments 86
De jure and de facto recognition 88
CONTENTS vii
6 International organizations, individuals, companies and groups 91

International organizations 92
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 96
Individuals and companies 100
Insurgents and national liberation movements 104
Ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples 105
Minorities 105
Indigenous peoples 106
7 Jurisdiction 109
Forms of jurisdiction 109
Criminal jurisdiction of national courts 110
Territorial principle 110
Nationality principle 111
Protective principle 111
Universality principle 112
Universal jurisdiction of national courts over crimes against human rights 113
‘Ivan the Terrible’ —The trial of John Demjanuk 115
Conflicts of jurisdiction 116
Extradition 117
8 Immunity from jurisdiction 118

Sovereign (or state) immunity 118
The act of state doctrine 121
Diplomatic immunity 123
Immunity from the jurisdiction of courts 125
Other privileges and immunities 126
Consular immunity 127
Immunities of international organizations 127
Waiver of immunity 128
9 Treaties 130
Conclusion and entry into force of treaties 131
Adoption of the text of a treaty 131
Consent to be bound by a treaty 131
Entry into force 134
Reservations 135
Registration 136
Application of treaties 137
Territorial scope of treaties 137
Treaties and third states 137
Application of successive treaties relating to the same subject matter 137
Invalid treaties 137
Provisions of municipal law regarding competence to conclude treaties 138
Treaties entered into by persons not authorized to represent a state 138
Specific restrictions on authority to express the consent of a state 139
Coercion of a representative of a state 139
Coercion of a state by the threat or use of force 139
Other causes of invalidity 140
viii CONTENTS
The consequences of invalidity 140

Termination of treaties 141
Termination in accordance with the provisions of a treaty 141
Termination by consent of the parties 141
Implied right of denunciation or withdrawal 142
Termination or suspension of a treaty as a consequence of its breach
(discharge through breach) 142
Supervening impossibility of performance 144
Fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus) 144
Emergence of a new peremptory norm (ius cogens) 145
Outbreak of war 145
Consequences of termination or suspension 146
10 Acquisition of territory 147

Modes of acquisition of territory 147
Cession 148
Occupation 148
Prescription 150
Operations of nature 151
Adjudication 151
Conquest 151
Acquiescence, recognition and estoppel 154
Intertemporal law 155
Legal and political arguments 157
Minor rights over territory 158
Servitudes 158
11 Legal consequences of changes of sovereignty over territory

(state succession) 161
Treaties 162
Treaties dealing with rights over territory 162
Other types of treaties 163
The principle of ‘moving treaty boundaries’ 163
Decolonization and new states 164
Recent practice 165
Secession 165
Baltic states 165
Dismemberment 166
Soviet Union 166
Yugoslavia 167
Czechoslovakia 167
Unification 167
Germany 167
Yemen 168
International claims 169
Nationality 169
Public property 169
Private property 170
Contractual rights 170
CONTENTS ix
12 The law of the sea 173

Internal waters 175
Territorial sea 176
The right of innocent passage 176
Rights of the coastal state over the territorial sea 177
The width of the territorial sea 178
The line from which the territorial sea is measured 180
The contiguous zone 182
Exclusive fishery zones and exclusive economic zones 183
The high seas 184
Interference with ships on the high seas 186
Jurisdiction of municipal courts over crimes committed on the high
seas 190
The continental shelf 191
The deep seabed 193
Maritime boundaries 195
13 Air space and outer space 198

Air space 198
Outer space 201
The ‘common heritage of mankind’ principle 207
14 Human rights 209

The concept of human rights 209
Human rights on the universal level 211
The United Nations Charter 211
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 212
United Nations bodies active in the field of human rights 213
The 1966 Covenants 215
Other human rights instruments on the universal level 216
Human rights on the regional level 217
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms 217
Other regional instruments 219
Human rights as a matter of international concern 220
15 Economy 222
The Bretton Woods system and international economic organizations 223
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) 225
The World Bank 227
The GATT 228
The new World Trade Organization 231
The trade agreements on goods 231
The Agreement on Services (GATS) 232
The Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 232
Institutional aspects 233
Developing countries and the legal quest for a New International Economic
Order 233
Expropriation and standard of compensation 235
x CONTENTS
Disguised expropriation 238

Expropriation of contractual rights 238
The right to development 239
16 Environment 241
The scope and nature of international environmental law 242
Customary law and general principles 245
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 247
The Convention on Climate Change 248
The Biodiversity Convention 249
The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 250
Conclusions 251
17 State responsibility 254

The work of the International Law Commission 254
State responsibility and the treatment of aliens 256
‘Imputability’ 257
The minimum international standard 260
Preliminary objections 262
Nationality of claims 263
Exhaustion of local remedies 267
Waiver 268
Unreasonable delay and improper behaviour by the injured
alien 269
Consequences of an internationally wrongful act 269
Countermeasures and dispute settlement 271
18 Peaceful settlement of disputes between states 273

Diplomatic methods of dispute settlement 275
Negotiations 275
Good offices and mediation 275
Fact-finding and inquiry 277
Conciliation 278
Legal methods of dispute settlement 281
Adjudication 281
The International Court of Justice 281
Composition 282
Jurisdiction in contentious cases 282
Procedure 287
Ad hoc chambers 288
Enforcement of judgments 288
Advisory opinions 289
Evaluation of the Court 290
Arbitration 293
ICSID 295
The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 296
Settlement of disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention 298
Conclusions 300
CONTENTS xi
19 International wars, civil wars and the right to self-determination:

ius ad bellum 306
Lawful and unlawful wars: developments before 1945 306
The prohibition of the use of force in the United Nations
Charter 309
Self-defence 311
Preventive self-defence 311
Self-defence and claims to territory 314
Self-defence against attacks on ships and aircraft 315
Armed protection of nationals abroad 315
Armed reprisals 316
Immediacy and proportionality 316
Collective self-defence 317
Civil wars 318
The legality of civil wars 318
Participation by other states: help for the insurgents 319
Participation by other states: help for the established authorities 322
The theory that help for the established authorities is legal 322
The theory that help for the established authorities is illegal 323
Collective self-defence against subversion 324
Conclusion 325
Self-determination and the use of force 326
Mandated territories, trust territories and non-self-governing
territories 327
Mandated territories 327
Trust territories 328
South West Africa (Namibia) 328
Non-self-governing territories 329
Double standards? 332
Consequences of violations of the right of self-determination 334
Creation of new states 334
Title to territory 334
Wars of national liberation 336
New developments 338
The effectiveness of the modern rules against the use of force 341
20 Means of waging war and criminal responsibility: ius in bello 342

Lawful and unlawful means of waging war 342
Nuclear weapons 346
The law of neutrality and economic uses of maritime warfare 350
Reprisals 351
Rules governing the conduct of civil wars 352
War crimes trials 353
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 355
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 356
The work of the Tribunal 358
The Rwanda Tribunal 360
Towards a permanent international criminal court? 360
Possible future developments 361
xii CONTENTS
21 The Charter and the organs of the United Nations 364

The United Nations Charter and the problem of interpretation 364
Literal interpretation 365
Intention and travaux préparatoires 366
Practice 366
Effectiveness and implied powers 367
The purposes of the United Nations 368
Domestic jurisdiction 368
Membership 369
The representation of China 371
The case of Yugoslavia 372
The organs of the United Nations 373
The Security Council 373
The General Assembly 377
The Secretariat 380
The Economic and Social Council and the specialized agencies 382
22 The United Nations and peace and security 385

Pacific settlement of disputes under the United Nations Charter (Chapter VI) 385
Collective security and enforcement action (Chapter VII) 387
Practice under Chapter VII during the Cold War 390
The United Nations force in Korea 391
The Uniting for Peace Resolution 392
Rhodesia and South Africa 393
Practice under Chapter VII after the end of the Cold War 395
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 396
The Kurdish crisis 399
Somalia 402
Rwanda 405
Haiti 407
Yugoslavia 409
UN peacekeeping 416
The ‘old’ peacekeeping during the Cold War 416
The first United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East (UNEF) 417
The United Nations Force in the Congo (ONUC) 418
The Expenses case 420
The United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) 420
New forces in the Middle East 422
New forms of peacekeeping after the Cold War 423
Conclusion 425
Table of cases 431

Table of treaties, declarations and other documents 435
Index 441
Preface
A Modern Introduction to International Law by the late Professor 1 V.Lowe (ed.), The United Nations and
Principles of International Law: Essays
Michael Akehurst was first published in 1970. Passing through six in Memory of Michael Akehurst, 1994.
editions, it became a classic among student textbooks within
departments of law and political science alike and it has been translated
into Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese. Since the last edition
in 1987, however, due to the author’s death, the text has been merely
reprinted without change and, in view of the manifold new
developments in international law and international relations in the
ten years that have passed since the sixth edition, especially after the
end of the Cold War, it became outdated. While I have therefore sought
to build upon the solid groundwork laid by Dr Akehurst (who,
unfortunately, I did not know personally) and to retain his clarity of
style and unique focus on the interrelationship between legal theory
and political practice, I found it necessary to subject the contents and
structure of the book to a thorough scrutiny, reorganization and some
enlargement, including additional chapters on important new branches
of international law. But I would like to record my deep respect to
Michael Akehurst who contributed much to education and to the study
of international law, also by means of many other masterly publications
which he wrote, and who, in a collection of essays dedicated to his
memory, has been described by his British colleagues as ‘one of the
most gifted international lawyers of his generation’.1
In preparing a revised and updated new version of the book, I have
tried to produce an edition that will meet the needs of students and
other readers for an introduction to international law, as well as providing
a more comprehensive account than the previous edition of the general
scope of the subject as it stands today, although I have become acutely
aware of the difficulty of trying to achieve this within a single book that
should not become too long. At the same time, by incorporating more
systematic and extensive references, it has been designed to serve as a
point of departure for more advanced study and for research. The revised
text aims at a broader and somewhat more cosmopolitan audience by
drawing upon a variety of legal systems, perspectives and also on literature
in languages other than English. The conceptual approach is based upon
a historical perspective of international law and emphasizes its dynamic
nature as a process which evolved from its limited European origins to a
universal system and is characterized by the strong impact of power
relations, as well as by the diversity of the national legal systems, cultures,
and political and economic structures with which it interacts.
Compared with the sixth edition, too many changes as regards
xiv PREFACE
arrangement and treatment have been made for these divergencies to be

enumerated in all their detail. But there are a number of alterations
concerning the structure and contents of the book which should be
mentioned. In Chapter 1, I have included a discussion of the problem of
defining international law, of the concepts of general and regional
international law, of the special characteristics of international law as a
decentralized legal system and have given an indication of the ever-increasing
scope of international law with regard to the subject matters it covers.
Chapter 2 has been rewritten and much expanded by giving a condensed
systematic overview of the historical phases of the development of
international law. Chapter 3 on the sources of international law now starts
with an explanation of the concept of legal sources and it has been revised
in many parts, taking into account the recent literature and decisions, such
as the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
legality of nuclear weapons. Sections have also been added addressing the
concepts of ‘soft law’, obligations erga omnes and international crimes. In
Chapter 4 on international law and municipal law, I have added a brief
explanation of the relevant dualist and monist theories and reduced the
previous emphasis on English law by referring also to other legal systems,
including the United States, European continental legal systems and the
constitutional reforms in Russia and Eastern Europe. Chapter 5 on states
and governments explains the criteria of a state in more detail than the
previous edition and includes a discussion of the experience of the break-
up of Yugoslavia in connection with the problem of the recognition of states.
In Chapter 6, dealing with international organizations, individuals and
companies, Michael Akehurst had also included human rights and the
concept of nationality, and in the following Chapter 7 he had discussed
the treatment of aliens, including expropriation, the nationality of claims,
and other preliminary objections, such as the local remedies rule. In view
of the development of international law, I decided to adopt a different
approach. The increasing importance of the protection of human rights
on the international level has made it imperative to add a separate and
expanded chapter on the topic (Chapter 14). Nationality, the treatment
of aliens (except for expropriation of foreign property) and preliminary
objections are now dealt with in a new Chapter 17 on state responsibility
for internationally wrongful acts within the framework of the International
Law Commission’s attempt to codify the law in this area. This
rearrangement was also chosen because of the close connection of the
topic to the methods of dispute settlement, which are treated in Chapter
18. Expropriation of foreign property, on the other hand, seemed to fit
better into a new chapter on international economic law which I have
also added (Chapter 15).
Chapter 6, therefore, is now limited to a discussion of the legal personality
of entities other than states in international law. This provided room for a
more detailed treatment of international organizations, individuals and
companies and to include new parts on the role of non-governmental
organizations, insurgents and national liberation movements, and ethnic
minorities and indigenous peoples. In Chapter 7 on jurisdiction, I have
submitted a more detailed discussion of the concept of universal criminal
PREFACE xv
jurisdiction, and added new parts on universal jurisdiction of national

courts over crimes against human rights (with special reference to recent
US practice), on the illuminating case of ‘Ivan the Terrible’, and some
more reference to the problem of the exercise of extraterritorial
jurisdiction, as, for example, in the case of the 1996 US Helms-Burton
Act. The general order and content of the following chapters on immunity
from jurisdiction (Chapter 8), treaties (Chapter 9) and acquisition of
territory (Chapter 10) have remained largely the same as that written by
Michael Akehurst. In Chapter 11 on state succession, changes were made
to give a more systematic overview of the complicated topic and by adding
text on the principle of ‘moving treaty boundaries’, as well as on recent
practice with regard to the secession of the Baltic States, the
dismemberment of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia
and the unification of Germany and Yemen. The main changes in Chapter
12, dealing with the law of the sea, reflect the entry into force of the
1982 Law of the Sea Convention and the modification of the controversial
deep seabed mining regime in 1994. Chapter 13 on air law and the law
governing outer space has been expanded to provide a more detailed
account of these relatively young areas of international law and a
concluding part on the legal significance of the so-called ‘common heritage
of mankind’ principle has been added.
As mentioned above, this is followed by new separate chapters on
human rights (Chapter 14), international economic law (Chapter 15),
the international protection of the environment (Chapter 16) and on
state responsibility (Chapter 17). The arrangement of the remaining
chapters has also been altered for systematic reasons. In view of the
importance of the topic for understanding the peculiar nature of
international law, Chapter 18 on the peaceful settlement of disputes
between states has been much expanded, taking into account also the
experience of ICSID, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the
complex dispute settlement mechanism under the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention. Chapter 19 on international wars, civil wars and the right
to self-determination concerns the legality of the use of force (ius ad
bellum) and also discusses new developments with regard to the self-
determination of ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities and indigenous
peoples. In Chapter 20, the laws of war (ius in bello), international
humanitarian law and international criminal responsibility of individuals
for war crimes are dealt with, including new parts on the International
Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and on the
project to establish a Permanent International Criminal Court. Chapter
21 on the Charter and the organs of the United Nations now deals with
certain matters which the previous edition covered in Chapter 15. I have
added some new text on the problem of the UN membership of the
Former Yugoslavia and some more details, inter alia, on the UN budgetary
problems and the role of the UN Secretary-General. The final Chapter
22 on the role of the United Nations with regard to the maintenance of
international peace and security contains new material on the practice
of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter after
the end of the Cold War and includes detailed case studies of the
invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, the Allied intervention in the Kurdish
crisis in 1991, the humanitarian intervention in Somalia in 1992,
xvi PREFACE
the tragedy in Rwanda in 1994, the intervention in Haiti in 1994, and the
break-up of Yugoslavia. I have also added a part on the new forms of UN
peacekeeping and, finally, some critical reflections on the role of the Security
Council after the end of the Cold War.
As regards more technical matters, the new edition has transferred
references from the text to notes and provides for extensive cross-references
in the notes (which is a more useful guide than only having to rely on the
index). In addition to the index and the table of cases, a separate table of
treaties and other relevant documents, as well as a table of abbreviations
have been included. While I have attempted to provide enough details of
leading cases and other documents to make discussion of them intelligible,
to encourage the reading of source material I have often given references to
Cases and Materials on International Law (4th edn 1991), by Professor
D.J.Harris, and Basic Documents in International Law, by Professor
I.Brownlie (4th edn 1995). Moreover, systematic use has been made for the
purpose of further study in references to the magnificent Encyclopedia of
Public International Law, edited by Professor R.Bernhardt, the Restatement
of the Law (Third): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987),
prepared by the American Law Institute, and, where appropriate, to The
Charter of the United Nations—A Commentary (1995), edited by Professor
B.Simma, and to United Nations—Law, Policies and Practice (1995), edited
by Professor R.Wolfrum. All of these excellent works provide good further
explanation and well-selected bibliographies on the matters addressed in
the various chapters of this book.
I am very grateful to Peter Morris (T.M.C.Asser Instituut, The Hague)
who carefully read the whole manuscript and improved and enriched it
with his experience as the Assistant General Editor of the Netherlands
Yearbook of International Law. I am also indebted to the ‘anonymous
reviewer’ who has studied the text on behalf of the publishers and who has
made very valuable comments and suggestions. I owe thanks to my
departmental colleague Olivier Ribbelink (University of Amsterdam) who
has given helpful comments on a number of chapters. My thanks are further
due to Bruno Simma (University of Munich) and Malgosia Fitzmaurice
(Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London) for sharing
their thoughts with me at an early stage of the preparation of the manuscript.
At a time when funds for university libraries are still being cut, I record that
I could not have prepared this edition without access to the excellent facilities
of the libraries of the Peace Palace in The Hague and of the Max Planck
Institute in Heidelberg, whose staff have in every way been most helpful. In
addition, I have received immense, untiring and very capable help in both
research and secretarial services from Liu Jian. Finally, I would like to thank
the publishers for their confidence, patience and impressive spirit of
cooperation.
The final preparation of the manuscript for publication was completed
during September 1996.
Peter Malanczuk
The Hague
November 1996
Abbreviations
AASL Annals of Air and Space Law AVR Archiv des Völkerrechts
AC Appeal Cases (UK) AYIL Australian Yearbook of Interna-
AD Annual Digest and Reports ofPublic tional Law
International Law Cases BayVBI. Bayerische Verwaltungsblätter
AFDI Annuaire Français de Droit Interna- BCICLR Boston College International and
tional Comparative Law Review
AFDMAS Annals Français Droit Maritime et BENELUX BENELUX Economic Union
Aéro-Spatial (Belgium, The Netherlands and
AI Arbitration International Luxembourg)
AJIA Australian Journal of International BPIL British Practice in International
Affairs Law
AJICL African Journal of International Brooklyn JIL Brooklyn Journal of International
and Comparative Law Law
AJIL American Journal of International Brownlie BDIL I.Brownlie (ed.), Basic Documents
Law in International Law, 4th edn,
AJPIL Austrian Journal of Public and 1995
International Law
BYIL British Year Book of International
ALADI Latin American Integration Associa-
Law
tion
CACM Central American Common
All ER All England Law Reports
Market
ANC African National Congress
Ann. IDI Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit Cardoza LR Cardoza Law Review
International CARICOM Caribbean Community
Anu. DI Anuario de Derecho Internacional Cd., Cmd., Cmnd., Command Papers (UK) 1900–
APEC Asian-Pacific-Economic- Cm. 1918, 1919–1956, 1956–1986,
Cooperation 1986– respectively
ARABSAT Arab Satellite Organization CEFTA Central European Free Trade
Arizona JICL Arizona Journal of International Area
and Comparative Law CENTO Central Treaty Organization
ASDI Annuaire Suisse de Droit CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
International ChD Law Reports, Chancery Division
ASEAN Association of South East Asian (UK)
Nations CIA Central Intelligence Agency
ASIL IELIGNewsl. ASIL International Environmental CILSA The Comparative and International
Law Interest Group Newsletter Law Journal of Southern Africa
ASIL IELNews ASIL International Environmental CJIELP Colorado Journal of International
Law News Environmental Law and Policy
ASIL Proc. Proceedings of the American Society CJPS Canadian Journal of Political
Science
of International Law
Cl. Ct. US Court of Claims Reports
ASILS ILJ Association of Student International
CLB Commonwealth Law Bulletin
Law Societies International Law
CLP Current Legal Problems
Journal
CLR Commonwealth Law Reports
AsYIL Asian Yearbook of International Law
CMLR Common Market Law Reports
AUJILP American University Journal of
Colum. JTL Columbia Journal of Transnational
International Law and Policy
Law
AULR American University Law Review
Colum. LR Columbia Law Review
xviii ABBREVIATIONS
Colum. JIL Columbia Journal of International EUTELSAT European Telecommunications

Law Satellite Organization
Cong. Rec. Congressional Records (US) Ex. D. Law Reports, Exchequer Division
Conn. JIL Connecticut Journal of International (UK)
Law F. 2d Federal Reports (Second Series) (US)
Cornell ILJ Cornell International Law Journal F. (J.C.) Fraser, Justiciary Cases (Scotland)
CSCE Conference on Security and Coopera- F. Supp. Federal Supplement (US)
tion in Europe FA Foreign Affairs
CTS Consolidated Treaty Series FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
CWILJ California Western International Law FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Journal FCN Friendship, Commerce and Naviga-
CWRJIL Case Western Reserve Journal of tion Treaty
International Law Fla. JIL Florida Journal of International Law
CYIL Canadian Yearbook of International Fordham ILJ Fordham International Law Journal
Law FP Foreign Policy
Dalhouse LJ Dalhouse Law Journal FS Bernhardt U.Beyerlin/M.Bothe/R. Hofmann/E.-
Denning LJ Denning Law Journal U.Petersmann (eds), Recht
Denver JILP Denver Journal of International Law zwischen Umbruch und
and Policy Bewahrung. Festschrift für Rudolf
Dept. State Bull. Department of State Bulletin (US) Bernhardt, 1995
DGVR Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft FSIA Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (US)
für Völkerrecht FTA Canada-United States Free Trade
Dick. JIL Dickinson Journal of International Agreement
Law FYIL Finnish Yearbook of International
Doc. Document(s) Law
DOMREP Mission of the Representative of the GA United Nations General Assembly
UN Secretary-General in the Ga. JICL Georgia Journal of International and
Dominican Republic Comparative Law
Droit et Soc. Droit et Société GATS General Agreement on Trade in
Duke JCIL Duke Journal of Comparative and Services
International Law GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and
EA Europa-Archiv Trade
EC European Community GEF Global Environmental Facility (World
ECE UN Economic Commission for Bank)
Europe Geo. LJ Georgetown Law Journal
ECOSOC United Nations Economic and Social GNP Gross National Product
Council Gov. & Oppos. Government and Opposition
ECOWAS Economic Community of West GYIL German Yearbook of International
African States Law
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community Hague YIL Hague Yearbook of International
EEA European Economic Area Law
EEC European Economic Community Harris CMIL D.J.Harris, Cases and Materials on
EFTA European Free Trade Association International Law, 4th edn, 1991
EJIL European Journal of International Harvard ILJ Harvard International Law Journal
Law Harvard LR Harvard Law Review
ELQ Ecology Law Quarterly Hastings ICLR Hastings International and Compara-
Emory ILR Emory International Law Review tive Law Review
EPIL Encyclopedia of Public International Hastings LJ Hastings Law Journal
Law High Tech. LJ High Technology Law Journal
(R.Bernhardt, ed., EPIL 1= HM Helsinki Monitor
EPIL, Instalment 1; EPIL I= Houston JIL Houston Journal of International
EPIL, Volume I) Law
EPL Environmental Policy and Law HRLJ Human Rights Law Journal
ER English Reports HRQ Human Rights Quarterly
ESA European Space Agency HV Humanitäres Völkerrecht
ET European Taxation IA International Affairs
ETS European Treaty Series IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
EU European Union IATA International Air Transport Associa-
Eur.-Asia Stud. Europe-Asia Studies tion
EURATOM European Atomic Energy Community IBRD International Bank for Reconstruc-
ABBREVIATIONS xix
tion and Development (World Iran-US CTR Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
Bank) Reports
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organi- IRRC International Review of the Red
zation Cross
ICC International Chamber of Commerce Israel LR Israel Law Review
ICJ International Court of Justice ITO International Trade Organization
ICJ Rep. International Court of Justice Reports ITU International Telecommunication
of Judgments, Advisory Opinions Union
and Orders IUCN International Union for the Conserva-
ICJYb Yearbook of the International Court tion of Nature
of Justice IYIL Italian Yearbook of International
ICLQ International and Comparative Law Law
Quarterly Jap. Ann. IL The Japanese Annual of International
ICRC International Committee of the Red Law
Cross JDI Journal du droit international
ICSID International Centre for the Settle- JIArb. Journal of International Arbitration
ment of Investment Disputes JPR Journal of Peace Research
ICSID Rev. ICSID Review-Foreign Investment JSpaceL Journal of Space Law
Law Journal JTLP Journal of Transnational Law &
ICTY Bull. International Criminal Tribunal for Policy
the Former Yugoslavia Bulletin JWTL Journal of World Trade Law
IDA International Development Associa- KB King’s Bench (UK)
tion KCA Keesing’s Contemporary Archives
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural LAS League of Arab States
Development Leg. Stud. Legal Studies
IFC International Finance Corporation LJIL Leiden Journal of International Law
IFOR Implementation Force in (former) LNOJ League of Nations Official Journal
Yugoslavia LNTS League of Nations Treaty Series
IHT International Herald Tribune LPIB Law and Policy of International
IJ International Journal Business
IJECL International Journal of Estuarine LOS Bull. Law of the Sea Bulletin
and Coastal Law Loyola LAICLJ Loyola of Los Angeles International
IL The International Lawyer and Comparative Law Journal
ILA International Law Association LQR Law Quarterly Review
ILA Rep. Report(s) of the Conference(s) of the MERCOSUR Mercado Comun del Sur (Treaty
International Law Association Establishing a Common Market
ILC International Law Commission between Argentina, Brazil,
ILCYb Yearbook of the International Law Paraguay and Uruguay)
Commission MFN most-favoured-nation clause
ILM International Legal Materials Mich. JIL Michigan Journal of International
ILO International Labour Organization Law
ILP International Law and Policy MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee
ILQ International Law Quarterly Agency
ILR International Law Reports MINURSO Mission des Nations Unies pour le
ILT The Irish Law Times and Solicitors’ Réferendum de la Sahara de
Journal l’Ouest (United Nations Mission
IMF International Monetary Fund for the Referendum in Western
IMO International Maritime Organization Sahara)
Indian JIL Indian Journal of International Law Mont. LR Montana Law Review
INMARSAT International Maritime Satellite MSF Médecins Sans Frontières
Organization NAFO North Atlantic Fisheries Organization
INTELSAT International Telecommunications NAFTA North American Free Trade
Satellite Organization Agreement
IO International Organization NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
IP International Peacekeeping NCJILCR North California Journal of
IPTF International Police Task Force International Law and Commer-
IQ The Indonesian Quarterly cial Regulation
IR International Relations NGOs non-governmental organizations
xx ABBREVIATIONS
NIEO New Inter national Economic Order PCIJ Series A/BPermanent Court of International
NILR Netherlands International Law Justice, Collection of Judgments,
Review Orders and Advisory Opinions
NJILB Northwestern Journal of Interna- (1931–1940)
tional Law and Business PCIJ Series B Permanent Court of International
NLJ New Law Journal Justice, Collection of Advisory
Nordic JIL Nordic Journal of International Law Opinions (1922–1930)
NQHR Netherlands Quarterly of Human PD Law Reports, Probate, Divorce and
Rights Admiralty Division, 1875–90
NULR Northwestern University Law Review (UK)
NWICO New World Information and Pepp. LR Pepperdine Law Review
Communication Order P.L. Public Law
NYIL Netherlands Yearbook of Interna- PLO Palestine Liberation Organization
tional Law Proc. IISL Proceedings of the International
NYL. Sch. ICL New York Law School Journal of Institute of Space Law
International and Comparative PYIL Polish Yearbook of International Law
Law QB Law Reports, Queen’s Bench
NYUJILP New York University Journal of Division (U.K.)
International Law and Politics RBDI Revue Beige de Droit International
NYULR New York University Law Review RdC Recueil des Cours (Hague Academy
OAS Organization of American States of International Law)
OAU Organization of African Unity RDI Revue de Droit International, de
OCSE Organization for Cooperation and Sciences Diplomatiques et
Security in Europe Politiques
ODA Official Development Aid REDI Revue Egyptienne de Droit Interna-
ODECA Organization of Central American tional
States Restatement American Law Institute, Restatement
OECD Organization for Economic Coopera- (Third) (Third) of the Foreign Relations
tion and Development Law of the United States, 2 vols,
OIC Organization of the Islamic Confer- 1987
ence RFDAS Revue Française de Droit Aérien et
Okla. CULR Oklahoma City University Law Spatial
Review RGDIP Revue Générale de Droit Interna-
ONUC Opérations des Nations Unies pour le tional Public
Congo (United Nations Force in RIA Review of International Affairs
the Congo) RIAA Reports of International Arbitral
ONUCA United Nations Observer Group in Awards (United Nations)
Central America RIS Review of International Studies
ONUMOZ United Nations Operation in RSDI Revue Suisse de Droit International
Mozambique RPF Rwandese Patriotic Front
ONUSAL United Nations Observer Mission in S. Ct. Supreme Court Reporter (US)
El Salvador San Diego LR San Diego Law Review
ONUVEH UN Observer Group for the Santa Clara LR Santa Clara Law Review
Verification of the Elections in SAYIL South African Yearbook of Interna-
Haiti tional Law
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting SC United Nations Security Council
Countries SCHR.-REIHE Schriftenreihe der Deutschen
Osteur.-Recht Osteuropa-Recht DT. GRUPPE AAA Gruppe der AAA. Association des
Ottawa LR Ottawa Law Review Auditeurs et Anciens Auditeurs de
Pace ILR Pace International Law Review l’Académie de Droit International
Palestine YIL Palestine Yearbook of International de La Haye
Law SDR special drawing rights
PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration SELA Sistema Económico Latinoamericano
PCIJ Permanent Court of International (Latin American Economic
Justice System)
PCIJ Series A Permanent Court of International SEW Sociaal-Economische Wetgeving.
Justice, Collection of Judgments Tijdschrift voor Europees en
(1922–1930) Economisch Recht
ABBREVIATIONS xxi
SIA State Immunity Act (UK) UNEF United Nations Emergency Force
Simma CUNAC B.Simma (ed.), The Charter of the UNEP United Nations Environment
United Nations. A Commentary, Programme
1995 UNESCO United National Educational,
Sing. JLS Singapore Journal of Legal Studies Scientific and Cultural Organiza-
SP Space Policy tion
Space Comm. Space Communications
UNFICYP United Nations Peacekeeping Force in
Sri Lanka JIL Sri Lanka Journal of International
Cyprus
Law
UNGOMAP United Nations Good Offices Mission
St. Louis ULJ St. Louis University Law Journal
in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Stanford JIL Stanford Journal of International
Law UNIDO United Nations Industrial Develop-
Stat. United States Statutes at Large ment Organization
Suffolk TLJ Suffolk Transnational Law Journal UNIFIL United Nations Interim Force in
SWAPO South West African People’s Lebanon
Organization UNIIMOG United Nations Iran-Iraq Military
SWMTEP System-Wide Medium-Term Observer Group
Environment Programme UNIKOM United Nations Iraq-Kuwait
TA Transnational Associations Observation Mission
Temple ICLJ Temple International and Compara- UNIPOM United Nations India-Pakistan
tive Law Journal Observation Mission
Texas ILJ Texas International Law Journal UNISPACE United Nations Conference on the
TNCs transnational corporations Exploration and Peaceful Uses of
Trans. Grot. Soc. Transactions of the Grotius Society Outer Space
TRIMS trade-related investment measures
UNITAF Unified Task Force
TRIPS trade-related intellectual property
UNMIH United Nations Mission in Haiti
rights
UNMOT United Nations Mission of Observers
TSJ Telecommunications & Space Journal
UKTS United Kingdom Treaties Series in Tajikistan
UN United Nations UNOMIG United Nations Observer Mission in
UNAMIC United Nations Advance Mission in Georgia
Cambodia UNOMIL United Nations Observer Mission in
UNAMIR United Nations Assistance Mission Liberia
for Rwanda UNOMUR United Nations Observer Mission in
UNASOG United Nations Aouzou Strip Uganda-Rwanda
Observation Group UNOSOM United Nations Operation in Somalia
UNAVEM United Nations Angola Verification UNPO Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Mission Organization
UNCC United Nations Compensation UNPREDEP United Nations Preventive Deploy-
Commission ment Force in the former
UNCED United Nations Conference on Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Environment and Development UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force in
UNCHR United Nations Centre for Human
(former) Yugoslavia
Rights
UNSF United Nations Security Force in
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on
West New Guinea (West Irian)
International Trade Law
UNCLOS United Nations Conference on the UNTAC United Nations Transitional
Law of the Sea Authority in Cambodia
UNCOPUOS United Nations Committee on the UNTAG United Nations Transitional
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Assistance Group in Namibia
UNCRO United Nations Confidence Restora- UNTS United Nations Treaties Series
tion Operation in Croatia UNYb United Nations Yearbook
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade UNYOM United Nations Yemen Observation
and Development Mission
UNDOF United Nations Disengagement UPU Universal Postal Union
Observer Force (Golan Heights) US United States Reports (Supreme
UNDP United Nations Development Court)
Programme US-Mexico LJ United States-Mexico Law Journal
xxii ABBREVIATIONS
USCMA United States Court Military WLR Weekly Law Reports (UK)
Appeals WMO World Meteorological Organiza-
USTS United States Treaty Series tion
Vand. JTL Vanderbilt Journal of Wolfrum UNLPP R.Wolfrum (ed.), United Nations:
Law, Policies and Practice, 2
Transnational Law
vols, 1995 (UNLPP I= UNLPP
Vand. LR Vanderbilt Law Review Vol. 1; UNLPP II= UNLPP
Virginia JIL Virginia Journal of International Vol. 2)
Law WTO World Trade Organization
VN Vereinte Nationen Yale JIL Yale Journal of International Law
VRÜ Verfassung und Recht in Ubersee Yale LJ Yale Law Journal
WEU Western European Union YIEL Yearbook of International
WHO World Health Organization Environmental Law
WIPO World Intellectual Property ZaöRV Zeitschrift für ausländisches
öffentliches Recht und
Organization
Völkerrecht
Wis. ILJ Wisconsin International Law
ZLW Zeitschrift für Luft- und
Journal Weltraumrecht
1 Introduction
The problem of defining international law 1 See, for example, Cicero, De officiis,
lib. III, 17, 69.
2 For the meaning of private
The term ‘international law’ was first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1780 international law see Chapter 4 below,
71–4.
in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Since 3 See Chapter 2 below, 16–17.
about 1840, in the English and Romance languages it has replaced the 4 See Chapter 6 below, 91–2.
5 See Chapters 17, 256–7 and 18, 262–
older terminology ‘law of nations’ or ‘droit de gens’ which can be traced 9 below.
back to the Roman concept of ius gentium and the writings of Cicero.1 6 See Chapter 5 below, 76.
7 See Chapters 6, 104–5 and 19, 318–
In the German, Dutch, Scandinavian and Slavic languages the older 26 below.
terminology is still in use (‘Völkerrecht’, ‘Volkenrecht’, etc.). 8 See Chapters 2, 22 and 6, 92–6
below.
Until the period between the two World Wars, writers found no 9 See Chapters 6, 105–8 and 19, 338–
difficulty in defining (public) international law,2 in one formulation or 41 below.
10 Restatement (Third), para. 101, 22–
another, as the law that governs the relations between states amongst 4. The previous Restatement only
each other. The prevailing positivist doctrine3 of the nineteenth century referred to ‘those rules of law applicable
to a state or international organization
and first half of the twentieth century held that only states could be that cannot be modified unilaterally by
subjects of international law, in the sense of enjoying international legal it’, ibid., at 24. The concept of ‘foreign
relations law of the United States’ is
personality4 and being capable of possessing international rights and broader than ‘international law as it
duties, including the right to bring international claims.5 applies to the United States’. It includes
‘domestic law that has substantial
However, this did not quite reflect reality even at that time. The Holy significance for the foreign relations of
See,6 although not a state, was recognized to have international legal the United States or has other
substantial international
personality, and so, for certain purposes, were insurgents7 and some consequences.’, ibid., para. 1, at 7.
forerunners of modern international organizations.8 Since the inter-war
period, the matter has become more complicated due to both the
expansion of the scope of international law into new areas and the
emergence of actors other than states on the international plane, such as
intergovernmental organizations established by states, non-governmental
organizations created by private individuals, transnational companies,
individuals and groups, including minorities and indigenous peoples.9
Some of these new actors have also acquired international legal
personality or, at least, certain rights under international law, even if
only granted by treaties concluded between states.
This development is reflected, for example, in the change of the
definition in the Restatement (Third) by the American Law Institute of
the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, according to which
international law
consists of rules and principles of general application dealing

with the conduct of states and of international organizations and
with their relations Inter se, as well as with some of their relations
with persons, whether natural or juridical.10
Some recent textbooks refrain from any attempt to define international

2 INTRODUCTION
11 See, for example, I.Brownlie,

Principles of Public International
law and enter directly into the discussion of its ‘sources’.11 On a similar
Law, 4th edn 1990. On the sources basis, Sir Robert Jennings, the distinguished writer and former President of
of international law see Chapter 3
below, 33–62.
the International Court of Justice, has even called into question the general
12 R.Y.Jennings, International Law, need for an objective definition of international law with regard to actually
EPIL II (1995), 1159–78, at 1165.
13 See M.Koskenniemi, The Future
using and applying it.12 At any rate, in the exposition of the subject in a
of Statehood, Harvard ILJ 32 (1991), textbook, emphasis must be placed at the outset on the circumstance that,
397; C.Schreuer, The Waning of the
Sovereign State: Towards a New
although increasing global interdependence and the emergence of new players
Paradigm for International Law?, on the international level have put into question the role of the state in
EJIL 4 (1993), 447–71; L.A.Khan,
The Extinction of Nation-States. A
international affairs,13 international law is still predominantly made and
World Without Borders, 1996 and implemented by states. International organizations are to a large extent
Chapter 2 below, 17–18 on the
doctrine of state sovereignty.
dependent upon these territorial entities and the willingness of their
14 See Chapter 21 below, 369–73. governments to support them. Only states can be members of the United
15 Article 35, UN Charter, text in
Brownlie BDIL, 1. See Chapter 22
Nations,14 only states are entitled to call upon the UN Security Council if
below, 385–430. there is a threat to international peace and security,15 only states may appear
16 Article 34(1), Statute of the ICJ,
ibid., 438. See Chapter 18 below,
in contentious proceedings before the International Court of Justice,16 and
281–93. only states can present a claim on behalf of a national who has been injured
17 See Chapter 17 below, 256–7.
by another state,17 if there is no treaty to the contrary. The individual has
19 See Chapter 3 below, 36–48. no individual rights in this respect under customary international law and
20 See O.Schindler, Regional
International Law, EPIL 7 (1984),
is dependent on the political discretion of the home state as to whether or
404–9 and Chapters 2, 14–15 and not to present the claim. In other words, the international legal system is
3, 41 below.
21 See Chapter 3 below, 44.
still primarily geared towards the international community of states,
22 See Chapter 2 below, 30–2. represented by governments.18
24 See E.McWhinney, United
Nations Law Making: Cultural and
Ideological Relativism and
International Law Making for an Era
General and regional international law
of Transition, 1984; R.-J.Dupuy
(ed.), The Future of International
Law in a Multicultural World, 1984;
‘General international law’ refers to rules and principles that are applicable to
A.Cassese, International Law in a a large number of states, on the basis of either customary international law or
Divided World, 1986.
multilateral treaties.19 If they become binding upon all states, they are often
referred to as ‘universal international law’. But there is also regional international
law, which applies only to certain groups of states, such as, for example, certain
rules on diplomatic asylum recognized only by South American states,20 or the
law of the European Union. Moreover, the term ‘particular international law’
is used to denote rules which are binding upon two or a few states only. Mere
usage, in the sense of widespread practice observed between states without any
sense of legal obligation, is often called international comity.21
Regionalism tends to undermine the universality of international law,
but it is an important existing feature of the international system.22 The
universality of international law was at one stage challenged by the
Communist theory of international law and at a later stage by the numerous
new states emerging from the process of decolonization after the Second
World War.23 These challenges in principle no longer appear. But obviously
the community of more than 185 states in existence today is rather
heterogeneous in terms of military, political and economic power, territorial
size and population, political structure, and cultural and ideological
orientation. This diversity also affects the interpretation and operation of
international law to a considerable extent.24 Almost all of the existing states,
however, are members of the United Nations and of regional organizations
of various kinds and agree on certain fundamental principles of international
CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 3
25 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 36. See
law as laid down in the United Nations Charter and the Friendly Relations Chapter 2 below, 32.
Declaration of 1970.25 26 For a recent study see H.Spruyt, The
Sovereign State and Its Competitors,
1995, See also Chapter 2 below, 10,
17–18.
27 See B.Broms, The Doctrine of
Characteristics of international law Equality of States as Applied in
International Organizations, 1959; R.P.
Anand, Sovereign Equality of States in
International law has a number of special characteristics making it International Law, RdC 197 (1986), 13–
completely different from highly developed national legal systems which 228; G.Jaenicke, States, Equal
Treatment and Non-Discrimination,
are connected with the existence of the modern state and its apparatus. EPIL 10 (1987), 456–65; J.M.Castro
The modern state which emerged in Europe after the fourteenth century Rial, States, Sovereign Equality, ibid.,
477–81.
centralized the use of force by making it a state monopoly, developing a 28 See Chapters 3, 52–4 and 21, 377–9
standing army and a more or less efficient bureaucracy.26 It increasingly below.
engaged in economic and social regulation, and created a sophisticated 30 See Chapters 18, 292–3, 21, 373–7
system of legal institutions, principles and rules regulating society. and 22, 390–1, 425–9 below.
31 See Chapters 3, 58–60 and 17, 254–
The Western concept of law, with its national and philosophical variations, 72 below.
became a central instrument for the organization and development of both 32 See Chapter 18 below, 273–305.
33 B.-O.Bryde, Self-Help, EPIL 4
state and civil society. In a systematic sense, this is reflected in the distinction (1982), 215–17.
between the three functions, typically entrusted to central organs, of law-
making (legislature), law determination (courts and tribunals), and law
enforcement (administration, police, army). Domestic law is addressed to a
large number of governmental bodies and private individuals and groups of
individuals. International law, on the other hand, is primarily concerned
with the legal regulation of the international intercourse of states which are
organized as territorial entities, are limited in number and consider
themselves, in spite of the obvious factual differences in reality, in formal
terms as ‘sovereign’ and ‘equal’.27 Thus, international law is a horizontal
legal system, lacking a supreme authority, the centralization of the use of
force, and a differentiation of the three basic functions of law-making, law
determination, and law enforcement typically entrusted to central organs.
The United Nations General Assembly is not a world legislature,28 the
International Court of Justice in The Hague can operate only on the basis
of the consent of states to its jurisdiction,29 and the law-enforcement capacity
of the United Nations Security Council is both legally and politically limited.30
Nevertheless, a state which violates an international obligation is
responsible for the wrongful act towards the injured state, or, under
certain circumstances, to the international community as a whole.31 The
injured state can raise an international claim which it may pursue on the
basis of special remedies, if available, or by resorting to third-party
mediation or conciliation, arbitration or judicial proceedings.32 In the
end, however, the role of self-help by states in cases of a violation of
their rights is predominant in international law, as compared with the
restricted admissibility of self-help of individuals in national legal systems.
If one state commits an illegal act against another state, and refuses to
make reparation or to appear before an international tribunal, there is (or
was until recently) only one sanction available to the injured state: self-
help.33 Self-help exists as a sanction in all legal systems. In earlier primitive
legal systems, most sanctions involved the use of self-help in one form or
another. Even in modern legal systems an individual may defend himself
against assault, retake property which has been stolen from him, evict
4 INTRODUCTION

trespassers from his land and terminate a contract if the other party has
36 See Chapter 22 below, 387–415. broken a major term of that contract. But in modern societies self-help has
38 See Chapters 21, 373–9 and 22,
become the exception rather than the rule, whereas in international law it
385–416, 425–30 below. has remained the rule.
At one time states might even go to war to enforce their legal rights.
However, this is no longer lawful, with certain exceptions such as self-defence
against armed attack. 34 The remaining forms of self-help are
countermeasures, such as retorsion and reprisals.35
Retorsion is a lawful act which is designed to injure the wrongdoing
state —for example, cutting off economic aid (this is lawful because there is
no legal obligation to provide economic aid, apart from under special treaty
provisions).
Reprisals are acts which would normally be illegal but which are rendered
legal by a prior illegal act committed by the other state. For instance, if
state A expropriates property belonging to state B’s citizens without
compensation, state B can retaliate by doing the same to the property of
state A’s citizens. Reprisals must be proportionate to the original wrong;
for instance, state B could not expropriate property worth several times the
value of the property which its citizens had lost; still less would it be entitled
to kill or imprison state A’s citizens.
One disadvantage of retorsion and reprisals is that the state imposing
these measures may injure itself as much as the state against which they are
directed; this is particularly so when one state cuts off trade with another
state. A recent example has been the reluctance of the United States to use
trade sanctions to enforce its criticism of human rights practices in China,
in view of the huge Chinese market opportunities for American companies.
A more serious disadvantage of self-help is that it works effectively only if
the injured state is in some way more powerful or more determined than
the wrongdoing state.
Not surprisingly, therefore, there has been a recent tendency for sanctions
to be imposed by large groups of states, working through international
organizations such as the United Nations.36 But the United Nations Security
Council can impose sanctions only in limited circumstances, and in the past
was often paralysed by the power of veto possessed by each of its five
permanent members. The United Nations General Assembly is not subject to
the veto, but its resolutions are usually not legally binding (although they are
an institutionalized form of public opinion and can be instruments of political
pressure).37 Both the Security Council and the General Assembly, being political
rather than judicial bodies, base their decisions on political considerations
and sometimes pay little attention to the legal rights and wrongs of a dispute.38
International organizations with more specialized functions may exercise
a more effective control over their members, especially if, like the
International Monetary Fund, they provide essential services.39 A state which
was excluded from membership of the Fund would be unable to borrow
gold and foreign currency from the Fund to meet a balance of payments
crisis. And regional organizations may exercise an even stricter discipline
over their members; for instance, the Court of Justice of the European Union
has compulsory jurisdiction over member states which are accused of
breaking the rules of Community law.40
INTERNATIONAL LAW AS ‘LAW’ 5
40 Articles 169 and 170, EC Treaty.

However, it must be admitted that sanctions work less effectively in 41 See the report by C.Jochnick/R.
international law than in national law. States are few in number and Normand/S.Zaidi, Unsanctioned
Suffering—A Human Rights
unequal in strength, and there are always one or two states which are so Assessment of United Nations
strong that other states are usually too weak or too timid or too disunited Sanctions on Iraq, Centre for Social and
Economic Rights, 1996; R.Provost,
to impose sanctions against them. But this does not mean that Starvation as a Weapon: Legal
international law as a whole works less effectively than national law— Implications of the United Nations Food
Blockade Against Iraq and Kuwait,
only that it works in a different way. Colum. JTL 30 (1992), 577–639; E.J.
In international law there is considered to be collective responsibility Garmise, The Iraqi Claims Process and
the Ghost of Versailles, NYULR 67
of the whole community of a state which has committed an internationally (1992), 840–78; R.Normand/C.
wrongful act. Thus, the civilian population of Iraq, in spite of some Jochnick, The Legitimation of Violence:
A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War,
precautions taken, was in effect made to suffer under the sanctions adopted Harvard ILJ35 (1994), 387–416; B.
by the international community in response to the invasion and occupation Graefrath, Iraqi Reparations and the
Security Council, ZaöRV 55 (1995), 1–
of Kuwait by the Iraqi Government in the Second Gulf War.41 International 68. See also Chapter 22 below, 396–9.
law has, therefore, often been described as a ‘primitive legal system’. But 42 See Chapter 4 below, 63–71.
43 See Harris CMIL, 1–17.
this is a rather misleading characterization. It is true that the impact of 44 On the problem of the enforcement
power and politics is much more immediately recognizable and directly of international obligations, see the
Colloquium in Commemoration of the
relevant in international law than in national law. It is also true that 600th Anniversary of the University of
international law, due to the lack of central institutions, is heavily dependent Heidelberg, 22 and 23 September 1986,
ZaöRV 47 (1987), 1 et seq. (with
on national legal systems (often called ‘municipal law’)42 for its contributions by R.Jennings, R.
implementation. There are also other features which explain the Bernhardt, K.Zemanek, K.Doehring, E.
Stein, J.A.Frowein, G.K.A.Ofosu-Amaah,
comparison of the international legal system to the unsophisticated T.Stein, R.Dolzer and S. Rosenne);
institutions, principles and rules of pre-modern societies. However, on the P.van Dijk, Normative Force and
Effectiveness of International Norms,
whole, this characterization fails to distinguish the different nature of GYIL 30 (1987), 9; W.E.Butler (ed.),
international law (as a horizontal, decentralized legal system governing Control Over Compliance with
International Law, 1991; J.Delbrück
primarily the relations between states) and of developed (centralized and (ed.), The Future of International Law
institutionalized) national legal systems. It also does not adequately reflect Enforcement. New Scenarios-New
Law?, 1993; A.P.Rubin, Enforcing the
the relatively high degree of differentiation of international law with regard Rules of International Law, Harvard ILJ
to the areas it now covers, the proliferation of multilateral and bilateral 34 (1993), 149–61; J.Delbrück (ed.),
Allocation of Law Enforcement Authority
treaties, the considerable increase since 1945 of the main traditional subjects in the International System, 1994.
of international law and the emergence of new actors on the international 45 H.J.Morgenthau, Politics Among
Nations. The Struggle for Power and
level, in particular the large number of international organizations created Peace, 1948. See also the earlier work
by states for a broad variety of functions. by E.H.Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis
1919–1939. An Introduction to the Study
of International Relations, 1940.
46 H.A.Kissinger, Diplomacy, 1994. See
also Chapter 2 below, 32–3.
International law as ‘law’
There is an old dispute going back to the early writings of Hobbes and
Pufendorf, reinforced in the nineteenth century by Austin’s influential
legal theory, on the issue whether international law may be properly
called ‘law’.43 The controversy has focused on the relevance of the lack
of sanctions in cases of violation of international norms as compared to
municipal law and it has often confused the question of whether
international law is ‘law’ with the problem of the effectiveness and
enforcement of international law.44 In foreign policy thinking, the
reductionist perception of international law is still prevalent in the ‘realist’
school which emphasizes the role of power and of national interest in
international relations and is connected with names such as
Morgenthau,45 Kennan and is also reflected in the latest book by Henry
Kissinger.46
6 INTRODUCTION
47 R.St.J.Macdonald, Foreign
Policy, Influence of Legal
Certainly, the actual role and capability of international law in governing
Considerations Upon, EPIL II the relations between states must not be exaggerated, in view of the decisive
(1995), 442–6; S.A.Watts, The
International Rule of Law, GYIL 36
significance of military, economic, political and ideological factors of power.
(1993), 15–45. In fact, the role of international law in international relations has always
48 B.Simma, Reciprocity, EPIL 7
(1984), 400–4.
been limited, but it is rarely insignificant.47 Its function in structuring the
49 On the role of Legal Advisers and international system has been enhanced because of increasing global
the impact of international law on
foreign policy decision-making see the
interdependence and the self-interest of states in regulating their intercourse
Symposium in EJIL 2 (1991), 132 et rationally on the basis of reciprocity.48 Therefore, disputes between states
seq. (with contributions by S.M.
Schwebel, G.Guillaume, M.Krafft and
are usually accompanied by—in a given case naturally often conflicting—
A.D.Watts); A.Cassese, The Role of references to international law.
Legal Advisers in Ensuring that
Foreign Policy Conforms to
Foreign ministries do not unnecessarily employ a regular staff of legal
International Legal Standards, Mich. advisors.49 States continuously conclude and implement bilateral and
JIL 14 (1992), 139; B. Mawhinney/
K.Girtel, Fourth Legal Advisers’
international treaties and establish and operate international organizations.
Meeting at UN Headquarters in New More and more compilations of state practice in international law have
York, AJIL 88 (1994), 379–82;
M.A.G.Félix, Fifth Legal Advisers’
been appearing.50 Serious efforts are being made to codify international
Meeting at UN Headquarters in New law. 51 Modern national constitutions usually contain references to
York, AJIL 89 (1995), 644–9.
international law.52 All of this corresponds to the empirical fact that most
51 See Chapter 3 below, 60–2. states are careful to observe most obligations of international law most of
53 See L.Henkin, How Nations
the time,53 even in the absence of a compulsory dispute settlement procedure
Behave, 2nd edn 1979. For an and centralized enforcement agency. Spectacular cases of violation of
instructive description of how
governments, courts, international
international law, which attract the attention of the media more than regular
organizations and other bodies conduct, are exceptional and should not be confused with the ordinary
apply international legal norms in
the course of their work see
course of business between states.
R.Higgins, Problems and Process: The old discussion on whether international law is true ‘law’ is therefore
International Law and How We Use
It, 1994.
a moot point. First, it should be noted that the general concept of ‘law’
54 See M.Fromont, Les Grands itself and its relative status in society is subject to quite divergent views
Systèmes de droit contemporains,
1987; K.Zweigert/H.Kötz,
throughout the world, as has been shown by the modern discipline of
Introduction to Comparative Law, comparative legal studies.54 It is based on different ideas, methods and
2nd edn 1992; C. Varga,
Comparative Legal Culture, 1992;
traditions, as a consequence of historical and cultural diversity,55 including
International Encyclopedia of the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition in England, the Commonwealth
Comparative Law, Vol. II, Chapter 1:
The Different Conceptions of the
states and the United States, the European continental civil law tradition
Law; J. Kropholler, Comparative based on notions of Roman law, the Marxist conception of law as a product
Law, Function and Methods, EPIL I
(1992), 702–7; W.E.Butler,
of class struggle and historical formations of society, the Islamic concept of
Comparative Law and International law with no separation between state, society and religion, and special
Law, ibid., 699–702; M. Hilf,
Comparative Law and European
traditions in Asia and in Africa. This diversity is also relevant for proper
Law, ibid., 695–9; R.A.Danner/M.-L. understanding of the different national perceptions on the role and
Bernal (eds), Introduction to Foreign
Legal Systems, 1994.
interpretation of international law itself.
55 For an example of the Secondly, as regards international law as ‘law’, the arguments of the critics
differences in the area of
constitutional law in two Western
centred upon the absence of a legislature and, more recently, upon the topic of
federal systems of government see sanctions and compliance without recognizing the historical, structural and
W.J.Josef, The Role of Basic Values
in the Constitutional Hermeneutics
functional differences between legal systems within states and the international
of Germany and the United States, legal system as the necessary starting point of analysis. A horizontal system of
ZaöRV 56 (1996), 178–204. See
further S.P. Sinha, Legal
law operates in a different manner from a centralized one and is based on
Polycentricity and International Law, principles of reciprocity and consensus rather than on command, obedience
1996; P.Legrand, European Legal
Systems Are Not Converging, ICLQ
and enforcement. A system of law designed primarily for the external relations
45 (1996), 52–81. of states does not work like any internal legal system of a state. After all, there
is no reason to assume that the international legal system must, or should,
follow the historical models of centralized systems of national law. In effect,
what distinguishes the rules and principles of international law from ‘mere
THE SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 7
56 See R.Jennings/A.Watts (eds),
morality’ is that they are accepted in practice as legally binding by states in Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. I,
their intercourse because they are useful to reduce complexity and uncertainty Part 1, 9th edn 1992, 8–14; H.Mosler,
International Legal Community, EPIL II
in international relations. While international law is clearly weaker than (1995), 1251–5.
municipal law from the viewpoint of independent enforcement, it still 57 M.Lachs, Thoughts on Science,
Technology and World Law, AJIL 86
provides the external relevant terms of legal reference for the conduct of (1992), 673–97.
states in their international relations, based on the fact that, in spite of all 58 On the doctrine of sovereignty see
Chapter 2 below, 17–18.
differences, they are members of an existing international community.56 59 See Chapters 5, 75–90, 7, 109–17
and 8, 118–29 below.
The scope of international law 62 See Chapter 22 below, 385–430.
342–63 below.
The process of change in international law from a system of coordination 64 See Chapter 9 below, 130–46.
of the international intercourse of mainly European states in limited areas, 66 See Chapter 16 below, 242–3.
such as diplomatic relations and war, to a universal system of cooperation 67 See Chapter 8 below, 123–7.
68 See Chapters 6, 91–6 and 21, 364–
in numerous fields between quite different entities reflects the advances of 84 below.
natural sciences and technology,57 increasing global economic and political 69 See Chapter 15 below, 222–40.
interdependence and the need to address problems which can no longer 71 See Chapter 13 below, 198–208.
be properly dealt with within a national framework, such as in the fields 72 See Chapter 12 below, 173–5, 193–5.
of communications, international trade, economics and finance, 74 See Chapter 13 below, 201–3.
environment and development, or the massive problem of refugee flows. 75 See Chapter 14 below, 209–21.
76 O.Schachter, International Law in
The concept of ‘sovereignty’ of states, although particularly cherished due Theory and Practice, 1991, 1.
to their historical experience by the new states which have emerged from 77 T.M.Franck, Fairness in International
Law and Institutions, 1995, 5.
the process of decolonization since the 1960s, is becoming more and more 78 See L.A.N.M.Barnhoorn/K.C.
antiquated in view of the globalization of the economy and increasing Wellens (eds), Diversity in Secondary
Rules and the Unity of International Law,
interdependence of states.58 1995.
International law now covers vast and complex areas of transnational
concern, including traditional topics, such as the position of states,59 state
succession,60 state responsibility,61 peace and security,62 the laws of war,63
the law of treaties,64 the law of the sea,65 the law of international water-
courses,66 and the conduct of diplomatic relations,67 as well as new topics,
such as international organizations,68 economy and development,69 nuclear
energy,70 air law and outer space activities,71 the use of the resources of the
deep sea,72 the environment,73 communications,74 and, last but not least,
the international protection of human rights.75 This development has
resulted in increasing specialization in both academia and legal professions
in practice. As noted by Oscar Schachter:
It is no longer possible for a ‘generalist’ to cope with the volume

and complexity of the various branches of international law.
Increasingly, the professional international lawyer, whether
practitioner or scholar, is a specialist in a particular branch of
the law and each branch develops its own complicated and often
arcane doctrine.76
This specialization reflects the fact that international law has ‘through
maturity, acquired complexity’,77 but the development also now poses
problems with regard to the unity of the academic subject.78 The literature
on international law has indeed become an immense area of study. While
the total production of books on international law had amounted to about
8 INTRODUCTION
79 J.Schwietzke, Review of:

E.Beyerly, Public International Law.
2,000 titles in 1785, by 1967 it had reached the figure of 80,000 books.
A Guide to Information Sources, Currently some 700 books and 3,000 articles on international law are
ZaöRV 52 (1992), 1052–3.
80 See, for example, D.Wyatt/A.
published annually.79
Dashwood, European Community The present book offers only a first introduction to fundamental elements
Law, 3rd edn 1993; D.A.O.Edward/
R.C. Lane, European Community
and selected areas of international law. Furthermore, European Community
Law, 2nd edn 1995; and the articles law, which, although part of international law, has become a highly
in EPIL II
specialized area,80 is outside the scope of this introduction, except for some
reference to certain essential characteristics to describe the uniqueness of
the ‘supra-national’ European Union as compared with other forms of
international organizations.81
2 History and theory
The origin of international law is a matter of dispute among scholars.1 1 See W.G.Grewe, Epochen der
Some authors start by examining the relations and treaties between Völkerrechtsgeschichte, 1984, 19–25;
political entities from ancient times (3000 BC), including pre-classical A.Cassese, International Law in a
Divided World, 1986, 37–8; H.Steiger,
antiquity in the Near East, ancient Greece and Persia, and the Romano-
Völkerrecht, in O.Brunner/W.Conze/R.
Hellenistic period.2 The prevailing view in the study of international law
Koselleck (eds), Geschichtliche
is that it emerged in Europe in the period after the Peace of Westphalia Grundbegriffe, Vol. 7, 1992, 97–140. For
(1648), which concluded the Thirty Years War. a good collection of documents see
Again we find different opinions in the literature on the proper W.G.Grewe (ed.), Fontes Historiae Iuris
classification of the subsequent development. In his interesting book on the Gentium: Sources Relating to the
epochs of the history of international law, the German diplomat and historian History of International Law, Vol. I:1380
BC-1493 (1985), Vol. II:1493–1815
Grewe argues that there were three distinct systems of international law
(1988), Vol. III 1/2:1815–1945 (1992).
after the sixteenth century, each of which was characterized by the interests, See also A.Nussbaum, A Concise
ideologies and policies of the power that was predominant in the relevant History of the Law of Nations, 1962;
period: the international legal orders of the Spanish age (1494– 1648), the J.H.W.Verzijl, International Law in
French age (1648–1815) and of the English age (1815–1919)3 (which the Historical Perspective, 11 vols, 1968–
Scots and the Welsh, of course, in contrast to Grewe, would prefer to call 1991; P.S.Onuf/N.Onuf, Federal Union,
‘British’).4 The Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by Rudolf Modern World, The Law of Nations in an
Age of Revolutions, 1776–1814, 1993;
Bernhardt, basically differentiates between the periods from 1648 to 1815,
H.Legohérel, Histoire du droit
1815 to the First World War, the inter-war period, and developments since international public, 1996.
the Second World War.5 But it also has separate entries for regional 2 W.Preiser, History of the Law of
developments in Africa, the Far East, the Islamic world, Latin America, and Nations: Ancient Times to 1648, EPIL II
South and South-East Asia,6 to avoid the impression of a Eurocentric (1995), 716–49.
approach and to clarify that the development of international rules and 3 Grewe (1984), op. cit., 43. For an
principles was not a European matter only. With regard to Asia, the work excellent analysis of the strategic-
economic reasons for the changes in
of C.H.Alexandrowicz especially has brought many new insights which
the international system see P.Kennedy,
had been lost in the course of European expansion.7 As noted by R.P.Anand, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,
it is incorrect Economic Change and Military Conflict
from 1500 to 2000, 1987. See also C.J.
to assume that international law has developed only during the last Barlett, The Global Conflict. The
International Rivalry of the Great
four or five hundred years and only in Europe, or that Christian
Powers, 1880–1990, 2nd edn 1994.
civilization has enjoyed a monopoly in regard to prescription of rules 4 On the multinational nature of the
to govern inter-state conduct. As Majid Khadduri points out: ‘In each British unitary state and regionalist
civilization the population tended to develop within itself a community tendencies, see P.Malanczuk, Region
und unitarische Struktur in
of political entities—a family of nations—whose interrelationships
Großbritannien, 1984.
were regulated by a set of customary rules and practices, rather 5 History of the Law of Nations, EPIL II
than being a single nation governed by a single authority and a (1995): S.Verosta, 1648 to 1815, 749–
single system of law. Several families of nations existed or coexisted 67; H.-U.Scupin, 1815 to the First World
War, 767–93; W.G.Grewe, the First
in areas such as the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, China,
World War to the Second World War,
Islam and Western Christendom, where at least one distinct 839–49; O.Kimminich, Since the
civilization had developed in each of them. Within each civilization Second World War, 849–61.
a body of principles and rules developed for regulating the conduct 6 History of the Law of Nations—
Regional Developments, EPIL II (1995):
of states with one another in peace and war’.8
T.O.Elias, Africa, 793–802; S.Miyazaki,
Far East, 802–9; A.S.El-Kosheri, Islam,
10 HISTORY AND THEORY
809–18; A.T.Y.Serra, Latin America,

818–24; N.Singh, South and South-
The problem of periodization is well-known in historical studies in general.
East Asia, 824–39. To a large extent the classification of history into periods is arbitrary and
7 C.H.Alexandrowicz, An Introduction
to the History of the Law of Nations in
depends on the criteria applied. Therefore, not too much importance should
the East Indies (16th, 17th and 18th be attached to it. For the purposes of this introduction it suffices to broadly
centuries), 1967; Treaty and
Diplomatic Relations Between
distinguish between the ‘classical’ system of international law (1648–1918)
European and South Asian Powers in and the development of ‘modern’ or ‘new’ international law since the First
the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries, RdC 123 (1968– I), 121
World War. The classical system was based on the recognition of the modern
et seq. See also J.A.Thomas, History sovereign state as the only subject of international law. This system was
and International Law in Asia: A Time
for Review, in R.St.J.Macdonald (ed.),
composed of numerous sovereign states considered as legally equal and who
Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, accepted the unlimited right to wage war to enforce claims and protect national
1994, 813–57.
8 R.P.Anand, The Influence of History
interests. In essence it reflected the interaction among European powers and
on the Literature of International Law, the imposition of their international legal order upon the rest of the world in
in R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M.Johnston
(eds), The Structure and Process of
the three centuries following the Peace of Westphalia. From 1919 onwards a
International Law, 1983, 342. fundamental transformation of the international system took place with the
9 See Chapter 22 below, 395–415,
423–30.
attempt to organize the international community and to ban the use of force.
10 See Grewe (1984), op. cit.; The development of modern international law can conveniently be described
Anand, op. cit., 344. On one aspect
see also T. Meron, The Authority to
in the stages from the First World War to the Second World War, including
Make Treaties in the Late Middle the split of the international community in the wake of the Russian Revolution
Ages, AJIL 89 (1995), 1–20.
11 See text below, 17–18.
and the creation of the League of Nations, from the establishment of the
United Nations to decolonization (1945–60), and from the further expansion
of the international community to the end of the Cold War marked by the
dissolution of the Soviet empire (1960–89). The attempt to find a ‘New World
Order’ after the end of the bipolar East-West conflict and the difficulties in
the current phase of the development of international law will be addressed
in the final chapter of this book.9
The formation of European international law
Even during the Middle Ages in Western Europe international law existed.10
But medieval Europe was not very suitable for the development of
international law, because it was not divided into states in the modern sense.
Nowadays we think of states as having undisputed political control over
their own territory, and as being independent of external political control.
Medieval kings were not in this position; internally, they shared power
with their barons, each of whom had a private army; externally, they
acknowledged some sort of allegiance to the Pope and to the Holy Roman
Emperor. When strong centralized states, such as England, Spain, France,
the Netherlands and Sweden began to emerge, claiming unrestricted
sovereignty and no longer submitting to a superior authority, new
international standards evolved, also in relation to non-European powers
like the Ottoman Empire, China and Japan. In the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, with the discovery of the sea routes to the Far East and the
rediscovery of America, the sea powers transcended the previous limits of
the political world of Europe. This was followed by the development of the
concept of the sovereign state, first in theory in the sixteenth century by
Bodin,11 then in reality in Spain and, in the transition to the seventeenth
century, also in France.
EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL LAW AFTER 1648 11
12 See A.-M.de Zayas, Westphalia,

Features of European international law in state Peace of (1648), EPIL 7 (1984), 536–9.
practice after 1648 13 Cassese, op. cit., 37.
14 See A.Vagts/D.Vagts, Balance of
Power, EPIL I (1992), 313–15.
In state practice, the year 1648 marking the Peace of Westphalia12 is 15 Cited by Verosta, 1648 to 1815, op.
considered as a watershed, at least in Europe where a new political order cit., at 751.
was created, to be replaced only after the defeat of Napoleon by the 17 F.Münch, Vienna Congress (1815),
Vienna Congress of 1815. Within Europe the Peace of Westphalia ended EPIL 7 (1984), 522–5.
the devastating religious wars between Catholic and Protestant countries
and led to the recognition of Protestant powers and of the fact that the
state is independent of the Church. Three hundred or so political entities,
constituting the remains of the Holy Roman Empire, received the right
to enter into alliances with foreign powers under certain restrictions.
While Germany was divided into a number of comparatively small states,
France, Sweden and the Netherlands were recognized as new big powers,
and Switzerland and the Netherlands were accorded the position of
neutral states. The Empire disintegrated and the decline of the power of
the Church accelerated. As the Italian scholar Cassese notes with regard
to the system set up by the Peace of Westphalia: ‘by the same token it
recorded the birth of an international system based on a plurality of
independent states, recognizing no superior authority over them.’13
The Peace of Westphalia envisaged a collective security system which
obliged parties to defend its provisions against all others. Disputes were to
be referred to a peaceful settlement or a legal adjudication. If no solution
was found on this basis within three years, all other parties were to come to
the assistance of the injured party and allowed to use force. This system was
never put into practice. Power politics and continuously shifting military
alliances among European states overruled it, reflecting the attempt to
maintain a balance of power14 which was the prevailing political principle
in their foreign policy. Friederich Gentz, the collaborator of Metternich,
was later (1806) to define the European balance of power accurately as ‘an
organization of separately existing states of which no single one has the
ability to impair the independence or the basic rights of the others without
meeting with effective resistance and thus having to risk danger for itself’.15
What became known as ‘European public law’ (ius publicum
europaeum; droit public de l’Europe) evolved from the increased diplomatic
and violent intercourse and ever-changing alliances among European
powers on the basis of this principle, which was to be only temporarily
abolished through the conquest of Europe by Napoleon. The French
Revolution of 1789, however, had profoundly challenged the basis of the
existing system by advocating the ideas of freedom and self-determination
of people16 which were meant to be implemented beyond the boundaries
of France, and denied the rights of monarchs to dispose of state territory
and population according to their own discretion.
With the restoration of the old order in Europe at the Vienna Congress
of 1815,17 the second attempt in history to create a collective security
system was somewhat more successful, of course, under its own terms
and historical conditions. The Treaties of Paris created the Holy Alliance
of Christian nations between the monarchies of Austria, Russia and Prussia,
and an anti-revolutionary military alliance between Austria, Prussia,
18 See S.Verosta, Aix-La-Chapelle,

Congress of (1818), EPIL I (1992),
Russia, and England, joined later also by France, to intervene against liberal
94– 5; Verosta, Holy Alliance, EPIL II and nationalist uprising threatening the established order.18
(1995), 861–3.
19 A.Randelzhofer, Great Powers,
The era of cooperation between the Great Powers19 in Europe came to
EPIL II (1995), 618–22. an end with the dispute over the Balkans and their diverging strategic interests
20 T.Schieder, Crimean War, EPIL I
(1992), 867–9.
with regard to the declining Turkish empire. The Crimean War,20 in which
21 Text in 114 CTS 409. See T. Russia was defeated by the alliance of France and Great Britain, supported
Schieder, Paris Peace Treaty
(1856), EPIL 7 (1984), 376–8.
by Piedmont-Sardinia and Turkey, ended with the Paris Peace Treaty of
22 F.Münch, Berlin Congress 1856.21 But the Berlin Congress of 187822 failed to solve the Balkan problems
(1878), EPIL I (1992), 387–9.
23 F.Münch, Balkan Wars (1912/
and the struggle of European powers over the distribution of spoils emerging
1913), EPIL I (1992), 319–21. in the Orient from the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire culminated in
24 On this period see S.Verosta,
Kollektivaktionen der Mächte des
the Balkan Wars of 1912/13,23 bringing the Concert of Europe to its end.24
Europäischen Konzerts (1886–
1914), 1988.
25 J.Fisch, Die europäische Colonization and the relation to non-European powers
Expansion und das Völkerrecht,
1984; F. Ermarcora, Colonies and
Colonial Régime, EPIL I (1992),
One important aspect of the nature of international law in the age of European
662–6. colonization of the world,25 was the relationship of European states, unified
by Christianity, to non-European powers. European expansion abroad in the
interest of trade and commerce was promoted in England, the Netherlands
and France by ruthless profit-making companies, such as the British East
India Company, enjoying privileges which permitted them to perform state
functions in overseas territories. On the inter-state level, at first Europeans
were prepared to admit that non-European states had at least limited rights
under the European system of international law. Non-European states were
also often willing to concede that European states had at least limited rights
under their various non-European systems of international law, and so legal
relations, at the beginning on equal footing, between European and non-
European states became possible. However, these relations did not constitute
a true universal legal system based on common values or institutions, and
states existed separately without any extensive cooperation.
The Europeans recognized the Mogul Empire in India, the Ottoman
Empire, Persia, China, Japan, Burma, Siam (renamed Thailand in 1939)
and Ethiopia as established political entities, but they were aware that these
states did not play a major role in global affairs. By the Paris Peace Treaty
of 1856 Turkey was even expressly admitted (as the first non-Christian
nation) to the Concert of Europe. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire,
for example, had found it difficult to accept the Christian nations it was
confronted with at its borders in Europe as equal and was insisting on its
superiority. Similarly, China, ‘the empire in the centre of the earth’, preferred
isolation to contact with foreigners, from whom nothing more than tribute
was expected to be due. When a British delegation from King George III
(1760–1821), backed by some handsome new technical gifts, requested in
1793 that China accept a British envoy, the Emperor responded:
As to your entreaty to send one of your nationals to be accredited

to my Celestial Court and to be in control of your country’s trade
with China, this request is contrary to all usage of my dynasty and
cannot possibly be entertained…Our ceremonies and code of laws
differ so completely from your own that, even if your Envoy were
able to acquire the rudiments of our civilization, you could not
26 Emperor Ch’ieng-lung, cited by
possibly transplant our manners and customs to your alien Verosta, 1648 to 1815, op. cit., at 761.
soil…Swaying the wide world, I have but one aim in view, namely, 27 See T.Pakenham, The Scramble for
Africa 1876–1912, 1992.
to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfill the duties of the 28 F.Münch, Berlin West Africa
state…I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have Conference (1884/1885), EPIL I (1992),
389–91.
no use for your country’s manufactures.26 29 A.D.Hughes, Hong Kong, EPIL II
(1995), 870–3. See also Harris CMIL,
235. On the agreement to return Hong
Japan, after the ascent to power of the Shoguns, ended the infiltration Kong to China in 1997 see Chapter 10
by Christian missionaries and also cut itself off from all alien contact, below, 158.
30 See Wang Tieya, International Law in
the only exception being Dutch merchants who were permitted to China: Historical and Contemporary
continue business at a trading post at Nagasaki. It took until the Perspectives, RdC 221 (1990–II), 193–
369; W.Morvay, Unequal Treaties, EPIL
nineteenth century for European powers to re-establish trade with China 7 (1984), 514–17. See also Chapters 9,
and Japan with the threat and use of force, invoking, inter alia, the 139–40 and 10, 158 below.
alleged legal principle of ‘freedom of trade’.
In sum, although legally all members of the international community
were equal, in fact, the international system was dominated by the great
powers of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the United States, Russia,
Austria, Prussia and the Netherlands. Following the industrial revolution
in Europe after the late eighteenth century, in the nineteenth century the
international community to a large extent had virtually become a
European one on the basis of either conquest or domination. By about
1880 Europeans had subdued most of the non-European states, which
was interpreted in Europe as conclusive proof of the inherent superiority
of the white man, and the international legal system became a white
man’s club, to which non-European states would be admitted only if
they produced evidence that they were ‘civilized’.
In the case of old powers, such as Turkey, Siam (Thailand), China and
Japan, Western states basically relied on the so-called capitulation system,
treaties which were designed to establish lasting privileges for European
trade and commerce in those states and which exempted Europeans from
local jurisdiction. In the case of communities without sufficient central
authority, the method was simply conquest and appropriation. Conquest
and appropriation became particularly apparent in the scramble for
Africa,27 the dividing up of the continent among European powers at the
Berlin West Africa Conference 1884/5, which managed to settle the issues
among colonial powers without provoking another European war.28
Only rarely were nations which had been selected for colonization
able to offer effective resistance, as in the case of Ethiopia in 1896
when Emperor Menelik’s forces humiliated the Italians in the battle
of Adwa. The fate of China offers an illuminating example. After the
Opium War of 1842, fought under the premise of securing the sale of
the drug in China, the Treaty of Nanking compelled China to
surrender the island of Hong Kong to Britain.29 It was followed by
other ‘unequal treaties’ imposing diplomatic relations and increasing
the number of available trading ports.30 The anti-foreign spirit in
China in response to Western intervention in the distracted Empire
resulted in the famous Boxer rebellion. The Boxers, known in China
as ‘Patriotic Harmonious Fists’, found official support for their ‘China
for the Chinese’ objective. But following attacks on Western legations
in Beijing and the murder of Europeans, military intervention led
31 Hamsworth, History of the World,

Vol. 2, 1908, 823.
by Admiral Sir Edward Seymour crushed the rebellion at Lang-Fang in
32 See P.Malanczuk, Monroe June 1900. The Peace Commission of the victors sentenced Princes Tuan
Doctrine, EPIL 7 (1984), 339–44.
33 See text below, 30.
and Fukuo to death, which sentence, because of their imperial rank, was
34 See Serra (1995), op. cit.; converted to penal servitude for life. Prince Chuang and the Presidents of
C.Gray, International Law 1908–
1983, Leg. Stud. 3 (1983), 267–82,
the Board of Censors and Board of Punishment were forced to commit
269 et seq.; J.A.Barberis, Les suicide; three other high officials were beheaded. In addition, a protocol,
Règles spécifiques du droit
international en Amérique Latine,
signed on 7 September 1901, fixed the indemnity to be paid by China at
RdC 235 (1992–IV), 81–227. 450,000,000 taels, on which 4 per cent interest was to be charged until the
capital was paid off at the end of 39 years.31
Japan was somewhat more fortunate because it had decided in the
nineteenth century to adapt its feudal system to the more advanced foreign
technology and organization of the West. This was a reaction to the opening
of the country by the cannons of the American Commodore Perry, the
subsequent conclusion of a trade and ‘friendship’ treaty in 1854, other
treaties with European powers putting their nationals under the jurisdiction
of their consuls, and the repeated bombardment of Japanese ports. The
adaptation was one of the reasons which later enabled Japan to defeat Russia
in the war of 1904/5, to occupy Korea and Manchuria, and gain recognition
as a new major power in the Peace of Portsmouth (USA) of 1905. The end
of white rule and the complex process of decolonization in Asia was then
brought forward by Japanese aggression and initial victories in the Second
World War, which helped to destroy the myth of the invincibility of the
European colonial masters.
The Western hemisphere

European states, however, were also confronted with new problems in the
wake of the American rebellion against Britain. The American Declaration
of Independence of 1776, invoking the principle of self-determination, had
led to the recognition after seven years of war of a new subject of
international law by the mother country, followed at the beginning of the
nineteenth century by the independence of Latin-American states from Spain
and Portugal. The dissociation from Europe was expressed in the doctrine
proclaimed by President Monroe in 1823 against European intervention in
the Western hemisphere.32 The Monroe doctrine, never accepted as a legal
one in Europe, however, was to become the basis for numerous interventions
by the United States in Latin America. Nevertheless, the United States and
Latin American countries remained within the system of European
international law and made significant contributions to its development.
While the practice of the United States, to take one important example,
furthered international arbitration to settle disputes,33 South American states
attempted to protect themselves against foreign intervention and European
dominance by formulating a new regional American international law.34
On the whole, the general American attitude towards international relations
was more idealistic and law-orientated than the traditional realistic and
power-motivated perspective of European states. But even the United States,
although it cherished freedom from colonial domination in its own history,
for example, was engaged in opening up China, and took the Philippines in
1898 after the war with Spain.
From what has been outlined above, it naturally follows that in the 35 See Chapter 19 below, 306–9.
36 W.Benedek, Drago-Porter Convention
‘classical period’ the use of force short of war was also covered by (1907), EPIL I (1992), 1102–3.
international law.35 A famous example for the latter was the failure of 37 See Chapter 17 below, 260–1.
38 On the role of doctrine as a
the Argentinian Foreign Minister Luis Drago at the beginning of the subsidiary source of contemporary
twentieth century to change the practice of powerful European states international law see Chapter 3 below,
using armed force to achieve payment from other states for damage caused 51–2.
39 See Grewe (1984), op. cit., 300 et
to them or their nationals (‘gun-boat diplomacy’).36 Venezuela demanded seq., 471 et seq., 647 et seq.
that the question of debts owed to Britain, Germany and Italy for civil- 40 See J.P.Egido, Natural Law, EPIL 7
war damage, the seizure of ships by the Venezuelan government, and (1984), 344–9; R.Ago, Positivism, ibid.,
385–93; H.J.Steiner, International Law:
stemming from loans granted to Venezuela for railways, be settled by a Doctrine and Schools of Thought in the
Venezuelan commission. The commission refused to accept full Twentieth Century, EPIL II (1995), 1216–
27; see also A.Verdross/H.F. Koeck,
compensation of the European claims and, after an ultimatum, in 1902 Natural Law: The Tradition of Universal
the European claimant states sank three Venezuelan ships, bombarded Reason and Authority, in Macdonald/
Puerto Cabello and imposed a naval blockade upon Venezuela. The Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 17–50;
M.Bos, Will and Order in the Nation-
reaction of the United States to a note of protest sent by Drago with State System: Observations on
reference to the Monroe doctrine was negative. In effect, the United Positivism and International Law, ibid.,
States pointed out that foreign intervention would not occur if Latin- 51–78.
41 See T.M.C.Asser Instituut (ed.),
American countries respected their international obligations concerning International Law and the Grotian
the protection of foreign property.37 Heritage, 1983; P.Haggenmacher,
Grotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste,
1983; A.Dufour/P.Haggenmacher/J.
Toman (eds), Grotius et l’ordre juridique
Theory: naturalists and positivists international, 1985; H.Bull/B. Kingsbury/
A.Roberts (eds), Hugo Grotius and
Having outlined some important aspects of state practice, it is now International Relations, 1990;
C.G.Roelofsen, Grotius and the ‘Grotian
appropriate to turn to doctrine, which has always had much less influence Heritage’ in International Law and
on the actual development of international law than many writers have International Relations, The
been willing to admit.38 The notion of European international law was Quartercentenary and its Aftermath (ca.
1980–1990), Grotiana 11 (1990), 6–28;
prepared by academic writers who during the formative period of O.Yasuaki (ed.), A Normative Approach
international law provided legal concepts and systematic arguments to War. Peace, War, and Justice in
Hugo Grotius, 1993; P.Borschenberg,
justifying the interests of the emerging powers, especially with regard to Hugo Grotius ‘Commentarius in theses
the ambitions of their own respective countries, as may be noted in the XI’: An Early Treatise on Sovereignty,
the Just War, and the Legitimacy of the
development of the law of the sea.39 Since they have, to some extent, left Dutch Revolt, 1994.
a mark on the modern law, it is necessary to say something about them, 42 A.Truyol Serra et al. (eds), Actualité
de la pensée juridique de Francisco de
and in particular to describe the two main schools of thought: naturalists Vitoria, 1988.
and positivists, lines of thinking about international law which still belong 43 See T.Meron, Common Rights of
Mankind in Gentili, Grotius and Suarez,
to the mainstream of Western conceptions of international law today, AJIL 85 (1991), 110–17.
although they have faced challenge.40 44 M.v.Gelderen, The Challenge of
The leading naturalist writer was the Dutchman Hugo Grotius (1583– Colonialism: Grotius and Vitoria on
Natural Law and International Relations,
1645), who is often regarded as the founder of modern international law;41 Grotiana 14/5 (1993/4), 3–37.
other important naturalist writers were the Spaniards Vitoria (1486–
1546)42 and Suarez (1548–1617), Gentili, an Italian Protestant who fled
to England (1552–1608),43 and the Englishman Zouche (1590–1661).
Although disagreeing about many things, all these writers agreed that the
basic principles of all law (national as well as international) were derived,
not from any deliberate human choice or decision, but from principles of
justice which had a universal and eternal validity and which could be
discovered by pure reason; law was to be found, not made.
These basic principles of law were called natural law. But Vitoria’s
early attempt to establish ius naturae as the universal law of humanity
to include the so-called ‘Indian’ nations in the Americas in its sphere of
legal protection remained a vain theoretical suggestion.44 Natural law
was originally regarded as having a divine origin, but Grotius wrote that
45 M.W.Janis (ed.), The Influence of

Religion on the Development of
natural law would still have existed even if God had not existed; instead,
International Law, 1991. Grotius considered that the existence of natural law was the automatic
consequence of the fact that men lived together in society and were capable
of understanding that certain rules were necessary for the preservation of
society. According to this line of argument, the prohibition of murder, for
instance, was a rule of natural law, independently of any legislation
forbidding murder, because every intelligent man would realize that such a
rule was just and necessary for the preservation of human society.
The theory of natural law has a long tradition, going back to Roman
times, and is still the official philosophy of law accepted by the Roman Catholic
Church. But nowadays it is not accepted by many people outside the Roman
Catholic Church.45 Having religious overtones and being incapable of
verification, the theory is suspect in a scientific and secular age. The essence
of the theory was that law was derived from justice, and, although lawyers
and judges often appeal to justice in order to fill gaps or to resolve uncertainties
in the law, the theory of natural law must logically lead to a much more
radical conclusion, namely that an unjust rule is not law at all and can be
disregarded by the judge; but this is a conclusion which no modern legal
system would accept. Even the supporters of the theory have been unable to
state principles of natural law with any precision; for instance, ‘Thou shalt
not kill’ may be accepted as a universally valid rule, necessary for the
maintenance of human society, but writers on natural law do not agree about
the number of exceptions to the rule which ought to be recognized.
However, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the theory was
universally accepted, and it performed a very useful function by encouraging
respect for justice at a time when the collapse of the feudal system and the
division of Europe between Catholics and Protestants might otherwise have
led to complete anarchy. It is hard to think of any other foundations on
which a system of international law could have been built at that time.
Even the vagueness of the natural law theory, which is nowadays such a
defect, was less apparent in the time of Grotius, who illustrated his arguments
with biblical quotations, references to Greek and Roman history and—
above all—analogies drawn from Roman private law, which at that time
was admired as a fairly accurate reflection of natural law and was therefore
copied by many European countries.
After Grotius’ death the intellectual climate became more sceptical, and
international law would have lost respect if it had remained based on the
theory of natural law. People were beginning to argue by 1700 that law was
largely positive, that is, man-made; consequently, law and justice were not
the same thing, and laws might vary from time to time and from place to
place, according to the whim of the legislator. Applied to international law,
positivism (as this new theory was called) regarded the actual behaviour of
states as the basis of international law. The first great positivist writer on
international law was another Dutchman, Cornelis van Bynkershoek (1673–
1743), who was to some extent ahead of his time; positivism had its roots
in the eighteenth century but was not fully accepted until the nineteenth
century. Unfortunately, apart from collecting the texts of treaties, little
attempt was made to study the practice of states scientifically until the
twentieth century.
46 N.G.Onuf, Civitas Maxima: Wolff,

An attempt to combine naturalism and positivism was made by the Vattel and the Fate of Republicanism,
Swiss writer Emerich von Vattel (1714–67).46 He emphasized the inherent AJIL 88 (1994), 280–303.
47 See G.H.Sabine/T.L.Thorson, A
rights which states derived from natural law, but said that they were History of Political Theory, 4th edn 1973,
accountable only to their own consciences for the observance of the Part III: The Theory of the National
State.
duties imposed by natural law, unless they had expressly agreed to treat
those duties as part of positive law. Vattel exercised a strong and
pernicious influence on many writers and states during the eighteenth,
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; even today his influence is still
sometimes felt. An intellectual climate which encourages states to assert
their rights and to ignore their duties is a sure recipe for disorder.
The theory of sovereignty

One word which recurs frequently in the writings of Vattel’s followers is
‘sovereignty’, and it is doubtful whether any single word has ever caused
so much intellectual confusion and international lawlessness.
The theory of sovereignty began as an attempt to analyse the internal
structure of a state. Political philosophers taught that there must be,
within each state, some entity which possessed supreme legislative power
and/or supreme political power. The theory dates back to the sixteenth
century and political scientists usually refer to the writings of Machiavelli
(1469– 1527), Jean Bodin (1530–1596) and Thomas Hobbes (1588–
1679).47 But its best-known exponent, as far as lawyers are concerned,
was John Austin (1790–1859), who defined law as the general commands
of a sovereign, supported by the threat of sanctions. Since international
law did not fit his theory, he said that international law was not law. In
fact, it is hard to find any legal system which does fit his theory. In
federal states like the United States, legislative power is divided by the
constitution between the federation and the member states, neither of
which has supreme legislative power. Even in England, where the Queen
in Parliament has supreme legislative power, legislation is not the only
source of law, nor the oldest source of law.
It was easy to argue, as a corollary to this theory, that the sovereign,
possessing supreme power, was not himself bound by the laws which he
made. Then, by a shift of meaning, the word came to be used to describe,
not only the relationship of a superior to his inferiors within a state
(internal sovereignty), but also the relationship of the ruler or of the
state itself towards other states (external sovereignty). But the word still
carried its emotive overtones of unlimited power above the law, and this
gave a totally misleading picture of international relations. The fact that
a ruler can do what he likes to his own subjects does not mean that he
can do what he likes—either as a matter of law or as a matter of power
politics—to other states.
When international lawyers say that a state is sovereign, all that they
really mean is that it is independent, that is, that it is not a dependency of
some other state. They do not mean that it is in any way above the law. It
would be far better if the word ‘sovereignty’ were replaced by the word
‘independence’. In so far as ‘sovereignty’ means anything in addition to
48 Wimbledon case, PCIJ, series A,

no. 1, 25. In this case Germany had
‘independence’, it is not a legal term with any fixed meaning, but a wholly
refused the British steamship emotive term. Everyone knows that states are powerful, but the emphasis
Wimbledon, chartered by a French
company, access to the Kiel Canal
on sovereignty exaggerates their power and encourages them to abuse it;
on the grounds that the vessel had above all, it preserves the superstition that there is something in international
on board a cargo of munitions and
artillery stores consigned to the
cooperation as such which comes near to violating the intrinsic nature of a
Polish naval base at Danzig. The ‘sovereign’ state.
refusal was based upon German
Neutrality Orders issued in 1920 in
At the end of the nineteenth century, many international lawyers,
connection with the war between particularly in Germany, developed the doctrine of sovereignty to the point
Russia and Poland. The court held
that Germany had acted in violation
where it threatened to destroy international law altogether. Since 1914 there
of Art. 380 of the Versailles Peace has been a reaction. International lawyers in the Western world have rejected
Treaty; see I.v.Münch, The
Wimbledon, EPIL 2 (1981), 293–6.
the old dogmas about sovereignty and the inherent rights of states; indeed,
49 See Chapter 5 below, 80. scientific examinations of the practice of states, which were carried out for
50 See L.Wildhaber, Sovereignty and
International Law, in Macdonald/
the first time in the twentieth century, have shown that those dogmas were
Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 425– never taken half as seriously by states as they were by theorists. In 1923, in
52; F.H.Hinsley, Sovereignty, 2nd edn
1986; A.James, Sovereign
the Wimbledon case, the Permanent Court of International Justice said:
Statehood, 1986; H.Steinberger, ‘The Court declines to see, in the conclusion of any treaty by which a state
Sovereignty, EPIL 10 (1987), 397–
418; I.D.DeLupis, International Law
undertakes to perform or refrain from performing a particular act, an
and the Independent State, 1988; abandonment of its sovereignty…[T]he right of entering into international
R.H.Jackson, Quasi-States:
Sovereignty, International Relations
engagements is an attribute of state sovereignty.’48
and the Third World, 1990; J. Of course, one can imagine treaties containing such far-reaching
Bartelson, A Genealogy of
Sovereignty, 1993; G.Gottlieb, Nation
obligations as depriving a state of its independence—for instance, a treaty
Against State. A New Approach to whereby one state becomes a protectorate of another state.49 But there is no
Ethnic Conflicts and the Decline of
State Sovereignty, 1993;
fixed dividing line between independence and loss of independence; it is a
O.Schachter, Sovereignty—Then matter of degree and opinion; even ‘independence’ shares some of the emotive
and Now, in Macdonald (ed.), 1994,
op. cit., 671–88; L.Henkin, The
qualities of the word ‘sovereignty’. For instance, the idea of joining a
Mythology of Sovereignty, ibid., 351– supranational organization like the European Union, which would have
8; N.Schrijver, The Dynamics of
Sovereignty in a Changing World, in
been regarded as an intolerable restriction upon independence a century
K.Ginther/E. Denters/P.J.I.M.de ago, is nowadays discussed in the more realistic terms of economic
Waart (eds), Sustainable
Development and Good
advantages and disadvantages. While in the West the doctrine of sovereignty
Governance, 1995, 80–9; has been losing much ground in view of increasing international
M.R.Fowler/ J.M.Bunck, Law, Power
and the Sovereign State. The
interdependence, developing countries still value it highly as a ‘cornerstone
Evolution and the Application of the of international relations’ to protect their recently gained political
Concept of Sovereignty, 1995;
A.Chayes/A.H. Chayes, The New
independence.50
Sovereignty. Compliance with
International Regulatory Agreements,
1995; K.M. Meesen, Sovereignty, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1193–201; Legal results of the period up to the First World War
A.Bleckmann, Article 2(1), in Simma
CUNAC, 77–87. See also the
literature in Chapter 1 above, 3 and What were the main legal results of the development of this ‘classical’ and
basically European international law, which seemed to view states as living
52 See Chapter 8 below, 118–26. more in a situation of anarchy than of law and order? In the first place, a
number of basic rules and principles of international law emerged in this
55 See Chapter 17 below, 256–69. period, such as the principle of territorial sovereignty securing exclusive
control and jurisdiction of states over their territory, the freedom of the
high seas,51 the law on state immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign
courts,52 the law on diplomatic and consular relations,53 the principle of
pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be kept) and the law of treaties,54 rules
on the diplomatic protection of foreigners and their property,55 and on
neutrality.56
THE PERIOD UP TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR 19
The unlimited right to use force 58 For the following see P.Malanczuk,
Humanitarian Intervention and the
A central feature of classical international law was that it did not place Legitimacy of the Use of Force, 1993,
any restriction on the right of states to use force and to go to war which 7–11 with references.
59 II Principe, written in 1513, published
was considered to be an inherent attribute of the sovereignty and equality in 1531. Less attention has been paid to
of states. Effective annexation of conquered foreign territory was a valid Machiavelli’s other important work, the
legal title to acquire sovereignty over it.57 There is also no doubt that the Discorsi.
60 De Rei publica (1576), published in
concepts of international law prevailing at this time served to facilitate French in 1579.
the process of colonization. Sovereignty could be acquired over terrae 61 Grewe (1984), op. cit., 211–16.
nullius, territory allegedly belonging to nobody, a notion applied to areas 62 F.de Martens, Traité de droit
international, 1883, 398.
throughout the world lacking a strong central power able to resist
conquest. If resistance happened to occur, either treaties with local rulers
were available as legal instruments, or war could be used.
The unlimited right to use force was also reflected in the doctrine of
intervention.58 In the sixteenth century, when the fundament of the theory
of the modern sovereign state was laid by Machiavelli59 and Bodin,60 the
specific historical doctrine of intervention, also advocated by such authors
as Vitoria, Gentili, and Grotius, was primarily motivated by religious
considerations.61 These were superseded after the Thirty Years War
(1618–48) by the practice of more general political intervention. Grewe
also refers to comments by Grotius, not usually cited, which seem to
indicate that the great writer, in accordance with the spirit of his age,
when addressing humanitarian intervention, in reality meant the right
of religious intervention founded upon natural law to protect fellow
Christians. It is notable that even much later there were still writers such
as de Martens who in 1883 justified intervention by the ‘civilized powers’,
but only in relation to ‘non civilized nations’, when ‘the Christian
population of those countries is exposed to persecutions or massacres’
by ‘common religious interests and humanitarian considerations’.62
In the nineteenth century, the principle of non-intervention, as
formulated earlier by Wolff and Vattel, had by then acquired general
recognition. Nevertheless, the international legal order of the nineteenth
century was characterized by certain exceptions to this principle, namely
the right of intervention based on treaties and on the principles of self-
help and self-preservation. Attempts by the monarchies of Austria, Russia
and Prussia after 1815 generally to establish a principle of military
intervention on the basis of the Holy Alliance, and by Napoleon III to
find recognition of a right of intervention in favour of national self-
determination remained unsuccessful.
However, a new independent reason for intervention based on
‘humanity’ emerged in theory which was related to the ideas of political
liberalism and the concept of fundamental human rights. State practice
in the nineteenth century increasingly invoked humanitarian reasons
to justify intervention—often, however, as a disguise for intervention
made for political, economic or other reasons. The doctrine played a
role in the intervention by European powers in 1827 in support of
the Greek uprising against the Turks, the intervention by Britain
and France in 1856 in Sicily, allegedly in view of political arrests
and supposed cruel treatment of the prisoners, and the famous
intervention of Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Russia in Syria
in 1860–1 following the murder of thousands of Christian Maronites
63 Grewe (1984), op. cit., at 578,

relying on Martens, Rougier and
by the Druse Muslims.63 These acts were the prelude to repeated interventions
Dupuis, records that the action, by European powers into the Ottoman Empire in response to uprisings and
which aimed at a reform of the
Turkish administration, was based
killings on Crete in 1866, in Bosnia in 1875, Bulgaria in 1877 and Macedonia
upon the fiction of an invitation to in 1887. Other instances—of diplomatic intercession—on humanitarian
intervene by the Sultan. The
conclusions of the study of the case
grounds include the protest by Britain, France and Austria, supported by
by I.Pogany, Humanitarian Italy, Spain, Portugal and Sweden in 1863 against the methods used by
Intervention in International Law:
The French Intervention in Syria Re-
Russia to suppress the Polish uprising and numerous protests by the Great
Examined, ICLQ 5 (1986), 182, are Powers, including the United States, against the suppression of the Jews. At
somewhat different.
64 See Grewe (1984), op. cit., at
the turn of the century and later, the intervention by the United States in
579, stressing that the list is by no Cuba in 1898 or the pressure exercised by Britain and the United States on
means exhaustive.
65 Scupin. op. cit., at 771.
Belgium because of the misery of the indigenous population in the Congo,
66 T.Schieder, Crimean War, EPIL 7 and in 1912/13 on Peru in view of the ruthless exploitation of the local
(1984), 59, at 61.
rubber collectors, could also be mentioned.64
68 Text in 52 CTS 243. See H.-J. This practice revealed a new tendency in the official grounds advanced
Schlochauer, Jay Treaty, EPIL 1
(1981), 108–11.
by states to justify intervention in that period, but not a new rule of
customary international law. In reality, states were mostly pursuing their
own ends when intervening in another state for alleged humanitarian
purposes, and thus the institution of intervention, as Scupin notes, ‘was
unable to provide a complete justification for such action’.65 Especially
the frequent interventions in the Ottoman Empire to protect Christians
must be seen in the light of the divergent interests of European powers
at stake in the Middle East and the political order of European Turkey.
Humanitarian intervention was a welcome pretext in their rivalry to
establish influence in the declining Empire of the ‘old man at the
Bosporus’. The Crimean War of 1853, in which Russia went to war
with Turkey officially on the grounds of securing stronger guarantees
for the protection of Christians and was then confronted with the
unexpected French-British military alliance and pressure from Austria,
is instructive historical evidence for ‘the rise of a new era of power-
political realpolitik’.66
The peaceful settlement of disputes

At least as a normative concept, the idea of the peaceful settlement of
disputes67 through negotiations, conciliation, mediation or arbitration
evolved since the Peace of Westphalia, although the origins are much older.
Arbitration, in the sense of eliminating a dispute by binding third-party
decision, however, was not accepted by absolute monarchs in practice. The
development of the modern history of arbitration commenced with the 1794
Jay Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, in which Britain and the
United States agreed to settle by an arbitration commission claims for
damages by British and American nationals whose property had been
confiscated or ships taken by the enemy government.68 From 1798 to 1804
the commission rendered over 536 awards, some of which became important
precedents for the subsequent development of the law. This successful
experience was the starting-point for a series of treaties containing arbitration
clauses in the nineteenth century, but the development remained basically
limited to bilateral treaties and disputes of subordinate political interest.
THE PERIOD UP TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR 21
69 A.M.Trebilcock, Slavery, EPIL 8
Prohibition of the slave trade (1985), 481–4; O.I.Tiunov, Pacta sunt
servanda: The Principle of Observing
One aspect that deserves to be mentioned separately is the prohibition of International Treaties in the Epoch of the
the slave trade in the name of humanity.69 By the eighteenth century, the Slave-Owning Society, St. Louis ULJ 38
(1994), 929–45.
expansion of European trade had come to cover not only goods, but in an 70 Additional Articles to the Paris Peace
extensive manner also human beings. It was based on a lucrative triangular Treaty of 30 May 1814, 63 CTS 193.
71 For the earlier development see M.
trade transporting goods from Europe to Africa, African slaves, mostly Keen, The Laws of War in the Late
sold by Arab dealers, to the plantations in America, and finally products Middle Ages, 1993; T.Meron, Henry’s
Wars and Shakespeare’s Laws:
and raw materials from America to Europe. The slave trade started in the Perspectives on the Law of War in the
sixteenth century when Spain granted fixed-term monopoly licences Later Middle Ages, 1993.
(asientos) to private entrepreneurs to introduce African slaves to Spanish 72 See P.Malanczuk, American Civil
War, EPIL I (1992), 129–31.
America and then later involved other European countries. After Britain
had acquired the monopoly from Spain to supply slaves to the Spanish
colonies in 1713, it transferred it to the South Sea Company; it is estimated
that between the years 1680 and 1786 British dealers alone transported
over two million African slaves to America. In total, at least fifteen million
Africans were enslaved for shipment to the Americas.
Opposition to this practice, from both in and beyond the United
Kingdom, gradually led to its prohibition in international law in the
nineteenth century. Following national measures, the first treaty to
condemn the slave trade was concluded between France and Britain in
1814.70 This humanitarian principle was also adopted at the Vienna
Congress of 1815 and in subsequent multilateral treaties leading to the
comprehensive General Act of the Brussels Conference relative to the
African Slave Trade of 1890. The Act was ratified by all European states,
the United States, Persia, Turkey, the Congo and Zanzibar and provided
effective military and legal measures to terminate the slave trade, although
the status of domestic slavery remained unaffected. In the abolition of
the slave trade, the British Royal Navy, ruling the seas, played a central
role as a maritime enforcement agency controlling shipping. At the same
time, as a side-effect, Britain was placed in the useful position of being
able to monitor overseas trade by other states in goods in general.
Humanization of the law of warfare

Furthermore, the humanization of the international law of warfare
commenced with agreements concluded by the military commanders of
the belligerent parties concerning prisoners of war, the wounded and
sick, and the protection of military hospitals already prior to the
nineteenth century.71 Some more relevant developments occurred after
the experience of the Crimean War (1853–6) and the lessons of the first
modern war, the American Civil War (1861–5), with its enormous
casualties on both sides (Union forces: 359,528 dead and 275,175
wounded; Confederate forces: about 258,000 dead and 225,000
wounded),72 and the example of the 1863 Instructions for United States
Armies in the Field (Lieber Code). The Geneva Convention of 1864,
initiated by Henry Dunant, gave some status to work assisting the
wounded. It recognized functions in relation to the state parties to the
Convention of the International Committee of the Red Cross, founded
as a private law association under the laws of the Canton of Geneva in
1863. It was followed by the Petersburg Declaration of 1868
73 The Institute is a private

association of scholars that was
prohibiting the use of small exploding projectiles, which, however, remained
founded in 1873 at the same time as insignificant in practice. A conference in Brussels in 1874 and proposals
the International Law Association,
which is larger and more open. See
presented by the Institut de Droit International73 in 1880 paved the way for
F.Münch, Institut de Droit the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 laying down the basis for
International, EPIL II (1995), 997–
1000; R.Stödter, International Law
the development of modern international humanitarian law.74
Association, ibid., 1207–8.
75 See D.W.Bowett, The Law of First forms of international organizations
International Institutions, 4th edn
1982, 1–13; D.Vignes, The Impact
of International Organizations on the
In the nineteenth century also the first rudimentary forms of international
Development and Application of cooperation emerged.75 Commerce required the inter nationalization of rivers
Public International Law, in
Macdonald/ Johnston (eds), 1983,
and the establishment of international river commissions, as in the case of
op. cit., 809–55; I.Seidl- the Rhine (1831/68),76 the Scheldt (1839)77 and the Danube (1856/ 65).78
Hohenveldern/G.Loibl, Das Recht
der Internationalen Organisationen,
Furthermore, the development of technology, communications and
5th edn 1992, 12–19. commerce prepared the way for international administrative unions with
76 F.Meißner, Rhine River, EPIL 12
(1990), 310–6.
legal personality limited to the discharge of particular functions. These
77 B.Vitányi, Scheldt River, EPIL 12 included the Geodetic Union (1864), concerned with surveying the earth,
(1990), 341–3.
78 I.Seidl-Hohenveldern, Danube
the International Telegraph Union (1865) as the forerunner of the current
River, EPIL I (1992), 934–7. International Telecommunication Union,79 the Universal Postal Union
79 A.Noll, International
Telecommunication Union, EPIL II
(1874),80 the Berne Bureau for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883),81
(1995), 1379–85. the Berne Bureau for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886),82
80 L.Weber, Universal Postal Union,
EPIL 5 (1983), 383–6.
and the Union for the Publication of Customs Tariffs (1890).
81 K.Pfanner, Industrial Property,
Protection of, EPIL II (1995), 964–76.
82 See P.Katzenberger, Literary and The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907
Artistic Works, International
Protection, EPIL 5 (1983), 202–11.
83 J.M.Mössner, Hague Peace
The period of ‘classical’ international law came to an end with the two Hague
Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907,83 the first initiated by Tsar Nicholas II
EPIL II (1995), 671–7.
84 See K.J.Partsch, Vital Interests,
on the basis of his famous peace manifesto, the second by President Theodore
EPIL 10 (1987), 526–8. Roosevelt. The Conference of 1899 resulted in three conventions and three
85 See A.D’Amato, Domestic
Jurisdiction, EPIL I (1992), 1090–6.
declarations dealing with the law of land warfare, the law of sea warfare and
See also Chapters 18, 285–6 and the peaceful settlement of disputes, which led to the innovation of the
21, 368–9 below.
86 Text in AJIL 10 (1916), Supp.
establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. It also
See H.-J.Schlochauer, Bryan adopted a non-binding resolution on limiting the military expenditure of parties.
Treaties (1913/1914), EPIL I (1992),
509–11.
The 1907 Conference accepted a number of further instruments which partly
dealt with the same matters as the earlier Conference. The Conferences, however,
failed to address the real issues of the major tensions in the world and were
thus unable to prevent the outbreak of the First World War. In addition,
important aspects, such as the problem of colonialism, were entirely excluded
from the agenda. It was also characteristic that the compromise finally agreed
upon with regard to the settlement of conflicts by compulsory arbitration, at
the insistence of Britain and France, reserved to states the right to determine for
themselves what affected their ‘vital interests’84 falling within the domaine réservé
(the domestic jurisdiction of states).85 As a consequence, what was in fact
excluded from the obligation to arbitrate was left to the discretion of states.
The attempt to remedy the deficiencies of the ‘vital interests’ clause by
the American Secretary of State W.J.Bryan was objected to by the United
States Senate. The so-called Bryan Treaties of 1913/1486 were actually
concluded only with the Western and Eastern European powers, and only
after the war had already broken out. The United States and Germany did
not enter into such a treaty. The disaster of the First World War itself began
THE WATERSHED AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR 23
87 Text in 225 CTS 188. See E.v.

formally in accordance with classical international law, as it stood at Puttkamer, Versailles Peace Treaty
that time, with declarations of war. (1919), EPIL 4 (1982), 276–82.
What happened to the concept of ‘European public law’ during this 88 I.Seidl-Hohenveldern, Reparations,
EPIL 4 (1982), 178–80.
process? Towards the end of the nineteenth century, colonialism and 89 L.C.Green, British Commonwealth,
relations with territories outside Europe were gradually depriving it of EPIL I (1992), 495–9. See also W.Dale,
The Making and Remaking of
its content. At the Berlin Congress of 1878 only the six major European Commonwealth Constitutions, ICLQ 42
powers and Turkey were present. At the 1884/5 Berlin Congress twelve (1993), 67–83; W.Morvay,
states, including the United States, were already participating. The Hague Souveränitätsübergang und
Rechtskontinuität im Britischen
Peace Conference of 1899 assembled twenty-seven states, including the Commonwealth, 1974.
United States and Mexico, as well as Japan, China, Persia and Siam. At 90 See V.Kartashkin, The Marxist-
the second Peace Conference in 1907, forty-three states took part, among Leninist Approach: The Theory of Class
Struggle and Contemporary
which were seventeen American and four Asian states, but no country International Law, in Macdonald/
from Africa. International law, albeit European in origin, was thus Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 79–102;
T.Schweisfurth, The Role of Political
gradually moving towards a universal system. Revolution in the Theory of International
Law, ibid., 913–53; idem, Socialist
Conceptions of International Law, EPIL
7 (1984), 417–24.
The watershed after the First World War 91 See the short summary in the sixth
edition of this book, 7–19 and K.
Grzybowski, Soviet Theory of International
The end of the First World War heralded a number of basic changes in Law for the Seventies, AJIL 77 (1983),
the international legal system, reflecting the war experience. Defeated 862–72. See also text below, 33.
92 See C.Parry, League of Nations,
Germany had to take sole responsibility for the war, under Article 231 EPIL 5 (1983), 192–201; The League of
of the Treaty of Versailles,87 lost the few colonies it had managed to Nations in Retrospect: Proceedings of
acquire as well as one-third of its territory in Europe, and was submitted the Symposium. Organized by the
United Nations Library and the Graduate
by the victors to a ruinous system of reparations,88 which was severely Institute of International Studies,
criticized by the distinguished economist John Maynard Keynes and Geneva 6–9 November 1980, 1983 and
the review by L.Gross, AJIL 80 (1986),
which helped to sow the seeds for the following war. The relative decline 200–15; H.Weber, League of Nations, in
of European powers as major actors on the world level and the rise of Wolfrum UNLPP II, 848–53.
the United States to global power manifested itself in the transformation 93 A.Rustemeyer, Wilson’s Fourteen
Points, EPIL 7 (1984), 539–42, at 540.
of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth.89
Moreover, the old international community was split by the emergence
of a new and radically different state, following the Russian Revolution
of 1917. The Soviet Union declared itself at odds with the existing system
of international law, but eventually came to some form of accommodation
in order to be able to maintain economic and political intercourse with
the outside world. The revolutionary new state displayed an attitude
towards international law which was quite distinct from the mainstream
of thinking.90 Based upon Marxism, as interpreted by Lenin and later by
Stalin, it originally denied that there could be one system of international
law that applied equally to capitalist and socialist states and rejected the
validity of older customary law and of treaties concluded by the Tsarist
government. The attitude changed later,91 but the Soviet Union remained
on the fringe of international affairs until it attained the status of a great
power after the Second World War.
The League of Nations

On the institutional level, the creation of the League of Nations was a
revolutionary step in inter-state relations.92 It followed the call in the
last of President Wilson’s Fourteen Points93 for the establishment of ‘[a]
general association of nations…under specific covenants for the purpose
of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial
94 K.T.Samson, International
Labour Organization, EPIL II (1995),
integrity to great and small states alike’. The twenty-six articles constituting
1150–6. For the text of the ILO the League were entered into Part I of each of the European Peace Treaties,
Constitution, see Brownlie BDIL, 50.
95 1928 General Treaty for
just as the constitution of the new International Labour Organization94
Renunciation of War as an became incorporated as Part XIII.
Instrument of National Policy, 94
LNTS 57 (1929). See C.D.Wallace,
Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), EPIL 3 The attempt to restrict the use of force
(1982), 236–9.
96 K.Zemanek, Treaties, Secret, The prime purpose of the League was the promotion of international cooperation
EPIL 7 (1984), 505–6; G.E.do
Nascimento Silva, Diplomacy, and the achievement of peace and security by the acceptance on the part of the
Secret, EPIL I (1992), 1033–4, parties, in principle, of ‘obligations not to resort to war’. The absolute right of
noting that at Versailles, Wilson
himself reverted to secret diplomacy
states to go to war was not intended to be excluded altogether. Thus, members
and held more than 150 meetings of the League were submitted to a cooling-off period of three months before
behind closed doors with Lloyd
George, Clemenceau and Orlando.
going to war. If the League Council, the Permanent Court of International
97 See D.Rauschning, Mandates, Justice or an arbitral tribunal were concerned with a dispute, war was only
EPIL 10 (1987), 288–95. permitted three months after a decision by the Court or the tribunal or the
98 See F.Capotorti, Minorities, EPIL
8 (1985), 385–95. On the limited submission of the Council report. Members disregarding such obligations under
judicial activity of the Permanent the Covenant were deemed to have committed an ‘act of war’, entitling, but
Court of International Justice in this
respect, see C.Weil, Minorities in not obliging, other member states to go to war with the state which had broken
Upper Silesia Case (Minority the Covenant. In Article 16 the Covenant provided for economic sanctions as
Schools), EPIL 2 (1981), 189– 91;
K.Lamers, Prince von Pless an instrument of redress, but Article 10, stipulating that members should
Administration (Orders), ibid., 236– undertake ‘to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial
7; C. Weil, Polish Agrarian Reform
(Orders), ibid., 230–1; M.Vierheilig,
integrity and existing political independence of all Members’, was not linked to
Minority Schools in Albania the sanctions system. Rather, the Council of the League was entrusted with the
(Advisory Opinion), ibid., 191–2; task of ‘advising’ on the methods of complying with this obligation. The
Weil, German Minorities in Poland,
Cases Concerning the, EPIL II uncertainty on the precise implications of this provision was the main reason
(1995), 553–5; W.Benedek, why the United States Senate refused to ratify the Covenant.
Exchange of Greek and Turkish
Populations (Advisory Opinions), The Paris Pact of 1928 on the Banning of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact),95
ibid., 304–5; C.V. Katte, Greco- initiated by the United States and France, attempted to achieve a broader
Bulgarian ‘Communities’ (Advisory
Opinion), ibid., 622–3. On the current prohibition of war, but it also refrained from establishing an effective
status of the protection of minorities enforcement mechanism. The right of self-defence, interpreted in a rather
in international law, see Chapters 6,
105–8 and 19, 338–41 below.
wide sense, was not affected. Britain reserved its rights to defend its vital
interests in protecting the British Empire, and the United States kept the
application of the Monroe Doctrine to its own discretion. Neither the League
system nor the Paris Pact were yet able to effectively replace the old customary
rule on the right of states to use armed force.
Other functions of the League

The League was further engaged in trying to promote disarmament and
open diplomacy to abolish the practice of secret treaties.96 Other functions
included the establishment of the mandates system, as ‘a trust for civilization’,
under Article 22 which put under international tutelage the nascent nations
in the former colonies of the defeated powers and of colonial territories
similarly detached.97 Moreover, responsibilities were assumed by the League
in the field of the treaty-based protection of minorities in Europe98 and in
social matters, such as health and fair labour standards.
The Permanent Court of Justice

Some advance was made in the inter-war period not only with regard to
international legislation dealing with social and economic affairs, but also
THE WATERSHED AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR 25
in international adjudication with the creation in 1921 of the Permanent 99 See H.-J.Schlochauer, Permanent
Court of International Justice, EPIL 1
Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in The Hague,99 the forerunner of (1981), 163–79; P.Haggenmacher/R.
the present International Court of Justice, which was later established Perruchoud/H.Dipla (eds), Cour
permanente de justice internationale
under the United Nations Charter.100 The Court handed down thirty-two 1922–1945, Vols 5–I and 5–II, 1989.
judgments in contentious cases, mostly between European states, and 100 See Chapter 18 below, 281–93.
twenty-seven advisory opinions which assisted in clarifying rules and 101 H.-J.Schlochauer, Permanent Court
of Arbitration, EPIL 1 (1981), 157–63.
principles of international law. Operating within a still limited and relatively On the reform of the PCA see Chapter
homogeneous society of nations, it enjoyed considerable authority, more 18 below, 294.
than was to be accorded later to the International Court of Justice. The 102 Generally on the concept see J.
Delbrück, Collective Security, EPIL I
activity of the Permanent Court of International Justice offers an (1992), 646–56; K.Doehring, Collective
explanation for why the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which Security, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 110–5;
G.Bestermöller, Die Völkerbundsidee—
was established earlier but did not really constitute a standing court, Leistungsfähigkeit und Grenzen der
received only a small number of cases.101 Kriegsächtung durch Staatensolidarität,
1995. See also Chapter 22 below, 387–
415.
103 See H.A.Kissinger, Diplomacy,
Failure of the League system 1994, Chapter 10. For another critical
view see A.Eban, The U.N. Idea
Revisited, FA 74 (1995), 39–55.
In the field of peace and security, the refusal of a great power, such as the
United States, to join the League naturally placed the novel organization
into a difficult position to achieve its objectives. In effect, the League
subsequently came to be controlled by the interests of France and Britain.
Ratification was also denied by the Hejaz (Arabia) and Ecuador, but it is
interesting to note that all other generally recognized states were at some
time a member of the League. Originally, the membership of the League
was limited to the twenty-seven victor states signing the Treaty of
Versailles, plus ‘the British Empire’ (the United Kingdom, the Dominions
of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the still-dependent
India), plus thirteen listed neutral states. Later twenty-two new members
were admitted, including the former enemy states Austria and Bulgaria
(1920), Hungary (1922) and Germany (1926). The Soviet Union,
originally excluded, was admitted in 1934. But in the course of time
sixteen members also withdrew, including Costa Rica (1927), Brazil
(1928), Germany and Japan (1935), Italy (1939) and Spain (1941).
The League system failed for a variety of institutional and political
reasons. The most important aspect is perhaps the inherent contradiction
in the concept itself of collective security102 in the form of a mere
association of self-interested and sovereign states. The concept assumes
that all states have an equally strong interest in preventing aggression,
and that all states are willing to take the same risk to achieve this. If a
great power is involved in an act of aggression, the validity of this
assumption may well be very much open to doubt.103 At any rate, it
soon became clear that the organs of the League could only function to
the extent that the member states were able to agree.
The League remained incapable of dealing with the Japanese aggression
against China in 1932 when it occupied Manchuria, and with the Italian
aggression against Abyssinia in 1935–6. Limited economic sanctions adopted
by some fifty members of the League against Italy failed. This was the first
and last attempt to enforce the Covenant against a major power. In the
Spanish Civil War (1936–9), which was viewed as a threat to world peace
because of the direct and indirect intervention of many states, the
League affirmed the principle of non-intervention (the obligation of states
104 See A.-M.de Zayas, Spanish

Civil War, EPIL 7 (1984), 434–8.
not to intervene in the internal affairs of other states), demanded the
105 Parry, op. cit., at 200. withdrawal of all foreign combatants and condemned the bombardment of
106 On Germany’s international
relations from 1933 to 1945 and the
open towns, but the League’s resolutions had little effect.104 Japan’s renewed
attitude towards international law, aggression against China in 1937 merely produced a condemnation by the
see D.F.Vagts, International Law in
the Third Reich, AJIL 84 (1990),
League of the aerial bombardment of undefended towns. Germany’s attack
661–704; A. Carty, Interwar German on Poland in 1939 and the outbreak of the Second World War resulted in
Theories of International Law: The
Psychoanalytical and
nothing more than the postponement of already arranged Assembly and
Phenomenological Perspections of Council sessions. The last action of the League was to expel the Soviet Union
Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt,
Cardozo LR 16 (1995), 1235–92.
in 1939 because it refused to accept mediation of its claim against Finland.
107 For a new analysis on the basis A fair assessment of the failure of the League, however, must take into
of declassified documents fifty years
later, see B.J.Bernstein, The Atomic
account its confrontation with the ruthless totalitarian regimes of the period.
Bombings Reconsidered, FA 74 As noted by Clive Parry:
(1995), 135–52.
108 On the 1996 advisory opinion
given by the ICJ, see Chapter 20 it was the destiny of the League to encounter a greater measure of
below, 346–50.
deliberate aggression, attended by a wilful and deliberate disregard
of all humanitarian considerations, than has ever been
manifestated—again either before or since— in any comparable
span of years. For Japan, Italy and Germany in turn asserted during
the life of the League an absolute right to go to war for any reason
or no reason, and an indifference to the laws of either war or peace
to which the only ultimate answer could be, as in fact it proved to
be, likewise war unlimited in scale or method.105
Development after the Second World War
The international legal system had failed to prevent the outbreak of the
Second World War, to constrain the aggression by Hitler and to stop the
unspeakable atrocities committed by Nazi Germany throughout Europe.106
Nor did it prevent, to take a quite different example, the calculated Allied
destruction by saturation bombing of German and Japanese cities, causing
immense casualties among the civilian population. Before the United Nations
Charter, signed on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945,
the United States ended the war in the Pacific by using the atomic bomb
against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Whether this was
necessary, to force Japan into capitulation and save the lives of many
American soldiers and further Japanese military and civilian casualties which
an invasion of Japan may have resulted in, or was at least equally meant as
a warning to Stalin, is still a matter of dispute among historians,107 as also
is the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons under current international
law among lawyers.108 The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials affirmed the
individual responsibility of German and Japanese leaders for committing
crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but were
often seen as the victor’s justice, although the procedures were fair.109
The prohibition of the use of force and collective security in

the United Nations Charter
The decision to establish a new global organization of states to preserve
peace after the war had already been prepared by the Atlantic Charter of
1941, in which Roosevelt and Churchill declared their hope ‘after the
DEVELOPMENT AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR 27
110 Text in AJIL 35 (1941), 191. See H.-
final destruction of Nazi tyranny…to see established a peace which will J.Schlochauer, Atlantic Charter (1941),
afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own EPIL I (1992), 288–9.
111 See H.-J.Schlochauer, Dumbarton
boundaries’ and ‘to bring about the fullest collaboration between all Oaks Conference (1944), EPIL I (1992),
nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved 1115–17; W.Benediks, The San
Francisco Conference on International
labour standards, economic advancement and social security’.110 Organization: April–June 1945, 1994;
The United Nations Charter, sponsored by the United States, Britain, W.G.Grewe, The History of the United
Nations, in Simma CUNAC, 1–23; H.
the Soviet Union and China, and originally signed by fifty-one states, was Weber, History of the United Nations, in
designed to introduce law and order and an effective collective security Wolfrum UNLPP I, 572–80; R.C.
Hilderbrand, Dumbarton Oaks. The
system into international relations. On the basis of preparatory work done Origins of the United Nations and the
at the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the Charter of the United Search for Postwar Security, 1990. See
Chapters 21, 364–84 and 22, 385–430
Nations was adopted at the 1945 San Francisco Conference and entered below.
into force on 24 October 1945.111 The main innovation was the attempt 112 See Chapter 19 below, 309–18.
to introduce a comprehensive ban on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the 425–30.
Charter, with the exception of the right of states to collective and individual 114 L.Weber, Cuban Quarantine, EPIL I
(1992), 882–5.
self-defence against an armed attack, in Article 51.112 The preservation of 115 For a critical assessment see R.S.
peace was made the overriding goal of the United Nations. While the McNamara (with B.VanDeMark), In
Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons
League of Nations had possessed no institutional machinery and executive of Vietnam, 1994. See also Chapter 19
power to enforce the Covenant and decisions of the League, the United below, 325.
Nations Charter established a collective security system in Chapter VII, 391 below.
giving the Security Council the authority to determine whether there is a 117 See Chapter 20 below, 349.
threat to or breach of international peace and security and to adopt binding
economic and military measures against an aggressor state.113
The UN collective system did not work, due to the antagonism that
developed between the former allies after the war, and during the Cold
War in the following four decades, the United Nations failed to achieve
its prime objective. Thus, for example, the controversial military
‘quarantine’ imposed by the United States upon Cuba in 1962 in response
to the build-up in Cuba of Soviet missiles with a capability of reaching
targets in large parts of the Western Hemisphere, used the regional system
of the Organization of American States (OAS) instead of the non-
functioning UN collective security system for legitimization.114 Another
example of the non-functioning of the UN collective security mechanism
during the East-West conflict is the fact that the Vietnam War never led
to any decision by the Security Council.115
The recognition of the special military, economic and political status
of great powers, however, was built in from the beginning in the regulation
of the voting procedure of the Security Council, giving the United States,
the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China (originally represented by the
government of Taiwan) as ‘permanent members’ the right to veto any
decision they disliked.116 The statement in Article 2(1) of the Charter that
the organization ‘is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all
its Members’ was thus qualified by the fact that the five permanent members
of the Security Council were made more equal than the rest of the member
states. Similarly, the five official nuclear powers retained a privileged legal
position in the later Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.117
The relative decline of Britain and France as Great Powers became
most apparent in the 1956 Suez crisis when the United States and the
USSR found a rare occasion to unite in the UN Security Council and
forced them to withdraw from their military occupation of the Suez
118 B.Broms, Suez Canal, EPIL 12

(1990), 360–5. See also G.Marston,
Canal118 area, which they had undertaken (with Israel’s simultaneous
Armed Intervention in the 1956 occupation of the Sinai Peninsula) in response to the nationalization of the
Suez Canal Crisis: The Legal Advice
Tendered to the British Government,
Suez Canal Company by the Egyptian Government.
ICLQ 37 (1988), 773. SC Res. 118
of 13 October 1956, UN Doc. S/
3675, laid down the requirements for Decolonization and change in the composition of the
a satisfactory settlement of the
dispute and the future status of the international community
Canal.
119 See H.-J.Uibopuu, Socialist The composition of the international community had already started to change
Internationalism, EPIL 9 (1986),
347– 50; S.v.Schorlemer, Blocs and
immediately after the Second World War. The Soviet Union created the ‘socialist
Groups of States, in Wolfrum bloc’ with the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary,
UNLPP I, 69–77.
120 See A.Bleckmann,
Romania and Czechoslovakia under its hegemony, joined by the more
Decolonization, EPIL I (1992), 972– independent Yugoslavia.119 But perhaps more important for the structural
6; W.Morvay, British Territories, ibid.,
976–83; A. Bleckmann, French
transition of the international legal system has been the process of
Territories, ibid, 986–90; decolonization,120 based upon the principle of self-determination laid down
J.G.C.v.Aggelen, Dutch Territories,
ibid., 983–6; F.de Quadros,
in the UN Charter and in the common Article 1 of the two 1966 International
Decolonization: Portuguese Human Rights Covenants.121 The colonial empires of Britain, France, Belgium,
Territories, ibid., 990–3; M.A.Ajomo,
International Law, The United
the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy, often confronted with liberation
Nations and Decolonization, in movements,122 eroded with the political independence, for example, of Syria
E.G.Bello/B.A.Ajibola (eds), Essays
in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale
(1945), Lebanon (1946), India and Pakistan (1947), Israel and Burma (1948),
Elias, 1992, 77–92; P.Kunig, Indonesia (1949), Libya (1951), Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan and Ghana (1956),
Decolonization, in Wolfrum UNLPP
I, 390–7.
Malaya (1957) and Guinea (1958). The decolonization process was basically
121 See Chapter 19 below, 326–40. completed by the 1960s, after the landmark of the adoption by the UN General
122 K.Ginther, Liberation
Movements, EPIL 3 (1982), 245–9.
Assembly in 1960 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
See Chapters 3, 104–5 and 19, Colonial Countries and Peoples.123 The increase in the number of states to
336–8 below.
123 GA Res. 1514 (XV) of 14
about 130 by the end of the 1960s, almost half of which were newly
December 1960, text in Brownlie independent states, had a profound impact on the international system in
BDIL, 307. See Chapter 19 below,
327.
general and the operation of international organizations in particular.
124 D.Bindschedler-Robert, Korea, At the beginning, the United Nations had remained under the control of
EPIL 12 (1990), 202–8; S.Brammer,
Conflicts, Korea, in Wolfrum UNLPP
the West, which still commanded a majority of the seats in the General
I, 278–85. See Chapter 22 below, Assembly. Thus, it was not difficult to make the Korean War,124 the Soviet
391–3.
Union being temporarily absent in the Security Council because of the dispute
126 On the ‘Uniting for Peace’ on the representation of China,125 at least pro forma a United Nations
Resolution, see Chapter 22 below,
392–3.
operation.126 The independence of numerous new states in Asia and Africa
127 See Chapter 15 below, 225–8. changed the whole scenario and the majority in the General Assembly and
128 For a critical analysis see, N.
Harris, The End of the Third World.
the assemblies of other international organizations shifted to an alliance
Newly Industrializing Countries and between the block of communist countries and the new states of the so-
the Decline of an Ideology, 1986.
See also M.S.Rajan/V.S.Mani/
called Third World. However, Western states retained their dominant
C.S.R.Murthy, The Nonaligned and position in the Security Council and in the relevant international financial
the United States, 1987;
A.A.Fatouros, Developing States,
institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
EPIL I (1992), 1017–24; R.Heuser, due to their economic power where weighted voting applied according to
Bandung Conference (1955), ibid.,
340–2; J.Betz, Developing
the share of financial contribution.127 Under the leadership of the United
Countries, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, States the Western states also remained dominant in the international system
398–406 and Chapter 15 below,
233–40.
in military and political terms.
Attitudes of Third World states towards international law

It is still much less easy to generalize about the so-called Third World128 states
of Africa, Asia and Latin America than it once was to generalize about the
former bloc of communist states controlled by the Soviet Union. The
129 See Wang Tieya, The Third World
newly independent states, which organized themselves as non-aligned and International Law, in Macdonald/
countries between East and West in the Group of 77 formed during Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 955 et
UNCTAD I in 1964, do not form a bloc in any real sense. They have no seq.; M.Schweitzer, New States and
International Law, EPIL 7 (1984), 349–
common ideology. Their governments vary from the far right to the far 53; F.E.Synder/S.Sathirathai (eds), Third
left of the political spectrum. There are also considerable cultural and World Attitudes Toward International
economic differences. However, there are certain facts which are true of Law: An Introduction, 1987; Harris CMIL,
18–21; M.Kusuma-Atmadja, The
the vast majority of states in the South, and these facts tend to make most Contribution of New States to the
of those states adopt a distinctive attitude towards international law. Development of International Law, Santa
Clara LR 32 (1992), 889–910;
Most developing countries were under alien rule during the formative M.Shahabuddeen, Developing Countries
period of international law, and therefore played no part in shaping that and the Idea of International Law, in
law. Occasionally their leaders argue that they are not bound by rules Macdonald (ed.), 1994, op. cit., 721–36;
M.Bedjaoui, La visión de las culturas no
which they did not help to create. However, this argument is used only occidentales sobre la legitimidad del
in relation to rules which go against the interests of the new states, and derecho international contemporáneo,
the argument that those states played no part in shaping the rules is only Anu. DI 11 (1995), 23–62.
a subsidiary argument designed to strengthen the main contention that 131 See Chapter 12 below, 176–84.
the rules are outmoded. Developing states have never dreamt of rejecting 132 See Chapter 15 below, 233–5.
all rules of international law which were laid down before they became 134 See Chapter 13 below, 207–8.
independent; to do so would mean rejecting many rules which operate 135 See Chapter 15 below, 233–5, 239–40.
to their advantage. The necessity of international law itself as a legal
system regulating intercourse between states was accepted.129
Most countries in the South are poor (with a few exceptions, such as
some of the oil-exporting countries and the ‘New Tigers’ in the Far East)
and are anxious to develop their economies. Those which wished to
develop their economies along socialist lines were therefore in the past
opposed to the traditional rule of international law which forbids
expropriation of foreign-owned property without compensation; but
other Third World countries showed themselves prepared to accept the
traditional rule as a means of encouraging foreign private investment.130
This once fervently argued issue in North-South relations has now lost
much of its former significance. The economic interests of developing
countries also affect their attitudes to other rules of international law;
for instance, if their fishing fleets are dependent on local fisheries, this
naturally influences their position on the law of the sea, and some of
them have tried to gain exclusive rights to local fisheries by claiming a
wide territorial sea, exclusive fishing zone, or exclusive economic zone.131
Since 1973 Third World states have confronted the richer states more
pressingly with their problems of poverty and economic development.
Not surprisingly, the UN General Assembly and other assemblies of
international organizations became their main forums to ventilate claims
for a ‘New International Economic Order’,132 a ‘New International
Communication Order’ (which was one of the reasons why the United
States and the United Kingdom left UNESCO), the application of the
so-called ‘common heritage of mankind’ principle to the benefits of deep-
sea mining133 and the use of outer space,134 and other mechanisms and
concepts to attempt to change international law and to effect the
recognition of a legal obligation of industrialized states to transfer
technology and financial resources to the South. On the whole, Western
states have not accepted these demands; they have helped the economic
development of poorer states in many ways, but are usually reluctant to
recognize or undertake any legal obligation to help poorer states.135
Moreover, many developing states have a feeling of resentment about

past exploitation, real or imagined. That is one reason why they usually
138 See Chapter 19 below, 326–340. claim that they have not succeeded to obligations accepted on their behalf
by the former colonial powers before they became independent.136 Almost
141 See Chapter 3 below, 52–4. all of them showed themselves as strongly opposed to all remaining forms
142 For example, concerning the
continental shelf, see Chapter 12
of colonialism and apartheid,137 although their reactions to violations of
below, 191–3. the principle of self-determination in other contexts are much weaker.138
143 A.Carty, The Decay of
International Law? A Reappraisal of
For the reasons stated above, developing countries often feel that international
the Limits of Legal Imagination in law sacrifices their interests to those of Western states. They therefore demand
International Affairs, 1986.
144 R.Wolfrum, International Law of
changes in the law. Unfortunately, if there is no consensus, it is often difficult to
Cooperation, EPIL II (1995), 1242–7. change international law without breaking it. States may refuse to alter a treaty
145 See M.Lachs, Legal Framework
of an International Community,
unless they are forced to do so. States which are dissatisfied with an existing
Emory ILR 6 (1992), 329–37; rule of customary law may start following a new custom, but, until the new
H.Mosler, International Legal
Community, EPIL II (1995), 1251–5.
custom is widely established, they may be denounced as law-breakers by states
following the old custom.139 One solution for this problem has been the
multilateral treaty; conferences called to draw up a treaty codifying the existing
law can slip imperceptibly into amending the law.140 Another solution favoured
by developing countries has been to try to use the United Nations General
Assembly as if it were a legislature; but the General Assembly is not really a
legislature, and it is doubtful if its resolutions can be used as evidence of
international law against states which vote against them.141
Nevertheless, major changes in international law have occurred since 1945.
Western states were anxious not to drive Third World states into the arms of
communist states, and have therefore agreed to many of the alterations sought
by the non-aligned countries. Most of the rules which developing countries
used to regard as contrary to their interests have changed, or are in the process
of being changed. Similarly, when the interests of Western states change, such
states are often just as ready as other states to abandon the old rules and to
replace them with new rules which are more in keeping with their own
interests.142 Modern international law is not static, but has a dynamic nature
and is in a continuous process of change. The accusation that international
law is biased against the interests of Third World states is, on the whole, no
longer true.
Universality and the challenge to the unity of international law

In the historical process of the transition from the classical system to the
modern system, international law definitely lost its European character and
was extended from a limited club of nations to a global system now covering
some 185 states which are very heterogeneous entities in cultural, economic
and political terms. The basic question ever since has been whether a truly
universal system of law is possible at all under the conditions of a divided
world with such deep cleavages in values, interests, and perceptions. Writers
have frequently found that international law is in a ‘crisis’, or has entered
into ‘decay’.143
At least with respect to the basic normative framework, after 1945
international law entered into a new phase aiming at restricting the unfettered
right of states to go to war and, in addition, transforming the previous
mere coordination of sovereign states into a system of cooperation
and mutual benefit.144 The concept of the ‘international legal community’145

emerged in connection with two other basic concepts of international 147 See G.Jaenicke, International
law— jus cogens146 and international public order147 —both referring to Public Order, EPIL II (1995), 1348–51.
principles and rules of international law with a higher legal status than 149 See Chapter 3 below, 60–2.
the other parts of international law. There were other significant changes 150 See Chapters 6, 100–4, 14, 209–21
and 20, 342–63 below.
in the international legal system after 1945. The main feature mostly 151 M.Münchau, International Relations,
emphasized is the shift from coexistence to cooperation of states, not East-West, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 771–
7. See also W.M.Reisman, International
only to achieve international peace and security, but also to further social Law after the Cold War, AJIL 84 (1990),
and economic goals. This is reflected in the proliferation of international 859–66; E.McWhinny et al. (eds), From
Coexistence to Cooperation:
organizations, both global and regional, now numbering about 500 and International Law and Organization in
active in a broad variety of fields, which appeared within a relatively the Post-Cold War Era, 1991; G.Abi-
Saab, A ‘New World Order’? Some
short time as a new category of international legal subjects.148 It was Preliminary Reflections, Hague YIL 7
primarily in the social and economic field in which the United Nations (1994), 87–94.
152 J.Betz, International Relations, North-
and its specialized agencies were able to make some progress. Connected South, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 778–88.
with this extension of the scope of activity was the enhanced process of 153 See Chapter 22 below, 391, 395–
415, 423–30.
the codification of international law.149 154 Lukashuk, The United Nations and
Another new development after 1945, as compared with classical Illegitimate Regimes: When to Intervene
to Protect Human Rights, in L.F.
international law, has been a stronger recognition of the position of the Damrosch/D.J.Scheffer (eds), Law and
individual. While previously the individual was considered a mere ‘object’ Force in the New International Order,
1992, 143; T.M.Franck, Intervention
of international regulations adopted by sovereign states, more room has Against Illegitimate Regimes, ibid., 159;
been given to the thought of upgrading the status of human beings in A.-M.Burley, Commentary on
Intervention Against Illegitimate
international law. This is reflected in the development of rules on the Regimes, ibid., 177; V.Nanda,
international protection of refugees, the codification of human rights on Commentary on International
Intervention to Promote the Legitimacy
the global and regional level following the Universal Declaration of of Regimes, ibid., 181. See in this
Human Rights, proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1948, and connection also on the entitlement to
democracy, to be increasingly promoted
the advancement of international humanitarian law in armed conflict and protected by collective international
with the four Geneva Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the two processes, T.M.Franck, The Emerging
Right to Democratic Governance, AJIL
Additional Protocols of 1977.150 86 (1992), 46 et seq.; J.Crawford,
The end of the East-West conflict,151 apart from moving North-South Democracy and International Law, BYIL
64 (1993), 113–34.
issues152 more to the forefront, has led to the resurgence of nationalism, 155 See Chapter 14 below, 220–1.
to the rise of ethnic conflict and civil wars in various parts of the world, 156 D.Copp/J.Hamption/J.Roemer
(eds), The Idea of Democracy, 1995.
and to the hitherto unknown activism of the UN Security Council.153 In 157 F.Fukuyama, The End of History?,
Western legal literature the end of the Cold War has provoked a The National Interest, 1989, no. 16, 3–18.
controversy on the legality of ‘democratic intervention’,154 intervention
to support or establish a democratic system of government in another
state against ‘illegitimate regimes’, in connection with the discussion on
humanitarian intervention.155 The general proposition of this intervention
theory is that there is a necessary structural link between democracy,156
as it developed in Western constitutional history, and the effective
guarantee of human rights. The problem is, of course, whether Western
concepts, including those on the market economy and on human rights,
can prevail throughout the world in the face of Asian, African and Islamic
perceptions which are different for reasons of history, society and culture.
Moreover, after the wall in Berlin fell, writers, such as Francis
Fukuyama,157 declared the ‘end of history’ and the victory of Western
democracy and capitalism. But, from a different perspective, perhaps
the USSR and the United States were and are only experimental states in
the long course of the history of a rather mixed international community.
Western civilization is certainly not the only form of civilization in the
158 S.P.Huntington, The Clash of

Civilizations?, FA 72 (1993), 22–49.
world, and its values and regulatory systems, including its law, are not
159 See E.Sakakibara, The End of necessarily appropriate or acceptable in other parts of the globe. On the
Progressivism, FA 74 (1995), 8–14.
160 See EPIL 6 (1983), dedicated to
other hand, whether Samuel Huntington’s prediction158 that ‘civilization
Regional Cooperation, Organizations identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be
and Problems; S.González Gálvez,
The Future of Regionalism in an
shaped in large measure by the interaction among seven or eight civilizations’
Asymmetrical System, in Macdonald/ and will lead to a clash of civilizations in the next century, remains to be
Johnston (eds), 1983, op. cit., 661–
83; R.Wolfrum (ed.), Strengthening
seen.159 Such predictions are not new (and are often false) in history, as we
the World Order, Universalism versus know from Spengler’s ‘Untergang des Abendlandes’.
Regionalism, Risks and Opportunities Nevertheless, also from a legal perspective, there is no doubt that the
of Regionalization, 1990; J.I.Charney,
Universal International Law, AJIL 87 question of the universal nature of international law has been reinforced
(1993), 529– 51; A.Hurrell, Explaining not only by theoretical debate but also by the actual strong tendencies
the Resurgence of Regionalism in
World Politics, RIS 21 (1995), 331–
towards economic and political regionalism in the international system.160
58; C.Schreuer, Regionalization, in The answer to this question is not easy and needs to take into acount the
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1059–67; content of contemporary international law in its various fields and the
Schreuer, Regionalism v.
Universalism, EJIL 6 (1995), 477–99. characteristics of the international law-making process. As a starting-point,
161 UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 however, it may be observed that there is at least universal agreement on
October 1970, text in Brownlie BDIL, some basic principles of international law, as laid down in the Friendly
36; see V.S.Mani, Basic Principles
of Modern International Law. A Relations Declaration, which after a long process of attempting to clarify
Study of the United Nations Debates the meaning of the United Nations Charter was adopted by all states by
on the Principles of International
Law Concerning Friendly Relations
consensus in 1970.161 These principles include:
and Cooperation Among States,
1993; V.Lowe/C.Warbrick (eds), The 1 the prohibition of the threat or use of force by states against the territorial
United Nations and the Principles of
International Law—Essays in integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
Memory of Michael Akehurst, 1994 inconsistent with the purposes of the Charter;
(with contributions by I.Sinclair, Ch.
Gray, J.Merrills, V.Lowe,
2 the peaceful settlement of disputes between states in such a manner that
D.McGoldrick, A. Boyle, international peace and security and justice are not endangered;
D.Freestone, A.James, P. 3 the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of
Thornberry, C.Warbrick and
G.White); G.Arangio-Ruiz, Friendly any state, in accordance with the Charter;
Relations Resolution, EPIL II (1995), 4 the duty of states to cooperate with one another in accordance with the
485–90. Charter;
162 See B.Simma, Editorial, EJIL 3
(1992), 215; P.Allott et al., Theory 5 the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
and International Law: An 6 the principle of sovereign equality of states; and
Introduction, 1991.
163 See text above, 15–17. On A.
7 the principle that states shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed
Verdross, see the contributions by B. by them in accordance with the Charter.
Simma, A.Truyol y Serra, B.Conforti,
A. Carty and I.Seidl-Hohenveldern in
EJIL 6 (1995), 32–115. On
D.Anzilotti, see R.Ago, P.-M.Dupuy, New developments in theory
G.Gaja, J.M.Ruda and A.Tanca in
EJIL 3 (1992), 92 et seq. On
G.Scelles, see H.Thierry, A. Cassese, Finally, it should at least be briefly mentioned that there have been some
L.Condorelli, R.J.Dupuy and A.Tanca interesting new developments in theory during the past decade.162 The old schools
in EJIL 1 (1990), 193 et seq.
164 See M.S.McDougal/W.M. of natural law and positivism163 are still with us, and it seems that the latter
Reisman, International Law in today forms the basis of mainstream thinking in international law in one form
Policy-Oriented Perspective, in
Macdonald/ Johnston (eds), 1983, or another. In addition, the ‘policy-orientated’ New Haven school founded by
op. cit., 103–29; M.McDougal and the Yale professor Myres S.McDougal164 gained widespread influence at the
Associates, Studies in World Public
Order, 1987; G.L.Dorsey, The height of the Cold War even outside the United States. This perspective regards
McDougal-Laswell Proposal to Build international law as a constant flow of authoritative decision-making in which
a World Public Order, AJIL 82
(1988), 41–50; M.S.McDougal, The legal argument is only one factor among many others; therefore, it has been
Dorsey Comment: A Modest criticized by positivist views (especially in Europe) as abandoning the very
Retrogression, ibid., 51–7; H.D.
Lasswell/M.S.McDougal, concept of law and legal rules. Often, however, in deciding a practical case in
Jurisprudence for a Free Society, 2 international law, such theories are not much different in their results.
Vols, 1992.
In the West, a new school of ‘Critical Legal Studies’, which started in 165 See D.Kennedy, A New Stream of
International Law Scholarship, Wis.
the United States, has emerged, vigorously challenging traditional ILJ 7 (1988), 6 et seq.;
positivist perceptions of international law from a methodological point M.Koskenniemi, From Apology to
Utopia: The Structure of International
of view based on analytical language philosophy and a hermeneutical Legal Argument, 1989; Koskenniemi,
theory of law.165 The ‘deconstruction’ of international legal argumentation The Politics of International Law, EJIL
1 (1990), 4–32; A.Carty, Critical
by these critical legal scholars denies that, in view of its indeterminacy, International Law: Recent Trends in
inconsistency and lack of coherence, international law has a distinct the Theory of International Law, EJIL 2
(1991), 66 et seq.; O.de Schutter, Les
existence of its own. Other modes of inquiry, inspired by the writings of critical legal studies au pays du droit
Thomas M. Franck, address basic issues of the ‘legitimacy’ and ‘fairness’ international public, Droit et Soc. 22
(1992), 585– 605; G.Dencho, Politics
of the international legal system from a different angle.166 In addition, or Rule of Law: Deconstruction and
some more Utopian theories have entered the market-place of ideas167 Legitimacy in International Law, EJIL 4
(1993), 1–14.
and there is also now a claim to a ‘feminist approach’ to international 166 See T.M.Franck, The Power of
law.168 Another interesting development to be mentioned is the effort Legitimacy Among Nations, 1990; T.M.
Franck/S.W.Hawkins, Justice in the
recently being made to attempt to bridge the gap between international International System, Mich. JIL 10
law theory and international relations theory.169 (1989), 127; J.E.Alvarez, The Quest for
Legitimacy: An Examination of the Power
At least for the time being, the Marxist-Leninist theory of international of Legitimacy Among Nations, NYUJILP
law170 has vanished from the arena and has become of mere historical 24 (1991), 199–267; Franck, Fairness in
International Law and Institutions, 1995.
interest. After the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet See also D.D.Caron, The Legitimacy of
Empire, there has been a change in attitude in the former Communist the Collective Authority of the Security
Council, AJIL 87 (1993), 552–88; Caron,
states towards international law in general, the precise implications and Governance and Collective
durability of which, however, remain to be seen.171 The same applies to Legitimization in the New World Order,
Hague YIL 6 (1993), 29–44.
the awakening of interest in international law in China.172 To which 167 See the inspiring writings by P.
extent Islamic perceptions of international law are developing into a Allott, Eunomia. New Order for a New
World, 1990; Allott, Reconstituting
separate direction is also an open and interesting question.173 Humanity—New International Law, EJIL
The output of theory, on the abstract level, is certainly of academic 3 (1992), 219–52.
168 See, for example, H.Charlesworth/
interest for understanding the nature of the international legal system, C.Chinkin/S.Wright, Feminist
but it has limited relevance for the actual practice of states and the Approaches to International Law, AJIL
85 (1991), 613–45; D.G.Dallmeyer (ed.),
problems that have to be solved in daily life. As the enlightened Dutch Reconceiving Reality: Women and
scholar Röling noted in 1960: International Law, 1993.
169 See G.Doeker, Internationale
Beziehungen und Völkerrecht als
In all positive law is hidden the element of power and the element Gegenstand der Forschung und Lehre,
AVR 19 (1980–1), 401 et seq., with
of interest. Law is not the same as power, nor is it the same as references to the Anglo-American
interest, but it gives expression to the former power-relation. literature which is traditionally much
more open to such questions; K.W.
Law has the inclination to serve primarily the interests of the Abott, Modern International Relations
powerful. ‘European’ international law, the traditional law of Theory: A Prospectus for International
Lawyers, Yale JIL 14 (1989), 335–411;
nations, makes no exception to this rule. It served the interest of A.-M.Slaughter Burley, International Law
prosperous nations.174 and International Relations Theory: A
Dual Agenda, AJIL 87 (1993), 205– 39;
S.V.Scott, International Law as Ideology:
The real question is, therefore, which interests does international law Theorizing the Relationship between
International Law and International
now serve in a much more expanded, diverse, but increasingly Politics, EJIL 5 (1994), 313–25; D.Frei,
interdependent world, and the answer requires a closer look at various International Relations, EPIL II (1995),
1359–64; A.C.Arend/ R.J.Beck/
branches of the ‘law in action’ in international relations in the following R.D.V.Lugt (eds), International Rules.
chapters. Approaches from International Law and
International Relations, 1996;
V.Rittberger (ed.), Regime Theory and
International Relations, 1993; C.Brown,
International Relations Theory: New
Normative Approaches, 1992. See
further C.A.Kiss/D. Shelton, Systems
Analysis of International Law: A
Methodological Inquiry, NYIL 17 (1986),
45–74.
170 See text above, 23. For a recent International Law: Soviet Doctrines and Violence: Islamic Law and
analysis from a Marxist point of view see Practice in the Post-Tunkin Era, CYIL International Terrorism, GYIL 31
B.S.Chimni, International Law and World 28 (1990), 309–37; W.E.Butler (ed.), (1988), 307; D.A. Westbrook, Islamic
Order: A Critique of Contemporary Perestroika and International Law, International Law and Public
Approaches, 1993. 1990; A.Carty/ G.Danilenko (eds), International Law: Separate
171 See Harris CMIL, 21–2; J.W.E.Butler Perestroika and International Law: Expressions of World Order, Virginia
(ed.), International Law and the Current Anglo-Soviet Approaches to JIL 33 (1993), 819–97; F.Malekian,
International System, 1987; International Law, 1990. The Concept of Islamic International
T.Schweisfurth, Das 172 See H.Chun, Chinese Attitudes Criminal Law. A Comparative Study,
Völkergewohnheitsrecht —verstärkt im Toward International Law in the Post- 1994; M.Khadduri, International Law,
Blickfeld der sowjetischen Mao Era, 1978–1987, IL 21 (1987), Islamic, EPIL II (1995), 1236–42. In
Völkerrechtslehre, GYIL 30 (1987), 36; 1127–66; Wang Tieya (1990), op. cit.; 1992 the International Law
Quigley, Perestroika and International Law, R.Heuser, Völkerrechtswissenschaft Association (ILA) established a
AJIL 82 (1988), 788–97; Agora: New und Völkerrechtstheorie in der Committee on Islamic Law within
Thinking by Soviet Scholars,AJIL 83 Volksrepublik China (1979–88), ZaöRV International Law.
(1989), 494–518 (with contributions by 49 (1989), 301–34. 174 B.V.A.Röling, International Law
R.A.Mullerson and I.I.Lukashuk); 173 See, for example, A.A.Ana’im, in an Expanded World, 1960, 15.
E.McWhinney, The ‘New Thinking’ in Islamic Ambivalence to Political
Soviet
3 Sources of international law
The word ‘source of law’ (‘source de droit’, ‘Rechtsquelle’) has a variety 1 Harris CMIL, 23–68; Restatement
(Third), Vol. 1, paras. 102–3, 24–39;
of interpretations. 1 The English legal philosopher H.L.A.Hart C. Dominice, Methodology of
distinguishes between its use in a ‘material’ or ‘historical sense’ and in International Law, EPIL 7 (1984), 334
et seq.; R. Monaco, Sources of
a ‘formal’ or ‘legal’ sense.2 In the first non-legal sense it refers to a International Law, ibid., 424 et seq.;
causal or historical influence explaining the factual existence of a given B.Simma/P.Alston, The Sources of
Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus
rule of law at a given place and time, for example, to show that a Cogens, and General Principles, AYIL
certain contemporary rule of Dutch law may originate from Roman 12 (1988/9), 82–108; C.Sepúlveda,
Methods and Procedures for the
law, or to state that the development of labour law has resulted from Creation of Legal Norms in the
the political action taken by trade unions. In the legal sense, the term International System of States: An
Inquiry into the Progressive
means the criteria under which a rule is accepted as valid in the given Development of International Law in
legal system at issue. These criteria distinguish binding law from legally the Present Era, GYIL 33 (1990), 432;
O. Schachter, International Law in
non-binding other social or moral norms and the law de lege lata (the Theory and Practice, 1991, Chapter III;
law as it currently stands) from the law de lege ferenda (the law as it U. Fastenrath, Lücken im Völkerrecht,
1991; E.Riedel, Standards and
may be, or should be, in the future).3 In this sense, the term ‘source’ Sources. Farewell to the Exclusivity of
has a technical meaning related to the law-making process and must the Sources Triad in International
Law?, EJIL 2 (1991), 58–84;
not be confused with information sources, research sources or E.Frangou-Ikonomidou (ed.), Sources
bibliographies on international law.4 of International Law, 1992;
U.Fastenrath, Relative Normativity in
In developed national legal systems there are definite methods of International Law, EJIL 4 (1993), 305–
identifying the law, primarily by reference to the constitution, legislation 40; G.Tunkin, Is General International
Law Customary Law Only?, ibid., 534–
(statutes) and judicial case law. In the decentralized international legal 41; H.H.G.Post, Some Curiosities in
system, lacking a hierarchical structure,5 the problem of finding the law the Sources of the Law of Armed
Conflict Conceived in a General
is much more complicated. There is no authority to adopt universally International Legal Perspective, NYIL
binding legislation6 and no compulsory jurisdiction of international courts 25 (1994), 83–118.
2 H.L.A.Hart, The Concept of Law
and tribunals without the consent of states. In this system the same 1961, 246–7. On the meaning of
subjects of international law7 that are bound by international rules and ‘sources’ see also R.Y.Jennings,
International Law, EPIL 7 (1984), 284;
principles have created them themselves. I.Brownlie, Principles of Public
The most important source of international law for centuries was International Law, 4th edn 1990, 1–3,
discussing the common distinction
customary law, evolving from the practice of states.8 The recent attempt between ‘formal’ sources (legal
to codify international law and the conclusion of multilateral treaties procedures and methods for creating
binding rules) and ‘material’ sources
in many important areas, such as diplomatic and consular relations,9 (providing evidence of the content of
the law of war10 or the law of the sea,11 have sought to clarify the law rules in the sense of substantive law)
which is not clearly applicable in
and to establish universally accepted norms. But customary law has international law.
still retained its predominance over treaty law or other sources in many 3 On the need to distinguish clearly
between the lex lata and mere
other areas, such as, for example, state immunity 12 or state propositions on the lex ferenda see R.Y.
responsibility.13 The changes in international society since 1945 have Jennings, An International Lawyer Takes
Stock, ICLQ 39 (1990), 513–29, 514.
led to basic disputes on the sources of international law and it must be 4 An excellent guide to the literature in
noted at the outset that they have become an area of considerable this respect is Public International Law
—A Current Bibliography of Books and
theoretical controversy. In particular, the two main traditional elements, Articles, published regularly by the Max
custom and treaties, are now often difficult to distinguish clearly. As Planck Institute for Comparative Public
Law and International Law in
R.Jennings put it in 1981: Heidelberg, which evaluates over 1400
journals, in addition to other collected
36 SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
works, and also lists newly

published books on all areas of
I doubt whether anybody is going to dissent from the proposition
public international law. that there has never been a time when there has been so much
5 See Chapter 1 above, 3–5.
6 See O.Schachter, The Nature and
confusion and doubt about the tests of the validity—or sources—of
Process of Legal Development in international law, than the present.14
International Society, in R.St.J.
Macdonald/D.M.Johnston (eds), The
Structure and Process of Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice 15
International Law, 1983, 745–808;
G.M.Danilenko, Law-Making in the
provides:
International Community, 1993;
K.Skubiszewski, International
Legislation, EPIL II (1995), 1255–
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with
62;. international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
7 See Chapters 5, 75–90 and 6, 91–
108 below. (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, es-
8 See R.Bernhardt, Customary
International Law, EPIL I (1992), tablishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States;
898–905. (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice ac-
10 See Chapter 20, 342–63 below. cepted as law;
11 See Chapter 12 below, 173–5. (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
13 See Chapter 17 below, 254–72. (d) …judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly
14 R.Y.Jennings, What is qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary
International Law and How Do We
Tell When We See It?, ASDI 37 means for the determination of rules of law.
(1981), 59–88, at 60.
15 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 438.
16 On the practice of the ICJ see M. This provision is usually accepted as constituting a list of the sources of
Mendelson, The International Court international law.16 Some writers have criticized it on the grounds that it
of Justice and the Sources of
International Law, in V.Lowe/ does not list all the sources of international law, or that it includes aspects
M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of which are not genuine sources, but none of the alternative lists which have
the International Court of Justice,
1996, 63–89.
been suggested has won general approval. It is therefore proposed to examine
17 Op. cit. See R.Bernhardt, the sources listed in the Court’s Statute before considering other possible
Treaties, EPIL 7 (1984), 459–64. sources of international law.
Further literature is listed in Chapter
9 below, 130, which deals with the
law of treaties.
Treaties
The Statute of the International Court of Justice speaks of ‘international

conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states’.17 The word ‘convention’ means a treaty,
and that is the only meaning which the word possesses in international law,
and in international relations generally. This is a point worth emphasizing,
because students have been known to confuse conventions with conferences,
or to mix up conventions in international law with conventions of the
constitution in British constitutional law. Other terms used as a synonym
for treaties, or for particular types of treaties, are agreement, pact,
understanding, protocol, charter, statute, act, covenant, declaration,
engagement, arrangement, accord, regulation and provision. Some of these
words have alternative meanings (that is, they can also mean something
other than treaties), which makes the problem of terminology even more
confusing.
Treaties are of growing importance in international law. The practice of
publishing collections of treaties concluded by a certain state or group of
states commenced during the second half of the seventeenth century. The
most important collection, under various titles, until the Second World War,
was started by G.F.von Martens in 1771 with his ‘Recueil des principaux
traités’. Since 1945, in accordance with Article 102 of the UN Charter,
TREATIES 37
more than 33,000 treaties have been registered with the United Nations, 18 United Nations Treaties Series
(UNTS); for a good reference work see
several thousand of which are multilateral.18 As collectivism has replaced M.J.Bowman/D.J.Harris (eds),
laissez-faire, a large number of questions have become subject to Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current
Status, 1984 and 10th cumulative
governmental regulation—and to intergovernmental regulation when supplement, 1993, with regular
they transcend national boundaries. Modern technology, communications cumulative supplements. See also L.
and trade have made states more interdependent than ever before, and Wildhaber, Treaties, Multilateral, EPIL 7
(1984), 480–4; C.Parry (ed.), The
more willing to accept rules on a vast range of problems of common Consolidated Treaty Series (CTS),
concern— extradition of criminals, safety regulations for ships and 1648– 1918 (annotated); Hudson,
aircraft, economic aid, copyright, standardization of road signs, International Legislation (1931–1950);
C.Parry (ed.), Index to British Treaties
protection of foreign investment, environmental issues and so on. The (1101–1918); United Kingdom Treaties
rules in question are usually laid down in treaties, with the result that Series (UKTS) (from 1892); League of
Nations Treaty Series (LNTS).
international law has expanded beyond all recognition in the last 140 International Legal Materials (ILM),
years (although it must be pointed out that most of the rules are too which regularly publishes not only
specialized to be dealt with in ordinary textbooks on international law). treaties but also other important
documents relating to international law,
Treaties are the major instrument of cooperation in international is also very useful.
relations, and cooperation often involves a change in the relative positions 19 See Chapter 15 below, 237.
of the states involved (for example, rich countries give money to poor 20 See V.de Visscher, Problèmes
d’interpretation judicaire en droit
countries). Treaties, therefore, are often an instrument of change—a point international public, 1963, 128 et seq.
which is forgotten by those who regard international law as an essentially
conservative force. The general trend, particularly after the Second World
War, has been to enhance the role of treaties in international law-making,
partly in response to increasing interdependence, partly as a solution to
the controversies that exist between diverse groups of states as to the
content and validity of older customary rules.
To some extent treaties have begun to replace customary law. Where
there is agreement about rules of customary law, they are codified by
treaty; where there is disagreement or uncertainty, states tend to settle
disputes by ad hoc compromises—which also take the form of treaties.
For example, capital-exporting countries have concluded some 1000
bilateral treaties promoting and protecting foreign investment to clarify
the relevant legal framework.19
Law-making treaties and ‘contract treaties’

Treaties are the maids-of-all-work in international law. Very often they
resemble contracts in national systems of law, but they can also perform
functions which in national systems would be carried out by statutes,
by conveyances, or by the memorandum of association of a company.
In national legal systems, legislative acts of parliament are regarded as
sources of law, but contracts are not; contracts are merely legal
transactions. (Contracts create rights and duties only for the contracting
parties, who are very few in number, and it is generally agreed that a
‘source of law’ means a source of rules which apply to a very large
number of people.) Some writers have tried to argue that treaties should
be regarded as sources of international law only if they resemble national
statutes in content, that is, if they impose the same obligations on all
the parties to the treaty and seek to regulate the parties’ behaviour
over a long period of time. Such treaties are called ‘law-making treaties’
(traités-lois) and their purpose is to conclude an agreement on universal
substantive legal principles (i.e. human rights treaties, Genocide
Convention).20 According to this theory, ‘contract-treaties’ (traités-
contrat), that is, treaties which resemble contracts (for instance, a

Another aspect where the distinction
treaty whereby one state agrees to lend a certain sum of money to another
may be relevant is in the state) are not sources of law, but merely legal transactions.
interpretation and application of the
particular treaty, see Bernhardt
However, the analogy between national statutes and law-making treaties
(1984), op. cit., 461. See also is misleading for two reasons. First, in national systems of law anyone who
E.Raftopoulos, The Inadequacy of
the Contractual Analogy in the Law
is contractually competent (i.e. anyone who is sane and not a minor) can
of Treaties, 1990. enter into a contract, but parliamentary legislation is passed by a small
91–108 below.
group of people. In international law, any state can enter into a treaty,
23 R.Jennings, State Contracts in including a law-making treaty. Secondly, in national systems of law contracts
International Law, BYIL 32 (1961),
156 et seq.; K.-H.Böckstiegel, Der
create rights and duties only for the contracting parties, who are very few in
Staat als Vertragspartner number, whereas statutes of national law apply to a very large number of
ausländischer Privatunternehmen,
1971; D.W.Bowett, State Contracts
people. In international law all treaties, including law-making treaties, apply
with Aliens: Contemporary only to states which agree to them. Normally the parties to a law-making
Developments on Compensation for
Termination or Breach, BYIL 59
treaty are more numerous than the parties to a ‘contract-treaty’, but there
(1988), 49 et seq.; E. Paasivirta, is no reason why this should always be so.
Internationalization and Stabilization
of Contracts versus State
The only distinction between a ‘law-making treaty’ and a ‘contract-treaty’
Sovereignty, BYIL 60 (1989), 315 et is one of content. As a result, many treaties constitute borderline cases,
seq.; M.Sornarajah, International
Commercial Arbitration: The
which are hard to classify. A single treaty may contain some provisions
Protection of State Contracts, 1990; which are ‘contractual’, and others which are ‘law-making’. The distinction
G.v.Hecke, Contracts Between
States and Foreign Private Law
between ‘law-making treaties’ and ‘contract-treaties’ is not entirely useless;
Persons, EPIL I (1992), 814–19; see for instance, a ‘contract-treaty’ is more likely to be terminated by the
also v.Hecke, Contracts Between
International Organizations and
outbreak of war between the parties than a law-making treaty.21 But it is
Private Law Persons, ibid., 812– 14; too vague and imprecise to justify regarding law-making treaties as the
A.F.M.Maniruzzaman, State
Contracts with Aliens. The Question
only treaties which are a source of international law. The better view is to
of Unilateral Change by the State in regard all treaties as a source of law. At any rate, the law of treaties applies
Contemporary International Law,
JIArb. 9 (1992), 141–71;
to both types of treaties.
G.R.Delaume, Transnational
Contracts—Applicable Law and
Settlement of Disputes, 1992. Parties to international treaties and ‘internationalized contracts’
24 P.Fisher, Concessions, EPIL I
(1992), 715–21; A.Z.E.Chiali,
Protection of Investment in the
Only the subjects of international law—states, international organizations,
Context of Petroleum Agreements, and the other traditionally recognized entities22 —can conclude treaties under
RdC 204 (1987–IV), 13–169.
25 The most important arbitration
international law. An international business contract concluded between a
cases since 1929 are listed in v. company based in state A and another enterprise located in state B is subject
Hecke, op. cit.
to one or another national legal system, but it is not a treaty under
international law. Similarly, private law contracts between states, i.e. for
the sale and purchase of goods, are usually concluded under the national
law of one of the parties.
Some interesting problems have arisen in connection with agreements made
between states and foreign corporations,23 especially in the field of oil
concessions,24 permitting a foreign company to explore and exploit oil
resources on the territory of the state. Usually, the parties to such agreements
consent to a certain national legal system governing the contract. But
occasionally, in the case of powerful multinational companies, such contracts
have not been, fully or partially, placed under a national law, but under
international law, general principles of law or only under the provisions of
the contract itself. The reason for concluding such so-called internationalized
contracts is to establish a balance between the parties and prevent the state
party from evading its obligations under the contract by changing its own
internal law. This is mostly secured by an arbitration clause referring disputes
under the agreement to an international body.25 There have been various
CUSTOM 39
26 See Chapter 9 below.

attempts to find a proper legal classification of these internationalized 27 M.Akehurst, Custom as a Source of
contracts, but the practical relevance of the issue has declined in recent International Law, BYIL 47 (1974–5), 1
et seq.; G.M.Danilenko, The Theory of
years, as parties now mostly declare a certain national law to be applicable. International Customary Law, GYIL 31
The law of treaties is dealt with in Chapter 9 below.26 (1988), 9 et seq; M.H.Mendelson, The
Formation of Rules of Customary
(General) International Law, ILA Rep.
1988, 935–59; J.A.Barberis, Réflexions
Custom sur la coutume internationale, AFDI 36
(1990), 9–46; J.Kirchner, Thoughts
about a Methodology of Customary
The second source of international law listed in the Statute of the International Law, AJPIL 43 (1992),
International Court of Justice is ‘international custom, as evidence of a 215–39; Bernhardt (1992), op. cit.,
general practice accepted as law’.27 As confirmed by the ICJ in the 898–905; K.Wolfke, Some Persistent
Controversies regarding Customary
Nicaragua case,28 custom is constituted by two elements, the objective International Law, NYIL 24 (1993), 1–
one of ‘a general practice’, and the subjective one ‘accepted as law’, the 16; Wolfke, Custom in Present
International Law, 2nd edn 1993;
so-called opinio iuris. In the Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta) case, the O.Elias, The Nature of the Subjective
Court stated that the substance of customary international law must be Element in Customary International
‘looked for primarily in the actual practice and opinio juris of States’.29 Law, ICLQ 44 (1995), 501– 20;
I.M.Lobo de Souza, The Role of State
The definition has given rise to some vexed theoretical questions, such Consent in the Customary Process,
as: How is it possible to make law by practice? And how can something ibid., 521–39; Meron, The Continuing
be accepted as law before it has actually developed into law?30 But it is Role of Custom in the Formation of
International Humanitarian Law, AJIL
nevertheless the established doctrine, accepted by states, international 90 (1996), 238–49.
tribunals and most writers alike. 28 Nicaragua v. USA (Merits), ICJ Rep.
1986, 14, at 97. See Chapters 18, 284,
289 and 19, 311, 317, 319–22 and text
below, 41.
Where to look for evidence of customary law 29 ICJ Rep. 1985, 29. See also
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the
The main evidence of customary law is to be found in the actual practice Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ILM
of states, and a rough idea of a state’s practice can be gathered from 35 (1996), 809, at 826, para. 64. On the
case see Chapter 20 below, 347–9.
published material—from newspaper reports of actions taken by states, 30 See Restatement (Third), Vol. 1,
and from statements made by government spokesmen to Parliament, to Reporters’ Note to para. 102, at 30.
the press, at international conferences and at meetings of international 31 For example, C.Parry/G.
Fitzmaurice (eds), British Digest of
organizations; and also from a state’s laws and judicial decisions, because International Law, British and Foreign
the legislature and the judiciary form part of a state just as much as the State Papers (1812–1970). On United
executive does. At times the Foreign Ministry of a state may publish States practice see Moore (ed.),
extracts from its archives; for instance, when a state goes to war or Digest of International Law (1906);
Hackworth (ed.), Digest of
becomes involved in a particular bitter dispute, it may publish documents
International Law (1940– 1944);
to justify itself in the eyes of the world. But the vast majority of the M.M.Whiteman (ed.), Digest of
material which would tend to throw light on a state’s practice concerning International Law (1963–1973); State
questions of international law—correspondence with other states, and Department (ed.), Annual Digests of
the advice which each state receives from its own legal advisers—is United States Practice in International
Law (since 1973); M.Nash (Leich)
normally not published; or, to be more precise, it is only recently that (ed.), Cumulative Digest of United
efforts have been made to publish digests of the practice followed by States Practice in International Law
different states.31 As far as the latter are reliable as evidence of the law,32 1981– 1988, Book II, 1994; Foreign
it must also be taken into consideration that such an expensive enterprise Relations of the United States,
Diplomatic Papers, and Papers
is mostly not undertaken in developing countries and that the empirical
Relating to the Foreign Relations of
basis for analytical generalizations, therefore, is in fact rather limited to the United States (since 1861), and
the practice of certain countries. Valuable evidence can also be found in the Restatement (Third). On the
the documentary sources produced by the United Nations.33 practice of France see A.Kiss,
Répertoire de la pratique française en
Evidence of customary law may sometimes also be found in the
matière de droit international public
writings of international lawyers, and in judgments of national and (1962–1972). Furthermore, a number
international tribunals, which are mentioned as subsidiary means for of periodicals provide regular
repertories of national state practice,
the determination of rules of law in Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the
for example, AFDI, AJIL, AYIL, AJPIL,
International Court of Justice.34 ASDI, BYIL, CYIL, IYIL, NYIL, RBDI
and ZaöRV.
32 See H.Mosler, Repetorien der

nationalen Praxis in
Similarly, treaties can be evidence of customary law;35 but great care
Völkerrechtsfragen —Eine Quelle must be taken when inferring rules of customary law from treaties,
zur Erschließung des allgemeinen especially bilateral ones. For instance, treaties dealing with a particular
Völkerrechts?, Receuil d’études de
droit international en hommage à subject matter may habitually contain a certain provision; thus, extradition
P.Guggenheim, 1968, 460–89. treaties almost always provide that political offenders shall not be
33 For example, UN Juridical
Yearbook; UN Legislative Series; extradited.36 It has sometimes been argued that a standard provision of
List of Treaty Collections; this type has become so habitual that it should be regarded as a rule of
Cumulative Index of the Treaty
Series; Repertoire of the Practice of customary law, to be inferred even when a treaty is silent on that particular
the Security Council (1946–1951, point. On the other hand, why would states bother to insert such standard
with supplements until 1971);
Repertory of Practice of United
provisions in their treaties, if the rule existed already as a rule of customary
Nations Organs; Report of law? The problem is a difficult one, and one needs to know more about
International Arbitral Awards (RIAA). the intentions of the parties to the treaties in question before one is safe in
34 See text below, 51–2 and cf. also
The Paquete Habana (1900), 175 invoking a standard treaty provision as evidence of customary law. Even
US 677, 700–1. so, the mere existence of identical bilateral treaties does not generally
35 M.E.Villiger, Customary
International Law and Treaties, support a corresponding norm of customary law. At least the network of
1985. bilateral treaties must be widespread before it can amount to state practice
37 Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, para. resulting in customary law.37
102, 27; B.Kishoiyian, The Utility of The case of multilateral treaties is different and may definitely constitute
Bilateral Investment Treaties in the
Formulation of Customary evidence of customary law. If the treaty claims to be declaratory of customary
International Law, NJILB 14 (1994), law, or is intended to codify customary law, it can be quoted as evidence of
327–75.
38 On ratification and entry into customary law even against a state which is not a party to the treaty. This is
force of treaties generally, see so even if the treaty has not received enough ratifications to come into
39 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 388. See force.38 It may be asked why states should be unwilling to ratify a treaty if
Chapter 9 below, 130–46. it merely restates customary law. Explanations include inertia and lack of
40 See Chapters 18, 284 and 19,
311, 317, 319–22 below. parliamentary time (if ratification requires the participation of the legislature,
41 For the opposite case see D.W. as it does in many countries). Moreover, only part of the treaty may codify
Bowett, Treaty Revision in the Light
of the Evolution of Customary customary law, and a state may refuse to ratify because it objects to other
International Law, AJICL 5 (1993), parts thereof.
84–96 and text below, 56–7.
42 See Chapter 2 above, 21–2. Good examples are many (but not all) provisions of the 1969 Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.39 Such a state is not bound by the
treaty, but by customary law; therefore, if it can produce other evidence to
show that the treaty misrepresents customary law it can disregard the rule
stated in the treaty. This possibility is not open to states which are parties to
the treaty, since they are bound by the treaty in their relations with other
parties to the treaty, regardless of whether the treaty accurately codifies
customary law or not. But treaty law and customary law can exist side by
side. In the Nicaragua case, the International Court of Justice held that its
jurisdiction was excluded with regard to the relevant treaty law (in that
case the UN Charter), but nevertheless proceeded to reach a decision on the
basis of customary international law, the content of which it considered to
be the same as that laid down in the Charter (concerning the prohibition of
the use of force).40
Moreover, there is the possibility that customary law may change so as to
conform with an earlier treaty.41 For instance, the Declaration of Maritime
Law issued by the signatory states to the Treaty of Paris 185642 altered certain
rules about the conduct of war at sea. It prohibited privateering, the capture
of enemy goods except contraband on neutral ships, and of neutral goods
except contraband on enemy ships. It also required blockades to be effective
and supported by a force sufficient to actually prevent access to the coast of
CUSTOM 41
43 Nussbaum, A Concise History of the

the enemy.43 As a treaty, it applied only between the parties to it: Austria, Law of Nations, 1962, 192. See also
France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Chapter 20 below, 350–1.
Subsequently, however, the rules contained in the Declaration were accepted 45 See M.Kazazi, Burden of Proof and
by a large number of other states as rules of customary law. Related Issues. A Study on Evidence
Similar problems arise with resolutions passed at meetings of Before International Tribunals, Studies
and Materials on the Settlement of
international organizations, particularly resolutions of the United Nations International Disputes (P.Malanczuk
General Assembly which will be discussed separately below.44 ed.), Vol. 1, 1996.
46 See Bernhardt (1992), op. cit.,
Finally, it must be noted that the debate on what constitutes proper 900–1.
evidence of customary law needs to be separated from procedural 47 Asylum Case, ICJ Rep. 1950, 266–
questions, such as the burden of proof or general rules on evidence before 389, at 277. The case gave rise to three
decisions by the ICJ, but these
international courts and tribunals.45 It is true that a state seeking to rely decisions are not viewed as giving a
on a particular rule of customary law normally has the burden of proving precise picture of the nature of
the fact that the relevant state practice exists.46 But an international judge diplomatic asylum, see J.A.Barberis,
Asylum, Diplomatic, EPIL I (1995), 281–
or arbitrator will not rely on rules of procedure to decide whether a 3, at 282; A.Grahl-Madsen, Asylum,
norm exists or not, but will rather make a value judgment. Territorial, ibid., 283–7; K.Hailbronner,
Haya de la Torres Cases, ibid., 683–5
48 Ibid.
49 Nicaragua v. US (Merits), ICJ Rep.
The problem of repetition 1986, at 98, para. 186. See H.C.M.
Charlesworth, Customary International
It has sometimes been suggested that a single precedent is not enough to Law and the Nicaragua Case, AYIL 11
establish a customary rule, and that there must be a degree of repetition (1984/7), 1–31; H.G.Anthony, Appraisals
of the ICJ’s Decision: Nicaragua v.
over a period of time; thus, in the Asylum case the International Court of United States (Merits), AJIL 81 (1987),
Justice suggested that a customary rule must be based on ‘a constant and 77–183; A.D’Amato, Trashing
uniform usage’.47 However, this statement must be seen in the light of the Customary International Law, ibid., 101–
5; F.L.Kirgis, Jr., Custom on A Sliding
facts of the Asylum case, where the Court said: ‘The facts…disclose so Scale, ibid., 146–51; J.I. Charney,
much uncertainty and contradiction, so much fluctuation and discrepancy Customary International Law in the
Nicaragua Case. Judgment on the
in the exercise of diplomatic asylum and in the official views expressed on Merits, Hague YIL 1 (1988), 16–29; W.
various occasions…that it is not possible to discern…any constant and Czaplinski, Sources of International Law
uniform usage, accepted as law.’48 (In this case, Victor Raúl Haya de la in the Nicaragua Case, ICLQ 38 (1989),
151–66; P.P.Rijpkem, Customary
Torre, the leader of an unsuccessful rebellion in Peru in 1948, obtained International Law in the Nicaragua
asylum in the Colombian Embassy in Lima. Peru and Colombia referred Case, NYIL 20 (1989), 91–116;
to the ICJ the question of whether Colombia had the right to grant asylum J.Crawford, Military Activities Against
Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. United
and whether he should be handed over to the Peruvian authorities or be States), EPIL III (forthcoming). On the
granted safe-conduct out of the country.) In other words, what prevented relevance of the case for the use of
force see Chapter 19 below, 311, 317,
the formation of a customary rule in the Asylum case was not the absence 319–22, and on the problem of the
of repetition, but the presence of major inconsistencies in the practice. jurisdiction of the Court see Chapter 18
In the Nicaragua case, the ICJ held: below, 284.
It is not to be expected that in the practice of States the application

of the rules in question should have been perfect, in the sense
that States should have refrained, with complete consistency,
from the use of force or from intervention in each other’s internal
affairs. The Court does not consider that, for a rule to be
established as customary, the corresponding practice must be
in absolutely rigorous conformity with the rule. In order to deduce
the existence of customary rules, the Court deems it sufficient
that the conduct of States should, in general, be consistent with
such rules, and that instances of State conduct inconsistent with
a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches of
that rule, not as indications of the recognition of a new rule.49
In sum, major inconsistencies in the practice (that is, a large amount of

50 UK v. Norway, ICJ Rep. 1951,

116, at 138; see L.Gündling,
practice which goes against the ‘rule’ in question) prevent the creation of a
Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Norway), customary rule. As noted by the ICJ in the Fisheries case, minor inconsistencies
EPIL II (1995), 381–3 and Chapter
12 below, 181.
(that is, a small amount of practice which goes against the rule in question)
51 See Akehurst (1974–5), Custom, do not prevent the creation of a customary rule,50 although in such cases the
op. cit., 12–21.
52 The Restatement (Third), Vol. 1,
rule in question probably needs to be supported by a large amount of practice,
para. 102, 25. in order to outweigh the conflicting practice in question.51 (The Fisheries case
concerned British claims against Norway for introducing national legislation
55 ILM 35 (1996), 830, para. 96. On on exclusive fishing rights in the waters surrounding Norway’s entire coastline
the case see Chapter 20 below,
347–9.
north of the Arctic Circle. The Court upheld the Norwegian method of
56 For a criticism see the delimitation of the territorial sea and its fixing of actual baselines.) On the
Declaration attached to the Opinion
by Judge Shi Jiuyong, ibid., 832. But
other hand, where there is no practice which goes against an alleged rule of
see also the Separate Opinion of customary law, it seems that a small amount of practice is sufficient to create
Judge Fleischhauer, ibid., 834, at
835–6.
a customary rule, even though the practice involves only a small number of
57 Dissenting Opinion of Vice- states and has lasted for only a short time.
President Schwebel, ibid., 836–7.
There remains the question of what constitutes ‘general’ practice. This
much depends on the circumstances of the case and on the rule at issue.
‘General’ practice is a relative concept and cannot be determined in the
abstract. It should include the conduct of all states, which can participate
in the formulation of the rule or the interests of which are specially affected.
‘A practice can be general even if it is not universally accepted; there is no
precise formula to indicate how widespread a practice must be, but it should
reflect wide acceptance among the states particularly involved in the relevant
activity.’52 Therefore, in the law of the sea,53 the practice of sea powers and
maritime nations will have greater significance than the practice of land-
locked states, while in the law governing outer space activities,54 the practice
of the United States and Russia will exert a more dominant influence than
that of Burundi or Chile. This can also be seen from the Advisory Opinion
of the ICJ in the Legality of Nuclear Weapons case in which the Court in
discussing whether there is a customary rule prohibiting the use of nuclear
weapons, inter alia, found that it could not ignore the ‘practice referred to
as ‘policy of deterrence’, to which an appreciable section of the international
community has adhered for many years’.55 Obviously, this refers to the
practice of certain nuclear weapons states and not to the practice of the
international community at large.56 However, as observed by Judge Schwebel
in his Dissenting Opinion:
This nuclear practice is not a practice of a lone and secondary

persistent objector. This is not a practice of a pariah Government
crying out in the wilderness of otherwise international opinion. This
is the practice of five of the world’s major Powers, of the permanent
Members of the Security Council, significantly supported for almost
50 years by their allies and other States sheltering under their
nuclear umbrellas. That is to say, it is the practice of States—and a
practice supported by a large and weighty number of other States—
that together represent the bulk of the world’s population. This
practice has been recognized, accommodated and in some
measure accepted by the international community. That measure
of acceptance is ambiguous but not meaningless.57
CUSTOM 43
What is certain is that general practice does not require the unanimous 58 See text below, 46–8.
59 See Chapter 13 below, 206. On the
practice of all states or other international subjects. This means that a doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel,
state can be bound by the general practice of other states even against its see Chapter 10 below, 154–5.
60 ICJ Rep. 1951, 116, 191; Gündling,
wishes if it does not protest against the emergence of the rule and op. cit.
continues persistently to do so (persistent objector).58 Such instances are 61 UK v. Iceland (Merits), ICJ Rep.
not frequent and the rule also requires that states are sufficiently aware 1974, 3, at 47, 56–8, 81–8, 119–20,
135, 161. The remaining four judges did
of the emergence of the new practice and law. Thus, for example, the not deal with this issue. See G.
contention can hardly be sustained that the practice of space powers to Jaenicke, Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases
launch their space objects into outer space after 1957 by crossing the air (U.K. v. Iceland; Federal Republic of
Germany v. Iceland), EPIL II (1995),
space under the sovereignty of other countries developed into custom by 386–9. See Chapter 12 below, 183.
the acquiescence of those states.59 The countries affected simply often 62 AJIL 41 (1947), 172, 219–20. See
Chapter 20 below, 354–5 and Nicaragua
lacked the technological capacities to find out. v. USA, op. cit., 99–104, 106–8.
63 K.Zemanek, What is ‘State Practice’
and Who Makes It?, in FS Bernhardt,
What states say and what states do 289–306, at 306.
64 Similarly, the Draft Articles on State
It is sometimes suggested that state practice consists only of what states Responsibility for Internationally
Wrongful Acts adopted by the ILC in its
do, not of what they say. For instance, in his dissenting opinion in the first reading in 1980 (text in Brownlie
Fisheries case, Judge Read argued that claims made to areas of the sea BDIL, 426), in defining an ‘internationally
wrongful act’, inter alia, refer to ‘conduct
by a state could not create a customary rule unless such claims were consisting of an action or omission’ that
enforced against foreign ships.60 But in the later Fisheries Jurisdiction is attributable to the state under
cases ten of the fourteen judges inferred the existence of customary rules international law, draft Article 3(a). See
from such claims, without considering whether they had been enforced.61 65 See Müller/Cottier, op. cit.
(These two parallel cases dealt with the validity of the establishment by
Iceland of a fifty-mile exclusive fishery zone and its effect on the fishing
rights of the United Kingdom and Germany which these two states had
traditionally enjoyed within this zone.) Similarly, the Nuremberg Tribunal
cited resolutions passed by the League of Nations Assembly and a Pan-
American Conference as authority for its finding that aggressive war
was criminal according to the ‘customs and practices of states’.62 The
better view therefore appears to be that state practice consists not only
of what states do, but also of what they say.
This becomes even clearer if one takes the fact into account that in
the modern world states have found new means of communication. As
noted in a recent empirical study on state practice, Zemanek arrives at
the following conclusion:
The beloved ‘real’ acts become less frequent because

international law, and the Charter of the UN in particular, place
more and more restraints on States in this respect. And what
formerly was confined to diplomatic notes is now often transmitted
via new forms of communication, mainly for reasons of domestic
or international policy. The present information society forces
governments which seek the widest possible support for their
stance to resort to publicity.63
Finally, state practice also includes omissions; many rules of international

law forbid states to do certain acts, and, when proving such a rule, it is
necessary to look not only at what states do, but also at what they do
not do.64 Even silence on the part of states is relevant because passiveness
and inaction with respect to claims of other states can produce a binding
effect creating legal obligations for the silent state under the doctrine of
acquiescence.65
66 North Sea Continental Shelf

cases, ICJ Rep. 1969, 3, at 44;
The psychological element in the formation of customary
G.Jaenicke, North Sea Continental law (opinio iuris)
Shelf Cases, EPIL 2 (1981), 205–8.
See also Chapter 12, 184–91 and When inferring rules of customary law from the conduct of states, it is
text below, 46.
67 See L.D.Paul, Comity in necessary to examine not only what states do, but also why they do it. In
International Law, Harvard ILJ 32 other words, there is a psychological element in the formation of customary
(1991), 1–79; P.Macalister-Smith,
Comity, EPIL I (1992), 671–4. See law. State practice alone does not suffice; it must be shown that it is
also Chapter 4 below, 73. accompanied by the conviction that it reflects a legal obligation. For instance,
68 J.L.Slama, Opinio juris in
Customary International Law, Okla. there are many international acts performed habitually, such as flag salutes
CULR 15 (1990), 603–56; Elias greeting a foreign ship on the high seas, or in the field of ceremony and
(1995), op. cit.
69 See Chapter 7 below, 110–15. protocol, which are motivated solely by courtesy or tradition, ‘but not by
70 See Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, any sense of legal duty’.66 Such behaviour is based merely on what is called
para. 101, 25.
71 See W.Karl, Protest, EPIL 9 ‘comity’ or ‘courtoisie’ in the relations between states.67
(1986), 320–2. The technical name given to this psychological element is opinio iuris sive
72 Lotus Case, PCIJ, series A, no.
10, 28 et seq. See K.Herndl, Lotus, necessitatis (opinio iuris for short).68 It is usually defined as a conviction felt
The, EPIL 2 (1981), 173–7. See by states that a certain form of conduct is required by international law. This
also Chapter 12 below, 190–1.
definition presupposes that all rules of international law are framed in terms
of duties. But that is not so; in addition to rules laying down duties, there are
also permissive rules, which permit states to act in a particular way (for
example, to prosecute foreigners for crimes committed within the prosecuting
state’s territory) without making such actions obligatory.69 In the case of a
rule imposing a duty, the traditional definition of opinio iuris is correct; in
the case of a permissive rule, opinio iuris means a conviction felt by states
that a certain form of conduct is permitted by international law.
There is clearly something artificial about trying to analyse the psychology
of collective entities such as states. Indeed, the modern tendency is not to look
for direct evidence of a state’s psychological convictions, but to infer opinio
iuris indirectly from the actual behaviour of states. Thus, official statements
are not required; opinio iuris may be gathered from acts or omissions.70 For
these purposes, it must be remembered that rules of international law govern
the behaviour of states in their relations with other states; it is therefore necessary
to examine not only what one state does or refrains from doing, but also how
other states react. If conduct by some states provokes protests from other states
that such conduct is illegal, the protests can deprive such conduct of any value
as evidence of customary law.71
Permissive rules can be proved by showing that some states have acted
in a particular way (or have claimed that they are entitled to act in that
way) and that other states, whose interests were affected by such acts (or
claims), have not protested that such acts (or claims) are illegal.
In the case of rules imposing duties, it is not enough to show that states
have acted in the manner required by the alleged rule, and that other states
have not protested that such acts are illegal. It also needs to be proved that
states regard the action as obligatory. Recognition of the obligatory character
of particular conduct can be proved by pointing to an express
acknowledgment of the obligation by the states concerned, or by showing
that failure to act in the manner required by the alleged rule has been
condemned as illegal by other states whose interests were affected.
The difference between permissive rules and rules imposing duties can
be clearly seen in the Lotus case.72 The facts of the case were as follows:
CUSTOM 45
a French merchant ship collided with a Turkish merchant ship on the 73 See Advisory Opinion on the Legality
of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
high seas, and as a result (allegedly) of negligence on the part of Lieutenant Weapons, op. cit., 826, para. 67. On this
Demons, an officer on the French ship, several people on the Turkish case see Chapter 20 below, 347–9.
ship lost their lives. France had jurisdiction to try Lieutenant Demons 75 See Chapter 12 below, 176–82.
for manslaughter, but the question was whether Turkey also had 76 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of
jurisdiction to try him. Turkey argued that there was a permissive rule the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,
op. cit., 827, para. 73. However, the
empowering it to try him; France argued the exact opposite, namely, Court also noted in this case: ‘In the
that there was a rule imposing a duty on Turkey not to try him. The long run, international law, and with it
Permanent Court of International Justice accepted the Turkish argument the stability of the international order
which it is intended to govern, are bound
and rejected the French argument because, first, although there were to suffer from the continuing difference
only a few cases in which states in Turkey’s position had instituted of views with regard to the legal status
of weapons as deadly as nuclear
prosecutions, the other states concerned in those cases had not protested weapons. It is consequently important to
against the prosecutions; and secondly, although most states in Turkey’s put an end to this state of affairs; the
position had refrained from instituting prosecutions, there was no long-promised complete nuclear
disarmament appears to be the most
evidence that they had done so out of a sense of legal obligation. appropriate means of achieving that
Moreover, if states are clearly divided on whether a certain conduct result.’ Ibid., 830, para. 98.
(such as non-recourse to nuclear weapons over the past fifty years) 77 R.Ago, Science juridique et droit
international, RdC (1956–II), 849–955,
constitutes the expression of an opinio iuris (in this case that the use of at 932 et seq.
nuclear weapons is illegal), it is impossible to find that there is such
opinio iuris.73
Opinio iuris is sometimes interpreted to mean that states must believe
that something is already law before it can become law. However, that is
probably not true; what matters is not what states believe, but what they
say. If some states claim that something is law and other states do not
challenge that claim, a new rule will come into being, even though all the
states concerned may realize that it is a departure from pre-existing rules.
Customary law has a built-in mechanism of change. If states are agreed
that a rule should be changed, a new rule of customary international
law based on the new practice of states can emerge very quickly; thus
the law on outer space developed very quickly after the first artificial
satellite was launched.74 If the number of states supporting a change, or
the number of states resisting a change, is small, they will probably soon
fall into line with the practice of the majority. The real difficulty comes
when the states supporting the change and the states resisting the change
are fairly evenly balanced. In this case change is difficult and slow, and
disagreement and uncertainty about the law may persist for a long time
until a new consensus emerges, as, for example, in the dispute about the
width of the territorial sea.75 Another example is the case of the Legality
of Nuclear Weapons in which the ICJ found:
The emergence, as lex lata, of a customary rule specifically

prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons as such is hampered by
the continuing tensions between the nascent opinio juris on the
one hand, and the still strong adherence to the practice of
deterrence on the other.76
‘Instant’ customary law

A special problem is the existence or non-existence of the category of ‘diritto
spontaneo’ or ‘instant customary international law’ which has been
brought to the forefront by some authors, such as Roberto Ago77 and Bin
78 B.Cheng, United Nations Cheng.78 The result is to deny the significance of state practice and the
Resolutions on Outer Space:
‘Instant’ International Customary relevance of the time factor in the formation of customary international
Law?, Indian JIL (1965), 23 et seq. law and to rely solely on opinio iuris, as expressed in non-binding resolutions
79 ICJ Rep. 1969, at 4.
80 See Jennings (1984), op. cit.,
and declarations, as the constitutive element of custom.
285. It is true that the International Court of Justice has clarified in the North
81 For a discussion of the Italian Sea Continental Shelf cases that customary law may emerge even within a
doctrine see F.Münch, A Propos du
Droit Spontane, Studi in Onore di relatively short passage of time.79 It may also be noted that changes in the
Guiseppe Sperduti, 1984, 149–62. international law-making process have modified the concept of modern
82 See P.Malanczuk, Space Law as
a Branch of International Law, NYIL customary law in several respects, including the tendency that it is made with
25 (1994), 143–80, 160–1. relative speed, written in textual form, and is more elaborate than traditional
83 ICJ Rep. 1969, 43.
84 ICJ Rep. 1986, 97 et seq. custom.80 The possibility of ‘instant’ customary international law, or ‘droit
85 Bernhardt (1992), op. cit., 902. spontane’,81 based upon opinio iuris only and without the requirement of
any practice, however, has remained a matter of dispute.82 In view of the
nature of the decentralized international legal system and the elementary role
of state practice as the objective element in the formation of customary law,
enabling one to distinguish it from non-binding commitments, opinio iuris
on its own, even if clearly established for some states as the subjective element,
does not suffice to establish general custom in controversial areas. In addition,
the very notion of ‘custom’ implies some time element and ‘instant custom’ is
a contradiction in terms, although it appears that this is more a matter of
appropriate terminology than of substance.
This view is confirmed by the jurisprudence of the ICJ. In the North Sea
Continental Shelf cases the Court insisted that ‘an indispensable requirement
would be that within the period in question, short though it might be, State
practice, including that of States whose interests are specially affected, should
have been both extensive and uniform’.83 In other words, the reduction of
the time-element requirement is carefully balanced with a stronger emphasis
on the scope and nature of state practice. An even clearer implicit rejection
of the doctrine of ‘instant custom’ can be found in the following words of
the Court in the Nicaragua case:
The mere fact that States declare their recognition of certain rules
is not sufficient for the Court to consider these as being part of
customary international law… Bound as it is by Article 38 of its
Statute…the Court must satisfy itself that the existence of the rule
in the opinio iuris of States is confirmed by practice.84
Bernhardt also denies that under the traditional concepts of international

law ‘instant’ custom is possible, but he can imagine ‘exceptional cases and
situations in which such instant law is useful or even necessary: If, for
instance, the community of States unequivocally and without any dissent
considers certain acts, which have not been known before, to be illegal, the
opinio juris might suffice even if no practice could evolve.’85 There may
indeed be a need for this, but then it is not custom but some other (new)
source of international law.
Universality and the consensual theory of international law

It has already been suggested that the practice followed by a small number
of states is sufficient to create a customary rule, if there is no practice
CUSTOM 47
86 See text above, 41–3.

which conflicts with that rule.86 But what if some states oppose the alleged 87 See Chapter 21 below, 376–7.
rule? Can the opposition of a single state prevent the creation of a 88 PCIJ, series A, no. 10, 18. See text
above, 44–5.
customary rule? If so, there would be very few rules, because state practice 89 On Soviet doctrine in general see
differs from state to state on many topics. On the other hand, to allow Chapter 2 above, 23, 33.
90 ICJ Rep. 1950, 266, 277, 293–4,
the majority to create a rule against the wishes of the minority would 316. See text above, 41.
lead to insuperable difficulties. How large must the majority be? In 91 See Chapter 11 below, 161–72.
92 See Chapter 15 below, 233–40 and
counting the majority, must equal weight be given to the practice of Chapter 2 above, 28–30.
Guatemala and that of the United States? If, on the other hand, some 93 See Chapter 12 below, 173–97.
94 On regional customary international
states are to be regarded as more important than others, on what criteria law see Chapters 1, 2–3 and 2, 30–2
is importance to be based? Population? Area? Wealth? Military power? above.
95 B.Simma, Consent: Strains in the
In a different context, the same questions have arisen with regard to the Treaty System, in Macdonald/
reform of the composition of the UN Security Council currently under Johnston (eds), op. cit., 485 et seq.;
D.W.Greig, Reflections on the Role of
discussion.87 Consent, AYIL 12 (1992), 125–76;
In the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice said: A.Pellet, The Normative Dilemma:
‘The rules of law binding upon states…emanate from their own free will Will and Consent in International
Law-Making, ibid., 22–53.
as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing 96 Asylum case, op. cit., 276–7;
principles of law.’88 This consensual theory, as it is called, has been Rights of Nationals of the United
States in Morocco case, ICJ Rep.
criticized in the West, but it has been accepted with enthusiasm by Soviet 1952, 176, at 200.
lawyers. Soviet doctrine used to teach that international law is the result
of an agreement between states, and that the only difference between
treaties and custom is one of form, treaties representing an express
agreement and custom representing an implied agreement.89 The merit
of this approach is that it explains divergences in state practice; just as
different treaties can be in force between different groups of states, so
different rules of customary law can apply between different groups of
states. The International Court of Justice came some way towards the
Soviet approach in the Asylum case, where it recognized the existence of
regional customs applying among groups of states in Latin America.90
The consensual theory explains divergences in state practice, but it is
rather unconvincing when it is applied to new states. The orthodox rule
is that new states are automatically bound by generally accepted
international law. The problem of the relation of new states to existing
international law is primarily a matter belonging to the area of state
succession, and will be taken up later.91 As far as customary law is
concerned, the prevailing view is, with different reasoning, that new
states cannot in principle escape existing customary obligations. One
cannot select rights granted by a legal system ‘à la carte’ and at the same
time reject the duties one dislikes. However, the reservations of the
decolonized new states towards the international legal order created by
the old colonial powers have had a considerable impact in particular
areas, such as international economic law92 and the law of the sea,93
which, at a minimum, has led to legal uncertainty. It has become more
and more difficult to find the required general practice and opinio iuris
for customary international law to retain its universal significance.94
The element of consent95 can also become fictitious when one is dealing
with the emergence of new rules of customary law among existing states.
The International Court of Justice has emphasized that a claimant state
which seeks to rely on a customary rule must prove that the rule has
become binding on the defendant state.96 The obvious way of doing this is
97 Fisheries case, op. cit., at 131.

to show that the defendant state has recognized the rule in its own state
99 See Bernhardt (1992), op. cit., practice (although recognition for this purpose may amount to no more
904; O.Elias, Some Remarks on the
Persistent Objector Rule in
than failure to protest when other states have applied the rule in cases
Customary International Law, affecting the defendant’s interests). But it may not be possible to find any
Denning LJ (1991), 37–51;
C.Tomuschat, Obligations Arising for
evidence of the defendant’s attitude towards the rule, and so there is a
States Without or Against Their Will, second—and more frequently used—way of proving that the rule is binding
RdC 241 (1993–IV), 195–374.
100 J.I.Charney, Universal
on the defendant: by showing that the rule is accepted by other states. In
International Law, AJIL 87 (1993), these circumstances the rule in question is binding on the defendant state,
529– 51, at 538 et seq.; see also ILA
Committee on the Formation of
unless the defendant state can show that it has expressly and consistently
Customary (General) International rejected the rule since the earliest days of the rule’s existence; dissent
Law, ILA Rep. 1992, 366 et seq.
101 For the historical background
expressed after the rule has become well established is too late to prevent
see, Chapter 2 above, 12–14. the rule binding the dissenting state. Thus, in the Fisheries case, the
102 See B.Cheng, General
Principles of Law as Applied by
International Court of Justice held that a particular rule was not generally
International Courts and Tribunals, recognized, but added: ‘In any event, the…rule would appear to be
1987; G. Hanessian, ‘General
Principles of Law’ in the Iran-US
inapplicable as against Norway, inasmuch as she has always opposed any
Claims Tribunal, Colum. JIL 27 attempt to apply it to the Norwegian coast.’97
(1989), 309; M.C.Bassiouni, A
Functional Approach to ‘General
The problem of the ‘persistent objector’, however, has recently attracted
Principles of International Law’, more attention in the literature. Can a disagreeing state ultimately and
Mich. JIL 11 (1990), 768–818; J.A.
Westberg/B.P.Marchais, General
indefinitely remain outside of new law accepted by the large majority of
Principles Governing Foreign states? Do emerging rules of ius cogens98 require criteria different to norms
Investment as Articulated in Recent
International Tribunal Awards and
of lesser significance? Such questions are far from settled at this point in
Writings of Publicists, ICSID Rev. 7 time.99 The view of Charney, who dispenses with the ‘persistent objector’
(1992), 453–96; V.-D.Degan,
General Principles of Law (A Source
altogether, however, is an exceptional one.100
of General International Law), FYIL
3 (1992), 1–102; L.Ferrari-Bravo,
Considérations sur la méthode de
recherche des principes généraux General principles of law
du droit international de
l’environnement, Hague YIL 7
(1994), 3–10; H.Mosler, General The third source of international law listed in the Statute of the international
Principles of Law, EPIL II (1995),
511–27.
Court of Justice is ‘the general principles of law recognized by civilized
nations’. (All nations are now considered as ‘civilized’;101 the new term is
‘peace-loving’, as stated in Article 4 of the UN Charter as a requirement for
admission to the organization.) This phrase was inserted in the Statute of
the Permanent Court of International Justice, the forerunner of the
International Court of Justice, in order to provide a solution in cases where
treaties and custom provided no guidance; otherwise, it was feared, the
Court might be unable to decide some cases because of gaps in treaty law
and customary law. However, there is little agreement about the meaning of
the phrase. Some say it means general principles of international law; others
say it means general principles of national law. Actually, there is no reason
why it should not mean both; the greater the number of meanings which
the phrase possesses, the greater the chance of finding something to fill
gaps in treaty law and customary law—which was the reason for listing
general principles of law in the Statute of the Court in the first place. Indeed,
international tribunals had applied general principles of law in both these
senses for many years before the PCIJ was set up in 1920.102
According to the first definition (general principles of international law),
general principles of law are not so much a source of law as a method of
using existing sources—extending existing rules by analogy, inferring the
existence of broad principles from more specific rules by means of
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW 49
103 On comparative legal studies see

inductive reasoning, and so on. According to the second definition Chapter 1 above, 6. On the relationship
of general principles of law (general principles of national law), gaps between international law and national
law see Chapter 4 below, 63–74.
in international law may be filled by borrowing principles which are 104 See H.Mosler, The International
common to all or most national systems of law; specific rules of law Society as a Legal Community, rev. edn
1980, 136 et seq.
usually vary from country to country, but the basic principles are 105 A.D’Amato, Good Faith, EPIL II
often similar.103 (1995), 599–601; J.F.O’Connor, Good
In reality, the matter is more complicated. Not all general principles Faith in International Law, 1991. In the
Nuclear Tests case (Australia v. France),
applied in international practice stem from domestic legal systems and judgment of 20 December 1974 (ICJ
have been transplanted to the international level by recognition.104 Some Rep. 1974, 268, para. 46), the Court
held: ‘one of the basic principles
are based on ‘natural justice’ common to all legal systems (such as the governing the creation and performance
principles of good faith,105 estoppel106 and proportionality107), others of legal obligations, whatever their
simply apply logic familiar to lawyers (such as the rules lex specialis source, is the principle of good faith.
Trust and confidence are inherent in
derogat legi generali, lex posterior derogat legi priori108), and another international cooperation, in particular in
category is related to ‘the specific nature of the international community’, an age when this cooperation in many
as expressed in principles of ius cogens. 109 Therefore, a real fields is becoming increasingly essential.’
See also Art. 26 of the 1969 Vienna
transplantation of domestic law principles to the international level is Convention on the Law of Treaties,
limited to a number of procedural rules, such as the right to a fair hearing, discussed in Chapter 9 below, 141.
in dubio pro reo, denial of justice,110 or the exhaustion of local remedies,111 107 See Chapter 1 above, 4 and
and some substantive principles, such as prescription112 and liability for Chapters 17, 271–2 and 19, 316–17
fault.113 The mechanism by which such transformation takes place in below.
practice goes through the mind of the international judge or arbitrator 109 K.-J.Partsch, International Law and
who has to decide a particular case. This is known as the ‘creative role’ Municipal Law, EPIL II (1995), 1188. On
of the judge, which is not at all peculiar to the international legal system. ius cogens see text below, 57–8.
110 S.Verosta, Denial of Justice, EPIL I
On the other hand, the difficulty of proving that a principle is common (1992), 1007–10.
to most or all legal systems is not as great as might be imagined. Legal 111 See Chapter 17 below, 267–8.
systems are grouped in families; the law in most English-speaking 113 See Chapter 17 below, 258.
countries is very similar, simply because the settlers took with them the 114 Art. 9, Statute of the ICJ, text in
law they knew, just as the law in most Latin American countries is very Brownlie BDIL, 438. See Chapter 18
below, 282.
similar. Once one has proved that a principle exists in English law, one is 115 D.J.Ibbetson, The Roman Law
fairly safe in assuming that it also exists in New Zealand and Australia. Tradition, 1994. On Grotius see Chapter
The problem is, of course, what do we do about the other systems in the 2 above, 15–16.
world. In fact, what sometimes happens in practice is that an international
judge or arbitrator makes use of principles drawn from the legal system
in his own country, without examining whether they are also accepted
by other countries. The practice is obviously undesirable, but it is too
common to be regarded as illegal. In the election of the judges of the
International Court of Justice, the electors are required to bear in mind
that ‘in the body as a whole the representation of the main forms of
civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world should be
assured’.114
General principles of law have proved most useful in ‘new’ areas of
international law. When the modern system of international law was
beginning to develop in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, writers
like Grotius drew heavily on Roman law,115 and a Roman ancestry can
still be detected in many of the rules which have now been transformed
into customary law (for example, concerning the acquisition of title to
territory).116 In the nineteenth century international arbitration, which
had previously been rare, became more common, and the need for rules
of judicial procedure was met by borrowing principles from national law
(for example, the principle that a tribunal is competent to decide whether
or not it has jurisdiction in cases of doubt, and the principle that claims
117 See Chapters 2 above, 20 and

17, 269 and 18, 293–8 below.
brought before a tribunal after an unreasonable delay must be dismissed as
118 See Chapters 6, 103 and 21, inadmissible).117
381 below. In the present century international law, or something closely resembling
120 See Chapter 18 below, 289. international law, has come to regulate certain contracts made by individuals
121 v. Hecke, op. cit., 818. or companies with states or international organizations—for example,
122 ICJ Rep. 1950, 148. See also
M. Shahabuddeen, Municipal Law
contracts of employment in international organizations, 118 and oil
Reasoning in International Law, in concessions.119 Treaties and customary law contain few rules applicable to
Lowe/Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., 90– such topics, and the gap has been filled by recourse to general principles of
103. On the South-West Africa case
see Chapters 18, 284 and 19, 328– commercial and administrative law, borrowed from national legal systems.
9 below. For instance, international administrative tribunals, which try disputes
123 See J.Stone, Non Liquet and the between international organizations and their staff, have consistently applied
Function of Law in the International
Community, BYIL 1959, 145; the principle, borrowed from national law, that an official must be informed
Fastenrath (1991), op. cit.; and of criticisms made against him and must be given an opportunity to reply
compare the Declaration of Judge
Vereshchetin in the ICJ’s Advisory
to those criticisms before the international organization employing him takes
Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or a decision to his detriment on the basis of those criticisms.120 In the case of
Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit., 833 ‘internationalized contracts’ between a state and foreign companies, the
with the Dissenting Opinions of Judge
Schwebel, ibid., 836, at 840, Judge purpose of referring to general principles in connection with an arbitration
Shahabuddeen, ibid., 861, at 866, and clause is primarily (from the viewpoint of the investing company) to prefer
Judge Koroma, ibid., 925, at 930. to trust the arbitrator’s (s’) discretion to discover relevant rules of law
124 See the Separate Opinion of
Judge Fleischhauer, ibid., 835. creatively, rather than being at the mercy of the contracting state’s national
125 See Dissenting Opinion of legislation.121
Judge Higgins, ibid., 934.
126 R.Jennings/A.Watts (eds), However, it must be remembered that the environment in which
Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. international law operates is very different from the one in which national
I, part 1, 9th edn 1992, 13.
law operates, and principles of national law can be used to fill gaps in
international law only if they are suited to the international environment.
As noted by Judge McNair in the South-West Africa case:
The way in which international law borrows from this source is not
by means of importing private law institutions ‘lock, stock and barrel’,
ready-made and fully equipped with a set of rules. It would be difficult
to reconcile such a process with the application of ‘the general
principles of law’.122
Finally, it should be pointed out that the issue of whether an international

court is obliged to fill in gaps in substantive international law in order to
provide for the ‘completeness’ of the legal system, to render a concrete
decision and thus to avoid declaring non liquet (‘the matter is unclear’), has
remained controversial.123 It is interesting to note that the ICJ in its rather
inconclusive Advisory Opinion in the Legality of Nuclear Weapons case
did not make any use of the general principles of law recognized in all legal
systems.124 In fact, what the Court has done in this decision is that it
pronounced a non liquet on the central issue on the grounds of uncertainty
in the current state of international law, and of the facts.125 It is submitted
that the concept of non liquet is an unhealthy one for the judicial function
and courts misunderstand their duties if they plead non liquet in any given
case. In international law one does not always discover a
clear and specific rule readily applicable to every international

situation, but… every international situation is capable of being
determined as a matter of law.126
LEARNED WRITERS 51
127 See V.Röben, Le Précédent dans la

Judicial decisions jurisprudence de la Cour Internationale,
GYIL 32 (1989), 382– 407;
Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice directs M.Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the
World Court, 1996.
the Court to apply ‘judicial decisions…as subsidiary means for the 128 See text above, 39.
determination of rules of law’. This direction is made ‘subject to the 129 See Chapter 6 below, 93.
provisions of Article 59’, which state that ‘the decision of the Court has 131 See text above, 42 and Chapter 12
no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that below, 181.
particular case’. In other words, there is no formal stare decisis doctrine, 132 See Jennings (1984), op. cit., 287;
H.Lauterpacht, The Development of
as known in common law systems; in international law international International Law by the International
courts are not obliged to follow previous decisions, although they almost Court, 1982.
always take previous decisions into account.127 133 See Chapter 14 below, 217–19.
We have already seen that judicial and arbitral decisions can be 135 See Chapter 18 below, 298–300.
evidence of customary law.128 But it is probably true to say that judges 136 See R.Y.Jennings, The International
Court of Justice after Fifty Years, AJIL
can also create new law. The International Court of Justice is particularly 89 (1995), 493–505, at 504.
important in this respect. Many of its decisions introduced innovations 137 See Chapter 8 below, 123–9.
into international law which have subsequently won general acceptance— 138 See further K.Doehring, The
Participation of International and National
for instance, the Reparation for Injuries case,129 the Genocide case130 Courts in the Law-Creating Process,
and the Fisheries case.131 There is a very strong probability that the SAYIL 17 (1991/2), 1–11; R.Y. Jennings,
International Court (and other tribunals) will follow such decisions in The Judiciary, International and National,
and the Development of International
later cases, since judicial consistency is the most obvious means of Law, ICLQ 45 (1996), 1–12.
avoiding accusations of bias. Thus, it is generally questionable whether
at least decisions of the International Court of Justice can in fact still be
regarded as only ‘subsidiary’ means of determining the law.132
One aspect which will require more attention in the future arises
from the recent proliferation of international tribunals and courts, such
as various regional courts, courts on human rights,133 international
criminal courts134 and the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.135 This
proliferation is likely to lead to conflicting decisions on international
law and there is no ultimate legal authority in the sense of a supreme
court to harmonize such conflicts. The ICJ is not in such a position
because it lacks any formal relations with other international courts and
tribunals.136
Judgments of national courts are also covered by Article 38(1)(d);
many of the rules of international law on topics such as diplomatic
immunity137 have been developed by judgments of national courts. But
judgments of national courts need to be used with caution; the judges
may look as if they are applying international law (and may actually
believe that they are doing so), when in fact all that they are applying is
some peculiar rule of their own national law.138
Learned writers
Article 38(1)(d) also directs the Court to apply ‘the teachings of the
most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law’. The word ‘publicists’ means
‘learned writers’. Like judicial decisions, learned writings can be evidence
of customary law, but they can also play a subsidiary role in developing
new rules of law.
In the past, writers like Grotius exercised influence of a sort which no
writer could hope to exercise nowadays. But writers have not entirely lost

140 A.Oraison, Réflexions sur ‘la
their influence. They still continue to provide the sort of conceptual framework
doctrine des publicistes les plus which is necessary for any legal discussion; for instance, states had been
qualifiés des différentes nations’,
RBDI 24 (1991), 507–80.
claiming limited rights in areas adjacent to their territorial sea long before
141 See C.Gray/B.Kingsbury, Gidel started writing about such claims, but it was Gidel who produced the
Developments in Dispute Settlement:
Inter-State Arbitration Since 1945,
concept of the contiguous zone as a framework for discussing the validity of
BYIL 63 (1992), 97, 129. these claims.139 Moreover, one finds that states in diplomatic controversies
142 S.Rosenne, The Law and
Practice of the International Court of
still quote profusely from writers (although the quotations are not always
Justice, 2nd edn 1985, 614–6. acknowledged), because writers provide a comprehensive, succinct and (with
143 See Chapter 18 below, 292, 302.
144 For a discussion see K.
luck) impartial summary of state practice. (A summary which is deliberately
Skubiszewski, Resolutions of the made as brief as possible, like the Harvard draft conventions, is particularly
U.N. General Assembly and
Evidence of Custom, in Études en
useful for purposes of quotation.) In a nutshell, writers quote states and
l’honneur de R. Ago, 1987, Vol. I, states quote writers, at least when it suits their interests.
503 et seq; B.Sloan, General
Assembly Resolutions Revisited
Generally speaking, in a multicultural world the problem of identifying
(Forty Years After), BYIL 58 (1987), those ‘teachings’ of writers which are the most authoritative is no longer
39 et seq.; C.Economidès, Les
Actes institutionnels internationaux
likely to lead to easy universal acceptance of certain propositions. This has
et les sources du droit international, become difficult also due to the large quantity of publications that are
AFDI (1988), 142 et seq.;
J.A.Frowein, The Internal and
nowadays produced by writers on international law.140 While international
External Effects of Resolutions by arbitral tribunals frequently cite textbooks and authors,141 the International
International Organizations, ZaöRV
49 (1989), 778– 90; B.Sloan, United
Court of Justice refrains from doing so in its decisions,142 as distinct from
Nations General Assembly the dissenting or concurring opinions of individual judges.143
Resolutions in Our Changing World,
1991; J.A.Barberis, Les Resolutions
des organisations internationales en
tant que source du droit de gens, in
FS Bernhardt, 21–39;
Other possible sources of international law
H.G.Schermers, International
Organizations, Resolutions, EPIL II
(1995), 1333–36.
Having completed our examination of the list of sources in the Statute of
145 See Chapter 9 below, 136–7. the International Court of Justice, we must now examine whether there are
any other sources which have been omitted from that list.
Acts of international organizations

The growth of international organizations since the First World War has
been accompanied by suggestions that the acts of international organizations
should be recognized as a source of international law.144 But most of the
organs of international organizations are composed of representatives of
member states, and very often the acts of such organs are merely the acts of
the states represented in those organs. For instance, a resolution of the
United Nations General Assembly can be evidence of customary law because
it reflects the views of the states voting for it; it would probably have exactly
the same value if it had been passed at a conference outside the framework
of the United Nations, and, if many states vote against it, its value as evidence
of customary law is correspondingly reduced.
However, international organizations usually have at least one organ which
is not composed of representatives of member states, and the practice of such
organs is capable of constituting a source of law. For instance, the United Nations
Secretariat often acts as a depositary of treaties and its practice as depositary
has already affected the law of treaties on such topics as reservations.145
Sometimes an international organization is authorized to take decisions
(often by majority vote) which are binding on member states. Apart from
‘internal’ questions relating to the budget, the admission and expulsion of
OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES 53

members, and so on, the only clear example in the United Nations Charter 147 See Chapter 6 below, 95–6.
is in Chapter VII, which empowers the Security Council to give orders 148 See Chapter 15 below, 225–7.
to states as part of its action to deal with threats to the peace, breaches 149 See Chapter 13 below, 200.
150 See text above, 39, 40, 41.
of the peace and acts of aggression.146 In some other organizations powers 151 Noted by Bernhardt (1992), op.
to take binding decisions can be exercised more frequently; this is cit., 904.
152 For further discussion of resolutions
particularly true of the European Community.147 But it is questionable of international organizations as
whether such decisions should be treated as a separate source of law, evidence of customary law, see Akehurst
(1974–5), Custom, op. cit., 5–7.
because the power to take such decisions is conferred by the constituent 153 See T.Schweisfurth, The Influence
treaty of the organization concerned. The same applies to the power of of the Third United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea on International
the International Monetary Fund to take binding decisions on the Customary Law, ZaöRV 43 (1983), 566–
maintenance or alteration of exchange rates or depreciation of currency,148 84, 577.
or the authority of the International Civil Aviation Authority to adopt 154 UNGA Res. 1653 (XVI) of 24
November 1961.
binding standards for navigation or qualifications of flight personnel.149 155 Legality of Nuclear Weapons Case
Most resolutions have nothing to do with international law; an obvious op. cit., at 826, para. 70.
example would be a resolution recommending research into the causes of
cancer. Even when resolutions do touch upon international law, they may
simply be recommending changes, and the text of such a resolution clearly
cannot be interpreted as representing the existing law; a resolution declaring
that X ought to be the law is obviously not evidence that X is the law. If a
resolution declares that X is the law, it can be used as evidence of customary
law. But the value of such a resolution varies in proportion to the number
of states voting for it; if many states vote against it, its value as evidence of
customary law is correspondingly reduced.
It has been said that, in the Nicaragua case,150 the International Court of
Justice extensively referred to resolutions of international organizations as
a ‘source of law’,151 but under the particular circumstances of the case
concerning the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court, it is doubtful whether
it used these resolutions as sources in the technical sense. A resolution passed
at a meeting of an international organization is never conclusive evidence of
customary law. It has to be examined in conjunction with all the other
available evidence of customary law, and it may thus be possible to prove
that the resolution is not a correct statement of customary law.152 In the end,
if there is no corresponding practice, the mere statement on what the law is
supposed to be is not sufficient evidence, but nothing more than an attempt
on the part of states to clarify their respective positions.153
Nevertheless, as stated by the International Court of Justice in its
1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons with reference to the series of General Assembly resolutions
since 1961154 that affirm the illegality of nuclear weapons:
General Assembly resolutions, even if they are not binding, may

sometimes have normative value. They can, in certain circumstances,
provide evidence important for establishing the existence of a rule or
the emergence of an opinio juris. To establish whether this is true of
a given General Assembly resolution, it is necessary to look at its
content and the conditions of its adoption; it is also necessary to see
whether an opinio juris exists as to its normative character. Or a
series of resolutions may show the gradual evolution of the opinio
juris required for the establishment of a new rule.155
156 Ibid., para. 71. See also the

Dissenting Opinion of Judge
However, in view of the substantial numbers of negative votes and
Schwebel, which is much clearer, abstentions with which several of the General Assembly resolutions on the
ibid., 839.
157 R.Bierzanek, Some Remarks on
illegality of nuclear weapons have been adopted, the Court held that they
‘Soft’ International Law, PYIL 17 still fall short of establishing the existence of an opinio juris on the illegality
(1988), 21–40; C.M.Chinkin, The
Challenge of Soft Law: Development
of the use of such weapons.156
and Change in International Law,
ICLQ 38 (1989), 850–66; P.-
M.Dupuy, Soft Law and the ‘Soft’ law
International Law of the Environment,
Mich. ILJ 12 (1991), 420–35; H.E.
Chodosh, Neither Treaty Nor
The controversy on the status of certain declarations and resolutions of
Custom: The Emergence of international organizations is connected with the phenomenon of ‘soft
Declarative International Law, Texas
ILJ 26 (1991), 87–124; W.Heusel,
law’.157 Without being able to enter into the general discussion here, it may
‘Weiches’ Völkerrecht: Eine be noted that the term ‘soft law’, as distinct from ‘hard law’, is not very
vergleichende Untersuchung
typischer Erscheinungsformen, 1991;
helpful from a legal perspective. It is known that ‘soft law’, in the sense of
F. Francioni, International ‘Soft Law’: guidelines of conduct (such as those formulated by the United Nations
A Contemporary Assessment, in
Lowe/ Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit.,
concerning the operations of transnational companies158) which are neither
167–78. strictly binding norms of law, nor completely irrelevant political maxims,
159 See I.Seidl-Hohenveldern,
and operate in a grey zone between law and politics, is considered a special
International Economic ‘Soft Law’, characteristic of international economic law and of international
RdC 163 (1979), 165 et seq.;
W.E.Burhenne (ed.), International
environmental law.159 Such provisions can be found, for example, in treaties
Environmental Soft Law. Collection not yet in force or in resolutions of international conferences or
of Relevant Instruments, 1993;
M.A.Fitzmaurice, International
organizations, which lack legally binding quality.
Environmental Law as a Special The emergence of ‘soft law’ also has to do with the fact that states in
Field, NYIL 25 (1994), 181–226, at
199–201. See Chapters 15, 222–3
agreement frequently do not (yet) wish to bind themselves legally, but nevertheless
and 16, 241–7 below. wish to adopt and test certain rules and principles before they become law.
160 For the Rio documents see
ILM 31 (1992), 818 et seq. See
This often facilitates consensus which is more difficult to achieve on ‘hard law’
P.Malanczuk, Sustainable instruments. A peculiar example of this practice is the Forest Declaration adopted
Development: Some Critical
Thoughts in the Light of the Rio
at the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, which carries
Conference, in K.Ginther/ the illuminating title ‘A Non-legally binding Authoritative Statement of Principles
E.Denters/ P.J.I.M.de Waart
(eds), Sustainable Development
for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable
and Good Governance, 1995, Development of all Types of Forests’.160 States may even decide to create
23–52. See also Chapter 16
below, 247–8.
international organizations with their own organs and structures to fulfil
161 See T.Schweisfurth, Zur Frage international tasks without accepting any legally binding obligations, as was
der Rechtsnatur, Verbindlichkeit und
völkerrechtlicher Relevanz der
done in the case of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on
KSZE Schlußakte, ZaöRV 36 the basis of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.161
(1976), 681 et seq.; For a recent
analysis, see I.SeidlHohenveldern,
Such guidelines, although explicitly drafted as non-legal ones, may
Internationale Organisationen nevertheless in actual practice acquire considerable strength in structuring
aufgrund von soft law, in FS
Bernhardt, 229–39; T.Schweisfurth,
international conduct.162 ‘Soft law’ may also be relevant from a sociological
Die juristische Mutation der KSZE— perspective of international law with regard to the process of the formation
Eine Internationale Organisation in
statu nascendi, ibid., 213–28;
of customary law or treaty law and the related issue of ‘legitimacy’ in the
M.Sapiro, Changing the CSCE into international legal system.163 But the result of this law-making process at
the OSCE: Legal Aspects of a
Political Transformation, AJIL 89
any given moment of legal decision is either binding law or not. In essence,
(1995), 631–7. See Chapter 6 under any meaningful concept of law, it remains essential to maintain the
below, 94.
162 See also M.Bothe, Legal and
distinction between the law de lege lata and the law de lege ferenda,164
Non-Legal Norms—A Meaningful between the codification of existing law and the progressive development
Distinction in International
Relations?, NYIL 11 (1980), 65–95.
of law, between legal norms and non-legal norms as regards their binding
163 See Chapter 2 above, 33. effect, and ultimately between the legal system and the political system.
164 See text above, 35.
Otherwise, it would become rather difficult to distinguish ideologically or
politically motivated claims from the accepted rules and principles of
international law. However, certain principles and rules which are
OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES 55
165 See Chapter 2 above, 15–17, 32.

emerging as new norms in the process of law-making, without yet having 166 See M.Akehurst, Equity and
become accepted as legally binding, may nevertheless have limited General Principles of Law, ICLQ 25
(1976), 801 et seq.; V.Lowe, The Role of
‘anticipatory’ effect in judicial or arbitral decision-making as supporting Equity in International Law, AYIL 12
arguments in interpreting the law as it stands. (1988/9), 125–76; C.M.Fombad, Equity
in Current International Practice, REDI
45 (1989), 1–27; C.R.Rossi, Equity as a
Source of International Law?: A Legal
Equity Realist Approach to the Process of
International Decision-Making, 1993;
‘Equity’, in the present context, is used not in the technical sense which M.Lachs, Equity in Arbitration and in
the word possesses in Anglo-American legal systems in the distinction Judicial Settlement of Disputes, LJIL 6
(1993), 323–9; T.M. Franck/
between law and equity as separate bodies of law, but as a synonym for D.M.Sughrue, The International Role of
‘justice’. Moreover, those who look to equity as a source of international Equity-as-Fairness, Geo. LJ 81 (1993),
law often appeal to natural law165 in order to strengthen their arguments 563–95; P.Well, L’Équité dans la
jurisprudence de la Cour Internationale
and to escape accusations of subjectivism. Thus the three terms—‘equity’, de Justice, in Lowe/ Fitzmaurice (eds),
‘justice’ and ‘natural law’ —tend to merge into one another. op. cit., 121–44; Equity in International
Law, EPIL II (1995), 109–13;
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries natural law was a T.M.Franck, Fairness in International
major source of international law. In the nineteenth and twentieth Law, 1995, Chapter 3: Equity as
centuries arbitrators have often been authorized to apply justice and Fairness, 47 et seq.
167 PCIJ, series A/B, no. 70, 76–7.
equity as well as international law (such authorizations were more 168 RIAA II, 1307 and III, 1817.
common before 1920 than they are today); even in the absence of such
authorization, judges and arbitrators sometimes invoke equitable
considerations.166
In the River Meuse case (Netherlands v. Belgium) (1937),167 for
example, the Netherlands claimed that Belgium had violated a treaty by
building canals that changed the flow of water in the River Meuse. One
of the issues was whether the Netherlands had lost the right to bring the
claim because of similar earlier conduct by itself. In this connection the
Individual Opinion of Judge Hudson recognized the principle of equity
as part of international law. He noticed that there was no express
authority in the Statute of the PCIJ to apply equity as distinguished
from law. But he pointed to Article 38 of the Statute which allowed the
application of general principles and argued that principles of equity are
common to all national legal systems.
Thus, a judge or arbitrator can always use equity to interpret or fill gaps
in the law, even when he has not been expressly authorized to do so. But he
may not give a decision ex aequo et bono (a decision in which equity overrides
all other rules) unless he has been expressly authorized to do so. Article
38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the
list of sources in Article 38(1) ‘shall not prejudice the power of the Court to
decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto’. Article 38(2)
has never been applied, but other tribunals have occasionally been authorized
to decide ex aequo et bono; for instance, two Latin American boundary
disputes were decided in this way by arbitrators in the 1930s.168
Whatever the position may have been in the past, it is doubtful
whether equity forms a source of international law today. It cannot be
assumed that a judge is using equity as a source of law every time he
describes a rule as equitable or just. Counsel and judges in national
courts frequently appeal to considerations of equity and justice when
the authorities are divided on a point of law, but that does not lead to
equity being regarded as a source of national law; nor should appeals
by international lawyers to considerations of equity be interpreted as
meaning that equity is a source of international law.
169 See Janis, op. cit.

170 See L.D.M.Nelson, The Roles
In recent times the meaning of equity in international law has been
of Equity in the Delimitation of discussed in two rather different contexts.169 The first context is the
Maritime Boundaries, AJIL 84
(1990), 837–58; M.Miyoshi,
application of equitable principles by the ICJ in the delimitation of maritime
Considerations of Equity in the boundaries between states.170 The other area is the controversial claim of
Settlement of Territorial Boundary
Disputes, 1993; B.Kwiatkowska,
developing countries for a new international economic order which should
Equitable Maritime Boundary be based on equitable principles to achieve a fairer distribution of wealth
Delimitation, in Lowe/Fitzmaurice
(eds), op. cit., 264–92. See Chapter
between rich and poor states.171 One of the problems about equity is that it
12 below, 135–7. can often be defined only by reference to a particular ethical system.
172 See Akehurst (1976), op. cit., C.
Consequently, although references to equity are meaningful in a national
Tomuschat, Ethos, Ethics and society which can be presumed to hold common ethical values, the position
Morality in International Relations,
EPIL II (1995), 120–7.
is entirely different in the international arena, where the most mutually
173 M.Akehurst, The Hierarchy of antagonistic philosophies meet in head-on conflict.172
the Sources of International Law,
BYIL 47 (1974–5), 273 et seq.;
W.Karl, Treaties, Conflicts between,
EPIL 7 (1984), 467– 73;
W.Czaplinski/G.Danilenko, Conflicts
The hierarchy of the sources
of Norms in International Law, NYIL
21 (1990), 3–42.
174 See Harris CMIL, 25.
What happens if a rule derived from one source of international law conflicts
175 For a good discussion see with a rule derived from another source?173 Which prevails over the other?
Schachter, op. cit., 70–6, 335–42; Is there an order of application of the sources listed in Article 38 of the
Villiger, op. cit.
176 See text below, 57–8. Statute of the ICJ? In the drafting history of this provision the proposal was
177 See Chapter 9 below, 141–2. made that the sources listed should be considered by the Court ‘in the
178 See N.Kontou, The Termination
and Revision of Treaties in the Light undermentioned order’ (a-d). This proposal was not accepted and the view
of New Customary International was expressed that the Court may, for example, draw on general principles
Law, 1994.
before applying conventions and customs.174
The relationship between treaties and custom is particularly difficult.175
Clearly a treaty, when it first comes into force, overrides customary law as
between the parties to the treaty; one of the main reasons why states make
treaties is because they regard the relevant rules of customary law as
inadequate. Thus, two or more states can derogate from customary law by
concluding a treaty with different obligations, the only limit to their freedom
of law-making being rules of ius cogens, which will be discussed below.176
But treaties can come to an end through desuetude—a term used to
describe the situation in which the treaty is consistently ignored by one or
more parties, with the acquiescence of the other party or parties.177 Desuetude
often takes the form of the emergence of a new rule of customary law,
conflicting with the treaty.178
Thus, treaties and custom are of equal authority; the later in time prevails.
This conforms to the general maxim of lex posterior derogat priori (a later
law repeals an earlier law). However, in deciding possible conflicts between
treaties and custom, two other principles must be observed, namely lex
posterior generalis non derogat priori speciali (a later law, general in nature,
does not repeal an earlier law which is more special in nature) and lex
specialis derogat legi generali (a special law prevails over a general law).
Since the main function of general principles of law is to fill gaps in
treaty law and customary law, it would appear that general principles of
law are subordinate to treaties and custom (that is, treaties and custom
prevail over general principles of law in the event of conflict).
Judicial decisions and learned writings are described in Article
38(1)(d) as ‘subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law’,
THE HIERARCHY OF THE SOURCES 57
179 Bernhardt (1992), op. cit., 899.
which suggests that they are subordinate to the other three sources 180 See Chapter 2 above, 15–17, 32.
listed: treaties, custom and general principles of law. Judicial decisions 181 See Chapter 2 above, 30–2.
182 P.Weil, Towards Relative
usually carry more weight than learned writings, but there is no hard- Normativity in International Law?, AJIL
and-fast rule; much depends on the quality of the reasoning which the 77 (1983), 413–42, is critical of the
concept of ‘ius cogens’. See further J.A.
judge or writer employs. Frowein, Jus Cogens, EPIL 7 (1984),
It is doubtful whether equity is a source of international law at all; 327, at 328–9; L.Hannikainen,
even if it is, the existence of such doubts would appear to indicate that it Peremptory Norms (jus cogens) in
International Law: Historical
is, at most, a very low-ranking source. (However, when a tribunal is Development, Criteria, Present Status,
authorized to decide ex aequo et bono, the tribunal is allowed to substitute 1988; H.A.Strydom, Ius Cogens:
Peremptory Norm or Totalitarian
its own ideas of equity for any and every rule of international law.) Instrument?, SAYIL 14 (1988/9), 42– 58;
In sum, the different sources of international law are not arranged in A.D’Amato, It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s
a strict hierarchical order. Supplementing each other, in practice they are jus cogens!, Conn. JIL 6 (1990), 1– 6;
G.M.Danilenko, International jus cogens:
often applied side by side. However, if there is a clear conflict, treaties Issues of Law-Making, EJIL 2 (1991),
prevail over custom and custom prevails over general principles and the 42–65; J.Paust, The Reality of jus
subsidiary sources.179 cogens, Conn. JIL 7 (1991), 81–5;
S.Kadelbach, Zwingendes Völkerrecht,
1992; J.Kasto, Jus Cogens and
Humanitarian Law, 1994.
Ius cogens 183 Text in ILM 8 (1969), 679; AJIL 63
(1969), 875; Brownlie BDIL, 388. See
Some of the early writers on international law said that a treaty would Chapter 9 below, 140–1, 145.
be void if it was contrary to morality or to certain (unspecified) basic
principles of international law. The logical basis for this rule was that a
treaty could not override natural law. With the decline of the theory of
natural law,180 the rule was largely forgotten, although some writers
continued to pay lip-service to it.
Recently there has been a tendency to revive the rule, although it is
no longer based on natural law; the state most in favour of the rule was
the Soviet Union (which would never have supported the semi-religious
theory of natural law). Moreover, the rule is now said to limit the liberty
of states to create local custom, as well as their liberty to make treaties;
the rule thus acts as a check on the tendency of international law to
disintegrate into different regional systems.181 The technical name now
given to the basic principles of international law, which states are not
allowed to contract out of, is ‘peremptory norms of general international
law’, otherwise known as ius cogens.182
Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed at Vienna
in 1969,183 provides as follows:
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a

peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of
the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international
law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international
community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation
is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm
of general international law having the same character.
What is said about treaties being void would also probably apply equally
to local custom. The reason why local custom is not mentioned is because
the purpose of the Convention was to codify the law of treaties only.
Although cautiously expressed to apply only ‘for the purposes of the
present Convention’, the definition of a ‘peremptory norm’ is probably
valid for all purposes. The definition is more skilful than appears at first
sight. A rule cannot become a peremptory norm unless it is ‘accepted and
184 A.Cassese, International Law in

a Divided World, 1986, 179. The
recognized [as such] by the international community of states as a whole’
recent study by Hannikainen, op. — a requirement which is too logical and reasonable to be challenged, but
cit., goes even further.
185 See R.Kühner, Torture, EPIL 8
which is well worth stating expressly, because there have already been cases
(1985), 510. See Chapter 14 below, of states trying to evade rules of international law which they found to be
216–17, 220.
186 Barcelona Traction case
inconvenient by arguing that those rules were contrary to some exotic
(Belgium v. Spain), ICJ Rep. 1970, examples of ius cogens; this danger should, with luck, be averted by requiring
3, paras. 33 and 34. See Chapter 14
below, 220.
such states to prove that the alleged rule of ius cogens has been ‘accepted
187 See Chapter 19 below, 309–11. and recognized [as such] by the international community of states as a whole’.
189 ILM 35 (1996), 828, para. 83
It must find acceptance and recognition by the international community at
stating that ‘[t]he question whether a large and cannot be imposed upon a significant minority of states. Thus, an
norm is part of the jus cogens
relates to the legal character of the
overwhelming majority of states is required, cutting across cultural and
norm.’ ideological differences.
190 Akehurst (1974–5), Hierarchy,
op. cit., 281–5.
At present very few rules pass this test. Many rules have been suggested
191 See Chapter 17 below, 254–6. as candidates. Some writers suggest that there is considerable agreement on
192 See Chapter 1 above, 4 and
the prohibition of the use of force, of genocide, slavery, of gross violations
of the right of people to self-determination, and of racial discrimination.184
Others would include the prohibition on torture.185 In an obscure obiter
dictum in the Barcelona Traction case in 1970, the ICJ referred to ‘basic
rights of the human person’, including the prohibition of slavery and racial
discrimination and the prohibition of aggression and genocide, which it
considered to be ‘the concern of all states’, without, however, expressly
recognizing the concept of ius cogens.186 But, apart from the ‘basic rights of
the human person’ mentioned in the Barcelona Traction case, the only one
which at present receives anything approaching general acceptance is the
rule against aggression.187 In its Advisory Opinion in the Legality of Nuclear
Weapons case, the ICJ did not find a need to address the question whether
universally recognized principles of international humanitarian law
(applicable in time of armed conflict188) are part of ius cogens as defined in
Article 53 of the Vienna Convention.189 It should also be noted that in the
preparatory work on Article 53 no agreement was possible on which
international norms belong to ius cogens. France even refused to accept the
Convention because of Article 53. The vagueness of ius cogens induced
Western and Latin-American states to insist on the procedural safeguard in
Article 66 lit. a of the same Convention, under which disputes on the
application of Article 53 are to be settled by the International Court of
Justice or an arbitral tribunal. State practice and international decisions
have indeed been cautious in accepting the relevance of the concept.
Although the question is controversial, the better view appears to be
that a rule of ius cogens can be derived from custom and possibly from
treaties, but probably not from other sources.190
Obligations erga omnes and ‘international crimes’

The problem of ius cogens is connected with the concept of erga omnes
obligations and the acceptance of the notion of ‘international crimes’ by the
International Law Commission in its project codifying state
responsibility.191 Under the international law of reprisals,192 the general
rule is that only the directly injured state is entitled to act against the violation of an
international obligation by another state. Obligations erga omnes are concerned
THE HIERARCHY OF THE SOURCES 59
193 See J.A.Frowein, Die

with the enforceability of norms of international law, the violation of
Verpflichtungen erga omnes im
which is deemed to be an offence not only against the state directly affected Völkerrecht und ihre Durchsetzung, in
by the breach, but also against all members of the international R. Bernhardt et al. (eds), Festschrift für
Hermann Mosler, 1983, 241 et seq.; P.
community.193
Malanczuk, Countermeasures and Self-
As noted above, the existence of norms which are ‘the concern of all Defence in the ILC’s Draft Articles on
states’ was recognized by the ICJ in the Barcelona Traction case in 1970. State Responsibility, in M.Spinedi/B.
But the decision also contains a remarkable reservation: ‘However, on Simma (eds), United Nations
the universal level, the instruments which embody human rights do not Codification of State Responsibility,
1987, 231 et seq.; A.J.J.de Hoogh, The
confer on States the capacity to protect the victims of infringements of Relationship between jus cogens,
such rights irrespective of their nationality.’194 Thus it offers little clarity Obligations erga omnes and
on the issue of possible reactions by third states to the violation of such International Crimes: Peremptory Norms
erga omnes obligations, the enforceability of which all states have a legal in Perspective, AJPIL 42 (1991), 183–
214; B.Simma, Does the UN Charter
interest in. Although the Court was confronted in a number of other
Provide an Adequate Legal Basis for
cases with erga omnes obligations, it has so far never addressed the legal Individual or Collective Responses to
consequences of the breach of such an obligation. This has been recently Violations of Obligations erga omnes?,
noted by Judge Weeramantry in his Dissenting Opinion in the East Timor in J.Delbrück (ed.), The Future of
case, in which for jurisdictional reasons the Court dismissed the claim International Law Enforcement: New
Scenarios—New Law?, 1993, 125 et
of Portugal against Australia for concluding an agreement with Indonesia seq.; C.Annacker, The Legal Regime of
affecting the rights of East Timor, but confirmed that the principle of Erga Omnes Obligations in International
self-determination was an obligation erga omnes: Law, AJPIL (1994), 131 et seq.; J.A.
Frowein, Reactions by Not Directly
Affected States to Breaches of Public
In the Court’s view, Portugal’s assertion that the right of peoples
International Law, RdC 248 (1994–IV),
to self-determination, as it evolved from the Charter and from 345–437; C.Annacker, Die
United Nations practice, has an erga omnes character, is Durchsetzung von erga omnes
irreproachable. The principle of self-determination of peoples Verpflichtungen vor dem Internationalen
has been recognized by the United Nations Charter and in the Gerichtshof, 1994; A.J.J.de Hoogh,
Obligations erga omnes and
jurisprudence of the Court…; it is one of the essential principles International Crimes: A Theoretical
of contemporary international law. However, the Court considers Inquiry into the Implementation and
that the erga omnes character of a norm and the rule of consent Enforcement of the International
to jurisdiction are two different things. Whatever the nature of Responsibility of States, 1996.
194 Barcelona Traction case, op. cit., at
the obligations invoked, the Court could not rule on the lawfulness 47, para. 91.
of the conduct of a State when its judgment would imply an 195 East Timor case (Portugal v.
evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of another State which Australia), judgment of 30 June 1995,
ICJ Rep. 1995, 90; ILM 34 (1995),
is not a party to the case. Where this is so, the Court cannot act, 1581–91, para. 29. See Chapters 18,
even if the right in question is a right erga omnes.195 286–7 and 19, 331–2 below.
196 See M.Spinedi, Les Crimes
internationaux de l’Etat dans les
With reference to the Barcelona Traction case, the International Law travaux Etats entrepris par les
Commission (ILC) in its draft on state responsibility has come up with a Nations Unies, 1984; R.Hofmann, Zur
problematic distinction concerning internationally wrongful acts that can Unterscheidung Verbrechen und
be committed by states: ‘international delicts’ and ‘international crimes’.196 Delikt im Bereich der
Staatenverantwortlichkeit, ZaöRV 45
Article 19 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility197 stipulates:
(1985), 195 et seq.; M.Mohr, The
ILC’s Distinction Between
1 An act of a State which constitutes a breach of an international ‘International Crimes’ and
obligation is an internationally wrongful act, regardless of the ‘International Delicts’ and Its
subject matter of the obligation breached. Implications, in Spinedi/Simma (eds),
1987, op. cit., 115; Malanczuk (1987),
2 An internationally wrongful act which results from the breach
op. cit., at 230 et seq.; J.H.H.Weiler/
by a State of an international obligation so essential for the A. Cassese/M.Spinedi (eds),
protection of fundamental interests of the international International Crimes of States. A
community that its breach is recognized as a crime by that Critical Analysis of the ILC’s Draft
community as a whole constitutes an international crime. Article 19 on State Responsibility,
3 Subject to paragraph 2, and on the basis of the rules of 1989; G.Gilbert, The Criminal
Responsibility of States, ICLQ 39
international law in force, an international crime may result, (1990), 345 et seq; de Hoogh, op. cit.
inter alia, from: On the ILC see text below, 61.
197 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 426. See (a) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential
198 See ILCYb 1976, Vol. 2, part 2, importance for the maintenance of international peace
120. and security, such as that prohibiting aggression;
199 See the criticism by B.Simma,
Bilateralism and Community Interest
(b) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential
in the Law of State Responsibility, in importance for safeguarding the right of self-
Y Dinstein/M.Tabory (eds), determination of peoples, such as that prohibiting the
International Law at a Time of
Perplexity, 1989, 821. In the ILC, Art. establishment or maintenance by force of colonial
19 and its legal consequences have domination;
remained up to now highly (c) a serious breach on a widespread scale of an
controversial, see ILC 48th Session,
Provisional Summary Record of the international obligation of essential importance for
2452nd Meeting, UN Doc. A/ CN.4/ safeguarding the human being, such as those prohibiting
SR. 2452, 22 July 1996. See
slavery, genocide and apartheid;
200 See Chapter 20 below, 353–63. (d) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential
201 S.Rosenne, Codification of importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the
International Law, EPIL I (1992),
632–40; M.Schröder, Codification human environment, such as those prohibiting massive
and Progressive Development of pollution of the atmosphere or of the seas.
International Law within the UN, in
Wolfrum UNLPP I, 100–9; A.Pellet,
La formation du droit international 4 Any international wrongful act which is not an international crime
dans le cadre des Nations Unies,
EJIL 6 (1995), 401–25; H.Torrone, in accordance with paragraph 2 constitutes an international delict.
L’Influence des conventions de
codification sur la coutume en droit
international public, 1989.
According to the ILC, while an international crime always constitutes the
202 See Chapter 2 above, 21–2 and violation of an ergo, omnes obligation, the breach of an ergo, omnes
Chapter 20 below, 344. obligation does not necessarily imply an international crime. The concept
204 See Chapter 12 below, 173–4, of ‘international crimes’, therefore, is narrower than the notion of ius
176–82. cogens. 198 The precise implications of Article 19 in terms of legal
206 See Chapter 12 below, 173. consequences remain to be seen when the work of the Commission should
207 See Chapter 8 below, 123–7. reach a more definite stage.199 Only two remarks may be added here. First,
209 See Chapter 11 below, 161–2. the terminology is unfortunate because it tends to confuse the international
criminal responsibility of individuals200 with the criminal responsibility of
states, which, as such, does not exist in international law. Second, the
prohibition of the massive pollution of the environment has not been
accepted by state practice even as a ius cogens norm.
Codification of international law
Since the end of the nineteenth century there have been public and private
attempts to codify customary international law in order to clarify the existing
rules and to improve them.201 The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
dealt with the laws of war and neutrality,202 the 1930 Codification
Conference in The Hague under the League of Nations addressed the law
of nationality,203 territorial waters,204 and state responsibility.205 But it was
largely unsuccessful; agreement was possible only on the law of nationality.
In recent years there has been a stronger tendency to codify customary law.
Four conventions on the law of the sea were signed at Geneva in 1958;206 a
convention on diplomatic relations and immunities207 was signed at Vienna
in 1961; a convention on consular relations and immunities was signed at
Vienna in 1963; conventions on the law of treaties were signed at Vienna in
1969 and 1986;208 and conventions on state succession were signed at Vienna
in 1978 and 1983. 209 A major enterprise in multilateral conference
diplomacy has been the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention which took ten
CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 61

years of protracted negotiations to adopt and more than another ten 211 See Chapter 12 below, 178–80.
years to enter into force.210 212 See S.Goswami, Politics in Law
Making: A Study of the International Law
There are obvious advantages to be gained from codifying customary Commission of the UN, 1986; I. Sinclair,
law in a treaty. The rules become more precise and more accessible; and The International Law Commission,
1987; S.Vallat, International Law
new states are more willing to accept rules which they themselves have Commission, EPIL II (1995), 1208–16.
helped to draft. But, in view of the divergences between the practice of 213 See S.Sucharitkul, The Role of the
International Law Commission in the
different states, codification often means that a compromise is necessary, Decade of International Law, LJIL 3
and there is a limit to the number of compromises that states are willing (1990), 15–42; B.Graefrath, The
International Law Commission
to accept at any one time. Consequently, codification will succeed only Tomorrow: Improving Its Organization
if it proceeds slowly; acceleration produces the risk of failure, as happened and Methods of Work, AJIL 85 (1991),
595–612; R.Ago, Some New Thoughts
at the codification conference organized by the League of Nations in on the Codification of International Law,
1930, and the failure of a codification scheme may cast doubt on in E.G.Bello/B.A.Ajibola (eds), Essays in
Honour of Judge Taslim Elias, 1992,
customary rules which were previously well established. (This is what 36–61.
happened to the three-mile rule concerning the width of the territorial 214 See M.Brus, Third Party Dispute
Settlement in an interdependent World,
sea after the failure of the 1930 conference.211) 1995, 159–63.
The preparatory work for the Geneva and Vienna conventions was 215 See Chapter 20 below, 360–1.
carried out by the International Law Commission (ILC), established in
1947 by the United Nations.212 It is a body of thirty-four (originally
fifteen) international lawyers elected by the United Nations General
Assembly for a five-year term. The members of the ILC, who serve in
their individual capacity, are supposed to represent the world’s principal
legal systems. The ILC is entrusted not only with the codification of
international law, but also with its progressive development (that is, the
drafting of rules on topics where customary law is non-existent or
insufficiently developed); in practice the distinction between codification
and progressive development is often blurred. Special rapporteurs are
assigned to propose work programmes and draft articles chosen by the
Commission itself or referred to it by the General Assembly.
Sometimes the Commission seeks to codify the law, not by preparing a
draft convention, which may be later incorporated into a binding
multilateral agreement, but simply by summarizing the law in a report to
the General Assembly. Such reports are not binding in the same way as
treaties, but they do constitute valuable evidence of customary law; the
Commission’s members base their work on extensive research and on an
attempt to ascertain and reconcile the views of the member states of the
United Nations (for example, by circulating questionnaires and by inviting
states to comment on their draft reports—the same procedure is followed
during the preliminary work on draft conventions). The effectiveness of
the work of the ILC has more recently been called into question by some
of its own distinguished members,213 and with regard to the new topics
under consideration its working methods may require adjustment to meet
acceptance of drafts it produces by the majority of states.214 However, it is
notable that the ILC managed to respond to the request of the General
Assembly and complete its draft on the Statute for an International Criminal
Court within the short period of 1992 to 1994.215
Unofficial bodies have also tried their hand at codification. For instance,
Harvard Law School has produced a number of draft conventions;
these are not intended to be ratified by states, but are simply used as
216 See Chapter 2 above, 22.

a convenient means of restating the law. They derive their value from the
eminence of the professors who have helped to draw them up. Finally, the
private organizations of the Institute of International Law and of the
International Law Association, both founded in 1873, should be
mentioned.216
4 International law and
municipal law
‘Municipal law’ is the technical name given by international lawyers to 1 See Harris CMIL, 69–101; L.Ferrari-
the national or internal law of a state. The question of the relationship Bravo, International Law and Municipal
Law: The Complementarity of Legal
between international law and municipal law can give rise to many
Systems, in R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M.
practical problems, especially if there is a conflict between the two.1 Johnston (eds), The Structure and
Which rule prevails in the case of conflict? How do rules of international Process of International Law, 1983,
715–44; G.Pau, Le droit interne dans
law take effect in the internal law of states?
l’ordre international, 1985; G.I.Tunkin/
R.Wolfrum (eds), International Law
and Municipal Law, 1988;
M.Fitzmaurice/C. Flintermann (eds),
Dualist and monist theories
L.Erades, Interactions Between
International and Municipal Law: A
There are two basic theories, with a number of variations in the Comparative Case Law Study, 1993;
B.Conforti, International Law and the
literature, on the relationship between international and domestic law.
Role of Domestic Legal Systems,
The first doctrine is called the dualist (or pluralist) view, and assumes 1993; C.Economides, The
that international law and municipal law are two separate legal Relationship between International
and Domestic Law, 1993; E.Benevisti,
systems which exist independently of each other. The central question
Judicial Misgivings Regarding the
then is whether one system is superior to the other. The second Application of International Law: An
doctrine, called the monist view, has a unitary perception of the ‘law’ Analysis of Attitudes of National
Courts, EJIL 4 (1993), 159–83;
and understands both international and municipal law as forming
Y.Iwasawa, The Relationship Between
part of one and the same legal order. The most radical version of the International Law and National Law:
monist approach was formulated by Kelsen.2 In his view, the ultimate Japanese Experiences, BYIL 64
(1993), 333–9; E. Benvenisti, Judges
source of the validity of all law derived from a basic rule
and Foreign Affairs: A Comment on the
(‘Grundnorm’) of international law. Kelsen’s theory led to the Institut de Droit International’s
conclusion that all rules of international law were supreme over Resolution on ‘The Activities of
National Courts and the International
municipal law, that a municipal law inconsistent with international
Relations of Their State’, EJIL 5
law was automatically null and void and that rules of international (1994), 423–39; P. Chandrasekhara
law were directly applicable in the domestic sphere of states. Rao, The Indian Constitution and
International Law, 1994; K.J.Partsch,
In reality, the opposing schools of dualism and monism did not
International Law and Municipal Law,
adequately reflect actual state practice and were thus forced to modify EPIL II (1995), 1185–202; P.Rambaud,
their original positions in many respects, bringing them closer to each International Law and Municipal Law:
Conflicts and Their Review by Third
other, without, however, producing a conclusive answer on the true
States, ibid., 1202–6; C.Schreuer,
relationship between international law and municipal law. As a rule of International Law and Municipal Law:
thumb, it may be said that the ideological background to dualist doctrines Law and Decisions of International
Organizations and Courts, ibid., 1228–
is strongly coloured by an adherence to positivism and an emphasis on
33; W.Czaplinski, International Law
the theory of sovereignty, while monist schools are more inclined to and Polish Municipal Law. A Case
follow natural law thinking and liberal ideas of a world society.3 Study, Hague YIL 8 (1995), 31–46;
J.J.Paust, International Law as Law of
It is also notable that the controversy was predominantly conducted
the United States, 1996; P.M.
among authors from civil law countries.4 Authors with a common law Eisemann (ed.), The Integration of
background tended to pay lesser attention to these theoretical issues and International and European
Community Law into the National
preferred a more empirical approach seeking practical solutions in a given
Legal Order, 1996.
64 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUNICIPAL LAW
2 See H.Kelsen, Die Einheit von

Völkerrecht und staatlichem Recht,
case. Lecturing at the Hague Academy of International Law in 1957,
ZaöRV 41 (1958), 234–48; Kelsen, Fitzmaurice considered that
Principles of International Law, 2nd
edn 1966 (Tucker ed.), 553–88.
3 On positivism and natural law the entire monist-dualist controversy is unreal, artificial and strictly
theory see Chapter 2 above, 15–17,
32.
beside the point, because it assumes something that has to exist
4 On the variety of legal systems in for there to be any controversy at all—and which in fact does not
the world see Chapter 1 above, 6.
5 G.Fitzmaurice, The General
exist—namely a common field in which the two legal orders under
Principles of International Law discussion both simultaneously have their spheres of activity.5
Considered from the Standpoint of
the Rule of Law, RdC 92 (1957–II),
1, at 71. It is more useful to leave this dogmatic dispute aside here and to turn to the
general attitude of international law to municipal law and then briefly
8 PCIJ, series A/B, no. 46, 167. See describe the various approaches taken by national legal systems towards
L. Weber, Free Zones of Upper
Savoy and Gex Case, EPIL II
international law in practice.
(1995), 483–4.
9 Text in ILM 8 (1969), 679; AJIL 63
(1969), 875; Brownlie BDIL, 388, at
400. See Chapter 9 below, 131. The attitude of international law to municipal law
International law does not entirely ignore municipal law. For instance, as
we have seen, municipal law may be used as evidence of international custom
or of general principles of law, which are both sources of international
law.6 Moreover, international law leaves certain questions to be decided by
municipal law; thus, in order to determine whether an individual is a national
of state X, international law normally looks first at the law of state X,
provided that the law of state X is not wholly unreasonable.7
However, the general rule of international law is that a state cannot
plead a rule of or a gap in its own municipal law as a defence to a claim
based on international law. Thus, in the Free Zones case, the Permanent
Court of International Justice said: ‘It is certain that France cannot rely
on her own legislation to limit the scope of her international obligations.’8
This is particularly true when, as often happens, a treaty or other rule of
international law imposes an obligation on states to enact a particular
rule as part of their own municipal law. A similar rule can be found in
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:9 ‘A party
may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its
failure to perform a treaty.’
In other words, all that international law says is that states cannot
invoke their internal laws and procedures as a justification for not
complying with their international obligations. States are required to
perform their international obligations in good faith, but they are at liberty
to decide on the modalities of such performance within their domestic
legal systems. Similarly, there is a general duty for states to bring domestic
law into conformity with obligations under international law. But
international law leaves the method of achieving this result (described in
the literature by varying concepts of ‘incorporation’, ‘adoption’,
‘transformation’ or ‘reception’) to the domestic jurisdiction of states. They
are free to decide how best to translate their international obligations
into internal law and to determine which legal status these have
domestically. On this issue, in practice there is a lack of uniformity in the
different national legal systems.
THE ATTITUDE OF NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEMS TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 65
10 See A.Cassese, Modern

The attitude of national legal systems to international law Constitutions and International Law,
RdC 192 (1985–III), 331 et seq.
11 See F.Caportorti, European
The attitude of municipal law to international law is much less easy to Communities: Community Law and
summarize than the attitude of international law to municipal law. For Municipal Law, EPIL II (1995), 165–70.
one thing, the laws of different countries vary greatly in this respect. If See Chapter 6 below, 95–6.
12 See, for example, F.G.Jacobs/S.
one examines constitutional texts, especially those of developing countries Roberts (eds), The Effect of Treaties in
which are usually keen on emphasizing their sovereignty, the finding is Domestic Law (UK National Committee
of Comparative Law), 1987; M.Duffy,
that most states do not give primacy to international law over their own Practical Problems of Giving Effect to
municipal law.10 However, this does not necessarily mean that most states Treaty Obligations—The Cost of
Consent, AYIL 12 (1988/9), 16–21;
would disregard international law altogether. Constitutional texts can W.K.Hastings, New Zealand Treaty
form a starting point for analysis. What also matters is internal legislation, Practice with Particular Reference to the
Treaty of Waitangi, ICLQ 38 (1989), 668
the attitude of the national courts and administrative practice, which is et seq.; R.Heuser, Der Abschluß
often ambiguous and inconsistent. The prevailing approach in practice völkerrechtlicher Verträge im
appears to be dualist, regarding international law and internal law as chinesischen Recht, ZaöRV 51 (1991),
938–48; Zh. Li, Effect of Treaties in
different systems requiring the incorporation of international rules on Domestic Law: Practice of the People’s
the national level. Thus, the effectiveness of international law generally Republic of China, Dalhouse LJ 16
(1993), 62–97; Interim Report of the
depends on the criteria adopted by national legal systems. National Committee on International
The most important questions of the attitude of national legal systems Law in Municipal Courts [Japan], Jap.
Ann. IL 36 (1993), 100–62; T.H.Strom/
to international law concern the status of international treaties and of P.Finkle, Treaty Implementation: The
international customary law, including general principles of international Canadian Game Needs Australian
Rules, Ottawa LR 25 (1993), 39–60; G.
law. The analysis of municipal law in relation to the European Buchs, Die unmittelbare Anwendbarkeit
Community is a special area beyond the scope of the following.11 völkerrechtlicher Vertragsbestimmungen
am Beispiel der Rechtsprechung der
Gerichte Deutschlands, Österreichs, der
Schweiz und der Vereinigten Staaten
Treaties von Amerika, 1993; K.S.Sik, The
Indonesian Law of Treaties 1945–1990,
The status of treaties in national legal systems varies considerably.12 In the 1994; C.Lysaght, The Status of
United Kingdom, for example, the power to make or ratify treaties belongs International Agreements in Irish
Domestic Law, ILT 12 (1994), 171–3;
to the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, a Minister of the Crown, M.Leigh/M.R.Blakeslee (eds), National
an Ambassador or other officials, though by the so-called Ponsonby Rule, Treaty Law and Practice, 1995; P.
Alston/M.Chiam (eds), Treaty-Making
as a matter of constitutional convention, the Executive will not normally and Australia: Globalisation versus
ratify a treaty until twenty-one parliamentary days after the treaty has Sovereignty, 1995.
13 See Lord McNair, The Law of
been laid before both Houses of Parliament. Consequently, a treaty does Treaties, 1961, 89–91, and Porter v.
not automatically become part of English law; otherwise the Queen could Freudenberg, [1915] 1 KB 857, 874–80.
14 Inland Revenue Commissioners v.
alter English law without the consent of Parliament, which would be Collco Dealings Ltd, [1962] AC 1. Would
contrary to the basic principle of English constitutional law that Parliament English courts apply subsequent Acts of
Parliament which conflicted with the
has a monopoly of legislative power. There is an exception concerning European Communities Act 1972? See
treaties regulating the conduct of warfare13 which is probably connected E.C.S.Wade/W.Bradley, Constitutional
with the rule of English constitutional law which gives the Queen, acting and Administrative Law, 10th edn 1985,
136–8.
on the advice of her ministers, the power to declare war without the consent
of Parliament. If a treaty requires changes in English law, it is necessary to
pass an Act of Parliament in order to bring English law into conformity
with the treaty. If the Act is not passed, the treaty is still binding on the
United Kingdom from the international point of view, and the United
Kingdom will be responsible for not complying with the treaty.
An Act of Parliament giving effect to a treaty in English law can be
repealed by a subsequent Act of Parliament; in these circumstances there
is a conflict between international law and English law, since international
law regards the United Kingdom as still bound by the treaty, but English
courts cannot give effect to the treaty.14 However, English courts usually
15 Inland Revenue Commissioners

v. Collco Dealings Ltd, [1962] AC 1
try to interpret Acts of Parliament so that they do not conflict with earlier
(obiter). This rule is not limited to treaties made by the United Kingdom.15
treaties which have been given
effect in English law by previous
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there is a very clear difference
Acts of Parliament. See between the effects of a treaty in international law and the effects of a
R.v.Secretary of State for Home
Affairs, ex p. Bhajan Singh, [1975] 2
treaty in municipal law; a treaty becomes effective in international law when
All ER 1081; R.v.Chief Immigration it is ratified by the Queen, but it usually has no effect in municipal law until
Officer, Heathrow Airport, ex p.
Salamat Bibi, [1976] 3 All ER 843,
an Act of Parliament is passed to give effect to it. In other countries this
847; and Pan-American World distinction tends to be blurred. Most other common law countries, except
Airways Inc. v. Department of Trade
(1975), ILR, Vol. 60, 431, at 439.
the United States, as will be discussed below, follow the English tradition
See also P.J.Duffy, English Law and and strictly deny any direct internal effect of international treaties without
the European Convention on
Human Rights, ICLQ 29 (1980),
legislative enactment. This is the case, for example, in Canada and India.16
585–618; A.J.Cunningham, The The House of Lords recently reaffirmed this rule in 1989 in the International
European Convention on Human
Rights, Customary International Law
Tin case, in which Lord Oliver of Aylmerton noted:
and the Constitution, ICLQ 43
(1994), 537–67.
16 See M.W.Janis, An Introduction
as a matter of constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Royal
to International Law, 2nd edn 1993, Prerogative, whilst it embraces the making of treaties, does not
96.
17 Australia & New Zealand
extend to altering the law or conferring rights upon individuals or
Banking Group Ltd et al. v. Australia depriving individuals of rights which they enjoy in domestic law
et al., House of Lords, judgment of
26 October 1990, ILM 29 (1990),
without the intervention of Parliament. Treaties, as it is sometimes
671, at 694; see Chapter 6 below, expressed, are not self-executing. Quite simply, a treaty is not part
94. On the interpretation of treaties
see R. Gardiner, Treaty
of English law unless and until it has been incorporated into the law
Interpretation in the English Courts by legislation.17
Since Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines
(1980), ICLQ 44 (1995), 620–9.
18 For details, see Restatement In the vast majority of democratic countries outside the Commonwealth,
(Third), Vol. 1, part III, ch. 2, 40–69; the legislature, or part of the legislature, participates in the process of
Janis, op. cit., 85–94;
H.A.Blackmun, The Supreme Court ratification, so that ratification becomes a legislative act, and the treaty
and the Law of Nations, Yale LJ 104 becomes effective in international law and in municipal law simultaneously.
(1994), 39–49; A.M. Weisburd, State For instance, the Constitution of the United States provides that the President
Courts, Federal Courts and
International Cases, Yale JIL 20 ‘shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
(1995), 1–64. make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur’ (Article
19 U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, ILM 31
(1992), 902, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 119 L.
II (2)). Treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution automatically
edn 2d 441 (1992), at 453. See become part of the municipal law of the United States. However, this
Janis, op. cit., 91–2. In the end the statement needs some qualification.18 Under the US Constitution, treaties
case against the Mexican doctor
was dismissed by the federal trial of the Federal Government (as distinct from the states) are the ‘supreme
judge. See also B.Baker/V.Röbe, To Law of the Land’, like the Constitution itself and federal law (Article VI).
Abduct or To Extradite: Does a Cases arising under international treaties are within the judicial power of
Treaty Beg the Question? The
Alvarez-Machain Decision in U.S. the United States and thus, subject to certain limitations, within the
Domestic Law and International jurisdiction of the federal courts (Article III (2)). International agreements
Law, ZaöRV 53 (1993), 657–88;
D.C.Smith, Beyond Indeterminacy
remain subject to the Bill of Rights and other requirements of the US
and Self-Contradiction in Law: Constitution and cannot be implemented internally in violation of them. If
Transnational Abductions and Treaty the United States fails to carry out a treaty obligation because of its
Interpretation in U.S. v.
AlvarezMachain, EJIL 6 (1995), 1– unconstitutionality, it remains responsible for the violation of the treaty
31; M.J. Glennon, State-Sponsored under international law.
Abduction: A Comment on United
States v. AlvarezMachain, AJIL 86
A recent controversial decision of the US Supreme Court was given in
(1992), 746–56; M. Halberstam, In the Alvarez-Machain case. A Mexican doctor accused of torturing an
Defense of the Supreme Court
Decision in Alvarez-Machain, ibid.,
American narcotics agent was kidnapped in Mexico by US agents and
736–46; L.Henkin, Correspondence, brought to trial in the United States. The Court held that this action was
AJIL 87 (1993), 100–2.
not covered by the terms of the 1978 US-Mexico Extradition Treaty, because
its language and history would ‘not support the proposition that the
Treaty prohibits abductions outside of its terms’. 19 This awkward
20 The case law started in 1829 with

interpretation of the treaty by the majority of the Supreme Court shows Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision
a remarkable disrespect for international law and understandably in Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 US (2
Pet.) 253 (1829). See T.Buergenthal,
provoked a strong protest by the government of Mexico, which demanded Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing
that the treaty be renegotiated. Treaties in National and International
Law, RdC 235 (1992–IV), 303–400;
Another complicating aspect, particularly under United States law, is C.M.Vázquez, The Four Doctrines of
the distinction between ‘self-executing’ and ‘non-self-executing Self-Executing Treaties, AJIL 89 (1995),
agreements’.20 In essence, the distinction concerns the issue whether an 695–723 and the comment by M.
Dominik, AJIL 90 (1996) 441.
agreement, or certain provisions thereof, should be given legal effect 21 See Janis, op. cit., 92; L.Wildhaber,
without further implementing national legislation and is relevant when Executive Agreements, EPIL II (1995),
312–18.
a party seeks to rely on the agreement in a case before an American 22 See Partsch, op. cit., 1195.
court. Moreover, it is important to note that most United States treaties 23 Netherlands Constitution, Article 66,
as amended in 1956. See H.H.M.
are not concluded under Article II of the Constitution with the consent Sondaal, Some Features of Dutch
of the Senate, but are ‘statutory’ or ‘congressional-executive agreements’ Treaty Practice, NYIL 19 (1988), 179–
257; H. Schermers, Some Recent
signed by the President under ordinary legislation adopted by a majority Cases Delaying the Direct Effect of
of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are also International Treaties in Dutch Law,
treaties called ‘executive agreements’ which the President concludes alone 24 Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution
provides: The constitutionality of acts of
without the participation of Congress.21 Parliament and treaties shall not be
In the United States and in those countries following the legal traditions reviewed by the courts.’
of continental Europe, treaties enjoy the same status as national statutes.

This means that they generally derogate pre-existing legislation (the
principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori), but are overruled by statutes
enacted later. It is difficult, however, to generalize in this area in view of
considerable national modifications to this rule.
Some constitutions even make treaties superior to ordinary national
legislation and subordinate law, but rarely superior to constitutional
law as such. The operation of this rule in practice depends on who has
the authority to give effect to it. This may be reserved to the legislature,
a political body, excluding any review by the courts. In other cases, where
constitutional courts exist or where courts have the power of judicial
review of legislative action, the situation is often different. There are
also countries in which the authoritative interpretation of the meaning
of international treaties is a privilege of the executive branch, to secure
the control of the government over foreign affairs. To a certain extent
this is also the case in France with the result that the power of the French
courts is in effect curtailed to reject the validity of a national statute
because of a conflict with an international treaty. Thus, the view that
numerous countries following the model of the French legal system have
recognized the priority of treaties is at least open to doubt.22
In the Netherlands the situation is somewhat peculiar. The Dutch
Constitution of 1953, as revised in 1956, clearly provided that all
internal law, even constitutional law, must be disregarded if it is
incompatible with provisions of treaties or decisions of international
organizations that are binding on all persons.23 Although there is no
system of judicial review of legislative acts in the Netherlands,24 which
in this respect follows the tradition of the United Kingdom, Dutch
courts thus obtained the authority to overrule acts of Parliament, not
on grounds of unconstitutionality, but on the ground that they may
conflict with certain treaties or resolutions of international
organizations. However, there is a safeguard built into constitutional
procedures. The Dutch Parliament has to consent to treaties
25 Cassese, op. cit., at 411, views which conflict with the Constitution by a majority necessary for
the new text as ‘a step backwards’.
Dutch authors do not agree, see constitutional amendments. The new text of the 1983 Constitution retained
M.C.B. Burkens, The Complete this power of the courts in Article 94, but has given rise to some dispute as
Revision of the Dutch Constitution,
NILR (1982), 323 et seq.;
to whether it departs from the previous text as far as the relationship between
E.A.Alkema, Foreign Relations in international treaties and the Constitution is concerned.25 The unusual,
the 1983 Dutch Constitution, NILR ‘monist’ Dutch openness to the internal effect of international law, not only
(1984), 307, at 320 et seq.; see also
the study by E.W.Vierdag, Het in the case of treaties, may find some explanation in the fact that, as a small
nederlandse verdragenrecht, 1995. country with considerable global trading and investment interests, the
On recent developments see Netherlands places more emphasis on the rule of law in international
J.Klabbers, The New Dutch Law on
the Approval of Treaties, ICLQ 44 relations.
(1995), 629–42. The strictly ‘dualist’ tradition of the former socialist countries has been
26 See, e.g., Article 24 of the 1978
USSR Law of the Procedure for the
to require a specific national legislative act before treaty obligations could
Conclusion, Execution and be implemented and had to be respected by national authorities.26 Thus,
Denunciation of International their courts were not required to decide on conflicts between treaty norms
Treaties, ILM 17 (1978), 1115.
27 On the general lack (with the and municipal law, and international law could generally not be invoked
exception of the former German before them or administrative agencies, unless there was an express reference
Democratic Republic) of to it in domestic law.27
constitutional provisions or general
legislation on the effect of With the constitutional reforms in Eastern Europe there have been some
international law in the internal laws important changes. The new Russian Constitution of 1993, for example,
of the Comecon states, see K.
Skubizewski, Völkerrecht und
contains the following revolutionary clause (Article 15(4)):
Landesrecht: Regelungen und
Erfahrungen in Mittel- und The generally recognized principles and norms of international law
Osteuropa, in W.Fiedler/G.Ress
(eds), Verfassungsrecht und and the international treaties of the Russian Federation shall
Völkerrecht: Gedächtnisschrift für constitute part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the
Wilhelm Karl Geck, 1988, 777 Russian Federation establishes other rules than those stipulated
et seq.
28 G.M.Danilenko, The New by the law, the rules of the international treaty shall apply.28
Russian Constitution and
International Law, AJIL 88 (1994),
451–70. See also A. Kolodkin,
Although this clause is comparatively broad, because it includes not only
Russia and International Law: New treaties but also ‘generally recognized principles and norms of international
Approaches, RBDI 26 (1993), law’, it does not give priority to these sources over the Constitution itself.
552–7.
29 M.F.Brzezinski, Toward What this means in practice and what the role of the new Constitutional
‘Constitutionalism’ in Russia: The Court of the Russian Federation in this respect will be, remain to be seen.29
Russian Constitutional Court, ICLQ On 16 June 1995, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a
42 (1993), 673 et seq.
30 Text in ILM 34 (1995), 1370 with Federal Law on International Treaties30 which replaced the 1978 Law on
an Introductory Note by the Procedure for the Conclusion, Execution, and Denunciation of
W.E.Butler. See T. Beknazar, Das
neue Recht völkerrechtlicher
International Treaties of the former Soviet Union.31
Verträge in Russland, ZaöRV 56 Moreover, in a recent study of fifteen constitutions or draft constitutions
(1995), 406–26. of Central-Eastern European States, Eric Stein concludes that
31 1978 USSR Law, op. cit.
32 E.Stein, International Law in
Internal Law: Toward most incorporate treaties as an integral part of the internal order,
Internationalization of Central- and although this is not clear in all instances, treaties have the
Eastern European Constitutions?,
AJIL 88 (1994), 427– 50, at 447. status of ordinary legislation. In five (probably seven) instances
See also E.Stein, International Law treaties are made superior to both prior and subsequent national
and Internal Law in the New
Constitutions of Central-Eastern
legislation, while in three documents this exalted rank is reserved
Europe, in FS Bernhardt, 865–84; for human rights treaties only.32
V.S.Vereshchetin. New
Constitutions and the Old Problem
of the Relationship between In the end, the actual implementation of such provisions by the courts and
International Law and National Law, administration will matter more than lofty constitutional texts.
EJIL 7 (1996), 29–41.
Custom and general principles

There are some significant differences in the rules for the application of
customary international law and general principles in municipal law as
33 I.Brownlie, Principles of Public

compared with treaties. There is no problem of internal conflict between International Law, 4th edn 1990, 43 with
the executive branch and the legislative branch of government on the references.
34 25 ER 77. But see J.C.Collier, Is
conclusion of a treaty. Rules for the recognition of customary International Law Really Part of the Law
international law in the internal sphere are either laid down in advance of England?, ICLQ 38 (1989), 924–34.
35 Trendtex Trading Corporation v.
in the constitution or are gradually formulated by the national courts. A Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] QB 529,
procedure by which a legislature would have to transform customary 553–4.
36 See Akehurst, 6th edn of this book,
international law into municipal law would be impracticable, simply Chapter 4.
because it would require a regular review of all changes of norms and 37 Mortensen v. Peters (1906), 8 F.
(J.C.) 93. For an account of the
principles of international law, a task which no body can master for background and sequel to this case, see
legislative purposes. Custom is also less clear than treaties and has H.W.Briggs, The Law of Nations, 2nd
edn 1953, 52–7. The case is not
decreased in its significance as a source of international law. absolutely conclusive, because the
The differences between common law and civil law countries with Court doubted the scope of the relevant
regard to the incorporation of customary international law and general rule of customary international law.
38 Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes,
principles of international law into their domestic law are much less 12th edn 1969, 183–6; Halsbury’s Laws
pronounced than in the case of treaties. Even the practice of the United of England, 4th edn 1983, Vol. 44,
States, which is markedly different from other common law jurisdictions para. 908.
39 Chung Chi Cheung v. R., [1939] AC
as regards treaties, is rather similar to the prevailing principle in Great 160, 168; Trendtex Trading Corporation
Britain and the Commonwealth, namely v. Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] QB
529, 557.
that customary rules are to be considered part of the law of the

land and enforced as such, with the qualification that they are
incorporated only so far as is not inconsistent with Acts of
Parliament or prior judicial decisions of final authority.33
The traditional rule in Britain is that customary international law

automatically forms part of English and Scots law; this is known as the
doctrine of incorporation. Lord Chancellor Talbot said in Barbuit’s case
in 1735 that ‘the law of nations in its fullest extent is and forms part of
the law of England’.34 Strictly speaking, this statement is too wide, because
it is not true of treaties; but, as far as customary international law is
concerned, it was repeated and applied in a large number of cases between
1764 and 1861, and was reaffirmed by Lord Denning.35
However, it is possible to interpret some recent cases as discarding
the doctrine of incorporation in favour of the doctrine of transformation,
that is, the doctrine that rules of customary international law form part
of English law only in so far as they have been accepted by English Acts
of Parliament and judicial decisions.36 In short, the theory of English
law is in favour of the incorporation doctrine, but, since English courts
look to English judgments as the main evidence of customary
international law, practice approximates to the transformation theory.
Quite apart from the problem of ascertaining the content of customary
international law, there are a number of situations which constitute
exceptions to the general rule, and in which English courts cannot apply
customary international law. For example, if there is a conflict between
customary international law and an Act of Parliament, the Act of
Parliament prevails.37 However, where possible, English courts will
interpret Acts of Parliament so that they do not conflict with customary
international law. 38 Moreover, if there is a conflict between
customary international law and a binding judicial precedent laying
down a rule of English law, the judicial precedent prevails.39 But
English courts are probably free to depart from earlier judicial precedents
40 Trendtex Trading Corporation v.

Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] QB
laying down a rule of international law if international law has changed in
529, 554, 557, 576–9, rejecting the the meantime.40
contrary view in The Harmattan,
WLR 1 (1975), 1485, at 1493–5. For
The legal system in the United States shares the English common-law tradition
the relevance of the act of state in this respect and considers international law other than treaties as a part of
doctrine and of Foreign Office
certificates, see further Akehurst,
the common law itself. But US courts do not clearly distinguish between the
6th edn of this book, Chapter 4. various sources of international law, and their reasoning has been properly
41 See Janis, op. cit., 100;
F.L.Kirgis, Federal Statutes,
described as a ‘potpourri approach’.41 It seems that they are more inclined to
Executive Orders and ‘Self- apply international customary rules in cases of disputes between individuals
Executing Custom’, AJIL 81 (1987),
37–75; H.G.Maier, The Authoritative
and states than in such between states themselves. Sufficient state practice to
Sources of Customary International establish the existence of an international customary rule has been found, for
Law in the United States, Mich. JIL
10 (1989), 450; J.J.Paust,
example, to exempt coastal fishing vessels from seizure42 and to protect neutral
Customary International Law: Its ships in international waters from attack in the Falklands war.43 No such rule
Nature, Sources and Status as Law
of the United States, Mich. JIL 12
was found to require the United States to provide temporary asylum to all
(1990), 59–91. persons fleeing from foreign civil wars, because such state practice would only
42 Paquete Habana case, 175 US
677, 686–711 (1900).
reflect ‘understandable humanitarian concern’.44
43 Amerada Hess v. Argentine Conflicts between ‘international common law’ and US domestic law are
Republic, 830 F. 2d 421 (2d Cir.
1987).
very much dealt with on the same level as conflicts between international
44 Echeverria-Hernandez v. United treaties and national legislation. The US Supreme Court has the ultimate
States Immigration & Naturalization
Serv., 923 F. 2d 688, 692–3 (9th Cir.
authority in this respect, both with regard to federal courts and state courts.45
1991), vacated, 946 F. 2d 1481 (9th Whether ‘international common law’ in the United States has the same
Cir. 1991).
45 See Banco Nacional de Cuba v.
quality to override earlier municipal law, as in the case of treaties, is a
Sabbatino, 376 US 398, 425–6 matter of dispute.46 At any rate, US courts, like other national courts,
(1964).
46 See Janis, op. cit., 102.
generally attempt to avoid an interpretation of a legislative act which would
47 Cassese, op. cit., 383. bring it into conflict with the law of nations. However, this is often a matter
48 L.Wildhaber/S.Breitenmoser, The
Relationship between Customary
of national perception of what international law says.
International Law and Municipal Law With regard to Western European countries in the civil law tradition, there
in Western European Countries,
ZaöRV 48 (1988), 163–207, 204.
is some controversy on the evaluation of recent constitutional developments.
49 Ibid., 206. In a survey presented in 1985, Cassese saw a tendency, not only in developing
and socialist countries, but also in states such as France, Spain and the
Netherlands, to downgrade customary international law.47 This view has been
questioned by a more recent investigation of Western European constitutions
and state practice conducted by Wildhaber and Breitenmoser. Their
examination of Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, France, Portugal, Switzerland,
Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain concludes that
both the written and nonwritten constitutional law of Western

European countries recognize conventional and customary
international law as ‘part of the law of the land’, and that the practice
in states without an explicit provision concerning the relationship
between international law and municipal law is no different from
the practice in states with such a clause in their constitutions.48
The authors also show that most Western European countries give priority
to customary international law over conflicting rules of statutory domestic
law and that national courts tend to find harmonization between obligations
of international law and internal law by way of interpretation under the
principle of ‘friendliness to international law’.49 The main problem with
this analysis, however, is that its basis appears to be restricted to the
two central principles of pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be adhered
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 71
to) and good faith (on the part of states in performing their international 51 Danilenko, op. cit., 465.
obligations). It is more likely that considerable diversity will emerge with 52 Article 17, 1993 Russian
Constitution.
regard to an analysis of what national courts consider customary 53 See Danilenko, op. cit., 467.
international law or general principles in many other controversial areas. 54 See Chapter 8 below, 126–7.
The new states created in the process of decolonization generally mistrust
customary international law developed by their former colonial masters
and insist on the codification of new rules with their participation.50
Therefore, it is not surprising that their constitutions rarely expressly
recognize customary international law or general principles.
Similarly, the former socialist countries were not disposed to accept
general rules of international law not developed by themselves in internal
practice. The new Russian Constitution distinguishes between the effect
of treaties and ‘the generally recognized principles and norms of
international law’. Treaty rules, without differentiating between ‘self-
executing’ and ‘non-self-executing’ provisions, have a higher status than
contrary domestic laws, disregarding whether the treaty is earlier or later;
however, not above the federal Constitution itself51 The ‘generally
recognized principles and norms of international law’ do not enjoy the
same status, probably because they are not considered as specific enough.
With regard to human rights, the Constitution recognizes that they are
ensured ‘according to the generally recognized principles and norms of
international law’.52 But the practical meaning of this and other similar
provisions is, as yet, unclear.53
Conclusions
From what has been said above, it is clear that in many countries the law
will sometimes fail to reflect the correct rule of international law. But this
does not necessarily mean that these states will be breaking international
law. Very often the divergence between national law and international
law simply means that the respective state is unable to exercise rights
which international law entitles (but does not require) that state to exercise.
Even when a rule of municipal law is capable of resulting in a breach of
international law, it is the application of the rule, and not its mere existence,
which normally constitutes the breach of international law; consequently,
if the enforcement of the rule is left to the executive, which enforces it in
such a way that no breach of international law occurs, all is well. For
instance, there is no need to pass an Act of Parliament in order to exempt
foreign diplomats from customs duties;54 the government can achieve the
same result by simply instructing customs officers not to levy customs
duties on the belongings of foreign diplomats.
Public international law and private international law
Laws are different in different countries. If a judge in state X is trying a case

which has more connection with state Y than with state X, he is likely to
feel that the case should have been tried in state Y, or (since some judges are
reluctant to forgo the sense of self-importance which comes from trying
cases) that he himself should try the case in accordance with the law of
state Y.Feelings of this sort have produced a complicated set of rules in
55 See U.Drobnig, Private

International Law, EPIL 10 (1987),
almost every country, directing the courts when to exercise jurisdiction in
330–5; L.Collins (ed.), Dicey and cases involving a foreign element, when to apply foreign law in cases
Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 12th
edn 1993; E.F.Scoles/P. Hay,
involving a foreign element, and when to recognize or enforce the judgments
Conflict of Laws, 1992. of foreign courts. These rules are known as private international law, or the
57 I.Strenger, La Notion de lex
conflict of laws.55
mercatoria en droit du commerce The type of international law to which this book is mainly devoted is
international, RdC 227 (1991–II),
207– 355; T.E.Carbonneau, Lex
often called public international law, in order to distinguish it from private
Mercatoria and Arbitration, 1993. international law; the expression ‘international law’, used without any
58 But see P.D.Trooboff, The
Growing Interaction between Private
qualification, almost always means public international law, not private
and Public International Law, Hague international law. International law, as noted above,56 primarily governs
YIL 6 (1993), 107–14. See further
A.F.M. Maniruzzaman, Conflict of
the relationships between states, whereas in the nineteenth century private
Law Issues in International international law was thought of as regulating transborder relationships
Arbitration, AI 9 (1993), 371–403;
W.Meng, Extraterritorial Jurisdiktion
between individuals, in the sense of the old ‘law merchant’ (or lex
im öffentlichen Wirtschaftsrecht, mercatoria),57 the usages among traders. Similar names can mislead and the
1994.
59 See K.Lipstein, Recognition and
only true connection between public international law and private
Execution of Foreign Judgments international law is the transborder element of the facts being regulated.
and Arbitral Awards, EPIL 9 (1986),
322–6, with reference to bilateral
Although some authors have advocated the idea of ‘transnational law’
and multilateral treaties on the comprising both systems, in reality, there is no such thing. No legal order
matter; for the situation in the United
States see Restatement (Third), Vol.
exists above the various national legal systems to deal with transborder
1, Chapter 8, 591 et seq. interactions between individuals (as distinct from states). The problem is,
therefore, which of the various domestic laws should apply. States have
taken the attitude that cases involving a foreign element should not
necessarily be governed by their own law, the lex fori, and have adopted
special conflict rules which indicate the national law to be applied in such
cases. For example, if a Spanish court has to decide on the validity of a
contract concluded between a French company and an Italian merchant to
be performed in Madrid, it would have to apply the rules of Spanish private
international law to find the applicable law of contracts (French, Italian,
Spanish, or other national law, depending on the circumstances on the case).
These rules do not have an international nature and there are as many
systems of private international law as there are states.
There appears to be little connection between public international law
and the various municipal systems of private international law.58 Private
international law originated from a belief that in certain circumstances it
would be appropriate to apply foreign law or to let a foreign court decide
the case. The trouble is that each state has its own idea of what is appropriate.
For instance, English courts are very ready to enforce foreign judgments;
the courts in the Netherlands and several other countries seldom do so,
unless there is a treaty to that effect.59 The rules determining the jurisdiction
of a state’s own courts in civil cases involving a foreign element differ so
much that it is impossible to discern any common pattern. Even the rules
about the application of foreign law differ. For instance, before 1800 a
man’s ‘personal law’ (that is, the law governing legitimacy, capacity to marry
and other questions of family law) was the law of his religion in Muslim
countries, and the law of his domicile (permanent home) in Western
countries; one reason for this difference was that there was greater religious
tolerance in Muslim countries than in Christian countries. After 1800, in
Napoleon’s time, France went through an intensely nationalistic
phase, and decided that French law should be the personal law of all
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 73
60 J.N.Matson, The Common Law
French nationals; after some hesitation, French courts inferred from Abroad, ICLQ 42 (1993), 753 et seq.
this rule, by way of analogy, that everyone’s personal law should be his 61 See Chapter 3 above, 44–5.
national law, as distinct from the law of his domicile. The same thing 62 On comity see Chapters 1, 2 and 3
44 above.
happened in other continental countries at a slightly later date. England
adhered to the old rule of domicile, but a series of nineteenth-century
judicial decisions introduced a lot of artificiality and complexity into
the rules about acquisition and loss of domicile. The consequence is
extreme diversity between the rules of private international law in
different countries, with resulting hardship; for instance, if a Spanish
national domiciled in England gets an English divorce, it will be
recognized in most English-speaking countries, but not in most
continental countries. The significant thing, however, is that no country
protested when France and other countries started abandoning the old
rule of domicile; and it is submitted that the absence of protest constitutes
a tacit admission that states are free to alter their rules of private
international law at will.
Admittedly the differences between the rules of private international
law in different countries must not be exaggerated; there are rules which
are more or less the same in the vast majority of countries. An example
is the rule concerning transfers of property; the validity of the transfer
depends on the law in force at the place where the property was at the
time of the alleged transfer (lex situs or lex rei sitae). But this similarity
could be due to coincidence or to commercial convenience, rather than
to any rules of public international law. Similarity between the laws in
different countries does not necessarily reflect a rule of public
international law; for instance, the law of contract is much the same in
most English-speaking countries—simply because the original settlers in
most English-speaking countries came from England.60 In order to prove
that public international law requires states to incorporate a particular
rule in their municipal laws, it is not enough to show that rule does in
fact exist in their municipal laws; it is also necessary to show an opinio
iuris,61 a conviction that public international law requires states to
incorporate the rule in question in their municipal laws. This is what is
lacking. When judges apply the lex situs, or any rule of private
international law, they do not ask what the practice is in other countries,
or attempt to bring their decisions into line with it; nor do they suggest
that their actions are governed by any rule of public international law.
When a state departs from a generally accepted rule of private
international law, it is not denounced as a law-breaker by judges or
diplomats in other countries. English judges sometimes say that their
actions are dictated by ‘comity’. This is an unusual word, and gives the
impression of being a technical term; but it is unclear what, if anything,
English judges mean when they use it. Its literal meaning is ‘courtesy’,
and in this sense comity is regarded as something different from law of
any sort; rules of comity are customs which are normally followed but
which are not legally obligatory. At other times it is used as a synonym
for private international law; as a synonym for public international law;
or as a totally meaningless expression. It is a wonderful word to use
when one wants to blur the distinction between public and private
international law, or to avoid clarity of thought.62
It is therefore submitted that the rules of private international law do
63 See H.Kötz, Unification and

Harmonization of Laws, EPIL 10
not form part of public international law, or vice versa. However, it should
(1987), 513–18. be noted that states sometimes make treaties to unify their rules of private
64 See A.Dyer, Hague Conventions
on Private International Law, EPIL II
international law; and, when this happens, the content of private
(1995), 663–70; Dyer, Hague international law does come to be regulated by public international law.63
Conventions on Civil Procedure,
ibid., 658–63; T.M.C. Asser Instituut
The continuing work of the Hague Conference on Private International
(ed.), The Influence of the Hague Law, founded in 1893, has been important in this connection.64
Conference on Private International
Law, 1993; K.Lipstein, One Hundred
Years of Hague Conferences on
Private International Law, ICLQ 42
(1993), 553 et seq. On the status
(signatures and ratifications) of
Conventions adopted by the Hague
Conference, see ILM 35 (1996),
526. Furthermore, for the work of
UNCITRAL see G.Herrmann, United
Nations Commission on
International Trade Law, EPIL 5
(1983), 297–301.
5 States and governments
States 1 Harris CMIL, 102–26; J.Crawford, The

Criteria for Statehood in International
Law, BYIL 48 (1976–7), 93–182;
Since international law is primarily concerned with the rights and duties of J.A.Andrews, The Concept of Statehood
states, it is necessary to have a clear idea of what a state is, for the purposes and the Acquisition of Territory in the
Nineteenth Century, LQR 94 (1978),
of international law.1 The answer to this question is less simple than one 408–27; Crawford, The Creation of
might suppose. However, it should be noted that in practice, disputes tend States in International Law, 1979; 30–
86; H.Mosler, Subjects of International
to focus on factual issues rather than on the relevant legal criteria.2 Law, EPIL 7 (1984), 442–59;
The 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States J.A.Barberis, Los sujetos del derecho
internacional actual, 1984; K. Doehring,
provides in Article 1: State, EPIL 10 (1987), 423–8;
P.K.Menon, The Subjects of Modern
International Law, Hague YIL 3 (1990),
The State as a person of international law should possess the 30–86; N.L.Wallace-Bruce, Claims to
following qualifications: Statehood in International Law, 1994;
S.Magiera, Government, EPIL II (1995),
603–7. On state sovereignty see the
(a) a permanent population; literature in Chapter 2 above, 17–18.
(b) a defined territory; 2 I.Brownlie, Principles of Public
International law, 4th edn 1990, 72. On
(c) government; and the need for a simplified definition in
(d) capacity to enter into relations with other States.3 international law to be able to conform
to the principle of equality of states, see
Doehring, op. cit., 423–4.
The first three criteria (a)–(c) correspond to established international 3 165 LNTS 19.
4 G.Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 3rd
practice and to the so-called doctrine of the three elements (‘Drei- edn 1914, 396 et seq.
Elementen-Lehre’) formulated by the German writer Georg Jellinek at 5 M.N.Shaw, Territory in International
Law, NYIL 13 (1982), 61–91; S.Torres
the end of the nineteenth century.4 They will be considered first before Bernardez, Territorial Sovereignty, EPIL
discussing suggestions for additional criteria. 10 (1987), 487–94; C.K.Rozakis,
Territorial Integrity and Political
Independence, ibid., 481–7. On the
Defined territory acquisition of territory see Chapter 10
below, 147–8.
The control of territory is the essence of a state.5 This is the basis of the
central notion of ‘territorial sovereignty’, establishing the exclusive
competence to take legal and factual measures within that territory and
prohibiting foreign governments from exercising authority in the same
area without consent. A leading case in this connection is the Island of
Palmas case. The case concerned a dispute between the Netherlands and
the United States on sovereignty over an island about halfway between
the Philippines and the now Indonesian Nanusa Islands. The parties
referred the issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
Max Huber, the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice,
was appointed as the sole arbitrator. In his award of 4 April 1928 Judge
Huber noted on the concept of territorial sovereignty:
Territorial sovereignty…involves the exclusive right to

display the activities of a State. This right has as a corollary
a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights
of other States, in particular their right to integrity and
76 STATES AND GOVERNMENTS
6 Island of Palmas case, RIAA II inviolability in peace and war, together with the rights which each
829, at 839 (1928). See See also
P.C.Jessup, The Palmas Island State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory. Without manifesting
Arbitration, AJIL 22 (1928), 735–52; its territorial sovereignty in a manner corresponding to circumstances,
R.Lagoni, Palmas Island Arbitration,
EPIL 2 (1981), 223–4; Harris CMIL,
the State cannot fulfill this duty. Territorial sovereignty cannot limit
173–83. See also Chapters 7, 109– itself to its negative side, i.e. to excluding the activities of other States;
10 and 10, 148, 150, 156 below. for it serves to divide between the nations the space upon which
8 See Chapter 12 below, 178–80. human activities are employed, in order to assure them at all points
9 M.Bothe, Boundaries, EPIL I the minimum of protection of which international law is the guardian.6
(1992), 443–9.
10 See the articles by E.J.de
Aréchaga, T.Schweisfurth, It is important to note that the concept of territory is defined by geographical
I.Brownlie, W.Hummer, R.Khan, and areas separated by borderlines from other areas and united under a common
H.D. Treviranus/R.Hilger in EPIL I
(1992), 449 et seq.
legal system (e.g. Denmark and Greenland; France and Martinique, East
11 Judgment of 20 February 1969, and West Pakistan before the secession of Bangladesh in 1971). It includes
ICJ Rep. 1969, 3, at 33, para. 46. the air space above the land (although there is no agreement on the precise
On the cases see Chapters 3, 44,
46 above and 12 below, 193, 196. upper limit)7 and the earth beneath it, in theory, reaching to the centre of
12 See P.Malanczuk, Israel: Status, the globe. It also includes up to twelve miles of the territorial sea adjacent
Territory and Occupied Territories, to the coast.8
EPIL II (1995), 1468–508;
Malanczuk, Jerusalem, EPIL 12 Thus, the delimitation of state boundaries is of crucial importance.9 But
(1990), 184–95. On the Arab-Israeli absolute certainty about a state’s frontiers is not required; many states have
conflict see also Chapters 10, 153
and 22, 417, 422–3 and text below,
long-standing frontier disputes with their neighbours.10 In the North Sea
77. Continental Shelf cases, the International Court of Justice held:
13 Brownlie (1990), op. cit., 73.
14 See Restatement (Third), Vol. 1,
para. 201, at 73. The appurtenance of a given area, considered as an entity, in no
15 See D.Orlow, Of Nations Small: way governs the precise determination of its boundaries, any more
The Small State in International than uncertainty as to boundaries can affect territorial rights. There
Law, Temple ICLJ 9 (1995), 115–40;
J.Crawford, Islands as Sovereign is for instance no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully
Nations, ICLQ 38 (1989), 277 delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long
et seq. On the membership of mini-
states in the United Nations, see
periods they are not.11
Chapter 21 below, 370.
16 See H.F.Köck, Holy See, EPIL II What matters is that a state consistently controls a sufficiently identifiable
(1995), 866–9; K.Oellers-Frahm,
Grenzen hoheitlichen Handelns core of territory. Thus, Israel was soon clearly recognized as a state, in spite
zwischen der Republik Italian und of the unsettled status of its borders in the Arab-Israeli conflict.12
dem Vatikan, ZaöRV 47 (1987), 489
et seq. For a recent international
treaty concluded by the Holy See
establishing diplomatic relations with Population
a state see Holy See-Israel:
Fundamental Agreement of 30 The criterion of a ‘permanent population’ is connected with that of territory
December 1993, ILM 33 (1994), and constitutes the physical basis for the existence of a state.13 For this
153–9.
reason alone, Antarctica, for example, cannot be regarded as a state. On
the other hand, the fact that large numbers of nomads are moving in and
out of the country, as in the case of Somalia, is in itself no bar to statehood,
as long as there is a significant number of permanent inhabitants.14
The size of the population, as well as the size of territory, may be very
small. This raises the problem of so-called mini-states which have been
admitted as equal members to the United Nations.15 The Vatican City, the
government of which is the Holy See, the administrative centre of the Catholic
Church, is a special case. In spite of its small population, the Vatican (or the
Holy See) entertains diplomatic relations with many other states, has
concluded international agreements and joined international organizations
(but it is not a UN member). Many state functions, however, are actually
performed by Italy.16
Who belongs to the ‘permanent population’ of a state is determined by
the internal law on nationality, which international law leaves to the
STATES 77
discretion of states, except for a number of limited circumstances.17 Many 17 See Chapter 17 below, 263–6.
18 See Th. M.Franck, Clan and
states have a multinational composition as regards population. Thus, it Superclan: Loyalty, Identity and
would be absurd to legally require any ethnic, linguistic, historical, Community in Law and Practice, AJIL
90 (1996), 359–83.
cultural or religious homogeneity in the sense of the antiquated political 19 See Chapters 6, 105–8 and 19, 338–
concept of the nation-state.18 Issues connected with such factors again 41 below.
arise under the topic of self-determination and the rights of minorities 20 See Chapter 7 below, 110–11.
21 See Magiera, op. cit.
and indigenous peoples,19 but are not relevant as criteria to determine 22 LNOJ, Special Supp. No. 3 (1920), 3.
the existence of a state. A state exercises territorial jurisdiction over its 23 See J.Salmon, Declaration of the
inhabitants and personal jurisdiction over its nationals when abroad.20 State of Palestine, Palestine YIL 5
(1989), 48–82; F.Boyle, The Creation of
The essential aspect, therefore, is the common national legal system which the State of Palestine, EJIL 1 (1990),
governs individuals and diverse groups in a state. 301–6; J.Crawford, The Creation of the
State of Palestine: Too Much Too
Soon?, ibid., 307–13; Malanczuk (1995),
op. cit., at 1491–2.
Effective control by a government 24 For the documents see ILM 32
(1993), 1525 et seq.; ILM 34 (1995), 455
Effective control by a government over territory and population is the et seq.; see also E.Benevisti, The
third core element which combines the other two into a state for the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of
Principles: A Framework for Future
purposes of international law.21 There are two aspects following from this Settlement, EJIL 4 (1993), 542–54; R.
control by a government, one internal, the other external. Internally, the Shihadeh, Can the Declaration of
existence of a government implies the capacity to establish and maintain a Principles Bring About a ‘Just and
Lasting Peace’?, ibid., 555–63; A.
legal order in the sense of constitutional autonomy. Externally, it means Cassese, The Israel-PLO Agreement
the ability to act autonomously on the international level without being and Self-Determination, ibid., 555–63;
Y.Z.Blum, From Camp David to Oslo,
legally dependent on other states within the international legal order. Israel LR 28 (1994), 211 et seq.; F.A.M.
The mere existence of a government, however, in itself does not suffice, Alting v. Geusau, Breaking Away
if it does not have effective control. In 1920, the International Committee Towards Peace in the Middle East, LJIL
8 (1995), 81–101; E.Cotran/C.Mallat
of Jurists submitted its Report on the status of Finland and found that it (eds), The Arab-Israeli Accords: Legal
had not become a sovereign state in the legal sense Perspectives, 1996; P.Malanczuk, Some
Basic Aspects of the Agreements
Between Israel and the PLO from the
until a stable political organisation had been created, and until the Perspective of International Law, EJIL 7
public authorities had become strong enough to assert themselves 1996, 485–500.
throughout the territories of the State without the assistance of foreign
troops. It would appear that it was in May 1918, that the civil war
ended and that the foreign troops began to leave the country, so
that from that time onwards it was possible to re-establish order
and normal political and social life, little by little.22
Thus, the ‘State of Palestine’ declared in 1988 by Palestinian organizations

was not a state, due to lack of effective control over the claimed territory.23
However, the historic Israeli-Palestinian accord concluded on 14
September 1993 and the subsequent agreements may ultimately, if the
peace process is sustained, result in some form of Palestinian statehood,
although this issue is controversial between the parties and subject to
further negotiations.24
The requirement of effective control over territory is not always
strictly applied; a state does not cease to exist when it is temporarily
deprived of an effective government as a result of civil war or similar
upheavals. The long period of de facto partition of the Lebanon did
not hinder its continued legal appearance as a state. Nor did the
lack of a government in Somalia, which was described as a ‘unique
case’ in the resolution of the Security Council authorizing the United
Nations humanitarian intervention, 25 abolish the international
legal personality of the country as such. Even when all of its
territory is occupied by the enemy in wartime, the state continues
26 See Chapter 10 below, 151. See

also M.Rotter, Government-in-Exile,
to exist, provided that its allies continue the struggle against the enemy, as
EPIL II (1995), 607–11. in the case of the occupation of European states by Germany in the Second
27 See Chapter 10, 151–2 and text
below, 83–4.
World War.26 The allied occupation of Germany and Japan thereafter also
28 C.Haverland, Secession, EPIL did not terminate their statehood.27
10 (1987), 384.
29 See Crawford (1979), op. cit.,
The circumstance that the temporary ineffectiveness of a government
103–6, 247–68 and Chapter 19 does not immediately affect the legal existence of the state not only makes
below, 326–41.
it clear that it is necessary to distinguish between states and governments,
336–8. but also reflects the interest of the international system in stability and to
31 P.Malanczuk, American Civil
War, EPIL I (1992), 129–31.
avoid a premature change of the status quo, since the government may be
32 See M.Weller, The International able to restore its effectiveness. The other side of the same coin is that the
Response to the Dissolution of the
Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia,
requirement of government is strictly applied when part of the population
AJIL 86 (1992), 569–607; P.Radan, of a state tries to break away to form a new state. There is no rule of
Secessionist Self-Determination:
The Cases of Slovenia and Croatia,
international law which forbids secession from an existing state; nor is there
AJIA 48 (1994), 183–95. See also any rule which forbids the mother state from crushing the secessionary
Chapters 11, 167 and 22, 409–15
and text, 89–90 below.
movement, if it can. Whatever the outcome of the struggle, it will be accepted
33 On the theory of sovereignty, see as legal in the eyes of international law.28 These propositions (and some
Chapter 2 above, 17–18.
34 See Brownlie (1990), op. cit., 73–4.
others in the present chapter) may need modification when one side is acting
contrary to the principle of self-determination, but the principle of self-
determination has a limited scope, and the propositions remain true in most
cases.29 But, so long as the mother state is still struggling to crush the
secessionary movement, it cannot be said that the secessionary authorities
are strong enough to maintain control over their territory with any certainty
of permanence. Intervention by third states in support of the insurgents is
prohibited.30 Traditionally, therefore, states have refrained from recognizing
secessionary movements as independent states until their victory has been
assured; for instance, no country recognized the independence of the
southern states during the American civil war (1861– 5).31 In recent years,
however, states have used (or abused) recognition as a means of showing
support for one side or the other in civil wars of a secessionary character;
thus in 1968 a few states recognized Biafra as an independent state after the
tide of war had begun to turn against Biafra; recognition was intended as a
sign of sympathy. Particularly controversial in the context of the Yugoslavian
conflict has been the drive for early recognition of Slovenia and Croatia,
which Germany and Austria justified as being an attempt to contain the
civil war, but which was seen by other states as premature action which
actually stimulated it.32
The notion of effective government is interlinked with the idea of
independence, often termed ‘state sovereignty’,33 in the sense that such
government only exists if it is free from direct orders from and control by
other governments. Indeed, some authors require independence as an
additional criterion for statehood.34 In international law, however, the
distinction between independent and dependent states is based on external
appearances and not on the underlying political realities of the situation; as
long as a state appears to perform the functions which independent states
normally perform (sending and receiving ambassadors, signing treaties,
making and replying to international claims and so on), international law
treats the state as independent and does not investigate the possibility that
the state may be acting under the direction of another state. An independent
state becomes a dependent state only if it enters into a treaty or some
STATES 79
other legal commitment whereby it agrees to act under the direction of 35 See I.Jahn-Koch, Conflicts,
Afghanistan, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 176–
another state or to assign the management of most of its international 88. See Chapter 19 below, 322–3.
relations to another state. It may seem artificial to have described 36 But on new theories on the
requirements of democracy, see
Afghanistan, for instance, as an independent state, at the time when Chapter 2 above, 31.
everybody knew that Afghanistan was forced to follow Soviet policy on 37 See Chapter 2 above, 11–12.
all important questions;35 however, if international law tried to take all 38 See Chapter 19 below, 326–40.
39 On the UN sponsored intervention to
the political realities into account, it would be impossible to make a restore an elected government in Haiti,
clear distinction between dependent and independent states, because all see Chapter 22 below, 407–9.
states, even the strongest, are subject to varying degrees of pressure and 40 See also Akehurst, 6th edn of this
book, 53.
influence from other states. Therefore, although sometimes amounting 41 See Restatement (Third), Vol. 1,
to little more than a mere legal fiction, the vast majority of states are para. 201, Comment e, at 73.
considered to be ‘independent’ in this sense.
Moreover, it is important to note that, in principle, international law is
indifferent towards the nature of the internal political structure of states,
be it based on Western conceptions of democracy and the rule of law, the
supremacy of a Communist Party, Islamic perceptions of state and society,
monarchies or republics, or other forms of authoritarian or non-
authoritarian rule.36 The rule is crude and only demands that a government
must have established itself in fact. The legality or legitimacy of such an
establishment are not decisive for the criteria of a state. Although the
Holy Alliance in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars had sought a different
solution,37 revolutions and the overthrow of governments have become
accepted in international law; the only relevant question is whether they
are successful. The choice of a type of government belongs to the domestic
affairs of states and this freedom is an essential pre-condition for the
peaceful coexistence in a heterogeneous international society. Thus,
international law also does not generally inquire into the question whether
the population recognizes the legitimacy of the government in power. Nor
is it concerned with the actual form of government, democratic in one
sense or another or not so. Certain qualifications in this respect may arise
from the recognition of the principle of self-determination of peoples,38
but this is not pertinent to the question of whether or not a state exists.39
Capacity to enter into relations with other states

The last criterion (d) in the Montevideo Convention suggested by the
Latin American doctrine finds support in the literature40 but is not
generally accepted as necessary. Guinea-Bissau, for example, was
recognized in the 1970s by the United States and by Germany on the
basis of only the first three elements. The Restatement (Third) of the
American Law Institute, however, basically retains this criterion, although
with certain qualifications:
An entity is not a state unless it has competence, within its own

constitutional system, to conduct international relations with other
states, as well as the political, technical, and financial capabilities
to do so.41
In fact, even the Montevideo Convention suggests a different perspective

in Article 3:
The political existence of the State is independent of recognition

by the other States. Even before recognition the State has
42 Article 3, Montevideo
Convention.
the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its
43 See text below, 83–6. conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organise itself as
45 G.Hoffmann, Protectorates, EPIL
it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and
10 (1987), 336–9. to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise
47 See also M.N.Shaw, International
of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights
Law, 3rd edn 1991, 138. of other States according to international law.42
Although this statement is more directly relevant to the dispute on various
theories of the legal effect of recognition,43 it also implies that the existence
of a state does not primarily rest on its relations to other states and its own
foreign policy capacity.
There are several examples of dependent states, which have only a limited
capacity to enter into international relations and are usually mentioned as
a special category. For example, colonies in the process of becoming
independent44 often had a limited capacity to enter into international
relations. In practice, the formal grant of independence was usually preceded
by a period of training, during which the colonial power delegated certain
international functions to the colony, in order to give the local leaders
experience of international relations. Protectorates were another example.45
The basic feature of a protectorate is that it retains control over most of its
internal affairs, but agrees to let the protecting state exercise most of its
international functions as its agent. However, the exact relationship depends
on the terms of the instrument creating the relationship, and no general
rules can be laid down. Protectorates were generally a by-product of the
colonial period, and most of them have now become independent.
Trusteeships and ‘associated territories’ that were placed under the control
of the United Nations after the Second World War were also limited in their
capacity to conduct foreign relations.46
Self-determination and recognition as additional criteria

Some authors refer to other additional factors that may be relevant as criteria
for states, such as self-determination and recognition. These, however, are
not generally regarded as constitutive elements for a state and it is agreed
that what matters in essence is territorial effectiveness.47
For reasons which will be explained later,48 the better view appears to be
that recognition is usually no more than evidence that the three requirements
listed above are satisfied. In most cases the facts will be so clear that
recognition will not make any difference, but in borderline cases recognition
can have an important effect. For instance, recognition of very small states
such as Monaco and the Vatican City is important, because otherwise it
might be doubted whether the territory and population of such states were
large enough to make them states in the eyes of international law. Similar
considerations apply in the case of secessionary struggles; outright victory
for one side or the other will create a situation which international law
cannot ignore, and no amount of recognition or non-recognition will alter
the legal position; but in borderline cases such as Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)
between 1965 and 1979, where the mother state’s efforts to reassert control
are rather feeble, recognition or non-recognition by other states may have a
decisive effect on the legal position.49
GOVERNMENTS 81
50 For the international law aspects see

Federal states W.Rudolf, Federal States, EPIL II
(1995), 362–75; R.Dehousse,
Unions of states can take several forms, but one of the most important Fédéralisme et Relations
forms nowadays is the federal state (or federation), as exemplified, for Internationales, 1991.
51 For the situation in the United States
example, by the constitutional systems of the United States, Canada, see Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, para.
Australia, Switzerland and Germany.50 There is no uniform model of 202, Reporters’ Notes, 76.
52 J.B.Moore, A Digest of International
federal states, many of which are ‘federal’ in name only, due to effective Law, 1906, Vol. 6, 837–41. On state
centralization, but the basic feature of a federal state is that authority responsibility see Chapter 17 below,
over internal affairs is divided by the constitution between the federal 255–72.
53 See J.N.Hazard, Soviet Republics
authorities and the member states of the federation, while foreign affairs in International Law, EPIL 10 (1987),
are normally handled solely by the federal authorities.51 418–23.
54 See P.Malanczuk, European Affairs
International law is concerned only with states capable of carrying and the ‘Länder’ (States) of the Federal
on international relations; consequently the federal state is regarded as a Republic of Germany, CMLR 22 (1985),
237–72; D.Rauschning, The Authorities
state for the purposes of international law, but the member states of the of the German Länder in Foreign
federation are not. If a member state of the federation acts in a manner Relations, Hague YIL 2 (1989), 131–9;
A.Kleffner-Riedel, Die Mitwirkung der
which is incompatible with the international obligations of the federal Länder und Regionen im EU-Ministerrat,
state, it is the federal state which is regarded as responsible in international BayVBI. 126 (1995), 104–8.
55 Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, para.
law. For instance, when a mob lynched some Italian nationals in New 201, Reporters’ Notes, 76.
Orleans in 1891, the United States admitted liability and paid 56 R.Lane/P.Malanczuk,
compensation to Italy, even though the prevention and punishment of Verfassungskrise und Probleme des
Föderalismus in Kanada, Der Staat 20
the crime fell exclusively within the powers of the State of Louisiana, (1981), 539–70; on recent secessionist
and not within the powers of the federal authorities.52 tendencies see S.Dion, The Dynamic of
Secessions; Scenarios After a Pro-
Although the normal practice is for foreign affairs to be handled solely Separatist Vote in a Quebec
by the federal authorities, there are a few federal constitutions which Referendum, CJPS 28 (1995), 533–51;
give member states of the federation a limited capacity to enter into Ch. F.Doran, Will Canada Unravel?, FA
75 (1996), 97–109.
international relations. For instance, in 1944 the constitution of the 57 U.Beyerlin, Rechtsprobleme der
former USSR was amended so as to allow the Ukraine and Byelorussia lokalen grenzüberschreitenden
Zusammenarbeit, 1988; N.Levrat, Le
(two member states of the USSR) to become members of the United Droit applicable aux accords de
Nations alongside the USSR; the purpose and effect of this device was to cooperation transfrontière entre
give the USSR three votes instead of one.53 There has been no other collectivés publiques infra—étatiques,
1994.
comparable example of a member state of a federation exchanging
diplomats on this level. The representation of the German Bundesländer
on the European level in Brussels is of a different nature.54 The
constitution of the United States permits a constituent state to make
compacts or agreements with foreign powers—with certain minor
exceptions—only with the consent of Congress, but these are limited in
scope and content. It does not allow the exchange of ambassadors (only
commercial representatives) or to generally engage in relations with a
foreign government.55 In recent years the province of Quebec has signed
treaties on cultural questions with France and other French-speaking
countries, under powers reluctantly delegated by the federal authorities
of Canada. 56 In Europe, however, there have been interesting
developments of direct transfrontier cooperation between entities on
the local and regional level.57
Governments
A state cannot exist for long, or at least cannot come into existence, unless
it has a government. But the state must not be identified with its government;
the state’s international rights and obligations are not affected by a
58 RIAA I 369, 375. See H.Bülck,

Tinoco Concessions Arbitration,
change of government. Thus the post-war governments of West Germany
EPIL 2 (1981), 275–6. For further and Italy have paid compensation for the wrongs inflicted by the Nazi and
discussion of the Tinoco case, see
text below, 84, 88.
Fascist regimes. The same principle is also illustrated by the Tinoco case.58
59 On arbitration see Chapter 18 Tinoco, the dictator of Costa Rica, acting in the name of Costa Rica, granted
below, 293–8.
60 See Harris CMIL, 139–51; H.
concessions to British companies and printed banknotes, some of which
Lauterpacht, Recognition in were held by British companies. After his retirement, Costa Rica declared
International Law, 1947; I.Brownlie,
Recognition in Theory and Practice,
that the concessions and banknotes were invalid. The United Kingdom
in R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M.Johnston protested on behalf of the British companies, and the two states referred
International Law, 1983, 627–42;
the case to arbitration.59 The arbitrator held that Tinoco had been the
J.A. Frowein, Recognition, EPIL 10 effective ruler of Costa Rica, and that his acts were therefore binding on
(1987), 340–8; Frowein, Non-
Recognition, ibid, 314–6;
subsequent governments; the fact that his regime was unconstitutional under
C.Warbrick, Recognition of States, Costa Rican law, and that it had not been recognized by several states,
ICLQ 41 (1992), 473–82; Part 2,
ICLQ 42 (1993), 433–42; J.
including the United Kingdom, was dismissed as irrelevant.
Verhoeven, La Reconnaisssance
internationale: déclin ou
renouveau?, AFDI 39 (1993), 7–40;
P.K.Menon, The Law of Recognition Recognition of states and governments in international law
in International Law: Basic
Principles, 1994.
61 In other countries the legal Recognition is one of the most difficult topics in international law.60 It is a
effects of recognition are not the confusing mixture of politics, international law and municipal law. The
same as in Great Britain:
D.P.O’Connell, International Law,
legal and political elements cannot be disentangled; when granting or
2nd edn 1970, 172– 83. For the withholding recognition, states are influenced more by political than by
legal effects of recognition under legal considerations, but their acts do have legal consequences. What is not
English law, see Akehurst, 6th edn
of this book, 67–9. See also F.A. always realized, however, is that the legal effects of recognition in
Mann, The Judicial Recognition of international law are very different from the legal effects of recognition in
an Unrecognised State, ICLQ 39
(1990), 348 et seq. and text below, municipal law.61 Once this distinction is grasped, the whole topic of
86–8. recognition should become easier to understand; apparent conflicts between
62 On the relation between
international law and national law two sets of cases will be easily resolved when it is realized that one set is
see Chapter 4 above, 63–74. concerned with international law and the other with national law.62
64 E.H.Riedel, Recognition of
Another reason why recognition is a difficult subject is because it deals
Belligerency, EPIL 4 (1982), 167– with a wide variety of factual situations; in addition to recognition of states
71; Riedel, Recognition of and governments, there can also be recognition of territorial claims,63 the
Insurgency, ibid., 171–3. See also
Chapters 6, 104–5 and 19, 319–22, recognition of belligerency or of insurgents,64 the recognition of national
below. liberation movements, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization,65 or
65 See F.L.M.van de Craen,
Palestine Liberation Organization, the recognition of foreign legislative and administrative acts.66 In the present
EPIL 12 (1990), 278–82 and section of the book it is proposed, for purposes of simplicity, to concentrate
Chapters 6, 104–5 and 19, 336–8
below. on recognition of states and governments.
66 See W.Meng, Recognition of Today a clear distinction must be made between the recognition of a
Foreign and Legislative Acts, EPIL
10 (1987), 348–52; K.Lipstein, state and the recognition of a government. The recognition of a state
Recognition and Execution of acknowledges that the entity fulfils the criteria of statehood. The recognition
Foreign Judgments and Arbitral
Awards, EPIL 9 (1986), 322–6.
of a government implies that the regime in question is in effective control of
67 See Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, a state. The basic difference is that the recognition of a government
para. 202, 84–5. necessarily has the consequence of accepting the statehood of the entity
which the regime is governing, while the recognition of a state can be
accorded without also accepting that a particular regime is the government
of that state.67
Recognition of states
When a new state comes into existence, other states are confronted with
the problem of deciding whether or not to recognize the new state.
RECOGNITION OF STATES AND GOVERNMENTS 83
68 Frowein (1987), op. cit., 341.

Recognition means a willingness to deal with the new state as a member 69 Lauterpacht, op. cit., 47.
of the international community. The first example in history was the 70 See Chapter 2 above, 11–12.
recognition in 1648 by Spain of the United Netherlands, which had
declared their independence in 1581. Another well-known example is
the dispute between France and Britain on the status of the United States
when it declared its independence. At that time Britain took the view
that title to territory could never be established by revolution or war
without recognition by the former sovereign. It was the view of France,
however, which was based on the doctrine of effectiveness, that became
the accepted principle in the nineteenth century.68
Legal effects of recognition in international law

The question of the legal effects of recognition has given rise to a bitter
theoretical quarrel. According to the constitutive theory, advanced in
particular by Anzilottii and Kelsen, a state or government does not exist
for the purposes of international law until it is recognized; recognition
thus has a constitutive effect in the sense that it is a necessary condition
for the ‘constitution’ (that is, establishment or creation) of the state or
government concerned. Thus, an entity is not a state in international
law until it has secured its general recognition as such by other states.
The constitutive theory is opposed by the declaratory theory, according
to which recognition has no legal effects; the existence of a state or
government is a question of pure fact, and recognition is merely an
acknowledgment of the facts. If an entity satisfies the requirements of a
state objectively, it is a state with all international rights and duties and
other states are obliged to treat it as such. An intermediate position was
formulated by Lauterpacht who, on the basis of the constitutive theory,
argued that other states had an obligation to recognize an entity meeting
the criteria of a state.69
Historically, the constitutive theory has more to be said for it than
one might suppose. During the nineteenth century, international law
was often regarded as applying mainly between states with a European
civilization; other countries were admitted to the ‘club’ only if they were
‘elected’ by the other ‘members’ —and the ‘election’ took the form of
recognition. There were also occasions (for example, during the period
of the Holy Alliance, immediately after 1815) when some states tended
to treat revolutionary governments as outlaws, which were likewise
excluded from the ‘club’ until they were recognized.70
Even today, recognition can sometimes have a constitutive effect,
although state practice is not always consistent. If the establishment
of a state or government is a breach of international law, the state or
government is often regarded as having no legal existence until it is
recognized. For instance, for many years the Western powers refused
to recognize the existence of the German Democratic Republic (East
Germany), mainly because they considered that its establishment
by the Soviet Union was a breach of the Soviet Union’s obligations
under treaties made between the allies concerning the administration
of Germany after the Second World War. The recognition of the
German Democratic Republic by the Western powers in 1973
had a constitutive effect as far as the Western powers were
71 See G.Ress, Germany, Legal

Status After the Second World War,
concerned; recognition cured the illegality of the German Democratic
EPIL II (1995), 567–81; Republic’s origins, and converted it from a legal nullity into a state.71
T.Schweisfurth, Germany,
Occupation After the Second World
However, in most cases the establishment (even the violent establishment)
War, ibid., 582–90; T.Eitel, Germany, of a new state or government is not a breach of international law; there is
Federal Republic of, Treaties with
Socialist States (1970–4), ibid.,
no general rule of international law which forbids a group of people from
561–7; G.v.Well, Germany and the overthrowing the government of their state, or to break away and form a
United Nations, in Wolfrum UNLPP
I, 558–65. On the reunification of
new state, if they have the strength to do so.72 In such cases the existence of
Germany and the problems of state a state or government is simply a question of fact, and recognition and non-
succession see Chapter 11 below,
167–8.
recognition usually have no legal effects. For instance, in the Tinoco case,
72 See text above, 78 and Chapter Chief Justice Taft, the arbitrator, held that Tinoco’s regime was the
19 below, 326–40.
73 Tinoco case, op. cit.
government of Costa Rica because it was clearly in effective control of Costa
74 Ibid., at 381. Rica, and the fact that it had not been recognized by several states, including
75 See Frowein (1987), op. cit., 342;
Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, para.
the United Kingdom, made no difference. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Taft
202, Comment b, at 77–8, noting, indicated that recognition or non-recognition would have assumed greater
however, ‘As a practical matter,
however, an entity will fully enjoy the
importance if the effectiveness of Tinoco’s control over Costa Rica had
status and benefits of statehood only been less clear, because ‘recognition by other powers is an important
if a significant number of other
states consider it to be a state and
evidential factor in establishing proof of the existence of a government’.73
treat it as such, in bilateral relations Similarly, recognition can play an evidentiary role when it is uncertain
or by admitting it to major
international organizations.’
whether a body claiming to be a state fulfils the factual requirements of
76 Article 3, see text above, 79–80. statehood. Where the facts are clear, as in the Tinoco case, the evidential
77 On the OAS see Chapter 6
below, 95.
value of recognition or non-recognition is not strong enough to affect the
78 Frowein (1987), op. cit., 343. outcome; in such circumstances recognition is declaratory. But in borderline
cases, where the facts are unclear, the evidential value of recognition can
have a decisive effect; in such circumstances recognition is semi-constitutive.
On the other hand, recognition has little evidential value if the granting
or withholding of recognition by other nations is not based on an assessment
of the government’s control over the country:
when recognition vel non of a government is by such nations determined

by inquiry, not into its…governmental control, but into its illegitimacy or
irregularity of origin [as in the Tinoco case], their non-recognition loses
something of evidential weight on the issue with which those applying
the rules of international law are alone concerned.74
The prevailing view today is that recognition is declaratory and does not
create a state.75 This was already laid down in the Montevideo Convention
of 1933 on the Rights and Duties of States76 and has also been taken up in
Article 12 of the Charter of the Organization of American States:
The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by

other States. Even before being recognized, the State has the right
to defend its integrity and independence.77
It has been observed that the two theories are of little assistance in explaining
recognition or determining the position of non-recognized entities in practice,
and that the practical differences between them are not very significant.78
Under the declaratory theory, it is still in fact left to other states to
decide whether an entity satisfies the criteria of statehood. The
declaratory theory leaves unresolved the difficulty of who ultimately

determines whether an entity meets the objective test of statehood or 202, Reporters’ Notes, 80.
not. Granting formal recognition to another state is a unilateral act which 80 But see, in view of recent
developments, C.Simmler, Kehrt die
is in fact left to the political discretion of states, mostly to the executive Staatengemeinschaft zur Lehre von der
branches which national courts generally tend to follow.79 konstitutiven Anerkennung zurück?,
The relevance of the constitutive theory, on the other hand, has been Schr.-Reihe Dt. Gruppe AAA 9 (1994),
75–102.
diminished by the acceptance of the obligation of other states to treat an 81 See Chapters 10, 154–5 and 19,
entity with the elements of statehood as a state.80 The main reasons in 309–11 below.
82 Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 81.
state practice for delays in recognition have been, in particular, the 83 SC Res. 216 and 217 of 12 and 20
question whether the new state was viable, really independent from November 1965. Frowein (1987), op.
another state which had helped to create it, or established in violation of cit., at 342, notes that the lack of self-
determination by the whole population
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force.81 was seen as justifying non-recognition.
The viability of a new state is especially at issue in cases of secession See also Chapter 22 below, 393–5.
leading to a longer period of civil war. Premature recognition in such 84 See Chapter 22 below, 394.
85 SC Res. 402 (1976). See E.Klein,
cases may even constitute a violation of international law and of the South African Bantustan Policy, EPIL 10
rights of the mother country. Most states refused to recognize the secession (1987), 393–7.
86 SC Res. 541 (1983). See Chapter 22
of Biafra form Nigeria in 1967–70. On the other hand, in the below, 420–2.
decolonization process there were many examples of the recognition of 87 See Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 81–
a territory as a new state while the colonial power was still in military 2 with further references; and Chapter
19 below, 319–22.
control of it (e.g. Algeria, Guinea-Bissau).82 In the case of Rhodesia, 88 Frowein (1987), op. cit., 342 and
where a white minority government declared independence without the 347.
consent of the colonial power and backing of the whole population, the
United Nations Security Council called upon ‘all states not to recognize
this illegal act’.83 This was a mandatory decision taken under Chapter
VII of the Charter and binding upon all members of the UN under Article
25 of the Charter. The Smith regime remained unrecognized for a long
period until the state of Zimbabwe was established and accepted under
a majority government in 1979–80.
Examples of the perceived lack of independence of a new entity are
the non-recognition by other states of the pre-war puppet-state of
Manchukuo created by Japan, of Croatia established by Nazi Germany,
the long delay of Western states in recognizing East Germany due to the
influence of the USSR, and the refusal of the international community
to recognize the South African homelands declared to be sovereign states
by South Africa.84 In the cases of the independence of Transkei, declared
by South Africa,85 and of the independent state in northern Cyprus in
1983 by Turkish Cypriot authorities,86 the UN Security Council called
for non-recognition, which was generally followed by the international
community.
In most of the relatively few cases in which entities claiming statehood
have allegedly come into existence by an illegal threat or use of force by
another state, the dispute often cannot be resolved authoritatively. The
secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, supported by India’s armed
intervention, gave rise to different views on the legality of the intervention,
but states nevertheless generally recognized or treated Bangladesh as a
state, which was also admitted to the United Nations and the British
Commonwealth.87
It should be emphasized that non-recognition as a state by other states
does not imply that a de facto regime is entirely outside the realm of
international law. Many rules are applicable in spite of non-recognition,
such as the prohibition of the use of force.88 Although the United States,
which was in control of the unified command of the UN forces, refused to

recognize North Korea as a state—as well as the governments of China and
See J.Kokott, Pueblo Incident, EPIL North Korea—this was no bar to signing an armistice agreement ending
11 (1989), 268–71.
91 Frowein (1987), op. cit., 343. See
the Korean War in 1953.89 The non-recognition of North Korea was also
also Chapter 8 below, 123–4. no obstacle in the later Pueblo incident to the contention raised by the
92 See Harris CMIL, 151–72.
93 See Akehurst, 6th edn of this
United States that North Korea had violated international law by attacking
book, Chapter 5. See also the a US ship.90
Statement of Interest, dated 29
November 1995, of the US
Recognition of another state does not lead to any obligation to establish
Department of State in Meridian full diplomatic relations or any other specific links with that state.91 This
International Bank Ltd v. remains a matter of political discretion. Nor does the termination of
Government of Liberia which
declared that allowing the (second) diplomatic relations automatically lead to de-recognition.
Liberian National Transitional
Government (LNTG II) access to
American courts was consistent with
US foreign policy, M.Nash (Leich),
Legal effects in domestic law
AJIL 90 (1996), 263–5.
94 See text above, 82, 84. If state A recognizes state B, this usually entails that the courts of state A
will apply the law of state B and give effect to its sovereign acts.92 In the case
of non-recognition, national courts will not accept the right of the foreign
state or government to sue or claim other rights of a governmental nature,
but as regards private parties (for example, whether non-recognition extends
to the registration of births, deaths and marriages in the foreign state), the
situation varies to some extent, depending on the national framework.
Courts in Switzerland and Germany have always applied the effective
law governing a foreign territory even if it was not recognized as a state.
English and American courts originally had a tendency to completely
disregard the law and sovereign acts of a foreign state, unless it was
recognized by their governments. However, changes in the United States
and Britain then went in the direction that courts could apply the law of a
non-recognized entity if the executive confirmed that this was not harmful
to the foreign policies behind the non-recognition.93
Recognition of governments
International law allows states to exercise great discretion when granting
or withholding recognition, especially when a new government comes into
power in an existing state by violent means. Recognition is accorded to the
head of state, and so no problem of recognition arises when a revolution
does not affect the head of state (for example, the military coup in Greece
in April 1967, which overthrew the Prime Minister but not the King). Nor
does any problem of recognition arise when there is a constitutional change
in the head of state, for example, when a British monarch dies and is
succeeded by the eldest son, or when a new President of the United States is
elected. States have often used recognition as an instrument of policy; for
instance, the United States has often regarded recognition as a mark of
approval, and in President Wilson’s time it withheld recognition from Latin
American regimes which had come to power by unconstitutional means,
such as Tinoco’s regime in Costa Rica.94
A refusal to recognize is sometimes based on a belief that the new state
or government is not in effective control of the territory which it claims,
but a refusal to recognize can also be based on other factors; for instance,
the United States at one time refused to recognize foreign governments
simply because it disapproved of them; in the eyes of the United States,
95 M.Whiteman, Digest of International

recognition was a mark of approval. The United Kingdom, on the other Law, Vol. 2, 1963, at 85.
hand, usually recognized all governments which were in actual control of 96 J.A.Boyd, Digest of United States
Practice of International Law, 1977, 19.
their territory, without necessarily implying any approval of such 97 House of Lords Debates, Vol. 408,
governments. cols 1121–2, announcement made on
Because non-recognition of foreign governments has often been used as 28 April 1980.
a mark of disapproval, recognition of a foreign government has sometimes
been misinterpreted as implying approval, even in cases where no approval
was intended. In order to avoid such misinterpretations, some states have
adopted the policy of never recognizing governments (although they continue
to grant or withhold recognition to foreign states). This policy originated in
Mexico, where it is known as the Estrada Doctrine. In 1930, the Secretary
of Foreign Relations of Mexico declared that: ‘the Mexican Government is
issuing no declarations in the sense of grants of recognition, since that nation
considers that such course is an insulting practice.’95
This statement reflects the fact that the change of government in a
state is legally an internal matter, whether in conformity with the national
constitution or not, and does not concern international law or other
states. The same policy has been applied in recent years by several other
states, including France, Spain and the United States; in 1977 the
Department of State Bulletin noted that
in recent years US practice has been to deemphasize and avoid

the use of recognition in cases of changes of governments and
to concern ourselves [instead] with the question of whether we
wish to have diplomatic relations with the new governments.96
In 1980 the British Foreign Secretary announced that the United Kingdom
also would adopt this policy:
we have decided that we shall no longer accord recognition to

governments.
The British government recognise states…
Where an unconstitutional change of regime takes place in a
recognised state, governments of other states must necessarily
consider what dealings, if any, they should have with the new
regime, and whether and to what extent it qualifies to be treated
as the government of the state concerned. Many of our partners
and allies take the position that they do not recognise govern-
ments and that therefore no question of recognition arises in
such cases. By contrast, the policy of successive British gov-
ernments has been that we should make and announce a deci-
sion formally ‘recognising’ the new government.
This practice has sometimes been misunderstood, and, de-
spite explanations to the contrary, our ‘recognition’ interpreted
as implying approval. For example, in circumstances where there
may be legitimate public concern about the violation of human
rights by the new regime…it has not sufficed to say that an an-
nouncement of ‘recognition’ is simply a neutral formality.
We have therefore concluded that there are practical advan-
tages in following the policy of many other countries in not ac-
cording recognition to governments. Like them, we shall continue
to decide the nature of our dealings with regimes which come to
power unconstitutionally in the light of our assessment of whether
they are able…to exercise effective control of the territory of the
state concerned, and seem likely to continue to do so.97
98 The Foreign Secretary seems to

have adopted this interpretation in
At first sight the Estrada Doctrine appears to abolish the entire system of
his subsequent statement on 23 recognition of governments. In practice, however, it probably merely
May 1980. For a discussion of substitutes implied recognition for express recognition; recognition is not
British practice see Akehurst, 6th
edn of this book, Chapter 5 and announced expressly, but can be implied from the existence of diplomatic
M.Aristodemou, Choice and relations or other dealings with a foreign government.98 In fact, implied
Evasion in Judicial Recognition of
Governments: Lessons from recognition is a long accepted practice. However, recognition should only
Somalia, EJIL 5 (1994), 532–55; be deduced from acts which clearly show an intention to that effect. The
S.Talmon, Recognition of
Governments: An Analysis of the establishment of full diplomatic relations is probably the only one
New British Policy and Practice, unequivocal act from which full recognition can be inferred. All other forms
BYIL 63 (1992), 231–97, and the
literature cited above. On the
of contact do not necessarily imply recognition.99
practice in New Zealand, for Most states which have adopted the Estrada Doctrine in the past have
example, see S.Davidson, not applied it consistently; sooner or later they succumb to the temptation
Recognition of Foreign
Governments in New Zealand, of announcing recognition of a foreign government, in order to demonstrate
ICLQ 40 (1991), 162 et seq. their support for it, or in the hope of obtaining its goodwill.100
99 Frowein (1987), op. cit., 342. See
also J.A.Frowein, De facto Régime,
EPIL I (1992), 966–8.
100 Ch. Rousseau, Droit De jure and de facto recognition
international public, 1977, Vol. 3,
555–7. One of the most confused aspects of recognition is the distinction between
101 See also Chapters 10, 152 and
11, 165–6 below. de jure and de facto recognition. For a start, the expressions ‘de jure
102 See Chapter 10 below, 155. recognition’ and ‘de facto recognition’, although commonly used, are
103 See text above, 82, 84, 86.
technically incorrect; ‘de jure recognition’ really means recognition of a de
jure government; the words de jure or de facto describe the government, not
the act of recognition. The terminology implies that a de facto government
does not have the same legal basis as a de jure government. But it is difficult
to find any body of legal rules by which this legal basis can be determined.
The distinction between de jure and de facto recognition usually arises
in the case of governments. It is sometimes said that a state can be recognized
only de jure, but there are a few examples of states being recognized de
facto; for instance, Indonesia was recognized de facto by several states while
it was fighting for its independence against the Dutch in 1945–9. Similarly
there are a few examples of territorial claims being given only de facto
recognition; the United Kingdom, for example, granted only de facto
recognition to the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in
1940.101 De facto recognition of states and territorial claims is governed by
roughly the same rules, and gives rise to roughly the same problems, as de
facto recognition of governments. When recognition is granted by an express
statement, it should probably always be treated as de jure recognition, unless
the recognizing state announces that it is granting only de facto recognition.
When recognition is not express, but implied, there will often be uncertainty
as to the intentions of the recognizing state: did it intend to grant de jure
recognition, or did it intend to grant de facto recognition?
Whatever the basis for the distinction between de jure and de facto
recognition, the effects of the two types of recognition are much the same.
However, if a state or government has been established (or a territorial change
brought about) in violation of international law, it seems that only de jure
recognition can cure the illegality; de facto recognition is insufficient to cure
it.102 If, like Chief Justice Taft in the Tinoco case,103 one thinks of recognition as
having an evidential value, then presumably de jure recognition would have
greater evidential force than de facto recognition; but the difference is probably
not very great.
In reality, the distinction between de jure and de facto recognition 104 Frowein (1987), op. cit., 342.
105 Ibid., 345.
has always been a source of difficulty, and in practice in most cases 106 Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 80.
of the recognition of states it will not be qualified in either of these 107 See Frowein (1987), op. cit., 343–
4; 345–6; J.Dugard, Recognition and
terms.104 In the case of the recognition of governments the distinction the United Nations, 1987; V.Gowlland-
has also become obsolete.105 The Restatement (Third) thus avoids Debbas, Collective Responses to the
these uncertain terms.106 Unilateral Declarations of Independence
of Southern Rhodesia and Palestine: An
A separate matter altogether that has become more important since Application of the Legitimizing Function
1945 is the impact of the United Nations and other international of the United Nations, BYIL 61 (1990),
organizations on the recognition of states and governments.107 The 135 et seq. On membership in the UN,
see Chapter 21 below, 363–73.
developments in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and in former 108 See European Community:
Yugoslavia induced the European Community and its member states to Declaration on Yugoslavia and on the
Guidelines on the Recognition of New
adopt a common position on guidelines for the formal recognition of States, ILM 31 (1992), 1485–7; A. Pellet,
new states in these areas on 16 December 1991.108 These guidelines start The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration
from reaffirming the principles of the Helsinki Act of 1975109 and of the Committee. A Second Breath for the
Self-Determination of Peoples, EJIL 3
Charter of Paris of 1990,110 ‘in particular the principle of self- (1992), 178–85; L.S.Eastwood,
determination’.111 The Community and its member states Secession: State Practice and
International Law after the Dissolution of
the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, Duke
affirm their readiness to recognize, subject to the normal JCIL 3 (1993), 299–349, M.M. Kelly, The
standards of international practice and the political realities in Rights of Newly Emerging Democratic
States Prior to International Recognition
each case, those new states which, following the historic changes and the Serbo-Croatian Conflict, Temple
in the region, have constituted themselves on a democratic basis, ICLJ 23 (1993), 63– 88; R.Rich,
have accepted the appropriate international obligations and have Recognition of States: The Collapse of
Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, EJIL 4
committed themselves in good faith to a peaceful process and (1993), 36–65; D.Türk, Recognition of
to negotiations. States: A Comment, ibid., 66–71;
P.Hilpold, Die Anerkennung der
Neustaaten auf dem Balkan, AVR 31
Specific requirements laid down in the European Community guidelines (1993), 387–408; Weller, op. cit.;
for recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations are: Radan, op. cit.; S.Hille, Mutual
Recognition of Croatia and Serbia (&
Montenegro), EJIL 6 (1995), 598–610.
• respect for the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and See also text above, 78 and Chapters
the commitments subscribed to in the Final Act of Helsinki and in 11, 165–7 and 22, 409–15 below.
109 Text in ILM 14 (1975), 1292– 1325.
the Charter of Paris, especially with regard to the rule of law, See M.Coccia/K.Oellers-Frahm,
democracy and human rights; Helsinki Conference and Final Act on
• guarantees for the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities Security and Cooperation in Europe,
EPIL II (1995), 693–705. See also
in accordance with the commitments subscribed to in the framework Chapter 3 above, 54 and Chapter 6
of the CSCE; below, 94.
110 Charter of Paris for a New Europe,
• respect for the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed ILM 30 (1991), 190–228.
by peaceful means and by common agreement; 111 Guidelines on the Recognition of
• acceptance of all relevant commitments with regard to disarmament New States, op. cit., at 1487. On the
principle of self-determination, see
and nuclear non-proliferation as well as to security and regional Chapter 19 below, 326–40.
stability; 112 Ibid., at 1487.
• commitment to settle by agreement, including where appropriate by 113 See Chapter 10 below, 151–5.
recourse to arbitration, all questions concerning state succession and

regional disputes.112
Recognition of ‘entities which are the result of aggression’ is expressly

excluded and the ‘effects of recognition on neighbouring states’ are also to
be taken into account. While non-recognition of ‘entities which are the
result of aggression’ reflects the principle of not accepting the acquisition
of territory by the use of force,113 the meaning of the phrase that the
European Union also intended to take into account the ‘effects of
recognition on neighbouring states’ remains rather cryptic. At any rate,
these guidelines, as applied by the Badinter Arbitration Commission, served to
114 The Advisory Opinion No. 6 of

11 January 1992 of the Arbitration
determine the policy of European Union member states with regard to the
(Badinter) Commission of the recognition of the new states emerging from the break-up of former
European Community (Carrington)
Conference on Peace in Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia. Without entering into the complicated details of the recognition
concerning the status of Macedonia process on this basis, it should only be noted that, as far as the Serbian-
is in ILM 31 (1992), 1507.
115 See D.M.Poulakides,
controlled Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was concerned, in 1995 the
Macedonia: Far More Than a Name European Union made it one of the conditions for its recognition that all
to Greece, Hastings ICLR 18
(1995), 397–443.
successor states to former Yugoslavia had recognized each other.
116 UN Doc. GA 47/225. The case of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is instructive.
117 ILM 34 (1995), 1461
(Introductory Note by P.C.Szasz).
Macedonia had held a referendum on independence on 8 September 1991
118 ECJ Case No. C-120/94 R, and confirmed this on 17 November 1991.114 Greece was concerned about
Order of 29 June 1994.
119 FAZ of 18 April 1996, 1, 7. The
the name of the new state and the use of the Star of Vergina on the new
text of the Agreement between republic’s flag, because it feared possible claims to its own province of
Macedonia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia is in ILM 35
Macedonia.115 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was admitted to
(1996), 1246. On the normalization the UN on 8 April 1993, however, leaving the dispute over the proper name
of relations between Croatia and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia see
of the country undecided.116 Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of
ibid., 1219. Macedonia finally settled their dispute by an Interim Accord of 13 September
120 See Chapters 11, 167, 21, 372–
3 and 22, 409–15 below.
1995 and a Memorandum of 13 October 1995.117 Greece subsequently lifted
the embargo it had imposed upon Macedonia and the European Commission
withdrew the case it had filed with the European Court of Justice on 22 April
1994 challenging the legality of the embargo under Community law.118 On 8
April 1996, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Macedonia accorded
each other mutual recognition. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was
subsequently recognized first by France, then by Britain and other EU member
states, including by Germany on 17 April 1996.119 The difficult problems of
‘state succession’ in the case of former Yugoslavia will be dealt with in a
broader perspective in chapters below.120
6 International organizations,
individuals, companies and
groups
When lawyers say that an entity is a legal person, or that it is a subject 1 The Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, part
II, 70, dealing with ‘persons in
of the law (these two terms are interchangeable),1 they mean that it has international law’, however, rejects the
a capacity to enter into legal relations and to have legal rights and term ‘subjects’ because it may have
more limited implications meaning that
duties. In modern systems of municipal law all individuals have legal such entities have only rights and
personality, but in former times slaves had no legal personality; they duties, and not also, to varying extents,
legal status and personality under
were simply items of property.2 Companies also have legal personality, international law. See further Harris
but animals do not; although rules are made for the benefit of animals CMIL, 126–38; H.Mosler, Subjects of
International Law, EPIL 7 (1984), 442–
(for example, rules against cruelty to animals), these rules do not confer 59; J.A.Barberis, Los sujetos del
any rights on the animals. derecho international actual, 1984; P.K.
Menon, The Subjects of Modern
In the nineteenth century states were the only legal persons in International Law, Hague YIL 3 (1990),
international law; international law regarded individuals in much the 30–86; I.Brownlie, Principles of Public
International Law, 4th edn 1990, 58 et
same way as municipal law regards animals. Writing in 1912, in his seq.; Conference on Changing Notions
famous treatise on international law, L.Oppenheim still found: ‘Since of Sovereignty and the Role of Private
Actors in International Law, AUJILP 9
the law of nations is based on the common consent of individual States, (1993–4), 1–213. See further the
and not of individual human beings, States solely and exclusively are literature below.
2 See Chapter 2 above, 21 on the slave
subjects of international law.’ 3 While states have remained the trade and its prohibition in the
predominant actors in international law, the position has changed in the nineteenth century.
3 L.Oppenheim, International Law. A
last century, and international organizations, individuals and companies Treatise, 2nd edn 1912, Vol. I
have also acquired some degree of international legal personality; but (Peace), 19.
4 Brownlie (1990), op. cit., 58.
when one tries to define the precise extent of the legal personality which 5 Reparations for Injuries Case, ICJ
they have acquired, one enters a very controversial area of the law. Rep. 1949, 178. See text below, 93–4.
The problem of including new actors in the international legal system
is reflected in the very concept of legal personality, the central issues of
which have been primarily related to the capacity to bring claims arising
from the violation of international law, to conclude valid international
agreements, and to enjoy privileges and immunities from national
jurisdictions.4 Thus, the International Court of Justice has noted that
‘[t]he subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in
their nature or in the extent of their rights, and their nature depends
upon the needs of the community’.5 It is the international legal system
which determines which are the subjects of international law and which
kind of legal personality they enjoy on the international level.
Legal personality can be unlimited, in the sense that, in principle, all
international rights and obligations can be accorded to a subject. This is
so only in the case of states, the original, primary and universal subjects of
international law. States have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to their
92 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
6 See F.Morgenstern, Legality in

International Organizations, BYIL 48
territory and personal jurisdiction over their nationals. Other subjects of
(1976–7), 241–58; E.Osieke, Ultra international law, such as international organizations created by states, have
Vires Acts in International
Organizations —The Experience of
legal personality only with respect to certain international rights and
the International Labour obligations. The legal personality of international organizations is limited
Organization, ibid., 259–80; and
Chapters 18, 289, 292–3 and 22, 426
as to substance by the treaty which states have concluded to constitute
below. them and to accord them rights and duties to achieve their specific tasks. It
7 H.G.Schermers, International
Institutional Law, 3rd edn 1995;
is also relative in the sense that it exists only with regard to the member
D.W. Bowett, The Law of states of the organization and with respect to non-member states
International Institutions, 4th edn
1982; R.-J.Dupuy (ed.), A Handbook
acknowledging the organization. Such secondary subjects act ultra vires,
on International Organizations, meaning that their acts are legally void, if they operate beyond the authority
1988; C.Archer, International
Organizations, 2nd edn 1992;
given to them by the constitutive treaty.6
I.Seidl-Hohenveldern/G.Loibl, Das Individuals have acquired a certain status under international law with
Recht der International the development of human rights, but they cannot make treaties or create
Organisationen einschließlich der
Supranationalen Gemeinschaften, rules of customary international law. Other questions concern the status of
5th edn 1992; W.J.Feld, multinational companies, insurgents and national liberation movements,
International Organizations: A
Comparative Approach, 3rd edn ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples under international law, and these
1994; V.Rittberger, International questions will also be addressed below.
Organizations, Theory of, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 760–70; R.L.
Bindschedler, International
Organizations, General Aspects,
EPIL II (1995), 1289–309; International organizations
R.Wolfrum, International
Administrative Unions, ibid., 1041–
7; H.G.Schermers, International The term ‘international organization’ is usually used to describe an
Organizations, Membership, ibid., organization set up by agreement between two or more states.7 It is different
1320–4; L.Louis-Jacques/
J.S.Korman, Introduction to
from the term ‘non-governmental organization’ (NGO), which is set up by
International Organizations, 1996. individuals or groups of individuals (such as Amnesty International or
8 D.Bindschedler-Robert, Red Greenpeace), although some non-governmental organizations are entrusted
Cross, EPIL 5 (1983), 248–54;
A.Schlögel, Geneva Red Cross with certain functions by states; the outstanding example is the International
Conventions and Protocols, EPIL II Committee of the Red Cross, which plays an important role in supervising
(1995), 531–41; A. Schlögel, IRC, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 814– 9. See the application of the Geneva Conventions to the laws of war.8 The following
also Chapter 20 below, 344–5. deals with inter-governmental organizations created by states. NGOs will
10 See Chapter 2 above, 22. be discussed separately below.9
11 On the debate on the nature of International organizations, in the sense of inter-state organizations, have
these treaties see E.Suy, The
Constitutional Character of
existed since 1815, if not earlier,10 but it is only since the First World War
Constituent Treaties of International that they have acquired much political importance. The idea that they have
Organizations and the Hierarchy of
Norms, in FS Bernhardt, 267–77;
international legal personality is even more recent.
T.Sato, Evolving Constitutions of Treaties setting up international organizations11 often provide, as does
International Organizations, 1996. Article 104 of the United Nations Charter, that ‘the organization shall enjoy
On the UN Charter see Chapter 21
below, 364–7. in the territory of each of its members such legal capacity as may be necessary
12 Article 104, UN Charter, text in for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes’.12 All that
Brownlie BDIL, 1. See I.Seidl-
Hohenveldern, Article 104, in Simma this means is that the organization enjoys legal personality under the
CUNAC, 1125–36; R.Wolfrum, municipal laws of its member states; it can own property, enter into contracts,
International Organizations,
Headquarters, EPIL II (1995), 1309– and so on. There is no corresponding article in the Charter expressly giving
12.; P.H.F.Bekker, The Legal the United Nations personality under international law. Nevertheless, it is
Position of Intergovernmental
Organizations, 1994; A.S.Muller,
generally agreed that the United Nations does have at least some degree of
International Organizations and their international personality; for instance, Article 43 of the Charter empowers
Host States—Aspects of their Legal the United Nations to make certain types of treaties with member states13
Relationship, 1995; H.-J.Schultz,
Host State Agreements, in Wolfrum —a power which could not exist if the United Nations had no international
UNLPP I, 581–91. On the legal personality.
situation in the UK see
G.Marston, The Origin of the When states create an international organization, they set it up for specific
Personality of International purposes and give it limited powers. For this reason, legal personality
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 93
Organisations in United Kingdom Law,

must be treated as a relative concept, not as an absolute concept. It is ICLQ 40 (1991), 366; I.Cheyne, Status
futile to ask whether an international organization has legal personality of International Organisations in English
Law, ibid., 981.
in the abstract; instead, one should ask, ‘What specific rights, duties and 13 See Chapter 22 below, 389.
powers is it capable of exercising?’ An organization may have a power 14 K.Zemanek, International
Organizations, Treaty-Making Power,
to make treaties concerning one topic, for instance, but not about others.14 EPIL II (1995), 1343–6.
Similarly, powers may vary from organization to organization. The United 15 See Chapter 22 below, 387–90.
16 On mediation as a method of
Nations can take military action (in certain circumstances),15 but the dispute settlement see Chapter 18
World Health Organization (WHO) cannot. below, 275–7.
The leading judicial authority on the personality of international 17 ICJ Rep. 1949, 174. See E.Klein,
Reparations for Injuries Suffered in
organizations is the advisory opinion given by the International Court Service of UN (Advisory Opinion), EPIL
of Justice in the Reparation for Injuries case. The case arose out of the 2 (1981), 242–4.
18 On the difference between
murder of Count Bernadotte, the United Nations mediator16 in Palestine, contentious and advisory proceedings
in 1948. The United Nations considered that Israel had been negligent see Chapter 18 below, 281–90.
in failing to prevent or punish the murderers, and wished to make a
claim for compensation under international law. There was uncertainty
over the preliminary problem of whether the United Nations had the
legal capacity to make such a claim, and so the following question was
put to the Court:
In the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance

of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving the
responsibility of a State, has the United Nations, as an
organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against
the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to
obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused
(a) to the United Nations, (b) to the victim?
The Court answered both parts of the question in the affirmative.17 The
Court began by saying that the United Nations organization had
international personality in principle; its functions were so important that
the organization could not carry them out unless it had some degree of
international personality. The Court then went on to advise that the
organization’s personality included the capacity to bring the type of claim
mentioned in the request to the Court. It decided without much argument
that the organization could claim for the loss suffered by the organization
itself as a result of the breach of an international obligation owed to it.
The capacity to claim for the loss suffered by the organization’s agents
raised a more difficult problem, but the Court nevertheless advised that
the organization had an implied power to make such a claim, because the
organization could not work effectively without the help of loyal and
efficient agents, who would not serve it loyally and efficiently unless they
were sure of its protection. (The Court dealt with the abstract question of
the capacity to claim, not with the facts of the Bernadotte case. Although
the UN has capacity to make a claim, it cannot enforce that claim through
the ICJ, since Article 34 of the Statute of the ICJ provides that only states
may be parties in contentious cases before the Court18. In the end the
Bernadotte case was settled by negotiation; Israel agreed to pay
compensation, while denying that it was under an obligation to do so.)
The Court’s reasoning is of the utmost importance for the law of
international organizations generally, because it shows that the powers
of international organizations need not necessarily be conferred expressly
19 M.Zuleeg, International
Organizations, Implied Powers,
in the organization’s constituent treaty; an organization also has such implied
EPIL II (1995), 1312–14. See also powers as are necessary for the most efficient performance of its functions.19
20 See Chapter 8 below.
Other aspects related to the legal personality of international organizations
21 K.Ginther, International are that they can also enjoy privileges and immunities,20 may engage
Organizations, Responsibility, EPIL
II (1995), 1336–40. On state
international responsibility and liability21 (which can be rather complicated,
responsibility see Chapter 17 below, as was seen in the collapse of the commodity agreement governed by the
254–72.
22 See M.Herdegen, The Insolvency
International Tin Council in 1985 and the controversy on the liability of
of International Organizations and the member states22), pose problems of succession (when an international
the Legal Position of Creditors:
Some Observations in the Light of
organization is replaced by a new one),23 and that their relations to states
the International Tin Council Crisis, require legal definition in many other aspects.
NILR 35 (1988), 135–44;
H.G.Schermers, Liability of
There are now some 500 international organizations of very different
International Organizations, LJIL 1 types. This proliferation reflects the need for increasing cooperation between
(1988), 3–14; I.Seidl-Hohenveldern,
Piercing the Corporate Veil of
states to solve problems of a transnational nature. They can be classified
International Organizations: The under various criteria—for example, according to whether their membership
International Tin Council Case in the
English Court of Appeals, GYIL 32
is global or regional or according to their functions and tasks.
(1989), 43–54; I.A.Mallory, Conduct The United Nations is the most important global organization, with
Unbecoming: The Collapse of the
International Tin Agreement,
almost universal membership of states, and will be treated separately in
AUJILP 5 (1990), 835–92; Chapter 21 below.24 The UN hosts a large number of so-called Specialized
C.F.Amerasinghe, Liability to Third
Parties of Member States of
Agencies25 within the UN family, such as the International Labour
International Organizations: Organization (ILO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
Practice, Principle and Judicial
Precedent, AJIL 85 (1991), 259–80;
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
M. Hirsch, The Responsibility of (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Universal Postal
International Organizations Toward
Third Parties. Some Basic
Union (UPU), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the
Principles, 1995. International Maritime Organization (IMO), the World Intellectual Property
23 H.J.Hahn, International
Organizations, Succession, EPIL II
Organization (WIPO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), or
(1995), 1340–3; O.M.Ribbelink, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and other organizations,26
Opvolging van internationale
organisaties van Volkenbond—
as provided for in Article 57 of the UN Charter. In addition, there are a
Vereinigde Naties tot ALALC— number of international economic and financial organizations, which will
ALADI, 1988; P.Myers, Succession
Between International
be dealt with in Chapter 15 below.27 To take a rather different field, another
Organizations, 1993. On state group of international organizations, for example, is concerned with the
succession see Chapter 11 below,
161–72.
exploration and use of outer space.28
24 See Chapter 21 below, 364–84. Moreover, there are political regional organizations, some of which are
26 On the various organizations see
supposed to interact with the United Nations in one way or another, as
EPIL and Wolfrum UNLPP and the envisaged in Article 52 of the Charter.29 There are now many forms of
literature cited above, 92.
institutionalized regional cooperation and organization in Europe, the
28 See Chapter 13 below, 202–3. Americas, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific.30 The various forms of regional
29 See Chapter 22 below, 388. organization in Europe include the European Union31 and the Council of
30 P.v.Dijk, Regional Cooperation
and Organization: Western Europe, Europe, which had thirty-nine member states in 1996, following the
EPIL 6 (1983), 330–6; F.V.García- admission of countries from Eastern Europe, and under the auspices of
Amador, American States, ibid.,
which, inter alia, the regional system of the protection of human rights
308–14; E.G. Bello, African States,
ibid., 301–8; R. Khan, Asian States, under the European Human Rights Convention has developed. 32
ibid., 314–9; I.A. Shearer, Pacific Furthermore the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe
Region, ibid., 319–24.
31 See text below, 96. (OCSE), including the United States and Canada, emerged recently as a
32 A.M.Robertson, Council of new organization from the Helsinki Process that had been established in
Europe, EPIL I (1992), 843–50. See
1975.33 Under the hegemony of the Soviet Union, the former bloc of socialist
also J.-F. Flauss, Les Conditions
d’admission des pays d’Europe states had its own forms of regional organization and cooperation.34
centrale et orientale au sein du Following the demise of the USSR, in 1991 the Commonwealth of
Conseil de l’Europe, EJIL 5 (1994),
401–22; R.Bernhardt et al., Independent States (CIS) was formed by Russia, Belarus and Ukraine on
the basis of the Minsk Agreement, the preamble of which stated that the
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 95
Soviet Union ‘as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality Report on the Conformity of the Legal
Order of the Russian Federation with
no longer exists’.35 The CIS then expanded to eleven members (excluding Council of Europe Standards, HBLJ 15
Georgia and the Baltic states).36 In 1993 seven CIS states signed the CIS (1994), 249–300; Russia Joins the Council
of Europe, ILM 35 (1996), 808. On the
Charter which was later ratified by five other states (now in force for all European Human Rights Convention see
former USSR republics, excluding the Baltic states).37 In April 1996, Chapter 14 below, 217–19.
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan signed a document 33 See A.Bloed (ed.), The Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe:
proclaiming their intention to create a ‘Commonwealth of Integrated Analysis and Basic Documents, 1972–
States’ and Russia and Belarus signed a treaty establishing a 1993, 2nd edn 1993; D.McGoldrick, The
‘Commonwealth of Sovereign Republics’.38 Development of the CSCE after the
1992 Conference, ICLQ 42 (1993), 411
The main forms of political regional organization in other parts of
et seq.; A.Bloed (ed.), The Challenges
the world include the Organization of American States (OAS), the of Change: The Helsinki Summit of the
Organization of Central American States (ODECA), the Organization CSCE and its Aftermath, 1994; J.
of African Unity (OAU), the Association of South East Asian Nations Borawski, The Budapest Summit
(ASEAN) and the Arab League. Islamic countries have also established Meeting, HM 6/1 (1995), 5–17; W.
Höynck, From the CSCE to the OSCE.
their own organization with the Islamic Conference in 1973 and in the The Challenges of Building New
Persian (or Arabian) Gulf, Arab oil-producing states have sought to create Stability, HM 6/3, (1995), 11–22; M.
a counterweight to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Gulf Cooperation Oswald, Potentialities for the CSCE in
Council, after the war between Iraq and Iran. The Commonwealth, which the Changing International System,
AJPIL 49 (1995), 361–78. See also
is the present name of what was formerly the British Empire, is a unique
Chapter 3 above, 54.
case with many forms of functional cooperation, such as the 34 B.Meissner, Regional Cooperation
Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation, without an and Organization: Socialist States, EPIL
organizational or constitutional framework, apart from the existence of 6 (1983), 324–30.
the Commonwealth Secretariat, which has no executive functions.39 35 ILM 31 (1992), 138.
36 Alma-Ata Declaration and Protocol,
These political regional organizations are (or have been) often ILM 31 (1992), 147. See M.R.Lucas,
interacting to various degrees with defence alliances, such as NATO, the Russia and the Commonwealth of
dissolved Warsaw Pact, the still largely defunct Western European Union Independent States:
(WEU), and the now obsolete CENTO Pact. They have been to a large The Role of the CSCE, HM 5/4 (1994), 5–
3; .S.A.Voitovich, The Commonwealth of
extent children of the Cold War and have now lost much of their previous
Independent States: An Emerging
military significance to organizations aimed at dealing with the economic Institutional Model, EJIL 3 (1993), 403–17.
aspects of the relations between states. NATO is currently in a process 37 Commonwealth of Independent
of restructuring itself with the prospect of including certain Eastern States Charter, ILM 34 (1995), 1279.
European states (against opposition from Russia) which is interconnected See also the Council of Heads of States
Decisions on Settlement of Conflicts,
with the question of their admission as new member states of the Peacekeeping Forces and Military
European Union.40 Training of 19 January 1996, ILM 35
Most international organizations are of the traditional type, meaning (1996), 783.
that they are in essence based on inter-governmental cooperation of states 38 FAZ of 3 April 1996, 1, 3. The Treaty
on the Formation of the Community of
which retain control of the decision-making and finance of the
Belarus and Russia is reprinted in ILM
organization.41 To distinguish a new type of independent international 35 (1996), 1190.
organization created on a higher level of integration of member states, 39 For more information and references
the term ‘supranational organization’42 has been coined. While there are on these organizations see EPIL and
different views on the criteria for distinguishing supranational the literature above, 92. On the British
Commonwealth see also Chapter 2
organizations from traditional forms of international institutions, it may above, 23.
be said that the transfer of sovereignty from the member states to the 40 See L.S.Kaplan, NATO and the
international level is more extensive as to the scope and nature of United States: The Enduring Alliance,
delegated powers and is characterized by the cumulative presence of the 1994; W.Goldstein (ed.), Security in
Europe: Role of NATO after the Cold
following elements:
War, 1994; P.Williams, North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, 1994. M.Rühle/N.
1 the organs of the organization are composed of persons who are not Williams, NATO Enlargement and the
European Union, The World Today 51
government representatives;
(1995), 84–8. See also A.Bloed (ed.),
2 the organs can take decisions by majority vote;43 The Changing Functions of the Western
3 they have the authority to adopt binding acts; European Union (WEU), 1994.
41 R.Wolfrum, International 4 some of which have direct legal effect on individuals and companies;
Organizations, Financing and
Budgeting, EPIL II (1995), 1284–9. 5 the constituent treaty of the organization and the measures adopted by
42 F.Capotorti, Supranational its organs form a new legal order; and
Organizations, EPIL 5 (1983), 262–9.
43 See H.G.Schermers, Voting
6 compliance of member states with their obligations and the validity of
Rules in International Conferences acts adopted by the organs of the organization are subject to judicial
and Organizations, EPIL 5 (1983), review by an independent court of justice.44
395–8; K. Zemanek, Majority Rule
and Consensus Technique in Law-
Making Diplomacy, in The only existing international organization which currently meets all of
R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M.Johnston
these criteria in a sufficient degree is the European Community, or in
International Law, 1983, 875–88. other words, since the Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union (the
44 H.G.Schermers, International terminology has become rather confusing since Maastricht; the term
Organizations, Legal Remedies
against Acts of Organs, EPIL II ‘European Community’ is now limited to the previous European Economic
(1995), 1318–20. Community and its treaty).45 Community organs, especially those of the
45 Text of the Treaty on European
Union and Final Act in ILM 31
European Community, have extensive (and ever-increasing) powers of
(1992), 247; it entered into force on regulation vis-à-vis the member states and individuals and companies.
1 November 1993, ILM 32 (1993), The agreements establishing the European Communities and the
1693. See R.B.Lake (ed.), European
Union Law After Maastricht, 1996; ‘secondary’ law created by Community organs on the basis of these treaties
J.A.Winter et al. (eds), Reforming form an independent legal order which can no longer be adequately
the Treaty on European Union,
1996. For further literature see
grouped with categories of general international law. European Community
Chapter 1 above, 8. law claims absolute priority over any conflicting national law of the
46 See L.Hancher, member states. All other international organizations are more or less based
Constitutionalism, the Community
Court and International Law, NYIL upon intergovernmental cooperation where states have retained their
25 (1994), 259–98; B.de Witte, control over the organization and have not submitted to the decisions of
Rules of Change in International
Law: How Special is the European
independent organs. In fact the criteria for a ‘supranational organization’
Community?, ibid., 299–336. have been taken from the example of the European Community, which is
47 G.Guillaume, The Future of often described as an entity sui generis in the contemporary pattern of the
International Organizations, 1995.
48 See Chapter 3 above, 52–5. international organization of states.46
49 See J.S.Ignarski, Amnesty The broad spectrum of international organizations has led to duplication
International, EPIL I (1992), 151–3;
in many areas, especially in the social and economic fields, raising problems
P.R. Baehr, Amnesty International
and Its Self-imposed Limited of coordination, costs and efficiency. However, there is no doubt that the
Mandate, NQHR 12 (1994), 5 et future development of the international legal system will not only rest on the
seq.
50 H.H.-K.Rechenberg, Non- activities of states, but also increasingly on the international organizations
Governmental Organizations, EPIL they have created themselves to overcome the limits of the capacity of national
9 (1986), 276–82; Y.Beigbeder, Le
governments to deal effectively with transnational problems.47 One element
Rôle international des organisations
non governementales, 1992; of this process is that administrations and bureaucracies, also international
C.Ritchie, The Relation Between the ones, once established, tend to develop interests as well as a life and dynamic
State and NGOs, TA 46 (1994), 210;
K.Hüfner, Non-Governmental of their own. The important role of international organizations in international
Organizations, in Wolfrum law-making has been discussed above in Chapter 3.48
UNLPP II, 927–35; L Gordenker/
T.Weiss (eds), NGOs, the UN, and
Global Governance, 1996; P.
Willetts (ed.), ‘The Conscience of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
the World’. The Influence of Non-
Governmental Organizations in the
UN System, 1996. Private international organizations, such as Amnesty International,49
Greenpeace or Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), are very much in the news
these days because of their active role in international affairs. They belong
to the category of so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because
they are not established by a government or by an agreement between states
and their members are private citizens or bodies corporate. 50
International NGOs have proliferated considerably in the past
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 97
decades and are engaged in a broad variety of different areas, ranging 51 See text below, 100–4.
52 H.Thoolen/B.Verstappen, Human
from politics, the legal and judicial field, the social and economic domain, Rights Missions: A Study of the Fact-
human rights and humanitarian relief, education, women, to the Finding Practice of Non-Governmental
Organizations, 1986; T.v.Boven, The
environment and sports. In the field of international business, important Role of Non-Governmental
NGOs, incorporated under the law of a particular state, include the Organizations in International Human
International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (ICC), the International Rights Standard-Setting: A Prerequisite
of Democracy, CWILJ 20 (1989), 207–
Air Transport Association (IATA), and the international federations of 25; P.H.Kooijmans, The Non-
trade unions and employers. Multinational companies can also be Governmental Organizations and the
Monitoring Activities of the United
classified as non-governmental international organizations under certain Nations in the Field of Human Rights, in
aspects, but because they are primarily profit-orientated and due to their The Role of Non-Governmental
considerable impact on the international economy, they form a different Organizations in the Protection of
Human Rights, Symposium International
species altogether and will therefore be dealt with separately below.51 Commission of Jurists, 1990, 15–22;
The role of NGOs in the international legal system is primarily an H.J.Steiner, Diverse Partners: Non-
Governmental Organizations in the
informal one. They have some effect on international law-making in
Human Rights Movement, 1991; C.E.
certain areas by adding additional expertise and making procedures more Welch, Protecting Human Rights in
transparent, and a stronger effect with regard to supervision and fact- Africa—Strategies and Roles of Non-
Governmental Organizations, 1995. On
finding as to the implementation of international norms, most visibly in human rights see Chapter 14 below,
the area of human rights.52 For instance, at the United Nations Conference 209–21.
on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 53 Agenda 21, Chapter 27.5:
Strengthening the Role of Non-
1992, which was attended by 170 countries and 103 heads of government, Governmental Organizations: Partners for
some 2,000 NGOs were engaged in lobbying on the side-lines and at a Sustainable Development. On Agenda 21
so-called Global Forum, a shadow conference, they negotiated among and the results of the Rio Conference see
themselves more than thirty ‘treaties’ to impress governments. Their 54 H.G.Schermers, International
‘partnership role’ was recognized in Agenda 2153 and NGOs were later Organizations, Observer Status, EPIL II
given enhanced standing in the work of the new UN Commission on (1995), 1324–5; B.Bartram/D.P.López,
Observer Status, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
Sustainable Development. However, the criteria for making the inevitable 936–46.
choice of which of the numerous NGOs should be selected to participate 55 P.Macalister-Smith, Non-
in the activities of the Commission are far from clear. Governmental Organizations,
Humanitarian Action and Human Rights,
From a formal point of view, on the global level there are no in FS Bernhardt, 477–501, at 485; see
international legal standards governing the establishment and status of also The United Nations Partnership
NGOs. The relevant law is that of the state where an NGO is based and with the Non-Governmental Sector
(ECOSOC, UNESCO, UNICEF, GATT),
this may cause problems in the case of international activities because TA 46 (1994), 214; L.A.Kimball, General
national laws are different. Inter-governmental organizations may agree Developments, YIEL 5 (1994), 135–6,
also with regard to the involvement of
to grant NGOs a certain consultative or observer status54 (such as the
NGOs in the Global Environmental
exceptional case of the observer status granted by the UN General Assembly Facility (GEF) of the World Bank. On
to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1991) and thereby a ECOSOC see Chapter 21 below, 382–3.
limited international status, but this does not make them a subject of
international law. In accordance with Article 71 of the UN Charter, the
UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has adopted a number of
resolutions concerning arrangements for consulting with NGOs. The
enhanced recognition of their role in international affairs can be detected
from the fact that in 1994 about 1,000 NGOs had consultative status
with the Council, as compared with only forty-one in 1948.55
Since the beginning of this century, efforts have been made by bodies
such as the Institute of International Law (itself being an NGO)56 to
improve the international legal standing of NGOs, but such efforts have
remained fruitless in view of the doctrine of sovereignty. On the regional
level, however, within the framework of the Council of Europe a common
status for NGOs has been recently laid down in the European Convention
57 ETS, no. 124.

58 See also Chapter 20 below, 349–
on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-
50, on the Nuclear Test cases Governmental Organizations.57 The Convention, signed in 1986 and in force
brought before the ICJ.
59 See M.Pugh, Legal Aspects of
since 1991, recognizes, among the states which have ratified it, the legal
the Rainbow Warrior Affair, ICLQ 36 personality and attached rights and duties as acquired by an NGO by its
(1987), 655.
60 See also Chapter 7 below, 110,
establishment in any one of the states parties.
117. The international activities of NGOs are not always without problems,
61 Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand
v. France) Case, ILR 74 (1987), 241;
as the 1995 campaign by Greenpeace against Shell to prevent the sinking of
United Nations Secretary-General: the Brent-Spar oil platform in the North Atlantic, although Shell was licensed
Ruling Pertaining to the Differences
between France and New Zealand
to do so by the British government, has shown. Using the media and
arising from the Rainbow Warrior spectacular stunts, Greenpeace persuaded consumers (for example, in
Affair, ibid., 256; ILM 26 (1987),
1346.
Germany) to boycott Shell’s products and Shell (to the embarrassment of
the British government) gave in, although it remained convinced by the
evidence of technical expertise that its decision was not only reasonable
from the economic point of view, but also environmentally tolerable. (Later
Greenpeace apologized to Shell for using wrong information in its campaign.)
Shortly afterwards, Greenpeace engaged in another spectacular campaign
against the resumption of nuclear tests by the French in the Pacific, a matter
which has a delicate precedent in the Rainbow Warrior affair ten years
previously, which involved the first international case in history of an
agreement between a sovereign state and an NGO to submit a dispute to
arbitration.
The facts of the Rainbow Warrior affair are briefly as follows. For many
years France had been conducting underground nuclear tests on the Mururoa
Atoll in French Polynesia, alleging that these tests had no real consequences
for the environment.58 Greenpeace had led protests against the French tests
for more than fifteen years, including attempts, opposed by the French navy,
to send vessels into the waters prohibited for navigation by France which
surround the Mururoa Atoll, particularly in 1973 and 1982. In 1985
Greenpeace again planned to send several ships, including the Rainbow
Warrior, registered in Britain, into the neighbourhood of the nuclear testing
area. On 10 July 1985, an undercover operation ordered by the French
military security service sank the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand’s
Auckland Harbour with two explosive devices and thereby also killed a
crewman.59 Two French agents caught in New Zealand were sentenced to
ten years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and seven years for wilful damage
(the terms to run concurrently). The French government refused to extradite
to New Zealand other French officials involved, and sought negotiations
for the release and return to France of the two agents who, it argued, had
acted under military orders.60
New Zealand suspended the negotiations in May 1986 after France had
imposed economic sanctions by impeding New Zealand imports. In June
1986 the two states agreed to refer all issues to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations for a ruling. Perez de Cuéllar achieved a quick settlement in
July 1986.61 It required France to convey to New Zealand ‘a formal and
unqualified apology for the attack, contrary to international law’, to pay
compensation to New Zealand in the amount of US$7 million (New Zealand
had demanded US$9 million and France had offered US$4 million), and to
discontinue opposing New Zealand imports into the European
Community. New Zealand was required to transfer the two agents to
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 99
62 On arbitration see Chapter 18 below,

the French military authorities, who were to keep them isolated under 293–8.
military discipline for a period of three years on the island of Hao in 63 Rainbow Warrior Arbitration, ILR 82
(1990), 499–90. The Arbitration Tribunal
French Polynesia. They were to be prohibited from leaving the island, was composed of J. de Aréchaga, Sir
‘for any reason, except with the mutual consent of the two Governments’. K.Keith and Prof. J.-D. Bredin. See
J.S.Davidson, The Rainbow Warrior
Finally, the ruling of the Secretary-General provided for an agreement of Arbitration Concerning the Treatment of
the two parties on a mechanism of binding arbitration on further disputes the French Agents Mafart and Prieur,
ICLQ 40 (1991), 446 et seq.
concerning the implementation of the matter.62 64 Greenpeace Press Release, Lewes,
These terms to settle a most remarkable affair between two friendly UK, 2 October 1987.
states were originally carried out by the governments, but at the end of 65 For thoughts in this direction see
Macalister-Smith (1995), op. cit., at
1987 and some months later in 1988 France unilaterally allowed the 500–1.
two agents to return to France from the island of Hao, partly for alleged
medical reasons. This led to a decision of an arbitral tribunal on 30
April 1990,63 distinguishing between the two cases of repatriation of the
agents. In the first case, France was not found to be in violation of its
obligations towards New Zealand by repatriating the agent on 13
December 1987, but by failing to order his return to Hao by 12 February
1988. In the second case, France was held responsible for a breach by
failing to make an effort in good faith on 5 May 1988 to obtain the
consent of New Zealand and by failing to return the agent on 5 and 6
May 1988. In a way following the spirit of the ancient Jewish King
Solomon, the Tribunal also made the recommendation that the two
governments should establish a fund for the purpose of promoting
friendly relations between the citizens of both countries, into which the
French government was asked to pay US$2 million.
With regard to the private claims, in November 1985 France had
already reached a settlement with the family of the dead crewman,
including a formal apology, compensation to the total amount of 2.3
million francs, and reimbursement of the insurers. In December 1985,
France had also admitted legal liability to Greenpeace and both sides
agreed to negotiate on damages. Failing to reach agreement, they referred
the matter to a panel of three arbitrators on 10 July 1986. On 2 October
1987, the tribunal awarded Greenpeace US$8,159,000 against France
in damages (US$5 million for the loss of the ship and US$1.2 million for
aggravated damages, the rest for expenses, interest and legal fees).64
One problem as regards NGOs is that most of them are based in the
industrialized part of the world, concentrating in a few home countries
(predominantly in the UK, France, Belgium, Switzerland and the United
States) which implies that there is a certain geographical imbalance.
Although these home countries are democracies, guaranteeing freedom of
association, NGOs are sometimes used (and misused) by governments in
their international dealings, inter alia, through their necessary collaboration
with inter-governmental organizations which are controlled by states.
The question has been raised whether it is really advisable that these
non-territorial entities should seek to obtain a formal international status
on the universal level, which in effect might undermine their strength in
the future, or whether it is not better that they rather continue to rely on
their independence to act as a social bridge between the state-dominated
international legal system and individual human beings.65 The constructive
role of NGOs, especially in the field of human rights, in providing
66 M.Brus, Third Party Dispute

Settlement in an Interdependent
information, analysis and public support, and active engagement in
World, 1995., 202. But see humanitarian relief operations and alleviating poverty in developing
D.Shelton, The Participation of
Nongovernmental Organizations in
countries, for instance, is now generally acknowledged. At least with regard
International Judicial Proceedings, to international law-making in general, however, it is unlikely that NGOs
AJIL 88 (1994), 611.
will be included in the formal process in the near future and, as noted by
68 See Chapter 4 above, 63–74. one recent author, this may also be undesirable, ‘as they are not
69 C.A.Norgaard, The Position of
the Individual in International Law,
democratically authorized to realize the common good, and often neglect
1962; R.A.Mullerson, Human Rights the common good in the pursuance of their specific interests’.66
and the Individual as a Subject of
International Law, EJIL 1 (1990),
33–43; K.J. Partsch, Individuals in
International Law, EPIL II (1995),
957–62; P.K.Menon, The Legal
Individuals and companies
Personality of Individuals, Sri Lanka
JIL 6 (1994), 127–56; see also the
literature above, 91.
In the seventeenth century, when all law was regarded as derived from natural
70 D.Kokkini-latridou/P.J.I.M.de law,67 no sharp distinction was made between international law and
Waart, Foreign Investments in
Developing Countries—Legal
municipal law,68 and it was easy to assume that individuals had legal
Personality of Multinationals in personality under international law.69 But in the nineteenth century, when
International Law, NYIL 14 (1983),
87– 131; P.Fisher, Transnational
positivism had become the dominant philosophy, states were usually
Enterprises, EPIL 8 (1985), 515–19; regarded as the only subjects of international law.
A.A.Fatouros, National Legal
Persons in International Law, EPIL
The present century has seen a growing tendency to admit that
10 (1987), 299– 306; I.Seidl- individuals—and companies70 —have some degree of international personality,
Hohenveldern, Corporations in and
under International Law, 1987;
but the whole subject is extremely controversial. Soviet international lawyers
United Nations Centre on admitted that individuals can be guilty of crimes (for example, war crimes)
Transnational Corporations,
Transnational Corporations in World
against international law,71 but usually denied that individuals and companies
Development: Trends and have any rights under international law; they probably feared that such rights
Prospects, 1988; P.Mercial, Les
Entreprises multinationals en droit
would undermine the powers of states over their own nationals. In Western
international, 1993; R.Higgins, countries writers and governments are usually prepared to admit that
International Law and Foreign
Corporations, in New Diplomacy in
individuals and companies have some degree of international legal personality;
the Post Cold War World: Essays but the personality is usually seen as something limited—much more limited
for Susan Strange, 1993;
D.W.Bachmann, Transnational
than the legal personality of international organizations. Individuals and
Corporations, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, companies may have various rights under special treaties, for instance, but it
1239–47; P.T.Muchlinski,
Multinational Enterprises and the
has never been suggested that they can imitate states by acquiring territory,
Law, 1995. appointing ambassadors, or declaring war. As in the case of international
organizations, it is useless to treat legal personality as an absolute concept;
one must break it down into specific rights and duties.
Very many rules of international law exist for the benefit of individuals
and companies, but that does not necessarily mean that the rules create
rights for the individual and companies, any more than municipal rules
prohibiting cruelty to animals confer rights on animals. Even when a treaty
expressly says that individuals and companies shall enjoy certain rights,
one has to read the treaty very carefully to ascertain whether the rights exist
directly under international law, or whether the states party to the treaty
are merely under an obligation to grant municipal law rights to the
individuals or companies concerned.
The international rules concerning the protection of human rights
(which will be dealt with separately in Chapter 14 below72) are a good
example of the difficulty of deciding whether individuals derive rights
from international law, or whether they merely derive benefits. Indeed,
there is an even greater problem of classification in this context, since
many of the commitments undertaken by states are expressed in such
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES 101
73 Criticism of this limitation:

vague and idealistic language that it is uncertain whether they enunciate E.Lauterpacht, Aspects of the
legal obligations at all, as distinct from merely moral aspirations. Administration of International Justice,
1991. See also Chapter 18 below, 282–7.
One way of proving that the rights of the individuals or companies 74 See Chapter 18 below, 295–6.
exist under international law is to show that the treaty conferring the 75 See Chapter 18 below, 296–8.
rights gives the individuals or companies access to an international tribunal 76 See Chapter 22 below, 398–9.
in order to enforce their rights. Most international tribunals are not open 78 Text in ILM 27 (1988), 281. See
to individuals or companies; for instance, Article 34 of the Statute of the Chapters 15, 225 and 18, 300 below.
79 For example, in disputes concerning
International Court of Justice provides that only states may be parties to investment, anti-dumping and
contentious cases before the Court.73 But there are exceptions; thus, the countervailing measures (Article 1904
FTA). See J.-G.Castel, The Settlement
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) of Disputes under the 1988 Canada-
has set up an international arbitral tribunal to hear disputes arising out of United States Free Trade Agreement,
AJIL 83 (1989), 118–28.
investments between states and the nationals of other states (ICSID).74 At 80 See Chapters 15, 225 and 18, 300
the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, individuals and companies which below.
are nationals of one of the two parties have legal standing under certain 81 See Chapters 15, 233 and 18, 300
below and Brus, op. cit., 207–8 with
conditions.75 The procedure of the United Nations Compensation references.
Commission (UNCC), set up by the UN Security Council in Geneva in 82 For a brief survey see Brus, ibid. 28–
37. See also Chapter 15 below, 233.
1991 after the defeat of Iraq in the Second Gulf War, even attempts to give 83 See text above, 96 and Chapter 1
priority to the masses of claims of individual victims rather than to the above, 8.
84 On the law of the sea see Chapter
claims of big companies against Iraq (it is not, however, really operating 12, 172–97 and Chapter 18, 298–300,
as an arbitral or judicial body).76 The Permanent Court of Arbitration below, on international environmental
law see Chapter 16 below, 241–53.
(PCA) in The Hague in 1993 modified its procedure to encourage access 85 See Chapter 14 below, 207–21.
of ‘Parties of which only one is a State’.77 Under the 1988 Canada-United 86 See Chapter 17 below, 256–72.
States Free Trade Agreement (FTA)78 private parties have access to
binational panels which can reach binding decisions in certain cases.79
The procedure has also been made part of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA).80 On the other hand, proposals to grant private
parties which are directly affected by alleged breaches of GATT rules access
to the GATT dispute settlement system,81 in order to relieve them from the
discretion of their home governments to take up the complaint, have not
been included in the reform of the dispute settlement mechanism under
the WTO arrangements.82 Similarly, in the European Communities
individuals and companies can bring claims before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities; but this is not a very good example, because,
as noted above, the powers exercised by the Communities over the
governments and nationals of the member states are so extensive that
‘Community law’ is almost a hybrid between international law and federal
law.83 One could also mention certain limited examples in the law of the
sea and in environmental law.84
In the field of human rights individuals have under certain
conditions access to international dispute settlement procedures,85
but these depend on treaties consented to by their governments and
such consent can be qualified or withdrawn. Moreover, in most cases
human rights disputes involve the complaints of individuals against
their own government, whereas in investment disputes under
international law a foreign government is involved. In this connection
it is important to note that under the customary law of diplomatic
protection and state responsibility for the treatment of aliens,86 the
claim of a national of state X, for example, against state Y for denial
of justice or wrongful expropriation of property is not a claim
belonging to the individual citizen (or company) of state X which has
87 See Chapter 17 below, 267–8. actually suffered the harm itself, but to its home state X. This means that
88 For a critical discussion see L.
Henkin, ‘Nationality’ at the Turn of under international law, unless there are special agreements to the contrary,
the Century, in FS Bernhardt, 89– it is up to the government of state X to decide whether it wants to pursue
102, at 92 et seq.
the claim diplomatically or in an international forum against state Y.
90 For a different view see M. Compensation is paid to state X and international law does not demand
Herdegen, Internationales that state X pays any of it to the injured individual (or company). State X is
Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd edn 1995, 58,
referring to an advancing view that free to waive the claim or to arrive at a settlement which leaves the individual
such contracts may grant the without international remedy. Awkwardly, this construction, which seeks
company limited international
personality; see also 205 et seq.
to preserve the control of states over their international affairs, nevertheless
91 See P.Kennedy, Preparing for the depends on the individual concerned under certain aspects: the individual
Twenty-First Century, 1993, Chapter can also waive the right to the claim; the individual has to exhaust available
3, noting that the large multinational
corporations have ‘more global reach local remedies87 under the national law of state Y before state X can raise
than global responsibility’ (at 47), the claim on the international level; and the compensation that state Y has
have ‘international rather than
national interests’ (at 49) and that
to pay is measured by the injury caused to the individual.88
‘the real ‘logic’ of the borderless It has sometimes been suggested that individuals (or companies) can
world is that nobody is in control— acquire rights under international law by making agreements with states
except, perhaps, the managers of
multinational corporations, whose (or international organizations) containing a provision that the agreements
responsibility is to their shareholders, should be governed by international law This suggestion has given rise to
who, one might argue, have become
the new sovereigns, investing in
considerable controversy, especially in connection with oil concessions before
whatever company gives the highest the oil crisis in 1973, as has already been discussed above with regard to
returns’ (at 55). the nature of ‘internationalized contracts’ between a state and a foreign
92 A.Cassese, International Law in
a Divided World, 1986, 103. investor.89 But even such contracts are at the discretion of the host state and
they do not confer international legal personality on the foreign country.90
A unilateral elevation by the host state of the foreign company to the
international level is not possible because it would also interfere with the
rights of the home state of the company.
Even the influential group of the few outstanding global multinational
companies (such as IBM, ITT or Unilever), which already hold more
economic and political power than many states and, in connection with the
globalization of the economy under the communications and financial
revolution, are likely to become stronger still in the next century,91 have not
been upgraded by states to international subjects proper.92 States prefer to
maintain control over these corporations, rather than accepting them on a
legally equal footing, although it is often difficult in practice to effectively
regulate on the national level the activities of such global companies, due to
their extensive network of decision-making and operational structures
formed by their headquarters, branches, subsidiaries and other forms of
investment in independent company units throughout the world and their
flexibility in transferring seats of production as well as profits within the
framework of the organization as a whole.
The emergence of transnational companies reflects the globalization of
economic activities and new forms of specialization and the international
division of labour requiring direct investment in foreign markets. Some
states, however, for obvious economic reasons, are more favourable to the
operations of multinational companies based in their own territory than
other states where these companies are operating. Developing countries
especially have expressed concern about the dominance of TNCs in national
economies, in contract negotiations and in other respects concerning
company interests, including interference in the domestic politics of
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES 103
93 See E.-U.Petersmann, Codes of

the host state. Industrialized countries, on the other hand, tend to be Conduct, EPIL I (1992), 627–32.
more worried about the protection of the investments of their 94 On the drafts see ILM 23 (1984),
626; ICSID Rev. 4 (1989), 135. See W.
multinationals in foreign countries and about legal certainty for their Spröte, Negotiations on a United
transactions. Nations Code of Conduct on
Transnational Corporations, GYIL 33
Various international bodies have been engaged in finding a (1990), 331.
compromise by formulating so-called codes of conduct of a 95 YIEL 4 (1993), 103.
recommendatory nature, for example the International Chamber of 96 YIEL 5 (1994), 136.
Commerce, the International Labour Organization and the OECD.93 Of 98 See M.Akehurst, The Law Governing
particular importance have been the protracted negotiations in the United Employment in International
Organizations, 1967, especially 3–10,
Nations since 1977 on a UN Draft Code of Conduct on Transnational 249–63; S.Bastid, United Nations
Corporations and the work of the UN Centre on TNCs.94 The issue has Administrative Tribunal, EPIL 5 (1983),
281–7; C.F.Amerasinghe, The Law of
meanwhile lost much of its former political significance, since a number the International Civil Service as Applied
of developing countries now have transnational companies of their own by International Administrative
Tribunals, 2 vols, 2nd edn 1988; C.F.
and almost all of them have become more interested in the flow of private Amerasinghe (ed.), Documents on
foreign investment into their economies, and because of the changes in International Administrative Tribunals,
the former socialist countries after the end of the Cold War. Significantly, 1989; G.Vandersanden, Administrative
Tribunals, Boards and Commissions in
following the shift in 1993 of the UN programme on TNCs from New International Organizations, EPIL I
York to UNCTAD in Geneva,95 in 1994 ECOSOC installed the renamed (1992), 27–31; R.Bernhardt,
International Organizations, Internal Law
Commission on International Investment and TNCs as an advisory body and Rules, EPIL II (1995), 1314–18. See
to the Trade and Development Board.96 also Chapter 18 below, 289.
Some other treaties provide for a different means of enforcement;
individuals take their complaints, not to an international tribunal, but to a
political organ of an international organization, which investigates the
complaint and takes such action as it considers necessary and feasible against
the offending state. (For instance, the 1919 Peace Treaties allowed members
of certain national minorities in Central and Eastern Europe to complain to
the Council of the League of Nations, if they considered that they were
victims of discrimination.)97 The individual initiates the proceedings, but
thereafter has no control over them and plays no active part in the
proceedings. If the political organ refuses to take up his case, he has no
remedy; but if it does take up his case, it may be able to protect his interests
more effectively than he could ever hope to do by appealing to an
international tribunal—apart from anything else, this indirect system of
enforcement spares the individual the costs of litigation. Moreover, the system
is popular with states, because it provides a speedier means of rejecting
frivolous claims. However, it is doubtful whether the individual’s interests
which are protected by such a system can be regarded as rights conferred on
him by international law; there is room for argument about what is meant
by a legal right, but most lawyers would probably agree that in such cases
the rights are vested in the political organ and not in the individual.
Similar problems arise in connection with employment in international
organizations, which is generally not governed by municipal law, but by
an elaborate set of rules enacted by the organization and interpreted in
the light of general principles of administrative law. International
administrative tribunals, which decide disputes between organizations
and their officials, have sometimes described this body of law as the
‘internal law of the organization’, without saying whether the ‘internal
law’ represents part of international law or a separate system of law.98
In conclusion, it should be noted that the international legal personality

of individuals and companies (and, indeed, of international organizations)
100 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 426. is still comparatively rare and limited. Moreover, it is derivative, in the
sense that it can be conferred only by states; it is states which set up
103 See Cassese, op. cit., 90 international organizations; it is states which make treaties or adopt
et seq.
customary rules giving international rights to individuals and companies; it
Movements, EPIL 3 (1982), 245–9; is only states (or international organizations, created by states) which can
S.v.Schorlemer, Liberation
Movements, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
make contracts with individuals or companies governed by international
854–64. See also Chapter 19 law. Consequently, when some states say that individuals are subjects of
below, 28.
international law, and when other states disagree, both sides may be right;
if states in the first group confer international rights on individuals, then
individuals are subjects of international law as far as those states are
concerned; states in the second group can, for practical purposes, prevent
individuals from acquiring international personality, by refraining from
giving them any rights which are valid under international law.
Insurgents and national liberation movements
Insurgents in a civil war have long been recognized in international law as

subjects having certain rights and duties because they control some territory
and might become the effective new government of the state.99 This is also
reflected in Articles 14 and 15 of the UN International Law Commission’s
Draft Articles on State Responsibility,100 according to which, as long as the
old government is still in power, a wrongful act of an insurrectional movement
established in the territory of the state shall not be considered as an act of
that state under international law (involving responsibility to other states for
it). However, it will be considered as an act of that state (in a retroactive
sense) if the insurrectional movement becomes the new government.101
New problems emerged in the process of decolonization102 concerning
the international legal status of liberation movements of ‘peoples under
colonial, alien or racist domination’, having a representative organization
(such as SWAPO, the ANC or the PLO).103 With regard to such national
liberation movements,104 the situation is different from that of the traditional
category of insurgents, although in practice there has been some overlap.
There have been conflicting positions of states on this issue in the past,
which has now lost most of its former relevance. The controversy reveals
that the international status of the three aforementioned distinct types of
national liberation movement does not rest primarily on the control of
territory, but rather on the international recognition of their political goals
of freedom from colonial domination, racist oppression or alien occupation.
Nevertheless, at least the future prospect of gaining effective control over
population in a given territory appears to be a central element of their
recognition as subjects of the international community, or at least as a lawful
belligerent, although there was much dissent on this detail in connection
with the negotiations on the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Red
Cross Conventions.105
The problems of recognition of such liberation movements by states and
international organizations are similar to those discussed above with regard
to the effect of the recognition of states among themselves in
ETHNIC MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 105
international law.106 Some movements were even granted observer 106 See Chapter 5 above, 82–90.
status107 at the United Nations. In the case of the PLO108 this led to 108 F.v.de Craen, Palestine Liberation
difficulties with the host state of the United Nations109 in 1988 when the Organization, EPIL 12 (1990), 278–82.
United States, invoking its Anti-Terrorism Act, intended to close the 109 See the literature cited above, 92.
110 Documents on the Controversy
PLO office in New York. A US court declared the act of its government
Surrounding the Closing of the Palestine
to be a violation of the Headquarters Agreement of the United States Liberation Organization Observer
with the UN.110 Mission to the United Nations, ILM 27
(1988), 712–834; US District Court for
the Southern District of New York
Ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples Decision in United States v. Palestine
Liberation Organization, ILM 27 (1988),
1055–91. See also United Nations
With the rise of ethno-nationalism in many parts of the world, not only Headquarters Agreement Case, ICJ
in the Balkans and in the former Soviet Union, the status of ethnic Rep. 1988, 12–35; T.Fitschen, Closing
minorities and other groups in international law has again become a the PLO Observer Mission to the United
Nations in New York, GYIL 31 (1988),
central issue.111 This is witnessed in various recent efforts on the global
595–620; R.Pinto, La Fermeture du
and regional level to improve their legal protection. The issue of self- bureau de l’OLP auprès de
determination of ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities and of l’Organisation des Nations Unies à New
indigenous peoples will be treated in more detail below in Chapter 19.112 York, JDI 116 (1989), 329–48; W.M.
The only relevant aspect in the present chapter is the question to what Reisman, The Arafat Visa Affair:
Exceeding the Bounds of Host State
extent such groups have acquired international legal personality. Discretion, AJIL 83 (1989), 519–27; S.
Sadiq Reza, International Agreements:
United Nations Headquarters
Minorities Agreement—Dispute Over the United
States Denial of a Visa to Yassir Arafat,
As we have seen, the problem of protecting national minorities in Europe Harvard ILJ 30 (1989), 536–48.
confronted the League of Nations after the First World War.113 After the 111 See P.Thornberry, International Law
Second World War certain rights were granted to the individual members and the Rights of Minorities, 1991;
of ethnic, linguistic or cultural minorities to have their language and identity Y.Dinstein/M.Tabory (eds), The
Protection of Minorities and Human
respected by the state as part of the process of the development of human Rights, 1991; I.M.Cuthbertson/J.
rights in general.114 But as far as nation states were at all willing to accept Leibowitz (eds), Minorities: The New
that such minorities were in fact existing on their territory, they remained Europe’s Old Issue, 1993; T.R.Gurr,
reluctant to take any steps which might increase the danger of claims to Minorities at Risk: A Global View of
Ethnopolitical Conflicts, 1993; C.
independence and secession. Recent developments have again raised the
Hillgruber/M.Jestaedt, The European
question of what legal status should be accorded to minorities on various Convention on Human Rights and the
levels. On the global level we have the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights Protection of National Minorities, 1994;
of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic P.Malanczuk, Minorities and Self-
Minorities.115 On the regional level in Europe one should mention the Determination, in N.Sybesma-Knol/J.v.
Bellingen (eds), Naar een nieuwe
creation of a High Commissioner for National Minorities in the CSCE interpretatie van het Recht op
process116 and other initiatives, such as the European Charter for Regional Zelfbeschikking, 1995, 169–93; F.
or Minority Languages adopted by the Council of Europe in 1992,117 and Capotorti, Minorities, in Wolfrum UNLPP
the 1995 Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of II, 892–903; L.-A.Sicilianos (ed.), New
Forms of Discrimination, 1995; A.
National Minorities.118 As of 5 March 1996, the Framework Convention
Phillips/A.Rosas (eds), Universal
(which needs twelve ratifications to enter into force) was ratified by four Minority Rights, 1995; H.Hannum,
states and signed by twenty-eight other states.119 Autonomy, Sovereignty and Self-
However, the question of what constitutes a ‘minority’ in terms of Determination. The Accommodation of
Conflicting Rights, rev. edn 1996.
international law has remained a vexed one to which, as yet, no 112 See Chapter 19 below, 338–40.
completely satisfactory answer has been found. The main reason is that 113 See Chapter 2 above, 24.
no abstract definition is fully capable of covering the broad variety of 338–40 below.
relevant situations in the world involving some 3,000 to 5,000 different 115 ILM 32 (1993), 911; A.Phillips/A.
Rosas (eds), The UN Minority
groups qualified as minorities in existing states. The most frequently Rights Declaration, 1993;
cited proposition is the one offered by Capotorti, as the United Nations P.Thornberry, The UN Declaration
on the Rights of Persons Belonging
Special Rapporteur, in his Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to to National or Ethnic, Religious and
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities of 1977: Linguistic Minorities:
Background, Analysis, A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State,
Observations, and an Update, in
Phillips/Rosas (eds), 1995, op. cit.; in a non-dominant position, whose members—being nationals of
I.O.Bokatola, L’Organisation des the State—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics
Nations Unies et la protection des
minorités, 1992.
differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only
116 E.Klein (ed.), The Institution of a implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their
Commissioner for Human Rights culture, traditions, religion or language.120
and Minorities and the Prevention of
Human Rights Violations, 1994.
117 G.Gilbert, The Legal Protection The question of the international legal personality of minorities is more
Accorded to Minority Groups in
complicated than the issue of the international legal personality of individuals
Europe, NYIL 23 (1992), 67–104.
118 ILM 34 (1995), 351–9. See P. or companies. The problem of minorities has quite a different political and
Thornberry/M.A.M.Estebanez, The legal dimension for two main reasons. First, it is related to the meaning and
Work of the Council of Europe in the
Protection of Minorities, RIA 46
legal consequences of the principle of self-determination121 and implies, in the
(1995), 28–32; A.Rönquist, The view of states, the danger of secession of a minority and thus may lead to the
Council of Europe Framework loss of territory and control over part of the population. Second, it is connected
Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities, HM 6 (1995),
with the problem of possible intervention of a mother country into a
38–44; M.A.Martín Estébanez, neighbouring state to protect ‘its’ minorities, as, for example, was the pretext
International Organizations and in the case of the Sudeten Germans, when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. It is
Minority Protection in Europe, 1996.
119 ILM 35 (1996), 807. no accident that in the development of international law since the Second World
120 F.Capotorti, Study on the Rights War, the rights of minorities have been conceived as a category of human rights
of Persons belonging to Ethnic,
Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
which are to be exercised by the individual belonging to a minority, rather than
1991, 96. as group rights attributed to a collective entity as such.122
122 See N.S.Rodley, Conceptual
Problems in the Protection of
Minorities: International Legal Indigenous peoples
Developments, HRQ 17 (1995),
48–71. Special issues have arisen in recent years with regard to the category of so-
123 H.-J.Heintze, Völkerrecht und called ‘indigenous peoples’.123 Examples are the Aborigines in Australia, the
Indigenous Peoples, ZaöRV 50
(1990), 39–70; I.Brownlie, Treaties Indians (Native Americans) in America, the Inuit (also known as Eskimos),
and Indigenous Peoples, 1992. G. the Maori in New Zealand and the Sami (Lapps) in Scandinavia and Russia.
Alfredsson, Indigenous Populations,
Protection, EPIL II (1995), 946; A total of 100 to 200 million people in more than forty states are estimated
Indigenous Populations, Treaties to fall within this category. An independent NGO to further the claims of
With, ibid., 951; E.Spiry, From ‘Self-
Determination’ to a Right to ‘Self- indigenous peoples has been established in The Hague under the name
Development’ for Indigenous Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO).124 Recent results
Groups, GYIL 38 (1995), 129–52;
W.M. Reismann, Protecting
of the quest of such groups have been the Draft UN Declaration on the Rights
Indigenous Rights in International of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on
Adjudication, AJIL 89 (1995), 350– 26 August 1994125 and the establishment of a Working Group on the Draft
62; S.J.Anaya, Indigenous Peoples
in International Law, 1996. Declaration by the Commission on 3 March 1995.126
124 See M.C.v.Walt v.Praag, The The definitional obstacles are in principle of the same nature as in the
Position of UNPO in the
International Legal Order, in case of minorities. An elaborate definition was formulated by J.R.Martinez
C.Brölmann/R.Lefeber/ M.Zieck Cobo, appointed by the UN as Special Rapporteur to undertake a Study of
(eds), Peoples and Minorities in
International Law, 1993, 313 et seq. the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, in 1983:
125 Sub-Commission on Prevention
of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities, ILM 34 (1995), 541; see
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having
E. Gayim, The UN Draft Declaration a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies
on Indigenous Peoples: Assessment that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from
of the Draft Prepared by the Working
Group on Indigenous Populations, other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or
1994; C.M. Brölmann/M.Y.A.Zieck, parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society
Some Remarks on the Draft and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future
Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, LJIL 8 generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the
(1995), 103 et seq.; R.T.Coutler, basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with
T h e D r a ft U N D e c l a r a t i o n o n
the Rights of Indigenous
their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.
ETHNIC MINORITIES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 107
…On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who Peoples: What Is It? What Does It
Mean?, NQHR 13 (1995), 123–38.; 38.
belongs to these indigenous populations through self- 126 ILM 34 (1995), 535.
identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is 127 M.Cobo, Study of the Problem of
Discrimination Against Indigenous
recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its Populations, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/
members (acceptance by the group).127 1983/21/Add. 8, paras. 379 and 381.
128 A.Cristescu, The Right to Self-
Determination, Historical and Current
From a legal perspective, it is difficult to see, even on the basis of this more Development on the Basis of United
elaborate definition, what exactly should distinguish ‘indigenous peoples’ Nations Instruments, UNP Sales No.
from the definition of ‘minorities’, as proposed by Capotorti, or, from the 80.XIV.3, para. 279. See also J.
Crawford (ed.), The Rights of Peoples,
equally unclear and disputed general term of ‘peoples’. A. Cristescu once 1992.
attempted to clarify it as follows: ‘The term “people” denotes a social 129 See C.M.Brölmann/M.Y.A.Zieck,
Indigenous Peoples, in Brölmann/
entity possessing a clear identity and its own characteristics. It implies a Lefeber/Zieck (eds), op. cit., 187 et seq.,
relationship with a territory, even if the people in question has been at 196.
wrongfully expelled from it and artificially replaced by another 130 Ibid., 197 et seq., discussing ILO
Conventions 107 and 169 and the 1992
population.’128 While at least the criterion of numerical inferiority in the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of
case of minorities offers a clear distinguishing feature from the category of Indigenous Peoples, op. cit.
‘people’, whatever its precise meaning, the definition of ‘indigenous peoples’ 131 Ibid., at 196.
132 ILM 31 (1992), 876–80, at 880. On
seems to combine the elements of both.129 Of course, the definitional the Rio Declaration see Chapter 16
problems should not be exaggerated because often the legal meaning of below, 247, 250.
such terms becomes clear from the relevant legal context and instrument.
But whether ‘indigenous peoples’, special attention to which has been
given primarily within the framework of the International Labour
Organization and the United Nations,130 really form a separate legal
category is doubtful. To solve the problem, suggestions have been made
to include the alleged characteristic dependence on the land in the definition
of ‘indigenous peoples’.131 However, it seems difficult not to apply the
same considerations, in one form or another, to other groups, such as, for
example the Kurds, the Armenians, the Scots or the Welsh. The only valid
distinguishing criterion so far appears to be a purely subjective and political
one, namely the refusal of ‘indigenous peoples’ to be identified as simple
‘minorities’ in order to be able to claim more far-reaching rights.
Such a claim seems to be gaining some recognition. Principle 22 of
the non-binding 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
states:
Indigenous people and their communities, and other local

communities, have a vital role in environmental management
and development because of their knowledge and traditional
practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity,
culture and interests and enable their effective participation in
the achievement of sustainable development.132
The aforementioned UN Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples

seems to go a step further than documents on protecting members
of minorities by recognizing group rights for indigenous peoples
who are considered to be ‘equal in dignity and rights to all other
peoples’ (preamble) and who should have the right of self-
determination. But, first, it is still a draft and, second, even if it
becomes a declaration accepted by states in the General Assembly,
it would be a resolution of an international organization and
thus not necessarily an expression of the law as it stands. 133 In
sum, like in the case of individuals and companies, the question
of the international legal personality of minorities and indigenous
peoples is in reality a question of the specific rights attributed to them by

states, but the point is that these entities pose a different set of problems
under international law de lege ferenda because of claims to self-
determination. They are not subjects of international law in any meaningful
sense of the term and have not (yet) achieved an international legal status
any higher than that of individuals.
7 Jurisdiction
Forms of jurisdiction 1 See Harris CMIL, 250–86; F.A.Mann,

The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in
International Law, RdC 111 (1964–I), 9–
‘Jurisdiction’ is a word which must be used with extreme caution. It sounds 162; M.Akehurst, Jurisdiction in
impressively technical, and yet many people think that they have a vague International Law, BYIL 46 (1972–3),
145–257; D.W.Bowett, Jurisdiction:
idea of what it means; there is therefore a temptation to use the word Changing Patterns of Authority over
without stopping to ask what it means. In fact, it can have a large number Activities and Resources, BYIL 53
(1982), 1; F.A.Mann, The Doctrine of
of different meanings.1 Sometimes it simply means territory; for instance, Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty
in cases concerning the custody of children, British courts may order a Years, RdC 186 (1984–III), 9–116;
Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 230 et seq.;
party not to take the child ‘out of the jurisdiction of the court’, which B.H.Oxman, Jurisdiction of States, EPIL
means ‘out of Britain’. The phrase ‘domestic jurisdiction’, as used in the 10 (1987), 277–83; G.Marston, Maritime
Jurisdiction, EPIL 11 (1989), 221–4;
United Nations Charter, has a specialized meaning.2 But most often L.Henkin, RdC 216 (1989–IV), 277–330;
‘jurisdiction’ refers to powers exercised by a state over persons, property, R.S.J.Martha, The Jurisdiction to Tax in
International Law: Theory and Practice
or events. But, here again, the term is ambiguous, for the powers under of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction, 1989;
consideration may be powers to legislate in respect of the persons, property, T.Mundiya, Extraterritorial Injunctions
or events in question (legislative or prescriptive jurisdiction), the powers against Sovereign Litigants in US
Courts: The Need for a Per Se Rule,
of a state’s courts to hear cases concerning the persons, property or events ICLQ 44 (1995), 893–904; F.Münch,
in question (judicial or adjudicative jurisdiction), or the powers of physical Consular Jurisdiction, EPIL I (1992),
763–5. On the relevant jurisprudence of
interference exercised by the executive, such as the arrest of persons, seizure the ICJ see H.Fox, Jurisdiction and
of property, and so on (enforcement jurisdiction). Immunities, in V.Lowe/M.Fitzmaurice
(eds), Fifty Years of the International
It is essential to differentiate between these three groups of powers, Court of Justice, 1996, 210–36.
particularly between the second and third groups, although the 2 A.D’Amato, Domestic Jurisdiction,
EPIL I (1992), 1090–6. See also
distinctions are not always rigid in practice. For instance, if a man Chapter 21 below, 368–9.
commits a murder in England and escapes to France, the English courts 3 See Chapter 12 below, 186–91.
have jurisdiction to try him, but the English police cannot enter French
territory and arrest him there; they must request the French authorities
to arrest him and to surrender him for trial in England. (This distinction
between the right to arrest and the right to try is fairly obvious in the
case of crimes committed on land, but can easily be overlooked in the
case of crimes committed on ships.3) What has been said follows from
the principle of territorial sovereignty, according to which a state may
not perform any governmental act in the territory of another state without
the latter’s consent. As noted by Max Huber in the Palmas Island case:
Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies

independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the
globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any
other State, the functions of a State. The development of the
national organization of States during the last few centuries
and, as a corollary, the development of international law,
have established this principle of the exclusive competence
of the State in regard to its own territory in such a way as
110 JURISDICTION
4 Island of Palmas Case, RIAA II

829, at 838. On the case see also
to make it the point of departure in settling most questions that
Chapter 5 above, 75–6 and Chapter concern international relations.4
10 below, 148.
5 For a discussion see, for example,
A.F.Lowenfeld, U.S. Law There are many cases in which states have claimed the right to their own
Enforcement Abroad: The law enforcement abroad.5 But the (open or secret) performance of state acts
Constitution and International Law,
AJIL 83 (1980), 880; Continued, on the territory of another state without its consent, such as the kidnapping
AJIL 84 (1990), 444–93; of the Nazi criminal Eichmann in Argentina by Israel in 19606 and the
E.A.Nadelmann, Cops Across
Borders: The Internationalization of kidnapping in the Alvarez-Machain case by US agents,7 or the sinking of
U.S. Criminal Enforcement, 1993. Rainbow Warrior by French agents in a New Zealand harbour,8 although
6 RGDIP (1960), 772.
7 See Chapter 4 above, 66–7. See some are disputed,9 generally constitute violations of the principles of
also the interesting discussion in the territorial integrity and non-intervention.10 No state has the authority to
ILA Committee on Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction, ILA Rep. 1994, 679
infringe the territorial integrity of another state in order to apprehend an
et seq. alleged criminal, even if the suspect is charged with an international crime,
9 It is sometimes suggested that
such as drug trafficking as in the case of General Manuel Noriega who was
such acts are permissible in brought to the United States for the purpose of criminal prosecution after
exceptional circumstances if their President Bush had ordered the military invasion of Panama (on rather
purpose is to prosecute crimes
against humanity, B. Stern, dubious grounds of legal justification) on 20 December 1989.11
L’Extraterritorialité revisitée: où il est
question des affaires Alvarez-
Machain, Pâté de bois et de
quelques autres, AFDI 38 (1992), Criminal jurisdiction of national courts
239–313, at 288.
10 See generally T.Oppermann,
Intervention, EPIL II (1995), 1436–9. The remainder of this chapter is restricted to the limitations imposed by
11 See also V.P.Nanda, The Validity
of United States Intervention in
international law on the jurisdiction of municipal courts. It is comparatively
Panama under International Law, rare for international law to require a municipal court to hear a case; most
AJIL 84 (1990), 494–503, at 502; of the relevant rules of international law consist of prohibitions. If a
S.B.v. Ellington, United States v.
Noriega as a Reason for an municipal court exercises jurisdiction in violation of one of these
International Criminal Court, Dick. prohibitions, the national state of the injured individual adversely affected
JIL 11 (1993), 451–75; R. Rayfuse, by the decision may make an international claim, and it is no excuse for the
International Abduction and the
United States Supreme Court: The defendant state to plead that the exercise of jurisdiction was lawful under
Law of the Jungle Reigns, ICLQ 42 municipal law, or that the trial was fair and just. But in most cases
(1993), 882 et seq.
international law neither forbids nor requires municipal courts to hear cases;
13 See Akehurst, op. cit., 170–7. it makes an offer of jurisdiction, so to speak, which municipal courts need
But see I.Brownlie, Principles of not accept if they do not want to. The jurisdiction of municipal courts is
Public International Law, 4th edn
1990, 299, who argues that there is determined mainly by municipal law, and international law confines itself
no great difference between the to placing a few limitations on the discretion of states.
problems arising from the assertion Apart from cases of sovereign and diplomatic immunity, and so on, which
of civil and criminal jurisdiction over
aliens because the enforcement of will be dealt with in the next chapter,12 international law does not seem to
civil jurisdiction in the end involves impose any restrictions on the jurisdiction of courts in civil cases;13 it restricts
criminal sanctions.
14 On territory see Chapter 5 above,
jurisdiction only in criminal cases. As far as criminal trials are concerned,
73–6. the bases of jurisdiction most frequently invoked by states are as follows
(some of them being more widely accepted than others).
Territorial principle
Every state claims jurisdiction over crimes committed in its own territory,14
even by foreigners. Sometimes a criminal act may begin in one state and be
completed in another: for instance, a man may shoot across a frontier and
kill someone on the other side. In such circumstances both states have
jurisdiction; the state where the act commenced has jurisdiction under the
subjective territorial principle, and the state where the act is completed has
jurisdiction under the objective territorial principle (also sometimes called
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL COURTS 111
15 For example, see the Lotus case,

the ‘effects doctrine’, based on the fact that the injurious effect, although PCIJ, series A, no. 10 (see Chapter 3
not the act or omission itself, occurred on the territory of the state).15 above, 44–5 and Chapter 12 below,
490–1); Akehurst, op. cit., 152–6. On
the controversial application of the
‘effects doctrine’ by some states to
Nationality principle exercise extensive extraterritorial
jurisdiction in economic regulation, see
Whether a person has the nationality of a particular state is determined by O.Schachter, International Law in
the municipal law of that state. International law only lays down certain Theory and Practice, 1991, 261–4 and
text below, 116–17.
limits for states to prescribe which criteria are relevant for nationality.16 A 16 See Chapter 17 below, 263–7.
state may prosecute its nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the 17 See, for example, Blackmer v. United
world (active nationality principle). This rule is universally accepted, and States, 284 US 421 (1932) in which an
American citizen who had taken refuge
continental countries make extensive use of it. English law gives jurisdiction in France was ordered to return to the
on this ground to English courts as regards only a few crimes, such as treason, United States to testify in criminal
murder and bigamy, but the United Kingdom does not challenge the extensive proceedings.
18 Restatement (Third), para. 421(1),
use of this principle by other countries. The courts of the United States also (2)(d), at 305.
accept nationality as a basis for jurisdiction.17 The Restatement (Third) 19 Ibid., para. 422(1), at 313.
20 See Huntington v. Attrill, [1893] AC
provides that a state may exercise jurisdiction through its courts to adjudicate 150.
if the person is a national of the state,18 but US courts ‘may try a person only 21 Moore, Digest of International Law,
for violation of United States law, not for violation of the penal law of a Vol. 2, 1906, 228–42.
22 See, for example, the 1986
foreign state’.19 Similarly, English courts will generally not enforce the criminal Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism
laws of foreign states.20 Some countries claim jurisdiction on the basis of Act, adopted after the Achille Lauro
some personal link other than nationality (for example, long residence by incident, and US v. Yunis (No. 2), 681 F.
Supp. 896 (1988); 82 ILR 344, where
the accused in the state exercising jurisdiction), and other states have not the Court held that the international
protested against such jurisdiction. community would recognize the
legitimacy of the passive personality
Some states, such as Mexico, Brazil and Italy, claim criminal jurisdiction principle, although it was the most
also on the basis of the passive nationality principle to try an alien for controversial basis of assuming criminal
crimes committed abroad affecting one of their nationals. Inter alia on jurisdiction. On the international
measures adopted to combat terrorism
this principle, in the Cutting case (1886), a court in Mexico assumed on the high seas after the Achille Lauro
criminal jurisdiction over an American citizen for the publication of a affair, see Chapter 12 below, 188.
defamatory statement against a Mexican citizen in a Texas newspaper.21 23 Restatement (Third), para. 402,
Comment g and Reporter’s Note 3, at
At the time the United States protested against this, but in the end the case 240.
was dropped because the affected Mexican citizen withdrew the charges.
The United States and the United Kingdom have consistently opposed
this principle in the past and it may indeed be argued that the mere fact
that the national of a state has been the victim of a crime committed in
another country does not necessarily concern the general interests of the
home state. On the other hand, if the state where the crime has occurred
is unwilling or unable to prosecute the offender, one could also argue that
the home state is entitled to protect its own citizens once the foreign suspect
comes under its control. Recent developments in the United States have
come to accept the passive nationality principle with regard to terrorist
activities and similar serious crimes.22 The Restatement (Third) notes:
The principle has not been generally accepted for ordinary torts
or crimes, but it is increasingly accepted as applied to terrorist
and other organized attacks on a state’s nationals by reason of
their nationality, or to assassination of a state’s diplomatic
representatives or other officials.23
Protective principle
This allows a state to punish acts prejudicial to its security, even when they
are committed by foreigners abroad—for example, plots to overthrow its
112 JURISDICTION
24 Ibid., Comment f, at 240, notes

that ‘[t]he protective principle does
government, espionage, forging its currency and plots to break its
not support application to foreign immigration regulations. Most countries use this principle to some extent,
nationals of laws against political
expression, such as libel of the state
and it therefore seems to be valid, although there is a danger that some
or of the chief of state.’ See states might try to interpret their ‘security’ too broadly. For instance, if a
generally I.Cameron, The Protective
Principle of International Criminal
newspaper published in state A criticizes state B, it would be unreasonable
Jurisdiction, 1994. to suggest that state B has jurisdiction to try the editor for sedition.24 Also
263.
not covered by any sense of the protective principle is the death sentence
26 Lotus case, op. cit. (backed by the reward offered) that was imposed by the fatwa issued by the
Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini on 14 February 1989 against the writer
29 Akehurst, op. cit., 161–2. See Salman Rushdie (who had to go into hiding under police protection in his
also Chapter 13 below, 201,
30 See M.C.Bassiouni, Hostages,
domicile in England) for ‘blasphemy’ in his book The Satanic Verses, which
EPIL 8 (1985), 264–8; M.Feinrider, had aroused great anger in parts of the Muslim world.
Kidnapping, ibid., 355–8; R.A.
Friedlander, Terrorism, EPIL 9
The protective principle of jurisdiction must not be confused with
(1986), 371–6; A.Cassese, The ‘diplomatic protection’, which refers to the right of a state to intervene
International Community’s ‘Legal’
Response to Terrorism, ICLQ 38
diplomatically or to raise an international claim on behalf of its nationals
(1989), 589–608; G.Guillaume, against another state.25
Terrorisme et droit international,
RdC 215 (1989–III), 287– 416;
J.J.Lambert, Terrorism and
Hostages in International Law—A Universality principle
Commentary on the Hostages
Convention 1979, 1990; P.Hortatos, Some states claim jurisdiction over all crimes, including all crimes (or at
International Law and Crimes of least serious crimes) committed by foreigners abroad. English-speaking
Terrorism Against the Peace and
Security of Mankind, 1993; countries consider that such universal jurisdiction is normally forbidden by
H.H.Han, Terrorism & Political international law. The Permanent Court of International Justice refrained
Violence: Limits & Possibilities of from discussing the validity of such jurisdiction in the Lotus case,26 but
Legal Control, 1993; G. Gilbert, The
Law and International Terrorism, individual judges declared that it was normally contrary to international
NYIL 26 (1995), 3–32. law. The universality principle can obviously lead to unjust results when an
31 Restatement (Third), para. 404,
at 254.
individual is punished elsewhere for an act which was lawful under the law
32 Ibid., Comment a. of the place where it was committed. The universality principle is less
33 Adopted by UNGA Res. 3068 objectionable when it is applied to acts which are regarded as crimes in all
(XXVIII) of 30 November 1973, text
in ILM 13 (1974), 50. See countries; indeed, even English-speaking countries, which consider that the
J.Delbrück, Apartheid, EPIL I (1992), universality principle is normally contrary to international law, accept that
192–6. international law allows states to exercise universal jurisdiction over certain
acts which threaten the international community as a whole and which are
criminal in all countries, such as war crimes,27 piracy,28 hijacking29 and
various forms of international terrorism.30
The United States (according to the Restatement (Third)) also
accepts that
[a] state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for certain
offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal
concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks on or hijacking of aircraft,
genocide, war crimes, and perhaps certain acts of terrorism.31
The Restatement (Third) views these offences as being subject to universal

jurisdiction as a matter of customary law.32 Additional offences may be
subject to universal jurisdiction on the basis of international agreements,
such as, for example, the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression
a n d P u n i s h m e n t o f t h e C r i m e o f ‘ A p a r t h e i d ’ 33 o r t h e 1 9 8 4
C o n v e n t i o n a g a i n s t Tor t u re a n d o t h e r C r u e l , I n h u m a n a n d
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.34 But such agreements only apply
34 ILM 23 (1984), 1027, amended text

between the states that are parties to them, unless it can be shown that in ILM 24 (1985), 535. See Chapter 14
customary law has also come to accept these offences as subject to below, 216.
universal jurisdiction. 36 Eichmann v. Att.-Gen. of Israel
The concept of universal jurisdiction in its broad sense of the power (1962), 36 ILR 277.
of a state to punish certain crimes, wherever and by whomsoever they 37 See Chapter 20 below, 353–61.
38 See Brownlie (1990), op. cit., 305.
have been committed, without any required connection to territory, 39 See Schachter, op. cit., 268. See
nationality or special state interest, however, raises a number of problems. also G.Gilbert, Crimes Sans Frontières:
First, it is frequently said that universal jurisdiction has been (at least Jurisdictional Problems in English Law,
BYIL 63 (1992), 415–42.
implicitly) recognized after the Second World War in multilateral treaties 40 See M.Chapter Bassiouni/E.M. Wise,
with regard to crimes considered to be of international concern, in Aut Dedere aut Judicare: The Duty to
Extradite or Prosecute in International
particular, war crimes, which the courts of one state have prosecuted Law, 1995.
even if they were committed by foreign nationals on the territory of 41 See Restatement (Third), para. 404,
another state. Reference is especially made to the 1949 Geneva Comment b, 255.
Conventions and the obligations of state parties to punish persons guilty
of war crimes and crimes against humanity.35 Thus, in the Eichmann
case, apart from the issue of the legality of the kidnapping, the jurisdiction
assumed by Israeli courts for war crimes and crimes against humanity
was generally recognized, although the crimes were committed in Europe
during the Second World War before Israel came into existence, and
concerned people who were not citizens of the State of Israel.36 Such
crimes are a violation of international law, directly punishable under
international law itself (and thus universal crimes), and they may be
dealt with by national courts or by international tribunals, such as the
Tribunals that were recently established by the UN Security Council for
crimes committed in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, or the envisaged
creation of a permanent International Criminal Court.37 But, in a strict
sense, they are not a reflection of the universality principle of jurisdiction,
granting states the liberty to prosecute persons under their national law
for certain acts which, as such, are not criminal under international law.38
Second, apart from piracy, the slave trade, war crimes and crimes
against humanity, other crimes of international concern established by
more recent conventions, extending to the hijacking of aircraft, sabotage,
apartheid, crimes against internationally protected persons, terrorism,
hostage-taking, drug trafficking, counterfeiting of currency and others,
raise perplexing issues concerning the legal basis of the alleged universal
jurisdiction.39 Such conventions create an obligation to prosecute or to
extradite the accused (aut dedere aut judicare) and thereby confer
jurisdiction under the provisions of the relevant treaty.40 But how can
such treaties, which are binding only among the parties to them, by
themselves create true universal jurisdiction in relation to non-parties?
Universal jurisdiction of national courts over crimes against

human rights
Moreover, there is a recent tendency in some states to claim universal
jurisdiction over crimes against human rights. But here one has to be
clear whether one is speaking of criminal law jurisdiction or of non-
criminal law jurisdiction (torts or other civil proceedings for
compensation for damages). In principle, under international law,
universal jurisdiction is not limited to criminal law; states can provide
other remedies for victims of crimes against universally accepted
interests.41
114 JURISDICTION
42 630 F. 2d 876, 890 (2d Cir.

1980).
It appears that the first case of this type that was decided by a national
43 On the case see the court was Filartiga v. Peña-Irala (1980) in which a citizen of Paraguay filed
Symposium— Federal Jurisdiction,
Human Rights, and the Law of
a suit in the United States against a former Paraguayan police officer (who
Nations: Essays on Filartiga v. was living illegally in New York when the suit was filed) for the torture and
Peña-Irala, Ga. JICL 11 (1981),
305– 41; F.Hassan, A Conflict of
death of the plaintiffs brother by acts committed in Paraguay three years
Philosophies: The Filartiga earlier. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that ‘for
Jurisprudence, ICLQ 32 (1983),
250–8.
purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave
44 See A.-M.Burley, The Alien Tort trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of mankind.’42 The
Statute and the Judiciary Act of
1789: A Badge of Honor, AJIL 83
decision held that torture under the guise of official authority, even if it
(1989), 461–93. could not be clearly attributed to the government, is a violation of
45 See also Restatement (Third),
para. 702, Reporters’ Note 5, at 171.
international law and that foreign torturers discovered in the United States
46 Siderman de Blake v. Republic of might be sued before an American court, regardless of where the act
Argentina, 965 F. 2d 699 (9th Cir.
1992).
occurred.43 It is important to note that the suit was based on the US Alien
47 See Chapter 8 below, 118–23. Tort Statute which grants district courts jurisdiction over ‘any civil action
48 See R.B.Lillich, Damages for
Gross Violations of International
by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or
Human Rights Awarded by US a treaty of the United States’. The decision was hailed as a landmark in
Courts, HRQ 15 (1993), 207, at
220–1.
human rights litigation in support of President Carter’s human rights foreign
49 See Chapter 8 below, 118. policy, but subsequent attempts to extend jurisdiction to violations of human
50 Siderman case, op. cit., at 713.
51 Argentine Republic v. Amerada
rights other than torture have proved less successful.44 At any rate, whether
Hess Shipping Corp., 488 US 428; torture has in fact become a crime subject to universal jurisdiction under
109 S.Ct. 683; see Chapter 8 below,
120.
customary international law, has remained uncertain.45
A recent decision of 22 May 1992 by the US Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in the Siderman case46 should also be mentioned because it
demonstrates well the close interaction between the concept of ‘jurisdiction’
and the concept of ‘state immunity’ exempting a foreign state from the
judicial power of the courts of another state (which will be dealt with in
more detail in the next chapter47). In 1982 the Siderman family sued
Argentina for the torture of José Siderman and the expropriation of the
family’s property, which had taken place immediately after the military
seized power in 1976. As far as the torture claim was concerned, in 1984
the lower District Court for the Central District of California awarded the
family some US$2.7 million damages in a default judgment (Argentina not
taking part in the proceedings).48 In 1985, however, the District Court
vacated the default judgment and dismissed the action after Argentina had
claimed immunity under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA).49
While a foreign state can invoke its immunity under the FSIA, it cannot do
so in all circumstances, because the Act lays down certain exceptions. In
1992, the US Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court
and sent the case back for further proceedings on the grounds that
jurisdiction existed prima facie (meaning that the burden of proof lay on
Argentina to show ‘by a preponderance of evidence’50 that none of the
exceptions to immunity laid down in the FSIA apply).
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeals extensively tried to demonstrate
that the prohibition of torture has the nature of ius cogens, but in view of a
pertinent ruling of the higher US Supreme Court,51 which it had to follow,
the Court of Appeals had no choice but to find that jurisdiction overcoming
the immunity defence raised by Argentina could neither be based upon a
general exception of the ‘violation of ius cogens’, nor upon the existing
treaty exception of section 1604 FSIA. Nevertheless, the Court was able to
52 See R.G.Steinhardt, Fulfilling the

find jurisdiction under the ‘implied waiver’ provision of section 1605(a)(1) Promise of Filartiga: Litigating Human
FSIA, in short, because Argentina was seeking the assistance of US courts Rights Claims Against the Estate of
Ferdinand Marcos, Yale JIL 20 (1995),
in pressing criminal charges against José Siderman. This was seen as 65–103.
sufficient evidence for an implied waiver of immunity by Argentina in 53 See G.Ress, Final Report,
International Committee on State
the case brought by the Siderman family. The further details of the Immunity, ILA Rep. 1994, 466–7, nn. 62
argument may here be overlooked. The case illuminates the general legal and 63 with references.
54 Section 2(a), P.L. 102–256, 102d
difficulties in human rights litigation in the United States in connection Congress, 106 Stat. 73.
with foreign sovereign immunity. 55 See Chapter 8 below, 121–3.
Because of the problems individual victims face under US foreign 56 L.J.Del Pizzo, Not Guilty—But Not
Innocent: An Analysis of the Acquittal of
sovereign immunity law to bring suits against foreign states for gross John Demjanuk and Its Impact on the
violations of human rights, in recent years a number of cases have been Future of Nazi War Crimes Trials,
BCICLR 18 (1995), 137–78.
filed directly against individuals for such acts, often committed in the 57 On extradition, see text below, 117.
exercise of some form of governmental authority. They include the Marcos 58 Del Pizzo, op. cit., 138.
case52 and suits filed against the Argentinian General Carlos Guillermo
Suarez-Mason, the ex-President of Haiti (Lt.-Gen. Prosper Avril), the
former Defence Minister of Guatemala (General Hector Alejandro
Gramajo Morales), the Indonesian General Panjaitan, a former official
of the Government of Ethiopia (Negowo), and the Serbian leader Dr
Karad•ic.53 In response to these difficulties, on 12 March 1992, the US
Congress adopted the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The Act
allows victims to file claims for damages in a civil action against
individuals who ‘under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of
any foreign nation’ subjects an individual to torture or extrajudicial
killing.54 It remains to be seen what this means in actual judicial practice
with regard to foreign sovereign immunity and the related ‘act of state
doctrine’ (which will be discussed in the next chapter55) if such acts are
also clearly attributable to a foreign government.
‘Ivan the Terrible’ —The trial of John Demjanuk

Instructive lessons on the difficulties of effectively prosecuting war
criminals arising from the application of strict rules on due process and
evidence in national legal systems based upon the respect for the rule of
law can be learnt from the recent case of John Demjanuk.56 Demjanuk
was accused of being ‘Ivan the Terrible’, a name given by victims to a
sadistic operator of gas chambers who assisted in murdering thousands
of Jews at the Treblinka death camp set up by Nazi Germany in Poland
during the Second World War.
In 1977 proceedings were commenced against Demjanuk in the
United States to deprive him of the US citizenship he had allegedly
gained on the basis of lies concerning his wartime activities on his
visa application. After Israel had requested his extradition under a
treaty with the United States,57 while deportation proceedings were
still pending, in 1983 Demjanuk was finally extradited to stand trial
in Israel in 1986. In 1988 he was sentenced to death by hanging by
the District Court of Jerusalem.58 Damjanuk appealed against the
decision on the grounds that, as he had stated from the beginning, he
was a victim of mistaken identity. He remained in solitary confinement
in a cell near Tel Aviv for five years until his appeal was decided.
Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, in 1991 new
evidence emerged from Soviet archives identifying another man
116 JURISDICTION
59 Ibid., 139.
60 Ibid., 140.
named Ivan Marchenko as ‘Ivan the Terrible’. In 1993 the Israeli Supreme
61 See Chapter 14 below, 209–21. Court59 acquitted Demjanuk of all charges, although it found that Demjanuk
62 A.T.S.Leenen, Extraterritorial
Application of the EEC Competition
had served as an SS guardsman in the Trawniki unit, participating in the
Law, NYIL 15 (1984), 139–66; killings of thousands of Jews, and that he had also been active at the Sobibor
P.M.Barlow, Aviation Antitrust. The
Extraterritorial Application of the
death camp in Poland.
United States Antitrust Laws and A group of survivors of the Holocaust petitioned the Court to institute
International Air Transportation, new criminal proceedings against Demjanuk on the basis of the evidence
1988; J.-G.Castel, Extraterritoriality
in International Trade. Canada and concerning Trawniki and Sobibor. However, the decision not to bring new
United States of America Practices charges against Demjanuk was in the end upheld. The United States Court
Compared, 1988; I.Seidl-
Hohenveldern, Extraterritorial of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit then reopened Demjanuk’s extradition case
Respect for State Acts, Hague YIL 1 and permitted him to return to the United States. In 1993 the Court found
(1988), 152–63; F.A.Mann, The
Extremism of American that there had been procedural misconduct during the extradition hearings
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, ICLQ 39 and that exculpatory evidence had been withheld by the Justice Department’s
(1990), 410 et seq.; A.Bianchi,
Extraterritoriality and Export
Office of Special Investigations. It revoked the extradition order. In 1994
Controls: Some Remarks on the the US Supreme Court60 denied review of this decision and Demjanuk
Alleged Antinomy Between
European and U.S. Approaches,
returned to free life in Ohio. Thus, an expensive and time-consuming process
GYIL 35 (1992), 366; P.M. Roth, occupying more than seventeen years, involving two friendly countries both
Reasonable Extraterritoriality: known to be seriously disposed to prosecute Nazi war criminals, in the end
Correcting the ‘Balance of Interests’,
ICLQ 41 (1992), 245 et seq.; led to no conviction.
W.Meng, Extraterritorial Jurisdiktion
im öffentlichen Wirtschaftsrecht,
1994; A. Robertson/M.Demetriou,
‘But that was another country…’: Conflicts of jurisdiction
The Extra-Territorial Application of
the US Antitrust Laws in the US
Supreme Court, ICLQ 43 (1994), The existence of different grounds of jurisdiction invoked by national courts
417–24; W.Meng, Extraterritorial
Effects of Administrative, Judicial means that several states may have concurrent jurisdiction—that is, the
and Legislative Acts, EPIL II (1995), criminal may be tried and punished by several different countries. A
337–43.
63 Text in ILM 35 (1996), 357. See conviction or acquittal in a foreign country is treated as a bar to a subsequent
also the Iran and Libya Sanctions prosecution in some countries, but not in all. International law is silent on
Act adopted by the United States in
1996, ILM 35 (1996), 1273.
this point, and the result may be great hardship, unless the protection of
64 See also Chapter 13 below, 200. international human rights can be invoked.61
The inherent conflict between the nationality principle and the effects
doctrine (or objective territoriality principle) with the concurrent
jurisdiction of the state in whose territory the act or omission has occurred
(subjective territoriality principle) often leads to more general difficulties
in quite a variety of areas when the laws of the states involved reach
different results in permitting, prohibiting or even requiring a certain act.
Delicate issues in this respect have arisen particularly in international
economic relations, in view of the negative response by a number of states
(by enacting so-called blocking statutes) to the attempt by the United States
to apply its antitrust and securities laws to foreign subsidiaries of American
companies with ‘extraterritorial effect’.62 Similar problems have emerged
with the more recent application of regulations of the European Community
to nationals outside of the Community. The controversial issue of
economic sanctions through exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by
the United States has re-emerged most recently with the adoption of the
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (the
Helms-Burton Act).63 The Act was signed by President Clinton in response
to the shooting down by the Cuban Air Force of two light planes flown
by a Cuban-American organization based in Florida in February
1996. 64 Under the Act, nationals of third states dealing with American
EXTRADITION 117
Commonwealth Initiative, ICLQ 37

property expropriated by Cuba, using such property or making benefit (1988), 177; D.McClean, International
of it, may be sued for damages before American courts and even barred Judicial Assistance, 1992; W.C.
from entering the United States. This far-reaching extension of US Gilmore, Mutual Assistance in Criminal
and Business Regulatory Matters, 1995.
jurisdiction to acts undertaken on foreign territory caused international 68 See Weis, The Draft UN Convention
protests65 because it is seen to violate obligations of the United States on Territorial Asylum, BYIL 50 (1979),
151. For the special problems of asylum
under multilateral trade agreements and under general international law. in embassies and warships, see D.P.
A discussion of this complicated but in practice increasingly relevant O’Connell, International Law, 2nd edn
1970, Vol. 2, 734–40. See further J.A.
legal area is beyond the scope of an introductory textbook.66 Barberis, Asylum, Diplomatic, EPIL I
(1992), 281–3; A.Grahl-Madsen,
Asylum, Territorial, ibid., 283–7;.
69 For further study see A.V.Lowe/C.
Extradition Warbrick, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
and Extradition, ICLQ 36 (1986), 398–
423; I.A.Shearer, Extradition in
Finally, it should be pointed out that a certain cooperation exists between International Law, 1971; I.Stanbrook/C.
Stanbrook, The Law and Practice of
different countries in civil, criminal and administrative matters, based Extradition, 1980. See also the 6th edn
upon multilateral and bilateral treaties.67 This includes cooperation with of this book, 107–10; Restatement
regard to extradition: a criminal may take refuge in a state which has no (Third), Vol. 1, 556 et seq.; L.C.Green,
Terrorism, the Extradition of Terrorists
jurisdiction to try him, or in a state which is unable or unwilling to try and the ‘Political Offence’ Defence,
him because all the evidence and witnesses are abroad. To meet this GYIL 31 (1988), 337–71; G.Gilbert,
Aspects of Extradition Law, 1991; B.
problem, international law has evolved the practice of extradition; Swart, Refusal of Extradition and the
individuals are extradited (that is, handed over) by one state to another United Nations Model Treaty on
Extradition, NYIL 23 (1992), 175–222;
state, in order that they may be tried in the latter state for offences against Y.Dinstein, Some Reflections on
its laws. Extradition also includes the surrender of convicted criminals Extradition, GYIL 36 (1993), 36–59; G.
Gilbert, Extradition, ICLQ 42 (1993), 442
who have escaped before completing their punishment. et seq.; T.Stein, Extradition, EPIL II
Despite occasional statements to the contrary, there is no duty to (1995), 327–34; Extradition Treaties,
ibid., 334–7.
extradite in the absence of a treaty. It is sometimes said that asylum ends 70 Lockerbie case, Order of 14 April
where extradition begins; in other words, a state has a right to grant asylum 1992, ICJ Rep. 1992, 114; ILM 31
(refuge) to fugitive criminals unless it has bound itself by treaty to extradite (1992), 662. See C.C.Joyner/W.P.
Rothbaum, Libya and the Aerial Incident
them. The right of asylum means the right of a state to grant asylum; an at Lockerbie: What Lessons for
individual has no right to demand asylum.68 On the other hand, there is International Extradition Law, Mich. JIL
14 (1993), 222.
no rule of international law which prevents states from extraditing in the 71 See Chapter 18 below, 292–3. On
absence of a treaty.69 The problem of the duty to extradite in the absence the issue of the obligation of states to
surrender fugitives to the War Crimes
of an extradition treaty has recently arisen in view of the United Nations Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda,
Security Council action taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter against see Chapter 20 below, 355–60.
Libya for the alleged responsibility for the terrorist bombing of the aircraft
which crashed over Lockerbie in Scotland. The case brought by Libya in
this connection against the United States and the United Kingdom before
the International Court of Justice70 is still pending at the time of writing
and raises some fundamental issues with respect to the limits of the legal
authority of the Security Council and the role of the Court. They will be
taken up later in a broader perspective.71
65 See, for example, the European the Insurance Antitrust Case, AJIL 89 (1995),
Union Démarches in ILM 35 (1996), 397. 42–53; P.R.Trimble, The Supreme Court
See also the opinion of the OAS and International Law: The Demise of
Inter-American Juridical Committee, Restatement Section 403, ibid., 53–7, L.
ILM 35 (1996), 1322, Kramer, Extraterritorial Application of
66 See A.F.Lowenfeld, Congress and American Law after the Insurance
Cuba: The Helms-Burton Act, AJIL 90
(1996), 419–34; for a counter-argument Antitrust Case: A Reply to Professors
see B.M.Clagett, Title III of the Lowenfeld and Trimble, ibid., 750–8.
Helms-Burton Act is Consistent with 67 On legal assistance between states
International Law, ibid., 434–40. On in criminal, civil and administrative matters,
the issue of extraterritorial legislative see the articles by R.Geiger, EPIL 9
jurisdiction see also A.F.Lowenfeld, (1986), 248–55; 241–8; 235–41;
Conflict, Balancing of Interest and Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 525 et seq.,
the Exercise of Jurisdiction to 591 et seq.; D.McClean, Mutual Assistance
Prescribe: R e f l e c t i o n s o n in Criminal Matters: The
8 Immunity from jurisdiction
1 See Harris CMIL, 286–319; There are certain categories of persons and bodies which, under international
Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 390 law, are immune from the jurisdiction of municipal courts. The two principal
et seq.; S.Sucharitkul, Immunities of
Foreign States Before National categories are foreign states (sovereign or state immunity) and their
Authorities, RdC 149 (1976), 87; diplomatic agents (diplomatic immunity); but other categories are of growing
I.Sinclair, The Law of Sovereign
importance and need to be noted, such as the immunity of international
Immunity: Recent Developments,
RdC 167 (1980), 113; UN Materials organizations. Although the latter two areas are relevant to state immunity,
on the Jurisdictional Immunities of they are of a different kind and must be kept distinct in order not to mix
States and Their Property, UN Doc.
ST/LEG/SER.B/20 (1982), 297–321; apples with pears.
J.Crawford, International Law and
Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing
Immune Transactions, BYIL 54
(1983), 75; G.M.Badr, State Sovereign (or state) immunity
Immunity: An Analytical and
Prognostic View, 1984;
H.Steinberger, State Immunity, EPIL In international law state immunity refers to the legal rules and principles
10 (1987), 428–46; P.D. Trooboff, determining the conditions under which a foreign state may claim freedom
Foreign State Immunity: Emerging
Consensus on Principles, RdC 200 from the jurisdiction (the legislative, judicial and administrative powers)
(1986–V), 235–431; R.Jennings, of another state (often called the ‘forum state’).1 In practice, problems of
The Place of the Jurisdictional
Immunity of States in International state immunity, which seem to occupy national courts more than any other
and Municipal Law, 1987; question of international law,2 primarily arise on two different levels. The
C.Schreuer, State Immunity: Some
Recent Developments, 1988; first level concerns the immunity of a foreign state from the jurisdiction
W.Tsutsui, Subjects of International of municipal courts of another state to adjudicate a claim against it, arising,
Law in the Japanese Courts, ICLQ
37 (1988), 325–36; M.W. Gordon, for example, from a contract or a tort. The second level concerns the
Foreign State Immunity in exemption of a foreign state from enforcement measures against its state
Commercial Transactions, 1991; R.
Donner, Some Recent Caselaw property, especially to execute a municipal court decision, for example,
concerning State Immunity Before by attaching the bank account of the embassy of that state.3 Rules on
National Courts, FYIL 5 (1994),
388– 428. A.Zimmermann, state immunity form part of customary law and are sometimes incorporated
Sovereign Immunity and Violations in international treaties like the 1972 European Convention on State
of International Jus Cogens—Some
Critical Remarks, Mich. JIL 16 Immunity.4 On the national level, a number of states with a common law
(1995), 433–40; H.Fox, Jurisdiction background have enacted special statutes, such as the 1976 Foreign
and Immunities, in V.Lowe/
M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of the United States,5 the 1978 State
the International Court of Justice, Immunity Act of the United Kingdom (SIA)6 or the 1985 Foreign States
1996, 210–36.
2 L.Bouchez, The Nature and Scope Immunities Act of Australia.7 In civil law countries the courts have also
of State Immunity from Jurisdiction been advancing their doctrines on various aspects of the issue during the
and Execution, NYIL 10 (1979), at 4.
3 For a German case see German past twenty years. Although there are similarities between the principles
Bundesverfassungsgericht, adopted on the national level and those to be found on the international
Decision of 3 December 1977,
BverfGE 46, 342; H. Steinberger, plane,8 both levels must be distinguished for systematic reasons (unless,
Immunity Case (German Federal of course, one follows the ‘monist’ approach to the relation between
Constitutional Court, 1977),
international and municipal law9).
E P I L I I (1995), 943–5; see
also Ch. J.Oehrle, German Since states are independent and legally equal,10 no state may exercise
Sovereign Immunity Defense,
jurisdiction over another state without its consent; in particular, the courts
Fla. JIL 6 (1991), 445–74.
of one state, as a principle, may not assume jurisdiction over another state.
SOVEREIGN (OR STATE) IMMUNITY 119
Historically, the ruler was equated with the state, and to this day the 4 ILM 11 (1972), 470. See H.Damian,
European Convention on State
head of a foreign state possesses complete immunity, even for acts done Immunity, EPIL II (1995), 197–201.
by him in a private capacity.11 Originally, under customary international 5 P.L. 94–583 (1976), 90 Stat. 2891, ILM
15 (1976), 1388; amended text in P.L.
law the doctrine of absolute state immunity applied, covering all areas 100–699 (1988). See also M.B.
of state activity and recognizing only very narrow exceptions. The Feldman, The United States Foreign
prevailing trend nowadays, at least in the practice of many states, is to Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976: A
Founder’s View, ICLQ 35 (1986), 302;
adopt a doctrine of qualified immunity—that is, they grant immunity to G.R.Delaume, The Foreign Sovereign
foreign states only in respect of their governmental acts (acts iure imperii), Immunities Act and Public Debt
Litigation: Some Fifteen Years Later,
not in respect of their commercial acts (acts iure gestionis). This distinction AJIL 88 (1994), 257.
reflects the fact of the increasing activity of states in economic affairs, 6 ILM 17 (1978), 1123. See F.A.Mann,
both internally and externally, particularly since the nineteenth century. The State Immunity Act 1978, BYIL 50
(1979), 43; H.Fox, A ‘Commercial
For a long time English-speaking countries upheld a rule of absolute Transaction’ under the State Immunity
immunity, which enabled foreign states to enjoy immunity in respect of all Act 1978, ICLQ 43 (1994), 193; D.
Hockl, The State Immunity Act 1978 and
their activities, including commercial activities. It is remarkable that the its Interpretation by the English Courts,
common law world persisted much longer than most civil law countries AJPIL 48 (1995), 121–59.
in sustaining the old theory of absolute sovereignty. However, in 1952 the 7 ILM 25 (1986), 715.
8 See the instructive analysis by
United States abandoned the absolute immunity rule and adopted the Jennings, op. cit.
qualified immunity rule.12 English courts continued to follow the absolute 9 See Chapter 4 above, 63–4.
immunity rule even after 1952, out of deference to earlier English cases
11 Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1
applying that rule; in the mid-1970s they began moving towards the QB149 (breach of promise of
qualified immunity rule, but the resulting conflict between the old cases marriage). If the sultan had abdicated
or had been deposed, he could
and the new cases made English law very uncertain. In 1978 the British
probably have been sued for private
Parliament intervened and passed the State Immunity Act, section 3 of (that is, non-official) acts done by him
which provides that foreign states do not enjoy immunity in respect of during his reign; see the analogous
case of former diplomats, below, 125–
their commercial transactions.13 A number of other states, such as Canada,
6. English law on the legal position of
Pakistan and South Africa, followed and enacted legislation on the basis foreign heads of state is now contained
of the restrictive theory. In other countries the courts moved in the same in the State Immunity Act 1978,
sections 14(1)(a) and 20. See also
general direction. Nowadays most states apply the qualified immunity
J.A.Barberis, Representatives of States
rule, although the absolute immunity rule is still followed by some in International Relations, EPIL 10
countries, especially in South America.14 With the demise of the Soviet (1987), 353–8; C.A.Whomersley, Some
Reflections on the Immunity of
Empire and the change from state planning to market economy, the number
Individuals for Official Acts, ICLQ 41
of former communist countries adhering to the absolute theory has also (1992), 848 et seq.; A.Watts, The Legal
diminished considerably. China, again, is still a special case.15 Position in International Law of Heads
of States, Heads of Governments and
International instruments, such as the rather complicated European
Foreign Ministers, RdC 247 (1994–III).
Convention on State Immunity 1972, which states have been reluctant to 12 See Letter of Acting Legal Adviser,
ratify,16 or the Montreal Draft Convention on State Immunity approved J.B.Tate to Department of Justice, May
19, 1952, Dept. State Bull. 26 984
by the International Law Association in 1982,17 equally start from the
(1952), 1985.
principle of qualified immunity. By 1992, the consensus in the International 13 1978 State Immunity Act, op. cit. The
Law Commission of the United Nations on its Draft Articles on the Act also provides for various other
Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property was also developing exceptions to sovereign immunity; see
sections 3–11.
in favour of the restrictive theory of immunity.18 However, this does not 14 See the Inter-American Draft
mean that the significant divergence in details of applying the restrictive Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity
theory in the varying practice of states has been overcome. This explains of States, approved by the Inter-
American Juridical Committee on 21
the need for agreement and codification in an international treaty on the January 1983, ILM 22 (1983), 292.
matter, with which various bodies are still concerned.19 Nor does it 15 See J.V.Feinerman, Sovereign
necessarily mean that any particular restrictive theory of immunity has Immunity in the Chinese Case and Its
Implications for the Future of
become the standard of international customary law. Some scholars take International Law, in R.St.J.Macdonald
the view that under contemporary general international law states are (ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya,
still only obliged to grant other states immunity from jurisdiction of 1994, 251–84.
120 IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
16 Text in ILM 11 (1972), 470, AJIL national courts if the claim against the foreign state is based on its conduct
66 (1972), 923. See Damian, op. cit.
17 See ILA Rep, 1994, 454 (by G. de jure imperii and immunity from execution if it is sought against property
Ress). Revised text of the 1982 of the foreign state which serves public (not commercial) purposes.20 With
Montreal Draft Convention at 488.
18 Text in ILM 30 (1991), 1565. On
regard to conduct or property de jure gestionis of a foreign state, this view
the work of the ILC, see D.W.Greig, implies that states are free to, but not obliged to, grant immunity.
Forum State Jurisdiction and It is sometimes suggested that the rule of qualified immunity somehow
Sovereign Immunity under the
International Law Commission’s implies that it is improper for states to engage in commercial activities.
Draft Articles, ICLQ 38 (1989), 243– This is not so. From the policy point of view, the distinction between
76; Specific Exceptions to Immunity
under the International Law
governmental and commercial activities is not based on the propriety of
Commission’s Draft Articles, ibid., state acts, but on the appropriateness of municipal courts to decide disputes
560– 88; C.Kessedjian/C.Schreuer, arising out of those acts. Acts which, by their nature, can only be performed
Le Project de la Commission du
Droit International des Nations- by states, such as expropriating property or testing nuclear weapons, are
Unies sur les immunités des États, likely to involve delicate issues of international politics, which make them
RGDIP (1992), 299–341; M. Byers,
State Immunity: Article 18 of the
unsuitable for adjudication by municipal courts. This consideration may
International Law Commission’s lead a municipal court to decline jurisdiction even in cases where the foreign
Draft, ICLQ 44 (1995), 882–93. state in question is not a party to the court proceed-ings.21 On the other
19 In addition to the other
aforementioned codification hand, acts which can be performed equally well by states or by private
attempts one could refer to the individuals, such as entering into contracts for the purchase of wheat, are
Institut de Droit International, 14th
Commission, Contemporary clearly suitable for adjudication by municipal courts, and it would cause
Problems Concerning the Immunity unjustified hardship for the other contracting party if municipal courts
of States in Relation to Questions of
Jurisdiction and Enforcement, Basel refused to hear such cases.
Resolution of 31 August 1991, Ann. A more serious objection to the qualified immunity rule is that the
IDI 64 (1991–I), 430, or the Afro-
Asian Consultative Commission. distinction between governmental and commercial acts is not always
20 Steinberger (1987), op. cit., at precise and has made the law on state immunity much more complicated
432.
21 For an example, see Buttes Gas than under the theory of absolute sovereignty.22 If the area in question
and Oil Co. v. Hammer (No. 3), concerns the exercise of ‘classical’ state functions, such as the use of the
[1982] AC 888, and see below, 121–
3 on the act of state doctrine. army in an armed conflict, the matter is rather simple. In 1989, in
22 Steinberger (1987), op. cit., 443. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., for example, the
23 Argentine Republic v. Amerada
Hess Shipping Corp., 109 S.Ct. 683 US Supreme Court found no difficulty in granting immunity to Argentina
(1989). against a claim filed by the owner of a tanker which had been attacked
24 This is the approach adopted in
the United States (1976 Foreign and damaged on the high seas by the Argentinian air force in the
Sovereign Immunities Act, section Falklands war.23 The Court also rejected the contention raised by the
1603(d)) and in the UK (Trendtex
Trading Corporation v. Central Bank claimant against sovereign immunity that the Argentinian act had been
of Nigeria, [1977] QB 529, 558, 579; a violation of international law.
I Congreso del Partido, [1981] 3
WLR 328, 335, 337, 345, 349, 350, The matter becomes more complicated in cases in which foreign states
351; section 3(3) SIA. have selected forms of private commercial activities to pursue public
25 See the instructive cases
discussed by M.Herdegen, purposes. Some states base the distinction between acts de jure imperii and
Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, acts de jure gestionis on the ‘nature’ of the act (objective test),24 others base
2nd. edn 1995, 69 et seq.
26 See, for example, H.Ogunniran,
it on the purpose of the act (subjective test); for instance, the purchase of
The Successive Demise of the boots for the army would be regarded as a commercial act under the first
Doctrine of State Immunity from Tort test and as a governmental act under the second test. It may seem that such
Liability: A Comparative Appraisal
with Emphasis on the Nigerian borderline cases are exceptional and that they are more easy to settle under
Experience, AJICL 4 (1992), 369– the current trend to look at the ‘nature’ of the activity (objective test). But
94; M.H.J.Krent, Reconceptualizing
Sovereign Immunity, Vand. LR 45
in actual practice, considerable difficulties and controversial (or unclarified)
(1992), 1529–80. issues remain,25 including the commercial exception in the field of public
27 See Chapter 7 above, 114–15. debt/foreign central bank litigation, the relationship between the immunity
See also W.F.Pepper, Iraq’s Crimes
of State Against Individuals and exception for commercial transactions on the one hand and for torts on the
Sovereign Immunity, Brooklyn JIL 18 other,26 the availability of the defence of immunity against claims for the
(1992), 313–84.
gross violation of human rights by a foreign government (torture),27
THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE 121
28 See the cases reviewed by Ress, op.

and with regard to the question whether individuals can also invoke cit., 452 et seq.
immunity (as distinct from foreign states or their instrumentalities).28 29 For other exceptions to the general
principle stated in the main text, see I.
In any case, under the absolute immunity rule, the old vexed question, Brownlie, Principles of Public
now less virulent, whether nationalized industries form part of the state International Law, 4th edn 1990,
(and thus enjoy immunity like the state itself) gives rise to just as many Chapter XV; sections 6 and 7 SIA.
30 The Parlement Belge (1880), 5
borderline cases, most of which would be avoided if the qualified PD 197.
immunity rule were applied, because the vast majority of the acts of 31 The Cristina, [1938] AC 485; The
Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] AC 256.
nationalized industries would then be regarded as commercial and not 32 USA and France v. Dollfus Mieg et
covered by immunity, thus making it unnecessary to decide whether the Compagnie, [1952] AC 582.
33 Juan Ysmael & Co. v. Republic of
nationalized industries form part of the state. Indonesia, [1955] AC 72.
So far we have only been considering cases in which legal proceedings 34 Section 21 SIA.
35 Brownlie (1990), op. cit.; section 14
are brought against the foreign state. But immunity also applies to SIA.
proceedings involving property in which the foreign state has an interest,
even though the foreign state may not necessarily be a party to the
proceedings. (Under the qualified immunity rule, no immunity applies if
the foreign state is using the property for commercial purposes.)29 For
instance, if A sues B, disputing B’s title to property which a foreign state
has hired from B, the foreign state may intervene to have the proceedings
stopped, because judgment in A’s favour would deprive the foreign state
of its interest in the property. This rule applies if the foreign state claims
to own the property,30 or if it claims some right less than ownership,
such as possession31 or the right to immediate possession.32
Clearly a court cannot allow a foreign state to halt proceedings
between two private individuals by simply asserting an interest in
property, unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, to require the
foreign state to prove its title would make nonsense of the idea of
immunity, because it would mean forcing the state to submit to the court’s
jurisdiction on the merits of the case. English courts, for example, take
the middle course of requiring the foreign state to prove that its alleged
interest in the property has a prima facie validity; the foreign state must
‘produce evidence to satisfy the court that its claim is not merely illusory
nor founded on a title manifestly defective’.33
Finally, the question of what constitutes a ‘state’ for the purposes of
immunity is a difficult one. If the British government certifies that it
recognizes a particular entity as a sovereign state, then English courts will
grant immunity to that entity.34 But the difficulties do not stop there. For
instance, the fact that Ruritania may be recognized as a sovereign state
does not help us to decide whether the political subdivisions of Ruritania,
such as provinces and town councils, form part of the state for the purposes
of entitlement to sovereign immunity; the cases on this point conflict.35
Again, should nationalized industries and similar bodies in Ruritania be
treated as part of the state for the purposes of entitlement to sovereign
immunity? Here, too, the cases conflict, and they conflict even within the
line of jurisprudence of one particular national jurisdiction.
The act of state doctrine
Closely connected in the practice of some states with the principle of

sovereign immunity, particularly in the United States, is the so-called ‘act
36 J.-P.Fonteyne, Acts of State,

EPIL I (1992), 17–20; Restatement
of state’ doctrine.36 Under this doctrine, the acts of a state, carried out
(Third), Vol. 1, 366 et seq. within its own territory, cannot be challenged in the courts of other states
38 See Lipstein, Recognition of
(not even if the acts are contrary to international law, according to the most
Governments and the Application of extreme version of the doctrine). The doctrine overlaps with private
Foreign Law, Trans. Grot. Soc. 35
(1949), 157.
international law,37 and there have been cases in England in which courts
39 M.Akehurst, Jurisdiction in have applied the doctrine and private international law as alternative grounds
International Law, BYIL 46 (1972–3),
145, 240–4.
for their decision, with the result that private international law and the act
40 See Chapter 20 below, 353–61. of state doctrine are sometimes confused with one another. (If Ruritania
42 See M.Pugh, Legal Aspects of
expropriates property situated in Ruritania, do English courts accept the
the Rainbow Warrior Affair, ICLQ 36 expropriation as legal because it is legal under the laws of the place where
(1987), 655–69, at 660–3.
the property is situated (private international law), or because the
expropriation has been carried out by a foreign state (act of state doctrine)?38)
But there is a difference; the act of state doctrine is in one sense wider than
private international law, because it covers acts performed by a foreign
state within its own territory which are contrary to its own law, but the
doctrine is in another sense also much narrower than private international
law, because it covers only acts of a state and not, for instance, a sale of
goods between two private individuals.
Opinions differ as to whether the act of state doctrine is a rule of public
international law. The disagreement is probably caused by a failure to
perceive that the doctrine really covers two very different types of situation:
1 The first situation is where an individual is sued or prosecuted in the

courts of one state for acts which he or she performed as a servant or
agent of another state. In this situation the act of state doctrine is a
sort of corollary to the principle of sovereign immunity, and is an
established rule of international law. All servants or agents (or former
servants or agents) of a foreign state are immune from legal
proceedings in respect of acts done by them on behalf of the foreign
state. The reason is that such proceedings indirectly implead the state,
because the state would probably feel honour-bound to stand behind
the individual concerned and to indemnify him for any damages which
he had to pay. Also, such proceedings would be likely to involve
delicate issues of international politics, which would make them
unsuitable for adjudication by municipal courts. However, there are
various exceptions to the immunity conferred by the act of state
doctrine;39 for instance, it cannot be pleaded as a defence to charges
of war crimes, crimes against peace, or crimes against humanity.40 In
the Rainbow Warrior case,41 for example, there was no commission
of crimes of this nature by the two French agents. The incident rather
falls within the category of cases in which immunity from local
jurisdiction (in this case that of New Zealand) over official agents
entering another country illegally with the official purpose of
committing unlawful acts cannot be established. Thus, the French
government made no formal immunity claim for the two French agents
in the New Zealand proceedings, even after French state responsibility
for the attack was admitted.42
2 The second situation is where a state expropriates property situated within
its territory and sells it to a private individual, who is then
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY 123
sued by the original owner in the courts of another state. Different 43 Banco Nacional de Cuba v.
Sabbatino (1964), 376 US 398, which
considerations apply here; the purchaser is not forced to buy the property held that US courts could not challenge
in the same way that a servant or agent is forced to carry out the orders the Cuban nationalization of US-owned
sugar plantations. The effect of this
of the state. Many of the cases applying the act of state doctrine in this decision was subsequently reversed by
situation are American, and the leading US case regards the doctrine, an Act of Congress. See the case note
not as a rule of public international law, but as a rule of US constitutional by K.R.Simmonds, ICLQ 14 (1965), 452
and by J.P.Fonteyne, EPIL 10 (1987),
law, derived from the principle of the separation of powers;43 the courts 381–3.
should not embarrass the executive in its conduct of foreign relations by 44 For a good summary of the present
state of affairs see M.W.Janis, An
questioning the acts of foreign states. It is notable that in the United Introduction to International Law, 2nd
States the doctrine has been primarily developed with respect to an act edn 1993, 359–66.
of a government expropriating foreign property allegedly violating 45 See Akehurst, op. cit., 240–57 and
the 6th edn of this book, at 47.
international law, although the case law is inconsistent as regards the 46 See Harris CMIL, 319–46;
aspect of what the limits are for judicial interference with policy options Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 455 et seq.
47 Tehran Hostages case (USA v. Iran),
available to the American government in international affairs.44 The
ICJ Rep. 1980, 3, at 24. See Chapter
application of the doctrine by English courts is different.45 17, 259–60 and text below, 126–7.
Civil law countries, such as France and Germany and those countries 49 Text in 500 UNTS 95, AJIL 55 (1961),
1064, Brownlie BDIL, 217. See also
following their legal tradition, normally do not work with the act of M.Hardy, Modern Diplomatic Law, 1968;
state concept, but rather have used their conflict of laws principles to E.Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary
determine, in particular, the effect to be accorded to foreign on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, 1976; G.E. do Nascimento e
nationalization decrees. Silva, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations (1961), EPIL 9 (1986), 393–8;
J.Brown, Diplomatic Immunity: State
Practice under the Vienna Convention
Diplomatic immunity on Diplomatic Relations, ICLQ 37
(1988), 53–88; G.V. McClanahan,
The rules of diplomatic immunity46 sometimes arouse indignation in Diplomatic Immunity— Principles,
Practices, Problems, 1989; S.E.Nahlik,
ordinary people, but are almost always observed by states, because states
Development of Diplomatic Law.
have a common interest in preserving the rules. A state may be under Selected Problems, RdC 222 (1990–III),
pressure from its internal public opinion to limit the immunity of foreign 187–363; C.J.Lewis, State and
diplomats, but it usually resists the pressure, because otherwise it would Diplomatic Immunity, 3rd edn 1990;
F.Orrego Vicuna, Diplomatic and
create a precedent which would be used against its own diplomats in Consular Immunities and Human
foreign countries. All states are both ‘sending states’ (that is, states which Rights, ICLQ 40 (1991), 34–4;
send diplomatic missions to foreign countries) and ‘receiving states’, and M.Richtsteig, Wiener Übereinkommen
über diplomatische und konsularische
consequently the rules on diplomatic immunity work much more
Beziehungen: Entstehungsgeschichte,
smoothly than the rules on expropriation, for instance, which are Kommentierung, Praxis, 1994.
sometimes regarded as favouring the rich states at the expense of the 50 Article 2, 1961 Vienna Convention.
poor states. The rules of diplomatic immunity are ‘essential for the See L.Gore-Booth (ed.), E.Satow’s
Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 6th edn
maintenance of relations between states and are accepted throughout 1988; B.Sen, A Diplomat’s Handbook
the world by nations of all creeds, cultures and political complexions’.47 of International Law and Practice, 3rd
Major breaches of these rules, such as Iran’s behaviour towards the United edn 1988; L.Dembinski, The Modern
Law of Diplomacy: External Missions
States diplomats who were held as hostages in 1979–81, while extremely
of States and International
rare, receive disproportionate publicity because of that rarity.48 Organizations, 1988; B.S.Murty, The
Most of the modern law on diplomatic immunity is contained in the International Law of Diplomacy, 1989;
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.49 Accession to the D.D.Newson, Diplomacy Under a
Foreign Flag: When Nations Break
Convention by states is almost universal, which shows the importance Relations, 1990; A. James, Diplomatic
attached to its subject matter. Most of the provisions of the Convention Relations and Contacts, BYIL 62
seek to codify customary law, and can therefore be used as evidence of (1991), 347 et seq.; H.Blomeyer-
Bartenstein, Diplomatic Relations,
customary law even against states which are not parties to the Convention.
Establishment and Severance, EPIL I
Diplomatic relations are established by mutual consent between the two (1992), 1070–2; Y.Z. Blum,
states concerned.50 However, they may be broken off unilaterally (often as Diplomatic Agents and Missions,
ibid., 1034–40; E.Denza, Diplomatic

Agents and Missions, Privileges and
a mark of disapproval of an illegal or unfriendly act by the other state);
Immunities, ibid., 1040–5; J.Salmon, when state A breaks off diplomatic relations with state B, it not only
Manuel de droit diplomatique, 1994.
withdraws its own diplomatic mission from state B, but also requires state
B to withdraw its mission from state A. The receiving state’s consent is
necessary for the selection of the head of mission (who nowadays usually
has the title of ambassador) but not for the selection of his subordinates
(although there are exceptions). The receiving state may at any time declare
a diplomat persona non grata or not acceptable, which forces the sending
state to withdraw him; this is a step which can be employed as a sanction if
immunities are abused, although the receiving state has a complete discretion
and can take this step in other circumstances also. Article 11 of the Vienna
Convention provides that ‘the receiving state may require that the size of a
mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal’—
a desirable innovation.
Article 3(1) of the Convention states:
The functions of a diplomatic mission consist inter alia in:
(a) representing the sending State in the receiving State;

(b) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending
State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by in-
ternational law;
(c) negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;
(d) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and develop-
ments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the
Government of the sending State;
(e) promoting friendly relations between the sending State and
the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural
and scientific relations.
In modern times, promotion of exports has become a major function of

diplomatic missions. So, too, have public relations (less euphemistically
known as propaganda) —a practice which occasionally degenerates into
interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state (such interference is
forbidden by Article 41(1) of the Convention).
Throughout history diplomats and other envoys have needed privileges
and immunities for the effective performance of their functions in the
receiving state. The preamble to the Vienna Convention recites that ‘the
purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but
to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions
as representing states’ (emphasis added). There is thus a double basis for
diplomatic immunities; they are needed for the efficient performance of
diplomatic functions, and they are also given because diplomats are
representatives of states. The ‘representative basis’, although accepted as
the basis of diplomatic immunities in previous centuries, is nowadays rather
doubtful; it would suggest that diplomats, like states, are not immune from
suit in respect of the commercial activities of states, whereas in fact diplomats
are immune from suit in respect of such activities. The modern view is to
treat immunities as having a ‘functional basis’ —that is, as being necessary
‘to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions’.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY 125
51 BPIL 1964, 74.

Immunity from the jurisdiction of courts 52 See text above, 124.
Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention provides:
A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal

jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity
from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated

in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on
behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
(b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic
agent is involved…as a private person…;
(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial ac-
tivity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving
State outside his official functions.
The same immunity is enjoyed by a diplomat’s family, if they are not

nationals of the receiving state. The existence of immunity does not mean
that people injured by diplomats are wholly without remedy. A diplomat’s
hopes of promotion are usually dependent on scrupulous good behaviour,
and this will induce him not to abuse his immunity; he will probably be
willing to settle private claims against him before they come to the
attention of his superiors. Alternatively, the injured individual or the
government of the receiving state can ask the ambassador to waive his
subordinate’s immunity, which often happens. The injured party can
also commence legal proceedings against the diplomat in the sending
state. Most claims arise out of road accidents, and often diplomats are
expected to insure their vehicles and the insurance companies do not try
to hide behind their clients’ immunity.51 In extreme cases of abuse a
diplomat can be declared persona non grata.52
One of the most striking features of the Vienna Convention is that it
does not grant full immunity to all the staff of a diplomatic mission. In
addition to diplomatic agents, the Convention speaks of administrative
and technical staff (for example, clerical assistants, archivists and radio
technicians) and of service staff (for example, drivers and receptionists).
These two categories of subordinate staff have complete immunity from
criminal jurisdiction, but their immunity from civil and administrative
jurisdiction is limited to their official acts. The same is true of diplomatic
agents who are nationals or permanent residents of the receiving state
(and see Article 38(2) of the Vienna Convention concerning other
members of the staff who are nationals or permanent residents of the
receiving state). The limitation was an innovation as far as English law
was concerned, although it was not unknown in some other countries.
It demonstrates the functional character of immunities; since the functions
of subordinate staff are less important than those of diplomats, there is
less need for the interests of private litigants in the receiving state to be
sacrificed in order to enable the subordinate staff of the diplomatic
mission to carry out their duties efficiently.
When an individual ceases to be a member of the staff of a diplomatic
mission, his immunity continues for a reasonable time thereafter, in order
53 Article 39(2), 1961 Vienna

Convention.
to give him time to leave the country. After that, he may be sued for private
54 See Chapter 17 below, 257–60. acts done during his period of office, but not for official acts.53
56 See R.Higgins, The Abuse of
Diplomatic Privileges and
Immunities: Recent United Kingdom Other privileges and immunities
Experience, AJIL 79 (1985), 641;
M.Herdegen, The Abuse of In addition to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts, diplomats possess
Diplomatic Privileges and
Countermeasures not Covered by
other privileges and immunities (the meanings of the words ‘privilege’ and
the Vienna Convention on ‘immunity’ overlap so much that it is impracticable to distinguish between
Diplomatic Relations. Some
Observations in the Light of Recent
them). In the interests of simplicity, discussion will be confined to diplomatic
British Experience, ZaöRV 46 agents stricto sensu who are not nationals or permanent residents of the
(1986), 734. For an interesting
discussion of possible ways of
receiving state. (For the more limited immunities of other persons attached
preventing various abuses of to a diplomatic mission, see Articles 37 and 38 of the Vienna Convention.)
diplomatic privileges and
immunities, see Higgins, UK
Thus, the premises of a diplomatic mission and the private residence of
Foreign Affairs Committee Report a diplomat are inviolable; agents of the receiving state are not allowed to
on the Abuse of Diplomatic
Immunities and Privileges:
enter such places without the permission of the sending state, and must
Government Response and Report, take appropriate steps to protect them from harm.54 On the other hand,
AJIL 80 (1986), 135–40. See also I.
Cameron, First Report of the
diplomatic premises are not extraterritorial; acts occurring there are regarded
Foreign Affairs Committee of the as taking place on the territory of the receiving state, not on that of the
House of Commons, ICLQ 34
(1985), 610–20; A. Akinsanya, The
sending state, and criminals who take refuge there are usually handed over
Dikko Affair and Anglo-Nigerian to the police of the receiving state.55 The sending state is not allowed to
Relations, ibid., 602–9.
57 L.A.N.M.Barnhoorn, Diplomatic
imprison people on diplomatic premises.
Law and Unilateral Remedies, NYIL Archives, documents and other property belonging to a diplomatic
25 (1994), 39–81.
58 Article 23, 1961 Vienna
mission or diplomat are inviolable. The mission must have unimpeded
Convention. communication with the sending state by all appropriate means, including
59 Article 34.
60 Article 36.
diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher (but it may not use a
61 Tehran Hostages case, op. cit., radio transmitter without the receiving state’s consent). The mission’s official
at 42.
correspondence is inviolable, and the diplomatic bag must not be opened
or detained. The diplomatic bag ought to contain only diplomatic documents
or articles intended for official use; the problem is what to do if such
privileges are abused for smuggling weapons, drugs or even live bodies.56
Invoking an exceptional right to inspect (apart perhaps from infra-red
scrutiny) and to open suspicious diplomatic bags is likely to provoke
corresponding reprisals.57 ‘Bugging’ of diplomatic premises, which is not
mentioned in the Vienna Convention, is contrary to the spirit of the
Convention, but is probably too widespread to be regarded as illegal.
The premises of the mission are exempt from all taxes, except those
which represent payment for specific services rendered (for example, water
rates).58 Diplomats are also exempt from all taxes, with certain exceptions.59
The receiving state must allow the importation, free of customs duties, of
articles for the official use of the mission and of articles for the personal use
of a diplomat or his family;60 before 1961 this rule was generally observed,
but was regarded as a rule of comity, not of law.
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention provides that diplomats shall not
be liable to any form of arrest or detention, and that appropriate steps must
be taken to protect them from attack. Terrorists often attack diplomats,
but receiving states almost always do their best to protect diplomats in such
circumstances. The approval given by Iran to the ‘militants’ who seized
United States diplomats in Iran in November 1979 was correctly described
by the International Court of Justice as ‘unique’,61 and was condemned
IMMUNITIES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 127
unanimously by the Court and the Security Council.62 Iran tried to excuse 62 Ibid., 29–45; SC Res. 460, 21
December 1979, UN Chronicle, 1980,
its behaviour by claiming that the United States and its diplomats had no. 1, 13, at 14. See B.V.A.Röling,
acted unlawfully towards Iran (for example, by intervening in Iran’s Aspects of the Case concerning United
internal affairs, starting from the CIA-supported overthrow of the States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in
Tehran, NYIL 11 (1980), 125 et seq.;
government of Mossadegh in 1951 to protect American and British oil
G.T.McLaughlin/L.A.Teclaff, The Iranian
interests), but the Court held that these charges, even if they had been Hostages Agreements, Fordham ILJ 4
proved, would not have justified Iran’s violation of diplomatic immunity; (1980), 223–64; K.Oellers-Frahm,
the obligation to respect the rules of diplomatic immunity is an absolute United States Diplomatic and Consular
Staff in Tehran Case, EPIL 2 (1981),
obligation which must be obeyed in all circumstances.63 282–6; W.Christopher et al., American
Hostages in Iran: The Conduct of A
Crisis, 1985; S.A.Riesenfeld, United
Consular immunity States-Iran Agreement of January 19,
1981 (Hostages and Financial
Arrangements), EPIL 8 (1985), 522–6.
Consuls, like diplomats, represent their state in another state, but, unlike See also Chapter 17 below, 259–60.
diplomats, they are not concerned with political relations between the 63 Tehran Hostages case, op. cit., at
two states. They perform a wide variety of non-political functions: issuing 38–41.
64 596 UNTS 261.
passports and visas, looking after the shipping and commercial interests
65 Ibid., at 24. See also E.Kussbach,
of their states, and so on. Consulates often are based in provincial towns Vienna Convention on Consular
as well as in capital cities. Relations (1963), EPIL 9 (1986), 388–
In 1963 the United Nations convened a conference at Vienna, which 93; F.Matscher, Marriages Performed by
Diplomatic and Consular Agents, ibid.,
drew up the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations64 and many states 258–62; L.T.Lee, Consular Law and
subsequently became parties to the Convention. According to the Practice, 2nd edn 1991; C. Economidès,
International Court of Justice, the 1963 Convention codified the law on Consular Treaties, EPIL I (1992), 768–
70; F.Münch, Consular Jurisdiction, ibid.,
consular relations;65 but some writers have argued that the immunities
763–5.
conferred on consuls by the Convention are wider than the immunities 66 Text in 1 UNTS 15. See P.C.Szaz,
enjoyed by consuls under customary law. Be that as it may, even if the International Organizations, Privileges
Convention does not reflect the customary law relating to consuls, it and Immunities, EPIL II (1995), 1325–
33; P.H.F.Bakker, The Legal Position of
often does reflect post-war bilateral consular conventions. This is Intergovernmental Organizations: A
particularly true of Article 36, which gives consuls a right to communicate Functional Necessity Analysis of Their
with nationals of the sending state in the territory of the receiving state, Legal Status and Immunities, 1994;
especially when those nationals are in prison before trial or after Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, 492 et seq.;
M.Wenckstern, Eine Analyse der
conviction in a criminal case. Immunitätsbestimmungen
To a large extent the Convention assimilates the status of consuls to internationaler Organisationen und der
that of diplomats, but this is not surprising, because it is becoming völkerechtlichen Praxis, 1994.
increasingly common nowadays for a state to amalgamate its diplomatic
and consular services. People who act simultaneously as diplomats and
as consuls have diplomatic immunity. Consuls who do not act as
diplomats have many of the same privileges and immunities as diplomats,
according to the Convention, but they are immune from the civil or
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state’s courts only in respect of
official acts. In addition, they may import articles for their personal use,
free of duty, only at the time of their first appointment.
Immunities of international organizations
It is uncertain to what extent international organizations enjoy

immunities under customary law; in practice the matter is usually
regulated by treaties, such as the 1946 General Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, or by the
headquarters agreements concluded with the host state where the
organization is seated.66 The purpose of immunity in the case of
international organizations is a purely functional one, related
67 Sections 11–16. For a special

case see Applicability of Article VI,
to the specific tasks of the organization, as set out in the constituent treaty,
Section 22, of the Convention on the and serves to secure its ability to perform them. It is not a reflection of
Privileges and Immunities of the
United Nations (Advisory Opinion),
sovereignty, except only in the very indirect sense of also serving to protect
ICJ Rep. 1989, 177–221 and the the interests of the member states of the respective organization. For the
article on the case by S.Richter,
EPIL I (1992), 823–5.
purposes of this introduction, it may be instructive to summarize the
68 Discussion will be confined to provisions of the General Convention, as an example of the immunities
sovereign and diplomatic immunity,
since the rules are more clearly
enjoyed by international organizations.
established with regard to these The UN has complete immunity from all legal process (section 2 of the
types of immunity than with regard
to other types. However, the rules
1946 Convention); otherwise a combination of eccentric litigants and
governing sovereign and diplomatic biased courts could interfere with the performance of its functions. Its
immunity are probably applicable by
analogy to other types of immunity
premises, assets, archives and documents are inviolable (sections 3 and
from the jurisdiction of courts. 4). It is exempt from direct taxes and customs duties (section 7), and its
69 R.v.Kent, [1941] 1 KB 454.
70 R.v.Madan, [1961] 2 QB 1; see
staff are exempt from income tax on their salaries (section 18); otherwise
also section 2(7) SIA. income tax would be levied on staff members’ salaries by the states where
those staff members worked, and states contributing to the UN’s budget
would in effect be making indirect payments to the states in which the
UN had its principal offices (the United States and Switzerland). The
Secretary-General and the Assistant Secretaries-General have diplomatic
immunity (section 19); the member states were not prepared to go as far
as this in the case of other staff members, who only have limited immunities,
such as immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts, and
exemption from military service (section 18). The Secretary-General must
waive a staff member’s immunity if in his opinion immunity would impede
the course of justice and can be waived without prejudice to the interests
of the UN (section 20). The UN must ‘make provisions for appropriate
modes of settlement of’ claims against it (section 29); it has done so by
insuring itself against tortious liability, entering into arbitration agreements,
and so on.
Representatives of member states attending UN meetings are granted
almost the same privileges and immunities as diplomats, except that their
immunity from legal process applies only to their official acts, and they are
immune from customs duties only in respect of their personal baggage.67
Waiver of immunity
Immunity from the jurisdiction of courts does not mean that the holder of
the immunity is above municipal law. The obligations of municipal law
remain binding on him, but are unenforceable. (This is true as regards
immunity from the jurisdiction of courts. However, some of the other
immunities discussed in the present chapter, for example, immunities from
tax, are immunities from obligations, not merely immunities from
enforcement.) Consequently, both sovereign and diplomatic immunity can
be waived;68 the effect is to change an unenforceable obligation into an
enforceable one. The immunity is conferred in the interests of the state, and
can be waived only by the state. A state may waive the immunity of one of
its diplomats against the diplomat’s wishes.69 Conversely, waiver by a
diplomat is ineffective unless authorized by his superiors.70 Immunity can
be waived either ‘in the face of the court’ (that is, after proceedings have
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY 129
71 Sections 2(2) and 17(2) SIA.

been commenced), or by an agreement made before proceedings are 72 High Commissioner for India v.
commenced.71 Ghosh, [1960] 1 QB 134; see also
Article 32(3) Vienna Convention and
Waiver ‘in the face of the court’ can take two forms: express (that is, section 2(6) SIA.
expressly stating to the court that immunity is waived) or implied (that 73 Section 2(6) SIA
74 Article 32(4) Vienna Convention;
is, defending the action without challenging the jurisdiction of the court). section 13(3) SIA.
Article 32(2) of the Vienna Convention 1961 says that waiver must always 75 See Sinclair, op. cit., 218–42
(especially at 242), 255–7, 263–5, H.
be express, but it is doubtful whether this provision reflects customary Fox, Enforcement Jurisdiction, Foreign
law, so it cannot necessarily be applied by analogy to sovereign immunity. State Property and Diplomatic Immunity,
ICLQ (1985), 114.
If states or diplomats appear as plaintiffs, they are deemed to waive
their immunity in respect of counter-claims arising out of the same subject
matter. For instance, in the days when English law conferred sovereign
immunity on foreign states in respect of their commercial activities, a
state which sold goods to an individual and sued him for not paying the
price was deemed to have waived its immunity from a counter-claim by
the individual that the goods were defective. But a claim by a state for
repayment of money lent did not constitute an implied waiver of immunity
from a counter-claim for slander, because the counter-claim was entirely
unrelated to the original claim.72
Waiver of immunity in a court of first instance also covers appeals
from the judgment of that court; if a state wins on the merits in a court
of first instance, it cannot revive its immunity in order to prevent the
other party appealing to a higher court.73 But waiver of immunity from
the jurisdiction of courts does not entail waiver of immunity from
enforcement of judgments; a separate act of waiver of immunity from
enforcement is necessary before execution can be levied against the
property of a foreign state or diplomat in order to satisfy an unpaid
judgment debt.74 In most cases a state which waives its immunity from
jurisdiction will be prepared to carry out an adverse judgment; otherwise
it would not have waived its immunity from jurisdiction in the first
place. In most countries where foreign states do not enjoy sovereign
immunity in respect of their commercial activities, property which foreign
states use for commercial purposes does not usually enjoy immunity
from execution, and in such cases the question of waiving immunity
from execution does not arise.75
9 Treaties
1 Harris CMIL, 729–812; States make treaties about every conceivable topic.1 By and large, all treaties,
Restatement (Third), Vol. 1, part III, regardless of their subject matter, are governed by the same rules, and the
144 et seq.; Lord McNair, The Law
of Treaties, 2nd edn 1961; T.O.Elias, law of treaties therefore tends to have a rather abstract and technical
The Modern Law of Treaties, 1974; character; it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. For the same reasons,
S.Rosenne, Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, EPIL 7 (1984), the greater part of the law of treaties is not affected by conflicts of interests
525–33; R.Bernhardt, Treaties, ibid., between states; every state is a party to hundreds of treaties and has an
459–64; L.Wildhaber, Treaties,
Multilateral, ibid., 480–4; S.K. interest in ensuring that treaties work effectively, just as all states have a
Chatterjee, International Law of common interest in preserving the rules of diplomatic immunity in order to
Treaties: Substance or Shadow?,
Indian JIL 27 (1987), 13; facilitate diplomatic relations.
T.M.Franck, Taking Treaties It should be noted, however, that a treaty is not the only means by
Seriously, AJIL 82 (1988), 67–8; S.
Rosenne, Developments in the Law which a state can enter into a legal obligation. A unilateral promise is
of Treaties 1945–1986, 1989; binding in international law on the state making the promise, if that state
A.Z.Hertz, Medieval Treaty
Obligation, Conn. JIL 6 (1991), 425– intended its promise to be legally binding.2 Similarly a state can lose a
43; J.Klabbers, Informal Agreements legal right by unilaterally waiving it, provided its intention to do so is
in International Law: Towards a
Theoretical Framework, FYIL 5 sufficiently clear.
(1994), 267–387; P.Reuter, A convenient starting-point for discussing treaties is the 1969
Introduction to the Law of Treaties,
3rd edn 1995; E.W.Vierdag, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which came into force on 27
International Court of Justice and January 1980.3 The preliminary research and drafting were carried out
the Law of Treaties, in V.Lowe/M.
Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of the by the International Law Commission,4 whose commentary is a useful
International Court of Justice, 1996, guide to the interpretation of the Convention, and indicates the extent
145–66; Klabbers, The Concept of
Treaties, 1996. See also Chapter 3 to which different articles of the Convention reflect the pre-existing
above, 36–9. customary law and the agreed views of states. 5 Since 1969 many
2 Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v.
France), ICJ Rep. 1974, 253, 267–8 provisions of the Convention have been frequently cited in judgments
(although it is submitted that the and in state practice as accurate statements of the customary rules
Court was wrong in holding that
France’s statement that it would relating to treaties.
conduct no more nuclear tests in the However, the Convention applies only to treaties made after its entry
atmosphere was intended to be a
legally binding promise). See also into force (Article 4). As a convention, therefore, its value initially has been
Chapter 20 below, 349. rather limited. Its importance lies in the fact that most of its provisions
3 Text in ILM 8 (1969), 679, AJIL 63
(1969), 875. See I.Sinclair, The attempt to codify the customary law relating to treaties, although there are
Vienna Convention on the Law of other provisions which represent a ‘progressive development’ rather than a
Treaties, 2nd edn 1984.
4 See Chapter 3 above, 61. codification of the law. Unless otherwise stated, the provisions mentioned
5 Text in AJIL 61 (1967), 285. in this chapter codify the pre-existing law.
Article 2(1)(a) of the 1969 Vienna Convention defines a treaty, for the
purposes of the Convention, as ‘an international agreement concluded
between States in written form and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and
whatever its particular designation’. This definition excludes agreements
between states which are governed by municipal law and agreements
between states which are not intended to create legal relations at
all. The exclusion of these two types of agreement from the
CONCLUSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF TREATIES 131
definition of treaties is fairly orthodox, but the definition given in the 6 Text in ILM 25 (1986), 543. See also
E.Klein/M.Pechstein, Das Vertragsrecht
Vienna Convention is more controversial in so far as it excludes oral internationaler Organisationen, 1985;
agreements between states, and agreements of any sort between G.Gaja, A ‘New’ Vienna Convention on
Treaties Between States and
international organizations or between states and international International Organizations or Between
organizations. Such agreements are usually called treaties, and the only International Organizations: A Critical
reason why they are not regarded as treaties—for the purposes of the Commentary, BYIL 58 (1987), 253
et seq.; P.K.Menon, The Law of Treaties
Convention— is that the rules of international law governing them differ between States and International
in a few respects from the rules governing written treaties between states; Organizations, 1992; K. Zemanek,
they were therefore not covered by the Convention, in order to prevent International Organizations, Treaty-
Making Power, EPIL II (1995), 1343–6.
the Convention becoming too complicated. A special convention, the 7 See the literature in Chapter 6 above,
Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States and International 32–6.
8 S.Rosenne, Treaties, Conclusion and
Organizations or Between International Organizations, was signed in 1986 Entry into Force, EPIL 7 (1984), 464–7;
but has not yet entered into force.6 In any case, treaties made by E.W.Vierdag, The Time of the
international organizations are more usefully studied as part of the law of ‘Conclusion’ of A Multilateral Treaty:
Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on
international organizations,7 and oral treaties are extremely rare nowadays. the Law of Treaties and Related
Provisions, BYIL 59 (1988), 75 et seq.
Conclusion and entry into force of treaties
When lawyers talk about the conclusion of a treaty, they are not talking
about its termination, but about its coming into effect or formation.8
Adoption of the text of a treaty

Article 9 of the 1969 Vienna Convention provides:
1 The adoption of the text of a treaty takes place by the consent

of all the States participating in its drawing up except as
provided in paragraph 2.
2 The adoption of the text of a treaty at an international
conference takes place by the vote of two-thirds of the States
present and voting, unless by the same majority they shall
decide to apply a different rule.
Article 9(2) describes what actually happens at most modern conferences

(in earlier times unanimity was the normal practice), but each conference
adopts its own rules concerning voting procedures, and there is no general
rule of customary law governing voting procedures; Article 9(2) therefore
represents progressive development rather than codification.
The adoption of the text does not, by itself, create any obligations.
A treaty does not come into being until two or more states consent to
be bound by it, and the expression of such consent usually comes after
the adoption of the text and is an entirely separate process.
Consent to be bound by a treaty

Article 11 of the Vienna Convention provides:
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by

signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.
The multiplicity of methods of expressing consent has unfortunately

introduced much confusion into the law. Traditionally, signature and
132 TREATIES

10 See Articles 2(1)(b) and 16, 1969
ratification are the most frequent means of expressing consent. In some
Vienna Convention. cases the diplomats negotiating a treaty are authorized to bind their states
by signing the treaty; in other cases their authority is more limited, and the
treaty does not become binding until it is ratified (that is, approved) by the
head of state. In some countries (including the United States but not the
United Kingdom), the constitution requires the head of state to obtain the
approval of the legislature, or of part of the legislature (for example, the
Senate in the United States), before ratifying a treaty.9
Strictly speaking, ratification occurs only when instruments of
ratification are exchanged between the contracting states, or are deposited
with the depositary.10 In the case of a multilateral treaty, it is obviously
impractical to exchange instruments of ratification between a large
number of states, and so, instead, the treaty usually provides that
instruments of ratification shall be deposited with a state or international
organization which is appointed by the treaty to act as the depositary.
Ratifications, accessions, reservations, denunciations and similar
communications from states concerning the treaty must be sent to the
depositary, which notifies the other states concerned whenever such a
communication is received.
The relationship between signature and ratification can be
understood only in the light of history. In days when slow
communications made it difficult for a diplomat to keep in touch with
his sovereign, ratification was necessary to prevent diplomats exceeding
their instructions; after receiving the text of the treaty and checking that
his representatives had not exceeded their instructions, the sovereign
was obliged to ratify their signatures. By 1800, however, the idea of a
duty to ratify was obsolete, and ratification came to be used for a
different purpose—to give the head of state time for second thoughts.
With the rise of democracy, the delay between signature and ratification
also gave a chance for public opinion to make itself felt; this was
particularly true if important negotiations had been conducted secretly,
or if the treaty necessitated changes in municipal law, or if the
constitution of the state concerned required the consent of the
legislature for ratification.
During the nineteenth century a further change occurred. By this time
many states had adopted constitutions requiring the consent of the legislature
for ratification, but states also began to conclude an increasing number of
routine treaties which legislatures had no time to discuss. The modern
practice therefore grew up of treating many treaties as binding upon signature
alone. There is much to be said for this practice. Even in the United Kingdom,
where the consent of the legislature is not needed for ratification, many
treaties which are subject to ratification are never ratified, simply as a result
of the inertia inherent in any large administrative machine; treaties are
negotiated in a spirit of popular enthusiasm which soon wanes afterwards,
so that there is no pressure for ratification.
The subject matter of a treaty has little bearing on the question whether
it requires ratification. One might have imagined that politically important
treaties would always require ratification, but practice is not consistent; for
instance, in urgent cases ratification is sometimes dispensed with, because
there is no time for it. Treaties usually state expressly whether or not 11 This can be readily inferred if the
treaty provides that it shall come into
ratification is necessary, and this makes it difficult to know what rule to force at once, or on a fixed date in the
apply if the treaty is silent. Some writers are of the opinion that the very near future.
12 Full powers are defined in Article 2
general rule is that treaties need ratification; other writers say the general (1)(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention as
rule is that treaties do not need ratification. But each group of writers ‘a document emanating from the
recognizes that there are many exceptions to the general rule, and so in competent authority of a State
designating a person or persons to
practice the effects of the difference between the two theories are represent the State for negotiating,
comparatively slight. The Vienna Convention adopts a ‘neutral’ attitude; adopting or authenticating the text of a
everything depends on the intentions of the parties, and Articles 12(1) treaty, for expressing the consent of the
State to be bound by a treaty, or for
and 14(1) of the Convention provide guidelines for ascertaining the accomplishing any other act with
intentions of the parties. Article 12(1) provides: respect to a treaty’.
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by

the signature of its representative when:
(a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were
agreed that signature should have that effect;[11 ] or
(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signa-
ture appears from the full powers[12 ] of its representa-
tive or was expressed during the negotiations.
Article 14(1) provides:
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by

ratification when:
(a) the treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by

ratification;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were
agreed that ratification should be required;
(c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty sub-
ject to ratification; or
(d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to
ratification appears from the full powers of its represen-
tative or was expressed during the negotiations.
It should also be added that performance of a treaty can constitute tacit

ratification. In particular, if a state successfully claims rights under an
unratified treaty, it will be estopped from alleging that it is not bound by
the treaty.
In addition to signature and ratification, a state can also become a
party to a treaty by accession (otherwise known as adhesion or
adherence). The difference between accession, on the one hand, and
signature or ratification, on the other, is that the acceding state did not
take part in the negotiations which produced the treaty, but was invited
by the negotiating states to accede to it. Accession is possible only if it is
provided for in the treaty, or if all the parties to the treaty agree that the
acceding state should be allowed to accede. Accession has the same effects
as signature and ratification combined.
These, then, were the traditional methods of expressing consent to a
treaty: signature, ratification and accession. However, modern
developments have complicated the situation in several different ways.
134 TREATIES
13 Article 24. For a special case see

R. Platzöder, Substantive Changes
In the first place, treaties are nowadays often concluded by an exchange
in a Multilateral Treaty Before its of correspondence (usually called an exchange of notes) between the two
Entry into Force: The Case of the states. Each note is signed by a representative of the state sending it, and the
1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, EJIL 4 (1993), two signatures are usually enough to establish the consent of the states to
390–402. See also Chapter 12 be bound; however, exchanges of notes require ratification in the few cases
below, 174–5.
where it can be proved that that was the intention of the states concerned.
Second, the modern practice of leaving certain treaties open for long
periods for signature by states which may or may not have participated in
the drafting of the treaty has blurred the distinction between accession, on
the one hand, and signature and ratification, on the other. For instance,
Article 81 of the Vienna Convention provides that the Convention shall be
open for nearly a year for signature by certain categories of states, not all of
which attended the Vienna Conference; Article 83 provides that the
Convention ‘shall [thereafter] remain open for accession by any State
belonging to any of the categories mentioned in article 81’.
Third, acceptance or approval is sometimes used nowadays in place of
ratification (or, alternatively, in place of accession). This innovation is more
a matter of terminology than of substance. Acceptance and approval perform
the same function on the international plane as ratification and accession;
in particular, they give a state time to consider a treaty at length before
deciding whether to be bound. The main reason for the popularity of these
terms is that they enable a state to evade provisions in its own constitution
requiring the consent of the legislature for ratification. Article 14(2) of the
Vienna Convention recognizes the similarity between ratification and
acceptance and approval by providing that ‘the consent of a State to be
bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under conditions
similar to those which apply to ratification’.
Finally, it sometimes happens that the text of a treaty is drawn up by an
organ of an international organization (for example, the UN General
Assembly) and that the treaty is then declared open for ‘accession’,
‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, or ‘approval’ by member states. The terminological
confusion here becomes complete, because ‘accession’, ‘ratification’,
‘acceptance’ and ‘approval’ are used interchangeably; different terms are used
in different treaties to describe a process which is absolutely identical.
Entry into force

A treaty normally enters into force as soon as all the negotiating states have
expressed their consent to be bound by it.13 But the negotiating states are
always free to depart from this general rule, by inserting an appropriate
provision in the treaty itself.
Thus, the entry into force of a treaty may be delayed by a provision in
the treaty, in order to give the parties time to adapt themselves to the
requirements of the treaty (for example, in order to enable them to make
the necessary changes in their municipal laws). The treaty may provide for
its entry into force on a fixed date, or a specified number of days or months
after the last ratification.
When very many states participate in drafting a treaty, it is unlikely that
they will all ratify it, and it is therefore unreasonable to apply the normal
14 Article 25(2), 1969 Vienna

rule that the treaty does not enter into force until all the negotiating Convention.
states have ratified it. Accordingly, such a treaty often provides that it 15 D.W.Bowett, Reservations to Non-
Restricted Multilateral Treaties, BYIL 48
shall enter into force when it has been ratified by a specified number of (1976–7), 67–92; R.L.Bindschedler,
states (the number is frequently as high as a third of the number of the Treaties, Reservations, EPIL 7 (1984),
496–9; R.Kühner, Vorbehalte zu
negotiating states, because the treaty might not be any use if it were only multilateralen völkerrechtlichen
ratified by a very small number of states). Even when the minimum Verträgen, 1986; F.Horn, Reservations
and Interpretative Declarations to
number of ratifications is reached, the treaty is, of course, in force only Multilateral Treaties, 1988; R.W.
between those states which have ratified it; it does not enter into force Edwards, Jr., Reservations to Treaties,
Mich. JIL 10 (1989), 362; C.Redgwell,
for other states until they in turn have also ratified it. Universality or Integrity? Some
A treaty can apply retroactively, but only if the contracting states Reflections on Reservations to General
clearly intend it to do so. In the same way, the contracting states may Multilateral Treaties, BYIL 64 (1993),
245–82. The ILC decided in 1993 to
agree to apply a treaty provisionally between its signature and entry into take up the topic of the law and practice
force; this is a useful device when a treaty deals with an urgent problem relating to reservations to treaties and a
but requires ratification. Under the Vienna Convention, however, preliminary report was submitted by
Main Pellet (A/CN.4/470) in 1995.
‘unless…the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional 16 See E.F.Sherman, The U.S. Death
application of a treaty …with respect to a State shall be terminated if Penalty Reservation to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Right:
that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being Exposing the Limitations of the Flexible
applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty’.14 System Governing Treaty Formation,
Article 18 of the Vienna Convention provides: Texas ILJ 29 (1994), 69–93. On
reservations to human rights treaties
see Chapter 14 below, 215.
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the
object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments con-

stituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or ap-
proval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to be-
come a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pend-
ing the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such
entry into force is not unduly delayed.
There is some authority for this rule in customary law, but the matter is
controversial.
Reservations
A state may be willing to accept most of the provisions of a treaty, but it
may, for various reasons, object to other provisions of the treaty. In such
cases states often make reservations when they become parties to a treaty.15
For example, the United States made a reservation concerning the death
penalty when it signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.16 Article 2(1)(d) of the Vienna Convention defines a reservation as
a unilateral statement…made by a State, when signing, ratifying,

accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports
to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of
the treaty in their application to that State.
The effect of a reservation depends on whether it is accepted or rejected

by the other states concerned. A reservation to a bilateral treaty presents
no problems, because it is, in effect, a new proposal reopening the
negotiations between the two states concerning the terms of the treaty;
and, unless agreement can be reached about the terms of the treaty, no
136 TREATIES
17 ICJ Rep. 1951, 15, at 29. See E.

Klein, Genocide Convention
treaty will be concluded. In the case of a multilateral treaty the problem is
(Advisory Opinion), EPIL II (1995), more complicated, because the reservation may be accepted by some states
544–6.
18 Article 102(1) UN Charter (text in
and rejected by others.
Brownlie BDIL, 1). See M.Brandon, The traditional rule was that a state could not make a reservation to a
Analysis of the Terms ‘Treaty’ and treaty unless the reservation was accepted by all the states which had signed
‘International Agreement’ for
Purposes of Registration under (but not necessarily ratified) or adhered to the treaty. However, this rule
Article 102 of the United Nations was undermined by the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
Charter, AJIL 47 (1953), 46–69;
U.Knapp, Article 102, in Simma in the Genocide case.17 The Court said that the traditional theory was of
19 K.Zemanek, Treaties, Secret, ‘undisputed value’, but was not applicable to certain types of treaty. More
EPIL 7 (1984), 505–6.
20 For other collections see Chapter specifically, it was not applicable to the Genocide Convention, which sought
3 above, 36–7. to protect individuals, instead of conferring reciprocal rights on the
contracting states. The Court therefore advised that
a State which has made…a reservation which has been objected to

by one or more of the parties to the [Genocide] Convention but not by
others, can be regarded as a party to the Convention if the reservation
is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
Since different states may reach different conclusions about the compatibility
of a reservation, the practical effect of the Court’s opinion is that a state
making a reservation is likely to be regarded as a party to the treaty by
some states, but not by others.
Articles 19–21 of the Vienna Convention follow the principles laid down
by the Court in the Genocide case, but make a concession to the supporters
of the traditional rule by recognizing that every reservation is incompatible
with certain types of treaty unless accepted unanimously. The International
Law Commission’s proposals to this effect met a favourable response from
member states of the United Nations, and it is probable that the rules
contained in Articles 19–21 will be followed in the future, even by states
which are not parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Registration
Article 102(1) of the United Nations Charter provides that
[e]very treaty…entered into by any Member of the United Nations

after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible
be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.18
Treaties between non-member states are not covered by Article 102, but
are often transmitted voluntarily to the Secretariat for ‘filing and recording’;
Article 80 of the Vienna Convention seeks, for the first time, to make
such transmission obligatory. Article 102 was intended to prevent states
entering into secret agreements without the knowledge of their nationals,
and without the knowledge of other states, whose interests might be
affected by such agreements. 19 An additional advantage of Article 102
is that treaties are published in the United Nations Treaty Series
(UNTS), which is a useful work of reference. 20 If states fail to register
a treaty, as sometimes happens, the treaty is not void; but ‘[n]o party
INVALID TREATIES 137
to any such treaty…may invoke that treaty…before any organ of the 21 Article 102(2) UN Charter. See D.N.
Hutchinson, The Significance of the
United Nations’.21 Registration or Non-Registration of an
International Agreement in Determining
Whether or Not It Is a Treaty, CLP 46
Application of treaties (1993), 257–90.
22 M.B.Akehurst, Treaties, Territorial
Application, EPIL 7 (1984), 510–11.
Territorial scope of treaties 23 See Chapter 21 below, 364–8.
24 H.Ballreich, Treaties, Effect on Third
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention states: ‘Unless a different intention States, EPIL 7 (1984), 476–80; C.
Tomuschat/H.-P.Neuhold/J.Kropholler,
appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding Völkerrechtlicher Vertrag und
upon each party in respect of its entire territory.’22 This general rule is Drittstaaten, 1988.
25 On the nature and interpretation of
often altered by a specific provision in a treaty. For instance, older treaties the UN Charter, see Chapter 21 below,
often contained a ‘colonial clause’, which provided that the treaty shall 364–8.
apply automatically only to each party’s metropolitan (that is, non- 26 Article 2(6), UN Charter. See W.Graf
Vitzthum, Article 2(6), in Simma
colonial) territory, but that each party shall have the option of extending CUNAC, 131–9.
it to one or more of its colonies. One advantage of a colonial clause was 27 W.G.Grewe, Treaties, Revision, EPIL
that it enabled the wishes of the inhabitants of a colony to be considered 7 (1984), 499–505; W.Karl, Treaties,
Conflicts between, ibid., 467–73; B.M.
before the treaty was extended to the colony. Carnahan, Treaty Review Conferences,
The interpretation of treaties is dealt with briefly in Articles 31–3 of AJIL 81 (1987), 226–30. See also
Articles 39–41 of the Vienna Convention
the Vienna Convention and will be taken up later when dealing with the on the amendment and modification of
interpretation of the UN Charter.23 treaties, and Articles 58(1) and 59 on
the termination or suspension of
treaties.
Treaties and third states
The general rule is that a treaty creates neither rights nor obligations for
third states (that is, states which are not parties to the treaty).24 But there
are exceptions to this general rule, which are laid down in detail in Articles
35–7 of the Convention. It is sometimes suggested that Article 2(6) of
the United Nations Charter (which is a treaty) imposes obligations on
states without their consent.25 What Article 2(6) actually says is that:
The Organization shall ensure that States which are not Members
of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles
[that is, the principles of the United Nations, set out in Article 2
of the Charter] so far as may be necessary for the maintenance
of international peace and security.26
In reality, Article 2(6) does not even purport to impose obligations on

non-members; it merely announces the policy which the United Nations
will follow in its relations with non-members.
Application of successive treaties relating to the same

subject matter
It sometimes happens that a party to a treaty subsequently enters into
another treaty relating to the same subject matter, and that the provisions
of the two treaties are mutually inconsistent; the position is complicated
by the fact that the other party or parties to the second treaty may or
may not also be parties to the first treaty. Article 30 of the Vienna
Convention lays down detailed rules to deal with the resulting problems.27
Invalid treaties
Article 42(1) of the Vienna Convention provides:
138 TREATIES
28 M.Schröder, Treaties, Validity, The validity of a treaty or of the consent of a State to be bound by a
EPIL 7 (1984), 511–4; B.Conforti/
A.Labella, Invalidity and Termination
treaty may be impeached only through the application of the present
of Treaties: The Role of National Convention.28
Courts, EJIL 1 (1990), 44–66.
29 See L.Wildhaber, Treaty-Making This is to prevent states attempting to evade inconvenient treaty obligations
Power and Constitution: An
Interpretational and Comparative by making far-fetched allegations that the treaty is invalid.
Study, 1971.
Provisions of municipal law regarding competence to
conclude treaties
The constitutions of many countries provide that the head of state may not
conclude (or, at least, may not ratify) a treaty without the consent of a
legislative organ.29 What happens if the head of state disregards such a rule
when entering into a treaty? Is the treaty valid or not? Opinion is divided.
One school of thought says that the treaty is void, although this conclusion
is sometimes limited to cases where the constitutional rule in question is
well known—an imprecise qualification which would be difficult to apply
in practice. Another school of thought considers that the treaty is valid, but
some supporters of this school are prepared to make exceptions when one
party to the treaty knew that the other party was acting in breach of a
constitutional requirement. Most states favour the latter point of view, which
is reflected in Article 46 of the Vienna Convention:
1 A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a
treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal
law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating
its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a
rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
2 A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any
State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal
practice and in good faith.
Treaties entered into by persons not authorized to represent

a state
Article 46 is essentially concerned with the relationship between the executive
and the legislature within a state. But it is one thing to say, as Article 46 in
effect does, that the executive’s act in making a treaty is binding on the
state; it is another thing to decide which particular members of the executive
are authorized to act in the name of the state. It would be absurd to suppose
that a state could be bound by the acts of a junior clerk in the same way
that it is bound by the acts of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Accordingly, Article 7(1) of the Vienna Convention provides:
A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose
of…expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if:
(a) he produces appropriate full powers; or

(b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from
other circumstances that their intention was to consider that
person as representing the State for such purposes and to
dispense with full powers.
Article 7(2) provides that heads of state, heads of government and ministers
for foreign affairs are, by virtue of their functions and without having to
produce full powers, considered as representing their state for the purpose
of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty.
INVALID TREATIES 139
Article 8 provides: 30 H.G.de Jong, Coercion in the

Conclusion of Treaties, NYIL 15 (1984),
An act relating to the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person 209–47.
31 See Chapter 2 above, 13–20 and
who cannot be considered under article 7 as authorized to Chapter 19 below, 306–7.
represent a State for that purpose is without legal effect unless 32 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v.
afterwards confirmed by that State. Ireland) (Jurisdiction), ICJ Rep. 1973, 3,
at 14, obiter. On this case see Chapter 3
above, 93 and Chapter 12 below, 183.
Specific restrictions on authority to express the consent

of a state
Although a person may be authorized to enter into a treaty on behalf of
a state, in accordance with Article 7, it sometimes happens that a specific
restriction is imposed on his authority; for example, he may be instructed
not to enter into a treaty unless it contains a particular provision to
which his state attaches importance. What happens if he disregards such
a restriction? Article 47 provides:
If the authority of a representative to express the consent of a

State to be bound by a particular treaty has been made subject
to a specific restriction, his omission to observe that restriction
may not be invoked as invalidating the consent expressed by
him unless the restriction was notified to the other negotiating
States prior to his expressing such consent.
Coercion of a representative of a state

The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which
has been procured by the coercion of its representative through
acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.30
Coercion of a state by the threat or use of force

Before the First World War, customary international law imposed no
limitations on the right of states to go to war,31 and consequently a treaty
procured by the threat or use of force against a state was as valid as any
other treaty. Since the First World War there has been a growing tendency
to regard aggression as illegal, and the corollary would seem to be that
treaties imposed by an aggressor are void. Accordingly, Article 52 of the
Vienna Convention provides:
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat
or use of force in violation of the principles of international law
embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 52 is an accurate statement of the modern law.32 When Article 52
of the Vienna Convention speaks of ‘the threat or use of force in violation
of the principles…embodied in the Charter of the United Nations’, it is
obviously referring to Article 2(4) of the Charter, which prohibits ‘the
threat or use of force…in any…manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations’. The communist states and the more militant Third
World countries used to argue that ‘force’ in Article 2(4) covers economic
and political pressure as well as military force, and that treaties imposed
by economic or political pressure were therefore void. The Western
countries disagreed. The International Law Commission adopted
140 TREATIES
33 W.Morvay, Unequal Treaties,

EPIL 7 (1984), 514–7; C.v.Katte,
a neutral attitude in its commentary on the law of treaties, saying that the
Denunciation of Treaty of 1865 meaning of ‘force’ ‘should be left to be determined in practice by interpretation
between China and Belgium
(Orders), EPIL I (1992), 1010; C.Ku,
of the relevant provisions of the Charter’. However, it is submitted that the
Change and Stability in the interpretation placed on the word ‘force’ by the communist states and the
International System: China
Secures Revision of the Unequal
more militant Third World countries is an extremely strained interpretation.
Treaties, in R.St.J.Macdonald (ed.), Article 2(4) of the Charter gives effect to the principle, stated in the preamble
Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya,
1994, 447–62. See also B.W.Morse/
to the Charter, that ‘armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest’,
K.A.Hamid, American Annexation of and a Brazilian amendment to extend Article 2(4) to include economic and
Hawaii: An Example of the Unequal
Treaty Doctrine, Conn. JIL 5 (1990),
political coercion was rejected at the San Francisco conference, which drew
407–56; L Caflisch, Unequal up the United Nations Charter in 1945.
Treaties, GYIL 35 (1992), 52.
34 See also Chapter 10 below, 155–7.
Such treaties are often called ‘unequal treaties’, although the term is also
35 See Chapter 3 above, 57–8. used to describe treaties whose terms are unfair, regardless of the
circumstances of their conclusion.33 States which argue that unequal treaties
are void seldom define their terms. Despite occasional suggestions to the
contrary by communist and militant Third World countries, the modern
rules against force do not operate retroactively. In other words, if a treaty
was procured by force at a time when force was not illegal, the validity of
the treaty is not affected by subsequent changes in the law which declare
that force is illegal and that treaties procured by force are void.34
Other causes of invalidity

According to the Vienna Convention, a state’s consent to be bound by a
treaty can be invalidated by mistake (in certain circumstances, specified in
Article 48), by the fraud of another negotiating state (Article 49), or by the
corruption of its representative by another negotiating state (Article 50). It is
uncertain whether these causes of invalidity existed in customary international
law. A treaty is void if it conflicts with ius cogens (Article 53).35
The consequences of invalidity

The consequences of invalidity vary according to the precise nature of the
cause of invalidity. In cases covered by Articles 8 and 51–3 of the Vienna
Convention, the treaty is void, or the expression of consent to be bound by
the treaty is ‘without legal effect’, which comes to the same thing. In cases
covered by Articles 46–50, however, the Vienna Convention says that a
state may merely invoke the vitiating factor as invalidating the treaty; the
effect of this formula is that the treaty is probably voidable rather than
void; the treaty is valid until a state claims that it is invalid, and the right to
make such a claim may be lost in certain circumstances (Article 45). The
vitiating factors mentioned in Articles 8 and 51–3 are more serious than
those mentioned in Articles 46–50, so this distinction is logical; but it is
doubtful whether it is as clearly established in customary law as the Vienna
Convention suggests.
In both cases, however, Articles 65–8 of the Vienna Convention provide
that a party challenging the validity of a treaty must notify the other parties
to the treaty and give them time to make objections before it takes any
action (although there are exceptions to this rule). If objections are
made, and if the resulting dispute is not settled within twelve months,
TERMINATION OF TREATIES 141
Article 66 confers jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice 36 M.B.Akehurst, Treaties, Termination,
EPIL 7 (1984), 507–10; A. Vamvoukos,
over disputes arising from Article 53 (ius cogens) and confers jurisdiction Termination of Treaties in International
over other disputes on a special conciliation commission set up under an Law. The Doctrines of Rebus Sic
Stantibus and Desuetude, 1985;
annex to the Convention. These provisions are obviously desirable in R.Plender, The Role of Consent in the
order to prevent abuse of the rules concerning causes of invalidity, but Termination of Treaties, BYIL 57 (1986),
they represent an almost complete innovation when one compares them 133–68; L.-A.Sicilianos, The
Relationship Between Reprisals and
with the pre-existing customary law; in particular, under customary law, Denunciation or Suspension of a Treaty,
international courts and conciliation commissions do not have EJIL 4 (1993), 341–59; N.Kontou, The
jurisdiction over all cases concerning claims that a treaty is invalid, but Termination and Revision of Treaties in
the Light of New Customary Law, 1994.
only over those cases which the parties agree to refer to the court or But termination must be distinguished
conciliation commission. from the amendment of treaties, see
M.J.Bowmann, The Multilateral Treaty
Amendment Process—A Case Study,
ICLQ 44 (1995), 540–59.
Termination of treaties 37 A similar rule applies to suspension
of the operation of a treaty (Articles 57
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention provides: ‘Every treaty in force is and 58(1) Vienna Convention).
binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good
faith.’ In other words, a state cannot release itself from its treaty
obligations whenever it feels like it; if it could, legal relations would
become hopelessly insecure. But the words ‘in force’ must not be
overlooked; few treaties last for ever, and, unless some provision is made
for the termination of treaties, the law will become hopelessly rigid. The
rules of law concerning the termination of treaties try to steer a middle
course between the two extremes of rigidity and insecurity.36 They work
fairly well, because every state is a party to hundreds of treaties on a
wide range of topics, and therefore has an interest in ensuring that the
right balance between security and flexibility is maintained in practice.
Article 42(2) of the Vienna Convention seeks to protect the security of
legal relations by providing: ‘The termination of a treaty, its denunciation
or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the
application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention.
The same rule applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty.’
Termination in accordance with the provisions of a treaty

Article 54 of the Vienna Convention provides: ‘The termination of a treaty
or the withdrawal of a party may take place; (a) in conformity with the
provisions of the treaty.’37 Indeed, the majority of modern treaties contain
provisions for termination or withdrawal. Sometimes it is provided that
the treaty shall come to an end automatically after a certain time, or when
a particular event occurs; other treaties merely give each party an option
to withdraw, usually after giving a certain period of notice.
Termination by consent of the parties

Article 54 of the Vienna Convention provides: ‘The termination of a treaty
or the withdrawal of a party may take place: (a)…(b) at any time by
consent of all the parties.’ At one time it used to be thought that the treaty
could be terminated only in exactly the same way as it was made; thus, a
ratified treaty could be terminated only by another ratified treaty, and not
by a treaty which came into force on signature alone. But this formalistic
view is no longer accepted. Indeed, the International Law Commission
thought that an agreement to terminate could even be implied if it was
142 TREATIES
38 AJIL 61 (1967), 388.

39 See also Article 59 of the Vienna
clear from the conduct of the parties that they no longer regarded the treaty
Convention and Vamvoukos, op. cit. as being in force.38 The technical name for this method of termination is
40 See K.Widdows, The Unilateral
Denunciation of Treaties Containing
‘desuetude’.39
No Denunciation Clause, BYIL 53
(1982), 83–114.
41 Nicaragua Case (Jurisdiction), Implied right of denunciation or withdrawal
ICJ Rep. 1984, 392, at 420. On this
case see Chapter 3 above, 40–1
Chapters 18, 284 and 19, 319
below.
42 Ibid. 1 A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination
43 S.Rosenne, Breach of Treaty,
1985; D.N.Hutchinson, Solidarity
and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is
and Breaches of Multilateral not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
Treaties, BYIL 59 (1988), 151 et
seq.; R.Morrison, Efficient Breach of (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the
International Agreements, Denver
JILP 23 (1994), 183–222;
possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
M.M.Gomaa, Suspension or (b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by
Termination of Treaties on Grounds the nature of the treaty.
of Breach, 1996.
2 A party shall give not less than twelve months’ notice of its intention
to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1.
It follows from the wording of Article 56 that a right of denunciation or

withdrawal can never be implied if the treaty contains an express provision
concerning denunciation, withdrawal, or termination.
It is uncertain to what extent Article 56 reflects customary law;40 this is
particularly true of paragraph l(b), which was added to the text of Article
56 at the Vienna conference by twenty-six votes to twenty-five with thirty-
seven abstentions. The provisions of Article 56 (especially paragraph 1(b))
reflect the views of most British writers, but many continental writers thought
that there could never be an implied right of denunciation or withdrawal
under customary international law. However, in Nicaragua v. USA, the
International Court of Justice seems to have accepted that Article 56 was
an accurate statement of customary law.41
Treaties of alliance and certain types of commercial treaties are often cited
as the main examples of the kind of treaty in which a right of denunciation or
withdrawal can be inferred from the nature of the treaty, within the meaning
of Article 56(1)(b). A similar inference can also probably be made in the case
of treaties conferring jurisdiction on international courts.42
Customary international law requires reasonable notice to be given
whenever an implied right of denunciation or withdrawal is exercised. Article
56(2) adds greater precision by requiring notice of at least twelve months.
Termination or suspension of a treaty as a consequence

of its breach (discharge through breach)
Article 60(1) of the Vienna Convention provides: ‘A material breach of a
bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach
as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole
or in part.’43 The injured state’s power to terminate or suspend a treaty is
one of the main sanctions for breach of a treaty, but it is not the only one;
there is nothing to prevent the injured state claiming compensation instead
of, or in addition to, exercising its rights under Article 60(1).
The problem is more complicated if the treaty is multilateral. 44 See Chapter 20 below, 342.
Obviously, breach by state A cannot entitle state B to denounce the treaty,
because that would not be fair to states C, D, E, and so on. Accordingly,
Article 60(2) provides:
A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend

the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate
it either:
(i) in the relations between themselves and the de

faulting State, or
(ii) as between all parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a

ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or
in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach
as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in
whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a
character that a material breach of its provisions by one party
radically changes the position of every party with respect to
the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.
An example of the type of treaty contemplated by paragraph 2(c) is a

disarmament treaty.44 Clearly, breach of a disarmament treaty by one
party constitutes a very serious threat to each of the other parties. But
should this entitle one of the injured parties to create a similar threat to
the other injured parties? Would it not be more appropriate to deal with
the problem under paragraph 2(a)? It is in any case doubtful whether
paragraph 2(c) really reflects customary law.
It is generally agreed that a right to terminate does not arise unless
the breach is a material (that is, serious) one. Article 60(3) defines a
material breach as: ‘(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the
present Convention; or (b) the violation of a provision essential to the
accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty’. This definition
is defective, because it does not make clear that violation of an essential
provision does not constitute a material breach unless it is a serious
violation. If a state makes a treaty to deliver 5,000 tons of tin and delivers
only 4,999 tons, a literal interpretation of Article 60(3) would imply
that the other party could denounce the treaty because of this minor
violation of an essential provision—which is repugnant to common sense.
Breach does not automatically terminate a treaty; it merely gives the injured
party or parties an option to terminate or suspend the treaty, and, according
to Article 45, an injured party loses the right to exercise this option
if, after becoming aware of the facts:
(a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty…remains

in force or continues in operation, as the case may be;
or
(b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having
acquiesced… in its [that is, the treaty’s] maintenance in
force or in operation, as the case may be.
144 TREATIES
45 See Article 60(4) and (5), 1969 The power of the injured party or parties to terminate or suspend a treaty
Vienna Convention.
may also be modified or excluded by the treaty itself.45
Supervening impossibility of performance

1 A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a

ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility
results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of
an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the
impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground
for suspending the operation of the treaty.
2 Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a
ground for terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the
operation of a treaty if the impossibility is the result of a breach
by that party either of an obligation under the treaty or of any
other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.
It is not hard to think of examples; for instance, a treaty providing that the
waters of a particular river be used for irrigation would become impossible of
performance if the river dried up. The Vienna Convention regards the
impossibility not as automatically terminating the treaty, but as merely giving a
party an option to terminate; this point was controversial in customary law.
Fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus)

A party is not bound to perform a treaty if there has been a fundamental
change of circumstances since the treaty was concluded. In previous centuries
writers tried to explain this rule by saying that every treaty contained an
implied term that it should remain in force only as long as circumstances
remained the same (rebus sic stantibus) as at the time of conclusion. Such
an explanation must be rejected, because it is based on a fiction, and because
it exaggerates the scope of the rule. In modern times it is agreed that the
rule applies only in the most exceptional circumstances; otherwise it could
be used as an excuse to evade all sorts of inconvenient treaty obligations.
Article 62 of the Vienna Convention confines the rule within very
narrow limits:
1 A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred

with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a
treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be
invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the
treaty unless:
(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an

essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by
the treaty; and
(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent
of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
2 A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked

as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty:
(a) if the treaty established a boundary; or

(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by 46 UK v. Iceland (Jurisdiction), ICJ Rep.
1973, 3, 18, para. 36; on this case see
the party invoking it either of an obligation under the Chapter 3, 43 above and Chapter 12,
treaty or of any other international obligation owed to 183 below. See also the Free Zones
any other party to the treaty. case (1932), PCIJ, series A/B, no. 46,
156–8.
3 If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a 48 See Chapter 22 below, 387.
fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for 49 See Article 71 (2), Vienna
terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the Convention. On ius cogens generally,
change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty. see Chapter 3 above, 57–8.
51 J.Delbrück, War, Effect on Treaties,
In the Fisheries Jurisdiction case the International Court of Justice said EPIL 4 (1982), 310–15.
that Article 62 ‘may in many respects be considered as a codification of
existing customary law on the subject’.46
Some writers consider that the change of circumstances automatically
terminates the treaty; others hold that it merely gives a state an option
to terminate. The Vienna Convention adopts the latter approach;
moreover, the option to terminate may be lost in certain circumstances
under Article 45.47
No doubt treaties often need to be altered, to bring them into line
with changing conditions. But the rebus sic stantibus rule is an unsuitable
method for achieving this end; it applies only in extreme cases, and,
when it does apply, its effect is not to alter a treaty, but to terminate it.
Alterations, as opposed to termination, can be brought about only by
agreement, and not all states are prepared to agree to amendments which
go against their interests; sometimes they fear that making concessions
to one state will induce other states to demand similar changes in other
treaties. But the desire of states to obtain the goodwill of other states
often induces them to make the necessary concessions. Moreover, the
United Nations General Assembly has a power to recommend alterations
of treaties, under Article 14 of the United Nations Charter, which
provides: ‘the General Assembly may recommend measures for the
peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems
likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations.’48
Emergence of a new peremptory norm (ius cogens)

Article 64 of the Vienna Convention provides: ‘If a new peremptory
norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is
in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.’ The treaty
does not, however, become void retroactively.49
Outbreak of war
The Vienna Convention does not deal with the effects of war50 on treaties,
apart from stating that ‘the provisions of the present Convention shall not
prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty…from the
outbreak of hostilities between States’ (Article 73). The problem is
extremely complicated.51 Originally, war was regarded as ending all treaties
between belligerent states, but this rule has now been partly abandoned.
Maybe it is not so much the rule which has changed, as the nature of the
treaties to which the rule applies. It was sensible to say that war ended all
treaties between belligerent states when most treaties were bilateral
146 TREATIES

‘contract treaties’; the rule has to be altered when many treaties are
multilateral ‘law-making treaties’,52 to which neutrals as well as belligerents
are parties.
In any case, this tangled branch of the law is less important now than it
used to be, for two reasons. First, when states are engaged in hostilities
nowadays, they seldom admit that they are in a state of war in the technical
sense; and, unlike war, hostilities falling short of war do not generally
terminate treaties between the hostile states. Second, the peace treaty or
other instrument which terminates a modern war usually provides what is
to happen to pre-war treaties (or at least bilateral treaties) between the
belligerent states, so that it is unnecessary to apply the rules of customary
law on this point.
Consequences of termination or suspension

Rules concerning the consequences of termination or suspension of a treaty
are laid down in Articles 70, 71(2) and 72 of the Vienna Convention, which
are too detailed to be discussed here. Many of the rules in the Vienna
Convention laying down the procedure to be followed when a treaty is
alleged to be invalid also apply, mutatis mutandis, to termination or
suspension; this is particularly true of Articles 65–8.53
10 Acquisition of territory
‘Acquisition of territory’ is an abbreviated way of describing acquisition 1 G.Schwarzenberger, Title to Territory:

Response to a Challenge, AJIL 51
of sovereignty over territory.1 Sovereignty, that much abused word,2 is
(1967), 308–24; J.A.Andrews, The
here used in a specialized sense; sovereignty over territory means ‘the Concept of Statehood and the
right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions Acquisition of Territory in the Nineteenth
Century, LQR 94 (1978), 408–27; R.Y.
of a state’.3 But it is not necessarily unlimited. Other states may, by treaty Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in
or local custom, acquire minor rights over the territory, such as a right International Law, 1962; Y.Z.Blum,
Historic Titles in International Law, 1965;
of way across it. Even the right of a state to transfer its territory to
M.N.Shaw, Territory in International Law,
another state, which is often regarded as the acid test of sovereignty NYIL 13 (1982), 61–91; S.T.Bernardez,
over territory, may be limited by treaty. For instance, by the 1955 State Territorial Sovereignty, EPIL 10 (1987),
487–94; Bernardez, Territory,
Treaty for the Re-Establishment of an Independent and Democratic Acquisition, ibid., 496–504; Harris CMIL,
Austria, Austria agreed not to enter into political or economic union 173 et seq.; R. Jennings/A.Watts (eds),
with Germany.4 Again, under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, Great Britain Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edn
1992, 679 et seq.; G.Distefano, La
agreed to offer Gibraltar to Spain before attempting to transfer Notion de titre juridique et les differends
sovereignty over Gibraltar to any other state.5 territoriaux dans l’ordre international,
RGDIP 99 (1995), 335–66.
3 Island of Palmas Case (1928), RIAA II
Modes of acquisition of territory 829, 838. On this case see also
Chapters 5, 75–6 and 7, 109–10 above
and text below, 148, 150, 156, 157–8.
The traditional view is that there are several distinct modes by which 4 Text in 217 UNTS 223 (1955). See G.
Stourzh, Austrian State Treaty (1955),
sovereignty can be acquired over territory. The classification of these EPIL I (1992), 301–5.
modes was originally borrowed from the Roman law rules on the 5 Text of the Treaty in 28 CTS 295
acquisition of property, which is not surprising, since sovereignty over (1713–4). On the status of Gibraltar see
Harris CMIL, 209–10; H.S.Levie,
territory bears some resemblance to ownership of property; and in the Gibraltar, EPIL II (1995), 596–9; P.Gold,
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when modern international law Stone in Spain’s Shoe? Search for a
Solution to the Problem of Gibraltar,
began to develop, the then current theories of absolute monarchy tended 1994; S.J.Lincoln, The Legal Status of
to regard a state’s territory as the private estate of the monarch. But Gibraltar: Whose Rock is it Anyway?,
there are several ways in which this use of private law concepts produces Fordham ILJ 18 (1994), 285–31.
6 J.G.Starke, The Acquisition of Title to
a distorted view of modern international law. In particular, it presupposes Territory by Newly Emerged States,
that transfers of territory take place between already existing states, just BYIL 41 (1965–66), 411–16; see
as transfers of property take place between already existing individuals. 7 See Chapter 5 above, 75–6.
In recent years, however, the most frequent form of transfer of territory
(more precisely: the transfer of sovereignty over territory) has occurred
when a colony has become independent;6 since territory is an essential
ingredient of statehood,7 the birth of the state and the transfer of territory
are inseparable—a state is its territory. In the pages which follow, an
attempt will be made to fit the emergence of new states into the traditional
list of modes of acquisition of territory; but it must be confessed that the
emergence of new states does not fit very well into that list.
Another preliminary point to notice about modes of acquisition is that
148 ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY
8 Island of Palmas Case, op. cit.

9 See text below, 150, 156, 157–8.
they are fully relevant only when title to territory is uncertain. For instance,
10 J.Simsarian, The Acquisition of the Shetland Isles have been part of the United Kingdom for so long that all
Legal Title to Terra Nullis, Political
Science Quarterly 53 (1938), 111–28.
states recognize them as part of the United Kingdom, and no one bothers to
11 Clipperton Island Case (1932) ask how the United Kingdom first acquired it.
(France, v. Mexico), RIAA XI 1105,
1110–11. See also Harris CMIL,
183– 6; I.v.Münch, Clipperton Island
Arbitration, EPIL I (1992), 622–3; Cession
S.T. Bernardez, Territory,
Abandonment, EPIL 10 (1987), Cession is the transfer of territory, usually by treaty, from one state to another.
494–6. If there were defects in the ceding state’s title, the title of the state to which
12 See Harris CMIL, 196–201;
P.Beck, The Falkland Islands as an
the territory is ceded will be vitiated by the same defects; this is expressed by
International Problem, 1988; the Latin maxim, nemo dat quod non habet (nobody gives what he does not
M.Evans, The Restoration of have). For instance, in the Island of Palmas case,8 Spain had ceded the
Diplomatic Relations Between Philippine islands to the United States by the Treaty of Paris 1898; the treaty
Argentina and the United Kingdom,
ICLQ 40 (1991), 473 et seq.; described the island of Palmas as forming part of the Philippines. But when
A.Donchev (ed.), International the United States went to take possession of the island, it found it under
Perspectives on the Falkland Dutch control. In the ensuing arbitration between the United States and the
Conflict: A Matter of Life and Death,
Netherlands, the United States claimed that the island had belonged to Spain
1992; R. Dolzer, The Territorial
Status of the Falkland Islands before 1898, and that the United States had acquired the island from Spain
(Malvinas): Past and Present, 1992; by cession. The arbitrator, Max Huber, held that, even if Spain had originally
A.Norman, The Falkland Islands. had sovereignty over the island (a point which he left open), the Netherlands
Their Kinship Isles, the Antarctic
Hemisphere and the Freedom of the
had administered it since the early eighteenth century, thereby supplanting
Two Great Oceans, Vols 1–4, 1986– Spain as the sovereign over the island.9 Since Spain had no title to the island
1993. For the 1989 Joint Statement in 1898, the United States could not acquire title from Spain.
between Argentina and the UK on
Relations and a Formula on
Except for territorial changes following the conclusion of peace treaties,
Sovereignty with Regard to the cession of territory (such as France’s cession of Louisiana to the United
Falkland Islands, South Georgia and States for 60 million francs in 1803, or Britain’s cession of the island of
South Sandwich Islands, see ILM 29
(1990), 1291. See also the 1995
Heligoland to Germany, in exchange for Zanzibar, in 1890) has now become
Joint Declaration of both sides on rare and concerns marginal areas, such as, for example, the transfer of the
cooperation over offshore activities Swan Islands in 1971 by the United States to Honduras.
in the South West Atlantic, ILM 35
(1996), 301. See also Chapter 19
below, 315.
13 See Chapter 2 above, 12–14. Occupation
But such attitudes were rarer than is
sometimes supposed; see the Occupation is the acquisition of terra nullius—that is, territory which,
Western Sahara Case, ICJ Rep. immediately before acquisition, belonged to no state.10 The territory may never
1975, 12, 390; Harris CMIL, 190–2;
K.Oellers-Frahm, Western Sahara have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous
(Advisory Opinion), EPIL 2 (1981), sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise
291–3; D.P.O’Connell, International authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory.11
Law, 2nd edn 1970, Vol. 1, 408–9.
This corresponds roughly to the distinction in municipal law between losing
property and throwing it away. Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the
world that could be considered as terra nullius, because most of the land areas
of the globe are at present placed under the territorial sovereignty of an existing
state. But many modern disputes over territory have their roots in previous
centuries, when territory was frequently acquired by occupation, for example,
the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the UK over the Falkland
Islands.12 In previous centuries European international lawyers were sometimes
reluctant to admit that non-European societies could constitute states for the
purposes of international law, and territory inhabited by non-European peoples
was sometimes regarded as terra nullius.13
Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control. The
requirements of effective control have become increasingly strict in
MODES OF ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY 149
14 F.A.Frhr. v.d.Heydte, Discovery,

international law, as unoccupied territory has become increasingly scarce. Symbolic Annexation and Virtual
In the sixteenth century, when large areas of unoccupied territory were being Effectiveness in International Law, AJIL
discovered,14 effective control was interpreted very liberally; indeed, mere 29 (1935), 448–71; A.-M.de Zayas,
Territory, Discovery, EPIL 10 (1987),
discovery gave a state an ‘inchoate title’, that is, an option to occupy the 504–7. See also Harris CMIL, 181, n. 3.
territory within a reasonable time, during which time other states were not 15 See A.S.Keller/O.J.Lissitzyn/F.J.
Mann, Creation of Rights of Sovereignty
allowed to occupy the territory. As time went on, international law demanded through Symbolic Acts 1400–1800
more and more in order to constitute effective control.15 However, even in (1938).
16 Eastern Greenland Case (1933),
modern times, effective control is a relative concept; it varies according to PCIJ, series A/B, no. 53, at 46. See I.v.
the nature of the territory concerned. It is, for instance, much easier to Münch, Eastern Greenland Case, EPIL
II (1995), 7–9; Harris CMIL, 186, n. 2.
establish effective control over barren and uninhabited territory than over See text below, 150–1, 155.
territory which is inhabited by fierce tribes; troops would probably have to 17 Ibid., 45; but see I.Brownlie,
be stationed in the territory in the latter case, but not in the former. Effective Principles of Public International Law,
4th edn, 1990, 142–4, 145–6, 150.
control is also relative in another sense, which was stressed by the Permanent 18 Fisheries Case, ICJ Rep. 1951, 116,
Court of International Justice in the Eastern Greenland case: 184, per Judge McNair. On this case
see Chapter 3, 42, 43, 47, 51, 181
above and Chapter 12 below; Harris
Another circumstance which must be taken into account…is the CMIL, 182–3.
19 610 UNTS 205; Harris CMIL, 222–
extent to which the sovereignty is also claimed by some other 32. See Chapter 13 below, 202, 204,
Power. In most of the cases involving claims to territorial 205
sovereignty which have come before an international tribunal, 20 Text in 402 UNTS 71; AJIL 54 (1960),
477; ILM 19 (1980), 860. See Harris
there have been two competing claims to sovereignty, and the CMIL, 211–7; F.Francioni/T. Scovazzi,
tribunal has had to decide which of the two is the stronger…in International Law for Antarctica, 1987;
many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the C.Joyner/S.K.Chopra (eds), The
Antarctic Legal Regime, 1988;
way of actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other R.Lefeber, The Exercise of Jurisdiction
State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly in the Antarctic Region and the
Changing Structure of International Law:
true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly The International Community and
populated or unsettled countries.16 Common Interests, NYIL 21 (1990), 81–
138; E.J.Sahurie, The International Law
of Antarctica, 1992; R.Wolfrum/U.-D.
(In this case the Court held that Denmark had sovereignty over all of Klemm, Antarctica, EPIL I (1992), 173–
Greenland and dismissed the claim of Norway that a certain area known 82; A.Berg, Antarctica Cases (U.K. v.
Argentina; U.K. v. Chile), ibid., 182–3;
as Eirik Raudes Land was terra nullius when Norway issued a declaration A.Watts, International Law and the
of occupation in 1931.) Antarctic Treaty System, 1992; K.R.
Simmonds, The Antarctic Conventions,
Some cases say that a state, in order to acquire territory by occupation, 1993; M.C.W.Pinto, Governance of
must not only exercise effective control, but must also have ‘the intention Antarctica, in R.St.J.Macdonald (ed.),
and will to act as sovereign’.17 Consequently, Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, 1994,
587–609. With regard to the Arctic, the
eight Arctic states (Canada, Denmark,
the independent activity of private individuals is of little value Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia,
Sweden, United States) established the
unless it can be shown that they have acted in pursuance Arctic Council as an intergovernment
of…some…authority received from their Governments or that in forum on 19 September 1996. See ILM
35 (1996), 1382.
some other way their Governments have asserted jurisdiction
through them.18
Sometimes states may agree not to make claims to particular territory, so

that the territory in effect remains terra nullius. Examples can be found in
Article 2 of the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty)19 and in the 1959 Antarctica
Treaty.20 Before 1959 several states had laid claims to various areas of
Antarctica, but the area claimed by one state sometimes overlapped
with an area claimed by another state, and none of the areas was subject
to effective control by the states concerned. The 1959 treaty has been
ratified by all the states actively interested in Antarctica, and no
21 G.D.Triggs (ed.), The Antarctic state party to the treaty might withdraw from it during the first thirty years.
Treaty Regime: Law, Environment
and Resources, 1987; M.Howard, The treaty provides for freedom of movement and scientific exploration
The Convention on the throughout Antarctica; the parties agree to cooperate with one another and
Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources: A Five Year
not to use Antarctica for military purposes. Existing claims to sovereignty
Review, ICLQ 38 (1989), 104– 50; in Antarctica are not affected by the treaty, but Article IV provides:
A.D.Watts, The Convention on the
Regulation of Antarctic Mineral
Resource Activities 1988, ICLQ 39 No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force
(1990), 169 et seq.; I.D.Hendry, The shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim
Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, ibid., to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of
183 et seq.; R.Wolfrum, The
Convention on the Regulation of
sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an
Antarctic Mineral Resource existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted
Activities, 1991; J.Verhoeven/ while the present Treaty is in force.
P.Sands/M.Bruce (eds), The
Antarctic Environment and
International Law, 1992; C.C.Joyner, Meanwhile, Antarctica has been placed under an international treaty regime
Antarctica and the Law of the Sea, aiming at the protection of its resources and environment.21 With other
1992; M.T.Infante, Maritime
Conventions in Antarctica, GYIL 35 areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as the high seas, the deep sea-bed
(1992), 249; C.Redgwell, and outer space, Antarctica is now viewed as belonging to the ‘international
Environmental Protection in
commons’ governed by the ambiguous principle of the ‘common heritage
Antarctica: The 1991 Protocol, ICLQ
43 (1994), 599–756; see also the of mankind’.22
documents reproduced in ILM 35
(1996), 1165–89.
22 For discussion of this principle Prescription
23 See D.Johnson, Acquisitive Like occupation, prescription23 is based on effective control over territory.
Prescription in International Law,
BYIL 27 (1950), 332–54; R.Pinto, La As in the case of occupation, effective control probably needs to be
Prescription en droit international, accompanied by ‘the intention and will to act as sovereign’. The difference
RdC 87, 1995–I), 390–452; C.A. between prescription and occupation is that prescription is the acquisition
Fleischhauer, Prescription, EPIL 10
(1987), 327–30. of territory which belonged to another state, whereas occupation is
24 W.Karl, Protest, EPIL 9 (1986), acquisition of terra nullius. Consequently the effective control necessary to
320–2.
establish title by prescription must last for a longer period of time than the
25 Brownlie (1990), op. cit., 153 et
seq. See also Harris CMIL, 195–6, effective control which is necessary in cases of occupation; loss of title by
nn. 3 and 4. the former sovereign is not readily presumed.
26 Island of Palmas Case, op. cit.,
at 868.
Effective control by the acquiring state probably needs to be accompanied
27 Eastern Greenland Case, op. cit. by acquiescence on the part of the losing state; protests,24 or other acts or
statements which demonstrate a lack of acquiescence, can probably prevent
acquisition of title by prescription.25 This explains why, in the Island of
Palmas case, the arbitrator emphasized the absence of Spanish protests
against Dutch acts on the island.26
Although occupation and prescription can be distinguished from one
another in theory, the difference is usually blurred in real life, because often
one of the very points in dispute is whether the territory was terra nullius or
was subject to the sovereignty of the ‘first’ state before the ‘second’ state
arrived on the scene. For instance, the judgment in the Island of Palmas
case does not make clear whether the island was under Spanish sovereignty
before the Dutch began to exercise control. Many of the cases which
textbooks classify as cases on occupation could equally well be regarded as
cases on prescription, and vice versa. When faced with competing claims,
international tribunals often decide in favour of the state which can prove
the greater degree of effective control over the disputed territory,
without basing their judgment on any specific mode of acquisition. For
instance, in the Eastern Greenland case, 27 the Permanent Court of
International Justice gave judgment to Denmark because Denmark had 28 See The Anna Case (1805), 165
ER 809; Chamizal Arbitration (USA v.
exercised greater control than Norway over Eastern Greenland, but the
Mexico) (1911), RIAA XI 316; on this
court did not specify the mode whereby Denmark had acquired case see Harris CMIL, 193–6; M.
sovereignty. Dingley, Eruptions in International
Law: Emerging Volcanic Islands and
the Law of Territorial Acquisition,
Operations of nature Cornell ILJ 9 (1975), 121–35;
L.J.Bouchez, River Deltas, EPIL 10
A state can acquire territory through operations of nature—for example, (1987), 380–1.
when rivers silt up, or when volcanic islands emerge in a state’s internal 29 See A.L.W.H.Munkman, Adjudication
and Adjustment— International Judicial
waters or territorial sea. Such events are rare and unimportant, and there
Decision and the Settlement of
is little point in discussing the detailed rules.28 Territorial and Boundary Disputes, BYIL
46 (1972–73), 1–116.
Adjudication 30 See H.Post, Adjudication as Mode
of Acquisition of Territory? Some
Adjudication is sometimes listed as a mode of acquisition, but its status Observations on the Iraq-Kuwait
is doubtful.29 In theory, a tribunal’s normal task is to declare the rights Boundary Demarcation in Light of the
Jurisprudence of the International
which the parties already have, not to create new rights; in theory, Court of Justice, in V.Lowe/
therefore, adjudication does not give a state any territory which it did M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of
not already own. A number of such cases have also recently beeen brought the International Court of Justice,
to the International Court of Justice.30 Another important recent case 1996, 237–63. See Chapter 18 below,
291.
was decided by an arbitral tribunal in the Taba dispute between Israel
31 Taba Arbitration, Award of the Egypt-
and Egypt, involving a small piece of land on the western shore of the Israel Tribunal, ILM 27 (1988), 1427.
Gulf of Aqaba, where Israelis had constructed a hotel during the period See E.Lauterpacht, The Taba Case:
of military occupation.31 Some Recollections and Reflections,
Israel LR 23 (1989), 443– 68;
On the other hand, it sometimes happens that states set up a boundary R.Lapidoth, Taba Arbitration, EPIL 12
commission to mark out an agreed boundary, but empower it to depart (1990), 365–7; Lapidoth, Some
to some extent from the agreed boundary (for example, to prevent a Reflections on the Taba Award, GYIL 35
(1992), 224. For another arbitration case
farm being cut in two); however, this power of the boundary commission
see D.W.Bowett, The Dubai/ Sharjah
is derived from the treaty setting it up, and the transfer of territory may Boundary Arbitration of 1981, BYIL 65
therefore be regarded as a sort of indirect cession.32 A different matter is (1994), 103–34.
the determination of a boundary by the United Nations Security Council 32 On boundary disputes in general see
the entries by M.Bothe, E.J.de
in exercise of its powers under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Aréchaga, T.Schweisfurth, I.Brownlie,
as in the case of the demarcation of the border between Iraq and Kuwait W.Hummer, R.Khan and H.-D.
by a Commission after the Gulf War.33 Treviranus, EPIL I (1992), 443–79.
33 Final Report on the Demarcation of
the International Boundary Between
the Republic of Iraq and the State of
Conquest Kuwait Boundary Demarcation
Commission, ILM 32 (1993), 1425;
Normally a state defeated in a war used to cede territory to the victor
D.H.Finnie, Shifting Lines in the Sand:
by treaty, but conquest alone, without a treaty, could also confer title Kuwait’s Elusive Frontier with Iraq,
on the victor under the traditional law.34 However, acquisition of 1992; M.H. Mendelson/S.C.Hulton,
territory by conquest was not lawful unless the war had come to an The Iraq-Kuwait Boundary, BYIL 64
(1993), 135–95; J. Bulloch, United
end. If the defeated state entered into a peace treaty which ceded Nations Demarcation of the Iraq-
territory to the victor, or which recognized the victor’s title, it was Kuwait Border, 1993; J. Klabbers, No
clear that the war had come to an end. In the absence of a peace treaty, More Shifting Lines? The Report of the
it was necessary to prove that the war had come to an end in a different Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation
Commission, ICLQ 43 (1994), 904–13;
way, by producing clear evidence that all resistance by the enemy state Post, op. cit. See Chapter 22 below,
and by its allies had ceased; thus the German annexation of Poland 398, 425.
during the Second World War was invalid, because Poland’s allies 34 E.Kussbach, Conquest, EPIL I
(1992), 756–9. On the controversial
continued the struggle against Germany.35 In law, Germany was merely meaning of the concept of debellatio as
the belligerent occupant of Poland, and its rights were very much more one of the ways of ending war and
limited than they would have been if the annexation had been valid. In acquiring territory when one of the
addition, the conqueror acquired territory only if he intended to do belligerent states has been defeated
totally see K.-U.Meyn, Debellatio, EPIL I
so; in 1945 the Allies expressly disclaimed the intention of annexing (1992), 969–71.
35 See L.Oppenheim, International Germany, although they had occupied all of Germany’s territory and defeated
Law, Vol. 2, 7th edn (H.Lauterpacht
ed.), 1952, 432–56; all of Germany’s allies.36
R.L.Bindschedler, Annexation, In the nineteenth century, it was inevitable that international law should
EPIL I (1992), 168–72. allow states to acquire territory by conquest, because at that time customary
36 For literature see Chapter 5
above, 84, n. 71. international law imposed no limit on the right of states to go to war.37
37 See Andrews, op. cit. and During the twentieth century there has been a growing movement,
Chapter 2 above, 19–20. culminating in the United Nations Charter, to restrict the right of states to
39 See Chapter 9 above, 139–40. go to war; as a general rule, the use of force is now illegal, with certain
40 On the general problems of exceptions such as self-defence.38 What effect has this revolutionary change
recognition in international law see in the law had upon the possibility of acquiring territory by conquest?
41 See Q.Wright, The Stimson Note We have already seen that the better view is that a treaty imposed by
of January 7, 1932, AJIL 26 (1932), an aggressor is now void.39 Since an aggressor state cannot acquire territory
342– 8; A.D.McNair, The Stimson by conquering another state and forcing it to sign a treaty of cession, it
Doctrine of Non-Recognition, BYIL
14 (1993), 65–74; W.Meng, Stimson must follow a fortiori that an aggressor cannot acquire territory by
Doctrine, EPIL 4 (1982), 230–5. conquest alone. Some authors indeed argue that such annexation cannot
42 See Chapter 2 above, 25–6. even be recognized as legal by other states.40 This view was prepared by
44 See W.J.Hough, The Annexation the Stimson Doctrine. In 1931 Japanese troops set up the puppet state of
of the Baltic States and Its Effect on Manchukuo in Manchuria, which had until then formed part of China.
the Development of Law Prohibiting Almost all states considered that Japan was guilty of aggression, and the
Forcible Seizure of Territory, NYL.
Sch. JICL 6 (1985), 301–533; American Secretary of State, Stimson, announced that his government
B.Meissner, Baltic States, EPIL I would not recognize situations brought about by aggression.41 The
(1992), 328–37. See also Chapter following year the Assembly of the League of Nations passed a resolution
11 below, 165–6.
45 See Harris CMIL, Appendix IV, stating that ‘it is incumbent upon the members of the League of Nations
1010–17; J.A.Frowein, Gulf Conflict not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought
(1990/1991), EPIL II (1995), 643–7; about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to
R. Schofield, Kuwait and Iraq:
Historical Claims and Territorial the Pact of Paris’.42 In 1970 the United Nations General Assembly declared
Disputes, 2nd edn 1993; Schofield that it was a basic principle of international law that ‘no territorial
(ed.), The Iraq-Kuwait Dispute, Vols acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as
1–7, 1994. See Chapter 22, 396
below. legal’. 43 These resolutions suggest that there is a duty to withhold
recognition, but states have not always acted in accordance with them.
For instance, three years after the Italian conquest of Ethiopia in 1936,
the conquest was recognized de jure by the United Kingdom; and the
United Kingdom also recognized (although only de facto) the Soviet
conquest of the Baltic republics in 1940.44 The only effect of the Stimson
Doctrine seems to have been to delay the grant of recognition, not to
prevent it. An example for the practice of non-recognition of territorial
change through annexation has been the case of the Baltic states. The
view that any annexation based upon the unauthorized use of force is
illegal and is not to be recognized seems to find support in recent
developments in connection with the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. In
Resolution 662/1990 of 9 August 1990 the UN Security Council
unanimously declared the annexation null and void and called upon states
and institutions not to recognize it and to refrain from any action that
might be interpreted as indirect recognition.45
But, until such time as the international community is determined to
consistently prevent aggressors from enjoying the fruits of their crimes, the
idea that an aggressor cannot acquire a good title to territory is liable to
produce a serious discrepancy between the law and the facts. Ideally, the
facts should be brought into line with the law, but, if states are not
46 See the sixth edition of this book, at

prepared to take action to alter the facts, the only alternative is to bring 149.
the law into line with the facts. One view is that this can be done by 47 See R.Y.Jennings, Nullity and
Effectiveness in International Law,
means of recognition: an aggressor’s title is invalid, simply because it is Cambridge Essays in International Law
based on aggression, but its defects are cured when it is recognized de (1965), 64–87; C.de Visscher, Les
Effectivés en droit international public,
jure by other states. In this exceptional situation recognition would have 1967, 101–11; K.Doehring,
a constitutive effect.46 Effectiveness, EPIL II (1995), 43–8.
48 Fisheries Case, op. cit.
It is true that de jure recognition excludes claims for reparations and 49 Friendly Relations Declaration 1970,
the invocation of invalidity of the title to territory by the state granting Brownlie BDIL, 36–45, 40. See
such recognition. But the concept of recognition by third states in itself Chapters 2 above, 32 and 19 below,
314–15.
is not a sufficient explanation for the possibility of the acquistion of 50 See text above, and Chapter 20
territory in spite of unlawful forceful annexation. The real reason is the below, 151–2.
51 See also Harris CMIL, 20.
principle of effectiveness,47 based upon the passage of time and the 52 See P.Malanczuk, Das Golan-Gesetz
requirements of legal stability, which comes into play if it is impossible im Lichte des Annexionsverbots und der
occupatia bellica, ZaöRV 42 (1982),
within a certain period to achieve a reversal of the illegal situation. The 261–94; Malanczuk, Jerusalem, EPIL 12
mere passage of time and undisturbed possession, whereby the reaction (1990), 184–95; idem, Israel, Status,
Territory and Occupied Territories, EPIL
or non-reaction by third states naturally is a significant factor, leads to a II (1995), 1468–508. See also Harris
‘historical consolidation’, as referred to by the International Court of CMIL, 205–8.
Justice in the Fisheries case.48 53 See Chapter 19 below, 318–19.
What about the ‘innocent’ parties to a war? Can they still acquire
territory by conquest? The Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, passed by the General
Assembly in 1970, suggests that they cannot:49
The territory of a State shall not be the object of military

occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of
the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be
the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat
or use of force.
In these words, the Declaration makes a significant distinction between

military occupation and acquisition of territory. Military occupation (this
is the same as belligerent occupation)50 is unlawful only if it results from
the use of force in contravention of the Charter; any threat or use of
force, whether it is in contravention of the Charter or not, invalidates
acquisition of territory.51
After the Arab-Israeli hostilities of June 1967, the Security Council
and General Assembly of the United Nations did not condemn either side
for committing aggression: draft resolutions condemning Israel were
defeated. But the General Assembly and the Security Council have
repeatedly declared by overwhelming majorities that Israel is not entitled
to annex any of the territory which it overran in 196752 —which provides
further support for the view that the modern prohibition of the acquisition
of territory by force applies to all states, and not merely to aggressor
states. However, just as titles based on conquests by aggressors can be
validated by the principle of effectiveness, so can titles based on conquests
by non-aggressor states.
The modern rules prohibiting acquisition of territory by conquest are
concerned only with international wars, not with civil wars.53 No breach of
international law is therefore committed when part of a state’s inhabitants
54 C.Haverland, Secession, EPIL

10 (1987), 384–9.
succeed in setting up a new state by winning a civil war of secession,54 as
55 See Chapter 11 below, 163. On happened in Algeria in 1956–62, or, of course, if secession occurs with the
the controversial issue of the status
of Tibet under the rule of China see
consent of the government in power, as in the case of the independence of
M.C.v.W.v.Praag, The Status of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993.55
Tibet: History, Flights and Prospects
in International Law, 1987;
A.D.Hughes, Tibet, EPIL 12 (1990),
375–7. On East Timor, occupied by
Indonesia, see Chapter 3 above, 59
Acquiescence, recognition and estoppel
and Chapters 18, 286–7 and 19,
331–2 below.
56 See I.C.MacGibbon, The Scope
Acquiescence, recognition and estoppel56 play a very important role in the
of Acquiescence in International acquisition of territory, although they are not, strictly speaking, modes of
Law, BYIL (1954), 143–86;
D.W.Bowett, Estoppel Before
acquisition. Where each of the rival claimants can show that it has exercised
International Tribunals and Its a certain degree of control over the disputed territory, an international
Relation to Acquiescence, BYIL 33
(1957), 176–202; J.P.Müller/
tribunal is likely to decide the case in favour of the state which can prove
T.Cottier, Acquiescence, EPIL I that its title has been recognized by the other claimant or claimants. Such
(1992), 14–16. The doctrine of
‘acquiescence’ is difficult to
recognition may take the form of an express statement, or it may be inferred
distinguish from the related from acquiescence (that is, failure to protest against the exercise of control
concepts of ‘estoppel’, ‘prescription’
and ‘waiver’, see A.M.Trebilcock,
by one’s opponent). Recognition of a state does not necessarily entail
Waiver, EPIL 7 (1984), 533–6; T. recognition of all the territorial claims made by that state. But in every case
Nöcker/G.French, Estoppel: What’s
the Government’s Word Worth? An
recognition or acquiescence by one state has little or no effect unless it is
Analysis of German Law, Common accompanied by some measure of control over the territory by the other
Law Jurisdictions, and of the
Practice of International Arbitral
state; failure to protest against a purely verbal assertion of title unsupported
Tribunals, IL 24 (1990), 409–37; by any degree of control does not constitute acquiescence.57
J.P.Müller/T.Cottier, Estoppel, EPIL II
(1995), 116–19; I. Sinclair, Estoppel
It is sometimes said that recognition or acquiescence gives rise to an
and Acquiescence, in Lowe/ estoppel. Estoppel is a technical rule of the English law of evidence; when
Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., 104– 20.
See also Chapter 3 above, 49. On
one party makes a statement of fact and another party takes some action
prescription see text above, 150–1. in reliance on that statement, the courts will not allow the first party to
On recognition see Chapter 5
above, 82–90.
deny the truth of his statement if the party who acted in reliance on the
57 Island of Palmas Case, op. cit., statement would suffer some detriment in the event of the statement being
843. See also the Frontier Land
Case (Belgium v. The Netherlands),
proved to be false. Transposed into the context of international disputes
ICJ Rep. 1959, 209; Harris CMIL, over territory, the rule would mean that a state which had recognized
194, n. 2.
58 See Judge Fitzmaurice
another state’s title to particular territory would be estopped from denying
(Separate Opinion) in the Preah the other state’s title if the other state had taken some action in reliance
Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Rep.
1962, 6, 63–4; A. Rustemeyer,
on the recognition, for example by constructing roads in the territory
Temple of Preah Vihear Case, EPIL concerned, because the state constructing the roads would have been
2 (1981), 273–4.
59 Eastern Greenland Case, op. cit.,
wasting its money if its title turned out to be unfounded. The attitude of
at 68; Lord McNair, The Law of international law towards estoppel is not always consistent. Sometimes
Treaties, 1961, 485.
60 ICJ Rep. 1984, 246, 309. On the
international law insists on the English requirements of reliance and
case see Chapter 18 below, 288 detriment;58 at other times it does not.59 In the Gulf of Maine case, the
and K.Oellers-Frahm, Gulf of Maine
Case, EPIL 11 (1989), 131–5.
International Court of Justice said that ‘the element of detriment…
61 Ibid., 305. On equity and on the distinguishes estoppel stricto sensu from acquiescence’;60 in other words,
principle of good faith see Chapter 3
above, 55–6.
detriment is necessary for estoppel but not for acquiescence. But estoppel
62 Preah Vihear Temple Case, and acquiescence probably have the same effects as one another, because
op. cit.; Eastern Greenland Case,
op. cit.
the Court also said that acquiescence and estoppel were ‘different aspects
of one and the same institution’, since both concepts ‘follow from the
fundamental principles of good faith and equity’.61
Again, estoppel in international law sometimes has the effect of making
it impossible for a party to contradict its previous acts, behaviour or
statements, as in English law;62 in other cases it is merely evidential (that is,
its effect is simply to make it difficult for a party to contradict its previous
INTERTEMPORAL LAW 155
63 Minquiers and Ecrehos Case

conduct).63 In the dispute between Thailand and Cambodia over the (France v. UK), ICJ Rep. 1953, 47, 71;
ancient Temple of Preah Vihear, which is located on the Danrek mountains Harris CMIL, 187–90; K.Herndl,
Minquiers and Ecrehos Case, EPIL 2
forming part of the boundary between the two countries, the International (1981), 192–4.
Court of Justice held that the Siamese authorities had acquiesced for 64 Preah Vihear Temple Case, op. cit.
many years by failing to object to a map that had been drawn up by a 66 Eastern Greenland Case, op. cit., at
mixed commission in 1908, showing the temple as being on the 68.
67 Friendly Relations Declaration, op.
Cambodian side.64 cit., 40. See Chapter 2 above, 32.
We have already seen that acquiescence and recognition play a crucial 68 H.Lauterpacht, Recognition in
role in cases of prescription.65 But they are equally relevant to other International Law, 1947, 395.
69 Lauterpacht, ibid., 428–30.
modes of acquisition. For instance, in the Eastern Greenland case, 70 Jennings (1962), op. cit., 34–9, 42.
Norway claimed to have acquired Eastern Greenland by occupation—a 71 See the Western Sahara Case, ICJ
Rep. 1975, 12, 37–40. See also Harris
claim which presupposed that Eastern Greenland had been terra nullius CMIL., 182, n. 5.
before the Norwegian claim was made. Norway lost because Denmark
had exercised more control over Eastern Greenland than Norway had
done, and because Norway, by its actions, had recognized Denmark’s
title to the whole of Greenland.66 Acquiescence and recognition can also
be important in interpreting treaties of cession.
States are no longer allowed to acquire territory by conquest, but the
invalidity of such acquisitions of territory can be cured by recognition
by the victim of the conquest. In an attempt to prevent such acquisitions
being validated by recognition, in the Friendly Relations Declaration of
1970 the General Assembly has declared that ‘no territorial acquisition
resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal’.67
But it remains to be seen whether states will withhold recognition
indefinitely from such territorial acquisitions. However, recognition is
subject to special rules in this context. First, it must take the form of an
express statement, and cannot be implied.68 Second, it cannot validate
acquisition of territory by conquest unless it is de jure; if the recognizing
state says that it recognizes the conquest only de facto, it is saying in
effect that it regards the conqueror’s title as defective, and such a statement
obviously cannot give the conqueror a good title to the territory. Third,
recognition by the victim of the conquest needs to be supplemented by
recognition by third states, partly because the acquisition of territory by
force is a matter of concern to the whole international community,69 and
partly because recognition by third states is needed to provide evidence
that the victim granted recognition freely and without duress. In the
case of other modes of acquisition of territory, recognition by rival
claimants is what counts, although recognition by third states does have
a slight evidential value.70
Intertemporal law
The rules governing acquisition of territory have changed over the

centuries. This produces a problem of ‘intertemporal law’: which
century’s law is to be applied to determine the validity of title to territory?
The generally accepted view is that the validity of an acquisition of
territory depends on the law in force at the moment of the alleged
acquisition; this solution is really nothing more than an example of the
general principle that laws should not be applied retroactively.71

845–6.
But the generally accepted view has to some extent been undermined by
73 Friendly Relations Declaration, the Island of Palmas case, where the arbitrator, Max Huber, said:
op. cit; The UN Charter entered into
force on 24 October 1945. See
Chapter 2 above, 27–8. On the a distinction must be made between the creation of rights and the
prohibition of the use of force see
Chapter 19 below, 309–11. On
existence of rights. The same principle which subjects the act creative
unequal treaties imposed by the of a right to the law in force at the time the right arises, demands that
threat of the use of force see text
below, 158 and Chapter 9 above,
the existence of right, in other words its continued manifestation,
139–40. shall follow the conditions required by the evolution of law.72
74 For extracts from the Security
Council debate see Harris CMIL,
202–5. Therefore, as the requirements of the law for the maintenance of territory
become stricter, a state has to do more and more in order to retain its
title—it must continue to run all the time in order to stay in the same
place. Max Huber’s decision was clearly correct on the facts; increased
Spanish action on the island of Palmas was necessary to prevent the Dutch
gaining a title by prescription. But the wide terms in which Max Huber
expressed himself seem to virtually deny the effect of the rule that the
validity of an acquisition of territory depends on the law in force at the
time of the alleged acquisition.
This problem is particularly acute in the case of titles based on conquest.
Nowadays conquest cannot confer title; in the past it could. Do old titles
based on conquest now become void? If so, the results could be very startling;
carried to its logical conclusion, this suggestion would mean that North
America would have to be handed back to the Indian nations, and that the
English would have to hand Wales back to the Welsh. It is therefore not
surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern
prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be
construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime
and valid under international law’.73 On the other hand, if state A conquered
part of state B’s territory in the nineteenth century, state B may suffer from
a sense of injustice and be tempted to break the law if it is told that it is not
allowed to reconquer that territory now.
The Indian invasion of Goa in 1961 demonstrates the difficulties of
doing justice in such a situation. Portugal acquired Goa by conquest in the
sixteenth century, and India recognized the Portuguese title after becoming
independent in 1947. However, in the Security Council debates which
followed the invasion, India argued that Portugal’s title was void because it
was based on colonial conquest. Such a view is correct under twentieth-
century notions of international law, but hardly under sixteenth-century
notions. The sympathies of most of the members of the United Nations lay
with India, and neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly
condemned India’s action.74 But this does not necessarily mean that they
thought that India’s action was legally justified. Where a rule of law works
well in most cases but causes injustice in isolated cases, the best solution
may be to turn a blind eye to violations of the rule in those isolated cases. In
some municipal legal systems the authorities often exercise a good deal of
discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute. The United Nations
seems to have reacted in the same way to India’s invasion of Goa.
India’s invasion of Goa had an ironic sequel. A year later China invaded
some areas in the Himalayas held by India, arguing that these areas had
LEGAL AND POLITICAL ARGUMENTS 157
75 A.Siehr, Conflicts, Indian

originally been seized from China by a colonial power (Britain), that Subcontinent, in Wolfrum UNLPP I,
Britain’s title was invalid because it was based on colonial conquest, that 243–54, at 245–6; S.Vohra, The
the title which India had inherited from Britain was similarly invalid, and Northern Frontier of India: The Border
Dispute with China, 1993; X.Liu, Sino-
that China was entitled to use force to recover the territory in question, Indian Border Dispute and Sino-Indian
just as India had done in Goa.75 The argument that conquests in previous Relations, 1994. See also Chapter 19
below, 314–15.
centuries are invalid is an argument which cuts both ways, and most states 76 T.Schweisfurth, Boundary Disputes
therefore do not accept it. Even communist China has shown itself less between China and USSR, EPIL I
(1992), 453–60; R.Khan, Boundary
interested in regaining lost territory than in securing admissions from its Disputes in the Indian Subcontinent,
neighbours that the boundaries between them and China were established ibid., 473–5.
77 Jennings (1962), op. cit., 73.
by imperialist aggression; once such an admission has been made (for 78 See H.Kelsen, Contiguity as a Title to
example, by Pakistan and Burma), China has been prepared to negotiate Territorial Sovereignty, in W.Schätzel/
a new boundary which is almost indistinguishable from the old. If India H.-J.Schlochauer (eds), Festschrift für
H.W.Wehberg, 1956, 200–10. On self-
and the Soviet Union had been prepared to make such an admission, they determination see Chapter 19 below,
could probably have avoided their boundary disputes with China.76 324–40.
79 P.Macallister-Smith, Northern Ireland,
EPIL 12 (1990), 249–64; I.S. Lustick,
Unsettled States, Disputed Lands:
Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria,
Legal and political arguments Israel and the West Bank-Gaza, 1993;
P.Arthur, The Anglo-Irish Joint
Declaration: Towards a Lasting Peace?,
In territorial disputes, legal and political arguments are often used side by Gov. & Oppos. 29 (1994), 218–30; K.
side—so much so that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish one from the Boyle/T.Hadden, The Peace Process in
Northern Ireland, IA 71 (1995), 269–83.
other. There are good reasons for this; a state which has relied solely on
legal arguments might be suspected of having a weak case politically, and
a state which has relied solely on political arguments might be suspected
of having a weak case legally. Besides, territorial disputes arouse
extraordinary passions—people are prepared to fight and die rather than
surrender an inch of their territory, however useless the territory in dispute
may be—and in these circumstances it is hardly to be expected that people
will be able to distinguish between what the law is and what it ought to
be. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. As noted by Jennings: ‘If a
political argument can be made to possess legal overtones, and the legal
distinction between meum and turn blurred, the claimant may be enabled
to convey the impression to others and, perhaps more importantly, to
himself that he already possesses a claim in the sense of a legal title.’77
The main political arguments which are used in territorial disputes
are the principles of geographical contiguity, of historical continuity and
of self-determination.78 The meaning and function of these principles
can be understood by considering briefly the position of Northern
Ireland.79 It is generally agreed that Northern Ireland forms part of the
United Kingdom from the point of view of international law; but the
Republic of Ireland argues that Northern Ireland should be reunited
with the Republic, because the two halves of Ireland form a natural
geographical unit (geographical contiguity) and were administered as a
political unit for centuries until 1922 (historical continuity); the United
Kingdom replies that the majority of the population of Northern Ireland
wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom (self-determination).
Such principles cannot, by themselves, create a legal title to territory. In
the Island of Palmas case, the arbitrator said of the principle of contiguity:
It is impossible to show the existence of a rule of positive international

law to the effect that islands situated outside territorial waters

at 854.
should belong to a State from the mere fact that its territory forms
81 Jennings (1962), op. cit., 73. See the terra firma (nearest continent or island of considerable size).80
also the Eastern Greenland Case,
op. cit., 45–52.
82 P.Schneider, Condominium, That does not mean, however, that such principles have no legal relevance:
EPIL I (1992), 732–5.
83 S.Less, New Hebrides, EPIL 12
(1990), 241–7. Contiguity is no more than evidence raising some sort of presumption
84 J.A.Frowein, Lake Constance,
EPIL 12 (1990), 216–9.
of effective occupation—a presumption that may be rebutted by better
85 C.Rumpf, Territory, Lease, EPIL evidence of sovereign possession by a rival claimant.81
10 (1987), 507–9.
86 A.D.Hughes, Hong Kong, EPIL II
(1995), 870–3; Harris CMIL, 235, n. In other words, the principle of contiguity can be taken into account by
4; on the (draft) agreement see ILM
23 (1984), 1366–87; see further
international tribunals in borderline cases. So, presumably, can the principles
G.Ress, The Legal Status of Hong of self-determination and historical continuity; where there is genuine doubt
Kong after 1997. The
Consequences of the Transfer of
about the effectiveness of a state’s control over territory, the loyalties of the
Sovereignty According to the Joint inhabitants, or the fact that the territory has traditionally formed part of a
Declaration of December 19, 1984,
ZaöRV 46 (1986), 647; D.R. Fung,
larger administrative unit, may constitute evidence of effective control by a
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong claimant state.
Special Administrative Region of the
People’s Republic of China, ICLQ
37 (1988), 701; J.-P.Béjà, Hong
Kong 1997: fin de siècle, fin d’un
monde, 1993; J.Y.S.Cheng, Sino-
Minor rights over territory
British Negotiations on Hong Kong
During Chris Patten’s Governorship,
AJIA 48 (1994), 229–45; A.Goodlad,
So far we have been considering the situation where a state exercises full
Hong Kong: Britain’s Legacy, and exclusive sovereignty over territory. But there are also lesser rights over
China’s Inheritance, The World May
50 (1994), 112–15.
territory, which, although rare, deserve brief mention. Two states may agree
87 See W.Rudolf, Macau, EPIL 12 to exercise sovereignty jointly over a certain territory. This is known as a
(1990), 223–5; P.Fifoot, One
Country, Two Systems—Mark II:
condominium,82 and resembles co-ownership in municipal law. The New
From Hong Kong to Macao, IR 12 Hebrides Islands (now Vanuatu) in the Pacific were a Franco-British
(1994), 25–58.
88 T.Oppermann, Cyprus, EPIL I
condominium before they became independent in 1980.83 Today, the
(1992), 923–6. On the right granted relevance of the concept is still an issue in the dispute on the division of
by the 1960 Treaty concerning the
Establishment of the Republic of
sovereignty over Lake Constance (Bodensee, Lac de Constance) which is
Cyprus between Greece, Turkey surrounded by Germany, Switzerland and Austria.84
and the UK to the UK to maintain
military bases in Cyprus, see Harris
Occasionally a state leases part of its territory to another state; this is, in
CMIL, 234, n. 3. See also Chapter effect, a temporary transfer of sovereignty, because the state to which the
22 below, 420–2.
89 U.Fastenrath, Servitudes, EPIL
territory is leased can exercise full sovereignty over the territory as long as
10 (1987), 389–92. the lease remains in force.85 Part of the British colony of Hong Kong is held
by the United Kingdom under a lease from China which is due to expire in
1997 when Hong Kong is to be returned under an agreement reached by
the two countries in 1984.86 Similarly, Portugal agreed in 1987 to return
Macau to China in 1999.87
A state may also, by treaty, be given the right to administer part of the
territory of another state. For instance, the Treaty of Berlin 1878 gave the
United Kingdom the right to administer the Turkish island of Cyprus (the
subsequent British annexation of Cyprus in 1915 was recognized by Turkey
in the Treaty of Lausanne 1923).88
Servitudes
A servitude is said to arise when territory belonging to one state is, in some
particular way, made to serve the interests of territory belonging to another
state.89 The state enjoying the benefit of the servitude may be entitled to do
MINOR RIGHTS OVER TERRITORY 159
90 Right of Passage Case (Portugal v.

something on the territory concerned (for example, exercise a right of India), ICJ Rep. 1960, 6; Harris CMIL,
way, or remove water for irrigation); alternatively, the state on whom 235–8; L.Weber, Right of Passage over
Indian Territory Case, EPIL 2 (1981),
the burden of the servitude is imposed may be under an obligation to 244–6. See also the North Atlantic
abstain from certain action (for example, not to fortify or station forces Fisheries Arbitration Case (1910) (U.S.
v. Great Britain), RIAA XI 167; extract in
on the territory in question). Servitudes are usually created by treaty, Harris CMIL, 232–3.
although they may also be derived from local custom.90 91 PCIJ, series A/B, no. 46; L.Weber,
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and Gex
The term ‘servitude’ is borrowed from the Roman law of property, Case, EPIL II (1995), 483–4.
and many writers criticize its use in international law, on the grounds 92 T.Modeen, Aaland Islands, EPIL I
(1992), 1–3.
that so-called international servitudes are not subject to the same rules 93 LNOJ, Special Supplement No. 3,
as servitudes in Roman law. The essential feature of servitudes in Roman 1920, 18–9. See Harris CMIL, 234, n. 2
and Chapter 3 above, 59.
law (and of equivalent institutions in modern systems of municipal law) 94 R.Lagoni, Canals, EPIL I (1992),
was that they ‘ran with the land’ —that is, all successors in title to the 523–7; J.A.Barberis, International
Rivers, EPIL II (1995), 1364–8.
owner of the ‘servient’ land were subject to the burden of the servitude,
and all successors in title to the owner of the ‘dominant’ land could
claim the benefit of the servitude. Do the same rules apply to so-called
international servitudes?
There are many cases of successor states being bound by territorial
obligations entered into by predecessor states. For instance, in the Free
Zones of Upper Savoy and District of Gex case, the Permanent Court of
International Justice held that France was obliged to perform a promise
made by Sardinia to maintain a customs-free zone in territory which
France had subsequently acquired from Sardinia.91
Recorded examples of the benefit of an international servitude
‘running with the land’ in the same way are harder to find. But if
obligations can ‘run with the land’, as in the Free Zones case, logic
suggests that rights can also ‘run with the land’. Moreover, it would be
highly inconvenient if such rights did not survive changes in sovereignty;
where the population of a particular area is economically dependent on
obtaining water, for instance, from a neighbouring area, their livelihood
ought not to be endangered by changes in sovereignty over either of the
areas concerned.
International servitudes can sometimes exist, not for the benefit of a
single state, but for the benefit of many states, or even for the benefit of
all the states in the world. For instance, in 1856 Russia entered into a
treaty obligation not to fortify the Aaland Islands in the Baltic; the islands
lie near Stockholm, but Sweden was not a party to the treaty.92 In 1918
the islands became part of Finland, which started fortifying them. Sweden,
feeling threatened by the fortifications, complained to the Council of
the League of Nations. The Council appointed a Committee of Jurists to
report on the legal issues involved. The Committee of Jurists advised the
Council that Finland had succeeded to Russia’s obligations, and that
Sweden could claim the benefit of the 1856 treaty, although it was not a
party to it, because the treaty was designed to preserve the balance of
power in Europe, and could therefore be invoked by all the states which
were ‘directly interested’, including Sweden.93
Servitudes are particularly important in connection with rivers and
canals.94 In the eighteenth century states used to exclude foreign ships from
using waterways within their territory. This caused great hardship, especially
to landlocked states lying upstream, and since 1815 various treaties
have been concluded, opening most of the major rivers of the world to
95 Harris CMIL, 240–2; B.Broms,

Suez Canal, EPIL 12 (1990), 360–5.
navigation, either by the ships of all states, or by the ships of all riparian
See also Chapter 2 above, 27–8. states, or by the ships of all states parties to the treaty (the treaties vary in
96 M.Hartwig, Panama Canal, EPIL
12 (1990), 282–9; J.Major, Prize
their terms). The Convention of Constantinople, signed in 1888 by Turkey
Possession: The United States and and nine other states, declared the Suez Canal open to the ships of all
the Panama Canal, 1903–1979,
1993. On the Kiel Canal, see The
nations.95 The same rule was applied to the Panama Canal by treaties
Wimbledon Case (1923) (France, concluded by the United States with the United Kingdom and Panama in
Italy, Japan and the UK v.
Germany), PCIJ, series A, n. 1;
1901 and 1903.96 Egypt accepts that it has succeeded to Turkey’s obligations
Harris CMIL, 239–40. See Chapter under the 1888 Convention, and, after the nationalization of the canal, it
2 above, 18.
97 Text in AJIL 53 (1957), 673;
filed a declaration with the United Nations Secretariat in 1957, reaffirming
Harris CMIL, 241. its intention ‘to respect the terms and the spirit of the Constantinople
Convention’, and agreeing to accept the jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice in all disputes between Egypt and the other parties to the
Convention which might arise out of the Convention.97
11 Legal consequences of
changes of sovereignty over
territory (state succession)
The term ‘state succession’ is used to describe that branch of 1 D.P.O’Connell, State Succession in
Municipal and International Law, 2
international law which deals with the legal consequences of a change vols, 1967; Restatement (Third), Vol.
of sovereignty over territory.1 When one state acquires territory from 1, paras. 208–210; W.Fiedler, State
another, which of the rights and obligations of the ‘predecessor state’ Succession, EPIL 10 (1987), 446–56;
Harris CMIL, 813–6; P.K.Menon, The
pass to the ‘successor state’? What happens to existing bilateral and Succession of States in Respect to
multilateral treaties, to membership of international organizations, to Treaties, State Property, Archives and
Debts, 1991; M.Bothe/C.Schmidt, Sur
international claims, to the nationality of the affected persons, to public quelques questions de succession
and private property, to contractual rights, to national archives and to posées par la dissolution de l’URSS et
the national debt? This problem is complicated because it can arise in celle de la Yugoslavia, RGDIP 96
(1992), 811–42; D.F.Vagts, State
several different forms. A state may lose part of its territory, or it may Succession: The Codifiers’ View,
lose all of it. Similarly, the loss of territory may result in the enlargement Virginia JIL 33 (1993), 275–97;
O.Schachter, State Succession, The
of one or more existing states, or it may result in the creation of one or
Once and Future Law, ibid., 253–60;
more new states. These distinctions are vital, because different rules of E.D.Williamson/J.E. Osborn, A U.S.
law apply to different types of situation; for instance, the legal effects Perspective on Treaty Succession and
Related Issues in the Wake of the
of the creation of a new state are different from the legal effects of the Breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia,
enlargement of an existing state. ibid., 261 et seq.; W. Czaplinski, La
Continuité, l’identité et la succession
The importance of classifying the situation is exceeded only by the
d’Etats—Evaluation de cas récents,
difficulty of doing so. For instance, with regard to the creation of RBDI 26 (1993), 374–92; R.
Yugoslavia after the First World War, one was faced with the question of Mullerson, The Continuity and
Succession of States by Reference to
whether it was a new state, or merely an enlargement of Serbia? Judicial the Former USSR and Yugoslavia,
decisions on the status of Yugoslavia indeed varied. Again, whether, after ICLQ 42 (1993), 473–93; M.N.Shaw,
State Succession Revisited, FYIL 5
the recent dissolution of former Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of
(1994), 34–98; S.Bolderson/
Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro) is now to be seen as a new state or a A.Verdonk, Treaty Status in the
continuation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not easy Commonwealth of Independent States,
the Baltic States and the Former
to answer (see below). The only safe way of dealing with such problems Czechoslovakia, ET 34 (1994), 50–60;
is to ask, first, does the state concerned claim to be a new state, or does P.R.Williams, The Treaty Obligations
it claim to be a continuation of a previously existing state? And, second, of the Successor States of the Former
Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and
how far have its claims been accepted by other states? Czechoslovakia: Do They Continue in
The status of the law on state succession has been aptly described as Force?, Denver JILP 23 (1994), 1–42;
G.Burdeau (ed.), Dissolution,
‘chaotic’.2 In the 1970s, stimulated by the process of decolonization,3 the continuation et succession en Europe
International Law Commission made an attempt to codify major areas of de l’Est, 1994; Annual Meeting of the
the law of state succession which materialized in two draft Conventions: Dutch Society of International Law,
1995, Preadviezen by A.Bos and O.M.
the 1978 Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Treaties,4 Ribbelink; L.H.W.Sandick,
and the 1983 Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of State Statenopvolging, Mededelingen NVIR
Property, Archives and Debts.5 The codification attempt is generally 1995; O.M.Ribbelink, On the Uniting of
States in Respect to Treaties, NYIL 26
viewed as a failure (although valuable research was produced in the (1995), 139–69.
course of preparing the draft articles), the main reason being that it 2 S.Oeter, German Unification and State
focused far too much on the special problems and interests of the ‘newly Succession, ZaöRV 51 (1991), 349–83,
independent states’ and disregarded other relevant situations. Also, the at 352 et seq.
162 LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGES OF SOVEREIGNTY

4 Text in ILM 17 (1978), 1488; AJIL
rules in the draft treaties have not always been followed by actual state practice.
72 (1978), 971. See H.D.Treviranus, Significantly, neither of the two conventions has so far received the necessary
Vienna Convention on Succession
of States in Respect of Treaties,
fifteen ratifications by states to enter into force. The 1978 Convention has
EPIL 10 (1987), 523–6. For the been signed by twenty states and ratified by three (Ethiopia, Iraq and
useful Commentary of the ILC see
ILCYb 1974, Vol. 2, part 1, 174–269.
Yugoslavia); seven states acceded (Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia,
5 Text in ILM 23 (1983), 306; Morocco, Seychelles, Tunisia and Ukraine). Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,
Commentary in ILCYb 981, Vol. 2, Slovenia and Slovakia are registered as successor states. The 1983 Convention
part 2, 20–113. See J.Oesterhelt,
Vienna Convention on Succession has been signed by only six states. However, the topic of state succession has
of States in Respect of State unexpectedly moved into the forefront again recently in view of the unifications
Property, Archives and Debts, EPIL
10 (1987), 521–3.
of Yemen and of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia
6 Articles 11 and 12, 1978 Vienna and Czechoslovakia, and the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia.
Convention.
For a discussion in the context of
state succession, see Bos, op. cit., Treaties
15–16.
8 See Kaikobad, Some
Observations on the Doctrine of Treaties dealing with rights over territory
Continuity and Finality of
Boundaries, BYIL 54 (1983), 119, In the case of ‘dispositive’ treaties (that is, treaties which deal with rights
126–36.
9 See Touval, The OAU and African over territory), succession to rights and obligations always occurs. Such
Borders, IO 21 (1967), 102, and treaties ‘run with the land’ and are unaffected by changes of sovereignty
Case Concerning the Continental
Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), ICJ Rep. over the territory.6 Servitudes7 are one important example. Boundary treaties
1982, 18, 65–6 (para. 84), 131. See are another. If a treaty delimits a boundary between two states, and if the
also Chapter 19 below, 335.
10 I.Brownlie, African Boundaries: A territory on one side of the boundary is acquired by a third state, the third
Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopedia, state is bound by the boundary treaty. The rule of automatic succession to
1979, 9–12; Y.Makonnen, State
Succession in Africa: Selected boundary treaties is part of a wider principle that a state acquiring territory
Problems, RdC 200 (1986–V), 92– automatically succeeds to the boundaries of that territory, whether the
234; F.Wooldridge, Uti possidetis
Doctrine, EPIL 10 (1987), 519–21; boundaries are fixed by a treaty or whether they are fixed by the application
R. McCorquodale, Self- of rules of customary law concerning title to territory and acquisition of
Determination Beyond the Colonial
Context and its Potential Impact on territory.8
Africa, AJICL 4 (1992), 592–608; One consequence of this rule is that newly independent states inherited
J.Klabbers/R. Lefeber, Africa: Lost
Between Self-Determination and Uti boundaries drawn by the former colonial powers; this consequence was
Possidetis, in C. Brölmann/ accepted by almost all newly independent states, who had no wish to see
R.Lefeber/M.Zieck (eds), Peoples
and Minorities in International Law, their boundaries called into question. Colonial boundaries, particularly in
1993, 37–76; P.Malanczuk, Africa, were often unnatural, disregarding ethnic divisions and cutting through
Minorities and Self-Determination,
Reflections on International Law in areas which form a natural economic unit, but, since the newly independent
General Including Some Recent states could not agree on a radical redrawing of boundaries, they were wise
Developments in Ethiopia, in N.
Sybesma-Knol/J.Van Bellingen to avoid uncertainty and conflict by preserving their existing boundaries.9
(eds), Naar een nieuwe interpretatie In 1964 the Organization of African Unity adopted a resolution which
van het recht op Zelfbeschikking,
1995, 169– 93, 188 et seq. declared that ‘all member states pledge themselves to respect the borders
existing on their achievement of national independence’. This resolution
reflects the so-called uti possidetis principle, which originally developed in
South America in connection with the independence of states from Spanish
and Portuguese rule to protect territorial integrity under the existing former
administrative boundaries.10 In the territorial dispute between Burkina Faso
and Mali, the International Court of Justice recognized the obligation to
respect existing borders in cases of state succession with the following words:
There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing

international frontiers in the event of a State succession
TREATIES 163
derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not 11 ICJ Rep. 1986, 566.
12 Opinion No. 3 of 11 January 1992,
the rule is expressed in the formula of uti possidetis.11 ILM 31 (1992), 1499, at 1500. See also
13 Ibid.
Similarly, the Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission that 14 See Malanczuk (1995), op. cit.; R.
was established in 1991 upon the initiative of the European Community, Goy, L’Indépendence de l’Erythrée,
supported by the United States and the former USSR, to render opinions AFDI 39 (1993), 337–56. See generally
E. Gayim, The Eritrean Question: The
on questions arising from the dissolution of Yugoslavia held: Conflict between the Right of Self-
Determination and the Interest of States,
Except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become 1993.
frontiers protected by international law. This conclusion follows

from the principle of respect for the territorial status quo and, in
particular, from the principle of uti possidetis. Uti possidetis,
though initially applied in settling decolonization issues in
America and Africa, is today recognized as a general principle,
as stated by the International Court of Justice.12
The Commission also emphasized that ‘[a]ll external frontiers must be

respected’ with reference to the UN Charter and other international
documents, including Article 11 of the 1978 Vienna Convention, that
boundaries between the parties to the conflict cannot be altered except
by free agreement, and that ‘the alteration of existing frontiers or
boundaries by force is not capable of producing any legal effects’.13
In Africa, the secession of Eritrea after thirty years of war and a
referendum supervised by the United Nations and with the consent of the
new Ethiopian government which had overthrown the Soviet-backed
regime of Colonel Mengistu, has raised concern with regard to the ‘sanctity
of African borders’ and the uti possidetis principle.14 Eritrea was admitted
as the fifty-first state of Africa to the United Nations on 28 May 1993.
Other types of treaties

With respect to other types of treaties, the rules vary according to the
nature of the territorial change which has occurred.
The principle of ‘moving treaty boundaries’

When a state loses territory, it loses its rights and obligations under
treaties, in so far as those treaties used to apply to the lost territory.
Thus, when the United Kingdom granted independence to Nigeria, the
United Kingdom was no longer bound by an Anglo-American extradition
treaty to extradite criminals from Nigeria, nor did it have a right to
require the extradition of criminals from the United States for crimes
committed in Nigeria. (But treaties made by the United Kingdom will
normally continue to apply to territory retained by the United Kingdom
after it granted independence to Nigeria.)
When an existing state acquires territory, it does not succeed to the
predecessor state’s treaties; but its own treaties normally become
applicable to that territory. For instance, there are many decisions by
French and Belgian courts holding that French treaties applied to Alsace
and Lorraine after they were ceded to France in 1919. This rule is codified
by Article 15 of the 1978 Vienna Convention.
The above rules are reflected in the so-called principle of ‘moving treaty
boundaries’ which is thought to apply in the case when an existing state
15 See Articles 29, 61 and 62, 1969

Vienna Convention on the Law of
transfers sovereignty over a part of its territory to another state (as distinct
Treaties (text in ILM 8 (1969), 679; from the cases of the confederation of independent states or the unification
AJIL 63 (1969), 875); Article 15,
1978 Vienna Convention, op. cit.
into one state of two previously independent states). It means that the treaties
16 See Bos, op. cit., 12. See also concluded by the predecessor state are no longer applicable to that territory,
below, 167–8.
while the treaties of the successor state automatically apply to it. This rule
18 Article 17, 1978 Vienna of the law of state succession reflects the law of treaties and knows only an
Convention.
19 Article 24.
exception if the application of a particular treaty to a certain territory is
20 For the meaning of estoppel, see incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.15 The rule, however,
Chapters 3, 49 and 10, 154–5
above.
is controversial because it may be too restrictive to deal with cases in which
21 See Chapter 5 above, 80. one state is completely extinguished by fusion with another state, a view
particularly advanced by Germany in the discussions on the 1978
Convention with the possible eventual reunification of the two German
states in mind.16
Decolonization and new states

As regards new states which have come into being through decolonization,17
the Vienna Convention lays down the following rules:
1 A new state can succeed to a multilateral treaty, to which the

predecessor state was a party, by notifying the depositary that it regards
itself as succeeding to the treaty. There are some exceptions to this
rule; for instance, a new state cannot succeed to a multilateral treaty
if that would be incompatible with the intentions of the parties to the
treaty. A new state is under no obligation to succeed to a multilateral
treaty if it does not want to do so.18
2 A new state succeeds to a bilateral treaty, which the predecessor state
made with another state, only if that other state and the new state
both agree.19 However, agreement can be inferred from conduct; for
instance, if both sides claim rights, or grant rights to one another, on
the basis of the treaty, they will be estopped from denying that
succession has occurred.20 Such implied agreements often occur,
because both sides often find that it is in their mutual interests to
continue to apply treaties made by the predecessor state.
As we have seen, colonies were frequently given a limited treaty-making

power before becoming independent.21 Treaties which they themselves had
made under such a power were not affected by independence. For instance,
India joined the UN in 1945 but did not become independent until 1947;
independence did not affect India’s membership of the UN. (Pakistan,
however, was regarded as a new state and had to apply to be admitted as a
new member.) Whether India succeeded to treaties made by the United
Kingdom, however, is a much more difficult problem.
It may also seem paradoxical and inconsistent that succession to a
bilateral treaty requires the consent of the other party, but that succession
to a multilateral treaty does not require the consent of the other parties.
However, the paradox and inconsistency are more apparent than real. The
parties to most multilateral treaties welcome the participation of as many
states as possible, and so their consent to succession by a new state can be
taken for granted; that is why Article 17 makes no express mention of their
RECENT PRACTICE 165
22 Article 34, 1978 Vienna Convention.

consent. However, Article 17 does require the consent of the other parties 23 Article 31.
if it is clear that succession without their consent would be incompatible 24 On the requirements of consistency
and opinio iuris for the creation of rules
with the intentions of the parties to the treaty. of customary law, see Chapter 3 above,
These rules apply only if the new state was formerly a dependent 41–5.
territory (for example, a colony) of the predecessor state. A new state 25 See Z.Meriboute, La Codification de
la succession d’état aux traites, 1984,
formed by secession from the metropolitan (that is, non-‘colonial’) 141–64 (secession), 182–6 (merger),
territory of the predecessor state, or by the disintegration of the 206–17 (disintegration).
predecessor state’s metropolitan territory into two or more new states, 26 B.Meissner, Baltic States, EPIL I
(1992), 328–37. See also Chapter 10
succeeds automatically to most of the predecessor state’s treaties.22 above, 152.
When a new state is formed by the merger of two or more existing 27 Lithuania on 11 March 1990, Estonia
on 20 August 1991, and Latvia one day
states, treaties made by the predecessor states continue to apply to the later. See R.Yakemtchouk, Les
territory to which they applied before the merger, subject to certain Républiques baltes en droit international
exceptions.23 —Echec d’une annexation operée en
violation de droit international, AFDI 37
Under Articles 17 and 24, a new state is under no obligation to succeed (1991), 259; A.Spruds (ed.), The Baltic
to a treaty if it does not want to do so; it can start life with a ‘clean slate’. Path to Independence: An International
The ‘clean slate’ doctrine was well established in customary international Reader of Selected Articles, 1994,
law before 1945. Developments after 1945 cast some doubt on the ‘clean
slate’ doctrine, because some of the states which became independent
after 1945 seemed to accept that they succeeded automatically to treaties
made by their predecessor states. However, it is submitted that this
practice of automatic succession was insufficient to destroy the ‘clean
slate’ doctrine, because:
1 only some of the states which became independent after 1945

followed this practice, while others followed the ‘clean slate’ doctrine;
2 some of the states which followed the practice of automatic
succession applied it to only some of the treaties made by their
predecessors, and not to others;
3 the states which followed the practice of automatic succession
appear to have done so because they found it convenient, not
because they considered themselves obliged to do so.24
By reaffirming the ‘clean slate’ doctrine, Articles 17 and 24 of the

Vienna Convention 1978 are therefore probably in accordance with
customary law.
The provisions of Articles 34 and 31 concerning disintegration and
merger, respectively, are also probably in accordance with customary law,
although examples of disintegration and merger have been too few to
justify a firm conclusion. On the other hand, the provisions of Article 34
concerning secession probably conflict with customary law, which seems
to have permitted a secessionary state to start life with a ‘clean slate’.25
Recent practice
Secession
Baltic states
The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania)26 that had been annexed
by the Soviet Union in 1940 declared their independence in 1990 and
1991.27 A number of states recognized their independence, including the
28 See Bos, op. cit., 27–9.

29 On the concept see B.Schloh,
Soviet Union on 6 September 1991, and they were admitted to the United
Dismemberment, EPIL I (1992), Nations. Whether the Baltic states may be regarded as new independent
1083–5.
30 See generally C.Haverland,
states in the sense of the 1978 Convention is unclear because the Convention
Secession, EPIL 10 (1987), 384–9. fails to provide a definition of ‘dependent territories’.28 States take different
31 But see Mullerson, op. cit., 483
concerning the agreement between
positions on whether the Baltic States should be recognized as new states
Finland and Estonia on the following their independence from the Soviet Union, as well as on the issue
provisional application of certain
treaties or parts thereof.
of whether this is a case of the ‘dismemberment’ of a state29 or a case of
32 On the cases of the Federation of ‘secession’.30 The Baltic states themselves do not regard themselves as
Mali 1950, the United Arab Republic
1961, and Bangladesh 1971, see
successor states to the USSR and have refused to be bound by any doctrine
Ribbelink, Preadviezen, op. cit., 81 of treaty succession to bilateral or multilateral treaties concluded by the
et seq.
33 See Mullerson, op. cit.; Bos, op.
former Soviet Union.31
cit., 30 et seq.; Ribbelink,
Preadviezen, op. cit., 85 et seq.;
Bothe/Schmidt, op. cit.; Dismemberment32
T.Schweisfurth, Vom Einheitsstaat
(UdSSR) zum Staatenbund (GUS),
ZaöRV 52 (1992), 541–702. See Soviet Union
generally W. Fiedler, Continuity,
EPIL I (1992), 806–9.
34 ILM 31 (1992), 138. See also
When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985, a
Chapter 6 above, 94–5. process was initiated which, following the abortive coup d’état in August
35 See Lukašuk, Rußland als
Rechtsnachfolger in völkerrechtliche
1991, ultimately led to the disintegration of the USSR. It is disputed whether
Verträge der USSR, Osteur.-Recht the claim of the Russian Federation to continuity with the former Soviet
39 (1993), 235.
36 ILM 31 (1992), 151. See Y.Blum,
Union is justified.33 However, there is no doubt that the former USSR ended
Russia Takes Over the Soviet with the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
Union’s Seat at the United Nations,
EJIL 3 (1992), 354–51; M.P.Scharf,
based upon the Alma Ata Declaration, signed on 21 December 1991 by eleven
Musical Chairs: The Dissolution of Soviet republics.34 The CIS states declared themselves willing to guarantee, in
States and Membership in the
United Nations, Cornell ILJ 28
accordance with their constitutional procedures, ‘the discharge of the
(1995), 29–69. See also Chapter 21 international obligations deriving from treaties and agreements concluded
below, 373.
37 UN Doc. 1991/Russia.
by the former Union of Soviet Republics’ (concerning some 16,000
38 AJIL 90 (1996), 448. instruments)35 and to support ‘Russia’s continuance’ of the membership of
40 See T.Schweisfurth, Ausgewählte
the USSR in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the
Fragen der Staatensukzession im Security Council, and other international organizations.36 A corresponding
Kontext der Auflösung der UdSSR,
AVR 32 (1994), 99–129, 105; Bos,
declaration on the latter point was transmitted by Russia to the UN Secretary-
op. cit., 33. General on 24 December 1991.37 There was no objection by anyone to Russia
41 G.Bunn/J.B.Rhinelander, The
Arms Control Obligations of the
taking the seat of the USSR at the United Nations. On 17 January 1992, the
Former Soviet Union, Virginia JIL 33 Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed diplomatic missions in Moscow
(1993), 323–50; L.S.Wolosky/
J.M.Malis/D.A. Schwimmer, START,
that the Russian Federation would continue to carry out obligations under
START II, and Ownership of Nuclear international treaties concluded by the USSR, and that the Russian
Weapons: The Case for a ‘Primary’
Successor State, Harvard ILJ 34
Government would perform the functions of depository for corresponding
(1993), 581–95. multilateral agreements in place of the Government of the USSR.38
Whether the position adopted by the European Union on the basis of its
‘Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the
Soviet Union’ 39 amounts to an implicit recognition of the Russian
Federation’s claim to continuity with the former USSR is controversial.40
At any rate, a major consideration of the West in dealing with the issue of
the disintegration of the USSR was to secure the continued applicability of
a number of multilateral treaties which are of prime importance to
international security. One aspect was the control of the arsenal of nuclear
weapons on the territories of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakstan.
While Russia appeared as the successor state to the Soviet Union as
a nuclear power41 and entered into the rights and obligations of the
RECENT PRACTICE 167
Non-Proliferation Treaty,42 the other three states declared that they would 42 See Chapter 20 below, 349.
43 For details see Bos, op. cit., 34.
aim for a non-nuclear status.43 With respect to the 1991 Treaty on
44 For further information on other
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the Russian Federation declared treaties and on the position of the
that all its relevant armaments and equipment, on or after 19 November other CIS states see Bos, op. cit., 35
1990, still provisionally on the territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, et seq.
were subject to the provisions of the treaty. At the same time, the Baltic 45 See, for example, M.Weller, The
International Response to the
states were taken out of the Treaty’s territorial scope of application.44 Dissolution of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, AJIL 86 (1992),
569–607; Y.Z.Blum, UN Membership of
Yugoslavia the ‘New’ Yugoslavia: Continuity or
Break?, ibid., 830–33; Agora: UN
The case of Yugoslavia is also a complex one.45 The independence declared Membership of the Former Yugoslavia,
by Slovenia and Croatia on 25 June 1991 (the implementation of these AJIL 87 (1993), 240–51; W.Hummer,
declarations was later postponed until 8 October 1991) as the first units Probleme der Staatennachfolge am
of former Yugoslavia, was recognized by the European Union and a number Beispiel Jugoslawiens, RSDI 4 (1993),
425–59. See also the literature above,
of other states in January 1992, followed by the recognition of Bosnia- 161 and Chapter 5, 89–90 above and
Herzegovina on 7 April 1992. On 27 April 1992, Serbia and Montenegro Chapters 21, 372–3 and 22, 409–15
set up the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the explicit claim of below.
continuing the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.46 On 1 46 See UN Doc. S/23877 of 5 May
1992.
May 1992. the European Union expressed its willingness to recognize
47 See also Chapter 5 above, 90 and
Macedonia as an independent state under a name acceptable to all parties Chapters 21, 372 and 22, 409–15
(thereby taking into consideration the objections raised by Greece).47 below.
Soon thereafter, on 22 May 1992, the new republics of Slovenia, 48 UN Doc. GA Res. 46/238; 46/236
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia were admitted as members of the United and 46/237.
49 UN Doc. S/Res 757, 30 May 1992;
Nations.48 The Security Council, however, denied the claim of the Federal UN Doc. S/Res 777 (1992). See
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to automatically succeed Ribbelink, Preadviezen, op. cit., 95 et
to the membership of former Yugoslavia and required it to make a new seq.
application for admission because former Yugoslavia had ceased to exist.49 50 See Chapter 5 above, 89–90.
51 See UNYb 1992, 139; Czaplinski, op.
Much of the following dispute in New York had to do with the right of
cit.
whom to raise which flag in front of the United Nations building. The 52 See Bos, op. cit., 42 et seq.; H.
same negative attitude towards Serbia’s and Montenegro’s claim to Tichy, Two Recent Cases of State
continuity was adopted by the Arbitration Commission set up within Succession—An Austrian Perspective,
the framework of the Conference on Yugoslavia.50 The only major states AJPIL 44 (1992), 125. See also Art. 5 of
the 1996 Agreement on the
willing to recognize the claim of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Normalization of Relations between
were Russia and China. In the General Assembly Kenya, Swaziland, Croatia and the Federal Republic of
Tanzania, Zimabwe, Zambia and Yugoslavia voted against the Yugoslavia, ILM 35 (1996), 1219, and
recommendation of the Security Council.51 Moreover, the practice of Art. 4 of the 1996 Agreement between
Macedonia and Yugoslavia, ibid., 1246.
the successor states to former Yugoslavia with regard to international
53 See M.Hoškova, Die Selbstauflösung
treaties has been rather inconsistent.52 der CSFR— Ausgewählte rechtliche
Aspekte, ZaöRV 53 (1993), 697. The
separation of Czechoslovakia is a
Czechoslovakia pertinent case in which the predecessor
state was extinguished; see generally U.
The separation of Czechoslovakia created two new states on 1 January
Fastenrath, State Extinction, EPIL 10
1993. and occurred much in line with the provisions of the 1978 (1987), 465–7.
Convention. The Czech Republic and Slovakia declared themselves as 54 For the older cases of the United
successor states and to be willing to take over the respective international Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria) 1958,
obligations of the predecessor state.53 Tanzania 1964 (Tanganyika and
Zanzibar), and Vietnam 1976, see
Ribbelink, Preadviezen, op. cit., 71 et
seq.; see also Ribbelink (1995), op. cit.,
Unification54 139–69.
55 Text of the Treaty on the Final
Germany Settlement with respect to Germany of
12 September 1990 in ILM29 (1990),
The unification of Germany on 3 October 1990 is an almost unique case.55 1186. Documents Relating to
The procedure adopted under Article 23 of the Constitution of the Federal Germany’s Unification are reprinted in
ZaöRV 51 (1991), 494. See also

Taking Reichs Seriously: German
Republic of Germany (West Germany) provided for the accession of the
Unification and the Law of State German Democratic Republic (East Germany, which ceased to exist) while
Succession, Harvard LR 104 (1990),
588–606; J.A. Frowein, Germany
retaining the identity and continuity of the Federal Republic. The alternative
Reunited, ZaöRV 51 (1991), 333– option under Article 146 of the Grundgesetz to adopt a new constitution
48; Oeter (1991), op. cit.;
G.E.Wilms, The Legal Status of
was considered unfeasible—a view shared by the Commission of the
Berlin after the Fall of the Wall and European Community—because of the problems that might have arisen
German Reunification, ZaöRV 51
(1991), 470– 93; K.Hailbronner,
concerning the question of whether the united Germany would then have
Legal Aspects of the Unification of to be seen as a new international legal personality.56
the Two German States, EJIL 2
(1991), 18–41; F.G.v.d.Dunk/
From the German point of view, succession took place on the basis of
P.H.Kooijmans, The Unification of the ‘moving treaty boundaries’ rule,57 although East Germany was an
Germany and International Law,
Mich. JIL 12 (1991), 510–37;
independent subject of international law (having a sui generis character as
J.A.Frowein, The Reunification of a state, as emphasized by the Federal Republic) and the unification involved
Germany, AJIL 86 (1992), 152–63;
R.Wittkowski, Die
the complete incorporation of one state into another state, instead of the
Staatensukzession in transfer of a part of state territory.58 But the principle of ‘moving treaty
völkerrechtliche Berücksichtigung
der Herstellung der staatlichen
boundaries’ was not really fully applied in the process. In practice,
Einheit Deutschlands, 1992; negotiations with all treaty partners of the former German Democratic
U.Fastenrath, Der deutsche
Einigungsvertrag im Lichte des
Republic were held concerning the fate of treaties that had been concluded
Rechts der Staatennachfolge, AJPIL by East Germany.
44 (1992), 1–54; F.Elbe, Resolving
the External Aspects of German
The continuation of membership in international organizations did
Unification, The ‘Two-Plus-Four’ not raise any special problems in the case of the United Nations, except
Process, GYIL 36 (1993), 371–84;
Bos, op. cit., 48 et seq.; Ribbelink,
for the refusal of the united Germany to pay for the outstanding
Preadviezen, op. cit., 76 et seq.; contributions of East Germany to two peacekeeping operations in the
R.Bernhardt, Germany, Unification
of, EPIL II (1995), 590–5. On the
Middle East (UNDOF and UNIFIL).59 The UN argued that Germany
occupied status of Germany after was liable to pay for the debts of the predecessor state to the extent that
the Second World War see
Chapters 5, 83–4 and 10 above,
it had inherited property rights and interests. From the date of
151–2. unification, in the United Nations the Federal Republic of Germany, to
56 See T.Giegerich, The European
Dimension of German Reunification:
which the German Democratic Republic had acceded, simply acted
East Germany’s Integration into the under the designation ‘Germany’. 60 More complications became
European Communities, ZaöRV 51
(1991), 384–450; J.-P.Jacqué,
apparent in other international organizations, particularly with regard
German Unification and the to the European Community. While the Community in principle
European Community, EJIL 2
(1991), 1–17; P.J. Kuyper, The
accepted the ‘moving treaty boundary’ rule, meaning that the territory
Community and State Succession in of the Community was enlarged and the territorial scope of the
Respect of Treaties, in D. Curtin/
T.Heukels (eds), International
application of Community law thus extended to former East Germany,
Dynamics of European Integration, it did not accept that all treaties concluded by East Germany had
Vol. II, 1994, 619–40; J.F.Weiss,
Succession of States in Respect of
automatically been terminated. Moreover, the Community was in a
Treaties Concluded by the position to argue that it had to be involved in negotiations on East
European Communities, SEW 10
(1994), 661–79.
German treaties, at least where exclusive competences had been
57 See text above, 163–4. transferred to Community organs. The alternative would have been a
58 Bos, op. cit., 48 et seq. very complicated and time-consuming admission and amendment
59 See Ribbelink, Preadviezen, op.
cit., 77 et seq. On UN peacekeeping
procedure concerning the European Community treaties.
60 See the letter of 3 October 1990
from the German Foreign Minister to Yemen
the UN Secretary-General, ILM 30
(1991), 457. The unification of Yemen in 1990 took a different form with two states
61 See R.Goy, La Réunification du merging into a single state.61 They declared that united Yemen is to be
Yemen, AFDI 36 (1990), 249–65.
Text of the Agreement on the
considered as a party to all treaties which had been concluded by one of the
Establishment of the Republic of predecessor states with effect from the date upon which the first of the two
Yemen in ILM 30 (1991), 820. had become party to the treaty.
PUBLIC PROPERTY 169
International claims 62 See text above, 165,

63 RIAA VI 120. See E.H.Riedel,
Lighthouses Cases, EPIL 2 (1981),
International claims for compensation for illegal acts are regarded as being 171–2. But the orthodox principle
applied in this and other cases was not
intensely ‘personal’, and no succession occurs to the rights of the claimant followed by the Permanent Court of
state or to the obligations of the defendant state. The claims are unaffected Arbitration in the Lighthouses
by expansion or contraction of the claimant state or of the defendant Arbitration, ILR 23 (1956), 81, 90–3.
64 On nationality under international law
state; new states commence with a ‘clean slate’;62 and extinction of either see Chapter 17 below, 263–7.
the claimant state or the defendant state results in extinction of the claim. 65 See L.Barrington, The Domestic and
International Consequences of
This last proposition is exemplified by Brown’s claim. Brown, a United Citizenship in the Soviet Successor
States citizen, suffered a denial of justice in the South African Republic in States, Eur.-Asia Stud. 47 (1995), 731–
1895, but, before the claim was settled, the Boer War broke out and the 63; G.Ginsburg, The Issue of Dual
Citizenship Among the Successor
Republic was annexed by the United Kingdom. The United States presented States, Osteur.-Recht 41 (1995), 1–29.
a claim against the United Kingdom, but the arbitrator held that the United 66 A/CN.4/L.507.,V.Mikulka was
Kingdom had not succeeded to the South African Republic’s liabilities for appointed as Special Rapporteur.
67 Haile Selassie v. Cable & Wireless
international claims.63 Ltd, [1939] ChD 182.
Nationality
It is sometimes said that a change of sovereignty over territory means

that the subjects of the predecessor state, who inhabit the territory,
automatically lose their old nationality and acquire the nationality of
the successor state.64 But what is meant by the ‘inhabitants’ of a territory?
Does birth on the territory suffice, or is residence to be taken as the
criterion? Or are both birth and residence necessary? Or are they
alternatives? If residence is taken into account, what are the critical dates
or periods of time for determining whether someone is a resident? In
practice, such problems can be regulated only by treaties or by municipal
legislation. Treaties sometimes allow the individuals concerned to choose
whether they want to retain their old nationality or acquire the nationality
of the successor state.
It must be admitted, however, that much of the area is unclear.65 In
1993 therefore, the International Law Commission decided to include
on its agenda the topic of state succession and its impact on the nationality
of natural and legal persons. The preliminary conclusions of a working
group submitted in 1995 start from the premise that, in situations
resulting from state succession, every person whose nationality might be
affected by the change in the international status of the territory has a
right to nationality and that states have the obligation to prevent
statelessness, as the most serious potential consequence of state
succession. Other potential detrimental effects considered are dual
nationality, the separation of families as a result of the attribution of
different nationalities to their members, military service obligations,
pensions and the right of residence.66
Public property
When a state acquires all the territory of another state, it succeeds to all
the public property of that state (that is, all property belonging to the
state, as distinct from property belonging to its nationals or inhabitants),
wherever that property may be situated.67
On the other hand, if a state merely loses some of its territory, the
68 ILCYb 1981, Vol. 2, part 2, 25– successor state succeeds to much less of the predecessor’s public property.
71; Peter Pazmany University case
(1933), PCIJ, series A/B, no. 61, Most of the public property situated in territory retained by the predecessor
237. See V.-D. Degan, State state, or in third states, continues to belong to the predecessor state, while
Succession. Especially in Respect most of the public property situated in the transferred territory passes to
of State Property and Debts, FYIL 4
(1993), 3–21; S.Oeter, State the successor state.68
Succession and the Struggle over
Equity. Some Observations on the
Laws of State Succession with
Respect to State Property and Debts Private property
in Cases of Separation and
Dissolution of States, GYIL 38 Private property rights do not lapse automatically when territory is
(1995), 73–102.
69 United States v. Percheman transferred. If the successor state subsequently wishes to expropriate privately
(1833), 32 US 51, 86–8; German owned property in the territory which it has acquired, the extent of its
Settlers case (1923), PCIJ, series B, power to do so depends on the nationality of the owner. If the owner has
no. 6; Certain German Interests in
Polish Upper Silesia (1926), PCIJ, (or has acquired) the nationality of the successor state, the successor state’s
series A, no. 7, 21–2; Chorzow right to expropriate his property is unlimited under customary international
Factory case (1928), PCIJ, series A, law (although it may be limited by treaties on human rights). On the other
no. 17, 46–8. In the two latter cases
the question was regulated by a hand, if the owner is a national of the predecessor state or of a third state,
treaty, but the Court said that the the successor state must comply with the minimum international standard
rules of customary law were the for the treatment of aliens; expropriation must be for a public purpose and
same as those contained in the
treaty. On the minimum standard for must be accompanied by compensation.69
the treatment of aliens, with special Such, at any rate, are the traditional rules accepted by Western countries.
reference to expropriation, see Most Third World countries, however, have rejected these rules. Even when
Chapter 15 above, 235–9 and
Chapter 17 below, 260–9. they were prepared to accept that the ‘Western’ rules are applicable to investments
70 C.Schreuer, Unjust Enrichment, made in newly independent countries after independence, they maintained that
EPIL 9 (1986), 381–3. different considerations apply to investments made before independence, at a
71 For example, Friedmann, AJIL
(1963), 279, 295. time when those countries were unable to protect their own interests. Such
72 See Chapter 15 below, 237. investments, they argued, were often made on unequal terms and amounted to
73 [1905] 2 KB 291. a form of colonialist exploitation. Some Western writers have tried to counter
this point by suggesting that the rule requiring compensation in the event of
expropriation is designed to prevent unjust enrichment,70 and that it is therefore
logical, in certain cases, to reduce the amount of compensation payable for the
act of expropriation, in order to take account of the extent to which the
expropriated foreigner has unjustly enriched himself in the past.71 Unfortunately
words like ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘exploitation’ are so subjective that there
are bound to be constant disputes about the application of a rule drafted in
such terms; enrichment which seems just to one party will seem unjust to the
other. And Western investors are hardly likely to make new investments in
newly independent countries if they feel that those countries have enriched
themselves unjustly at the expense of old investments. It is therefore questionable
whether a relaxation of the traditional rules would really be in the long-term
interests of the newly independent countries, and recent developments in foreign
investment have shown that this is indeed true.72
Contractual rights
Even before the modern era of decolonization, some authorities doubted
whether a successor state succeeded to the contractual obligations of the
predecessor state. For instance, in West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v.
The King,73 the English High Court held that the Crown did not succeed to
PRIVATE PROPERTY 171
74 PCIJ, series B, no. 6.

the contractual liabilities of the South African Republic after it had been 75 On state contracts in general see
annexed by the United Kingdom. This case has been criticized, and it Chapters 3, 38–9 and 6, 102 above.
76 On the consequences of German
was not followed by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the reunification, for example, see F.
German Settlers case.74 Drinhausen, Die Auswirkungen der
Staatensukzession auf Verträge mit
It is sometimes said that the successor state cannot logically be bound privaten Partnern, 1995.
by a contract to which it is not a party.75 But, if the alien has benefited 77 See P.Fisher, Concessions, EPIL I
(1992), 715–21.
the territory by spending money and effort in performing his contract, it 78 Mavrommatis case (1924), PCIJ,
is only fair that a state acquiring sovereignty over that territory should series A, no. 2, 28. See K.Doehring,
Mavrommatis Concessions Cases, EPIL
allow him to reap the rewards of his investment. On this analysis, the 2 (1981), 182–5. This is the rule
successor state’s liability is probably not contractual but quasi- accepted by Western countries, but it is
rejected by most Third World countries.
contractual—a term used to describe a situation where there is no 79 See H.-E.Folz, State Debts, EPIL 8
contract, but where the law requires the parties to behave as if there (1985), 484–8; P.R.Williams, State
Succession and the International
were a contract, in order to prevent unjust enrichment. It does not matter Financial Institutions, Political Criteria v.
much whether the successor state’s liability is regarded as contractual or Protection of Outstanding Financial
Obligations, ICLQ 43 (1994), 776–808;
as quasi-contractual, because the results are the same in both cases; either Degan, op. cit. As to valuation difficulties
the successor state must allow the alien to obtain the benefits due to him even on a treaty basis, see H.J.Hahn,
Value Maintenance in the Young Loan
under the original contract, or, if it wishes to deprive him of some or all Arbitration. History and Analysis, NYIL
of those benefits, it must compensate him for expropriating his rights.76 14 (1983), 3–39.
80 See also ILCYb 1981, Vol. 2, part 2,
The problem of contractual rights has arisen chiefly in connection 91–105, on the legal position of former
with concessions and the national debt. A concession is a right granted colonies in connection with national
debts.
by a state to a company or individual to operate an undertaking on 81 O’Connell. op. cit., Vol. 1, 40.
special terms defined in an agreement between the state and the
concessionaire; the undertaking usually consists of extracting oil or other
minerals, or of providing a public utility (supplying gas, water, or
electricity, running a canal or railway, and so on).77 The concessionaire’s
rights are semi-proprietorial, semi-contractual. Practice is not entirely
consistent, but the better view is that a successor state must pay
compensation if it revokes a concession granted by the predecessor state.78
The problems which arise in connection with the national debt are
more complex, and can be discussed only in outline here.79 If state A
annexes the whole of state B’s territory, it succeeds to the obligations
which state B owed to foreign creditors in respect of state B’s national
debt. If state B loses only part of its territory, it is right that the successor
state or states should take over part of B’s debt, otherwise B, with reduced
territory and economic resources, might be unable to meet its debts. For
example, when British colonies became independent, they were made
liable for the debts raised by the local colonial administration, but not
for any part of the British national debt (even while they were colonies
they did not contribute towards the cost of the British national debt).80
However, when the Irish Free State became independent in 1922, it took
over part of the British national debt;81 otherwise independence would
have relieved taxpayers in the Irish Free State of their previous
responsibility for paying interest on the national debt, and would have
increased the burdens falling on taxpayers in the remaining parts of the
United Kingdom.
Similarly, if state B loses all its territory as a result of being
dismembered by several other states, it is only fair that responsibility for
state B’s debt should be split up among the successor states. The difficulty
in these last two cases is deciding what proportion of the debt should be
82 See ILCYb 1981, Vol. 2, part 2,

72–113.
borne by each of the states concerned; in practice this problem can only be
83 See P.Juillard, La Dette settled by treaty.82 The successor states to the former Soviet Union, for
extérieure de l’ancienne Union
Soviétique: succession ou
example, agreed that most of the property and the major part of the debt of
continuation?, in Burdeau (ed.), op. the USSR were to be taken over by the Russian Federation. The other states
cit., 201, 210 et seq., discussing the
Memorandum of 28 October 1991,
were accorded small percentages and a remaining part was transferred to
the Treaty of 4 January 1992 and the Baltic States and Georgia.83
the Joint Declarations of 2 April
1993.
Finally, it should be noted that Western states refused to sign or ratify
84 1983 Vienna Convention, op. cit. the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State
Property, Archives and Debts84 mainly because it deals with succession to
debts owed only to other states and international organizations, and says
nothing about succession to debts owed to individuals and companies.
12 The law of the sea
For legal purposes the sea (which covers more than 70 per cent of the 1 Harris CMIL, 347–459; Restatement
(Third), Vol. 2, part V, 3–98; R.P.Anand,
surface of the globe) has traditionally been divided into three different
Origin and Development of the Law of
zones, each of which is subject to different rules.1 Moving outwards the Sea. History of International Law
from land, these zones are (1) internal waters, (2) territorial sea, and (3) Revisited, 1983; D.P.O’Connell, The
International Law of the Sea (I.A.
high seas. In recent years the position has been complicated by the Shearer ed.), Vol. 1, 1982; Vol. 2, 1984;
tendency of coastal states to claim limited rights over areas of the high M.N.Nordquist/S.Rosenne/L.B.Sohn
(eds), United Nations Convention on the
seas adjacent to their territorial sea (contiguous zones, exclusive fishery
Law of the Sea 1982. A Commentary, 5
zones, exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf). vols, 1985–90; E.D.Brown/R.R.
The law of the sea was to a large extent codified by the first United Churchill (eds), The UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea: Impact and
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva in Implementation, 1987; R.R.Churchill/
1958, which drew up four conventions: the Convention on the Territorial A.V.Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 2nd edn
Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the High Seas, the 1988; G.Jaenicke, Law of the Sea, EPIL
11 (1989), 174–91; E.D.Brown, Law of
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the the Sea, History, ibid., 191–6; R.
High Seas, and the Convention on the Continental Shelf.2 These Platzöder, Conferences on the Law of
the Sea, EPIL I (1992), 748–55; T.
conventions were ratified or acceded to by forty-six, fifty-seven, thirty- Treves, Codification du droit
six and fifty-four states respectively, while thirty-eight states became international et pratique des États dans
parties to the Optional Protocol on the compulsory settlement of le droit de la mer, RdC 223 (1990–IV),
13–302; R.-J.Dupuy/D.Vignes (eds), A
disputes.3 Most of the provisions of the first two conventions, and some Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, 2
of the provisions of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, codified vols, 1991–2; T.Kuribayashi/E.L.Miles
(eds), The Law of the Sea in the 1990s:
customary law. Consequently, although the conventions as such are A Framework for Further International
binding only on states which are parties to them, many of their provisions Cooperation, 1992; E.D.Brown, The
can be used as evidence of customary law even against states which are International Law of the Sea.
Introductory Manual, 1994; R.Wolfrum,
not parties to them. (However, provisions which were declaratory of Law of the Sea, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
customary law in 1958 are not necessarily declaratory of customary law 834–47; for a useful collection of
documents issued each year by
today, because, as we shall see, some rules of customary law have changed international organizations see A.H.A.
since 1958.) Soons/B.Kwiatkowska et al. (eds),
The 1958 conference failed to reach agreement on a number of International Organizations and the Law
of the Sea. Documentary Yearbook.
questions (especially the question of the width of the territorial sea; a 2 Texts in AJIL 52 (1958), 834, 842, 851
second conference in 1960, UNCLOS II, also failed to reach agreement and 858; Brownlie BDIL, 87–123.
3 Text in UNTS 450, 169.
on this question). Moreover, some states became dissatisfied with 4 Text in ILM 21 (1982), 1261.
various rules which were laid down in the 1958 Conventions; and
technological advances created a need for new rules. Consequently a
third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
was convened in 1973, to draw up a new comprehensive convention
on the law of the sea. After meeting intermittently for nine years (with
144 states and eight Specialized Agencies participating), the
Conference finally adopted the text of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea in 1982.4 One reason for the slow progress
made at the Conference was that so many of the issues were
interrelated; states were often willing to support a proposal on one
issue only if other states were willing to support another proposal on
174 THE LAW OF THE SEA
5 See E.Suy, Consensus, EPIL I

(1992), 759–61.
another issue (‘package-deal’ principle), and the result was that deadlock
6 See text below, 193–5. on one issue also tended to produce a deadlock on many other issues.
7 They only signed the Final Act
(ILM 21 (1982), 1245), not the
Moreover, whenever possible, UNCLOS III (unlike the two previous
Convention. conferences) tried to take decisions by consensus,5 and not by majority
8 M.H.Nordquist/J.N.Moore (eds),
Entry into Force of the Law of the
vote; and this caused further delays.
Sea Convention, 1995; see also R. The 1982 Convention was closed for signature on 9 December 1984,
Platzöder, Substantive Changes in a
Multilateral Treaty Before its Entry
having received 159 signatures. According to its Article 308(1), the
into Force: The Case of the 1982 Convention was to ‘enter into force twelve months after the date of deposit
United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea, EJIL 4 (1993), 390–
of the sixtieth instrument of ratification or accession’. However, many
402. Western states refused to sign or ratify the Convention because they were
9 See the report of the UN
Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/50/
dissatisfied with some of its provisions in Part XI about exploitation of
713, UN Chronicle 1996, no. 1, 76. the deep seabed.6 Among the states which did not sign were the United
On 5 December 1995, the UN
General Assembly adopted
States, the United Kingdom and Germany. 7 Belgium, France, Italy,
Resolution 50/23 by a vote of 132 to Luxembourg and the European Community made declarations to the effect
1 (Turkey), with three abstentions,
calling upon all states to become
that the deep seabed mining regime was deficient and needed revision.
parties to the Convention. For a long time a universally or generally acceptable convention on the
10 For an account of the
consultations see D.H.Anderson,
law of the sea seemed to be beyond reach because of the continuing dispute
Efforts to Ensure Universal between developing and industrialized countries. The 1982 Convention
Participation in the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea,
finally entered into force on 16 November 1994, one year after it had
ICLQ 42 (1993), 654–64; Anderson, obtained the necessary sixty ratifications.8 But the only Western state to
Further Efforts to Ensure Universal
Participation in the United Nations
ratify it was Iceland. As of 1995, thirteen more states had deposited their
Convention on the Law of the Sea, instruments of ratification, accession or succession, bringing the total
ICLQ 43 (1994), 886–93.
11 See J.R.Stevenson/B.H.Oxman,
number of parties to eighty-one.9 However, in order to achieve a universally
The Future of the United Nations acceptable solution and meet the objections of industrialized states, the
AJIL 88 (1994), 488–99;
UN Secretary-General initiated consultations among interested states,
B.H.Oxman, The 1994 Agreement which were held from 1990 to 1994.10 These finally resulted in an
and the Convention, ibid., 687–96;
L.B.Sohn, The 1994 Agreement on
Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention,
Implementation of the Seabed providing for a modification of the deep seabed mining regime which
Provisions of the Convention on the
Law of the Sea. International Law
found general acceptance.11 It was adopted by the UN General Assembly
Implications of the 1994 Agreement, on 29 July 1994 by a vote of 121 in favour, none against with seven
ibid., 696–705; D.H.Anderson, Legal
Implications of the Entry into Force
abstentions.12 As of 23 January 1995, the Agreement had been signed by
of the UN Convention on the Law of seventy-one states, including the United States,13 and by the European
the Sea, ICLQ 44 (1995), 313–26;
G. Jaenicke, The United Nations
Community. In addition, twelve states had consented to be bound by it,
Convention on the Law of the Sea including Germany and Italy.
and the Agreement Relating to the
Implementation of Part XI of the
Thus, there is now a good prospect that much of the uncertainty which
Convention, in FS Bernhardt, 121– surrounded many parts of the law of the sea before 1982 is likely to diminish.
34. See also the contributions by
D.H. Anderson, K.Davidson and
Some of the provisions of the 1982 Convention codify the customary
K.Rattrey, ZaöRV 55 (1995), 275 international law of the sea; this is particularly true of those provisions of
et seq.; A.de Marffy-Mantuano, The
Procedural Framework of the
the 1982 Convention which are identical to those provisions of the 1958
Agreement Implementing the 1982 Conventions which codified customary law. But many of the provisions of
United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea, AJIL 89 (1995),
the 1982 Convention represent a departure from the pre-existing customary
814–24. law. It is possible that future state practice, even by states which are not
12 GA Res. 48/263. (yet) parties to the 1982 Convention, will imitate provisions of the 1982
13 See President’s Transmittal of
the UN Convention on the Law of Convention, thus creating new rules of customary law,14 but there is no
the Sea and the Agreement Relating certainty that all of the provisions of the 1982 Convention will pass into
to the Implementation of Part XI to customary law in this way. At the moment, many of the provisions of the
the U.S. Senate with Commentary
[October 7, 1994], ILM 34 (1995), 1982 Convention probably do not represent existing law for states not
1393. On the US position see parties to it;15 rather, they indicate the directions in which the law may
M.G.Schmidt, Common evolve in the future. However, now that universal acceptance of the
INTERNAL WATERS 175
Convention under the modified terms has been secured, it is reasonable Heritage or Common Burden? The
United States Position on the
to give prominence to its provisions. Development of a Regime for Deep
According to Article 311(1) of the 1982 Convention, among the states Sea-Bed Mining in the Law of the Sea
parties to it, the Convention will prevail over the four 1958 Conventions. Convention, 1989; Panel on the Law of
Ocean Uses, United States Interests in
Almost all of the provisions of these older Conventions are either the Law of the Sea Convention, AJIL 88
repeated, modified or replaced by the 1982 Convention. The latter now (1994), 167; J.I.Charney, The 1994
establishes a comprehensive framework concerning the use of the oceans Agreement on Implementation of the
Seabed Provisions of the Convention on
and covers all marine areas, including the airspace above and the seabed
the Law of the Sea. U.S. Provisional
and subsoil below. It deals, inter alia, with the rights and duties of states Application of the 1994 Deep Seabed
in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone, the right of transit Agreement, ibid., 705–14; G.Galdorisi,
passage in international straits, the use of fishing resources, the The United Nations Convention on the
Law of Sea: A National Security
exploration and exploitation of natural resources in the seabed and Perspective, AJIL 89 (1995), 208–13.
subsoil of the continental shelf, navigation and overflight rights, deep 14 For an example of a case where this
seabed mining under the regime of an International Seabed Authority has already happened, see the text on
the continental shelf below, 191–3.
and marine scientific research. As will be discussed separately in later
15 R.Bernhardt, Custom and Treaty in
chapters, it also provides for the most comprehensive regime of the Law of the Sea, RdC 205 (1987–V),
environmental protection so far agreed upon by states16 and an elaborate 251–394; R.Wolfrum, The Emerging
system of dispute settlement, which in most cases ultimately leads to a Customary Law of Marine Zones: State
Practice and the Convention on the Law
binding decision by an independent body.17 of the Sea, NYIL 18 (1987), 121 et seq.;
T.A.Clingan, The Law of the Sea in
Prospective: Problems of States not
Parties to the Law of the Sea Treaty,
Internal waters GYIL 30 (1987), 101; T.Schweisfurth,
The Influence of the Third United
Internal waters consist of ports, harbours, rivers, lakes and canals (and Nations Conference on the Law of the
also water on the landward side of the baselines18 used for measuring Sea on International Customary Law,
ZaöRV 43 (1983), 566–84. On the
the width of the territorial sea). Internal waters are scarcely mentioned dispute about which provisions reflect
in the 1958 Convention Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone or the and which do not reflect customary law,
1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea; the relevant rules are to be see also the literature above, 174.
found mainly in customary international law.19 Article 8(1) of the 1982 16 See Chapter 16 below, 242–3.
17 Part XII of the 1982 Convention,
Convention defines internal waters as the waters on the landward side
Articles 192–237. See Chapter 18
of the baseline from which the width of the territorial sea is measured below, 298–30.
and corresponds to Article 5 of the 1958 Convention. 18 See text below, 180–1.
It is clear that the sovereignty of coastal states extends to internal 19 See V.D.Degan, Internal Waters,
NYIL 17 (1986), 3–44; P.Badura, Ports,
waters.20 A coastal state is therefore entitled to prohibit entry into its
EPIL 11 (1989), 262–6; D.H.N. Johnson,
ports by foreign ships, except for ships in distress (for example, ships Navigation, Freedom of, ibid., 233–5;
seeking refuge from a storm, or ships which are severely damaged)21 and B.Vitanyi, Navigation on Rivers and
in certain cases in which previously a right of innocent passage had Canals, ibid., 235–40; R.Lagoni, Internal
Waters, EPIL II (1995), 1034–6; Lagoni,
existed.22 Although a coastal state has the right to forbid foreign merchant Internal Waters, Seagoing Vessels in,
ships to enter its ports, most states are keen to support trade, and therefore ibid., 1036–41; Lagoni, Canals, EPIL I
welcome foreign ships to their ports. The important question is not (1992), 523–7.
20 See Article 2, 1982 Convention.
whether a ship has a right of entry to a port, but its legal status once it 21 See A.F.de Zayas, Ships in Distress,
has got there. Mere, as in virtually every branch of the law of the sea, a EPIL 11 (1989), 287–9.
distinction must be made between merchant ships23 on the one hand, 22 See Article 8(2) 1982 Convention
and warships24 and other foreign state ships in non-commercial service, and text below, 176–7.
23 See R.Lagoni, Merchant Ships, EPIL
on the other.25 11 (1989), 228–33.
Broadly speaking, the coastal state may apply and enforce its laws in 24 See W.K.Geck, Warships, EPIL 4
full against foreign merchant ships in its internal waters. (In addition, (1982), 346–52.
under Articles 218 and 220 of the 1982 Convention, port states are 25 See G.C.Rodriguez Iglesias, State
Ships. EPIL 11 (1989), 320–3.
authorized to take enforcement action within internal waters for pollution
offences that have occurred elsewhere.) This principle is subject to a
number of exceptions, most of which are more apparent than real:

1 The jurisdiction26 of the coastal state’s courts is not exclusive. The
28 See Chapter 8 above, 118–23. courts of the flag state27 may also try people for crimes committed on
29 See Article 30, 1982 Convention.
board the ship.
31 See S.P.Sharma, Territorial Sea, 2 The coastal state will not interfere with the exercise of disciplinary
EPIL 11 (1989), 328–33; G.Marston,
The Evolution of the Concept of
powers by the captain over his crew.
Sovereignty Over the Bed and 3 If a crime committed by a member of the crew does not affect the
Subsoil of the Territorial Sea, BYIL
48 (1976–7), 321–32.
good order of the coastal state or any of its inhabitants, the coastal
32 See also Article 1 of the 1958 state will usually allow the matter to be dealt with by the authorities
Convention.
33 See F.Ngantcha, The Right of
of the flag state, instead of trying the criminal in its own courts. This
Innocent Passage and the Evolution abstention from exercising jurisdiction is probably a matter of grace
of the Law of the Sea, 1990; D.H.N.
Johnson, Innocent Passage, Transit
and convenience, rather than obligation.
Passage, EPIL II (1995), 994–7. 4 Ships in distress possess some degree of immunity;28 for instance, the
coastal state cannot profit from their distress by imposing harbour
duties and similar taxes which exceed the cost of services rendered.
While a coastal state may use its full enforcement procedures against a foreign
commercial vessel found without permission in its internal waters, the powers
of the coastal state over foreign warships are much less than its powers over
foreign merchant ships. Warships are immune from enforcement, but they
can be required by the coastal state to leave its internal waters immediately.29
In general, a foreign warship is expected to observe the coastal state’s laws on
navigation and health regulations, but the authorities of the coastal state
cannot even set foot on the ship, or carry out any act on board, without the
permission of the captain or of some other authority of the flag state. Members
of the crew are immune from prosecution by the coastal state for crimes
committed on board the ship and for crimes committed on shore, if they
were in uniform and on official business at the time of the crime. However,
the flag state may waive its immunity.30
Territorial sea
The territorial sea (otherwise known as territorial waters, or the maritime

belt) extends for an uncertain number of miles beyond internal waters.31
The width of the territorial sea has been one of the most controversial
questions in international law and, before studying it, it will be helpful to
examine what rights the coastal state and other states have over the territorial
sea. In this way it will be possible to understand the conflict of interests
which has arisen between states concerning the width of the territorial sea;
for it is this conflict of interests which is at the root of the legal controversies.
The right of innocent passage
Article 2(1) of the 1982 Convention32 says that the coastal state exercises
sovereignty over its territorial sea. But the coastal state’s sovereignty is subject
to a very important limitation; foreign ships have a right of innocent passage
through the territorial sea.33
Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good
TERRITORIAL SEA 177
order, or security of the coastal state; fishing vessels34 must comply with 34 G.Hafner, Fishing Boats, EPIL II
(1995), 400–1.
laws enacted by the coastal state to prevent them from fishing, and 35 I.A.Shearer, Submarines, EPIL 11
submarines35 must navigate on the surface and show their flag.36 The (1989), 326–6.
36 Article 14, 1958 Convention; Article
coastal state must not hamper innocent passage, and must give warning 19, 1982 Convention. 37 Article 15,
of known dangers to navigation in the territorial sea.37 It may prevent 1958 Convention; Article 24, 1982
non-innocent passage; and it may also, for security reasons, temporarily Convention.
38 Article 16, 1958 Convention; Articles
suspend innocent passage in specified areas of its territorial sea, provided 25, 44 and 45, 1982 Convention.
that the areas do not constitute ‘straits which are used for international 39 Article 18, 1958 Convention; Article
26, 1982 Convention.
navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the 40 ICJ Rep. 1949, 4, 29–30. See R.
high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign state’.38 No charges may be Bernhardt, Corfu Channel Case, EPIL I
levied upon foreign ships except for specific services rendered.39 (1992), 831–4.
41 ILM 24 (1985), 1715.
Western states maintain that the right of innocent passage extends to 42 See LOS Bull., No. 14, at 12.
warships, but this is denied by some other countries. In the Corfu Channel 43 Apparently confirmed after the break-
case40 the International Court of Justice held that warships have a right up of the USSR by the Russian
Federation in 1991; see UN Secretary-
of passage through international straits, but did not decide the wider General Report on the Law of the Sea,
question of passage through the territorial sea in general. In the Geneva UN Doc. A/47/623 of 24 November
1992, at 10, para. 16.
Convention, the rules mentioned in the previous paragraph (with the
44 Article 6 of the 1992 Law of the
exception of the prohibition against levying charges) appear under the People’s Republic of China on the
heading ‘rules applicable to all ships’, which includes warships by Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone. See H.-S.Kim, The 1992 Chinese
implication; but the USSR and six other communist countries, together Territorial Sea Law in the Light of the UN
with Colombia, made reservations to the Convention, denying the right Convention, ICLQ 43 (1994), 894–904.
of innocent passage for warships. However, in 1984 the USSR recognized On the uncertainties remaining under
the 1982 Convention see Wotfrum
that foreign warships have a right of innocent passage.41 UNLPP II, 839.
Following a 1989 USSR/USA Joint Statement42 on the uniform 45 R.Wolfrum, Coastal Fisheries, EPIL
interpretation of norms of international law governing innocent passage, 11 (1989), 61–3.
46 See also Chapter 13 below, 198–
the USSR amended its regulations to exclude arbitrary discriminatory 200.
restriction of the right of warships to innocent passage.43 However, the 47 See R.C.Lane, Cabotage, EPIL I
new law on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone adopted by China (1992), 519–21.
in 1992 requires permission for warships to enter the twelve-mile
territorial sea.44
Rights of the coastal state over the territorial sea

The coastal state’s sovereignty over the territorial sea includes the
following rights:
1 An exclusive right to fish, and to exploit the resources of the seabed

and subsoil of the territorial sea.45
2 Exclusive enjoyment of the air space above the territorial sea; unlike
ships, foreign aircraft have no right of innocent passage.46
3 The coastal state’s ships have the exclusive right to transport goods
and passengers from one part of the coastal state to another
(cabotage).47
4 If the coastal state is neutral in a time of war,48 belligerent states
may not engage in combat, or capture merchant ships, in the coastal
state’s territorial sea.
5 The coastal state may enact regulations concerning navigation, health,
customs duties and immigration, which foreign ships must obey.
6 The coastal state has certain powers of arrest over merchant ships
49 Articles 19 and 20, 1958 exercising a right of innocent passage, and over persons on board
Convention; Articles 27 and 28,
1982 Convention. such ships.49 No similar powers of arrest exist in relation to warships,
50 In R.v.Keyn (1876). 2 ExD 63, which are regarded, for certain purposes, as if they were floating
the English Court of Crown Cases
Reserved held that there was no
islands of the flag state; but, according to Article 30 of the 1982
English court with jurisdiction to try Convention, ‘if any warship docs not comply with the regulations of
people for crimes committed on the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and
board foreign merchant ships in the
English territorial sea; but this disregards any request for compliance which is made to it, the coastal
decision, which was based on a gap state may require the warship to leave the territorial sea’. The same
in English law rather than on any
prohibition by international law, was
rule is laid down in Article 23 of the 1958 Convention on the
reversed two years later by the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. In other words, the floating
Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act island may be told to go and float somewhere else!50
1878. Unless the Act is to be
regarded as going beyond what is
permitted by customary international Members of the crew of foreign warships may be tried by the courts of the
law, it would seem that coastal
states have a general power to try
flag state for crimes committed on the warship while the warship was in the
crimes committed on foreign territorial sea, but they are immune from the jurisdiction of the coastal
merchant ships in the territorial sea. state’s courts, unless the flag state waives immunity.51
(The flag state has concurrent
jurisdiction, however.)
51 Chung Chi Cheung v. R., [1939]
AC 160. See text above. 176. The width of the territorial sea
52 On the new regulations on
fisheries in the law of the sea see In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, some states made extravagant
text below, 183–5. claims to large areas of the sea. But these claims were gradually discredited,
and in the eighteenth century it came to be generally accepted that the
width of the territorial sea should be the same as the range of a cannon
(the cannon-shot rule). During the Napoleonic Wars the practice grew up
of regarding the territorial sea as being three nautical miles wide (The
nautical mile is equivalent to 1,000 fathoms, 6,080 feet, or 1,853 metres.)
The three-mile rule is popularly thought of as a rationalization of the
cannon-shot rule, but it was more probably a new rule substituted for the
cannon-shot rule.
In the nineteenth century the three-mile rule was accepted by most states,
although the Scandinavian states claimed four miles of territorial sea and
Spain and Portugal claimed six. During the twentieth century there has
been a progressive abandonment of the rule. The states supporting the rule
were in the majority at the unsuccessful codification conference organized
by the League of Nations in 1930, but the rule was accepted by only twenty-
one of the eighty-six states attending the Geneva conference in 1958.
Why have so many states abandoned the three-mile rule? And why has
agreement on a new rule been so difficult to reach? The answer to both
questions is that a wide territorial sea is in the interests of some states, but
against the interests of other states.
The most obvious conflict of interests concerns fishing.52 Areas of the
sea close to shore are particularly rich in fish, and modern improvements in
trawling techniques, coupled with the development of refrigeration, have
made it possible for fishing vessels from one state to catch huge quantities
of fish near the coasts of distant countries. Nowadays states are entitled to
claim exclusive fishery zones beyond their territorial seas,53 but this rule is
of recent origin; until about 1960, the only way a state could extend
its fishing limits was by extending its territorial sea. Consequently,
poor states which were dependent on local fisheries (because they could
TERRITORIAL SEA 179
not afford the large trawlers and refrigerating equipment which are needed
for fishing in distant waters) sought to extend their territorial seas in
order to exclude foreign fishing vessels, particularly when there was a
danger of over-exploitation by foreign fishing vessels causing exhaustion
of local fishing stocks. On the other hand, rich states with large and
technologically advanced fishing fleets, such as the United Kingdom, the
United States and Japan, favoured a narrow territorial sea; the losses
which they suffered by allowing other states to fish near their coasts
were outweighed by the gains which they made by fishing off the coasts
of other states.
The economic interests which affect the attitudes of states are not
confined to fisheries; for instance, since aircraft have no right of innocent
passage through the air space above the territorial sea, an extension of
the territorial sea, particularly for straits, was opposed by some states
on the grounds that it would force aircraft to make expensive detours.
But, apart from fishing, the main clash of interests relates to questions
of security. Some Third World states wanted a wide territorial sea because
they were afraid that the three-mile rule would enable a great power to
exert psychological pressure in times of crisis by an ostentatious display
of naval force just beyond the three-mile limit. On the other hand, Western
states, which are traditionally dependent on sea-power and on sea-borne
trade, feared that an extension of the territorial sea, especially if coupled
with a denial of innocent passage for warships, would restrict the freedom
of movement of their fleets, and thus place them at a strategic
disadvantage. They also feared that extensive neutral territorial seas could
be used as a sanctuary by enemy (that is, Russian) submarines in wartime.
(Such use would be a violation of the legal rights of the neutral state, but
the neutral state might be too weak to stop it.)
At the Geneva Conference of 1958 the United Kingdom suggested, as
a compromise, that the width of the territorial sea should be fixed at six
miles. This suggestion was later withdrawn in favour of a United States
proposal for a six-mile territorial sea, with a further six-mile zone in which
the coastal state would have exclusive fishing rights, subject to the right of
other states to continue to fish in the outer zone without limit of time if
they had fished there regularly during the previous five years. Other states
suggested that the width of the territorial sea should be fixed at twelve
miles. No agreement was reached; the United States proposal received
more support than any other proposal (with forty-five votes in favour,
thirty-three against and seven abstentions), but fell short of the two-thirds
majority required by the rules of the conference. UNCLOS II in 1960
attempted to solve the deadlock, and the United States proposal of 1958
was amended in the hope of obtaining more support; the ‘traditional’
fishing rights of other states in the outer six-mile zone were now not to
last indefinitely, but only for ten years. The amended proposal received
fifty-four votes in favour, with twenty-eight against and five abstentions—
narrowly missing the required two-thirds majority.
Given the diversity of state practice, and the failure of the conferences
of 1958 and 1960 to reach agreement on this point, it became difficult to
say what the customary law was concerning the width of the territorial sea.
Almost all states agreed that international law imposes a limit on the width
54 ILM 34 (1995), 1401. For an of the territorial sea (a Peruvian proposal at the 1958 conference that each
overview of state claims to maritime
zones (territorial sea, contiguous state should be allowed to claim whatever it considered reasonable, that is,
zone, exclusive economic zone, in effect, to claim as much territorial sea as it liked, received so little support
continental shelf), see the Report of that it was never put to the vote); but states continued to disagree as to
the UN Secretary-General, op. cit.,
7–8; J.A. Roach/R.W.Smith, what that limit was.
Excessive Maritime Claims, 1994. The adoption of the 1982 Convention significantly influenced state practice.
55 See AJIL 74 (1980), 48–121; Article 3 provides that ‘[e]very State has the right to establish the breadth of
O’Connell (1982), op. cit., 299–337,
argues that Articles 34–45 are more its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding twelve nautical miles’. Before
or less declaratory of pre-existing 1982, twenty-five states had claimed a territorial sea wider than twelve miles,
customary law, but in 1978 the while thirty states claimed less than twelve miles. Since the adoption of the
British government said: ‘At present
there is no right of overflight over 1982 Convention, states have largely respected the twelve-mile limit. The
territorial waters, including those United States extended its territorial sea to twelve miles in 1988 and had
which constitute the waters of straits been recognizing the claims of other states up to a maximum of twelve miles
used for international navigation’
(BYIL 49 (1978), 418). On the right since President Reagan’s Ocean Policy Statement of 10 March 1983. Thus,
of overflight see P. de Vries Lentsch, as of 1 January 1994, 128 states claimed a territorial sea of twelve miles or
The Right of Overflight over Strait less and only seventeen states claimed a wider area.54
States and Archipelagic States:
Developments and Prospects, NYIL However, major maritime powers such as the United States and the
14 (1983), 165–225; H.Caminos, UK made it clear, at UNCLOS III, that they would not accept Article 3
The Legal Régime of Straits in the of the 1982 Convention unless a special regime was adopted for
1982 UN Convention on the LOS,
RdC 205 (1987–V), 12–245; international straits. Extension of the territorial sea to twelve miles would
D.H.N.Johnson, Straits, EPIL 11 mean that many international straits (for example, the Straits of Dover),
(1989), 323–6; S.N. Nandan/ through which there was a high seas passage, would fall within the
D.H.Anderson, Straits Used for
International Navigation: A territorial seas of the coastal states. The normal rule is that foreign aircraft
Commentary on Part III of the have no right to fly over the territorial sea, but the major maritime powers
United Nations Convention on the wanted an exception to be made to this rule in the case of international
Law of the Sea 1982, BYIL 60
(1989), 159 et seq. straits. They also wanted the rules governing passage of foreign ships
56 See W.M.Reismann/G.S. through international straits to be more favourable to foreign ships than
Westerman, Straight Baselines in the normal rules concerning innocent passage through the territorial
International Maritime Boundary
Delimitation, 1992; P.B.Beazley, sea. For instance, they wanted submarines to be allowed to pass through
Baselines, EPIL I (1992), 354–7; an international strait under water—something which is normally
D.D. Caron, When Law Makes forbidden in the territorial sea. Articles 34–45 of the 1982 Convention
Climate Change Worse: Rethinking
the Law of Baselines in Light of a go a long way towards meeting the wishes of the major maritime powers
Rising Sea Level, ELQ 17 (1990), on these points, apart from an ambiguous silence on the question of
621–53. submarines.55
The line from which the territorial sea is measured

The rules for measuring the territorial sea rest on the concept of ‘baselines’56
and are now laid down in Articles 5–11, 13 and 14 of the 1982 Convention.
The normal baseline from which the width of the territorial sea is measured
is the low-water line (that is, the line on the shore reached by the sea at low
tide), and this rule is codified in Article 3 of the 1958 Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and Article 5 of the 1982
Convention.
But in certain geographical circumstances it is permissible to draw straight
lines across the sea, from headland to headland, or from island to island,
and to measure the territorial sea from those straight lines. Article 4 of the
Geneva Convention provides:
TERRITORIAL SEA 181
1 In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut 57 ICJ Rep. 1951, 116. On this case see
into, or if there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its 58 See C.J.Bouchez, Bays and Gulfs,
immediate vicinity, the method of straight baselines joining EPIL I (1992), 357–9.
appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
2 The drawing of such baselines must not depart to any
appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.
3 …
4 Where the method of straight baselines is applicable under
the provisions of paragraph 1, account may be taken, in
determining particular baselines, of economic interests
peculiar to the region concerned, the reality and the
importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage.
Article 4 restates the principle laid down by the International Court of

Justice in the Fisheries case,57 but attributes less importance than the
Court did to the coastal region’s economic interests. At the time, the
Court’s decision was regarded as an innovation, but the principle laid
down in Article 4 has come to be generally accepted, and since 1964 the
United Kingdom (which was the losing party in the Fisheries case) has
used straight baselines off the west coast of Scotland.
Article 5 of the Convention provides:
1 Waters on the landward side of the baseline…form part of

the internal waters of the State.
2 Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance
with Article 4 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters
areas which previously had been considered as part of the
territorial sea or of the high seas, a right of innocent
passage…shall exist in those waters.
Articles 7 and 8 of the 1982 Convention are substantially the same as

Articles 4 and 5 of the 1958 Convention.
Bays are restrictively defined and regulated in great detail by Article
7 of the 1958 Convention (Article 10 of the 1982 Convention).58 Long
before the Fisheries case, it had been customary to draw straight baselines
across the mouth of a bay and to measure the width of the territorial sea
from such lines. But there was controversy about the maximum
permissible length of such lines. After considerable argument, the Geneva
Conference laid down twenty-four miles as the maximum length; and
this limit is repeated in Article 10 of the 1982 Convention.
The provisions of Article 7 of the 1958 Convention (and of Article
10 of the 1982 Convention) are stated not to apply to historic bays.
Historic bays are bays which the coastal state claims to be entitled to
treat as internal waters, not by virtue of the general law, but by virtue of
a special historic right. For instance, Canada claims historic rights over
Hudson Bay, which has an area of 580,000 square miles and is fifty
miles wide at the entrance. According to a study published by the UN
Secretariat in 1962, it would seem that under customary international
law a state may validly claim title to a bay on historic grounds if it can
show that it has ‘for a considerable period of time’ claimed the bay as
internal waters and effectively exercised its authority therein, and that
during this time the claim has received the acquiescence of other states.
59 Y.Z.Blum, Sidra, Gulf of, EPIL 12 Since 1973 Libya has claimed the Gulf of Sirte (or Sidra), which is 290
(1990), 343–5.
60 See Y.Z.Blum, The Gulf of Sidra miles wide, as a historic bay.59 The period since 1973 does not constitute ‘a
Incident, AJIL 80 (1986), 668. considerable period of time’, and Libya’s claim has not been recognized by
61 Land, Island and Maritime other states. The United States was therefore entitled to treat the Gulf of
Frontier Dispute Case, ICJ Rep.
1992, 351. See A.Gioia, The Law of Sirte as high seas and to hold naval manoeuvres there in 1981 and 1986,
Multinational Bays and the Case of even though the manoeuvres led to armed clashes with Libya on both
the Gulf of Fonseca, NYIL 24 occasions. However, it is submitted that the United States did not need to
(1993), 81–138.
62 See generally H.W.Jayewardene, hold naval manoeuvres in the Gulf of Sirte in order to preserve the legal
The Regime of Islands in status of the Gulf as part of the high seas; the United States could have
International Law, 1990; preserved the status of the Gulf equally well by simply protesting against
O.W.Bowett, Islands, EPIL II (1995),
1455–7; see also R.Symmons, The Libya’s claim.60
Maritime Zones Around the Falkland In the case of the Gulf of Fonseca a Chamber of the International Court
Islands, ICLQ 37 (1988), 283; of Justice decided that it is an historic bay held in sovereignty jointly by El
B.Kwiatkowska/A.H.A.Soons,
Entitlement to Maritime Areas of Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, but excluding the existing three-mile
Rocks Which Cannot Sustain belt held under the exclusive sovereignty of each state. The Bay, including
Human Habitation or Economic Life the three-mile belt, was found to continue to be subject to the right of
of Their Own, NYIL 21 (1990). 139–
64; C.R. O’Keefe, Palm-Fringed innocent passage.61
Benefits: Island Dependencies in Article 10(2) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
the New Law of the Sea, ICLQ 45 Contiguous Zone states that ‘the territorial sea of an island is measured in
(1996), 408–20. On the Falkland
Islands, see Chapter 10 above, 148 accordance with the provisions of these articles’.62 The British government
and Chapter 19 below, 315. regarded this as an implied condemnation of the practice (followed by the
63 L.F.E.Goldie, Archipelagos, EPIL Philippines and Indonesia) of measuring the territorial sea from straight
II (1995), 239–44; M.Munawar,
Ocean States, Archipelagic baselines drawn round the outer edge of an archipelago.63 In fact, however,
Regimes in the Law of the Sea, the 1958 conference evaded the question of archipelagos because discussion
1995. tended to turn too much on the facts of specific cases, rather than on general
64 F.Wooldridge, Contiguous Zone,
EPIL I (1992), 779–83. principles. Articles 46–54 of the 1982 Convention accept the claims made
by states such as the Philippines and Indonesia, subject to certain conditions
(for example, concerning transit by ships and aircraft of other states), but
the position under customary international law is still uncertain.
The contiguous zone
At various periods of history different states have claimed limited rights in

areas of the high seas adjacent to their territorial seas, or have claimed
different widths of territorial sea for different purposes. Between the two
World Wars the French writer Gidel propounded the theory of the contiguous
zone as a means of rationalizing the conflicting practice of states.64 At that
time the British government attacked the contiguous zone as a surreptitious
means of extending the territorial sea, and failure to agree about the
contiguous zone was one of the main reasons for the failure of the League
of Nations Codification Conference in 1930. However, opposition has faded
away since then, and Article 24 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone provides:
1 In a zone of the high seas contiguous to its territorial sea, the

coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:
(a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration
or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea;
EXCLUSIVE ZONES 183
(b) Punish infringement of the above regulations 65 J.-P.Quéneuduc, Les Rapports entre
zone de pâche et zone économique
committed within its territory or territorial sea.
exclusive, GYIL 32 (1989), 138–55; F.O.
2 The contiguous zone may not extend beyond twelve miles Vicuña, The ‘Presential Sea’: Defining
Coastal States’ Special Interests in High
from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial Seas Fisheries and Other Activities,
sea is measured. GYIL 35 (1992), 264; J.Carroz, Fishery
Zones and Limits, EPIL II (1995), 397–
400.
Article 33(1) of the 1982 Convention is basically the same as Article
66 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v.
24(1) of the 1958 Convention. Article 33(2) of the 1982 Convention Iceland) (Meritis), ICJ Rep. 1974, 3, at
provides that ‘[t]he contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical 23–9. On this case see Chapter 3
miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is above, 43.
67 P.Peters/A.H.A.Soons/L.A.Zima,
measured’; in other words, if a state has a territorial sea of twelve miles, Removal of Installations in the Exclusive
it will be entitled to a contiguous zone of a further twelve miles. Economic Zone, NYIL 15 (1984), 167–
The rules of customary law concerning the width of the contiguous 207; R.W.Smith, Exclusive Economic
Zone Claims: An Analysis and Primary
zone, and the rights which a state may exercise therein, are somewhat
Documents, 1986; D.Attard, The
uncertain; but the matter is not of great practical importance, because in Exclusive Economic Zone in
1986 only twenty-seven states claimed a contiguous zone (the widths International Law, 1987; M.Dahmani,
claimed varied considerably—one state claimed six miles, one claimed The Fisheries Regime of the Exclusive
Economic Zone, 1987; F.Orrego Vicuna,
ten miles, three claimed twelve miles, four claimed eighteen miles, The Contribution of the Exclusive
seventeen claimed twenty-four miles and one claimed forty-one miles). Economic Zone to the Law of Maritime
In the case of the United States the territorial sea and the contiguous Delimitation, GYIL 31 (1988), 120–37;
F.Vicuna, The Exclusive Economic
zone became coterminous in 1988 when the territorial sea was extended
Zone: Regime and Legal Nature under
from three to twelve miles. International Law, 1989; B.Kwiatkowska,
The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone
in the New Law of the Sea, 1989;
S.Oda, Exclusive Economic Zone, EPIL
Exclusive fishery zones and exclusive economic zones II (1995), 305–12.
68 See also text below, 193–5.
Since about 1960 there has been a tendency for states to claim exclusive
fishery zones beyond their territorial seas.65 In the Fisheries Jurisdiction
case between the United Kingdom and Iceland, the International Court
of Justice held in 1974 that a rule of customary law had developed since
1960 which permitted states to claim exclusive fishery zones of twelve
miles (this width of twelve miles included the territorial sea; thus, if a
state claimed a territorial sea of three miles, it was entitled to an exclusive
fishery zone of a further nine miles). The Court also held that a coastal
state had a preferential right over fish in adjacent areas of sea beyond
the twelve-mile limit, at least if the coastal state was (like Iceland)
economically dependent on local fisheries, but that the coastal state could
not wholly exclude other states from fishing in such areas, especially if
they had traditionally fished there and if part of their population was
economically dependent on fishing there.66
However, it soon became apparent that UNCLOS III would approve a
territorial sea of twelve miles, with an exclusive economic zone extending
for a further 188 miles, making a total of 200 miles.67 Article 56(1)(a) of
the 1982 Convention gives the coastal state sovereign rights over all the
economic resources of the sea, seabed and subsoil in its exclusive economic
zone; this includes not only fish, but also minerals beneath the seabed.68
In fact, most of the existing fish resources are thus brought under the
control of coastal states (about 90 per cent of living marine resources are
caught within 200 miles of the coast). To some extent the word ‘exclusive’
is misleading, because Articles 62 and 69–71 of the 1982
Convention provide that a coastal state which cannot exploit the fish or
69 Article 62(4)(a), 1982

Convention.
other living resources of its exclusive economic zone to the full must make
70 Articles 211(5) and (6), 220, 246– arrangements to share the surplus with other states; however, it can require
55.
71 Article 58. See R.Lagoni, Cables,
payment for allowing foreign vessels to fish in its exclusive economic zone.69
Submarine, EPIL I (1992), 516–9. The coastal state also has limited powers to prevent pollution and to control
72 Under EEC Regulation 170/83,
member states of the EEC have
scientific research in its exclusive economic zone.70 But foreign states enjoy
agreed to share their exclusive freedom of navigation and overflight, and the right to lay submarine cables
fishery zones with one another,
apart from a small area (usually
and pipelines, in the coastal state’s exclusive economic zone.71
twelve miles in width) around the Since 1976 most states have anticipated the outcome of the conference
coast, which is reserved for local
fishermen. In the interests of
by claiming exclusive fishery zones or exclusive economic zones of 200
conservation of fish stocks, the miles. In 1986, out of 138 coastal states, 101 claimed exclusive fishing
Council of the European
Communities may fix quotas limiting
rights for 200 miles (thirteen claimed a territorial sea of 200 miles, sixty-
the amount of fish which each seven claimed an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles and twenty-one
member state may catch. See R.R.
Churchill, EEC Fisheries Law, 1987.
claimed an exclusive fishery zone of 200 miles); twelve other states
On the Common Fisheries Policy claimed a territorial sea, exclusive fishery zone, or exclusive economic
and its external effect see also
M.Fitzmaurice, Common Market
zone exceeding twelve miles but less than 200 miles. The states claiming
Participation in the Legal Regime of exclusive fishing rights for 200 miles include the United States, the USSR,
the Baltic Seas Fisheries, GYIL 33
(1990), 214–35.
Japan and the EEC countries (including the UK),72 which had previously
73 See AFDI 1978, 851, 858–65, or opposed wide fishery zones. Most states which claim exclusive fishing
R.P.Barston/P.Birnie, The Maritime
Dimension, 1980, 45–6.
rights for 200 miles have made treaties permitting other states to fish
74 See text above, 183. there, but only if those other states are prepared to offer something in
75 Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia
v. Libya), ICJ Rep. 1982, 18, at 74.
return.73
76 Continental Shelf Case (Libya v. The practice of claiming exclusive fishing rights for 200 miles, although
Malta), ICJ Rep. 1985, 13, at 33, 35.
77 ILM 34 (1995), 1402. On the
recent, is now so widespread that it can probably no longer be regarded as
practice of ASEAN states see illegal. In other words, the rules laid down by the International Court of
R.S.K. Lim, EEZ Legislation of
ASEAN States, ICLQ 40 (1991), 170
Justice in 197474 have now been replaced by a new rule of customary
et seq. international law permitting states to claim exclusive fishing rights for 200
miles. Indeed, in 1982 the International Court said that ‘the concept of the
80 Article 1, 1958 Convention on the exclusive economic zone…may be regarded as part of modern international
High Seas; but see also Article 86,
1982 Convention. See T.Treves,
law’,75 and in 1985 it accepted that the exclusive economic zone could extend
High Seas, EPIL II (1995), 705–10. for 200 miles.76
As of 1 March 1994, ninety-three states claimed an exclusive economic
zone, none of which claimed more than 200 miles, although some claim the
right to restrict activities within their zones beyond what the 1982
Convention allows.77 The largest exclusive economic zone in the world is
enjoyed by the United States in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans,
including those areas surrounding US island territories.
Foreign ships which violate the rights of a coastal state in its exclusive
fishery zone or exclusive economic zone78 may be arrested by the coastal
state. The coastal state also has certain powers of arrest in its contiguous
zone.79
The high seas
The term “high seas” means all parts of the sea that are not included in the
territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state.’80 The high seas may be
used freely by the ships of all nations; Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva
Convention on the High Seas states that freedom of the high seas
comprises, inter alia, freedom of navigation, freedom of fishing, freedom to
THE HIGH SEAS 185
lay submarine cables and pipelines, and freedom to fly over the high 81 See text above, 183–4.
82 Article 4, 1958 Convention. See L.
seas. (Some of these freedoms are limited where a coastal state claims an
Calfisch, Land-Locked and
exclusive fishery zone, an exclusive economic zone, or a contiguous Geographically Disadvantaged States,
zone.81) These freedoms may also be enjoyed by land-locked states, which EPIL 11 (1989), 169–74; S.Vasciannie,
are given the right to sail ships under their own flags on the high seas;82 Land-Locked and Geographically
states lying between land-locked states and the sea should negotiate Disadvantaged States in the
International Law of the Sea, 1990.
agreements with land-locked states in order to give the latter the right to 83 Article 3, 1958 Convention. Articles
use their ports and rights of transit through their territory.83 UN GA 87, 90 and 125 of the 1982 Convention
Res. 46/212 of 20 December 1991 reaffirmed the right of access of land- contain provisions similar to Articles 2, 3
locked states to and from the sea and freedom of transit through the and 4 of the 1958 Convention.
84 Text in ILM 33 (1994), 1461.
territory of transit states by all means of transport.
85 See UN Doc. A/CONF.164/33 (1995),
As far as the freedom of fishing is concerned, certain limitations have and the note in AJIL 90 (1996), 270–2.
been introduced by the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance 86 UN Chronicle 1996, no. 1, 77. See
also United States: Fisheries Act of
with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
1995, ILM 35 (1996), 379. See further
Vessels on the High Seas 84 and the 1995 UN Agreement for the W.T.Burke, The New International Law
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on of the Fisheries, 1994; C.Dominguez
Diaz, Towards a New Regime for High
the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation
Sea Fisheries?, Hague YIL 7 (1994),
and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish 25–34; R.Wolfrum, Fisheries,
Stocks.85 As of 31 January 1996, the Agreement had been signed by International Regulation, EPIL II (1995),
383–6; D.H.Anderson, The Straddling
thirty-one states.86
Stocks Agreement of 1995—An Initial
As a general rule, a ship on the high seas is subject only to international Assessment, ICLQ 45 (1996), 463 et
law and to the laws of the flag state.87 This makes it important to know seq.
87 See D.D.Caron, Ships, Nationality
which state is the flag state. The ‘flag state’ really means the state whose
and Status, EPIL 11 (1989), 289–97;
nationality the ship possesses; it is nationality which creates the right to Flags of Vessels, EPIL II (1995), 405–7.
fly a country’s flag, and not vice versa. The nationality of warships does 88 J.S.Ignarski, Flags of Convenience,
EPIL II (1995), 404–5.
not give rise to any problems, but the same is not true of merchant ships.
Apart from very small ships, the nationality of merchant ships is
determined in virtually all countries by registration; a ship has French
nationality, for instance, if it is registered in France. Article 6 of the
1958 Convention on the High Seas provides:
1 Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only…A ship may
not change its flag…save in the case of a real transfer of
ownership or change of registry.
2 A ship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using
them according to convenience, may not claim any of the
nationalities in question with respect to any other State, and
may be assimilated to a ship without nationality.
These rules are repeated in Article 92 of the 1982 Convention. The

conditions which states lay down before placing a ship on their register
vary from state to state. The traditional shipowning countries like the
United Kingdom lay down stringent requirements about the nationality
of the shipowners, the nationality of the crew, and the place of
construction. Other states—the so-called ‘flags of convenience’
countries—are prepared to register virtually any ship in return for the
payment of a fee.88
Flags of convenience are mainly used as a means of avoiding payment of
taxes and statutory wage-rates. But they can also be used for more sinister
purposes. A vast amount of the law of the sea is contained in treaties—
89 See, for example, G.Breuer,

Maritime Safety Regulations, EPIL
dealing with such matters as ships’ lights, safety regulations, the slave trade,
11 (1989), 224–8. compulsory insurance, ‘pirate’ radio stations, pollution and the conservation
90 The provisions of Article 5 of the
1958 Convention are repeated, with
of fisheries—which, of course, are binding only on states parties to them.89
slight differences, in Articles 91 and It is dangerously easy for shipowners to avoid compliance with such treaties
94(1) of the 1982 Convention. See
further H.W.Wefers Bettink, Open
by registering their ships in states which are not parties to them.
Registry, the Genuine Link and the The popularity of flags of convenience is shown by the fact that Liberia
1986 Convention on Registration
Conditions for Ships, NYIL 18
has been the largest shipowning nation (in terms of registered tonnage)
(1987), 69–119. since 1967. (But Liberia has ratified all the relevant major treaties.) Most
91 Articles 6, 8, 9, 1958 Convention;
Articles 92, 95, 96, 1982
countries with flags of convenience are developing countries, but in recent
Convention. See G.Marston, years the majority of developing countries have demanded the abolition
Maritime Jurisdiction, EPIL 11
(1989), 221–4.
of flags of convenience. Opinion among developed countries is equally
92 [1948] AC 351. divided; France is strongly opposed to flags of convenience, but the United
States is not; as long as US shipowners are prepared to allow the United
States government to requisition their ships in time of war, the government
does not care where the ships are registered, and many of the ships
concerned would operate at a loss if their owners were forced to pay US
wage-rates.
Flags of convenience were an explosive issue at the Geneva Conference
of 1958. Article 5 of the High Seas Convention emerged as an ambiguous
compromise: ‘There must exist a genuine link between the [flag] State and
the ship; in particular, the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and
control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its
flag.’ Obviously, the fact that a ship is owned by foreigners does not
necessarily prevent a flag state from exercising control in administrative,
technical and social matters over the ship; but the Convention uses the
words ‘in particular’, and it may therefore be that exercise of such control
is not enough by itself to constitute a genuine link.
What happens if there is no genuine link between the ship and the flag
state? Does this affect the nationality of the ship? Here again, Article 5 is
badly drafted, because it provides no answer to this question.90
Interference with ships on the high seas

As a general rule, no one but the flag state may exercise jurisdiction (in the
sense of powers of arrest or other acts of physical interference) over a ship
on the high seas.91 As regards interference with warships, there is only one
exception, which was too obvious to be mentioned in the Conventions; in
a time of war, a warship of a belligerent state is liable to be attacked by
enemy warships. In the case of merchant ships, the same general rule applies;
but there are a large number of exceptional cases where a warship of one
state may interfere with a merchant ship of another state:
1 Stateless ships. Since the high seas are open to the ships of all nations,
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held in the Asya case92
that it was lawful to seize a stateless ship on the high seas. Although
the decision was probably correct on the facts of the case, the Privy
Council’s reasoning should not be carried to its logical conclusion; it
is possible that arbitrary confiscation or destruction of a stateless
THE HIGH SEAS 187
93 F.Wooldridge, Hot Pursuit, EPIL II

ship would entitle the national state of the shipowners to make an (1995), 881–4; Gilmore, Hot Pursuit:
international claim. The Case of R.v.Mills and Others, ICLQ
2 Hot pursuit.93 As we have seen, the coastal state has certain powers 44 (1995), 949–58.
94 AJIL 70 (1976), 95.
of arrest over foreign merchant ships in its internal waters, territorial 95 RIAA III 1609, 1615. See P.Seidl, I’m
sea and contiguous zone. The right of hot pursuit is designed to prevent Alone, EPIL 2 (1981), 133–4.
the ship avoiding arrest by escaping to the high seas. It is regulated in
some detail by Article 23 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas,
the most important provisions of which read as follows:
1 The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when
the competent authorities of the coastal State have good
reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and
regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced
when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal
waters or the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the
pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the
territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not
been interrupted…If the foreign ship is within a contiguous
zone, as defined in Article 24 of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the pursuit may only
be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for
the protection of which the zone was established.
2 The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued
enters the territorial sea of its own country or of a third State.
3 …The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or
auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which
enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.
4 The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or
military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft on government
service specially authorized to that effect.
These rules are repeated, in almost the same words, in Article 111
(paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5) of the 1982 Convention. Hot pursuit
may also begin in the coastal state’s exclusive fishery zone if the
foreign ship was illegally fishing there.94 Article 111(2) of the 1982
Convention lays down a similar rule for the exclusive economic
zone. According to the I’m Alone case,95 the right of hot pursuit
does not include the right to sink the pursued vessel deliberately;
but accidental sinking in the course of arrest may be lawful.
3 The right of approach. The general rule is that merchant ships on
the high seas are subject to control only by warships of the flag
state. If a merchant ship is doing something which it ought not to
be doing, it may try to escape the control of warships from its
own state, by flying a foreign flag or no flag at all. Consequently,
if a warship encounters a merchant ship on the high seas and has
reasonable grounds for suspecting that the merchant ship is of the
same nationality as the warship, it may carry out investigations
on board the merchant ship in order to ascertain its nationality.
This power is reaffirmed in Article 22 of the 1958 Convention on
the High Seas and Article 110 of the 1982 Convention.
4 Treaties often give the contracting parties a reciprocal power of
arrest over one another’s merchant ships. Examples may be found
in treaties for the conservation of fisheries, or for the protection of
96 See Chapter 2 above, 21. submarine cables. Such provisions used to be particularly com-
97 A.Cassese, Achille Lauro Affair, mon in treaties for the suppression of the slave trade;96 but
EPIL I (1992), 10–4. See also
Chapter 7 above, 111 n. 22. Article 22 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and Ar-
98 See Chapter 6 above, 94. ticle 110 of the 1982 Convention suggest that the power to
99 ILM 27 (1988), 668 (1988 search foreign ships suspected of engaging in the slave trade
Convention) and 685 (1988
Protocol). See N.Ronzitti (ed), has now become a rule of customary law. Following the hi-
Maritime Terrorism and International jacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in October 1985
Law, 1990. See further C.C.Joyner,
The 1988 IMO Convention on the
by terrorists,97 Italy took an initiative in the International Mari-
Safety of Maritime Navigation, GYIL time Organisation (IMO)98 which culminated in the adoption
31 (1988), 230–62; F. Francioni, of the 1988 Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlaw-
Maritime Terrorism and International
Law, GYIL 31 (1988), 289– 306; ful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the
G.Plant, The Convention for the 1988 Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Conti-
Against the Safety of Maritime
Navigation, ICLQ 39 (1990), 27 et nental Shelf.99 Furthermore, under Article 17(3) of the 1988
seq. UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
100 Text in ILM 28 (1989), 493. On
the need to strengthen international
Psychotropic Substances a state party which has reason to sus-
cooperation to deal with the growing pect that a vessel of another party is engaged in illicit traffic
incidence of crimes at sea, including has to request authorization from the flag state to take appro-
drug trafficking, smuggling of aliens,
piracy and armed robbery, see the priate measures in regard to that vessel.100 Article 17(9) en-
report of the UN Secretary-General, courages the parties to the Convention to enter into bilateral
UN Doc. A/50/713 of 1 November or regional agreements to carry out, or to enhance the effec-
1995.
101 See J.Fawcett, Broadcasting, tiveness of the provisions of Article 17.
International Regulation, EPIL I It is important to note that states, in most of such cases,
(1992), 506–9.
102 Financial Times, 27 March
have only a reciprocal power of arrest; after arrest, the offend-
1995, 6; P.G.G.Davies, The EC/ ers must be handed back to their flag state for trial. (Theoreti-
Canadian Fisheries Dispute in the cally a treaty could provide for reciprocal powers of trial, as
Northwest Atlantic, ICLQ 44 (1995),
927–38. well as reciprocal powers of arrest; examples are rare, but see
103 Agreed Minute on the Articles 109 and 110(l)(c) of the 1982 Convention, which deal
Conservation and Management of with unauthorized broadcasting.101)
Fish Stocks, ILM 34 (1995), 1260.
104 ICJ Communiqué no. 95/8 of 29 A case which illuminates this is the ‘fish war’ between
March 1995; Order of 2 May 1995, Canada and the European Union in 1995 because of measures
ICJ Communiqué no. 95/12 of 2 May
1995. taken by Canada against Spanish trawlers acting outside
Canada’s 200-mile economic zone in an area governed by the
treaty on the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).
The conflict started with the seizure by Canada of the Spanish
trawler Estai fishing for turbot (also known as Greenland hali-
but) in defiance of a sixty-day moratorium imposed by Cana-
dian conservation regulations. The vessel was only released a
week later after its owners had posted a C$500,000 bond.102
The relevant provisions of the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Pro-
tection Act, as amended on 12 May 1994, and the unilateral
Canadian enforcement measures on the high seas, including
arrest and the use of ‘warp-cutters’ to sever the cables holding
foreign trawler’s nets, were clearly illegal, although meant to
protect a common interest. The NAFO agreement gives states
parties certain control and inspection rights over each others’
fishing vessels, but only the flag state has the right (and is
obliged) to take enforcement measures. The conflict was settled
by an agreement between Canada and the European Commu-
nity which was reached on 20 April 1995.103 However, in March
1995 Spain had brought a case against Canada before the ICJ
which was still pending at the time of writing.104
THE HIGH SEAS 189
5 Piracy105 is dealt with at length in Articles 14–21 and 22 of the 1958 105 A.P.Rubin, The Law of Piracy, 1988;
Rubin, Piracy, EPIL 11 (1989), 259–62;
Geneva Convention on the High Seas and Articles 100–10 of the 1982 C. Touret, La Piraterie au vingtième
Convention. According to Article 15 of the 1958 Geneva Convention siecle, 1992
106 A.P.Rubin, The Law of Piracy, 1988;
on the High Seas, piracy consists of any of the following acts: Rubin, Piracy, EPIL 11 (1989), 259–62;
C.Touret, La Piraterie au 106 Article 22,
1 Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of 1958 Convention; Article 110, 1982
depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the Convention.
107 Article 19, 1958 Convention; Article
passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: 105, 1982 Convention.
(a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or 109 See Chapter 20 below, 350–1 .
against persons or property on board such a ship or 110 For details of this and earlier
incidents, see ICLQ 10 (1961), 785,
aircraft; 791–8, and O’Connell (1984), op. cit.,
(b) Against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place 803–6. On the issue of civilian protest
outside the jurisdiction of any State. ships, such as the vessels sent by
Greenpeace to disturb French nuclear
tests in the Pacific (see the Rainbow
2 Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship Warrior case in Chapter 6 above, 98–9),
or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate see G.Plant, Civilian Protest Vessels
ship or aircraft. and the Law of the Sea, NYIL 14 (1983),
3 Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described 133–63.
in sub-paragraph 1 or sub-paragraph 2 of this Article.
The definition in Article 101 of the 1982 Convention is al-

most identical. If a warship has reasonable grounds for sus-
pecting that a merchant ship is engaged in piracy, it may
board it on the high seas for purposes of investigation, re-
gardless of the merchant ship’s nationality.106 If the suspi-
cions are justified, the merchant ship may be seized and the
persons on board may be arrested and tried.107 Every state
is entitled to arrest and to try a pirate, without being lim-
ited by any of the rules which are often regarded as restrict-
ing the jurisdiction of municipal courts in criminal cases.108
Laymen often use the word ‘piracy’ loosely to include all
sorts of acts which international law does not regard as
piracy. For instance, mutiny (seizure of a ship by its crew or
passengers) is not piracy within the meaning of international
law: under Article 15(1)(a) of the Geneva Convention on
the High Seas (Article 101(a)(i) of the 1982 Convention)
piracy on the high seas must be directed ‘against another
ship’. Indeed, in the laws of some countries, mutiny is de-
scribed as piracy. But since mutiny is not piracy within the
meaning of international law, a ship under the control of
mutineers may be arrested on the high seas only by the flag
state and not by other states (unless there is a treaty autho-
rizing arrest by other states).
6 Belligerent rights. In a time of war a warship belonging to a
belligerent state may seize enemy merchant ships and also, in certain
circumstances, neutral merchant ships trading with the enemy.109
7 Self-defence. Even when there is no war, states sometimes claim a
right to interfere with foreign merchant ships on the grounds of
self-defence, but the law on this point is uncertain. For instance,
France cited self-defence as a justification for seizing foreign
merchant ships carrying arms to the rebel movement in Algeria in
the 1950s, but such seizures were condemned as illegal by most of
the flag states concerned.110 On the other hand, when a foreign
111 Hague Academy of International merchant ship has been involved in an accident which creates an
Law, Colloquium, 1973, 39–50. See
also Article 221 of the 1982 imminent threat of massive oil pollution on neighbouring coasts, it is
Convention and O’Connell (1984), possible that the coastal state is entitled to seize or destroy the ship in
op. cit., 1006–8. The International
Law Commission found that Britain’s
order to prevent pollution;111 thus the Liberian government did not
reaction against the Torrey Canyon protest in 1967 when the United Kingdom bombed the Torrey Canyon,
was an expression of the doctrine of a Liberian oil tanker which had run aground on a reef in the English
‘necessity’, see Article 33 of the
Draft Articles on State Channel.112 Perhaps the distinction lies in the differing degrees of
Responsibility, in Brownlie BDIL, urgency in the two situations; France could have waited until the ships
436. See Chapter 17 below, 256. carrying arms entered the French territorial sea before arresting them,
112 R.H.Stansfield, Torrey Canyon,
The, EPIL 11 (1989), 333–5. whereas immediate destruction of a wrecked oil tanker is often the
113 Text in UNTS 970, 212. only way to prevent the pollution of coasts. The Torrey Canyon incident
114 Text in UNTS 973, 3. See
led to the adoption in 1969 of the Convention Relating to Intervention
115 See Chapter 22 below, 387– on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties113 and of the
415. Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage.114
117 Lotus Case (1927), PCIJ, series 8 Action authorized by the United Nations.115
A, no. 10. See Chapter 3 above,
44–5.
Jurisdiction of municipal courts over crimes committed on
the high seas
Apart from the special case of piracy, the ordinary rules of international
law concerning criminal jurisdiction116 apply to crimes committed on the
high seas. For this purpose, a ship is treated as if it were the territory of the
flag state. For instance, if an Englishman on a French ship fires a fatal shot
at someone on a German ship, he can be tried in England (nationality
principle), France (subjective territorial principle) and Germany (objective
territorial principle).
However, controversies have arisen in connection with criminal liability
for collisions at sea. In the Lotus case, a French ship, the Lotus, collided with
a Turkish ship on the high seas, and, as a result, people on the Turkish ship
were drowned; when the Lotus reached a Turkish port, Lieutenant Demons,
who had been at the helm of the Lotus at the time of the collision, was
arrested and prosecuted for manslaughter. France complained that this exercise
of jurisdiction by Turkey was contrary to international law, but the Permanent
Court of International Justice held that Lieutenant Demons could be tried,
not only by his own flag state, France, but also by Turkey, because the effects
of his actions had been felt on the Turkish ship.117 This decision, based on the
objective territorial principle, produced alarm among seafarers, and a long
campaign against the rule in the Lotus case culminated in Article 11(1) of the
1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas which provides:
In the event of collision or of any other incident of navigation

concerning a ship on the high seas, involving the penal [that is,
criminal] or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other
person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings
may be instituted against such persons except before the judicial
or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State
of which such person is a national.
This provision, which is repeated in Article 97(1) of the 1982 Convention,

reverses the effect of the Lotus decision, in so far as that decision dealt with
collisions and other ‘incidents of navigation’. But the wider principles
THE CONTINENTAL SHELF 191
118 See H.Kelsen, On the Issue of the

laid down in the Lotus case, concerning the objective territorial principle, Continental Shelf, 1986; G.J.Tanja, The
jurisdiction in general, and the nature of customary law, remain valid. Legal Determination of International
Maritime Boundaries, 1990; S.V.Scott,
The Inclusion of Sedentary Fisheries
Within the Continental Shelf Doctrine,
ICLQ 41 (1992), 788–807; C.L. Rozakis,
The continental shelf Continental Shelf, EPIL I (1992), 783–
92; U.-D.Klemm, Continental Shelf,
Before 1945 the freedom of the high seas meant, among other things, Outer Limits, ibid., The Continental
Shelf, 2 vols, 1992; S.A.Alexandra,
that every state had the right to exploit the seabed and subsoil of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in
high seas. This right was enjoyed by all states; no state could claim an an Enclosed Sea, Hague YIL 5 (1992),
3–32; C.R. Symmons, The 1992
exclusive right to any part of the seabed or subsoil of the high seas. Protocol to the 1988 Anglo-Irish
However, the law began to change when it became technologically Agreement on the Continental Shelf,
ICLQ 42 (1993), 970–5; B.Kwiatkowska,
and economically feasible to exploit oil deposits beneath the sea by means A Regional Approach Towards the
of offshore oil wells. In 1945 President Truman of the United States Management of Marine Activities,
ZaöRV 55 (1995), 479–519, at 488 et
issued a proclamation that the United States had the exclusive right to seq:, G.Marston, The Incorporation of
exploit the seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf off the coasts of Continental Shelf Rights into United
Kingdom Law, ICLQ 45 (1996), 13–51.
the United States. The term, ‘the continental shelf’, requires some See also the 1995 Russian Federation
explanation.118 In most parts of the world the seabed slopes gently away Law on the Continental Shelf, ILM 35
(1996), 1498.
from the coast for quite a long distance before it plunges steeply down 119 See text above, 183–4.
to the great ocean depths. This gently sloping seabed, covered by shallow
water, is called the continental shelf by geologists, and in prehistoric
times was dry land. For the purposes of President Truman’s proclamation,
the continental shelf was defined as being those offshore areas of the
seabed which were not more than 100 fathoms deep.
President Truman’s proclamation was copied by certain other states,
and offshore drilling for oil and natural gas became common in the
Caribbean and the Persian Gulf. No protests were made by other states,
except when Chile and Peru made claims which went far beyond the
scope of President Truman’s proclamation. Chile and Peru have no
continental shelf in the geological sense; the seabed off their coasts drops
sharply down to the great ocean depths. Therefore, instead of claiming
a continental shelf, they claimed sovereignty over the seabed and subsoil
for a distance of 200 miles from their coasts; and they also claimed
sovereignty over the superjacent waters and air space, which had been
expressly excluded from the proclamations issued by the United States
and other countries.
The history of the continental shelf in the years after 1945 is a classic
example of the formation of a new rule of customary law. The action of
the United States created a precedent which other states followed—and
in some cases tried to extend. Claims to exclusive rights to exploit the
seabed and subsoil were copied, or at least not challenged, by other
states and thus gave rise to a new rule of customary law; claims to
sovereignty over superjacent waters did not give rise to a new rule of
customary law, because they met with protests from other states. (Even
the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, a concept of much more recent
origin,119 gives the coastal state fewer rights than the sovereignty over
superjacent waters claimed by Chile and Peru.)
Before 1958 customary law on the continental shelf was still rather
vague and controversial; the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental
Shelf added more precision and detail to the rules. Article 1 defines the
continental shelf as: ‘the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas
adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of
200 metres, or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent
waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas’.
Article 2 provides:
1 The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural
resources.
2 The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are exclusive
in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the
continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may
undertake these activities, or make a claim to the continental
shelf, without the express consent of the coastal State.
3 The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not
depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express
proclamation.
4 The natural resources referred to in these Articles consist of the
mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil
together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species,
that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either
are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move
except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.
Article 3 provides that ‘the rights of the coastal State over the continental
shelf do not affect the legal status of the superjacent waters at high seas, or
that of the air space above those waters’.
Article 5 states that the exploration and exploitation of the continental
shelf must not cause unreasonable interference with navigation, fishing,
conservation of fisheries, or scientific research (paragraph 1). Subject to
paragraph 1, the coastal state may construct installations for the purpose
of exploiting the natural resources of the continental shelf. The installations
may protrude above the surface of the sea, but they do not have the legal
status of islands (for example, they have no territorial sea), although the
coastal state may establish safety zones with a radius of 500 metres around
each installation. There are further provisions to prevent the installations
being dangerous (for example, there must be an adequate system of warning
of their presence, and they must be dismantled when disused).
Articles 2 and 3 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf are
repeated, with slight alterations, in Articles 77 and 78 of the 1982
Convention. Many of the provisions of Article 5 of the Geneva Convention
reappear, in a rather different form, in Articles 60 and 80 of the 1982
Convention. Article 76 of the 1982 Convention differs considerably from
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.
What are the outer limits of the continental shelf for legal purposes?
Does it have any outer limits at all, or do the coastal state’s exclusive rights
over the seabed and subsoil extend to mid-ocean, regardless of the depth of
the ocean? This is a vital question, because in the future the deep seabed (or
ocean floor) is likely to be of great economic importance. The ocean floor
in many areas is covered with manganese nodules, averaging about 4 cm in
diameter and containing up to 50 per cent manganese, with significant
traces of copper, nickel, cobalt and other metals. It is estimated that there
are 1,500,000 million tons of these nodules on the floor of the Pacific alone,
sometimes in concentrations of up to 100,000 tons per square mile.
THE DEEP SEABED 193
Article 1 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 120 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,
ICJ Rep. 1969, 3–257, at 31, 47, 53.
speaks of exploitability as a criterion for fixing the outer limit of the See Chapter 3 above, 44, 46 and text
continental shelf. This might suggest that the continental shelf could, below, 196. See also Arbitration
between the United Kingdom of Great
for legal purposes, extend to mid-ocean; but such an interpretation is Britain and Northern Ireland and the
unsound, for several reasons. The Geneva Convention defines the French Republic on the Delimitation of
continental shelf as ‘submarine areas adjacent to the coast’, and areas in the Continental Shelf, Cmnd. 7438
(1979), ILM 18 (1979), 397–494;
mid-ocean cannot be regarded as adjacent to any of the coastal states. Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta) Case,
Again, the International Court of Justice emphasized in the North Sea ICJ Rep. 1985, 13–187; Continental
Continental Shelf cases120 that the continental shelf was a prolongation Shelf (Tunisia v. Libya) Case, ICJ Rep.
1982, 18–323. See the relevant articles
of land territory—the deep seabed is too deep, and too far from shore, by G.Jaenicke, EPIL 2 (1981), 205–8,
to be regarded as a prolongation of land territory. Finally, the continental and U.-D.Klemm, R. Oellers-Frahm,
EPIL I (1992), 792–5; 795–8; 798–804.
shelf is a geological concept as well as a legal concept, and, from the 121 See text above, 183–4.
geological point of view, to say that the deep seabed forms part of the 122 ICJ Rep. 1985, at 33, 35. See
continental shelf is as absurd as saying that Africa forms part of Australia. D.N.Hutchinson, The Seaward Limit to
Continental Shelf Jurisdiction in
Article 76(1) of the 1982 Convention provides: Customary International Law, BYIL 56
(1985), 11118.
The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the sea-bed 123 See B.H.Oxman, The High Seas
and the International Seabed Area,
and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial Mich. JIL 10 (1989), 526–42; F.Zegers
sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the Santa Cruz, Deep Sea-Bed Mining
outer edge of the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 Beyond National Jurisdiction in the 1982
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea:
nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the Description and Prospects, GYIL 31
territorial sea is measured where the outer edge of the continental (1988), 107–19; W.G.Vitzthum,
margin does not extend up to that distance. International Sea-Bed Area, EPIL II
(1995), 1372–76. On the ‘common
heritage of mankind’ concept see also
Article 76 also contains complicated and controversial provisions for Chapter 13 below, 207–8.
124 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 124–8.
delineating the outer edge of the continental margin. The continental 125 See R.Wolfrum, International Sea-
margin consists not only of the continental shelf, but also of the Bed Authority, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
continental slope, a steeply sloping area beyond the continental shelf, 789–96.
and the continental rise, a gently sloping area between the continental
shelf and the deep seabed. The minimum limit of 200 miles, which was
copied from the provisions on the exclusive economic zone121 is probably
already part of customary international law.122
The deep seabed
Resolution 2749 (XXV), passed by the General Assembly on 17 December

1970 by 108 votes to nil with fourteen abstentions, declared that the deep
seabed was the common heritage of mankind,123 and laid down various
principles to govern the future exploitation of its resources.124 These
principles are elaborated in detail in Articles 133–91 and Annexes III and
IV of the 1982 Convention. According to the 1982 Convention, control
of the deep seabed (that is, the seabed beyond the continental shelf, as
defined in Article 76) would be vested in an International Seabed Authority,
which will exploit the deep seabed and its subsoil or grant licences for
such exploitation to states or commercial companies.125 (The powers of
the Authority will apply only to the seabed and subsoil; Article 135 of the
1982 Convention declares that the provisions of the 1982 Convention
concerning the deep seabed and the Authority shall not affect the legal
status of the superjacent waters (high seas) or the air space above those
waters.) The International Seabed Authority will also receive part of
the revenue from the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond
the 200-mile limit; the coastal state will receive the remainder of such
126 Article 82, 1982 Convention.

revenue.126 Revenue, royalties and profits received by the Authority will be
128 See the 1980 draft of the 1982 used for the benefit of mankind as a whole, taking into particular
Convention in ILM 19 (1980), 1129.
consideration the needs of developing countries, whether coastal or
130 Text in ILM 19 (1980), 1003. landlocked.
131 ILM 23 (1984), 1354.
132 See AJIL 73 (1979), 30–8.
The developing countries hoped to benefit financially from the
133 See text above, 174–5. International Seabed Authority and hailed Part XI of the 1982
Convention as a significant victory in their quest for a ‘New International
Economic Order’.127 But the developed countries, which are the only
countries with the advanced technology and huge amounts of capital
needed to exploit the resources of the seabed, insisted on getting a fair
return on the money and effort which they will put into exploiting those
resources. This clash of interests affected many provisions of the 1982
Convention concerning the functions, powers, structure and voting
procedure of the International Seabed Authority and the relations
between mining companies and the Authority. Until 1981 it seemed likely
that the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea would reach agreement
on a compromise between the interests of the developed states and the
interests of the developing states.128 But in 1981 President Reagan of the
United States demanded that some amendments should be made to the
provisions of the 1980 draft concerning the deep seabed and the
Authority, in order to make them more favourable to the developed
states. The Conference made a few changes to the text of the 1980 draft
in order to make it more acceptable to the developed states, but most
Western states (including the United States and the UK) remained
unsatisfied and refused to sign or ratify the 1982 Convention.129
Even before President Reagan took office in 1981, the United States
had become so impatient with the disagreements and delays at the
conference that it passed a law authorizing United States companies to
start exploiting the deep seabed.130 Similar laws have also been passed
by several other developed states, such as France, West Germany, Italy,
Japan, the UK and the USSR. There is an agreement between most of
the states which have passed such laws (but not the USSR) that companies
from one ‘reciprocating state’ (to use the terminology of the law passed
by the United States) will not be authorized to operate in an area covered
by a licence issued by another ‘reciprocating state’.131 The laws in
question do not purport to create rights over any part of the deep seabed
which will be exclusive as against states which have not passed such
laws; moreover, the laws are intended to apply only during the period
before the entry into force of a convention on the law of the sea to
which the legislating state is a party, and they provide that all or part of
the revenue received by the government concerned from the exploitation
of the seabed will be shared with developing countries or transferred to
the International Seabed Authority. In spite of that, these laws were
condemned by developing countries as a violation of General Assembly
resolution 2749 (XXV).132
As noted above, the 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of
Part XI of the 1982 Convention changed the deep seabed mining regime to
the satisfaction of almost all parties.133 The reasons for the amendment
were basically twofold. First, it had become apparent that relatively low
MARITIME BOUNDARIES 195
metal prices over the last decade had led to a decline in commercial interest 134 See Marffy-Mantuano, op. cit.,
821–4.
in deep seabed mining. The huge bureaucratic structure based on detailed 135 See S.P.Jagota, Maritime Boundary,
provisions laid down in Part XI appeared unnecessary. Second, the end of 1985; P.Weil, The Law of Maritime
the Cold War and the global move towards market principles gave further Delimitation—Reflections, 1989;
L.Caflisch, Maritime Boundaries,
impetus to reform willingness. The details of the amended regime, as well Delimitation, EPIL 11 (1989), 212–9;
as the technical problems of the provisional application of the Agreement D.M.Johnston/M.J.Valencia, Pacific
(before it enters into force, as provided for by Article 25 of the Vienna Ocean Boundary Problems: Status and
Convention on the Law of Treaties),134 are beyond the scope of this book. Solutions, 1991; M.Habibur Raiman,
Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries,
1991; E.M.D.Evans, Maritime
Delimitation and Expanding Categories
Maritime boundaries of Relevant Circumstances, ICLQ 40
(1991), 1 et seq.; D.H.Anderson, Recent
Boundary Agreements in the Southern
Many disputes have arisen in recent years over the location of boundaries
North Sea, ICLQ 41 (1992), 414–23;
between areas of sea claimed by one state and areas of sea claimed by M.D.Evans, Delimitation and the
another state.135 They have also occupied international tribunals and Common Maritime Boundary, BYIL 64
the ICJ.136 Article 12(1) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial (1993), 283–332; E.Franckx, Maritime
Claims in the Arctic: Canadian and
Sea provides as follows: Russian Perspectives, 1993; P.J.I.
Charney/L.M.Alexander, International
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each Maritime Boundaries, 2 vols, 1993; F.A.
other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between Ahnish, The International Law of
Maritime Boundaries and the Practice of
them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median States in the Mediterranean, 1993; G.H.
line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on Blake (ed.), World Boundaries. Vol. 5:
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each Maritime Boundaries, 1994; J.I.
of the two States is measured. The provisions of this paragraph Charney, Progress in International
Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law,
shall not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic
AJIL 8 (1994), 227.
title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of 136 On the Arbitration between Canada
the two States in a way which is at variance with this provision. and France on the Delimitation of
Maritime Areas (St. Pierre et Miquelon),
see the Decision of 10 June 1992, ILM
The same rules are laid down in Article 15 of the 1982 Convention. In
31 (1992), 1145, and M.D. Evans, Less
the case of the contiguous zone, Article 2(3) of the Geneva Convention Than an Ocean Apart: The St Pierre and
on the Territorial Sea lays down the same rule as Article 12(1), except Miqueion and Jan Mayen Islands and
that it omits the final sentence of Article 12(1). The 1982 Convention the Delimitation of Maritime Zones,
ICLQ 43 (1994), 678. For the most
contains no provision for delimiting contiguous zones claimed by recent case decided by the ICJ
opposite or adjacent states. concerning Maritime Delimitation and
Article 6(1) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf Territorial Questions between Qatar and
Bahrain, see ICJ Rep. 1995, 6, ILM 34
provides as follows:
(1995), 1204, for the judgment on
jurisdiction and admissibility see ICJ
Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories of Rep. 1994, 112, ILM 33 (1994), 1461
two or more States whose coasts are opposite each other, the The East Timor case between Portugal
boundary of the continental shelf appertaining to such States shall and Australia (see Chapter 3 above, 59
and Chapter 18 below, 286–7) was
be determined by agreement between them. In the absence of dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction. For
agreement, and unless another boundary line is justified by special the contribution of the ICJ to the law of
circumstances, the boundary is the median line, every point of the sea, see Kwiatkowska (1995), op.
which is equidistant from the nearest point of the baselines from cit., 488 et seq., Kwiatkowska, Equitable
Maritime Boundary Delimitation, in
which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured. V.Lowe/M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years
of the International Court of Justice.
Article 6(2) applies the same rules ‘|w|here the same continental shelf is 1996, 264–92.
adjacent to the territories of two adjacent States’.
Articles 12(1) and 24(3) of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial
Sea place primary emphasis on the equidistance principle. By contrast,
Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf places
primary emphasis on delimitation by agreement. Both Article 12(1) of
the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention on the Continental Shelf provide for a ‘special circumstances’
137 North Sea Continental Cases,

op. cit., 16–8. See text above, 193.
exception to the equidistance principle, but in practice the ‘special
138 Ibid., especially 46–54. circumstances’ exception is likely to be invoked more often in delimiting
139 ILR, Vol. 54, 6, 8–10, 54–9,
101–3, 123–4. For further
the continental shelf than in delimiting the territorial sea, because continental
discussion of these two cases, and shelves stretch further than territorial seas; maritime boundaries based on
a comparison between them and
later cases, see P. Birnie,
the equidistance principle are often distorted by the presence of islands or
Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries: by curvatures of the coast, and the effect of such distortions increases as
Emergent Legal Principles and
Problems, in G.H.Blake (ed.),
one moves further out to sea.137 Such distortions may be tolerable if they
Maritime Boundaries and Ocean enable one state to extend its territorial sea at the expense of another state
Resources, 1987.
140 For the text of Article 38(1) of
by a few miles, but not if they enable one state to extend its continental
the Statute of the ICJ, see Chapter 3 shelf at the expense of another state by hundreds of miles.
above, 36.
In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases the International Court of
Justice held that the rules contained in Article 6(2) of the Geneva
Convention on the Continental Shelf were not rules of customary law,
and were therefore not binding on West Germany, which was not a party
to the Convention. Instead, the Court said that the relevant rule of
customary law required the parties (West Germany, Denmark and the
Netherlands) to negotiate in good faith in order to reach an agreement on
an equitable delimitation.138 However, the arbitral award in a later case
between the United Kingdom and France, concerning the delimitation of
the continental shelf in the English Channel, suggests that the difference
between customary law and Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the
Continental Shelf is slight; the United Kingdom and France were both
parties to the Convention, but the arbitrators held that the position of the
Channel Islands and of the Isles of Scilly constituted ‘special circumstances’
within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and that the boundary
should be based on equitable considerations (which involved departing
from the median (equidistance) line) wherever such special circumstances
existed.139
The downgrading of the equidistance principle has been carried a stage
further by Article 83(1) of the 1982 Convention which provides: ‘The
delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent
coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as
referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,
in order to achieve an equitable solution.’ Article 74(1) of the 1982
Convention applies the same rule to the delimitation of exclusive economic
zones.140 Articles 83(1) and 74(1) are vague, but that is inevitable; the whole
question of delimitation was a source of acute controversy at UNCLOS III.
Judicial and arbitral decisions in the future will probably clarify the concept
of ‘an equitable solution’, but that is bound to be a slow process; what is
equitable in one geographical situation will not be equitable in other
geographical situations, and there is therefore a danger that each decided
case will be unique and incapable of serving as a precedent for other cases.
Article 121(3) of the 1982 Convention provides that ‘rocks which cannot
sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no
exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. This innovation is regarded
as desirable by most states (but presumably not by the United Kingdom,
which claims an exclusive fishery zone of 200 miles around Rockall, an
uninhabitable rock 180 miles west of the Hebrides). However, Article 121
MARITIME BOUNDARIES 197
141 See G.Marston, Abandonment of

implies that such rocks will continue to possess a territorial sea and a Territorial Claims: The Cases of Bouvet
contiguous zone. and Spratly Islands, BYIL 57 (1986),
337–56; H.Chiu, Spratly Archipelagos,
Among the regional disputes still unsettled, some of the most serious FPIL 12 (1990), 357–60; J.Greenfield,
ones with a very real potential for conflict are in the South-East Asian China’s Practice in the Law of the Sea,
1992; 1992 UN Secretary-General
region, especially with regard to the competing claims to the Spratly Report, op. cit., paras. 31–7; J.I.
Islands in the South China Sea.141 Charney, China and the South China
Sea Disputes: Conflicting Claims and
Potential Solutions in the South China
Sea, 1995; Charney, Central East Asian
Maritime Boundaries and the Law of the
Sea, AJIL 89 (1995), 724–49.
13 Air space and outer space
1 Harris CMIL, 217–22; Air space

P.S.Dempsey, Law and Foreign
Policy in International Aviation,
1987; K.-G.Park, La Protection de la Between 1900 and 1914 academic lawyers proposed various theories about
souveraineté aérienne, 1991;
B.Cheng, Air Law, EPIL I (1992), the legal status of air space.1 But from 1914 onwards it was clear that
66–72; I.H.P.Diederiks-Verschoor, states would be content with nothing less than complete sovereignty over
An Introduction to Air Law, 5th edn
1993; S.Shubber, The Contribution their air space, unlimited by any right of innocent passage; and a new rule
of the International Court of Justice of customary law to that effect arose very quickly. The military potential
to Air Law, in V.Lowe/M.Fitzmaurice
(eds), Fifty Years of the International of aircraft for bombing and reconnaissance, demonstrated during the First
Court of Justice, 1996, 316–26. World War, meant that any other rule would have been unacceptable to
2 See K.Hailbronner, Airspace over
Maritime Areas, EPIL I (1992), 90–4 states, on security grounds. (In fact, it was the neutral states which were
and Chapter 12 above, 176–8. most insistent on their right to exclude foreign aircraft during the First
3 Text in 15 UNTS 295. See
L.Weber, Chicago Convention, EPIL World War, in order to prevent aerial battles taking place over their
I (1992), 571–3. territory.) Since then, the customary rule has been that aircraft from one
4 U.S. v. Hungary, ICJ Rep. 1954,
99– 105; Aerial Incident of 7 October state have a right to fly over the high seas, but not over the territory or
1952, ICJ Rep. 1956, 9–11; Aerial territorial sea of another state.2 This rule is reaffirmed in Article 1 of the
Incident of 10 March 1953, ibid., 6–
8; Aerial Incident of 4 September 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation which states
1954, ICJ Rep. 1958, 158–61; Aerial that ‘every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace
Incident of 7 November 1954,
ICJ Rep. 1959, 276– 8. See above its territory’.3
K.Hailbronner, Aerial Incident Cases It is a serious breach of international law for a state to order its
(U.S. v. Hungary; U.S. v. U.S.S.R.;
U.S. v. Czechoslovakia), EPIL I aircraft to violate the air space of another state. In the period between
(1992), 50–2. 1950 and 1960 a number of aerial incidents occurred in which American
6 Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 military aircraft were attacked, forced to land or shot down and their
(Israel v. Bulgaria), ICJ Rep. 1959, crews interned by Hungary, the USSR and Czechoslovakia. 4 The United
127–204. See K.Hailbronner, Aerial
Incident of 27 July 1955 Cases States took the view that the use of force was unjustified because the
(Israel v. Bulgaria; U.S. v. Bulgaria; aircraft were either flying over international waters or had strayed
U.K. v. Bulgaria), EPIL I (1992),
52–4. inadvertently into foreign airspace. The cases filed by the United States
7 See AJIL 54 (1960), 836, and AJIL against the states in question, which refused to admit liability, were
56 (1962), 135; Colum. LR (1961),
1074. On the unregulated area of dismissed by the International Court of Justice because the respondent
espionage see J.Kish, International states had not accepted its jurisdiction. 5 The Court also denied its
Law and Espionage, 1995.
8 AJIL 47 (1953), 559, 586. See J.N. jurisdiction in cases brought by Israel, the United States and the United
Hyde, Oliver J.Lissitzyn (1912– Kingdom against Bulgaria for shooting down in 1955 an Israeli aircraft
1994), AJIL 89 (1995), 88–90.
on a regular commercial flight between Austria and Israel which was
carrying passengers of various nationalities.6
In May 1960, when a United States U2 reconnaissance aircraft was shot
down over the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union cancelled a summit conference
with the United States in protest against the violation of its air space.7
Apparently the United States did not protest against the shooting down of
the U2. But that does not mean that states have an unlimited right to attack
intruding aircraft in all circumstances. In 1953 Lissitzyn8 suggested that
AIR SPACE 199
9 See text below, 200–1 and Chapter

the following rule of customary law could be inferred from state practice: 6 above, 94 and Chapter 21 below,
‘In its efforts to control the movements of intruding aircraft the territorial 382–4.
10 ILM 22 (1983), 1185, 1187.
sovereign must not expose the aircraft and its occupants to unnecessary 11 Ibid., 1148.
or unreasonably great danger—unreasonably great, that is, in relation 12 Ibid., 1110, 1114, 1118, 1129, 1133–
4, 1139.
to the reasonably apprehended harmfulness of the intrusion.’ This is a 13 Ibid., 1117, 1120, 1133.
very flexible principle. It implies that a state must not attack an intruding 14 Ibid., 1126–8, cf. 1074; J.H.H. Weiler,
Korean Airlines Incident, EPIL 11
aircraft unless it has reason to suspect that the aircraft constitutes a real (1989), 167–9. See also the 1993 ICAO
threat to its security (military aircraft are obviously more likely to present Report on the Completion of the Fact-
Finding Investigation with Regard to the
such a threat than civil aircraft); it also implies that a warning to land or 31 August 1983 Destruction of Korean
change course should be given before the aircraft is attacked, unless Airlines Aircraft, ILM 33 (1994), 310.
there is reason to suspect that the aircraft constitutes an immediate and
very serious threat to the security of the state, or unless it is impracticable
to give such a warning.
Lissitzyn’s flexible approach is probably still an accurate statement
of the law in the case of military aircraft which enter the air space of
another state without that state’s consent. However, as we have just
seen, there is some disagreement about the action which can be taken
against civil aircraft which enter the air space of another state without
that state’s consent; some states still seem to support the application of
Lissitzyn’s flexible approach to civil aircraft (as well as to military
aircraft), but other states (and the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), a specialized agency of the United Nations)9 believe
that civil aircraft must never be attacked in such circumstances. On the
other hand, civil aircraft which enter the air space of another state without
that state’s consent can be ordered to leave or to land, and the state
whose air space has been violated can protest to the state in which the
aircraft are registered if such orders are ignored; the rule (if it is indeed
a rule) that trespassing civil aircraft must never be attacked does not
mean that they have a legal right to trespass.
In 1981 ICAO recommended to its member states that ‘intercepting
aircraft should refrain from the use of weapons in all cases of interception
of civil aircraft’.10 In 1983 the Soviet Union shot down a South Korean
civil airliner which had entered Soviet air space; in the United Nations
Security Council a draft resolution condemning the Soviet action11
received nine votes in favour, but was vetoed by the Soviet Union (Poland
also voted against, and China, Guyana, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe
abstained). The preamble to the draft resolution contained a paragraph
‘reaffirming the rules of international law that prohibit acts of violence
which pose a threat to the safety of international civil aviation’, which
implies that attacks on civil aircraft are never permitted (the position is
obviously different if military aircraft enter the air space of another state).
This ‘absolute’ rule was supported by statements made by the United
States, South Korea, Australia, Togo, Ecuador and Portugal,12 while
Canada, Zaire, West Germany and Fiji echoed Lissitzyn’s more flexible
approach by saying that the Soviet reaction was ‘disproportionate’ in
the circumstances.13 Even the Soviet Union did not claim that it had an
unlimited right to shoot down intruding aircraft; instead, it claimed that
it had mistaken the South Korean airliner for a United States military
reconnaissance aircraft, and that the South Korean airliner had acted
suspiciously and had ignored Soviet orders to land.14
200 AIR SPACE AND OUTER SPACE
15 Text in 15 UNTS 295, amended

text in 1175 UNTS 297.
In 1984 the Assembly of ICAO adopted an amendment (Article 3bis) to
16 Text in ILM 23 (1984), 705. the 1944 Chicago Convention on the International Civil Aviation15 (the
17 See I.F.Dekker/H.H.G.Post (eds),
The Gulf War of 1980–1988, 1992.
constitution of ICAO) which confirms ‘that every State, in the exercise of
18 AJIL 83 (1989), 912–3. See also its sovereignty, is entitled to require the landing at some designated airport
ICAO Resolution and Report
Concerning the Destruction of Iran
of a civil aircraft flying above its territory without authority’. But it also
Air Bus, 3 July 1988, ILM 28 (1989), states that ‘the Contracting States recognize that every State must refrain
896–943.
19 ILM 28 (1989), 842; Aerial
from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight and that,
Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. USA) in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of
Case, Order of 13 December 1989,
ICJ Rep. 1989, 132, ILM 29 (1990),
aircraft must not be endangered’.16
123. During the war between Iraq and Iran (1980–8),17 on 3 July 1988, the
20 See Chapter 18 below, 284 n. 78.
21 See ILM 35 (1996), 553; AJIL 90
US warship Vincennes in an engagement with Iranian gunboats in the
(1996), 278. Persian Gulf, believing it was being attacked from the air, shot down the
22 See ILM 35 (1996), 493; AJIL 90
(1996), 448–54.
civilian Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 passengers from six countries and
23 See Chapter 7 above, 116–17. crew members. Although the United States did not admit its liability under
24 See K.Hailbronner, International
Civil Aviation Organization, EPIL II
international law, it later offered to pay ex gratia compensation (which
(1995), 1070–4. For other means without recognizing any legal obligation to do so) to the families
institutions concerned with
international civil aviation see
of the victims (US$250,000 per full-time wage-earning victim, and
S.J.Fawcett, Inmarsat, ibid., 991–4; US$100,000 for each of all the other victims).18 Iran, however, declined
K.Hailbronner, International Air
Transport Association, ibid., 1047–
to accept the offer and in 1989 filed an application for compensation in
50; L.Weber, European Civil the International Court of Justice.19 On 22 February 1996, Iran and the
Aviation Conference, ibid., 137–9;
European Organization for the
United States settled Iran’s claims concerning the downing of Iran Air
Safety of Air Navigation Flight 655 in connection with the settlement of other Iranian claims against
(Eurocontrol), ibid., 270–73.
25 J.Ducrest, Legislative and Quasi-
the United States concerning certain banking matters, filed before the
Legislative Functions of ICAO: Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.20 Under the terms of the settlement
Towards Improved Efficiency, AASL
20 (1995), 343–66.
agreement, the survivors of each Iranian victim will be paid US$300,000
(for wage-earning victims) or US$150,000 (for non-wage-earning
victims).21
In another recent incident, on 24 February 1996, Cuban military aircraft
shot down two civilian aircraft registered in the United States which led to
a Statement by the President of the UN Security Council condemning the
act with reference to Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention and calling for
an investigation of the incident by ICAO.22 In addition, on 12 March 1996,
President Clinton approved sanctions against Cuba under the controversial
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (Helms-
Burton Act).23
The general legal and institutional framework for international civil
aviation is nowadays laid down in the 1944 Chicago Convention and the
rules adopted by ICAO which now has practically universal membership.24
ICAO is the main forum for the development of international air law and
thereby also of domestic air law. It has quasi-legislative powers with regard
to laying down ‘international standards’ (as distinct from mere
‘recommended practices’), especially in the field of air navigation.25 But the
attempt since 1944 to establish on a multilateral basis rights of aircraft of
contracting states to fly into each others’ territories, whether engaged in
scheduled air services or in non-scheduled flights, has largely failed. The
current system of the exchange of lucrative traffic rights is essentially based
upon a complex web of bilateral treaties, by which one state gives aircraft
from another state the right to fly through its air space (usually in
return for a similar concession from the other state in favour of the first
OUTER SPACE 201
state’s aircraft, which constitutes a barter of rights of equivalent 26 J.Naveau, International Air
Transports a Changing World, 1989; P.
commercial value).26 Air transport disputes between states are frequently Mendes de Leon (ed.), Air Transport
decided by arbitration.27 Law and Policy in the 1990s, 1991; L.
Many of the rules governing aircraft have been copied from the rules Weber, Air Transport Agreements,
EPIL I (1992), 75–8. See also M.Milde,
governing ships.28 For instance, the nationality of aircraft29 is based on
Air Transport, Regulation of Liability,
registration, and an aircraft cannot be registered in two or more states ibid. 78–82; P.M.de Leon, Cabotage in
at the same time; the problem of flags of convenience, which has caused International Mr Transport, 1992; M.
so much controversy in connection with merchant ships, has scarcely Zylicz, International Air Transport Law,
arisen in the context of aircraft—maybe because most airlines are owned 1992. See also the United States Model
Bilateral Air Transport Agreement, ILM
or subsidized by governments. Similarly, the rules concerning the power 35 (1996), 1479.
to try crimes committed on aircraft resemble the rules concerning the 27 K.-H.Böckstiegel, Italy-United States
power to try crimes committed on ships.30 For the purposes of the Air Transport Arbitration (1965), EPIL II
territorial principle of jurisdiction, a civil aircraft in flight may be treated (1995), 1508–10; Böckstiegel, France-
United States Air Transport Arbitration
as if it were a part of the state of registration (a sort of ‘flying island’, so
(1963), ibid., 459–61; K. Oellers-Frahm,
to speak), but it may also be regarded as present within the subjacent France-United States Air Transport
state, so that both the state of registration and the subjacent state may Arbitration (1978), ibid., 461– 3. On the
try the offender. This resembles the concurrent jurisdiction exercised by US/UK Arbitration Concerning Heathrow
the flag state and the coastal state over crimes committed on foreign Airport User Charges, see J. Skilbeck,
ICLQ 44 (1995), 171–9; J.J. van
merchant ships in internal waters or the territorial sea.31 Haersolte-van Hof, LJIL 8 (1995), 203
The most common offences committed against civil aviation safety and S.M.Witten, AJIL 89 (1995), 174–
are hijacking, sabotage and forced flights to seek asylum in another 92. On arbitration see Chapter 18 below,
293–8.
state.32 These are not acts of piracy in the technical sense, involving
universal jurisdiction,33 because they are rarely committed from one 29 See M.Milde, Aircraft, EPIL I (1992),
aircraft against another or in an area beyond the jurisdiction of any 86–7; K.Hailbronner, State Aircraft, EPIL
11 (1989), 317–20.
state. Since the 1960s, international legal instruments have been adopted
to deal with unlawful interference with civil aviation, including the 1963 31 See also M.Akehurst, Hijacking,
Toyko Convention,34 the 1970 Hague Convention,35 and the 1971 Indian JIL (1974), 81–9.
Montreal Convention.36 These have been ratified by a large number of 32 See E.McWhinney, Aerial Piracy
and International Terrorism: the Illegal
states and require that the parties provide for severe penalties and far- Diversion of Aircraft and International
reaching jurisdiction in most cases. But no effective international Law, 2nd edn 1987; K.Hailbronner, Civil
machinery was created providing for enforcement measures against states Aviation, Unlawful Interference with,
EPIL I (1992), 583–6; M.N.Leich,
refusing to cooperate in suppression of acts of hijacking and in
Aircraft Crimes, Multilateral
international terrorism.37 Conventions—Montreal Protocol, AJIL
82 (1988), 569–71.
33 See Chapters 7, 112–13 and 12, 105
above.
Outer space 34 Convention on Offences and Certain
Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft,
ILM 2 (1963), 1042.
‘Need I apologize for my choice of subject? Some may say it belongs to
35 Convention for the Suppression of
the realm of exotics of law. Some may ask: Why deal with issues so Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, ILM 10
remote when there are so many much closer to us still awaiting a solution? (1971), 133.
Why reach so far?’ With these words the late Judge Manfred Lachs 36 Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil
introduced his 1964 lecture at the Hague Academy of International Law Aviation, ILM 10 (1971), 1151.
on the topic ‘The International Law of Outer Space’.38 Exotic the subject 37 See the 1978 Declaration of Bonn by
is no longer.39 Within the four decades following the launch of Sputnik Western heads of government, ILM 17
(1978), 1285; R.A.Friedländer,
1 in 1957 (the first artificial satellite, launched by the USSR), the use of
Terrorism, EPIL 9 (1986), 371–6. On the
space technology has become widespread, not only for military but also Lockerbie case see Chapter 18 below,
for civilian purposes, including satellites for communications, 292–3.
meteorology, television and radio broadcasting and other 38 M.Lachs, The International Law of
Outer Space, RdC 113 (1964–III), 7. On
applications.40 Remote sensing of data is employed in agriculture the life of Judge Lachs who, inter alia,
and resource management as well as in environmental monitoring. chaired the Legal Sub-Committee on
Some states, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Outer Space in the United Nations and
fostered the development of the

consensus on the major aspects of
Sweden, have even adopted specific national legislation relating to outer
space law, see the contributions by O. space activities.
Schachter, S.M.Schwebel, T.M.Franck
and S.K.Chopra, In Memoriam: Judge
The law-making process in the field of space law41 has some special
Manfred Lachs (1914–1993), AJIL 87 characteristics. Since 1958, in practice it has primarily relied upon the work
(1993), 414–23.
39 K.-H.Böckstiegel, Prologue, in
of a special international body, the United Nations Committee on the
T.L. Zwaan (ed.), Space Law: Views Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) with its two sub-committees,
of the Future, 1988, 1. See also
Harris CMIL, 222–32; S.M.Williams,
the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the Legal Subcommittee.
Derecho international The administrative arm of the Committee is the United Nations Office for
contemporáneo: La utilization del
espacio ultraterrestre, 1990; K.-
Outer Space Affairs, now based in Vienna. Due to the function of
H.Böckstiegel (ed.), Handbuch des UNCOPUOS, the institutional framework of space law-making enables
Weltraumrechts, 1991;
H.A.Wassenbergh, Principles of
more consistency in law-making than in many other fields of international
Outer Space Law in Hindsight, law. UNCOPUOS, however, is a limited club with only a quarter of the
1991; P.-M. Martin, Le Droit de
l’espace, 1991; C.Q. Christol, Space
members of the United Nations participating.
Law: Past, Present and Future, It should be noted that UNCOPUOS is not the only body concerned
1991; S.Gorove, Developments in
Space Law: Issues and Policies,
with the law of outer space. Thus, the important issue of the military use of
1991; N.Jasentuliyana, Space Law: outer space is considered by the major space powers to be outside the
Development and Scope, 1992; M.
Andem, International Legal
mandate of UNCOPUOS and to properly belong to the fora dealing with
Problems in the Peaceful disarmament and arms control issues.42 Furthermore, albeit controversial
Exploration and Use of Outer
Space, 1993; M.Couston, Droit
at the beginning, the competence to deal with the regulation of the use of
spatial économique, Régimes radio frequencies and satellite positions in the geostationary orbit (a highly
applicables à l’exploration de
l’espace, 1993; I.H.Ph. Diederiks-
advantageous orbit 36,000 km above the Earth’s equator) for space
Verschoor, An Introduction to Space communications43 rests with the International Telecommunication Union
Law, 1993; L. Peyrefitte, Droit de
l’espace, 1993; P. Malanczuk, Space
(ITU), with its global membership—a rather successful international
Law as a Branch of International organization, due to the technical necessities of cooperation in the field of
Law, NYIL 25 (1994), 143– 80;
S.Gorove, United States Space Law
telecommunications.44
—National and International The United Nations General Assembly started studying the legal
Regulation, 1982–1996; Gorove,
Cases on Space Law: Texts,
problems posed by outer space activities in 195945 and adopted Resolution
Comments and References, 1996. 1721 in December 1961 to give guidance to the subsequent evolution of
40 For a good survey on the current
applications of space technology,
space law.46 This culminated in the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles
see R. Gibson, Space, 1992. Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer
41 G.M.Danilenko, Outer Space and
the Multilateral Treaty-Making
Space47 and led to the adoption of four major multilateral treaties48
Process, High Tech. LJ 4 (1990), governing outer space activities from 1967 to 1975: the 1967 Treaty on
217; M.Benkö/ K.U.Schrogl,
International Space Law in the
Principles Governing the Activities of States, Including the Moon and
Making, 1994. Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty),49 the 1968 Agreement on
42 B.Cheng, The Military Use of
Outer Space and International Law,
the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of
Vol. 1, 1992, 63–75; W.v.Kries, Anti- Objects Launched into Outer Space (Rescue Agreement),50 the 1972
Missile Defense for Europe and the
Law of Outer Space, ZLW 42
Convention on Liability for Damage Caused by Objects Launched into
(1993), 271. Outer Space (Liability Convention),51 and the 1974 Convention on
43 See P.Malanczuk,
Telecommunications Satellites and
Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (Registration
International Law, Comments, RBDI Convention).52 In addition, in 1979 the Agreement Governing the Activities
21 (1988), 262–72; F.Lyall, Law and
Space Telecommunications, 1989;
of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Treaty) was
M.L. Smith, International Regulation adopted.53 But there are also special conventions dealing with certain
of Satellite Communication, 1990;
I.H.P. Diederiks-Verschoor, Legal
aspects of space-based activities, such as the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear
Aspects Affecting Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water,54 the
Telecommunications Activities in
Space, TSJ 1 (1994), 81–91; S.
1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile
White, International Regulation of Use of Environmental Modification Techniques55 and the Convention and
the Radio Frequency Spectrum
and Orbital Positions, TSJ 2
Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union.
(1995), 329–50. See also text The technical necessities of jointly using resources, 56 as well as the
below, 202, 208.
immense financial and technological requirements of conducting activities
OUTER SPACE 203
in outer space, necessitate international cooperation57 more than in many 44 A.Noll, International
Telecommunication Union, EPIL II
other fields of international law and tend to induce a stronger pressure (1995), 1379–85; P.Malanczuk,
towards integrationist solutions in international organization in this area. Telecommunications, International
Regulatory needs became most obvious in the fields of satellite Regulation of, EPIL 9 (1986), 367–71;
Malanczuk, Information and
communications58 and remote sensing.59 The development of the Communication, Freedom of, EPIL II
substantive and procedural aspects of space law was accompanied by (1995), 976–91; A.Tegge, Die
innovations in international organization concerned with the exploration Internationale Telekommunikations-
Union, 1994; M.W.Zacher/B.A.Sutton,
and use of outer space (ESA),60 especially with regard to satellite Governing Global Networks.
communications systems providing global and regional networks International Regimes for Transportation
(INTELSAT, INMARSAT, EUTELSAT, ARABSAT).61 Recently, there has and Communications, 1995. See also
text below, 208.
also been some discussion even on creating a global space agency.62 45 International Co-operation in the
In its initial formative phase, space law has developed in anticipation Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UN GA
of outer space activities at a time when such activities were still rather Res. 1472 (XIV), 12 December 1959.
See also the earlier Resolution on the
limited in practice. This process was successful because only the two major Question of the Peaceful Use of Outer
powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were at the time actively Space, UN GA Res. 1348 (XIII), 13
engaged in outer space activities, while most other states failed to perceive December 1958.
46 UN GA Res. 1721 (XVI), 20
that any of their substantial interests would be affected in this connection December 1961. See Kopal, The Role
in the near future. While the major space powers seek to retain their of United Nations Declarations of
monopoly positions and technological edge as much as possible, this has Principles in the Progressive
Development of Space Law, JSpaceL 16
now clearly changed. Meanwhile, more and more states have become (1988), 5 et seq.
directly or indirectly involved in outer space or consider that their political 47 UN GA Res. 1962 (XVIII), 13
and economic interests require the taking of a position. Conflicts of interest, December 1963.
48 B.C.M.Reijnen, The United Nations
especially between industrialized and developing countries, have made Space Treaties Analyzed, 1992.
achieving a consensus in the law-making process increasingly difficult. 49 610 UNTS 205 (1967); ILM 6 (1967),
One peculiar highlight of this process has been the 1976 Bogota 386. See also N.M.Matte, Outer Space
Treaty, EPIL 11 (1989), 251–3; M.Lachs,
Declaration by eight equatorial countries claiming sovereign rights to The Treaty on Principles of the Law of
segments of the geostationary orbit 36,000 km above their territory, Outer Space, 1967–92, NILR 39 (1992),
which was met by rejection by the international community.63 Equatorial 291–302.
50 Text in AJIL 63 (1969), 382.
countries subsequently began abandoning this untenable position; 51 Text in ILM 10 (1971), 965.
however, the controversial issue of whether there should be a special 52 1023 UNTS 15 (1976).
legal regime for the geostationary orbit, in addition to the existing 53 ILM 18 (1979), 1434–41. See N.
Mateesco-Matte, The Moon Agreement:
regulations of the ITU, which should provide for certain preferential What Future?, AFDMAS 12 (1993), 345.
rights for developing countries, is still on the agenda of UNCOPUOS.64 54 480 UNTS 43.
All of the major treaty instruments were prepared on the basis of the 55 1108 UNTS 151.
56 S.M.Williams, The Law of Outer
consensus method (instead of majority decision-making) to ensure the Space and Natural Resources, ICLQ 36
participation of the space powers.65 The same applies to all other (1987), 142–51; B.E.Helm, Exploring
resolutions of the General Assembly prepared by UNCOPUOS with the the Last Frontiers for Mineral
single exception of the controversial principles on direct satellite television Resources: A Comparison of
International Law Regarding the Deep
broadcasting adopted by majority against the votes of Western states in Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica,
1982, mainly because they refused to accept the requirement of ‘prior Vand. JTL 23 (1990), 819–49; D.A.
consent’ of the receiving state to foreign satellite broadcasting.66 Barritt, A ‘Reasonable’ Approach to
UNCOPUOS thereafter returned to the consensus method, as in the case Resource Development in Outer Space,
Loyola LAICLJ 12 (1990), 615–42.
of the 1986 principles on remote sensing67 or the most recently adopted 57 See R.Müller/M.Müller, Cooperation
principles on the use of nuclear power sources in outer space.68 as a Basic Principle of Legal Regimes
Conflicts of interest also became evident with the adoption of the still for Areas Beyond National
largely defunct Moon Treaty of 1979,69 attempting to establish an Sovereignty—With Special Regard to
Outer Space Law, GYIL 31 (1988), 553
international regime for the exploitation of mineral resources,70 which was et seq.
opposed by the major space powers. It has been accepted only by a small 58 See text above, 202–3.
number of states without any significant independent space capabilities, 59 See P.Malanczuk, Satellites
Fernerkundung der Erde: politische with the exception of France.71 In essence, the politics of the New World
und rechtliche Aspekte, in K.Kaiser/
Frhr. v. Welck (eds), Weltraum und Economic Order72 advocated by the former so-called Third World also entered
internationale Politik, 1987, 57–71; the domain of space law. The demands of developing countries to share in
Malanczuk, Erdfernerkundung, in
Böckstiegel (ed.), 1991, op. cit.,
the benefits of the use of outer space technology are reflected in the continuing
425– 55; H.Heintze (ed.), Remote dispute in UNCOPUOS on the item ‘Consideration of the legal aspects related
Sensing Under Changing to the application of the principle that the exploration and utilization of
Conditions, 1992; S. Courteix, Droit
télédétection et environnement, outer space should be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all
1994. states, taking into particular account the needs of developing countries’.73
60 K.J.Madders, European Space
Agency, EPIL II (1995), 295–300.
The basic substantive framework of the present law on outer space is
61 S.J.Fawcett, Intelsat, EPIL II contained in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.74 The treaty provides that outer
(1995), 1000–4; S.J.Fawcett, space is free for exploration and use by all states (Article 1) and cannot be
Inmarsat, ibid., 991–4; R.Wolfrum,
Eutelsat, ibid., 300–2; M.Snow, The annexed by any state (Article 2). The exploration and use of outer space
International Telecommunication must be carried out for the benefit of all countries (Article 1) and in accordance
Satellite Organization. Economic
Challenges Facing an International
with international law (Article 3). Activities in outer space must not
Organization, 1987; International contaminate the environment of the Earth or of celestial bodies, and must
Maritime Satellite Organization: not interfere with the activities of other states in outer space (Article 9). States
Amendments to the Agreement of
INMARSAT, ILM 27 (1988), 691. must disclose information about their activities in outer space (Articles 10–
62 K.S.Pederson, Is It Time to 12). Activities of non-governmental entities in outer space require
Create A World Space Agency?, SP
9 (1993); M. Bourély et al. Faut-il
governmental authorization, and the state concerned is responsible for all
créer une organisation mondiale de activities which it authorizes (Article 6). A state which launches (or authorizes
l’espace?, 1992. the launching of) an object into outer space is liable for any damage caused
63 K.-H.Böckstiegel/M.Benkö (eds),
Space Law. Basic Legal Documents, by that object (Article 7). States must assist astronauts in distress; an astronaut
1990, Vol. 1, B.IV. from one state who makes a forced landing in another state must be returned
64 See UN Doc. A/AC. 105/573 of
14 April 1994, 15 et seq. and Annex
to the former state (Article 5). Ownership of objects launched into outer
IV, working paper A/AC. 105/C.2/L. space is not altered by their presence in outer space or by their return to
192 of 30 March 1993, submitted by Earth; if found, such objects must be returned to the state of origin (Article
Columbia.
65 See E.Galloway, Consensus 8). The rules in Articles 7, 5 and 8 were subsequently laid down in greater
Decision-Making by the United detail by the Rescue Agreement 1968, the Liability Convention 1972, and by
Nations Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space, JSpaceL 7 the Registration Convention 1974 (see above).
(1979), 3 et seq. On the general Article 4 of the Outer Space Treaty provides that the moon and other
function of consensus in
international law-making see E.Suy, celestial bodies ‘shall be used…exclusively for peaceful purposes’.
Consensus, EPIL I (1992), 759–61; However, as regards spacecraft orbiting around the Earth, Article 4
K.Zemanek, Making Rule and
Consensus Technique in Law- merely provides that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
Making Diplomacy, in destruction must not be placed in orbit around the Earth. This difference
R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M. Johnston
(eds), The Structure and Process of between the rules applicable to spacecraft in Earth orbit and the rules
International Law, 1983, 857–87. applicable to celestial bodies justifies the inference that spacecraft in
66 P.Malanczuk, Das
Satellitenfernsehen und die Earth orbit may be used for military purposes which do not involve
Vereinten Nationen, ZaöRV 44 nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction; in particular,
(1984), 257–89 with the text of the
principles; J.A. Frowein, Satellite
they may be used for purposes of reconnaissance. During the negotiations
Broadcasting, EPIL 11 (1989), 273– leading up to the conclusion of the Outer Space Treaty, the Soviet Union
6; D.Fisher, Prior Consent to
(which, as a ‘closed society’, had most to lose from being observed by
International Direct Satellite
Broadcasting, 1990; M.L.Stewart, To satellites) argued that the use of satellites for reconnaissance purposes
See the World: The Global was illegal and should be prohibited by the treaty; but the United States
Dimension in International Direct
Television Broadcasting by Satellite, disagreed. One advantage of the use of reconnaissance satellites is that
1991. they provide an efficient means of verifying compliance with disarmament
68 M.Benkö/G.Gruber/K.Schrogl, treaties; in the past, avoidance of inspection has always been a major
The UN Committee on the Peaceful obstacle to disarmament.75
Uses of Outer Space: Adoption of
Principles Relevant to the Use of While general international law, in principle, does not hold states
Nuclear Power responsible for the activities of private individuals,76 in space law, Article
OUTER SPACE 205
Sources in Outer Space and Other

VI of the Outer Space Treaty establishes the rule that state parties bear Recent Developments, ZLW (1993), 35.
international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including 69 See text above, 202.
70 Article 11, 1979 Moon Treaty.
activities carried out by non-governmental entities. However, in view of 71 The Treaty entered into force on 12
the tendency towards commercialization and privatization of outer space July 1984, see C.Q.Christol, The Moon
Treaty Enters into Force, AJIL 79
activities, a number of problems require further clarification. They include (1985), 163–8.
the exact definition of the ‘responsible’ state and the scope of discretion 72 See Chapter 15 below, 233–5.
73 See UN Doc. A/AC.105/573 of 14
accorded to states in fulfilling their obligations of supervision.77 April 1994, 8 et seq.
The aspect of responsibility/liability of states for actual damage in 74 Op. cit.
space law78 is particularly interesting because Article 2 of the 1972 76 See Chapter 17 below, 259–60.
Liability Convention provides for ‘absolute’ liability of states for damage 77 See H.Bittlinger, Private Space
Activities: Questions of International
caused by a space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in Responsibility, Proc. IISL 30 (1987), 191
flight, which means they are obliged to pay compensation regardless of et seq.; P.Malanczuk, The Actors:
States, International Organizations,
fault. Although some have argued that there is already a precedent for Private Entities, in G.Lafferrenderie
such type of liability in Article 22(3) of the 1958 Geneva Convention on (ed.), An Outlook for Outer Space Law
in the Coming 30 Years (forthcoming).
the High Seas,79 this is truly an innovation in international law, which, 78 See P.Malanczuk, Die
apart from the instances of treaty-based indirect civil liability of operators völkerrechtliche Haftung für
Raumfahrtschäden, in Böckstiegel (ed.),
engaged in hazardous activities, has previously not known direct strict 1991. op. cit., 755–803; B.A.Hurwitz,
state liability in these terms. State Liability for Outer Space Activities
in Accordance with the 1972 Convention
According to Article XXII of the Liability Convention, an on International Liability for Damage
intergovernmental organization active in space is liable as a state, if a Caused by Space Objects, 1992.
corresponding declaration is made and the majority of member states 79 See Chapter 12 above, 173.
80 On the discussion of reforming the
are parties both to the Liability Convention and the Outer Space Treaty. system of dispute settlement in
So far, the European Space Agency (ESA) and Eutelsat have made such international space law see ILA Rep.
1984, 325, 334 et seq.; K.-H.
declarations. International organizations are primarily, their member Böckstiegel, Proposed Draft Convention
states secondarily, under a regime of joint liability to protect claimants. on the Settlement of Space Law
Disputes, JSpaceL 12 (1984), 136–62;
‘Piercing the veil’ to gain recovery from member states directly is H.v.Traa-Engelman, Settlement of
admissible only if the organization fails to pay the agreed or determined Space Law Disputes, LJIL 3 (1990),
139–55; K.-H.Böckstiegel, Developing a
amount of compensation within six months. System of Dispute Settlement
With the increasing use of outer space for practical applications of Regarding Space Activities, Proc. IISL
space technology and the proliferation of states, agencies, international 35 (1993), 27 et seq.; idem, Settlement
of Disputes Regarding Space Activities,
organizations and private actors involved, the settlement of international JSpaceL 21 (1993), 1–10; K.M.Gorove,
disputes with regard to outer space activities is no longer a mere academic Settlement of Space Law Disputes, ibid.,
64–5; Malanczuk (1994), op. cit., at 166
topic, as it was in the past.80 As to disputes between states, the existing et seq.; M.Williams, Report on Dispute
international instruments governing outer space activities all suffer from Settlement Regarding Space Activities,
ILA Space Law Committee, Helsinki
the deficiency that none of them provide for a mechanism which arrives Conference 1996 (K.-H. Böckstiegel,
at binding decisions for the parties. In effect, they do not progress beyond Chairman).
the non-binding methods of dispute settlement available as options to
the parties according to Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, if they
do not agree on international arbitration or adjudication.81 A proposal
by the United States to adopt compulsory dispute settlement by the
International Court of Justice in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was not
acceptable to the USSR.
The 1972 Liability Convention is no exception, although some progress
has been made by at least including some provisions on dispute settlement.
The Convention provides for the establishment of a Claims Commission
at the request of either party, if diplomatic negotiations fail. Although the
details laid down in the Convention for the Claims Commission resemble
in a number of aspects what is known from international arbitration, the
decisive difference is that the decision of the Commission is final and
binding only if the parties have so agreed. Thus, the procedure in fact
82 For details see Böckstiegel

(1993), Settlement of Disputes, op.
amounts to no more than conciliation. The same effect results, for example
cit., 3 et seq. from the general cross-waiver of liability between the parties to the 1988
83 See Böckstiegel/Benkö (eds),
1990, op. cit., Vol. 1, A.VI.2.
Permanently Manned Civil Space Station Agreement.82 In actual practice
84 Böckstiegel (1993), Settlement of the settlement procedures of the Liability Convention have not yet been
Disputes, op. cit., 9 et seq.; K.-H.
Böckstiegel/W.Stoffel, Private Outer
used. The Cosmos 954 case, in which a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite
Space Activities and Dispute disintegrated in 1978 over the north-west of Canada contaminating a
Settlement, TSJ 1 (1994), 327–37.
See Chapter 18 below, 293.
territory of the size of Austria, was settled through diplomatic negotiations.83
85 But see V.S.Vereshchetin/G.M. Disputes between states and private enterprises are likely to occur with
Danilenko, Custom as a Source of
International Law of Outer Space,
the increasing trend towards commercialization and privatization of outer
JSpaceL 13 (1985), 22–35. See also space activities, in particular in satellite communications, remote sensing
and microgravity, but the trend seems to move into the direction of using
87 Vereschchetin/Danilenko, op. cit., available procedures of international commercial arbitration. The existing
25.
88 P.-M.Martin, Les Définitions
national and international procedures of commercial arbitration are certainly
absentes du droit de l’espace, preferable for disputes between private enterprises among themselves.84
RFDAS 46 (1992), 105–17;
R.F.A.Goedhart, The Never Ending
Customary law is of far lesser importance than treaties and other
Dispute: Delimitation of Air Space instruments and its significance for outer space activities is not secured in
and Outer Space, 1996.
89 See Diederiks-Verschoor (1993),
many respects.85 For such a new area, in comparison with, for example, the
Space Law, op. cit., 12. For a ‘classical’ area of the law of the sea,86 this is not surprising. Nevertheless, it
differentiated analysis see
Vereshchetin/Danilenko, op. cit., 27
may not be excluded that some customary law has developed in the relatively
et seq. short historical period since 1957. This appears to be true for the essential
90 Malanczuk (1994), Space Law,
op. cit.
principles of the Outer Space Treaty which have been accepted by all states
active in outer space by practice and with opinio iuris after ratification,
and where no evidence of dissenting practice of non-ratifying states is
available. It seems agreed that such principles include the freedom of
exploration and use of outer space by all states and the prohibition of
national appropriation of outer space, but whether they also include the
principles on responsibility and liability, as laid down in the Outer Space
Treaty, or rather the principle that states retain jurisdiction and control
over space objects launched into outer space,87 is unclear.
Since Sputnik 1, artificial satellites have passed over the territory of other
states on innumerable occasions; for many years no state has ever protested
that this constituted a violation of its air space. The conduct of the states
launching satellites, coupled with the acquiescence of other states, may have
given rise to a new permissive rule of customary international law; states
are entitled to put satellites in orbit over the territory of other states, but
not necessarily to pass through their air space to get into orbit in outer
space. The rule concerning outer space is thus different from the rule
concerning air space (see above).
The precise location of the point where air space ends and outer space
begins, however, is uncertain but unimportant, because the minimum height
at which satellites can remain in orbit is at least twice the maximum height
at which aircraft can fly.88 However, the alleged general customary nature
of the rule allowing free passage of space objects through the national air
space of other states, contrary to some views in the literature, is difficult to
establish.89 Such a rule would at least require the knowledge of states that
their airspace has been used by a foreign space object, which is not likely to
be often the case.
Space law is a rapidly evolving new branch of international law.90
Unresolved problems include the delimitation of outer space and air space
THE ‘COMMON HERITAGE OF MANKIND’ 207
(the issue is still on the agenda of UNCOPUOS), the definition of space 91 B.Cheng, Spacecraft, Satellites and
Space Objects, EPIL 11 (1989), 309–
objects and the related issues of jurisdiction, control and ownership,91 17; C.Q.Christol, The Aerospace Plane:
and legal problems pertaining to space transportation.92 Manned space Its Legal and Political Future, SP 9
(1993), 35.
flight and space station projects have also raised issues of international 92 P.D.Nesgos, Commercial Space
criminal law. 93 In addition, new issues have emerged by the Transportation: A New Industry
commercialization of certain activities and the emergence of private Emerges, 16 AASL16 (1991), 393– 422;
B.Stockfish, Space Transportation and
operators, such as in the fields of satellite communications, remote the Need for a New International Legal
sensing, and microgravity.94 The development has led into areas of the and Institutional Regime, AASL 17
(1992), 323–68.
law which were previously remote and now requires consideration of 93 K.-H.Böckstiegel (ed.), Space
private international law, of insurance problems, and of details of Stations—Legal Aspects of Scientific
intellectual property law and its further development.95 It is also venturing and Commercial Use in a Framework of
Transnational Cooperation, 1985; A.J.
into areas of European Community Law and international trade law.96 Young, Law and Policy in the Space
A further new topic concerns environmental problems arising from Stations’ Era, 1989; K.-H.Böckstiegel/
outer space activities, especially the problem of man-made pollution of V.Vereshchetin/S.Gorove, Draft for a
Convention on Manned Space Flight,
outer space by space debris.97 Even the evolving concept of ‘sustainable ZLW 40 (1991), 3–8; Böckstiegel (ed.),
development’ is having an impact on space law in connection with the Manned Space Flight, 1993.
follow-up process of the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and 94 Qizhi He, Certain Legal Aspects of
Commercialization of Space Activities,
Development (UNCED) and the contribution of space activities to the AASL 15 (1990), 33–42; H.L.v.Traa-
implementation of Agenda 21, in particular, to environmental monitoring Engelman, Commercial Utilization of
and sustainable development in the areas of land-use planning and Outer Space, Law and Practice, 2nd
edn 1993; P.Malanczuk, Independent
management, deforestation, desertification, water resource assessment Private Enterprise and Satellite
and the scientific study of environmental dynamics.98 Communications: The Evolving
After the ending of the Cold War, there are some indications that European Legal Framework, Space
Comm. 13 (1995), 269–74; S.Hobe, Die
cooperation may acquire a new stimulus among the major space powers. rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen der
There are also trends in the direction of enhancing cooperation among wirtschaftlichen Nutzung des
developing countries in the use of outer space.99 The changing context Weltraums, 1995.
95 See, for example, J.Klucka, The Role
of international space activities has further led to the consideration of of Private International Law in the
convening a Third UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses Regulation of Outer Space, ICLQ 39
of Outer Space as a follow-up to the 1968 and 1982 UNISPACE events.100 (1990), 918–22 and Chapter 4 above,
71–4; I.I.Kuskuvelis, The Space Risk
and Commercial Space Insurance, SP 9
(1993), 109; P.Malanczuk, Introduction
The ‘common heritage of mankind’ principle and Conclusions by the Chairman,
Recent Developments in the Field of
Protection and Distribution of Remote
Within the general framework of international law, there is the close Sensing Data, Proceedings of the 3rd
link of space law to the law governing other areas beyond national Dutch NPOC/ECSL Workshop, ESTEC,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 15 April
jurisdiction, such as the high seas, the deep sea floor, and Antarctica.101
1994; Malanczuk, Ten Years of
Indeed, the legal regime of outer space has been described as ‘analogous’ European Telecommunications Law and
to the basic status of the high seas, discarding special rules which only Policy—A Review of the Past and of
Recent Developments, TSJ 1 (1994),
apply to the latter.102
27–51.
Related to this is the interesting general discussion on the controversial 96 See P.Malanczuk, Satellite
common heritage of mankind principle.103 The term has emerged in Communications and the GATT, Space
Comm. 9 (1992), 231–9; P.Malanczuk/
connection with the progressive development of international law and has H.de.Vlaam, International Trade in
found reflection in the reform of the law of the sea, in space law, and in the Telecommunications Services and the
Results of the Uruguay Round of GATT,
legal framework for Antarctica. In space law (much earlier than in the context
TSJ 3 (1996), 269–90.
of the law of the sea negotiations), the principle was first mentioned in UN 97 Report of the Legal
General Assembly Resolution 1962 (XVIII) of 13 December 1963104 Subcommittee on the Work of its
Thirty-Third Session (21 March–5
and was then incorporated in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty in Article April 1994), UN Doc A/AC.105/ 573
1, which, however, uses its own terminology, stating that the of 14 April 1994, 17. See I.H.P.
Diederiks-Verschoor, , Environmental
exploration and use of outer space shall be the common province of all
Protection in Outer Space, GYIL 30

(1987), 144; H.A.Baker, Space
mankind. Article 11 of the Moon Treaty refers to the common heritage
Debris: Legal and Policy principle more explicitly. Article 4 of the same treaty combines both notions
Implications, 1989; P. Malanczuk,
Outer Space, YIEL 1 (1990), 173–5;
in laying down that the exploration and use of the moon ‘shall be the
2 (1991), 184–9; 3 (1992), 299–300; province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the
4 (1993), 224–8; 5 (1994), 227–9; 6
(1995), 291–3; Malanczuk,
interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific
International Law Association (ILA) development’.105
Continues Work on Draft Instrument
to Protect the Environment from
The legal content of the common heritage of mankind principle has
Damage Caused by Space remained obscure. 106 First of all, it is clear that the alleged legal
Activities, JSpaceL 20 (1992), 164–
8; idem, Review of the Regulatory
consequences flowing from the principle are not specific at all, as they are
Regime Governing the Space in fact left to the discretion of states. The second objection, however, to
Environment: The Problem of Space
Debris, ZLW 45 (1996), 37–62.
the purported customary law nature of the principle is more fundamental.
98 See the report prepared by the If one looks at its basis in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, the
Office for Outer Space Affairs in
1993, UN Doc. A/AC.105/547 and
opposition of important affected states to the deep seabed mining regime
Add. 1 . See also Chapter 16 below, in Part XI of the Convention and their reluctance to sign or ratify the
247–53.
99 See P.Malanczuk, Report on the
Convention stands in the way of assuming that the principle reflects general
UN/IAF Workshop on ‘Organising customary international law.107 Many of the provisions in Part XI were
Space Activities in Developing
Countries’ (Graz, October 1993),
clearly an attempt to codify new law in a hitherto unknown area. They
JSpaceL 21 (1993), 175–8. are not customary law and, at best, may be of some legal relevance to the
100 See UN Doc. A/AC.105/575 of 9
May 1994.
states supporting the principle.
101 See Chapters 10, 149–50 and Furthermore, the Moon Treaty, which is far weaker in its attempt to
12, 184–91, 193–5 above.
102 B.Cheng, Astronauts, EPIL I
implement the principle than the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, has been
(1992), 278–81. accepted by only a few states, none of which is a significant space power.
103 S.Errin, Law in a Vacuum: The
Common Heritage Doctrine in
Therefore, it is difficult to see what the basis is for regarding the principle as
Outer Space Law, BICLR 7 (1984), a part of general customary law. Treaties as such, under treaty law, bind only
403–31 ; D.Wotter, The Peaceful
Purpose Standard of the Common
states which are parties to them by an agreed form of acceptance or ratification.
Heritage of Mankind Principle in They do not generally create obligations for states not parties to them, certainly
Outer Space Law, ASILS ILJ 9
(1985), 117–46; A. Casesse,
not for those absenting states particularly affected by the subject matter.
International Law in a Divided Whether they may in certain provisions reflect existing customary law or
World, 1986, Chapter 14;
R.Wolfrum, Common Heritage of
later develop into custom, is a different matter. At any rate, even if new
Mankind, EPIL I (1992), 692–5; customary law emerges, it does not bind states persistently objecting to it.108
M.Y.A.Zieck, The Concept of
‘Generations’ of Human Rights and
In sum, the common heritage of mankind principle, as applied to the
the Right to Benefit from the utilization of resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, has certainly
Common Heritage of Mankind with
Reference to Extraterrestrial
brought a new and useful dimension into the general development of
Realms, VRÜ 25 (1992), 161–98; international law, but in essence it is still a controversial and vague political
T.Fitschen, Common Heritage of
Mankind, in Wolfrum UNLPP I,
principle. (In 1996 Malta proposed that the UN General Assembly should
149–59. consider designating the UN Trusteeship Council109 as ‘trustee of the
104 Article 1, op. cit. common heritage of humankind to ensure the necessary coordinated
105 On the negotiations, see
Casesse, op. cit., 387–91. approach to this matter of common concern’.110) It has found some form of
106 Malanczuk (1994), Space Law, legal recognition only in a restricted number of treaties and other instruments
op. cit., 171–5; R.St.J.Macdonald,
The Common Heritage of Mankind,
for a restricted number of states parties to them or supporting them. This is
in FS Bernhardt, 153–71. also true for space law, even if one considers the qualification of radio
107 See Chapter 12 above, 174–5. frequencies and satellite positions in the geostationary orbit as ‘limited
109 See Chapters 19, 328 and 22, natural resources’ which should be distributed equitably, as laid down in
373 below. the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union,111 in one
110 See V.Morris/M.-
C.Bourloyannis-Vrailas, The Work of
way or another, as an expression of that principle.
the Sixth Committee at the Fiftieth
Session of the UN General
Assembly, AJIL 90 (1996), 491–500,
at 500.
111 Article 33.
14 Human rights
International concern for what we nowadays call human rights,1 in the 1 Harris CMIL, 600–728; Restatement
sense of fundamental and inalienable rights essential to the human being, (Third), Vol. 2, 152–83; I.Brownlie (ed.),
Basic Documents on Human Rights, 3rd
is nothing new. The early Spanish school of international law (i.e. Vitoria
edn, 1992. See further T.Meron (ed.),
and Suarez) was heavily engaged in the discussion on which rights are Human Rights in International Law:
to be accorded to every human being under any circumstances, with Legal and Policy Issues, 2 vols 1984;
particular reference to the treatment of the native inhabitants of America B.G.Ramcharan, The Concept and
Present Status of the International
by the Spanish colonizers.2 In state practice, as early as 1815 the United
Protection of Human Rights Forty Years
Kingdom tried to persuade states to make treaties for the suppression of After the Universal Declaration, 1989;
the slave trade.3 During the following century treaties were made to A.Cassese, Human Rights in a Changing
protect individuals against various forms of injustice. A big step forward World, 1990; L.Henkin, The Age of
Rights, 1990; R.B.Lillich, International
came with the peace treaties of 1919, which provided guarantees of fair
Human Rights: Problems of Law, Policy
treatment for the inhabitants of mandated territories4 and for certain and Practice, 2nd edn 1991;
national minorities in Eastern and Central Europe, and which set up the R.Blackburn/J.Taylor (eds), Human
International Labour Organization to promote improvements in working Rights for the 1990s, 1991;
M.T.Kamminga, Inter-State Accountability
conditions throughout the world.5
for Violations of Human Rights, 1992;
However, until 1945 international action tended to concentrate on H.Hannum, Guide to International Human
remedying particular abuses or on protecting particular minority groups Rights Practice, 2nd edn 1992;
or aliens.6 In general, the relationship between states and their own R.P.Claude/B.H.Weston (eds), Human
Rights in the World Community, 1992;
nationals was considered to be an internal matter for each state. The
P.Alston (ed.), The United Nations and
Second World War brought about a change, heralded by the ‘four Human Rights. A Critical Appraisal, 1992;
freedoms’ (freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, F.Ermarcora/ M.Nowak/H.Tretter,
International Human Rights, 1993;
freedom from economic want, freedom from fear of aggression) listed
D.P.Forsythe, Human Rights and
as the foreign policy goals of the United States in a message to Congress Peace— International and National
by President Roosevelt in 1941 and which were included in the Atlantic Dimensions, 1993; C.Muzaffar, Human
Rights and the New World Order,
Charter.7 Following the horrific and systematic abuse of human rights
1993; S. Davidson, Human Rights,
under the rule of National Socialism, it was only after the United 1993; R. Provost, Reciprocity in Human
Nations Charter was signed in 1945 that an attempt was made to Rights and Humanitarian Law, BYIL 65
provide more comprehensive protection for all individuals. (1994), 383 et seq.; J.Henkin/
J.L.Hargrove (eds), Human Rights: An
Agenda for the Next Century, 1994;
L.Henkin, Human Rights, EPIL II
The concept of human rights (1995), 886–93; S.P. Marks, Human
Rights, Activities of Universal
Organizations, ibid., 893– 902; B.Simma,
The concept of human (or fundamental) rights is certainly a dynamic
Human Rights, in C. Tomuschat (ed.),
one and has been subject to change and expansion, as can be seen from The United Nations at Age Fifty, 1995,
the constitutional history of Western states. But it is important to retain 263–80; The United Nations and
the essence of the concept, which is that every individual has certain Human Rights, 1948–1994 (UN Blue
Book Series), 1995; M.C. Bassiouni, The
inalienable and legally enforceable rights protecting him or her against
Protection of Human Rights in the
state interference and the abuse of power by governments. These so- Administration of Justice, 1995;
called civil rights and fundamental freedoms are, for example, the right H.Hannum/R.B.Lillich, International
to a fair trial, freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Human Rights: Problems of Law,
Policy and Process, 3rd edn
Unfortunately, the discussion on human rights has become confusing
210 HUMAN RIGHTS
1995; M.O’Flaherty, Human Rights

and the UN: Practice Before the
by the new habit of speaking of different ‘generations’ of human rights.
Treaty Bodies, 1996. H.Steiner/ The distinction between civil rights in the sense of individual freedoms from
P.Alston, International Human
Rights in Context. Law, Politics,
state interference (‘first generation’), on the one hand, and social rights in
Morals, 1996. On international the sense of rights to claim welfare benefits from the state, such as the right
humanitarian law see, Chapter 20
below, 342–63.
to work or the right to education (‘second generation’), on the other hand,
2 See Chapter 2 above, 15–16. is now a traditional one. But, as we shall see, these are two rather different
kinds of rights. In recent years, a ‘third generation’ of human rights has
5 See Chapter 2 above, 24. been proposed which, according to the advocates of the notion, should
comprise, for example, the right to peace, the right to self-determination,8
7 See Chapter 2 above, 26–7. the common heritage of mankind principle,9 the right to development,10
minority rights11 and the right to a clean environment.12
10 See Chapter 15 below, 239–40. It is submitted that the concept of successive ‘generations’ of human
rights replacing each other is unsound because it, in effect, abolishes the
12 See Chapter 16 below, 241–53. concept of human rights as basic rights of the individual human being.
13 See R.Bernhardt, The
International Enforcement of Human
Moreover, with regard to the so-called third generation of human rights it
Rights, General Report, in is entirely unclear who is supposed to be the subject and who is the addressee
R.Bernhardt/J.A.Jolowicz (eds),
International Enforcement of Human
of a right to peace, a right to a clean environment, etc. It makes no sense to
Rights, 1987, 143–58, at 145 with combine these issues, important as they undoubtedly are, with a discussion
reference to K.-J.Partsch.
on human rights. The real question is only whether individual rights are, or
Chapter 18 below, 273–305. should be, complemented by other rights or values, and be seen in connection
15 See L.Kühnhardt Die
Universalität der Menschenrechte,
with the obligations of the individual towards society (e.g. military service
1987; P.H. Koojmans, Human or the duty to pay taxes).13
Rights, Universal Values, 1993;
C.Muzaffar, Human Rights and the
This becomes clear when one considers the problems of implementation.
New World Order, 1993; National courts and international decision-making bodies can only
G.J.H.v.Hoof, Human Rights in a
Multi-Cultural World: The Need for
effectively protect civil rights as freedoms from state interference. An
Continued Dialogue, in investigation can take place whether or not state organs have abused a
R.St.J.Macdonald (ed.), Essays in
Honour of Wang Tieya, 1994, 877–
certain right in a given case and the individual concerned is entitled to a
91; A.E.Mayer, Universal Versus remedy or to compensation. In the case of social and economic rights,
Islamic Human Rights: A Clash of
Cultures or a Clash with a
binding decisions in individual cases are hardly available because the
Construct, Mich. JIL 15 (1994), 307– enforcement of this kind of right, as a rule, requires the allocation of finances
404; A.A.An-Na’im, Human Rights in
Cross-Cultural Perspectives. A
and resources and policy decisions by legislative and executive bodies. It is
Quest for Consensus, 1995. On no accident, therefore, that both on the universal as well as on the regional
cultural diversity see also Chapter 2
above, 31–2.
level there are different treaties with different enforcement mechanisms for
civil rights, on the one hand, and for social rights, on the other. In the case
of the alleged ‘third generation’ rights, there are no special enforcement
procedures available at all, apart from the usual mechanisms in inter-state
relations.14
The aforementioned confusion is part of the problem of finding a
consensus on defining human rights on the universal level.15 The Western
tradition, following Western countries’ own constitutional models, as they
have developed since the Age of Enlightment, emphasizes civil and political
rights as liberal fundamental rights and freedoms in the sense of negative
rights directed against the state and the abuse of power. The socialist concept
of human rights, on the other hand, is based upon the proposition that
rights have to be guaranteed by the state and emphasis is placed not upon
individual freedom, but on collective aspects and social and economic rights.
Developing countries tend to focus upon their problems of poverty and
economic development and argue that it is more important for a human
being to have enough to eat than to enjoy the freedom of speech. Islamic
THE UNIVERSAL LEVEL 211
16 D.A.Bell, The East Asian Challenge

countries have their own views on the meaning of the freedom of religion to Human Rights: Reflections on an
and the rights of women. The universality of Western human rights values, East West Dialogue, HRQ 18 (1996),
641–67.
allegedly associated with excessive individualism and decadence, has been 17 T.Oppermann, Intervention, EPIL II
most vigorously challenged recently in certain parts of Asia.16 (1995), 1436–9.
It is obvious that the cultural, economic and political diversity of the 19 See Chapter 6 above, 91–2, 100–4.
international community leads to difficulties in finding a true global 20 See for example, I.Brownlie, The
consensus on the meaning of human rights in many areas. Is there any Human Right to Food, 1987; J.
Delbrück, The Right to Education as an
common philosophy behind the common texts adopted at the universal International Human Right, GYIL 35
level by Christians, Muslims, Marxists, etc.? Some think that such (1992), 92.
questions lead to a dangerous cultural relativism in the field of human
rights. But it appears that the common denominator on the universal
level at the present stage of the (comparatively still recent) development
of international human rights law is only a very general one, namely
that the individual deserves to be protected and that the international
community should contribute to this protection. In addition, in spite of
commendable and abstract verbal commitments, in practice, many states
still regard the treatment of their own nationals as an internal matter
and reject foreign reaction to alleged human rights violations, at least if
it reaches a certain level of intensity, as an unjustified form of
intervention.17 The principle of state sovereignty18 is in a continuing state
of tension with the goal of the effective international protection of human
rights. This is different on the regional level where human rights
conventions are based on a more homogeneous democratic tradition
and understanding of basic values (such as the rule of law) in the member
states, such as is the case in Europe.
The development of human rights on the international level is one of
the most startling innovations in modern international law, because it
has the potential to unleash explosive forces challenging the basic tenet
of the system, the principle of state sovereignty. However, a closer look
at the now considerable body of international rules and documents
concerning the protection of human rights reveals that there is still the
difficulty of deciding whether individuals derive rights from international
law, or whether they merely derive benefits.19 Indeed, there is an even
greater problem of classification in this context, since many of the
commitments undertaken by states are expressed in such vague and
idealistic language that it is uncertain whether they enunciate legal
obligations at all, as distinct from merely moral aspirations.
The protection of the civil rights of the individual against state
interference still remains an important task today and it is in this area
where international law and the development of an enforcement
machinery has made most progress. It is upon these rights which the
following will concentrate. This is not to deny that in many parts of the
world social and economic rights have the same or even greater
importance for the individual than the rights of liberty.20
Human rights on the universal level

The United Nations Charter
The goals of the United Nations listed in Article 1 of the UN Charter
include the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and
212 HUMAN RIGHTS
21 Article 1, UN Charter, text in

Brownlie BDIL, 1. See also Chapter
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or
21 below, 368. religion.21 Article 55 of the United Nations Charter states that ‘the United
22 Article 55. See K.J.Partsch, Nations shall promote…universal respect for, and observance of, human rights
Article 55(c), in Simma CUNAC,
776–93. and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language,
23 Article 56. See R.Wolfrum, Article or religion’.22 In Article 56, ‘[a]ll Members pledge themselves to take joint
56, ibid., 793–5.
24 Namibia Case (1971), ICJ Rep. and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement
1971, 16–345, at 57, para. 131. See of the purposes set forth in Article 55.’23 The use of the word ‘pledge’
J. Delbrück, Apartheid, EPIL I
(1992), 192–6. See also text below, (‘s’engagent’ in the French text) implies a legal obligation, but the obligation
214, 220 and Chapters 18, 284 and is probably not to observe human rights now (the rights are not defined or
19, 328–9 below.
25 See Articles 13(1), 73 and 76.
listed in any case), but to work towards their fulfilment in the future; the
26 See Chapter 21 below, 368–9. vagueness of the language probably leaves a wide discretion to states about
27 UN GA Res. 217 A(III), UN Doc. the speed and means of carrying out their obligations, and it is notorious
A/ 810, at 71; text reprinted in
Brownlie BDIL, 255. See that in many countries no perceptible progress, and in others little visible
N.Robinson, The Universal progress, has been made towards the realization of human rights.
Declaration of Human Rights, 1958;
A.Verdoodt, Naissance et On the other hand, a state which deliberately moved backwards as far
signification de la Declaration as human rights are concerned would probably be regarded as having broken
Universelle des Droits de l’Homme,
1964; A.Eide (ed.), The Universal Article 56; certainly this was the attitude of most members of the United
Declaration of Human Rights: A Nations towards the South African policy of apartheid. In its Advisory
Commentary, 1992; A.Eide et al.
(eds), The Universal Declaration of
Opinion in the Namibia case, the ICJ held:
Human Rights, 1992; J.C.Salcedo,
Human Rights, Universal
Declaration (1948), EPIL II (1995),
To establish…and to enforce, distinctions, exclusions, restrictions
922–6; K.-J.Partsch, Human Rights and limitations exclusively based on grounds of race, colour, descent
in General, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental
603–11.
human rights is a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles
of the Charter.24
Whatever legal obligations may or may not be imposed by Articles 55 and

56 of the Charter, it is clear that these provisions confer no international
rights on individuals, but only benefits. In countries, such as the United
States, where the ratification of the Charter has the effect of transforming it
into municipal law, courts have generally held that Articles 55 and 56 are
too imprecise to confer any rights on individuals.
There are other provisions in the Charter which mention human rights;25
but all of them are weak and there is no enforcement mechanism laid down.
There is also Article 2(7) stating that nothing in the Charter shall authorize
the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state.26 But, as we shall see, this provision was later
interpreted as not preventing UN bodies from addressing human rights
violations in member states.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a resolution which was passed
by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, by forty-eight votes to
nil, with eight abstentions (the communist countries, plus Saudi Arabia
and South Africa).27 Its provisions fall into two main categories.
First, there are provisions enunciating what have subsequently come to
be known as civil and political rights. They prohibit slavery, inhuman
treatment, arbitrary arrest and arbitrary interference with privacy, together
with discrimination on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or 28 See Chapter 3 above, 58 and text
below, 216.
other status. They also proclaim the right to a fair trial, freedom of 29 Text in AJIL 63 (1969), 674. See also
movement and residence, the right to seek political asylum, the right to Filartiga v. Peña-Irala, ILM 19 (1980),
966, 971 and 973, discussed in Chapter
possess and change nationality, the right to marry, the right to own 7 above, 114.
property, freedom of belief and worship, freedom of opinion and 30 See C.-A.Fleischhauer, Article 13, in
expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, free elections Simma CUNAC, 265–79.
31 See A.Eide/T.Opsahl (eds), The
and equal opportunities for access to public positions. Human Right Organs of the United
The second group of provisions is concerned with what have Nations, 1985; R.Lagoni, Article 62, in
subsequently come to be known as economic, social and cultural rights: Simma CUNAC, 843; K.J.Partsch,
Article 55(c), ibid., 776–93; Partsch,
the right to social security, to full employment and fair conditions of Article 68, ibid., 888–92. On ECOSOC
work, to an adequate standard of living, to education and to participation see Chapter 21 below, 382–3.
in the cultural life of the community.
After the preamble, the opening words of the resolution are as follows:
The General Assembly Proclaims this Universal Declaration of

Human Rights as a common standard of achievement [l’ideal
commun a atteindre] for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and
education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and
by progressive measures, national and international, to secure
their universal and effective recognition and observance.
Many laymen imagine that states are under a legal obligation to respect
the rights listed in the Declaration. But most of the states which voted in
favour of the Universal Declaration regarded it as a statement of a relatively
distant ideal, which involved little or nothing in the way of legal obligations.
The Declaration merely recommends states to keep it in mind and to
‘strive…by progressive [not immediate] measures…to secure …universal
and effective recognition and observance’ of its provisions. At most, the
Declaration is simply a list of the human rights which member states
‘pledge’ themselves to ‘promote’ under Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter;
but, as we have seen, the Charter leaves a wide discretion to states
concerning the speed and means of fulfilling their pledge.
It is possible, however, that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, at least in some parts (like the prohibition of torture),28 may
subsequently have become binding as a new rule of customary
international law. For instance, the United Nations Conference on Human
Rights at Teheran in 1968 passed a resolution proclaiming, inter alia,
that ‘the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…constitutes an
obligation for the members of the international community’.29
United Nations bodies active in the field of human rights

Under Article 13 of the Charter the UN General Assembly can initiate
studies and make recommendations on human rights issues.30 An
important body in this connection is the Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC), which consists of fifty-four members elected by the General
Assembly.31 Under Article 62 of the Charter ECOSOC can make
recommendations on human rights, draft conventions, and convene
international human rights conferences. It hears reports from a wide
range of bodies.
In 1946 the United Nations set up a Commission on Human Rights
214 HUMAN RIGHTS
32 1967 ECOSOC Res. 1235 (XLII).

33 1971 ECOSOC Res. 1503
(as a subsidiary body of ECOSOC, composed now of forty-three
(XXVIII). representatives of member states on the basis of equitable geographical
34 M.Nowak, Country-Oriented
Human Rights Protection by the UN
distribution), to carry out research and to draft treaties implementing Articles
Commission on Human Rights and 55 and 56 of the Charter. In the first twenty years of its existence the
its Sub-Commission, NYIL 22
(1991), 91–162; On the recent
Commission had no authority to deal with complaints that were sent to the
activity of the Commission, see UN Secretary-General. Against the background of the situation in Southern
J.R.Crook, The Fiftieth Session of
the UN Commission on Human
Africa, in 1967 it was empowered by an ECOSOC resolution ‘to examine
Rights, AJIL 88 (1994), 806–21; on information relevant to gross violations of human rights’ and to study
the 1995 Session, see AJIL 90
(1996), 126–38.
‘situations which reveal a consistent pattern of violations of human rights’.32
35 See Chapter 21 below, 378. This became the basis for public investigations against particular states,
36 See Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action of 25 June
either on an ad hoc basis (in the case of Iran in 1990) or through a standing
1993, UN Doc. A/CONF. 157/23; working group (in the case of Chile under the military regime).
ILM 32 (1993), 1661.
37 UN GA Res. 48/141 of 20
Furthermore, another ECOSOC Resolution adopted in 197133 authorized
December 1993, ILM 33 (1994), the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
303. See A.Clapham, Creating the
High Commissioner for Human
Minorities to appoint a working group to deal with individual petitions which
Rights: The Outside Story, EJIL 5 appear to reveal a ‘consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights’.
(1994), 556–68.
Since then the Commission has been able to debate such complaints and to
make recommendations; but so far the Commission has made little use of
these powers, limited though they are. It is also important to note that the
procedure is not concerned with individual abuses as such, but with
‘situations’, although the procedure is applicable to all states and to all rights
listed in the 1948 Declaration. The procedure is to a large extent ineffective;
the examination takes place in private and ends with a report to the Sub-
Commission. The Commission has no enforcement power; it can only make
recommendations and has no right to enter territory or to hear witnesses.34
The UN further maintains a Human Rights Centre in Geneva; but it
only has fifty experts and works to a budget of US$11 million, which is
about 0.7 per cent of the UN budget.35 Following the World Conference on
Human Rights held in 1993 in Vienna,36 the UN General Assembly (by
consensus) also created the post of a High Commissioner for Human Rights,
an issue which had been controversial for many years.37 The difficulties of
the negotiating process are reflected in the complicated language addressing
the responsibilities of the High Commissioner in paragraph 3 of the relevant
resolution. The General Assembly decided that the High Commissioner
shall combine the following tasks, the objective reconciliation of all of which
at the same time is difficult to imagine:
(a) Function within the framework of the Charter of the United
Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other
international instruments of human rights and international
law, including the obligations, within this framework, to
respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and jurisdiction
of States to promote the universal respect for and
observance of all human rights, in the recognition that, in
the framework of the purposes and principles of the Charter,
the promotion and protection of all human rights is a
legitimate concern of the international community;
(b) Be guided by the recognition that all human rights—civil,
cultural, economic, political and social—are universal,
indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and that, while
the significance of national and regional particularities 38 Ibid., at 305. On the right to
development, see Chapter 15 below,
and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds
239–40.
must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless 39 See Z.Kedzia, The United Nations
of their political, economic and cultural systems, to High Commissioner for Human Rights,
promote and protect all human rights and fundamental in FS Bernhardt, 435–52.
freedoms; 40 Texts in Brownlie BDIL, 262, 270.
See E.W.Vierdag, Some Remarks
(c) Recognize the importance of promoting a balanced and
about Special Features of Human
sustainable development for all people and of ensuring Rights Treaties, NYIL 25 (1994), 119–
realization of the right to development, as established 42; G.C. Jonathan, Human Rights
in the Declaration on the Right to Development.38 Covenants, EPIL II (1995), 915–22.
41 State of Ratifications of Major Human
Ambassador Ayala Lasso from Ecuador was appointed as the first High Rights Conventions as of 31 July 1996,
NQHR 14 (1996), 360 et seq. See also
Commissioner in 1994 with the rank of an Under-Secretary-General of H.Hannum/D.D.Fisher (eds), United
the UN. It remains to be seen to what extent the effectiveness of the States Ratification of the International
international protection of human rights can really be improved by the Covenants on Human Rights, 1993;
creation of this office, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.39 L.Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human
Rights Conventions: The Ghost of
Senator Bricker, AJIL 89 (1995), 341–9.
42 M.J.Bossuyt, Guide to the ‘Travaux
The 1966 Covenants Préparatoires’ of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
On 16 December 1966, after twelve years of discussion, the United 1987; P.R.Ghandi, The Human Rights
Nations completed the drafting of two treaties designed to transform Committee and Derogation in Public
the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into binding, Emergencies, GYIL 32 (1989), 321–61;
W.A.Schaba, The Omission of the Right
detailed rules of law: the International Covenant on Civil and Political to Property in the International
Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Covenants, Hague YIL 4 (1991), 135–
Rights.40 Both Covenants came into force in 1976. As of 31 July 1996, 70; M.Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights: CCPR Commentary,
134 states were parties to the International Covenant on Economic, 1993; D.McGoldrick, The Human Rights
Social and Cultural Rights and to the International Covenant on Civil Committee. Its Role in the Development
and Political Rights.41 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, 2nd edn 1994.
In many of their articles, the two Covenants closely follow the 1948 C.Tomuschat, International Covenant on
Universal Declaration and they also provide for monitoring systems Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights
which, however, are rather weak. The Covenant on Civil and Political Committee, EPIL II (1995), 1115–19.
43 C.Tomuschat, Human Rights, States
Rights establishes a Human Rights Committee which is composed of
Reports, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 628–37.
eighteen members elected by the states parties.42 They are elected as 44 K.J.Partsch, Human Rights,
individuals, not as government representatives, which distinguishes this Interstate Disputes, ibid., 612–18.
Committee from the UN Human Rights Commission. The only 45 See Chapter 17 below, 267–8.
46 See the General Comment No. 24
compulsory mechanism under the Covenant is a reporting system (Article (52) adopted by the Human Rights
40), requiring states to submit reports on the national human rights Committee under Article 40(4) in 1994,
situation every five years.43 These reports are studied and commented ILM 34 (1995), 839. See further L
Lijnzaad, Reservations to UN
upon by the Committee, which may ask for additional information. As Human Rights Treaties: Ratify and
an optional procedure (Article 41) states may grant other states the right Ruin?, 1994; T.Giegerich, Vorbehalte
to bring a complaint against them before the Committee alleging the zu Menschenrechtsabkommen:
Zulässigkeit, Gültigkeit und
violation of human rights (accepted by only forty-five states as of July Prüfungskompetenz von
1996).44 But both states concerned must have accepted the procedure, Vertragsgremien, ZaöRV 55
and local remedies45 must first be exhausted. The procedure lacks teeth (1995), 713; J.P.Gardner (ed.),
Human Rights as General Norms
because it can ultimately only lead to a conciliation attempt and there is and a State’s Right to Opt out:
no reference to a judicial body which could take a binding decision. Reservations and Objections to
Another problem arises from the large number of various kinds of Human Rights Conventions, 1996.
See also I.Cameron/F.Horn,
reservations (150 between the 127 states parties as of 1 November 1994) Reservations to the European
entered by contracting states to their acceptance of the obligations of Convention on Human Rights: The
the Covenant, which tend to undermine its effective implementation.46 Belilos Case, GYIL 33 (1990),
216 HUMAN RIGHTS
69–129; On reservations to treaties

in general see Chapter 9 above,
There is also an optional protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political
135–6. Rights, which provides for individual petitions; but all that the Human
47 See C.Tomuschat, Making
Individual Communications an
Rights Committee can do is to call upon the state concerned for explanations,
Effective Tool for the Protection of and make recommendations.47 In 1996 only eighty-one states were parties
Human Rights, in FS Bernhardt,
615–34; idem, Human Rights and
to the optional protocol. About 1,000 complaints a year are received under
Individual Complaints, in Wolfrum the optional protocol, only forty to fifty of which are officially registered.
UNLPP I, 619–27.
48 G.J.Naldi, United Nations Seeks
Of the about 600 complaints that were filed in the past twenty years, roughly
to Abolish the Death Penalty, ICLQ 50 per cent were rejected as inadmissible. A Second Optional Protocol of
40 (1991), 948 et seq.;
W.A.Schabas, The Abolition of the
1989 aims at the abolition of the death penalty, but in 1996 it was in force
Death Penalty in International Law, for only twenty-nine states.48
1993; C.Schreuer, Capital
Punishment and Human Rights, in
The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights only knows a
FS Bernhardt, 563–77. reporting system. No provision is made for inter-state complaints or individual
49 See P.Alston, The Committee on petitions. The reports from member states were originally examined by a
Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, in Alston (ed.), 1992, op. cit., Working Group established by ECOSOC, composed of fifteen members
473; A.Eide/ C.Krause/A.Rosas selected from government representatives. Since 1987 there has been a
(eds), Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights—A Textbook, 1994; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of eighteen independent
B.Simma, Die internationale experts who are responsible to ECOSOC.49 The Committee prepares ‘General
Kontrolle des VN-Paktes über
wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Comments’ and exchanges general views on particular rights in the
Rechte: neue Entwicklungen, in FS Convention. It should be noted that the rights of this Covenant (different
Bernhardt, 599–614; M.C.R.Craven,
The International Covenant on
from the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) are formulated not as directly
Economic, Social, and Cultural binding obligations, but described in terms of a programme depending on
Rights— A Perspective on Its the goodwill and resources of states. Article 2 states that each state party
Development, 1995.
50 78 UNTS 277; ILM 28 (1989), undertakes steps to the maximum of its available resources ‘with a view to
754; See L.J.LeBlanc, The United achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the
States and the Genocide
Convention, 1990; G. Andreapoulos, present Covenant’, which makes the legal obligation rather weak.
Genocide. Conceptual and Historical
Dimensions, 1994. On the case
brought by Bosnia and Herzegovina
before the ICJ against Yugoslavia Other human rights instruments on the universal level
(Serbia and Montenegro) under the
Genocide Convention, see Chapter There are numerous other international human rights treaties that have
18 below, 292.
51 660 UNTS 13; Brownlie BDIL, 310. been adopted under the auspices of the UN since 1948. They include the
52 1249 UNTS 13; ILM 19 (1980), 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide50 (121
33. For the UN General Assembly
Resolutions 50/202 and 50/203 ratifications by 1996), the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination
approving an amendment to Article of All Forms of Racial Discrimination51 (147 ratifications with only twenty-
20 of the Convention see ILM 35
(1996), 485. For the Declaration and two states recognizing the competence of the Committee under Article 14),
Platform for Action (15 September the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
1995) of the UN Fourth World
Conference on Women (Beijing), Against Women52 (153 ratifications), the 1984 Convention Against Torture
see ILM 35 (1996), 401. See further and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment53 (ninety-
Cook (ed.), Human Rights of
Women: National and International six ratifications). All of these Conventions have entered into force, although
Perspectives, 1994; D.J.Sullivan, the level of participation by states varies. An outstanding example is the
Women’s Human Rights and the
1993 World Conference on Human 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.54 On 31 July 1996, it had
Rights, AJIL 88 (1994), 152.
53 ILM 23 (1984), 1027; amended
received almost universal ratification by 187 state parties. No other
text in ILM 24 (1985), 535. See international treaty in history has been ratified so quickly (in only six years)
J.H. Burgers/H.Danelius, The UN by so many countries.
Convention Against Torture: A
Handbook on the Convention In addition, there are many other human rights treaties concluded under
against Torture and other Cruel, the umbrella of the International Labour Organization, UNESCO and other
Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, 1988; specialized agencies of the UN, too numerous to mention here. Furthermore,
A.Cassese (ed.), The there are international instruments aiming at the protection of special groups,
International Fight Against
Torture, 1991. On the European such as refugees,55 minorities, indigenous and tribal peoples,56 and the
regional counterpart of the 1984 disabled. A separate category is formed by the Geneva Red Cross
Torture Convention see K.Ginther, The
Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto laying down
THE REGIONAL LEVEL 217
international humanitarian law for armed conflicts. The implementation European Convention for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
mechanisms are often different from treaty to treaty, but generally
Treatment or Punishment, EJIL 2
speaking they are not very effective.57 (1991), 123–31; M.Evans/R.Morgan,
To what extent the proliferation of international human rights The European Convention for the
documents on the global level has led to the emergence of an international Prevention of Torture: Operational
customary law of human rights binding upon all states is a matter of debate. Practice, ICLQ 41 (1992), 590 et seq.;
J.Murdoch, The Work of the Council of
A positive view on the issue is taken especially by American authors.58 But
Europe’s Torture Committee, EJIL 5
this is not generally accepted59 and, considering the problems of cultural (1994), 220–48; M.Evans/R.Morgan,
diversity, universality and the impact of state sovereignty discussed at the The European Torture Committee:
beginning, a broad assertion of the customary law nature of many human Membership Issues, ibid., 249–58.
rights is at least open to serious doubt. There is a widespread consensus, 54 ILM 28 (1989), 1448. See S. Detrick
(ed.), The United Nations Convention on
however, on the necessity to cultivate the whole array of international
the Rights of the Child— A Guide to the
human rights instruments, to improve the coordination of the activities of ‘Travaux Préparatoires’, 1992; P.Alston,
the manifold institutions and bodies active in the field of international The Best Interests of the Child:
human rights, and to streamline the law-making process to avoid the Reconciling Culture and Human Rights,
apparent inconsistencies between the different treaties.60 1994; G.v.Bueren, The International Law
on the Rights of the Child, 1995;
L.J.LeBlanc, The Convention on the
Human rights on the regional level Rights of the Child: United Nations
Lawmaking on Human Rights, 1995.
55 See G.Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in
The European Convention for the Protection of Human International Law, 1983; D.A.Martin
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ed.), The New Asylum Seekers:
Refugee Law in the 1980s, 1988; R.
Conflicting ideologies and interests, and mutual distrust, make it difficult Hofmann, Refugee Law in the African
to reach agreement at the United Nations about human rights. Agreement Context, ZaöRV 52 (1992), 318–33; G.
is easier to reach at the regional level, where states are more likely to Loescher, Beyond Charity: International
Cooperation and the Global Refugee
trust one another and to have common values and interests. In 1950 the Crisis, 1993; K.Musalo, Irreconcilable
Council of Europe,61 an international organization in the following years Differences? Divorcing Refugee
comprising almost all the non-communist states in Europe, drafted the Protections from Human Rights Norms,
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Mich. JIL 15 (1994), 1179–241; United
Nations High Commissioner For
Fundamental Freedoms, which entered into force on 3 September 1953
Refugees, The State of the World’s
(thirty-three ratifications as of 31 July 1996).62 A number of protocols Refugees—In Search of Solutions,
(that is, supplementary agreements) were added later.63 After the changes 1995; P.Weis (ed.), The Refugee
in Eastern Europe a number of former socialist states also joined the Convention 1951, 1995; V.Gowlland-
Council of Europe and the Convention. On 28 February 1996, Russia Debbas, The Problem of Refugees in
the Light of Contemporary Law Issues,
was admitted as the thirty-ninth member state of the Council of Europe 1995.
and also signed the European Human Rights Convention (but not, 56 See Chapter 6 above, 105–8 and
however, the protocol abolishing the death penalty).64 Chapter 19 below, 338–40.
The European Convention, plus the protocols, covers much the same 57 See Y.Dinstein, The Implementation
of International Human Rights, in FS
ground as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; one revealing Bernhardt, 331–53.
difference is that Article 1 of the first protocol goes much further than 58 For a purported list of such rights see
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration in underlining the sanctity of Restatement (Third), Vol. 2, para. 702.
See also Lillich (1991), op. cit., Chapter
property, which is not mentioned at all in the 1966 Covenant on Civil
II; T.Meron, Human Rights and
and Political Rights. Since the Convention and protocols are legally Humanitarian Law as Customary Law,
binding on the states parties to them, they are drafted in much more 1989; O.Schachter, International Law in
detail than the Universal Declaration—as one would expect in the case Theory and Practice, 1991, 335–42.
59 See B.Simma/P.Alston, The Sources
of a legal document. Some of the details have the effect of restricting the of Human Rights Law; Custom, Ius
force of the Convention. In particular, Article 15 provides: ‘In time of Cogens, and General Principles, AYIL
war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation 12 (1992), 82, at 98.
60 See T.Meron, Human Rights Law-
any…Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under
Making in the United Nations, 1986;
this Convention.’65 A.A.Trindade, Co-Existence and Co-
There is nothing in the European Convention which corresponds to ordination of Mechanisms of
International Protection of Human
Articles 22–5 of the Universal Declaration, which deal with social security,
218 HUMAN RIGHTS
Rights (At Global and Regional

Levels), RdC 202 (1987–II), 13–435;
full employment, fair conditions of work and adequate standards of living.
J.S. Gibson, International Human These are covered in detail by a separate treaty, the European Social Charter,
Rights Law: Progression of Sources, which was opened for signature in 1961 and entered into force in 1965
Agencies and Law, Suffolk TLJ 4
(1990), 41–60; M.G.Schmidt, (twenty ratifications by 1996).66 The semi-judicial enforcement machinery
Individual Human Rights Complaints of the European Convention would be inappropriate for the European Social
Procedures Based on United
Nations Treaties and the Need for Charter, which uses a less ‘legal’ and more ‘political’ system of enforcement.67
Reform, ICLQ 41 (1992), 645 An attempt to improve the reporting system was made by an Additional
et seq.; R.B.Lillich, Towards the
Harmonization of International Protocol to the European Social Charter adopted in 198868 (five ratifications
Human Rights Law, in FS Bernhardt, by 1996) and by a Protocol amending the Charter signed in 199169 (ten
453–76.
61 A.H.Robertson, Council of
ratifications by 1996). On 9 November 1995, the Council of Europe adopted
Europe, EPIL I (1992), 843–50. See a further Protocol amending the European Social Charter which provides
also Chapter 6 above, 94. for a system of ‘collective complaints’.70 This system is similar to that of
P. van Dijk/G.J.H.van Hoof, Theory existing arrangements of the International Labour Organization. 71
and Practice of the European International and national organizations of employers and trade unions
Convention on Human Rights, 2nd
edn 1990; V.Berger, Case Law of and other international and national NGOs can submit complaints to an
the European Court of Human independent committee of experts.
Rights, Vol. II:1988–1990, 1992;
M.Delman-Marty/C. Chodkiewicz The European Human Rights Convention set up a Commission of
(eds), The European Convention for Human Rights,72 composed of individuals elected by the Committee of
the Protection of Human Rights,
1992; R.St.J.Macdonald/F. Ministers of the Council of Europe (the Committee of Ministers is a political
Matscher/H.Petzold (eds), The body roughly corresponding to the General Assembly in the UN). The
European System for the Protection
of Human Rights, 1993; R.Beddard, Commission hears complaints against state parties to the Convention who
Human Rights and Europe, 3rd edn are accused of breaking it. Complaints may be made by any other state
1993; J.G.Merrills, The Development
of International Law by the party to the Convention, although experience has shown that states have
European Court of Human Rights, little inclination to protect other states’ nationals except when their own
2nd edn 1993; A.H. Robertson/
J.G.Merrills, Human Rights in interests are involved.73 In addition, under Article 25, states have the option
Europe, 3rd edn 1993; L.Clements, of empowering the Commission to hear complaints brought against them
European Human Rights: Taking a
Case under the Convention, 1994; by individuals, groups of individuals or NGOs; all states parties to the
L. Heffernan (ed.), Human Rights— Convention have now accepted this right of individual petition,74 as it is
A European Perspective, 1994; J.A.
Frowein, European Convention on called, although the United Kingdom, for example, did not accept it until
Human Rights (1950), EPIL II 1966, even though it ratified the Convention in 1953.75 A commitment to
(1995), 188–96; D.J.Harris/
M.O’Boyle/C. Warbrick, Law of the accept it has become de facto a condition for admission to the Council of
European Convention on Human Europe. There are, however, a number of obstacles to be overcome before
Rights, 1995; M. Janis/R.Kay/
A.Bradley, European Human Rights the Commission can hear a complaint, and the obstacles are particularly
Law. Text and Materials, 1995; severe in the case of individual petitions. For instance, if local remedies
I.Cameron/M.K.Eriksson, An
Introduction to the European exist, they must be exhausted before the individual concerned or a state
Convention on Human Rights, 2nd party to the Convention can refer the case to the Commission;76 individual
edn 1995; P. Kempees (ed.), A
Systematic Guide to the Case Law petitions may also be rejected for other reasons, for example, if they are
of the European Court of Human anonymous or an abuse of the right of petition.
Rights 1960–1994, 1996.
63 Texts in Brownlie BDIL, 347. If it is admissible, the Commission investigates the complaint and tries
64 Protocol No. 6, ratified by all to solve the dispute by conciliation.77 If conciliation fails, the Commission
other parties. See D.P.Forsythe
(ed.), Human Rights in the New draws up a report on the merits of the claim, which it sends to the Committee
Europe: Problems and Progress, of Ministers. Unless the case is referred to the Court (see below), the
1994; A.M.Gross, Reinforcing the
New Democracies: The European Committee of Ministers may, by a two-thirds majority, decide that there
Convention on Human Rights and has been a breach of the Convention and order the defaulting state to rectify
the Former Communist Countries—
A Study of the Case Law, EJIL 7 the situation. In extreme cases, the ultimate sanction is expulsion from the
(1996), 103–11. organization—a threat which forced Greece to withdraw from the Council
65 Subject to certain conditions
and expectations, see R.Higgins, of Europe in 1969 (Greece was readmitted to the Council of Europe in
Derogations under Human 1974, after the restoration of democratic government).
R i g h t s Treaties, BYIL 48
(1976–7), 281–320, at 301–7, After the case has been heard by the Commission, the Commission or
319–20; J.M.Fitzpatrick, (in certain circumstances) a state party to the Convention may refer the
THE REGIONAL LEVEL 219
case to the European Court of Human Rights, if the defendant state has Human Rights in Crisis: The
International System for Protecting
accepted the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 46 (which all parties Rights During States of Emergency,
have done).78 The Court’s decision is binding and may be enforced by 1994.
the Committee of Ministers (Article 54). 66 On the list of ratifications see ILM 34
(1995), 1714.
The growing number of complaints and an increasing backlog of cases 67 Text in 529 UNTS 89, ETS No. 35.
has made a reform of the supervisory machinery of the Convention an See D.J.Harris, The European Social
urgent matter. The urgency is enhanced by the accession of new states Charter, 1984; K.Drzewicki et al. (eds),
Social Rights as Human Rights: A
from Eastern Europe and the prospect that by the year 2000 there may European Challenge, 1994; W.Strasser,
well be some forty to forty-five states parties to the Convention. While European Social Charter, EPIL II (1995),
the number of applications filed with the Commission had risen from 404 291–4.
68 ILM 27 (1988), 575.
in 1981 to 2,037 in 1993, the number of pending cases before the 69 ILM 31 (1992), 155. See M.Mohr,
Commission in January 1994 stood at 2,672, almost 1,500 of which had The Turin Protocol of 22 October 1991:
not yet even been looked at. On average it takes more than five years for A Major Contribution to Revitalizing the
European Social Charter, EJIL 3 (1992),
a case to be finally decided by the Court or by the Committee of Ministers. 363–70.
On 11 May 1994, the Council of Europe therefore decided to adopt 70 ILM 34 (1995), 1453.
an amending (meaning not optional) Protocol No. 11 to the Convention 71 See Chapters 2, 24 and 6, 94 above.
72 H.G.Schermers (ed.), The Influence
to restructure the control machinery by creating a new single Court of the European Commission of Human
which will replace the former Court and the Commission.79 The Rights, 1992; C.A.Nørgaard, European
jurisdiction of the Court will cover inter-state complaints as well as Commission of Human Rights, EPIL II
(1995), 154–9.
individual applications which it may receive from any person, non- 73 G.Nolte/S.Oeter, European
governmental organization or group of individuals claiming to be the Commission and Court of Human
victim of a violation of the Convention by one of the states parties. Rights, Inter-State Applications, EPIL II
(1995), 144–54.
Under the new system, applicants will be able to bring their cases directly 74 See T.Zwart, The Admissibility of
before the Court without restrictions. It requires ratification by all the Human Rights Petitions: The Case Law
parties and will be established one year after the last ratification (as of of the European Commission of Human
Rights and the Human Rights
31 July 1996 there were 21 ratifications), but the Court has been asked Committee, 1994; I.Cameron, Turkey
to take preparatory measures concerning its organization, which envisage and Article 25 of the European
a restructuring of it on the basis of functions allocated to the plenary Convention on Human Rights, ICLQ 37
(1988), 887.
Court, a Grand Chamber, Chambers and committees, as early as possible. 75 On the status of the Convention in
the UK see A.J.Cunningham, The
European Convention on Human
Other regional instruments Rights, Customary International Law
and the Constitution, ICLQ 43 (1994),
It is fair to say that the European Convention on Human Rights is the 537–67; R.R.Churchill/J.R.Young,
most sophisticated and practically advanced international system of the Compliance with Judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights and
protection of human rights. There are other regional human rights treaties, Decisions of the Committee of Ministers:
which are much less effective than the European Convention, although The Experience of the United Kingdom,
they partly follow its model. The American Convention on Human Rights 1975–1987, BYIL 62 (1991), 283–346.
76 See B.Robertson, Exhaustion of
adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) entered into force Local Remedies in International
in 1978 and had twenty-five states parties as of 31 July 1996.80 The Human Rights Litigation—The Burden
Convention organs have been established and have been making some of Proof Reconsidered, ICLQ 39
(1990), 191 et seq. The local
progress in the promotion of human rights in the Western hemisphere.81 remedies rule is discussed in more
The 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights has been ratified detail in Chapter 17 below, 267–8.
by almost all member states of the Organization of African Unity (OAU).82 77 On conciliation, see Chapter 18
below, 278–81.
The document signals an important development, but it is not only 78 W.J.G.van der Meersch, European
concerned with the rights of the individual, as its title emphasizes, and the Court of Human Rights, EPIL II (1995),
enforcement machinery is rather weak. There are also some 201–17.
79 ILM 33 (1994), 943; text in Brownlie
developments on the discussion of regional human rights instruments BDIL, 372. See R.Bernhardt, Reform of
in other parts of the world, for example, in the Arab states and in the Control Machinery under the
Asia,83 but, as yet, they have not attained any major significance. European Convention on Human
220 HUMAN RIGHTS
Rights: Protocol No. 11. AJIL 89

(1995), 145–54.
Finally, one should mention the developments on the promotion of human
80 C.M.Quiroga, The Battle of rights within the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation
Human Rights, Systematic in Europe (CSCE, now the OSCE),84 which, starting from the 1975 Helsinki
Violations and the Inter-American
System, 1988; C. Grossman, Final Act and the 1989 Vienna Follow-up Meeting, culminated in the 1990
Proposals to Strengthen the Inter- Charter of Paris for a New Europe and the 1992 Helsinki Documents which
American System of Protection of
Human Rights, GYIL 32 (1989), established a High Commissioner on National Minorities85 and laid down
264– 79; S.Davidson, The Inter- provisions for strengthening the Office for Democratic Institutions and
American Court of Human Rights,
1992; C.M. Cerna, The Structure Human Rights that has been set up in Warsaw with regard to the process of
and Functioning of the Inter- transition in Eastern Europe.86
American Court of Human Rights,
BYIL 63 (1992), 135–230; T.
Buergenthal, American Convention
on Human Rights, EPIL I (1992),
131–6; T.J.Farer, Inter-American
Human rights as a matter of international concern
Commission on Human Rights,
EPIL II (1995), 1004– 7;
T.Buergenthal, Inter-American Court
It is true that, on the universal level, the international protection of human
of Human Rights, ibid., 1008–11; B. rights still leaves much to be desired and that global consensus on the content
Santoscoy, La Commission
interaméricaine des droits de
and implementation of those rights often seems difficult to achieve.87 It is
l’homme et le développement de sa also true that the Charter, as shown by the travaux préparatories, originally
competence par le systems des
petitions individuelles, 1995.
did not attach as much significance to the promotion and protection of
81 For the advisory opinion of 9 human rights as to the maintenance of international peace and security.88
December 1994 by the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights on
But today there is no doubt, in view of the evolution of the practice of the
international responsibility for the United Nations, that at least serious human rights abuses may be taken up
promulgation and enforcement of
laws in violation of the Convention,
by various organs of the United Nations as a matter of international concern.
see ILM 34 (1995), 1188. Severe human rights violations no longer belong to the ‘domain reserve’ of
82 There were fifty ratifications as
of 31 July 1996. See
states, irrespective of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, and may be taken up
M.Hamalengwa/C. Flinterman/ not only within the United Nations, but also in various other multilateral
E.V.O.Dankwa (eds), The
International Law of Human Rights
or bilateral relations between states.
in Africa—Basic Documents and Thus, the investigation, discussion and condemnation (‘droit de regard’)
Annotated Bibliography, 1988; K. of human rights violations in a state, has become compatible with the
Mbaye, Les Droits de l’homme en
Afrique, 1992; R.Coheb/G.Hyden/ sovereignty of that state, although this has been disputed, in the past
W.P. Nagan (eds), Human Rights particularly by the former socialist states, while Western critics have
and Governance in Africa, 1993; F.
Ouguergouz, La Charte africaine diagnosed ‘double standards’ employed at times by UN bodies when dealing
des droits de l’homme et des with allegations of human rights violations.89 This development has
peuplesé, 1993; F.Ouguergouz, La
Chartre Africaine des droits de succeeded, independent of whether international peace and security are
l’homme et des peuples, 1993; affected, because of the moral, political, and legal significance attributed to
W.Benedek, Durchsetzung von
Rechten des Menschen und der
the idea of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of
Völker in Afrika auf regionaler und 1948 and the subsequent international and regional human rights treaties.
nationaler Ebene, ZaöRV 54
(1994), 150; U.O.Umozurike, Six
It led to the recognition of, in the words of the International Court of
Years of the African Commission on Justice in the Barcelona Traction case in 1970, certain ‘basic rights of the
Human and Peoples’ Rights, in FS human person’,90 such as protection from slavery, racial discrimination, or
Bernhardt, 635–45; E.G.Bello,
Human Rights, African genocide as obligations erga omnes. Furthermore, the International Law
Developments, EPIL II (1995), Commission of the United Nations classified in Article 19 of the draft Articles
902–10.
83 R.Daoudi, Human Rights on State Responsibility, ‘a serious breach on a widespread scale of an
Commission of the Arab States, international obligation of essential importance for safeguarding the human
EPIL II (1995), 913–15.
84 See Chapter 6 above, 34. being, such as those prohibiting slavery, genocide and apartheid’ as an
85 E.Klein (ed.), The Institution of a ‘international crime’.91 Such fundamental human rights, which perhaps also
Commissioner for Human Rights
and Minorities and the Prevention of
include protection from torture, 92 may even be ius cogens. 93 The
Human Rights Violations, 1994. jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice shows that the Court
86 Text of the Charter of Paris in has clearly accepted that the obligation to respect fundamental human rights
ILM 30 (1991), 190; the 1992
Helsinki Summit Documents are in is an obligation of general international law. This, however, does not
ILM 31 (1992), necessarily mean customary international law, but could also be interpreted as a
A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN 221
99 See P.Malanczuk, Humanitarian

reference to general principles of international law.94 Moreover, questions Intervention and the Legitimacy of the
remain open as to the content of those ‘basic’ or ‘fundamental’ human Use of Force, 1993 and Chapter 19
rights and their distinction from other human rights. below, 309–11. But see also F.R.Teson,
Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry
The right of UN bodies and states to ‘take up’ human rights into Law and Morality, 1988; N.S.
violations, if this is meant in the sense of a ‘droit de regard’ and a right Rodley, Human Rights and
Humanitarian Intervention: The Case
to criticize, however, must be distinguished from the question of which Law of the World Court, ICLQ 38
other remedies may be resorted to under customary international law (1989), 321–33; N.S.Rodley (ed.), To
Loose the Bands of Wickedness:
by third states in response to human rights violations. The problem is International Intervention in Defence of
that international human rights treaties have their own specific Human Rights, 1992; R.B.Lillich,
Humanitarian Intervention Through the
implementation mechanisms, and there are also often different treaty United Nations: Towards the
obligations on the part of the parties due to either reservations entered Development of Criteria, ZaöRV 53
to the treaty or the signing of an additional protocol. This leads directly (1993), 557–75; N. Chandrahasan, Use
of Force to Ensure Humanitarian
to the question whether they are ‘self-contained regimes’95 which may Relief—A South Asian Precedent
exclude the right of states parties to rely on remedies of general Examined, ICLQ 42 (1993), 664 et seq.;
D.Schweigmann, Humanitarian
international law, for example, to adopt peaceful countermeasures Intervention under International Law:
(trade measures or other sanctions) to protect and implement The Strife for Humanity, LJIL 6 (1993),
91–110; M. Heiberg (ed.), Subduing
fundamental human rights in another state as obligations erga omnes Sovereignty: Sovereignty and the Right
outside the specific procedures the treaty provides for.96 This question to Intervene, 1994; Y.K.Tyagi, The
Concept of Humanitarian Intervention
is unclear and has not yet been decided by the International Court of Revisited, Mich. JIL 16 (1995), 883–910;
Justice. Nor has it been answered in a definite sense by the International U. Beyerlin, Humanitarian Intervention,
EPIL II (1995), 926–33; G.J.Tanja,
Law Commission.97 In the end the answer depends on the interpretation Humanitarian Intervention and
of the relevant human rights treaties and their procedures. Humanitarian Assistance, in Law in
Be that as it may, it is another matter to discuss the legality of the use of Humanitarian Crises, Vol. II: Office for
Official Publications of the European
armed force or other compelling coercion by third states as a response to Communities, 1995, 67–96. See further
severe human rights violations in another state. This so-called right of Chapter 2 above, 19–20 and Chapter 22
below, 309–407.
humanitarian intervention (which must be distinguished from the protection 100 ICJ Rep. 1986, 14, 135.
of a state’s own nationals who are in danger abroad)98 has been abused in 101 See Chapter 22 below, 402–5.
the past by strong states to pursue other political, economic or military

objectives. The issue is controversial, but the better view is that a unilateral
right to use force to intervene for humanitarian reasons in another state is
illegal in view of the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter.99 In
Nicaragua v. USA, the International Court of Justice said that ‘the use of
force could not be the appropriate method to…ensure…respect’ for human
rights.100 Such intervention requires the authorization by the UN Security
Council as, for example, in the case of Somalia in 1992.101
1385; on the 1994 Budapest Summit S.M.Schwebel, The Treatment of Human

Declaration of the OSCE see ILM 34 (1994), Rights and of Aliens in the International
764. See A.Bloed/P.v.Dijk, The Human Court of Justice, in V. Lowe/M.Fitzmaurice
Dimension of the Helsinki Process, 1991. W.
Korey, The Promises We Keep: Human (eds), Fifty Years of the International Court
Rights, the Helsinki Process and American of Justice, 1996, 327–50.
Foreign Policy, 1993. See also Chapter 6 91 See Chapter 3 above, 59–60.
above, 94. 92 R.Kühner, Torture, EPIL 8 (1985), 510–13.
87 See C.Tomuschat, Human Rights in a 93 See Chapter 3 above, 57–8.
World-Wide Framework—Some Current 94 See Simma/Alston, op. cit., at 105–6.
Issues, ZaöRV 45 (1985), 547. 95 See B.Simma, Self-Contained Regimes,
88 See J.Delbrück, A Fresh Look at NYIL 16 (1985), 12, discussing the view of
Humanitarian Intervention Under the W.Riphagen (the former Special Rapporteur
Authority of the United Nations, Indiana LJ 67 of the ILC on State Responsibility).
(1992), 887, 892. 96 See Chapter 3 above, 58–60 and
89 See T.M.Franck, Of Gnats and Camels: Is Chapter 17 below, 271–2.
There a Double Standard at the United 97 For strong reservations on the concept of
Nations?, AJIL 78 (1984), 811, at 819 et seq.; ‘self-contained regimes’, see G.Arangio-Ruiz,
Schachter, op. cit., 345–8.
Fourth Report on State Responsibility, UN
90 Belgium v. Spain (Second Phase), ICJ
Doc. A/CN.4/444/Add.2, 1 June 1992.
Rep. 1970, 3, paras. 33–4. On this case see
Chapter 3 above, 59. See also 98 See Chapter 19 below, 315–16.
15 Economy
1 Restatement (Third), Vol. 2, part The law governing international economic relations is one of the most
VIII: Selected Law of International
Economic Relations, 261–337;
important areas in which international legal rules and principles and
J.H.Jackson/W.J. Davey, international institutions operate in practice. This reflects the remarkable
International Economic Relations, growth of the economic interdependence of the world since the end of the
2nd edn 1989; E.-U. Petersmann,
Constitutional Functions and Second World War and it is challenging traditional perceptions of
Constitutional Problems of international law.1 The concept of ‘international economic law’ which has
International Economic Law, 1991; I.
Seidl-Hohenveldern, International
come into use over several decades2 covers a vast terrain which is far beyond
Economic Law, 2nd edn 1992; the scope of this book. But to leave it aside completely would indeed convey
H.Fox, International Economic Law a rather misleading impression of the nature of modern international law
and Developing Countries. An
Introduction, 1992; M.Hilf/E.- as it stands today.3
U.Petersmann (eds), National It is still a matter of discussion among scholars what the term
Constitutions and International
Economic Law, 1993; J.H.Jackson/
‘international economic law’ exactly covers, the main problem being that
W.J.Davey/A.O.Sykes, Jr., Legal the close interconnection with norms of the municipal law of states
Problems of International Economic complicates the study of the area immensely.4 A restrained approach suggests
Relations: Cases, Materials and
Text, 3rd edn 1995; J.H.Jackson, concentrating on the international regulation of the establishment by foreign
Economic Law, International, EPIL II business of various factors of production (persons and capital) on the
(1995), 20–32; E.-U.Petersmann,
International Economic Order; ibid.,
territory of other states, on the one hand, and of international transactions
1129–37; For a collection of concerning goods, services and capital on the other.5 The Restatement (Third)
documents see S.Zamora/ R.Brand takes the following view:
(eds), Basic Documents of
International Economic Law, 2 vols,
1990; P.Kunig/N.Lau/W.Meng, The law of international economic relations in its broadest sense
International Economic Law, 2nd
includes all the international law and international agreements
edn 1993.
2 See, for example, G. governing economic transactions that cross state boundaries or
Schwarzenberger, The Province and that otherwise have implications for more than one state, such as
Standards of International Economic
those involving the movement of goods, funds, persons, intangibles,
Law, I, ILQ 2 (1948), 402–20.
3 See also M.W.Janis, An technology, vessels or aircraft.6
Introduction to International Law,
2nd edn 1993, 273.
4 For an integrated approach, see
The subject thus includes as sub-topics the law of establishment, the law of
M. Herdegen, Internationales foreign investment, the law of economic relations, the law of economic
Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd edn 1995, 3.
5 D.Carreau/P.Juillard/T.Flory, Droit
institutions, and the law of regional economic integration. But one could
international économique, 2nd edn also include many other questions, such as the international law of economic
1980, 11.
development7 or economic sanctions.8 As this book is concerned with an
7 See R.W.Bentham, The Law of introduction to public international law,9 this chapter selects only some
Development: International
Contracts, GYIL 32 (1989), 418;
very basic features of international economic law. Other legal aspects of
F.V.Garcia-Amador, The international economic relations, such as the problem of the extraterritorial
Emerging International Law of
Development: A New Dimension
application of national economic regulations,10 state immunity,11 the role
of International Economic Law, of transnational enterprises,12 air transport,13 telecommunications,14 the
1990; A. Carty (ed.), Law and
Development. Vol. 2: Legal
protection of the environment15 and diplomatic protection16 are addressed
Cultures, 1992; P.Ebow Bondzi- in a different context in other chapters. The following also leaves
Simpson (ed.), The Law and
aside international commercial law which deals with the relationship
THE BRETTON WOODS SYSTEM 223
between merchants and other private parties in their international Economic Development in the Third
World, 1992; S.K.Chatterjee,
business transactions and with international commercial arbitration.17 International Law of Development, EPIL
International economic law is to a large extent based upon reciprocal II (1995), 1247–51; R.Pritchard (ed.),
Economic Development, Foreign
international (bilateral and multilateral) treaties reflecting the commercial Investment and the Law, 1996. For the
principle quid pro quo. Customary international law in this area is multilateral agreement establishing the
insignificant. Under customary law states have always been regarded as International Development Law Institute
see ILM 28 (1989), 870. See also text
free to regulate their economic and monetary affairs internally and below, 00–00.
externally as they see fit.18 Some customary law limits of this freedom in 8 See J.Combacau, Sanctions, EPIL 9
the economic intercourse of states follow from the general principles of (1986), 337–41; M.P.Malloy, Economic
Sanctions and US Trade, 1990; N.
state sovereignty and state responsibility (e.g. concerning the treatment Schrijver, The Meaning and Operation of
of aliens and their property).19 Yet the principles of the freedom of Sanctions and Other Measures Short of
commerce, the most-favoured nation treatment20 or the principle of the the Use of Force, Ga. JICL 22 (1992),
41–53; J.A.Frowein, Article 41, in
convertibility of currencies are not guaranteed by customary law. Simma CUNAC, 621–8.
The Bretton Woods system and international economic 12 See Chapter 6 above, 102–3.
organizations 13 See Chapter 13 above, 200–1.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century the international trade system 16 See Chapter 17 below, 256–63.
had become based primarily upon liberal national legislation (e.g. on 17 See B.M.Cremades, Commercial
Arbitration, EPIL I (1992), 674–7.
the gold standard and on the convertibility of national currencies) and 18 E.-U.Petersmann, Rights and Duties
on bilateral trade agreements and so-called ‘FCN Treaties’ on friendship, of States and Rights and Duties of Their
commerce and navigation.21 The system collapsed with the First World Citizens, in FS Bernhardt, 1087, at
1094. See also S.Zamora, Is There
War, which was followed by protectionism and currency instability in Customary International Economic
the inter-war period. The Atlantic Charter of 1941 envisaged the Law?, GYIL 32 (1989), 9.
establishment of a liberal international economic order, an idea mainly 19 See text below, 235–9.
supported by the United States and the United Kingdom, to increase 21 See G.Herrmann, Commercial
international economic transactions on the basis of equal market access Treaties, EPIL I (1992), 677–83; D.
conditions. Blumenwitz, Treaties of Friendship,
Commerce and Navigation, EPIL 7
The modern global system of international economic regulation (1984), 484–90.
between states rests upon the multilateral system established by the 22 H.Going, Bretton Woods Conference
Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.22 The two main objectives of the (1944), EPIL I (1992), 494–5; S.A.Silard,
Financial Institutions, Intergovernmental,
Conference were, first, to advance the reduction of tariffs and other EPIL II (1995), 378–81; E-
barriers to international trade, and, second, to create a global economic U.Petersmann, Economic Organizations
framework to minimize the economic conflicts among nations which, at and Groups, International, ibid., 32–8;
R.F.Mikesell, The Bretton Woods
least in part, were held to have been responsible for the outbreak of the Debates, 1994; P.B. Kenen (ed.),
Second World War. The Conference led to the creation of the three basic Managing the World Economy: Fifty
international economic institutions regulating money and trade: the Years after Bretton Woods, 1994; The
Bretton Woods Commission (ed.),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Bretton Woods: Looking to the Future,
Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), also known as the ‘World 1994; J. Cavanagh/D.Wysham/
Bank’, and later the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), M.Arruda (eds), Beyond Bretton Woods:
Alternatives to the Global Economic
which will be dealt with in more detail below.
Order, 1994.
The underlying philosophy of the system is the theory of comparative
advantage, which had been developed by the British economists David
Ricardo and John Stuart Mill by applying the market theory of Adam
Smith to international transactions. It assumes that liberalized foreign
trade and the corresponding international division of labour creates benefits
for all participating national economies. In a nutshell, the international
economic order envisaged in the Bretton Woods system views market
access and the reduction of barriers to international trade and
monetary transactions as the main instruments to promote a high level of
224 ECONOMY
23 Articles 1(3), 55(a) and (b), 56 of

the Charter. See Chapter 21 below,
employment, to increase real income and to optimize the use of production
382–4. factors. This is supplemented by the goal of monetary stability as a pre-
24 H.G.Schermers, Weighted
Voting, EPIL 5 (1983), 398–9.
condition for sound economic growth. In addition, the principle of non-
25 H.J.Hahn, Organisation for discrimination aims at achieving the optimal allocation of resources and at
Economic Co-operation and
Development, EPIL 5 (1983),
preventing the distortion of competition resulting from a privileged position
214–22. of particular states. However, these liberal principles often conflict with the
26 A.-M.d.Zayas, European
Recovery Program, EPIL II (1995),
sovereign equality of states, as laid down in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter,
282–5. and their freedom to determine their economic policies and priorities, in
27 P.-T.Stoll, Economic
Commissions, Regional, in Wolfrum
spite of the commitments to international cooperation also in the social
UNLPP I, 434–50; W.Meng, and economic fields mentioned in the UN Charter.23
Economic Co-operation under the
UN-System, ibid., 451–60; R.
Communist countries refused to join a number of the Bretton Woods
Lagoni, ECOSOC, ibid., 461–9. On institutions on the grounds that they were based on a capitalist (market
ECOSOC see also Chapter 21
below, 382–3.
economy) philosophy. Developing countries, initially critical of the alleged
28 G.Corea, United Nations insensitivity of these Western institutions to poverty and problems of
Conference on Trade and
Development, EPIL 5 (1983), 301–
economic development in the Third World, gradually participated and began
7; R.Marxen, UNCTAD, in Wolfrum to play an important role in those organizations which operate on the basis
UNLPP II, 1274– 83; On the latest
conference, UNCTAD IX, held in
of the one-state one-vote principle. The influence of industrialized countries
South Africa from 27 April to 11 May remained overwhelming, however, in central institutions, such as the IMF
1996 see UN Chronicle 1996, no. 2,
58–60.
or the World Bank, which make decisions according to a weighted voting
29 S.Marchisio/A.di Blase, The system reflecting the amount of capital input into the organization and
Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO), 1991; J.P.Dobbert, Food and
which thus dispenses with the principle of the sovereign equality of states.24
Agriculture Organization of the The Bretton Woods system was complemented by the Organization
United Nations, EPIL II (1995), 413–
9; H.-J. Schütz, FAO, in Wolfrum
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).25 In 1960 the
UNLPP I, 499–522. OECD became the successor to the Organization for European Economic
30 See H.Sahlmann/B.Blank,
UNDP, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
Cooperation that had been set up in connection with the Marshall Plan
1284–90. aid given by the United States to reconstruct Europe after the Second
31 P.C.Szasz, United Nations
Industrial Development
World War.26 The OECD comprises twenty-six of the largest industrial
Organization, EPIL 5 (1983), 329– states in the Western world which together combine more than half of
36; B.L.Rau-Mentzen/G.v.
Koppenfels, UNIDO, in Wolfrum
world production and more than 70 per cent of world trade. It is primarily
UNLPP II, 1329–34. a forum for cooperation, especially with regard to the coordination of
32 W.Benedek, International Fund
for Agricultural Development, EPIL II
economic and monetary policies of the members. In addition, the United
(1995), 1146–9; P.M.Frankenfeld, Nations (which has created five regional economic commissions under
IFAD, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 694–
701.
ECOSOC for Europe, Asia and the Far East, Latin America, Africa, and
33 See B.S.Chimni, International Western Asia27) has set up quite a number of more specialized organizations
Commodity Agreements: A Legal
Study, 1987; C.Tomuschat,
in the economic field, the most important of which for formulating the
Commodities, Common Fund, EPIL interests of developing countries is the United Nations Conference on
I (1992), 683–6; Commodities,
International Regulation of
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was established in 1964.28
Production and Trade, ibid., 686–92; Under the umbrella of the UN there are also organizations dedicated to
R.Wolfrum, Commodity
Agreements/ Common Fund, in
the improvement of living standards and to industrial development in the
Wolfrum UNLPP I, 138–47. poorer countries, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),29
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),30 the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 31 and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).32 Furthermore,
there are a number of not very successful commodity arrangements which
aim to achieve a stable price level primarily in the interest of developing
countries heavily dependent on the export of raw materials (e.g. rubber,
coffee, tea, metals).33
Apart from the OECD, other economic organizations which are
regional in nature include the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
34 I.F.I.Shihata/A.R.Parra, Organization
Countries (OPEC),34 the European Communities (ECSC, EEC and
of Petroleum Exporting Countries, EPIL
Euratom), now under the umbrella of the European Union,35 the Benelux 5 (1983), 224–8. See also O.Elwan,
Economic Union,36 the European Free Trade Association (EFTA),37 and Organization of Arab Petroleum
Exporting Countries, EPIL 6 (1983),
the European Economic Area (EEA), created in 1992.38 (The EEA
281–7.
agreement, governed by the principles of European Community law, 35 See Chapters 1, 8 and 6, 96 above.
was signed by the EC and ECSC and the member states and seven EFTA 36 E.D.J.Kruijtbosch, Benelux
Economic Union, EPIL I (1992), 373–7;
states. Switzerland withdrew following a referendum. With the accession P.Pescatore, Belgium-Luxembourg
of Finland, Austria and Sweden to the European Union, EFTA has been Economic Union, ibid., 367–71.
largely absorbed by European integration.) Furthermore, there is the 37 W.Karl, European Free Trade
Association, EPIL II (1995), 237–40.
1988 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA),39 which formed 38 See, for example, A.Evans, The
the basis for the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA),40 concluded Law of the European Community
in 1992 between Canada, Mexico and the United States as a free trade Including the EEA Agreement, 1994; T.
Blanchet/R.Piipponen/M.Westman-
area open to further extension to Latin America as a counterweight to Clément, The Agreement on the
the European Union and Japan. There are also a number of other free European Economic Area (EEA),
trade areas and sub-regional economic organizations in Latin America,41 1994.
39 Text in ILM 27 (1988), 281. See
including the Andean Pact,42 CACM, ALADI, SELA, CARICOM,43 and S.A.Baker/S.B.Battram, The Canada-
MERCOSUR.44 The Additional Protocol on the Institutional Structure United States Free Trade Agreement, IL
of MERCOSUR, (founded by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), 23 (1989), 37–80; Canada-United
States Free Trade Agreement Binational
adopted on 17 December 199445 may lead to the first significant Secretariat: Background Note on the
integration process undertaken by developing countries. Chile joined FTA Binational Secretariat and A Status
MERCOSUR in June 1996. In Africa, for example, we find the Economic Report of All Cases Filed with the
Secretariat under Chapters 18 and 19,
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), founded in 1975,46 the ILM 30 (1991), 181; M.J.Hahn, Free
African Economic Community, established in 1991,47 and the Common Trade Agreement between the United
States and Canada (1988), EPIL II
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, created in 1993.48 In the Pacific
(1995), 469–73.
area, in 1989 the Asian-Pacific-Economic-Cooperation (APEC),49 with 40 Text in ILM 32 (1993), 289 and 605.
its seat in Singapore, was formed by a large number of states, including See F.L.Ansley, North American Free
Trade Agreement: The Public Debate,
Australia, Hong Kong, China, Indonesia, Japan, Canada, Brunei, Ga JICL 22 (1992), 469; M.D. Baer/
Malaysia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, S.Weintraub (eds), The NAFTA
Taiwan, Thailand, Mexico, Papua New Guinea and the United States. Debate: Grappling with
Unconventional Trade Issues, 1994;
In 1992 the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic D.C.Alexander/S.J. Rubin (eds),
created the Central European Free Trade Area (CEFTA).50 Furthermore, NAFTA and Investment, 1995;
in 1993 the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),51 which had F.M.Abbott, Law and Policy of
Regional Integration: The NAFTA and
emerged from the remains of the former Soviet Union, signed a ‘Treaty Western Hemispheric Integration in
on Creation of an Economic Union.’52 Among the CIS members signing the World Trade Organisation, 1995.
the Treaty on 24 September 1993 were Russia, Belarus, Armenia, 41 M.Minker, Central American
Integration: Evolution, Experience
Moldova, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan. and Perspectives, GYIL 32 (1989),
Ukraine and Turkmenistan joined as associated members. Georgia 195– 240; O.Ribbelink, Institutional
became full member in October 1993. Not all of such forms of Aspects of Regional Economic
Integration: Latin America, Hague YIL
cooperation in free trade areas and customs unions have led to the 4 (1991), 86–105; K.R.Simmonds,
creation of a legally separate organization. However, there is a danger Caribbean Cooperation, EPIL I
that the trend to create large trading blocs may result in a regionalization (1992), 533–6; K.R.Simmonds,
Central American Common Market,
of the world economy. This trend is also reinforced by the 1994 Energy ibid., 548–50.
Charter Treaty;53 which, subsequent to the non-binding European Energy 42 Text in ILM 28 (1989), 1165. See P.
Nikken, Andean Common Market, EPIL
Charter signed in 1991, is a novel multilateral investment and trade
I (1992), 155–9.
arrangement accepted by forty-nine states and the European Community. 43 The Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) established by a treaty in
1973, replaced the Caribbean Free
Trade Association (CARIFA) founded
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1962. Text of the CARCOM Treaty
in ILM 12 (1973), 1033.
The main ideas that led to the creation of the IMF rest upon proposals
made by the renowned economists John Maynard Keynes (UK) and
226 ECONOMY
44 Mercado Comun del Sur, ILM 30

(1991), 1041. Harry Dexter White (USA).54 According to Article IV of the IMF Agreement,
45 ILM 34 (1995), 1244. the essential purpose of the international monetary system is ‘to provide a
46 Text in ILM 14 (1975), 1200,
revised text in ILM 35 (1996), 660. framework that facilitates the exchange of goods, services and capital among
See J.E.Okolo, ECOWAS Regional countries, and that sustains sound economic growth.’55 Furthermore, Article
Cooperation Regime, GYIL 32
(1989), 111; S.Ajulo, Economic I mentioned, inter alia, the following purposes of the IMF:
Community of West African States,
EPIL II (1995), 16–20.
47 ILM 30 (1991), 1241. See K.v. (ii) To facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of
Walraven, Some Aspects of
Regional Economic Integration in international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion
Africa, Hague YIL 4 (1991), 106–26; and maintenance of high levels of employment and real
M.Ndulo, Harmonization of Trade
Laws in the African Economic income and to the development of the productive resources
Community, ICLQ 42 (1993), 101 of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.
et seq.
48 Text of the Treaty in ILM 33 (iii) …
(1994), 1067; see also ILM 34
(1995), 864.
(iv) To assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of
49 See D.K.Linnen, APEC Quo payments in respect of current transactions between members
Vadis?, AJIL 89 (1995), 824–34. For
recent steps taken by APEC towards and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which
a Voluntary Consultative Dispute hamper the growth of world trade.
Mediation Service and towards trade
liberalization see the documents in
ILM 35 (1996), 1102 and 1111. As of 1995, the membership of the IMF had increased to 179 states, including
50 ILM 34 (1995), 3.
51 See Chapter 6 above, 94–5. states arising from the break-up of the Soviet Union. The rights and duties
52 Text of the Treaty in ILM 34 of members are based upon ‘quotas’, which are supposed to reflect the
(1995), 1298. See S.Peers, From
Cold War to Lukewarm Embrace: economic and financial position of the members and which also determine
The European Union’s Agreements the level of financial contribution to be made to the Fund. The main organ
with the CIS States, ICLQ 44 (1995),
829–47. of the IMF is the Board of Governors composed of one Governor and one
53 Text in ILM 34 (1995), 360; alternate nominated by each member (usually the Minister of Finance or
corrections in ILM 34 (1995), 1158;
for the status of the agreements the Central Bank Governor are nominated). The Executive Board has at
reached see ILM 34 (1995), 593. On least twenty Executive Directors, five of whom are appointed and fifteen
the US Statement on the Energy
Charter Treaty see ILM 34 (1995), are elected. The members with the largest five quotas have the right to
556. appoint directors (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France
54 J.Gold, International Monetary
Fund, EPIL II (1995), 1271–8; and Japan). A maximum of up to two additional directors may be appointed
Restatement (Third), Vol. 2, 313–37; by other members under certain conditions. The voting system is weighted
P. Rawert, IMF, in Wolfrum UNLPP I,
724– 33. See also R.W.Edwards, and puts the actual decision-making power into the hands of the group of
Jr., International Monetary Western states with the largest quotas.
Collaboration, 1985;
R.C.Tennekoon, The Law and The IMF has manifold functions, but the main ones concern regulatory
Regulation of International Finance, and supervisory functions with regard to exchange rates,56 the regulation
1991; B.Steil (ed.), International
Financial Market Regulation, 1994. and coordination of the multilateral system of payments and transfers for
55 2 UNTS 39, TIAS No. 1501 current international transactions and include a number of financial
(1947) [original articles], amended
text in 726 UNTS 266, TIAS No. activities. With regard to the convertibility of currencies, the original Bretton
6748 (1976) [first amendment]; TIAS Woods system was based upon a fixed gold parity of the US dollar to which
No. 8937 (1978) [second
amendment]. the other currencies were tied. It had to be abandoned for economic reasons
56 J.Gold, Exchange Rates in in 1971 which led to an amendment of the IMF Agreement in 1976 allowing
International Law and Organization,
1989; Gold, Legal Effects of members legally to introduce flexible (‘floating’) exchange rates under the
Fluctuating Exchange Rates, 1990. supervision of the IMF.
57 M.Garritsen de Vries, Balance of
Payments Adjustment, 1945–1986: One important task of the IMF is to assist member states in balance-of-
The IMF Experience, 1987 payment deficit situations.57 So-called ‘special drawing rights’ (SDRs) play
a particular role in providing the required liquidity. The SDR is an asset
allocated to members by the Fund as a reserve asset or for use in support of
their currencies. It is valued by reference to a ‘basket’ of specified amounts
of the five most important currencies (US dollar, Deutschmark, Japanese
yen, French franc and pound sterling) and by reference to their exchange 58 See F.P.Feliciano/R.Dolzer, The
International Law of External Debt
rates. In effect, the use of SDRs enables members to acquire ‘hard’ Management—Some Current Aspects,
currencies against their own national currencies, but the mechanism is ILA Rep. 1988, 419; P.M.Keller/N.E.
Weerasinghe, Multilateral Official Debt
too complicated to be described here in any detail. Rescheduling: Recent Experiences,
As a result of excessive lending by international institutions, Western 1988; F.Gianviti, The IMF and External
Debt, RdC 215 (1989–III), 205–86; P.
states and private banks to developing countries which became unable to Adams, Odious Debts: Loose Lending,
repay their huge foreign debts, a serious international debt crisis emerged Corruption, and the Third World’s
Environmental Legacy, 1991; D.H.Cole,
at the end of the 1970s and it is still continuing.58 A rather controversial Debt-Equity Conversions, Debt-for-
issue in this connection is the ‘conditionality’ of loans offered by the IMF Nature Swaps, and the Continuing
World Debt Crisis, Colum. JTL 30
and the World Bank to developing countries with such huge debts. Under (1992), 57; V.P.Nanda/G.W.Shepherd,
so-called ‘stand-by arrangements’ between the IMF and the debtor country Jr./E.McCarthy-Arnolds (eds), World
Debt and the Human Condition.
(Article XXX lit. d), the debtor country must formally declare to undertake Structural Adjustment and the Right to
certain economic reform measures to counter its balance-of-payment Development, 1993; H.J.Hahn, Foreign
Debts, EPIL II (1995), 428–35; M.
deficit. This is a condition of the IMF for offering the loan, but it does not Bothe, Debt Crisis, in Wolfrum UNLPP I,
amount to a treaty obligation. Therefore, if the debtor state does not 366–79; A.Reinisch, State
Responsibility for Debts, 1995.
comply with the condition, legally it does not commit an internationally 59 Herdegen, op. cit., 229.
wrongful act.59 However, there might be difficulties in obtaining further 60 W.Meng, Conditionality of IMF and
World Bank Loans: Tutelage over
loans from the international institutions which in fact makes it difficult Sovereign States?, VRÜ 21 (1988),
not to comply. Such required structural adjustment policies often have 263; H.M.G.Denters, IMF
Conditionaliteit— Juridische aspecten
painful social consequences for the populations of developing countries. van betalingsbalanssteun door het IMF,
Whether they are really effective is a matter of debate. Many countries in 1993; J.-M.Sorel, Sur quelques aspects
juridiques de la conditonalité du F.M.I.
the South feel that they are being put under tutelage, and regard this as an et leurs conséquences, EJIL 7 (1996),
infringement of their sovereignty.60 67–88.
61 I.F.Shihata, The World Bank in a
Changing World. Selected Essays,
The World Bank 1991; D.D.Bradlow/S.Schlemmer-
Schulte, The World Bank’s New
Inspection Panel: A Constructive Step in
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)
the Transformation of the International
was set up together with the IMF at the 1994 Bretton Woods Conference.61 Legal Order, ZaöRV 54 (1994), 392–
As set forth in Article 1 of its Articles of Agreement, the purposes of the 415; H.Golsong, International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, EPIL
World Bank are to assist in the reconstruction and development of
II (1995), 1057–64; C.v.Monbart, IBRD,
territories of members, to promote private foreign investment by means in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 656–64; A.
of guarantees or participation in loans and other investments made by Broches, Selected Essays—World
Bank, ICSID, and Other Subjects of
private investors, to provide (under certain circumstances) finance for Public and Private International Law,
productive purposes, to promote the long-term balanced growth of 1995. On regional development banks
international trade and the maintenance of equilibrium in balances of see P.Kunig, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
1052–8.
payment, to arrange its lending policies to give priority to the more useful 62 Text in 2 UNTS 134 (1947),
and urgent projects and to conduct its operations with due regard to the amended text in 606 UNTS 294 (1967).
effect of international investment on business conditions in the member 63 See J.W.Head, Evaluation of the
Governing Law for Loan Agreements of
states.62 The Bank was originally concerned with reconstruction after the the World Bank and Other Multilateral
Second World War and is nowadays primarily occupied with granting Banks, AJIL 90 (1996), 214–34.
loans to developing countries to finance particular projects to improve
the infrastructure and economic development in the South in general.63
Membership of the World Bank requires membership of the IMF;
therefore the two organizations have the same circle of member states.
The voting system and the structure of the main organs is similar to the
model of the IMF; thus the largest shareholders enjoy a privileged position
according to their financial input. In essence, the Bank acts as a financial
intermediary which relends funds it raises in the market or guarantees
loans made to members through the commercial investment channel. It
also makes loans out of its own capital funds, but this constitutes a smaller
228 ECONOMY
64 B.S.Brown, The United States

and the Politicization of the World
part of its actual activities. In view of strong criticism directed against the
Bank. Issues of International Law pure economic criteria applied in the Bank’s policy in the past,64 it has
and Policy, 1992; D.Bandow/
I.Vásquez (eds), Perpetuating
recently become more sensitive to the social and environmental consequences
Poverty. The World Bank, the IMF, of the projects it finances throughout the world.
and the Developing World, 1994.
65 H.Golsong, International Finance
The World Bank is complemented by the International Finance
Corporation, EPIL II (1995), 1142–4; Corporation (IFC)65 and the International Development Association (IDA);66
A. Graf Keyserlingk, IFC, in Wolfrum
UNLPP I, 702–4.
these three organizations form the so-called World Bank Group. While the
66 H.Golsong, International World Bank lends only for specific projects to member states or to an
Development Association, EPIL II
(1995), 1127–9; D.H.Frankenfeld,
enterprise with a government guarantee at appropriate rates of interest, the
IDA, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 686–93. IFC provides venture capital for productive private enterprises independent
68 Convention Establishing the
of a repayment guarantee by the home state of the borrower. The IDA gives
Multilateral Investment Guarantee concessionary loans (in fact often amounting to grants, because of the highly
Agency (MIGA), ILM 24 (1985),
1598. See S.K.Chatterjee, The
favourable terms) to the poorest countries which are no longer able to
Convention Establishing the obtain finance under normal market conditions, and to private enterprises
Multilateral Investment Guarantee
Agency, ICLQ 36 (1986), 76– 91;
with suitable government guarantees. Affiliated with the World Bank Group
H.G.Petersmann, Die Multilateral is the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
Investitions-Garantie-Agentur
(MIGA)., ZaöRV 46 (1986), 758;
(ICSID)67 and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA).68
I.F.I.Shihata, The Multilateral
Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA) and the Legal Treatment of The GATT
Foreign Investment, RdC 203
(1987– III), 99–320; Shihata, MIGA
and Foreign Investment: Origins,
Following the Bretton Woods Conference and the creation of the United
Operations, Policies and Basic Nations, a charter for a complementary International Trade Organization
Documents of the Multilateral (ITO) to deal with trade in goods was drafted and finally completed at
Investment Guarantee Agency,
1988; S.A.Riesenfeld, Foreign Havana in 1948,69 but the US Congress, fearing that American interests
Investments, EPIL II (1995), 435–9; and options would be limited in international trade affairs, refused to
D.W.Bachmann, MIGA, in Wolfrum
UNLPP II, 884–91. accept it and it never entered into force. Instead the GATT, a multilateral
69 Text of the Charter in Cmd. 7375. treaty which was designed to operate under the auspices of the ITO,
See G.Jaenicke, Havana Charter,
EPIL II (1995), 679–83. became the central institution to liberalize trade in goods by
70 Text of the GATT Treaty in 55 implementing tariff reductions. But it also never entered into force and
UNTS 187. See J.H.Jackson, World
Trade and the Law of GATT, 1969;
operated on the basis of a Protocol of Provisional Application, signed
T.J. Schoenbaum, Antidumping by twenty-three states in 1947, pending the establishment of the ITO.
and Countervailing Duties and the In the following forty years of GATT’s existence, more than 130 states
GATT: An Evaluation and a
Proposal for a Unified Remedy either became formally a ‘Contracting Party’ or at least applied the GATT
for Unfair International Trade, GYIL rules de facto. In practice, GATT developed into something akin to an
30 (1987), 177; Restatement
(Third), Vol. 2, 263–312; K.R. international organization, although it lacked a proper constitutional
Simmonds/B.H.W.Hill, Law and basis and the GATT Secretariat never referred to it as an international
Practice under the GATT, 1988; E.-
U. Petersmann, Mid-Term Review organization.
Agreements of the Uruguay Round The purpose of GATT was to establish general principles and rules for
and the 1989 Improvements to the
GATT Dispute Settlement
the liberalization of international trade on the basis of a multilateral treaty
Procedures, GYIL 32 (1989), 280; by reducing customs barriers and other barriers to trade and by eliminating
R.E.Hudec, The GATT Legal
System and World Trade
discriminatory treatment between states in international commerce.70 The
Diplomacy, 2nd edn 1990; provisions of GATT, supplemented by about a dozen side agreements, form
W.Benedek, Die Rechtsordnung a complex web filling hundreds of pages of text, which even specialists in
des GATT aus völkerrechtlicher
Sicht, 1990; G.R. Winham, The the area find difficult to understand. The treaty has been amended several
Evolution of International Trade times by successive protocols. The most important amendment added a
Agreements, 1992; R.E.Hudec,
Enforcing International Trade new Part IV (Trade and Development) requiring Contracting Parties
Law: The Evolution of the Modern to give special regard to the economic needs of the less-developed
GATT Legal System, 1993; GATT
Secretariat, Analytical Index: countries and grant them preferential treatment. Most developing
Guide to GATT law and Practice, countries are now participating in the GATT in one way or the other,
6th edn 1994; P.Hallström,
although, as distinct from UNCTAD, GATT is still perceived as a
The GATT Panels and the Formation of

‘rich man’s club’, designed to operate according to the interests of International Trade Law, 1994; P.J.
the industrialized member states. 71 Kuyper, The Law of GATT as a Special
GATT members have agreed upon supplementary agreements for Field of International Law, NYIL 25
(1994), 227–57; H.v.Houtte, The Law of
the purpose of interpreting, implementing and even (in the case of International Trade, 1995; G.Jänicke,
textiles and agriculture), modifying certain provisions of GATT which General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(1947), EPIL II (1995), 502–610.
have been put into operation separately. Examples are the Cotton 71 See further G.M.Engblom,
Textiles Agreement of 1962, replaced by the Multi-Fibre Textiles International Trade Centre UNCTAD/
GATT, EPIL II (1995), 1385–8; J.E.
Arrangement of 1973, and the Anti-Dumping Code Agreement of 1967 Harders, Discriminatory Measures in
which was revised in 1979. One should also mention the 1979 Economic and Trade Relations, in
Wolfrum UNLPP I, 424–33.
Agreements on the interpretation of the GATT provisions dealing with 72 E.Ustor, Most-Favoured-Nation
export subsidies and countervailing duties, and other agreements on Clause, EPIL 8 (1985), 411–6.
73 Article I GAR
technical barriers to trade, on import licensing procedures, and on 74 Article III.
government procurement. 75 H.Ballreich, Customs Union, EPIL I
(1992), 920–3.
The most-favoured nation (MFN) clause is the central principle of 76 P.Fischer, Free Trade Areas, EPIL II
GATT72 It provides for non-discrimination among trading partners by (1995), 473–8.
77 Article IX GATT.
requiring all GATT members to grant all other members of the Agreement
treatment (concerning any tariff or other concession) as favourable, in
relation to a particular ‘product’, as they accord to any other country.73
The MFN clause does not apply, however, to commercial transactions
not involving ‘products’ (which is interpreted to mean physical items),
such as transport, transfer of patents, licences and other ‘invisibles’, or
movements of capital. Once products have passed customs, under the
principle of national treatment, GATT members are obliged to treat
them on the basis of complete equality with ‘like’ (which is not always
easy to define) products of national origin.74 This is to prevent the use of
internal regulations to discriminate against imported products which
would in effect undermine the reduction of tariffs and other trade
liberalization measures through the back door.
In addition, there are exceptions to the MFN rule also with regard to
goods under the GATT, in special circumstances. If a country wishes to
protect its own producers against foreign competition, it may do so under
the GATT, but only by using the customs tariffs and not in any other
manner. This ensures that the actual trading conditions are transparent
and predictable for all suppliers. These tariffs can further be progressively
reduced on the basis of negotiations, which may result in the mutual
commitment not to increase them above the agreed level (‘binding’). The
MFN rule does not apply if GATT members form a customs union75 or a
free trade area76 or if they offer developing countries preferential treatment.
In order to prevent practices which undermine the aforementioned
core principles, secured by obligations to use consultation and dispute
settlement procedures, the GATT also prohibits the use of quantitative
restrictions (for example, import or export quotas, restrictive use of import
or export licences, or controls of payments concerning product
transactions) as a form of protectionism.77 There are exceptions, however;
for example, in case of serious balance-of-payment difficulties under Article
XIV. Developing countries are given large privileges with regard to the
rules on quantitative restrictions in view of their notorious balance-of-
payment problems. Other rules deal with export subsidies, internal taxation
and state-owned enterprises for basically the same reason. However, the
230 ECONOMY
78 See M.J.Hahn, Die einseitige

Aussetzung von GATT-
GATT also provides for a number of general exceptions, on grounds of
Verpflichtungen als Repressalie, national security, for example. Most problematic is perhaps the rule in
1996.
79 E.-J.Mestmäcker, Free Trade In
‘safeguards’ permitting GATT members, under certain circumstances, to
Services: Regional and Global impose restrictions on imports or to raise a ‘bound’ tariff in order to avoid
Perspectives, in D.Friedmann/E.-J.
Mestmäcker (eds), Rules for Free
or limit ‘serious injury’ to domestic producers under the so-called ‘escape
International Trade in Services, clause’ of Article XIX.
1990, 9, at 17.
80 T.Oppermann/J.Molsberger
In spite of built-in structural tension, normative contradictions and
(eds), A New GATT for the Nineties frequent resort of member states to aggressive unilateral countermeasures
and Europe ‘92, 1991.
81 Ministerial Declaration of 20
in their trade disputes,78 the GATT system has worked remarkably well
September 1986, in GATT, Basic as an instrument against tariff protectionism for quite a long period.
Instruments and Selected
Documents, 33rd Suppl., 1987, 19
This is partly due to its flexible semi-legal/semi-political nature of
et seq:, E.-U. Petersmann/M.Hilf application. Negotiations within GATT have reduced tariff levels in the
(eds), The New GATT Round of
Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
principal trading nations from about 40 per cent in 1947 to about 5–10
Legal and Economic Problems, 2nd per cent in 1986. As a result of the seven successive GATT negotiating
edn 1991; J.H.Jackson,
Restructuring the GATT Legal
rounds, from the Geneva Round in 1947 to the 1973–9 Tokyo Round,
System, 1990; T.P.Stewart (ed), The there has been a considerable increase in the volume of world trade
GATT Uruguay Round: A
Negotiating History (1986–1992), 3
(world exports in nominal US dollars were $56,000 million in 1948,
vols, 1993. $128,000 million in 1960, $312,000 million in 1970 and $1,985,000
million in 1980), almost 90 per cent of which is now covered by the
GATT. But it should also be noted that this continuous expansion
occurred largely among industrialized countries. The GATT managed
to keep developing countries (which suffer most from global economic
recession) within the system by granting them non-reciprocal preferential
treatment, although this did not meet their demands for more favourable
terms of trade.
However, GATT increasingly met with other problems. The progress of
the multilateral approach in reducing tariffs in the 1950s and 1960s was to
a large extent due to the fact that at that time the United States was
committed to free trade and that tariff negotiations can be conducted with
sufficient transparency and cause little transaction costs.79 In the following
decade multilateral instruments were unable to deal effectively with more
complex issues of, for example, non-tariff barriers, government procurement
and subsidies. In addition, the economic problems since the 1970s favoured
the widespread emergence of new forms of non-tariff protectionism, such
as so-called ‘voluntary self-restraint’ and other ‘grey area measures’ to restrict
foreign exports. This development, together with tendencies towards a more
regional economic orientation, such as in North America and in Europe as
a whole, presented a formidable challenge to the basic principles of the
GATT and the liberal world trading system it sought to establish on the
broadest possible multilateral basis.80
These problems led to the eighth GATT negotiating round which was
launched in 1986 by the ‘Uruguay Declaration’.81 The ambitious agenda
aimed at a fundamental restructuring of the GATT including the reduction
of non-tariff trade barriers, and improving the efficiency of the institutional-
legal framework to reduce non-compliance with, or evasion of, GATT rules.
Furthermore, the intention was to cover additional new areas, hitherto
unregulated, such as trade in services, trade-related intellectual
property rights (TRIPS) and trade-related investment measures
(TRIMS). Further principles and guidelines clarifying the objectives of
THE NEW WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 231
82 The Final Act Embodying the Results

the Uruguay Round negotiations were laid down in the 1988/9 Montreal of the Uruguay Round is reprinted in
Mid-Term Review Agreements. Originally, there were as many as fifteen ILM 33 (1994), 1; on the text of the WTO
different negotiating groups in the Uruguay Round, which were later Agreement see ibid., 13. For the Final
Act, as adopted on 15 April 1994, see
consolidated into six large groups. In essence, the topics can be classified ibid., 1125. See further P.-T.Stoll, Die
into the three following areas: WTO, ZaöRV 54 (1994), 241–337;
E.McGovern, International Trade
Regulation, 1995; W.Benedek, GATT—
1 measures to improve market access in traditional GATT areas The Uruguay Round—WTO, in Wolfrum
UNLPP I, 532–47; W. Benedek, Die
(agriculture, textiles, government procurement, and exceptions, neue Welthandelsorganisation (WTO)
including safeguards, anti-dumping and subsidies); und ihre internationale Stellung, VN 43
2 new issues (services, TRIPS and TRIMS); and (1995), 13 et seq.; T.J.Dillon, The World
Trade Organization: A New Legal Order
3 institutional aspects (dispute settlement, surveillance, and for World Trade? Mich. JIL 16 (1995),
organization). 349–402; P.Hilpold, Die Neuregelung
der Schutzmaßnahmen im GATT/WTO-
Recht und ihr Einfluß auf
‘Grauzonenmaßnahmen’, ZaöRV 55
The new World Trade Organization (1995), 89–127; E.-U.Petersmann, The
Transformation of the World Trading
System through the 1994 Agreement
After seven and a half years of protracted negotiations, the Uruguay Establishing the World Trade
Round of GATT was finally completed on 15 April 1994 with 111 of Organization, EJIL 6 (1995), 161–221;
P.J.Kuijper, The Conclusion and
the 125 participating states signing the final document. The final Implementation of the Uruguay Round
agreement on the new World Trade Organization (WTO),82 accepted by Results by the European Community,
ibid., 222–44; M.Hilf, The ECJ’s Opinion
104 states, entered into force on 1 January 1995 for eighty-one members, 1/94 on the WTO—No Surprise, but
representing more than 90 per cent of international trade, including the Wise?, ibid., 245–59; v. Houtte, op. cit.;
M.J.Hahn, Eine kulturelle
‘Triad’ of the United States, the European Union and Japan. Among the Bereichsausnahme im Recht der
twenty-seven multilateral agreements appended to the text of the WTO WTO?, ZaöRV 56 (1996), 315.
83 See P.M.Moore, The Decisions
accord, there is the new General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Bridging the GATT 1947 and the WTO
The WTO encompasses the GATT, the various supplementary Agreement, AJIL 90 (1996), 317–38.
agreements of ‘codes’ and a reform of the dispute settlement system 84 Article II, XII, XVII, XVIII, XXIV, XXV,
XXVIII and XXXV of GATT.
under a common institutional umbrella. It aims at integrating the GATT
(as it stood in 1947), the results of the successive multilateral negotiation
rounds (where the scope of membership varies) and the new Uruguay
Round agreements (‘GATT 1994’) into one single legal system. This
means that there will be two systems in operation in the future, at least
for a transitory period, because those states which do not wish to join
the WTO, or in spite of their WTO membership prefer to remain
contracting parties to the old system, are bound only by the previous
GATT arrangements they have accepted (‘GATT 1947’).83
Membership in the WTO is restricted to states and customs territories
(e.g. the European Community and Hong Kong) which accept both a
GATT Schedule of trade concessions as well as a GATS Schedule of
services concessions. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid the
‘free-rider problem’ in past GATT practice, under which many members
claimed rights under the GATT but did not make any concessions
themselves and often demanded far-reaching exemptions for developing
countries from GATT obligations, such as the MFN clause.
The trade agreements on goods

The Uruguay Round Agreements on international trade in goods basically
maintain the old GATT agreements, with a number of amendments.
There are also seven ‘Understandings’ on the interpretation of important
GATT Articles.84 In addition, thirteen multilateral agreements contain
232 ECONOMY
85 G.Sacerdoti, The International

Regulation of Services: Basic
concessions concerning agriculture, sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
Concepts and Standards of textiles and clothing, technical barriers to trade, trade-related investment
Treatment, in G. Sacerdoti (ed.), measures (TRIMS), customs valuation, anti-dumping measures, preshipment
Liberalization of Services and
Intellectual Property in the Uruguay inspection, rules of origin, import licensing procedures, subsidies and
Round of GATT, 1990, 6; K.P. countervailing measures, and safeguards. Such detailed agreements were
Sauvant/J.Weber, The International
Legal Framework for Services, considered necessary to make the system more effective and to limit the
1992; M.E.Footer, Global and trade policy discretion of governments in the interest of more predictable
Regional Approaches to the
Regulation of Trade in Services, trade and investment conditions (in combination with a more stronger
ICLQ 43 (1994), 661–77. international dispute settlement mechanism and clearer guidelines for
86 N.Hopkinson, Completing the
GATT Uruguay Round: Renewed
national courts) for private enterprise.
Multilateralism or a World of
Regional Trading Blocs?, 1992.
87 Petersmann (1995), Rights and The Agreement on Services (GATS)
Duties, op. cit., 1111.
88 See the Second Protocol to the
GATS and Related Decisions, ILM
Before the acceptance of GATS, the regulation of trade in services had been
35 (1996), 199. limited to bilateral treaties dealing with the treatment of nationals of the
89 P.Malanczuk/H.de.Vlaam, respective parties or to regional or bilateral agreements constituting free
International Trade in
Telecommunications Services and trade areas or customs unions.85 An important example is the Treaty of the
the Results of the Uruguay Round of European Economic Community, Articles 59–66 of which deal with services.
GATT, TSJ 3 (1996), 269–90.
90 Annex 1C of the WTO Services were included in the GATT negotiations because of the growing
Agreement. economic importance of the sector. In terms of value of trade, services already
represent a far greater proportion than, for instance, agriculture (world
exports in 1990 amounted to US$4,300 billion, of which 60 per cent were
in manufactures, 19 per cent in services, 11 per cent in mining and only 10
per cent in agriculture).86 Today, over 20 per cent of world trade and 60 per
cent of world production are in the area covered by the GATS.87
The GATS is built upon several layers. First, there is a framework
agreement which applies to any service in any sector, except a service
provided in the exercise of governmental authority either on a commercial
basis or in competition with other suppliers. Some of the basic provisions
follow the corresponding provisions in GATT law on the trade in goods.
Second, there are various types of ‘commitments’ in ‘national schedules’ to
take care of the fact that most barriers to international trade in services do
not arise from border measures (as in the case of goods) but from domestic
regulations, affecting (and discriminating), for example tourism, foreign
consultants or construction workers, or the operation of subsidiaries of
foreign banks on the territory of the receiving state. The GATS envisages
successive rounds of negotiations on the progressive liberalization of trade
in services. Third, individual (more sensitive) service sectors have found
special treatment, including financial services,88 telecommunications,89 air
transport services, maritime transport services and movement of natural
persons providing services.
The Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS)90 is concerned with a variety of private rights, such as the protection
and enforcement of copyrights and related rights, trademarks, geographical
indications, industrial designs, patents, lay-out designs and undisclosed
information. It is in part based on traditional legal principles of
GATT (e.g. most-favoured nation clause and national treatment
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 233
principle), but it also introduces many new legal elements into the 91 See Chapter 6 above, 91–4.
92 Understanding on Rules and
multilateral trading system by interconnecting it with existing Procedures Governing the Settlement of
international agreements on intellectual property. Disputes, Annex 2 of the WTO
Agreement, ILM 33 (1994), 112. See
Institutional aspects 93 Annex 3 of the WTO Agreement.
94 A.F.Lowenfeld, Remedies Along with
The highest organ of the WTO is the Ministerial Conference, which Rights: Institutional Reform in the New
GATT, AJIL 88 (1994), 477–88. On
consists of all member states and meets at least every two years. The countermeasures see Chapter 17
General Council is the main organ between the meetings of the Ministerial below, 271–2.
Conference and also consists of representatives of all members. There 95 On the problems of definition see J.
Betz, Developing Countries, in Wolfrum
are also special councils below the level of the General Council, a Council
UNLPP I, 398–406.
for Trade in Goods, a Council for Trade in Services, a Council for TRIPS 96 R.Caldera, The Juridical Basis of a
and further subsidiary bodies, such as the Committee on Trade and New International Order, RdC 196
(1986–I), 387; D.C.Dicke (ed.), Foreign
Development, the Committee on Balance-of-Payments Restrictions and
Debts in the Present and a New
the Committee on Budget and Finance. In addition, there is a WTO- International Economic Order, 1986;
Secretariat headed by a Director-General. In contrast to GATT, it is Dicke (ed.), Foreign Investment in the
Present and a New International
explicitly recognized that the WTO has international legal personality.91 Economic Order, 1987; T.Oppermann/
Apart from creating a single institutional framework for the numerous E.-U.Petersmann (eds), Reforming the
multilateral trade agreements, the new system also provides for a new International Economic Order, 1987; J.
Makarczyk, Principles of a New
integrated dispute settlement order 92 and a trade policy review International Economic Order, 1988; D.
mechanism93 applicable to all multilateral trade agreements. The new C.Dicke/E.-U.Petersmann (eds),
dispute settlement system, including a Dispute Settlement Body and a Foreign Trade in the Present and a New
International Order, 1988; H.Fox (ed.),
Standing Appellate Body to review panel decisions, is much more International Economic Law and
‘judicialized’ than the previous one and has considerably strengthened Developing States: Some Aspects,
the legal and binding elements of the resolution of international trade 1988; M.Buljic, Principles of
International Development Law:
conflicts. It has more teeth and is designed to limit the scope of power Progressive Development of the
politics and unilateral counter measures.94 Principles of International Law Relating
to the New Economic Order, 2nd edn
1993; U.E. Heinz, International
Economic Order, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
Developing countries and the legal quest for a New 749–59; J.Betz, International Relations,
International Economic Order North-South, ibid., 778–88;
C.Tomuschat, New International
Economic Order, EPIL III (forthcoming).
The call for a ‘New International Economic Order’ (NIEO) reflects the On the views of developing countries on
wide gap in living standards between North and South and the desire of international law in general, see Chapter
2 above, 28–30.
developing countries95 to redress the imbalance in the international 97 See Chapter 12 above, 171–5, 193–5.
economic system, in which their very position is notoriously weak.96 98 See Chapter 13 above, 207–8.
The programme of a NIEO includes a complex variety of claims which 99 See Chapter 6 above, 102–3.
have also manifested themselves in the controversy on the deep seabed 100 P.-T.Stoll, Transfer of Technology, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1229–38.
mining regime in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention97 or on the
101 I.Osterdahl, Freedom of
‘common heritage of mankind principle’98 in general, as well as in the Information in Question: Freedom of
discussion on the control of multinational enterprises,99 and in the call Information in International Law and
for the transfer of technology100 as well as for a ‘New World Information the Calls for a New World
and Communication Order’ (NWICO).101 It is generally recognized that Information and Communication
Order (NWICO), 1992; P.Malanczuk,
there is a need to increase the flow of finance to developing countries, Information and Communication,
especially to those which are burdened with heavy debt, and to low- Freedom of, EPIL II (1995), 976–91;
income countries depending on aid, to counter the acceleration of global J.Delbrück, World Information and
poverty and an unacceptable decline in living standards. But the legal Communication Order, in Wolfrum
UNLPP II, 1466–84.
content of the idea of solidarity among states is in many respects still
102 R.St.J.Macdonald, The Principle of
very ambiguous.102 Solidarity in Public International Law,
Development assistance in the form of the transfer of money from Etudes de droit en l’honneur de Pierre
North to South, claimed by developing countries as a ‘right’, has not met Lalive, 1993, 275–307.
234 ECONOMY
103 UN DOC.A/CONF.151/PC/51 of
5 July 1991, 3, noting that the 0.7
the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP set by international institutions and
per cent target which was reiterated accepted by most OECD members,103 albeit not as a legally binding
in the May 1990 Bergen Joint
Agenda for action, excludes funding
obligation. Some countries, such as the United States and Switzerland, even
for most Central and Eastern reject the 0.7 per cent norm as a moral principle with the argument that
European countries.
104 There are also other forms of
such ‘targetry’ is based on arbitrary norms and gives too much consideration
development assistance, such as to the quantity rather than to the quality of assistance. In fact, only very
the preferential treatment granted
under the GATT or the Lomé
few donor countries meet the 0.7 per cent norm. What actually has occurred
agreements concluded by the was a reverse net outflow from the developing to the developed countries
European Community with
developing countries. See L.
due to capital flight and high interest rate payments, as well as the fall of
Gündling, Economic and Technical commodity prices.104 The following may give some idea of the imbalance
Aid, EPIL II (1995), 9–13. See also
H. Eggerstedt/H.-H.Taake, Capital
and inequality which affect the developing countries. In 1994, of the
Assistance, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, approximately 5.6 billion people living on the earth, 15 per cent were living
87– 93; P.-T.Stoll, Technical
Assistance, ibid., 1209–19; E.Opoku
in rich countries (with an economic power of US$24,170 per head), 28 per
Awuku, A Trans-Regional Model of cent in countries with middle-size income (US$2,550 per head) and 57 per
North-South Trade: The Lomé
Convention, Hague YIL 8 (1995),
cent in poor countries (US$390 per head). This means that more than half
17–30. of the humanity is surviving (or dying) under conditions of utmost poverty.
105 K.Melchers, VN 44 (1996),
147– 53, at 149.
According to figures presented by the World Bank for 1994, on average, a
106 See the World Bank Report, person living in a poor country received little more than US$1 per day.
Adjustment in Africa. Reforms,
Results and the Road Ahead, 1994;
One-sixth of the countries in the world commands four-fifths of the global
H.S.Wilson, African Decolonization, wealth.105 The problems are most acute in Africa which has come to be
1994; F. Ansprenger, Afrika—der
verlorene Kontinent?, Internationale
called the ‘lost continent’.106 Of the forty-eight least developed countries in
Politik 51 (1996), 1–10. the world, thirty-three are in Africa. About 50 per cent of the 365 million
107 See UN Chronicle, 1996, no. 2,
4–9, at 5, which also notes: ‘By
Africans live in absolute poverty, and this number is expected to increase
1994, the external debt of Africa had during this decade.107
risen to $313 billion, equivalent to
234 per cent of export income and
The recognition of the huge development tasks that still lie ahead in
83 per cent of gross domestic most countries of the South has induced industrialized countries with market
product (GDP) — comparatively
higher than in any other region.
economies to give some sympathy to at least certain aspects of the legal
Exports have stagnated and by quest of developing countries for a NIEO since the 1960s. Thus, the general
1992 real commodity prices had
fallen to half their 1979–1981
idea of a NIEO found some support in the ‘Declaration on the Establishment
average levels.’ See also Y.Daudet, of a New International Economic Order’108 and the ‘Programme of Action
Les Nations Unies et le
developpement: Le cas de l’Afrique,
on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order’109 adopted
1994. by the UN General Assembly by consensus on 1 May 1974, although
108 UNGA Res. 3201 (S–VI).
109 UNGA Res. 3202 (S–VI).
industrialized countries already showed their discontent by registering
110 ILM 13 (1974), 744. reservations.110
111 UNGA Res. 3281 (XXIX). See
E.-U. Petersmann, Charter of
However, the subsequent ‘Charter of Economic Rights and Duties’ of
Economic Rights and Duties, EPIL I 12 December 1974, originally intended to become legally binding, revealed
(1992), 561–6; see also
R.L.Lawrence, A Special Session of
the fundamental differences between North and South.111 The General
the UN General Assembly Rethinks Assembly adopted the Charter as a resolution with a majority of 120 states
the Economic Rights and Duties of
States, AJIL 85 (1991), 192–200;
against six votes (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, the UK and
S.K.Chatterjee, the Charter of the United States), with ten abstentions (Austria, Canada, France, Ireland,
Economic Rights and Duties of
States: An Evaluation of 15 Years,
Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain). Thus, sixteen
ICLQ 40 (1991), 669 et seq. states representing fifteen major OECD countries accounting for over two-
thirds of global trade and development assistance did not vote in favour
of the Charter because they felt that many of its provisions went too far.
The relevance of the Charter, which like many similar documents calling
for change in international economic relations is not legally binding, is
thereby considerably diminished. A more balanced attempt to redress
the differences of opinion between developing countries and
industrialized countries was made in the ‘Declaration on the Progressive
EXPROPRIATION AND STANDARD OF COMPENSATION 235
112 ILA Rep. 1986, 2.

Development of Principles of Public International Law Relating to a New 113 See Chapter 17 below, 256–69.
International Economic Order’ adopted by the International Law Association 114 N.J.Schrijver/W.D.Verwey, The
Taking of Property under International
in Seoul in 1986, but this is only a resolution of a non-governmental Law: A New Legal Perspective?, NYIL
organization.112 15 (1984), 3–96; R.Dolzer, Eigentum,
Enteignung und Entschädigung im
The Charter emphasizes the permanent sovereignty of states over their geltenden Völkerrecht, 1985; M.
natural resources and their jurisdiction to regulate economic activity on Sornarajah, The Pursuit of Nationalized
Property, 1986; R.B.Lillich (ed.), The
their territory, especially with respect to foreign investment by multinational Valuation of Nationalized Property in
companies. The document contains provisions which are aimed at making International Law, Vol. IV, 1987; S.K.B.
Asante, International Law and Foreign
it an instrument of change in favour of developing countries, concerning, Investment: A Reappraisal, ICLQ 37
inter alia, international trade, the transfer of technology, preferential (1988), 588; Dolzer, Expropriation and
Nationalization, EPIL II (1995), 319–27.
treatment, protection of commodity prices, and foreign aid. Dissent 115 See the authorities cited by O’Keefe
particularly arose concerning the principles laid down for compensation in JWTL 8 (1974), 257–62. Some writers
add a further requirement that the
to be paid in the case of the expropriation of foreign investment. expropriation must not be discriminatory,
but this is probably best regarded as
part of the public purpose requrement
(O’Keefe, ibid.). Expropriation is also
Expropriation and standard of compensation illegal if it is forbidden by a treaty. The
United Kingdom argued that the
Egyptian nationalization of the Suez
The rules on expropriation of foreign property are comprised in the so- Canal in 1956 was illegal because it was
called minimum international standard which belongs to the core of the contrary to the Constantinople
Convention of 1888, but the United
traditional rules of state responsibility for the treatment of aliens.113 The Kingdom probably misinterpreted the
question is very controversial, and has been of enormous political Convention. See G.Schwarzenberger,
Foreign Investments and International
importance in the past.114 In many developing countries the economy is Law, 1969, 84–9; R.Delson,
dominated by foreign companies, but this problem is not limited to Nationalization of the Suez Canal
Company, Colum. LR 57 (1957), 755.
developing countries. 116 Norwegian Ships case (1921), RIAA
According to Western countries, the minimum international standard I 307, 338; Spanish Zone of Morocco
case (1925), RIAA II 615, 647;
contains two rules of customary law concerning expropriation. First, Shufeldt’s claim (1930), RIAA II 1079,
expropriation must be for a public purpose (for instance, it must not be 1095; Mariposa’s claim (1933), RIAA VI
338; de Sabla’s claim (1933), RIAA VI
an act of spite, or a means of adding to the ruler’s private fortune).115 358, 366; Arabian-American Oil Co. v.
Second, even when expropriation is for a public purpose, it must be Saudi Arabia, ILR 27 (1958), 117, 144,
accompanied by payment of compensation for the full value of the 168, 205; American International Group,
Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran (1983),
property—or, as it is often expressed, ‘prompt, adequate and effective AJIL 78 (1984), 454; Sedco, Inc. v.
compensation’.116 (Of course, no compensation need be paid when National Iranian Oil Company and Iran
(1986), ILM 25 (1986), 629, 632–5,
property is seized as a penalty for breaking an obligation imposed by 641–7.
the local law, provided that the local law does not fall below the minimum 117 A.Drucker, On Compensation
Treaties Between Communist States,
international standard by virtue of its excessive harshness.) Law Times 229 (1960), 279–80, 293–4.
On the other hand, communist governments used to argue that states See the change as witnessed, for
example, by the 1992 U.S.-Russia
may expropriate the means of production, distribution and exchange investment treaty, ILM 31 (1992), 794,
without paying compensation. But their practice was not entirely and the 1995 Russian Federation Law
consistent. Among themselves they concluded treaties providing for a on Production Sharing Agreements, ILM
35 (1996), 1251.
mutual waiver of claims and obligations arising out of one another’s 118 See text below, 237.
expropriation programmes, which implies that claims and obligations
existed until waived; even the payment of compensation between
communist countries was not entirely unknown.117
Developing countries with left-wing regimes tended to support the
communist attitude towards the legality of expropriation. Other developing
countries, however, entered into treaties for the protection of investments,118
in order to attract further foreign investment; but they showed an increasing
reluctance to accept the Western view of customary international
law about expropriation. Thus, the developing countries used to
vacillate between the Western countries and the communist countries.
236 ECONOMY

N. Schrijver, Sovereignty over
Most of them could gain a large short-term benefit by expropriating foreign-
Natural Resources. Balancing owned property without compensation, but in the long term they would
Rights and Duties, 1997
120 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 240; ILM
lose by doing so, because they would attract no private investments in the
14 (1975), 251, 255. future (or, alternatively, they would have to pay a much higher price for
121 Article 2(2)(c) was adopted by
104 votes to 1 6, with 6 abstentions;
private investments, in order to compensate for political risks).
on the legal position of states which Some of these conflicts and contradictions were reflected in resolution
dissent from a new rule of
customary law, see Chapter 3
1803 (XVII) on ‘permanent sovereignty over natural resources’, passed by
above, 42–3. the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1962.119 The very
122 For the significance of this
distinction, see Chapter 3 above,
title of the resolution is peculiar, and is designed to emphasize that foreign
35. See also Texaco v. Libya, ILM ownership of the means of production should not deprive a state of its
17 (1978), 1, 27–31, ILR, Vol. 53,
389, at 483–95; I.Brownlie, Legal
sovereignty or, more specifically, of its power of economic planning. The
Status of Natural Resources in resolution also provides, inter alia, that states are free to restrict or prohibit
International Law, RdC 162 (1979),
245, 255–71.
the import of foreign capital. These are principles which Western lawyers
might forget, but would never deny. Western lawyers are mainly interested
in paragraph 4 of the resolution, which provides:
Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on

grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest
which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private
interests, both domestic and foreign. In such cases the owner shall
be paid appropriate compensation, in accordance with the rules in
force in the State taking such measures…and in accordance with
international law.
This corresponds to the Western position, apart from the deliberate ambiguity
of the phrase ‘appropriate compensation’ (it is true that compensation is to
be paid ‘in accordance with international law’, but that begs the question as
to the content of the relevant rules of international law). As evidence of
customary law, the value of the resolution is diminished by the fact that a
Soviet amendment, stating that ‘the question of compensation …shall…be
decided in accordance with the national law of the [expropriating] State’
(without mentioning international law), was defeated by only thirty-nine
votes to twenty-eight, with twenty-one abstentions.
Resolutions passed by the General Assembly in the 1970s moved further
away from the Western position. In particular, Article 2(2)(c) of the 1974 Charter
of Economic Rights and Duties of States states that ‘appropriate compensation
should be paid by the [expropriating] State… taking into account its relevant
laws and regulations and all circumstances that the State considers pertinent’.120
This resolution, unlike the Soviet amendment of 1962, acknowledges that
appropriate compensation should be paid; but what is appropriate is to be
determined by the law of the expropriating state (the resolution makes no
express mention of international law in this context), and therefore
compensation is likely to be very low. However, it is doubtful whether Article
2(2)(c) can be invoked as evidence of customary law against Western states,
which voted against it.121 Indeed, it could be argued that resolution 3281 (XXIX)
is not evidence of customary law at all, since it does not claim to declare what
the law is (the General Assembly deleted a passage in the original draft of the
resolution which said that the resolution was intended to codify international
law); it merely says what many states think the law ought to be.122
EXPROPRIATION AND STANDARD OF COMPENSATION 237
The dispute has led to considerable legal uncertainty in this area of 123 On the status of more than 1000
bilateral and 8 multilateral investment
international economic relations. However, the question has now lost much treaties see ILM 35 (1996), 1130. See
of its practical significance, due to four main reasons. First, developing further M.Banz, Völkerrechtlicher
countries have come to recognize that the nationalization and expropriation Eigentumsschutz durch
Investitionsschutzabkommen (practice
of foreign property as an instrument of economic reform is detrimental to of Germany since 1959), 1988; E.
attracting the foreign capital they urgently require and to producing a Denza/S.Brooks, Investment
Protection Treaties: United Kingdom
favourable investment climate. Second, the collapse of the system of
Experience, ICLQ 39 (1990), 908
communist states has also reduced the leverage of developing countries. et seq.; P.Peters, Dispute Settlement
Third, many developing countries have accepted the Western standards Arrangements in Investment Treaties,
NYIL 22 (1991), 91–162; M.I.Khalil,
in bilateral investment protection treaties they concluded with industrialized Treatment of Foreign Investment in
countries, which means that much of the dispute on the content of Bilateral Investment Treaties, ICSID
customary law has become academic.123 Fourth, a number of recent arbitral Rev. 7 (1992), 272; K.J.Vandevelde,
United States Investment Treaties:
decisions have confirmed that customary law requires full compensation Policy and Practice, 1992;
in case of expropriation of foreign property.124 Of particular importance B.Kishaiyian, The Utility of Bilateral
in this connection is the jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Investment Treaties in the Formulation
of Customary International Law, NJILB
Tribunal concerning the nationalization of American investment in Iran 14 (1994), 327–75; R. Dolzer/
after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, although the three different Chambers M.Stevens, Bilateral Investment
of the Tribunal have not always taken the same view.125 Treaties, 1995. On legal problems of
foreign investment in general see B.
When disputes arise between states which believe that full compensation Sen, Investment Protection and New
must be paid for expropriation and states which think otherwise, they are World Order, ZaöRV 48 (1988), 419;
usually settled by a compromise; the expropriating state pays part of the R.B.Lillich, Joint Ventures and the Law
of International Claims, Mich. JIL 10
value of the expropriated property. The compromise usually takes the (1989), 430; M.Sornarajah, Law of
form of a global settlement or ‘lump sum agreement’, so called because it Internationalist Ventures, 1992; I.F.I.
covers all the claims made by one state arising out of a particular Shihata, The Legal Framework for
Foreign Investment: The World Bank
nationalization programme of the other state, instead of dealing with each Guidelines, 1993; M.Sornarajah, The
individual’s claim separately.126 A disadvantage of global settlements, in International Law on Foreign
Investment, 1994; M.A.Geist, Toward
the eyes of Western countries, is that only a fraction of the property’s
a General Agreement on the
value is recovered; on the other hand, if claims were settled in the old way, Regulation of Foreign Direct
by arbitration, many of them would be lost through lack of proof, and Investment, Law and Policy in
International Business, 26 (1995),
the expense of proving hundreds of separate claims would be enormous.
677–717; T.L.Brewer, International
In any case, even an arbitral tribunal would often find it difficult to Investment Dispute Settlement
define the true value of expropriated property; the value of a productive Procedures: The Evolving Regime for
Foreign Direct Investment, ibid., 633;
enterprise, for instance, is based on its profit-earning capacity, which P.E.Comeaux/N.S.Kinsella,
depends on local factors, and varies from year to year. Share prices could Protecting Foreign Investment Under
theoretically be used in assessing compensation, but everyone knows International Law: Legal Aspects of
Political Risk, 1996.
how share prices fluctuate. The principle is, however, that the amount 124 See P.M.Norton, A Law of the
of (full) compensation must be based upon the market value of the Future or a Law of the Past? Modern
property. In the case of income-generating property, like a factory, modern Tribunals and the International Law of
Expropriation, AJIL 85 (1991), 474; J.
arbitral practice tends not to accept mere ‘net book value’ (value of the Westberg/B.Marchais, General
investment minus depreciation) but to look for the actual market value, Principles Governing Foreign
including ‘goodwill’ (value of the business contacts, name of the company, Investment as Articulated in Recent
International Tribunal Awards and
etc.). According to the decision in the Starrett Housing Corporation Writings of Publicists, ICSID Rev. 7
case, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal used the following formula (1992), 453–96; C.F.Amerasinghe,
as a starting-point to determine the appropriate market value: Issues of Compensation for the Taking
of Alien Property in the Light of Recent
Cases and Practice, ICLQ 41 (1992),
The price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in 22 et seq.
circumstances in which each had good information, each desired 125 M.Fitzmaurice/M.Pellonpää, Taking
of Property in the Practice of the Iran-
to maximize his financial gain, and neither was under duress or United States Claims Tribunal, NYIL 19
threat.127 (1988), 53–178; J.A.Westberg,
Applicable Law, Expropriatory Takings
238 ECONOMY
and Compensation in Cases of

Expropriation: ICSID and Iran-
One controversial problem is whether in the case of a ‘going concern’ (a
United States Claims Tribunal Case business actually earning money) future expected profits are recoverable in
Law Compared, ICSID Rev. 8
(1993), 1–28; A.Mouri, The
addition to the current market value (after all, investors have taken risks to
International Law of Expropriation as make profits). At least if the expropriation act was illegal under international
Reflected in the Work of the Iran-
United States Claims Tribunal, 1994;
law, there is a tendency to grant compensation also for lost profits.128 To which
G.H.Aldrich, What Constitutes a extent the so-called ‘discounted cash flow method’, an accounting method
Compensable Taking: The
Decisions of the Iran-United States
calculating future profits and discounting certain amounts for costs and
Claims Tribunal, AJIL 88 (1994), commercial risks, can be used in this connection, is another matter of dispute.129
585– 610; G.H.Aldrich, The
Jurisprudence of the Iran-United
States Claims Tribunal, 1996, 171–
276. See Chapter 18 below, 296–8. Disguised expropriation
126 See R.B.Lillich/B.H.Weston,
International Claims: Their States often try to avoid unfavourable reactions from other states by carrying
Settlement by Lump Sum
Agreements, 1995; C. Warbrick,
out expropriation in a disguised manner—for example, by placing a company
Addendum: Protection of Nationals under ‘temporary’ government control, which they then maintain indefinitely.
Abroad: Lump-Sum Settlements,
ICLQ 40 (1991), 492 et seq. For
Such subterfuges are seldom successful; any act which deprives a foreigner
recent examples of such indefinitely of all benefit from his property is regarded by international law
settlements by the United States
with Albania, Cambodia and
as an expropriation, even though a formal change of ownership may not
Vietnam see, ILM 34 (1995), 595, have occurred. The position is less certain as regards acts which diminish the
600, and 685.
127 Starrett Housing Corp. v.
value of property but which do not deprive the owner of its use (for example,
Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US devaluation, exchange controls, restrictions on the remittance of profits,
CTR 21 (1989–I) 112, at 201.
128 For example: Phillips Petroleum
increases in taxation, and refusal to issue import licences, trading permits, or
Company of Iran v. The Government building permits). Such acts are permitted by international law, provided
of the Islamic Republic of Iran, ibid.,
79, at 122.
that they are not done for an improper motive. The easiest way of proving
129 P.Malanczuk, International improper motives is to show that the acts in question discriminate against
Business and New Rules of State
Responsibility? —The Law Applied
foreigners, or against a particular group of foreigners.130
by the United Nations (Security
Council) Compensation
Commission for Claims against Iraq, Expropriation of contractual rights
in K.-H.Böckstiegel (ed.),
Perspectives of Air Law, Space Law
and International Business Law for
So far we have been concerned only with expropriation of property, but
the Next Century, 1996, 117–64. there is no logical reason why the same principles should not apply to other
130 See Christie, What Constitutes
a Taking of Property under
forms of ‘acquired rights’, such as rights created by contracts between an
International Law?, BYIL 33 (1962), alien and the defendant state.131 However, such contracts are usually subject
307; Aldrich, op. cit.
131 On state contracts, see Chapter
to the law of the defendant state, and it has been argued that the alien, by
3 above, 38–9. entering into a contract governed by the law of the defendant state, must
take the risk of unfavourable amendments to that law, just as he takes the
benefit of favourable amendments. This argument is fallacious; when an
alien buys property in the defendant state, his title to the property is governed
by the law of the defendant state, just as contracts made with the defendant
state are governed by its own law, but few people would accept that the
defendant state has an unlimited power to take away property rights; why,
then, should it have an unlimited power to take away contractual rights?
The idea that an alien voluntarily assumes the risk of unfavourable
amendments to the law governing the contract has seldom been pushed to
its logical conclusion, but it has exercised a limited influence on the law;
breach of contract by a state does not engage the state’s international
responsibility unless it constitutes an abuse of governmental power. For
instance, if a state makes a contract of sale and delivers goods of bad quality,
that is not a breach of international law, because it is something which a
private individual could have done. But if a state does not provide
THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT 239
132 See Randolph, Foreign

adequate remedies in its own courts for its breach of contract, or if it Bondholders and Repudiated Debts of
passes legislation annulling the contract, then it is abusing its Southern States, AJIL 25 (1931), 63.
133 See P.J.I.M.de Waart/P.Peters/E.
governmental power and commits a breach of international law. Denters (eds), International Law and
Historically, this branch of the law has been greatly influenced by Development, 1988; S.R.Chowdury/
the fact that most of the southern states of the United States had a bad E.M.G.Denters/P.J.I.M.de Waart (eds),
The Right to Development in
record of default on loans. Other states were not slow to profit from International Law, 1992; E.H.Riedel,
this precedent, and as a result the rule grew up that states are not liable Right to Development, in Wolfrum
UNLPP II, 1103–10.
for contracts made by their political subdivisions (this is an exception to 134 See Chapter 19 below, 326–40.
the general rule which makes the state liable for all acts of its political 135 See Chapter 14 above, 209–11.
136 ILA Declaration 1986, op. cit.
subdivisions).132 137 UNGA Res. 41/128 of 4 December
1986.
138 J.D.Kovar, A Short Guide to the Rio
The right to development Declaration, CJIELP 4 (1993), at 126.
139 Principle 10 of the 1993 Vienna
Declaration.
The programme of a NIEO has been closely linked to the claim for
recognition of a right to development133 as a fundamental human right
which is derived from the right to self-determination134 and often
interpreted in the sense of a legal obligation resting upon rich states to
support poor states. Western states have opposed the recognition of a
collective right to development, partly because of its undesired legal
implications for financial transfers, partly because it is understood as
being inconsistent with the Western concept of human rights.135
The right to development has been supported by the 1986 ILA Seoul
Declaration136 and in the same year the UN General Assembly adopted the
Declaration on the Right of Development137 with 146 votes in favour, but
with the United States voting against it and seven other Western states
abstaining (Denmark, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Israel, Japan and the UK).
At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, against
the opposition of the United States, Canada and the European Community,
developing countries managed to include the right to development in
Principle 3 of the (non-binding) Rio Declaration. It is characteristic that the
United States entered the following interpretative statement:
The United States does not, by joining consensus on the Rio

Declaration, change its long-standing opposition to the so-called
right to development. Development is not a right. On the contrary,
development is a goal we all hold, which depends for its realization
in large part on the promotion and protection of the human rights
set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.138
Similarly, developing countries achieved a victory in trade-offs at the

1993 Vienna Human Rights Conference, the Declaration of which
confirms that the right to development is a ‘universal and inalienable
right and an integral part of fundamental human rights’; but it also
contains the caveat: ‘[w]hile development facilitates the enjoyment of
all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify
the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.’139
The debate on the NIEO has currently lost much of its momentum
with the collapse of the planned economies in socialist countries and the
spread of market economy models throughout the world in the 1990s.
However, as we shall see in the following chapter, the same problems have
240 ECONOMY
140 K.Ginther/P.J.I.M.de Waart,

Sustainable Development as a
reappeared in a new context, namely in the controversy between North and
Matter of Good Governance: An South on the protection of the global environment and its relationship to
Introductory View, in Ginther/
Denters/de Waart (eds), op. cit., 1,
the concept of ‘sustainable development’. A further new dimension has
with reference to Boutros Boutros- been added by the attempt to also link to this concept principles of ‘good
Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, 1992,
para. 59. See also Boutros-Ghali,
governance’ (in the sense of good management), including
An Agenda for Development, 1995.
sensible economic and social policies, democratic decision-making,
adequate governmental transparency, financial accountability,
creation of a market-friendly environment for development,
measures to combat corruption, as well as respect for the rule of
law and human rights.140
But at the moment this belongs more to the realm of the (possible) progressive
development of international law than to the body of international law as
it stands today.
16 Environment
1 See Harris CMIL, 242–9; R.-J.Dupuy

Since the mid-1960s the obvious need to protect the deteriorating
(ed.), The Future of the International
environment has led to environmental legislation in most countries of Law of the Environment, 1985;
the world, to varying degrees and effect.1 On the international level the Restatement (Third), Vol. 2, 99–143.
A. Kiss/D.Shelton (eds), International
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in
Environmental Law, 1991,
Stockholm in 19722 became the starting point for the development of Supplement, 1994; W.Lang/
international environmental law as a separate and the youngest field of H.Neuhold/K.Zemanek (eds),
Environmental Protection and
international law. Since the Stockholm Conference there has been a
International Law, 1991; D.B.Magraw,
remarkable proliferation not only of universal policy statements, such International Law and Pollution, 1991;
as the World Charter for Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly E.Brown-Weis (ed.), Environmental
Change and International Law, 1992;
in 1982,3 but also of international legal instruments in a broad variety
P. Birnie/A.E.Boyle, International Law
of environmental areas. and the Environment, 1992; P.Sands
The 1987 Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment (ed.), Greening International Law,
1993; M.A. Fitzmaurice, International
and Development4 emphasized the need for international cooperation and
Environmental Law as a Special Field,
responsibility to activate common survival interests and to reduce the NYIL 25 (1994), 181–226; E.J.Urbani/
exhaustion of resources and the pollution of the environment. It also stressed C.P.Rubin (eds), Transnational
Environmental Law and its Impact on
the link between environment and development under the ambiguous
Corporate Behaviour, 1994;
concept of ‘sustainable development’. The Commission defined sustainable H.Hohmann, Precautionary Legal
development (in a rather ambiguous and abstract way) as ‘development Duties and Principles of Modern
International Environmental Law,
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
1994; L.Gündling, Environment,
future generations to meet their own needs’. The two key elements of the International Protection, EPIL II
concept were identified as (1) ‘the concept of “needs”, in particular the (1995), 96–107; M. Kilian,
Environmental Protection, in Wolfrum
essential needs of the world’s poor, to which the overriding priority should
UNLPP I, 487–98; P.Sands/R.
be given’, and (2) ‘the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology Tarasofsky/M.Weiss (eds), Principles
and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and of International Environmental Law,
1995; J.Kasto, Modern International
future needs’.5 This process has culminated in the UN Conference on Law of the Environment, 1995;
Environment and Development (UNCED) that was held in Rio de Janeiro V.P.Nanda, International
in June 1992, twenty years after the Stockholm Conference. Environmental Law and Policy, 1995.
For collections of documents see
Certainly, there were international legal developments concerning B.Rüster/B.Simma, International
transboundary protection of the environment prior to the 1972 Protection of the Environment,
Stockholm Conference. But principles 21 and 22 in particular of the Treaties and Related Documents,
1975 et seq.; H.Hohmann (ed.), Basic
unanimously adopted Declaration are generally considered as the Documents on International
cornerstone of modern international environmental law. Principle 21 Environmental Law, 3rd edn 1992; P.
lays down the responsibility of all states ‘to ensure that the activities Sands, Principles of International
Environmental Law. Vol. II: Documents
within their jurisdiction and control do not cause damage to the in International Environmental Law,
environment of other States or areas beyond the limits of national 1995; W.Birnie/A.Boyle (eds), Basic
Documents on International Law and
jurisdiction’, however, it also affirms the ‘sovereign right of States to the Environment, 1995; W.E.
exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies’ Burhenne (ed.), International
in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the principles Environmental Law: Multilateral
Treaties, 8 vols, 1996.
of international law. 6 To make this principle operational in 2 Stockholm Declaration on the Human
concrete terms, more specific rights and obligations had to be Environment, Report of the United
Nations Conference on the Human
formulated. This was recognized in Principle 22 calling upon states ‘to
242 ENVIRONMENT
Environment, UN Doc. A/Conf.

48/14/ Rev.1 (1972); ILM 11
develop further the international law regarding liability and compensation
(1972), 1416. for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage caused by
3 Resolution 37/7; Official Records
of the General Assembly, Thirty-
activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond
Sixth Session, Supplement No. 51 their jurisdiction’.7 But it is particularly in the area of their own liability (as
(A/36/51); ILM 22 (1983), 455. See
W.E. Burhenne/W.A.Irwin, The
distinct from the civil liability of private operators) over which states have
World Charter for Nature, 2nd edn proved highly reluctant to accept binding obligations.8
1986.
4 The World Commission on
Environment and Development, Our
Common Future, 1987. See also
Environmental Protection and
The scope and nature of international environmental law
Sustainable Development: Legal
Principles and Recommendations
adopted by the Experts Group on
International environmental law is primarily based upon treaties and other
Environmental Law of the World international legal instruments. As to the substantive areas, it is convenient
Commission on Environment and to distinguish two phases in the development of international environmental
Development, 1986; A.Hurrell/B.
Kingsbury, The International Politics law since Stockholm. The first phase introduced the United Nations
of the Environment: Actors, Interests Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Action Plan for the Human
and Institutions, 1992; M.A.L.Miller,
The Third World in Global Environment which was followed by legal instruments dealing with water,
Environmental Politics, 1995. air and soil pollution arising from industrial activities as well as from poverty.
5 Our Common Future, op. cit., at
43. For a discussion see With regard to the protection of the marine environment,9 there is no
P.Malanczuk, Sustainable comprehensive global treaty dealing with all relevant aspects. The 1982
Development: Some Critical
Thoughts in the Light of the Rio
Law of the Sea Convention10 only provides for general principles in this
Conference, in K.Ginther/E.Denters/ area and for a new allocation of legislative and enforcement powers
P.J.I.M.de Waart (eds), Sustainable between the coastal states and the flag states. The global treaty regime
Development and Good
Governance, 1995, 23–52; thus rests upon the regulation of specific sources of sea pollution. There
K.Hossain, Evolving Principles of are several conventions dealing with oil pollution of the sea, such as the
Sustainable Development, ibid., 15–
22; W.Lang (ed.), Sustainable 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea
Development and International Law, by Oil,11 the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil
1995; P.Sands, International Law in
the Field of Sustainable Pollution Damage, 12 the 1969 International Convention Relating to
Development, BYIL 65 (1994), 303– Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties,13 and
81; S.Lin/L. Kurukulasuriya (eds),
UNEP’s New Way Forward:
the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an
Environmental Law and Sustainable International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.14 The
Development, 1995; Second Report
of the ILA International Committee
hazardous experience of major oil pollution accidents led to the adoption
on Legal Aspects of Sustainable in 1990 of a new Convention of the International Maritime Organization
Development, Helsinki Conference (IMO) on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and Co-operation.15
1996.
6 Principle 21, Stockholm Furthermore, the problem of the pollution of the sea by waste is covered
Declaration, op. cit., at 5. by the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
7 Principle 22.
8 See G.Betlem, Civil Liability for of Wastes and Other Matter16 and the 1973 International Convention for
Transfrontier Pollution, 1993. On the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.17 On the regional level, there are
liability and responsibility, see
Chapter 17 below, 254–5. similar types of instrument aiming at the protection of the North Atlantic
9 J.J.A.Salmon, Marine and the North Sea, including the 1972 Convention for the Prevention
Environment, Protection and
Preservation, EPIL 11 (1989), 200–
of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, 18 the 1974
7; J.H.Bates/C.Benson (eds), Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based
Marine Environmental Law, 1993; Sources 19 and the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine
C.M.de la Rue (ed.), Liability for
Damage to the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. 20 But there are also more
Environment, 1993; D.Brubaker, comprehensive treaties dealing with all sources of pollution, such
Marine Pollution and International
Law: Principles and Practice, 1993; as the 1976 Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean
J.J.A.Salmon, International Sea Against Pollution, 21 the 1974 Convention on the Protection
Watercourses, Pollution, EPIL II
(1995), 1388–92. of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 22 or the 1978
10 The 1982 Convention provides Kuwait Regional Convention for Cooperation on the Protection
in forty-six articles (Articles
1 9 2 – 237) for the protection
of the Marine Environment from Pollution. 23 Many (mostly
and preservation of the regional) treaties ar e further concerned with the protection of
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 243
marine living resources.24 However, such agreements have lost importance marine environment. See W.v.Reenen,
Rules of Reference in the New
because of the emergence of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone which Convention on the Law of the Sea, in
grants coastal states jurisdiction in this respect.25 Particular in Connection with the
As far as rivers and lakes are concerned, there are also a number of Pollution of the Sea by Oil from Tankers,
NYIL 12 (1981), 3–44; B.Kwiatkowska,
specific instruments, such as the 1992 Convention on the Protection Marine-Based Pollution in the Exclusive
and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes.26 In Economic Zone: Reconciling Rights,
Europe one could mention the 1960 Convention on the Protection of Freedoms and Responsibilities, Hague
YIL 1 (1988), 111; R.P.M.Lotilla, The
Lake Constance Against Pollution,27 the 1961 Protocol concerning the
Efficacy of the Anti-Pollution Legislation
Constitution of an International Commission for the Protection of the Provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea
Moselle Against Pollution,28 the agreements between Belgium, France Convention: A View from South East
and the Netherlands concerning the rivers Meuse and Scheldt,29 and the Asia, ICLQ 41 (1992), 137–51. See
international attempts to mitigate the pollution of the Rhine, including 11 327 UNTS 3.
the 1963 Agreement concerning the International Commission for the 12 ILM 9 (1970), 45.
Protection of the Rhine Against Pollution,30 the 1976 Convention on 13 Ibid., 25.
14 Cmnd. 7383. See R.B.Mitchell,
the Protection of the Rhine Against Chemical Pollution,31 the 1976 International Oil Pollution at Sea:
Convention Concerning the Protection of the Rhine Against Pollution Environmental Policy and Treaty
by Chlorides,32 and the 1987 Rhine Action Programme.33 A recent Compliance, 1994; W.Chao, Pollution
from the Carriage of Oil by Sea, 1996.
example outside of Europe is the agreement between Cambodia, Laos,
15 ILM 30 (1991), 733.
Thailand and Vietnam on Cooperation for the Sustainable Development 16 ILM 11 (1972), 1294.
of the Mekong River.34 Furthermore, the codification of international 17 ILM 12 (1973), 1319. See also the
law in this area by the International Law Commission35 has made some results of the 1996 IMO Conference on
hazardous and noxious substances and
progress with its 1994 Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational limitation of liability, ILM 35 (1996),
Use of International Watercourses.36 1406.
In the field of air pollution only one multilateral treaty exists: the 1979 18 ILM 11 (1972), 262.
19 ILM 14 (1975), 352.
Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, to which 20 YIEL 3 (1992), 759.
almost all European States and the United States and Canada are parties.37 21 ILM 15 (1976), 290. See S.
The Convention has been amended by the 1984 Protocol (concerning the Milenkovic, Mediterranean Pollution
Conventions, EPIL 9 (1986), 264–6;
long-term financing of the cooperative programme for monitoring and 22 ILM 13 (1974), 546. See M.
evaluation of the long-range transmission of air pollution in Europe),38 the Fitzmaurice, International Legal
1985 Protocol (concerning the reduction of sulphur emissions or their Problems of the Environmental
Protection of the Baltic Sea, 1992.
transboundary fluxes by at least 30 per cent),39 the 1988 Protocol
23 ILM 17 (1978), 511.
Concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or Their 24 See B.Kwiatkowska, Conservation of
Transboundary Fluxes, the 1991 Protocol on Volatile Organic Compounds, Living Resources of the High Seas,
and the 1994 Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions.40 EPIL I (1992), 761–3; R.Wolfrum,
Fisheries, International Regulation, EPIL
Another area where a number of international agreements have been II (1995), 383–6 and Chapter 12 above,
concluded is the protection of nature and the conservation of species.41 175, 183–5.
These include the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International 25 See Chapter 12 above, 183–5.
26 ILM 31 (1992), 1313.
Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat,42 the 1972 Convention 27 UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/12. 438.
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,43 See J.A.Frowein, Lake Constance,
EPIL 12 (1990), 216–19.
the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
28 940 UNTS 211. See G.Nolle,
Wild Fauna and Flora,44 the 1979 Convention on the Preservation of Moselle River, EPIL 12 (1990), 228–30.
Migratory Species of Wild Animals,45 and the 1979 Convention on the 29 ILM 34 (1995), 851.
30 994 UNTS 3.
Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.46 The concern
31 ILM 16 (1977), 242.
about the hunting of whales has also produced international instruments.47 32 ILM 16 (1977), 265.
Moreover, international transport and disposal of hazardous waste 33 See A.Rest, The Sandoz
Conflagralion and Ihe Rhine Pollulion:
has been regulated by treaties such as the 1989 Basel Convention on Liability Issues, GYIL 30 (1987),
the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 160– 76; W.E.Haak, Experience of
their Disposal48 and the 1991 OAU Bamako Convention on the Ban Ihe Netherlands Regarding Ihe
Case-Law of the Chamber of
of the Import into Africa and Management of Hazardous Wastes Appeal of the Central Commission
within Africa.49 for Navigation of the Rhine,
244 ENVIRONMENT
NYIL 19 (1988), 3–51; F.Meißner,

Rhine River, EPIL 12 (1990), 310–6.
Several treaties have addressed the issue of liability with regard to the
34 ILM 34 (1995), 864. peaceful use of nuclear energy. But they only laid down rules concerning
36 1994 ILC Report, UN GAOR,
the civil liability of operators, not the liability of states, like the 1960 and
49th Sess., Supp. No. 10. See A. 1963 Conventions on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy,50
Nollkaemper, The Legal Regime for
Transboundary Water Pollution:
the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage,51 and
Between Discretion and Constraint, the 1971 Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime
1993; E.Benvenisti, Collective
Action in the Utilization of Shared
Carriage of Nuclear Material.52 These treaties were insufficient to deal with
Freshwater: The Challenge of the Chernobyl catastrophe; new agreements were concluded only in the
International Water Resources, AJIL
90 (1996), 384–415.
aftermath of the accident.53 Still, as of 1996, the plant in the Ukraine
37 ILM 18 (1979), 1442. See C. continued to operate, for economic reasons.
Flintermann/B.Kwiatkowska/J.G.
Lammers (eds), Transboundary Air
Finally, there is also a special 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of
Pollution, 1986; A.Kiss, Air Pollution, Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
EPIL I (1992), 72–4.
38 ILM 27 (1988), 701.
Techniques.54 This issue moved to the forefront again in connection with
39 Ibid., 707. the Second Gulf War when Iraq was accused of making detrimental use of
40 ILM 33 (1994), 1540.
41 See M.J.Forster, Plant
the environment (burning of oil fields; oil pollution of the Gulf) as a weapon
Protection, International, EPIL 9 in armed conflict.55 Claims arising out of these incidents will also be dealt
(1986), 303–5; P.H.Sand, Wildlife
Protection, ibid., 409–14;
with by the UN Compensation Commission in Geneva.56
M.C.Maffie, Evolving Trends in the The second phase added the concern for new issues, such as the protection
International Protection of Species,
GYIL 36 (1993), 131–86.
of the ozone layer, which is being destroyed by the emission of
42 996 UNTS 245. chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which led to the Vienna Convention for the
43 ILM 11 (1972), 1358.
44 ILM 12 (1973), 1085.
Protection of the Ozone Layer of 22 March 1985.57 Other new problems,
P.Matthews, Problems Related to addressed finally at the Rio Conference,58 include climate change due to
the Convention on the International
Trade in Endangered Species, ICLQ
global warming (the ‘greenhouse effect’),59 the preservation of biodiversity,
45 (1996), 421–30. and the problems of deforestation and desertification of particular concern
45 ILM 19 (1980), 15,
46 Cmnd. 8738.
in Africa.60 In 1991 a Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic
47 See D.D.Caron The International Treaty was adopted, which has four Annexes dealing with environmental
Whaling Commission and the North
Atlantic Marine Mammal
impact assessment, conservation of flora and fauna, waste disposal and
Commission: The Institutional Risks marine pollution.61 Furthermore, in the context of the GATT/WTO
of Coercion in Consensual
Structures, AJIL 89 (1995), 154 et
negotiations the relationship between environmental protection and
seq. international trade regulation is recently receiving more attention.62 The
48 ILM 28 (1989), 652. See G.J.
Timagenis, Waste Disposal, EPIL 9
problem of ‘space debris’ and environmental hazards arising from outer
(1986), 401–6; M.Bothe, space activities have already been mentioned.63
International Regulation of
Transboundary Movement of
An inventory of actual treaty-making activities submitted in the
Hazardous Waste, GYIL 33 (1990), preparatory process of UNCED registered more than one hundred
422; B.Kwiatkowska/A.H.A.Soons, relevant multilateral instruments in force.64 This does not include the
Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Their numerous instruments concerning shared water resources or natural risks
Disposal: Emerging Global and or diseases. It also omits the entire body of European Community
Regional Regulation, Hague YIL 5
(1992), 68– 136; S.D.Murphy, regulation.65 More than half of the global and regional agreements are
Prospective Liability Regimes for the in the area of the protection of the marine environment and marine
Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Wastes, AJIL 88 (1994), living resources. The second largest group deals with nature conservation
24. and terrestrial resources and ecosystems, and the third most significant
49 ILM 30 (1991), 775.
50 956 UNTS 252; ILM 2 (1963),
category addresses hazardous substances and processes. This still does
685. not give a complete picture. A more comprehensive count arrives at 870
51 ILM 2 (1963), 727. international legal instruments in which at least some provisions deal
52 974 UNTS 255.
53 See P.Sands, Chernobyl: Law with the environment.66
and Communication. Transboundary Furthermore, in addition to treaties, the classical instruments of
Nuclear Air Pollution—The Legal
Materials, 1988; P.Cameron/ international law-making, there is a controversial category of so-called ‘soft
L.Hancher/W.Kühn, Nuclear Energy law’ instruments, which are often regarded as being characteristic for
Law after Chernobyl, 1988;
A.E.Boyle, Nuclear Energy and international environmental diplomacy.67 These instruments which may be in
CUSTOMARY LAW AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES 245
the form of a declaration, resolution or a set of guidelines or International Law: An Environmental

Perspective, BYIL 60 (1989), 257 et
recommendations, such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, are not seq.; M.M.El Baradei/E.I.Nwogugu/
formally binding, but nevertheless have an important political-legal J.M.Rames (eds), The International Law
significance as a guide for political action and as a starting-point for the of Nuclear Energy, 2 Vols, 1993; M.T.
Kamminga, The IAEA Convention on
development of binding international environmental rules and principles,
Nuclear Safety, ICLQ 44 (1995), 872–
either in the form of a later treaty or in the form of customary international 82; OECD, Regulatory and Institutional
law. Moreover, ‘there is an important margin of international technical Framework for Nuclear Activities, 1995;
regulations operating under agreements that are not environmental per se Chernobyl: Ten Years After, UN
Chronicle 33 (1996), 78–9.
but the implementation of which increasingly requires a kind of “creeping” 54 ILM 16 (1977), 88.
environmental standard-setting’,68 such as, for example, noise and air 55 See Chapter 20 below, 362.
pollutant emission limits for aircraft engines or motor vehicle engines. 56 See Chapter 22 below, 398–9.
57 ILM 26 (1987), 1550, as amended
The method of treaty-making in environmental diplomacy may be
by the Montreal Protocol in 1990, ILM
described as a piecemeal approach which has failed to reach an integration 30 (1991), 539, with further
of sectoral and cross-sectoral, regional and global policies.69 In other words, amendments in 1991 and 1992. See,
there is no comprehensive legal regime protecting the environment or the e.g., R.E.Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy:
‘biosphere’ as a whole by international law and international New Directions in Safeguarding the
Planet, 1990; V.P.Nanda, Stratospheric
organizations.70 The new concept of ‘ecological security’71 has so far not Ozone Depletion: A Challenge for
been translated into a consistent and all-embracing normative framework; International Environmental Law and
the interlinkages between the various treaty regimes are therefore not yet Policy, Mich. JIL 10 (1989), 482;
properly addressed. The nature of existing international environmental Environment: Ozone Layer, UN
Chronicle 33 (1996), 73–4.
law has been described as an ‘aggregate, rather than a system, of multiple
environmental regimes’.72 The effectiveness of many environmental treaties 59 W.Lang, Auf der Suche nach einem
on the global level is also a problem.73 An important step has been taken wirksamen Klima-Regime, AVR 31
(1993), 13–21; see also W.R.Cline, The
on the regional level by the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) by Economics of Global Warming, 1992.
adopting in 1991 the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment 60 See text below, 247–8.
in a Transboundary Context.74 61 ILM 30 (1991), 1460. See Chapter 10
In addition, the treaty-making process is rather slow. Normally it above, 150.
62 See, for example, K.Andersen/R.
takes between two and twelve years for multilateral treaties to become
Blackhurst (eds), The Greening of World
effective; the average period appears to be about five years.75 It must Trade Issues, 1992; J.Schultz, The
be said, however, that many environmental treaties seem to move faster, GATT/WTO Committee on Trade and
such as the Mediterranean Convention and the Ozone Layer the Environment—Toward
Convention, which both became effective within only two years. The Environmental Reform, AJIL 89 (1995),
423–39; H. Ward, Common But
problem is that in the field of environmental protection, even such Differentiated Debates: Environment,
relatively short periods may be too long for an effective response to Labour and the World Trade
challenges requiring immediate action. Thus, in the case of the Montreal Organization, ICLQ 45 (1996), 592–632.
Protocol it soon became clear that the CFC reduction rates established See Chapter 15 above, 231–3.
in September 1987 were already outdated when the protocol entered
64 See the revised list of agreements
into force. This necessitated a revision by a ‘fast-track’ procedure and instruments approved at the third
unknown to the treaty, the May 1989 Helsinki Declaration on the session of the UNCED Preparatory
Protection of the Ozone Layer.76 Committee, in Decision I, Annex III, A/
CONF.151/PC/94.
65 See A.C.Kiss/D.Shelton, Manual of
European Environmental Law, 1993; P.
Customary law and general principles Sands, Principles of International
Environmental Law. Vol. III: Documents
in European Community Environmental
As in the area of space law 77 or in the field of international Law, 1995; S.Hollins/R.Macrory, A
economic law, 78 customary international law dealing with the Source Book of European Community
environment is at best rudimentary.79 It traditionally relies on a few Environmental Law, 1995.
66 E.Weiss, Introductory Note, United
cases, the most important being the Trail Smelter arbitration Nations Conference on Environment
between Canada and the United States, which was initiated in 1926 and Development, ILM 31 (1992), 814.
and finally concluded in 1941.80 This decision is usually referred to 67 See Chapter 3 above, 54–5.
for the basic legal proposition that no state may knowingly allow 68 P.H.Sand, International Law on the
Agenda of the United Nations
its territory to be used in a manner that would cause serious
246 ENVIRONMENT
Conference on Environment and physical injury to the environment of another state. It has been confirmed
Development: Towards Global
Environmental Security?, Nordic JIL by other cases, such as the Lac Lanoux case81 and the Gut Dam case.82 In
60 (1991), 5, at 8. its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
69 P.H.Sand, Lessons Learned in
Global Environmental Governance,
Weapons, the International Court of Justice confirmed for the first time in
1990, 35; see further P.Malanczuk, more general terms that the Court recognizes
Towards Global Environmental
Legislation, in United Nations Office
for Outer Space Affairs (ed.), that the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living
Proceedings of the UN/IAF space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including
Workshop on ‘Organising Space
Activities in Developing Countries:
generations unborn. The existence of the general obligation of states
Resources and Mechanisms’ (Graz, to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the
15–17 October 1993), 1994, 45–60. environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now
70 O.Schachter, International Law in
Theory and Practice, 1991, 362, part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.83
with reference to the new concept of
the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
71 See G.Handl, Environmental
Although technically not legally binding,84 this statement of the Court is
Security and Global Change: The likely to contribute in the future to the development of international
Challenge to International Law, YIEL environmental law in other cases.
1 (1990), 3–33.
72 Sand (1991), op. cit., 33. There are also a number of general concepts and principles that have
73 See P.H.Sand (ed.), The been applied or proposed to deal with transboundary harm, such as the
Effectiveness of International
Environmental Agreements—A
sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas principle (‘use your own so as not to
Survey of Existing Legal injure another’), the concept of ‘abuse of rights’, the principle of territorial
Instruments, 1992; M.E.O’Connell, integrity, the principle of ‘good neighbourliness’ (bon voisinage) and quite
Enforcing the New International Law
of the Environment, GYIL 35 (1992), a few others.85 The legal status of such principles and concepts, however,
293; L.E.Susskind, Environmental is not always secure and on their own they do not lend themselves easily
Diplomacy. Negotiating More
Effective Global Agreements, 1994.
to deciding between competing claims or, even less, to determining the
74 ILM 30 (1991), 800. scope, content and function of appropriate environmental regulation in
75 Sand (1990), op. cit., 15 with an operational manner.
reference to a 1971 UNITAR study
and other literature. Since 1972 various non-official and official bodies have engaged in
76 Sand, ibid., 15. codifying and progressively developing international environmental law,
including the Institut de Droit International, the International Law
79 See W.Lang, Diplomacy and Association, the International Law Commission of the United Nations, the
International Environmental Law- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)86 and the International
Making: Some Observations,
YIEL 3 (1992), 108, who notes Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). These efforts include the
that today international adoption of resolutions by the Institut de Droit International in 1979 on
environmental law is mostly
the pollution of rivers and lakes and in 1987 on transboundary air pollution,
treaty-based.
80 Trail Smelter case (1931–1941), and by the International Law Association in 1982 on transfrontier pollution
RIAA III 1905. See K.J.Madders, in general. The International Law Commission is still occupied with
Trail Smelter Arbitration, EPIL 2
(1981), 276–80. codifying law on environmental issues under various headings, such as the
81 Affaire du Lac Lanoux case, draft code of crimes against peace and humanity, the articles on non-
RIAA XII 281 (1963). See
navigational uses of international watercourses, the articles on international
D.Rauschning, Lac Lanoux
Arbitration, EPIL 2 (1981), 166–8. liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by
82 US v. Canada, ILM 8 (1969), 118; international law, and its draft articles on state responsibility for
G. Handl, Gut Dam Claims, EPIL II
(1995), 653–6. internationally wrongful acts.87 The UN General Assembly has included
83 ILM 35 (1996), 809, at 821, para. the future development of international environmental law in the
29. On the role of the ICJ in the programme of the United Nations Decade of International Law (1990–9)
development of international
environmental law, see and taken note of the conclusions of the 1990 Sienna Forum on
M.Fitzmaurice, Environmental International Law of the Environment. The 1990–5 ‘system-wide
Protection and the International
Court of Justice, in V. Lowe/
medium-term environment programme’ (SWMTEP) includes
M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of programme activities by the United Nations relating to environmental law
the International Court of Justice, and institutions. The work of UNEP in this area relies on the 1981 Montevideo
THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 247
1996, 293–315 and Chapter 18 below,

Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental 288.
Law.88 While these texts generally require states to prevent, mitigate, 84 See Chapter 18 below, 289.
85 See J.Lammers, Pollution of
repair or compensate for harm, as well as to notify others of International Waterways, 1984, 556–80,
transboundary risks, it is not quite settled to what extent these principles who lists twenty-seven of such
principles or concepts.
have actually become part of customary law.89 86 M.Kilian, UNEP, in Wolfrum UNLPP
II, 1296–1303.
88 See G.Biggs, The Montevideo
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Environmental Law Programme, AJIL 87
(1993), 328–34.
Development 89 Schachter, op. cit., 364.
90 See D.H.Getches, Foreword: The
Challenge of Rio, CJIELP 4 (1993), 1–
More than 170 countries and 103 heads of government attended the high- 19; M.F.Strong, Beyond Rio: Prospects
level United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and Portents, ibid., 21–36; T.E.Wirth,
(UNCED) which took place in Rio de Janeiro from 3–14 June 1992.90 It The Road From Rio—Defining a New
World Order, ibid., 37–44; M.P.A.
was at that time the largest international conference ever, and a spectacular Kindall, Talking Past Each Other At The
event with the presence of a large number of NGOs and other actors.91 It Summit, ibid., 69–79; P.H.Sand,
International Environmental Law after
has been noted that UNCED made its mark on the development of Rio, EJIL 4 (1993), 377 et seq.; U.
international environmental law ‘by formally anointing the concept of Beyerlin, Rio-Konferenz 1992: Beginn
einer neuen globalen
“sustainable development” for legal use’.92 While sustainable development Umweltrechtsordnung?, ZaöRV 54
was indeed at the heart of the Rio Conference, the conflict between North (1994), 124–47; Malanczuk (1995),
Sustainable Development, op. cit.; idem,
and South on its meaning was predominant. There were certainly also Die Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen
differences between, for example, the United States and other industrialized über Umwelt und Entwicklung (UNCED)
countries, or between the African, Latin American and Asian states among und das internationale Umweltrecht, in
FS Bernhardt, 985–1002.
themselves, or between the developing countries and the new states arising 91 At the Global Forum, NGOs
from the remains of the former Soviet Union. But the North-South conflict negotiated more than thirty ‘treaties’.
92 P.H.Sand, UNCED and the
was undoubtedly at the centre. Although the confrontation between North Development of International
and South was on a lower level than some had expected, or was to some Environmental Law, YIEL 3 (1992), 17.
93 Sand (1992), op. cit., 14 et seq.
extent postponed, UNCED clearly manifested a trend towards further 94 UNGA Res. 44/228 of 22 December
polarization which is reflected in ‘a distinct new bipolar pattern of 1989.
95 Ibid.
negotiating and decision-making procedures’.93 96 For the Rio documents see ILM 31
The 1989 UN General Assembly resolution which convened the Rio (1992), 818 et seq. (except Agenda 21);
Conference had made it one of the objectives of UNCED ‘to promote the N.A.Robinson (ed.), Agenda 21 &
UNCED Proceedings, 1992; S.Johnson
further development of international environmental law, taking into (ed.), The Earth Summit: The United
account the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Nations Conference on Environment
Environment, as well as the special needs and concerns of the developing and Development (UNCED), 1992.
countries, and to examine in this context the feasibility of elaborating

general rights and obligations of States, as appropriate, in the field of
environment, and taking into account relevant existing international legal
instruments’.94 The resolution also gave UNCED the mandate ‘to assess
the capacity of the United Nations system to assist in the prevention and
settlement of disputes in the environmental sphere and to recommend
measures in this field, while respecting existing bilateral and international
agreements that provide for the settlement of disputes’.95 The Conference
finally adopted the Rio Declaration containing twenty-seven non-binding
principles on environment and development from a global perspective.96
It also passed the complex and equally non-binding Agenda 21, a
comprehensive blueprint of 800 pages designed to deal with the common
environment and development problems of the next century. In addition,
the Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity were adopted. With
difficulties, parties managed to agree on a document with the illuminating
title: ‘A Non-legally binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a
Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable
248 ENVIRONMENT
97 See the Convention to Combat

Desertification in those Countries
Development of all types of Forests’. The most contentious issues concerned
Experiencing Serious Drought and/ the right to development, the demand to limit over-consumption and to
or Desertification, Particularly in
Africa, 17 June 1994, ILM 33
increase forest cover in developed countries, and financial transfers. African
(1994), 1328; W.C. Burns, The countries succeeded in having UNCED adopt their proposal to negotiate a
International Convention to Combat
Desertification: Drawing a Line in
convention on desertification.97
the Sand?, Mich. JIL 16 (1995),
831–82.
98 Text in ILM 31 (1992), 849. See The Convention on Climate Change
YIEL 1 (1990), 101–4; 2 (1991),
111– 15; 3 (1992), 228–31
(T.Goldman and S.Hajost as
The Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated by the
reporters); E.P.Barratt-Brown/ Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, an independent body that had
S.A.Hajost/J.H.Sterne, Jr., A Forum
for Action on Global Warming: The
been established by the UN General Assembly.98 It was signed by 154 states
UN Framework Convention on and the European Community and entered into force, after fifty ratifications,
Climate Change, CJIELP 4 (1993),
103– 18; D.Bodansky, Managing
on 21 March 1994. As of 1995, more than 125 states had ratified the
Climate Change, YIEL 3 (1992), 60– Convention. The general objective of the Convention is to stabilize atmospheric
74; M.J. LaLonde, The Role of Risk
Analysis in the 1992 Framework
concentrations of all greenhouse gases, not only carbon dioxide. It sets forth
Convention on Climate Change, a number of guiding principles relating to equity, ‘common, but differentiated
Mich. JIL 15 (1994), 215–54.
99 ASIL IELIGNewsl. 3/2 (1993), 2.
responsibilities’ of States, precaution, the special needs and circumstances of
100 ASIL IEL News 4/1 (1993), 2. developing countries, sustainable development, and international trade. The
See on the further development: S.
Oberthür/H.Ott, First Conference of
Convention goes further than the earlier framework Conventions such as the
the Parties, EPL 25 (1995), 144–56. Montreal Protocol and the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
101 ILM 30 (1991), 1735.
Convention. But, due to the resistance of the United States and the OPEC
countries, it failed to establish definite quantitative restrictions on greenhouse
gas emissions at any given level at a certain date in the future. Developed
countries merely recognized the importance of the ‘return…to earlier levels
of anthropogenic emissions’ by the year 2000. However, they agreed to stricter
reporting requirements with the aim of returning individually or jointly to
their 1990 levels of emissions. The European Community issued a statement
that reaffirmed its objective of stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions by the
year 2000 at 1990 levels in the Community as a whole. The United States
was the first industrialized country (and second country overall after
Mauritius) to ratify the Convention (on 7 October 1992),99 but it was only in
April 1993 that the United States declared that it would reduce emissions at
1990 levels by the year 2000.100
The Convention establishes a process by which parties, on the basis of
national greenhouse inventories and regular national reports on policies
and measures to limit emissions, can monitor and control effects on climate
change. Developed countries agreed to fund the costs of developing country
reports as well as other developing countries’ projects approved by the
Convention’s financial mechanism which, on an interim basis, is the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF)101 of the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP. There
are also general obligations with regard to scientific research, exchange of
information, and education and training. The Convention further envisages
the establishment of a subsidiary body to continue to provide scientific
assessments and advice on advances in relevant technologies (Article 9).
The dispute between North and South on the financial mechanism
was carried on to the following meetings of the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee. The first conference of the parties, which
took place in Berlin in April 1995, failed to make significant progress,
partly due to the blocking role played by oil-producing countries
THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 249
102 United Nations Framework

such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It was agreed to negotiate on a protocol Convention on Climate Change
or other legal instrument to supplement the Framework Convention Conference of the Parties: Decisions
Adopted by the First Session (Berlin, 28
which might be adopted in 1997.102 March 28–7 April, 1995), Introductory
Note by M.Carlson and A.Petsonk, ILM
34 (1995), 1671–1711.
The Biodiversity Convention 103 Text of the Convention in ILM 31
(1992), 818. See M.Chandler, The
The Convention on Biological Diversity was prepared under the auspices Biodiversity Convention: Selected
Issues of Interest to the International
of UNEP by an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee and opened Lawyer, CJIELP 4 (1993), 141–75; R.L.
for signature in Rio.103 As of June 1993, it was signed by 163 states. It Margulies, Protecting Biodiversity:
Recognizing International Intellectual
entered into force on 29 December 1993 after thirty ratifications. The Property Resources, Mich. JIL 14
Convention aims at the conservation and sustainable use of biological (1993), 322; M.Bowman/C.Redgwell
(eds), International Law and the
diversity, the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from its use, and Conservation of Biological Diversity,
the regulation of biotechnology. The parties failed to agree on the 1995; F.McConnell, The Biodiversity
development of national lists of threatened species and areas of biological Convention. A Negotiating History, 1996.
104 On the general international debate
importance. The approach is rather to provide for national monitoring on intellectual property protection and
of and for national plans, programmes and measures for conserving the situation in North-South relations,
see the differentiated analysis by
biodiversity, supplemented by international reporting obligations. J.v.Wijk/G.Junne, Intellectual Property
Access to and transfer of technology ‘shall be provided and/or Protection of Advanced Technology—
facilitated under fair and favourable terms, including on concessional Changes in the Global Technology
System: Implications and Options for
and preferential terms’—however, only ‘where mutually agreed’. The Developing Countries, The United
transfer of patents shall be based upon ‘terms which recognize and are Nations University, INTECH Working
Paper No. 10, October 1993.
consistent with the adequate and effective protection of intellectual 105 ASIL IELIGNewsl. 3/1 (1992), 2.
property rights’.104 Cooperation is required to ensure that intellectual 106 ASIL IELNews 4/1 (1993), 1.
107 ASIL IELNews 5/1 (1994), 2.
property rights are ‘supportive of and do not run counter to’ the goals
of the Convention. The Convention further deals with priority access of
the source country to results and benefits arising from biotechnologies
based upon its genetic resources on mutually agreed terms. Developed
countries are obliged to provide ‘new and additional financial resources’
to fund the ‘agreed full incremental costs’ of developing countries to
implement the Convention as agreed with the Convention’s financial
mechanism. The latter is put under the authority of the Convention’s
Conference of the Parties. On an interim basis the GEF will serve as the
financial mechanism, provided it has been ‘fully restructured’.
The only country that refused to sign the Biodiversity Convention at
Rio was the United States, due to pressure from the biotechnology and
pharmacology businesses interested in resources in tropical countries. The
United States argued that in particular, the provisions on intellectual
property, on the funding mechanism, and on biotechnology were ‘seriously
flawed’.105 However, in June 1993 the United States signed the Convention,
stating that it would formally address the question of intellectual property
protection in a forthcoming interpretative document.106 It also called upon
other signatories to implement policies that do not restrict the development,
commercialization and marketing of biotechnology products, and noted
that the United States supports the use of creative economic incentives,
such as the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use
of genetic resources, and would work to ensure that there will be full and
fair consideration of the need for a protocol on biosafety, and that biosafety
regulation must be scientifically based and analytically sound. The
Convention was transmitted to the US Senate for advice and ratification
on 30 November 1993.107
250 ENVIRONMENT
108 Text in ILM 31 (1992), 874. See

F.K.Boon, The Rio Declaration and
The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21
Its Influence on International
Environmental Law, Sing. JLS The Rio Declaration, the counterpart to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration,
(1992), 347–64; J.D. Kovar, A Short was such a cumbersome compromise between North and South that the
Guide to the Rio Declaration,
CJIELP 4 (1993), 119–40; text considered at the final Preparatory Committee in April 1992 was not
Malanczuk (1995), Sustainable reopened for discussion at UNCED.108 The twenty-seven principles contain
Development, op. cit.
109 For an analysis of references, inter alia, to common but differentiated responsibilities of states
intergenerational and sustainable
development standards emerging
in view of their different contribution to global environmental degradation,
from Rio see M.Bothe/H.Hohmann, the need to reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and
YIEL 3 (1993), 174 et seq. On the
precautionary principle see
consumption and of the promotion of appropriate demographic policies,
Hohman, op. cit., D.Freestone (ed.), the precautionary approach, the right to development, environmental impact
The Precautionary Principle and
International Law, 1995. assessments, the right of individuals to access to information held by public
110 See Robinson (ed.), op. cit. authorities, the avoidance of unilateral trade measures in response to
111 Bothe/Hohmann op. cit., 177.
112 Agenda 21, Chapter 33, environmental challenges outside their jurisdiction, and to the role of women
para. 20. and indigenous peoples.109
113 Introductory statement made by
the Secretary-General of the Agenda 21 constitutes a non-binding action plan on environment and
Conference at the fourth session of development, divided into forty chapters covering sectoral issues such as
the Preparatory Committee, UN
Doc. A/ CONF.151/PC/97/Add. 1 of the atmosphere, oceans, fresh water, and land resources, cross-sectoral
4 March 1992, 4. issues such as poverty, demographics, and human health, means of
implementation, including finances, transfer of technology as well as
institutional and legal issues.110 Major groups such as women, children,
indigenous peoples and NGOs are also addressed. In spite of its
comprehensive approach, Agenda 21 avoided many controversial issues
such as population growth, consumption patterns and the international
debt of developing countries. The most contentious issues, however, related
to the crucial chapter on financial resources, in particular, on ‘new and
additional’ financial resources sought by developing countries, partly in
competition with the position of Central and Eastern European
countries,111 and on the appropriate funding mechanisms. The average
annual costs for the period 1993–2000 of implementing Agenda 21 in
the South, which do not include finances required for the UNEP
Environment Fund and for funding environment-related conventions and
protocols, were estimated to exceed US$600 billion. While the bulk of
this amount is to be borne by the developing countries themselves, about
US$125 billion annually would have to be provided on grant or
concessional terms from the industrialized countries.112
The basis for these figures is obscure and they have been characterized
as ‘indicative’ of orders of magnitude only because it was not possible to
develop estimates in sufficient detail.113 US$125 billion is less than 1 per
cent of current levels of GNP of the principal donor countries, but it remains
a substantial amount, in addition to Official Development Aid (ODA), with
regard to which only few countries have managed to achieve the UNCTAD
target of 0.7 per cent.114 There was also no real expectation that more than
an initial commitment of several billion US dollars per year to start Agenda
21 could be obtained in additional finance from the North, taking into
consideration also the incapacity of many developing countries to absorb
and effectively manage such large amounts of money as projected
immediately. The financial issues remained unsettled by Agenda 21
and were linked to review on a regular basis to the institutional reform
CONCLUSIONS 251
115 See Beyerlin, op. cit., 132–3.

proposals set out in chapter 38 and the establishment of the Commission 116 Ibid., 133.
on Sustainable Development. 117 For a discussion, see E.B.Weiss, In
Fairness to Future Generations:
International Law, Common Patrimony,
and Intergenerational Equity, 1989; G.P.
Conclusions Supanich, The Legal Basis of
Intergenerational Responsibility: An
Alternative View—The Sense of
There are differing evaluations of the actual outcome of the Conference, Intergenerational Identity, YIEL 3 (1992),
ranging from disappointment to modestly positive reactions. The only two 94 et seq.
118 See Lang (1992), op. cit., 108;
documents which were adopted at Rio as internationally legally binding Schachter, op. cit., 364.
instruments are the Climate Convention and the Biodiversity Convention. 119 See Beyerlin, op. cit., 126 and 133
with further references.
The non-binding Rio Declaration, the Forest Principles and Agenda 21 120 Ibid., 134 with references.
contain, with minor exceptions, only obligations of a political or moral 121 Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14,
nature.115 In particular, the Forest Principles, which are termed ‘non-legally Biodiversity Convention.
122 Article 6.
binding’, but ‘authoritative’, reflect the difficulties involved in achieving
definite legal results in the controversy between North and South.
Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration, stating that human beings ‘are at
the centre of concerns for sustainable development’ and ‘entitled to a
healthy and productive life in harmony with nature’, Principle 3 on
‘intergenerational equity’, and Principle 4, proclaiming environmental
protection to be an ‘integral part of the development process’, are clearly
of a programmatic nature only.116 The basis and precise meaning of
‘intergenerational equity’ as a possible legal concept has hardly been
explored.117 The language of other principles is such that they seem to
reaffirm existing customary law. However, customary law in the field of
transboundary international harm is of little assistance.118 Principle 2
confirms the prohibition of transboundary environmental harm laid
down in Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration which is now
recognized as customary law reflecting the principle of limited territorial
sovereignty and integrity, but only as far as ‘substantial’ transboundary
harm is involved.119 Furthermore, the mutual obligations of states
concerning information and notification in Principles 18 and 19 of the
Rio Declaration are procedural rules recognized in customary
international law. With regard to public participation (Principle 10), the
‘precautionary approach’ (Principle 15), the ‘polluter-pays principle’
(Principle 16), and environmental impact assessment (Principle 17), there
are strong doubts whether their status as principles of general
international law is secured. These doubts are connected with the
complicated issue of to what extent general customary law may be
inferred from the development of rules in treaties.120
Moreover, although the Climate Convention and the Biodiversity
Convention contain binding obligations, their normative scope is
limited. The obligations under the Biodiversity Convention are often
phrased in abstract wording and qualified by additions such as ‘as
far as possible’121 or ‘in accordance with its particular conditions’.122
This is in line with general features of the law-making process in
the field on the global protection of the environment. The two
principal weaknesses of the Climate and Biodiversity Conventions
at the moment are, first, that their normative objectives are not
sufficiently global to establish a comprehensive international legal
regime to protect the atmosphere and the living resources of the
252 ENVIRONMENT
123 See L.A.Kimball, Toward Global

Environment: The Institutional
planet and, second, that they are only framework conventions requiring
Setting, YIEL 3 (1992), 19–42. more specific regulation in the future to become effective.
124 The International Court of
Justice, however, has recently
Thus, the legal results of Rio are meagre in terms of substantive
established a chamber for obligations. The important institutional aspects of clarifying the meaning
environmental matters; see Chapter of ‘sustainable development’ and arriving at effective solutions have recently
18 below, 288.
125 Eagerly Awaited Commission been receiving more attention.123 Far-reaching proposals of institutional
Established, EPL 23 (1993), 58–60; reforms, such as the creation of a world environmental legislature, a council
Commission on Sustainable
Development—First Substantive for ‘ecological security’, or an international environmental court,124 were
Session, ibid., 190–201. not seriously discussed at UNCED. The innovations are much more modest.
127 Commission on Sustainable Following the suggestions made in Chapter 38 of Agenda 21, the UN
Development, Keynote Address by Commission on Sustainable Development was established in 1993.125 The
US Vice-President Al Gore, EPL 23
(1993), 183, at 184.
Commission is a ‘functional commission’ of the UN Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC)126 and is composed of fifty-three state representatives
who are elected for a term of three years according to a certain geographical
distribution principle. The task of the Commission is to supervise the
implementation of the Rio documents, especially Agenda 21, and to discuss
further measures and the issues of financial resources and mechanisms.
The hope of achieving substantial commitments of the North to increase
the flow of finances and technology to the developing countries has failed
to materialize. Although much will still depend on the follow-up process to
UNCED, the most persuasive evaluation of the results of Rio is that so far
no crucial steps have been taken to save the global environment, nor has
there been any significant move towards improving the development
perspective of most countries in the South. In Rio the North succeeded in
improving the framework for global environmental protection as desired
by industrialized countries without making real concessions concerning
economic development in the South. The bottom line is that, while Rio
may have sent an important political signal, in substance it has failed to
solve the dilemma of sustainable development and primarily has served to
establish favourable negotiating positions for the future.
As regards international legal instruments, Agenda 21 focuses on four
priorities: (1) review and assessment of relevant international law; (2) further
development of implementation mechanisms and compliance measures; (3)
effective participation by all countries in the international law-making process;
and (4) the range and effectiveness of dispute resolution techniques. In the
field of ‘global environmental legislation’ this describes in general terms the
relevant programme of the newly established UN Commission on Sustainable
Development. It is interesting to note that the Vice-President of the United
States included the following words in his keynote address on the occasion
of the establishment of the Commission on Sustainable Development:
So I say this to citizens of developed nations: we have a

disproportionate impact on the global environment. We have less
than a quarter of the world’s population—but we use three quarters
of the world’s raw materials and create three quarters of all solid
waste. One way to put it is this: a child born in the United States will
have 30 times more impact on the earth’s environment during his or
her lifetime than a child born in India. The affluent of the world have
a responsibility to deal with their disproportionate impact.127
CONCLUSIONS 253
128 See A.E.Boyle (ed.), Environmental

It is upon the success of the follow-up process of Rio in the difficult Regulation and Economic Growth, 1995.
quest for a true integration of environment regulation and economic 129 See UN Chronicle 33 (1996), no.
2, 72.
development policies128 that the future of global environmental law- 130 On new mechanisms to enforce
making will depend. Agenda 21 will be reviewed by a special session of international environmental standards
see R.Wolfrum (ed.), Enforcing
the UN General Assembly in June 1997.129 In the end, the contribution Environmental Standards. Economic
of international law as such to solve the global problems, however, can Mechanisms as Viable Means?, 1996.
only be subsidiary.130 Finances will remain the central issue in the decades
to come. Institutional reform of the UN system is the other major aspect.
17 State responsibility
If a state violates a rule of customary international law or ignores an

1 See Harris CMIL, 460–599;
Restatement (Third), Vol. 2, 184– obligation of a treaty it has concluded, it commits a breach of international
229; R.Wolfrum, Internationally law and thereby a so-called ‘internationally wrongful act’.1 The law of state
Wrongful Acts, EPIL II (1995),
1398–1403. See also I.Brownlie, responsibility is concerned with the determination of whether there is a
State Responsibility, 1983, Part I; wrongful act for which the wrongdoing state is to be held responsible,
J.Quigley, Complicity in International
Law: A New Direction in the Law of what the legal consequences are (e.g. an obligation on the part of the
State Responsibility, BYIL 57 (1986), wrongdoing state to restore the previous situation or to pay compensation),
77–132; K.Zemanek, Responsibility
of States: General Principles, EPIL and how such international responsibility may be implemented (e.g. through
10 (1987), 362–73; P-M.Dupuy, The countermeasures adopted by the victim state, such as reprisals or retortion).2
International Law of State
Responsibility: Revolution or Sometimes the term ‘responsibility’ is used interchangeably with the term
Evolution?, Mich. JIL (1989), 105; J. ‘liability’, but the use of terminology in this respect in the literature is by no
Wolf, Gibt es im Völkerrecht einen
einheitlichen Schadensbegriff?, means uniform. Often ‘liability’ simply means the obligation to pay
ZaöRV 49 (1989), 403; H.Fox, State compensation. But ‘liability’ may also refer to obligations of states arising
Responsibility and Tort Proceedings
Against a Foreign State in Municipal from harmful consequences of hazardous activities which, as such, are not
Courts, NYIL 20 (1989), 3–34; I. prohibited by international law, like operating a nuclear plant close to the
Brownlie, Principles of Public
International Law, 4th edn 1990, border (a lawful activity) which by accident leads to damage in the form of
381– 552; A.Reinisch, State radioactive contamination on the territory of a neighbouring state (a harmful
Responsibility for Debts, 1995;
P.Malanczuk, International Business consequence requiring compensation).
and New Rules of State
Responsibility? —The Law Applied
by the United Nations (Security
Council) Compensation The work of the International Law Commission
Commission for Claims Against Iraq,
in K.-H.Böckstiegel (ed.),
Perspectives of Air Law, Space Law The area of state responsibility has become the most ambitious and most
and International Business Law for
the Next Century, 1996, 117–64. difficult topic of the codification work of the International Law Commission
2 On the concepts of reprisal and (ILC).3 As noted by the editors of a comprehensive study on the matter:
retortion see Chapter 1 above, 4
and text below, 271–2.
3 On the ILC in general see Chapter While all the former and other current topics studied by the
3 above, 61.
4 M.Spinedi/B.Simma (eds), United Commission deal with certain, defined ‘primary’ rules of international
Nations Codification of State law, State responsibility, in a sense, embraces the entire ‘other side
Responsibility, 1987, Introduction; K.
Zemanek/J.Salmon, Responsabilité of the medal’, the totality of legal rules and consequences linked to
internationale, 1987; S.Rosenne, the breach of any international obligation of the State. No other
The International Law Commission’s
Draft Articles on State codification project goes so deeply into the ‘roots’, the theoretical
Responsibility, 1991. and ideological foundations of international law.4
The current approach followed by the ILC in dealing with state responsibility
has become rather abstract and complicated. Originally, the subject area
had been more limited; the six reports submitted by the first Special
Rapporteur, F.V.García Amador between 1956 and 1961 concentrated on
state responsibility for injury to the person or property of aliens. This limited
approach was then abandoned, partly because the topic was too
controversial at the time. After a reconsideration of its approach in
THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 255
1962 and 1963, the ILC decided not to restrict its study of the topic to 5 D.Alland/J.Combacau, ‘Primary’ and
‘Secondary’ Rules in the Law of State
a particular subject, such as responsibility for injuries to aliens, in order Responsibility: Categorizing
to include also the rules on state responsibility for the breach of International Obligations, NYIL 16
fundamental principles of international law, such as the violation of (1985), 81–109.
obligations relating to international peace and security. Furthermore, it 6 See M.Akehurst, International Liability
for Injurious Consequences Arising Out
decided not to try to define and codify the ‘primary’ rules, the breach of of Acts not Prohibited by International
which leads to international responsibility (which would have been Law, NYIL 16 (1985), 3– 16;
impracticable because one would have to codify the norms of M.C.W.Pinto, Reflections on
International Liability for Injurious
international law as a whole), but rather to focus on the ‘secondary’ Consequences Arising out of Acts Not
rules of state responsibility as an abstract area of its own.5 In 1975 the Prohibited by International Law, ibid.,
Commission adopted a general plan envisaging the structure of the draft 17–48; G.Handl, Liability as an
articles to be as follows: Part 1 concerns the ‘origin’ of international Obligation Established by a Primary
Rule of International Law: Some Basic
responsibility; Part 2 concerns the ‘content, form and degrees’ of state Reflections on the International Law
responsibility; and Part 3 deals with the ‘implementation’ of responsibility Commission’s Work, ibid., 49–79; L.F.E.
and the settlement of disputes. Goldie, Concepts of Strict and Absolute
Liability and the Ranking of Liability in
Moreover, the ILC later decided to proceed with a codification exercise Terms of Relative Exposure to Risk,
on ‘liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited ibid., 175–248; C.O’Keefe,
by international law’.6 This project grew out of the growing international Transboundary Pollution and the Strict
Liability Issue: The Work of the
concern for transboundary environmental protection problems. The ILC International Law Commission on the
decided to treat it separately from responsibility for internationally Topic of International Liability for
wrongful acts and in 1978 appointed R.Quentin-Baxter as Special Injurious Consequences Arising Out of
Acts Not Prohibited by International Law,
Rapporteur, who was succeeded after his death in 1984 by Julio Barboza. Denver JILP 18 (1990), 145–208;
The work on this topic has not made very much progress. The exact S.Erichsen, Das Liability-Projekt der
scope of application of the few draft articles so far agreed upon is unclear ILC, ZaöRV 52 (1991), 94–144; F.
Francioni/T.Scovazzi, International
and commentators have quite rightly questioned the feasibility of Responsibility for Environmental Harm,
distinguishing the whole area from the other project on responsibility 1991; A.Rest, Ecological Damage in
for wrongful acts.7 Public International Law: International
Environmental Liability in the Drafts of
The work of the Commission on state responsibility for internationally the UN International Law Commission
wrongful acts is much more important. On the basis of eight reports and the UN/ECE Task Force, EPL 22
(1992), 31–41; P.Thomas,
presented after 1969 by the new Special Rapporteur, Roberto Ago, in
Environmental Liability, 1993; J.
1980 the ILC adopted in first reading (on a provisional basis) a Barboza, International Liability for the
comprehensive set of thirty-five draft articles dealing with the ‘origin’ of Injurious Consequences of Acts Not
Prohibited by International Law and
state responsibility as Part 1.8
Protection of the Environment, RdC 247
Divided into five chapters, Part 1 is intended to give guidance as to (1994–III), 291–406; S.D.Murphy,
which grounds and under which circumstances a state may be considered Prospective Liability Regimes for the
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
to have committed an internationally wrongful act. Chapter I (General Wastes, AJIL 88 (1994), 24; R.Lefeber,
Principles) defines some basic principles, such as that every internationally Transboundary Environmental
wrongful act entails responsibility on the part of the state committing it Interference and the Origin of State
Liability, 1996.
and that every international act consists of two elements, a subjective 7 See A.E.Boyle, State Responsibility
one and an objective one. Draft article 3 states: and International Liability for Injurious
Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by
International Law: A Necessary
There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when: Distinction?, ICLQ 39 (1990), 1–26;
(a) conduct consisting of an action or omission is attributable M.A.Fitzmaurice, International
Environmental Law as a Special Field,
to the State under international law; and NYIL 25 (1994), 181–226, at 203 et seq.
(b) that conduct constitutes a breach of an international 8 ILCYb 1980, Vol. 2, part 2, 30–4. Text
obligation of the State. in Brownlie BDIL, 426–37.
Chapter II (The ‘Act of the State’ under International Law) addresses the
subjective element and determines the conditions under which particular
conduct is to be considered as an act of the state. The objective element is
dealt with in Chapter III (Breach of an International Obligation).
256 STATE RESPONSIBILITY
9 See S.P.Jagota, State Chapter IV (Implication of a State in the Internationally Wrongful Act of
Responsibility: Circumstances
Precluding Wrongfulness, NYIL 16 Another State) is devoted to situations in which a state takes part in the
(1985), 249– 77; P.Malanczuk, commission of a wrongful act by another state and to cases in which
Countermeasures and Self-Defence responsibility is to be borne by a state other than the state that has committed
as Circumstances Precluding
Wrongfulness in the International the act. Finally, Chapter V (Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness) lists a
Law Commission’s Draft Articles on number of circumstances which may exceptionally result in precluding the
State Responsibility, in Spinedi/
wrongfulness of an act of a state which does not conform to an international
Simma (eds), op. cit., 197–286;
A.Gattini, Zufall and force majeure obligation.9 These circumstances include the consent of the injured state;
im System der legitimate counter measures against a wrongful act; force majeure and
Staatenverantwortlichkeit anhand
der ILC Kodifikationsarbeit, 1991.
fortuitous event; distress; necessity; and self-defence.
10 For the draft articles 1 to 5 of From 1980 onwards, the ILC concentrated on Part 2 of the draft articles
Part 2 see 1985 ILC Report, UN dealing with the ‘content, forms and degrees’ of state responsibility, covering
Doc. A/40/10, 52–3.
11 S.Rosenstock, The Forty-
the legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act,10 first on the
Seventh Session of the International basis of reports by the new Special Rapporteur Willem Riphagen, who was
Law Commission, AJIL 90 (1996), later succeeded by Gaetana Arangio-Ruiz. As of 1995, the ILC had finished
106. On the 1996 session, at which
G.Arangio-Ruiz resigned, see
much of its initial work (for submission to the General Assembly) concerning
B.Rudolf, VN 44 (1996), 226. The Part 2 and consideration had also been given to Part 3; both Parts were
1996 report was not available at the adopted by the ILC in first reading in 1996.11 The notion of international
time of writing.
12 See Chapter 3 above, 58–60. ‘crimes’ of states (as addressed in draft article 19 in Part 1),12 however,
13 R.B.Lillich, The Human Rights of remains very controversial.
Aliens in Contemporary International
Law, 1984; D.F.Vagts, Minimum
Standard, EPIL 8 (1985), 382–5;
S.S. Schwebel, The Treatment of State responsibility and the treatment of aliens
Human Rights and of Aliens in the
International Court of Justice, in:
V.Lowe/M. Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Central aspects of the modern law of state responsibility have historically
Years of the International Court of developed on the basis of cases concerning the unlawful treatment of aliens
Justice, 1996, 327–50.
14 See Chapter 15 above, 235–9. and the so-called international minimum standard.13 This field is also the
15 See Chapter 14 above, 209–21. key to the understanding of the content of many of the ILC draft articles.
16 R.Arnold, Aliens, EPIL I (1992), The specific question of the expropriation of foreign property, which also
102–7; K.Doehring, Aliens,
Admission, ibid., 107–9; Aliens, belongs to this area, but has become somewhat separated due to the dispute
Expulsion and Deportation, ibid. between North and South on the ‘New International Economic Order’, has
109–12; Aliens, Military Service, already been dealt with in Chapter 15 above;14 thus the following is limited
ibid., 112–16; I.Seidl-Hoheveldern,
Aliens Property, ibid., 116–19. to the more general aspects.
17 See M.Akehurst, Jurisdiction in As we saw in Chapter 14,15 the modern rules concerning human rights
International Law, BYIL 46 (1972– (which prohibit the ill treatment of all individuals, regardless of their
3), 145–51 and Chapter 7 above,
109–10. nationality) are of fairly recent origin. But for more than two hundred
18 See text above, 255. years international law has laid down a minimum international standard
19 W.K.Geck, Diplomatic
for the treatment of aliens (that is, nationals of other states).16 States are
Protection, EPIL I (1992), 1045–67;
R.Dolzer, Diplomatic Protection of not obliged to admit aliens to their territory, but, if they permit aliens to
Foreign Nationals, ibid., 1067–70. come, they must treat them in a civilized manner. A fortiori, a state is guilty
of a breach of international law if it inflicts injury on aliens at a time when
they are outside its territory (for example, if Utopia orders Utopian
servicemen, stationed in Ruritania, to attack Ruritanian residents). Indeed,
a state may not perform any governmental act whatsoever in the territory
of another state, without the latter’s consent.17
These obligations, in the terms of the ILC, belong to the category of
primary rules.18 To put it in technical terms, failure to comply with the
minimum international standard ‘engages the international responsibility’
of the defendant state, and the national state of the injured alien may
‘exercise its right of diplomatic protection’,19 that is, may make a claim,
STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE TREATMENT OF ALIENS 257
20 On methods of dispute settlement

through diplomatic channels, against the other state, in order to obtain see Chapter 18 below, 273–305.
compensation or some other form of redress. Such claims are usually 21 See Chapter 6 above, 101–2.
settled by negotiation; alternatively, if both parties agree, they may be 22 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power
Company, Limited, ICJ Rep. 1970, 3, at
dealt with by arbitration or judicial settlement.20 44–5. On the case see also Chapter 3
The defendant state’s duties are owed not to the injured alien, but to above, 58–9.
23 RIAA III 1609.
the alien’s national state.21 The theory is that the claimant state itself 24 G.Sperduti, Responsibility of States
suffers a loss when one of its nationals is injured. Consequently, the for Activities of Private Law Persons,
claimant state has complete liberty to refrain from making a claim or to EPIL 10 (1987), 373–50.
abandon a claim; it may agree to settle the claim at a fraction of its true
value; and it is under no duty to pay the compensation obtained to its
national (although it usually does). In these respects, the injured individual
is at the mercy of his/her national state. This aspect of diplomatic
protection was clearly stated by the International Court of Justice in the
Barcelona Traction case in which it held
that, within the limits prescribed by international law, a State may

exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever
extent it thinks fit, for it is its own right that the State is asserting.
Should the natural or legal persons on whose behalf it is acting
consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have
no remedy in international law. All they can do is resort to municipal
law, if means are available, with a view to furthering their cause or
obtaining redress…The State must be viewed as the sole judge
to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is
granted, and when it will cease. It retains in this respect a
discretionary power the exercise of which may be determined by
considerations of a political or other nature, unrelated to the
particular case. Since the claim of the State is not identical with
that of the individual or corporate person whose cause is espoused,
the State enjoys complete freedom of action.22
However, inter national-law does not entirely disregard the individual;

the compensation obtained by the claimant state is usually calculated by
reference to the loss suffered by the individual, not by reference to the loss
suffered by the claimant state. But not always. For instance, in the I’m
Alone case (1935),23 the United States sank a British ship smuggling liquor
into the United States. Although the arbitrators held that the sinking was
illegal they awarded no damages for the loss of the ship, because it was
owned by United States citizens and used for smuggling. But they ordered
the United States to apologize and to pay US$25,000 to the United
Kingdom as compensation for the insult to the British flag.
‘Imputability’
A state is liable only for its own acts and omissions; and, in this context,
the state is identified with its governmental apparatus, not with the
population as a whole. If the police attack a foreigner, the state is liable;
if private individuals attack a foreigner, the state is not liable.24 The
governmental apparatus of the state includes the legislature and the
judiciary, as well as the executive; and it includes local authorities as
well as central authorities.
The ILC draft articles on state responsibility make it clear that:
25 On the position taken by the ILC

see M.Bedjaoui, Responsibility of
1 ‘conduct of any State organ having that status under the internal law
States, Fault and Strict Liability, of that State shall be considered as an act of the State concerned
EPIL 10 (1987), 358–62; A.Gattini, under international law, provided that organ was acting in that
La Notion de faute à la lumière du
projet de convention de la capacity in the case in question’ (draft article 5);
Commission du Draft International 2 ‘[t]he conduct of an organ of the State shall be considered as an act
sur la responsabilité internationale,
EJIL 3 (1992), 253–84; for an of that State under international law, whether that organ belongs to
interesting issue concerning the the constituent, legislative, executive, judicial or other power, whether
attribution of conduct see
F.Kalshoven, State Responsibility for its functions are of an international or an internal character, and
Warlike Acts of the Armed Forces, whether it holds a superior or a subordinate position in the
ICLQ 40 (1991), 827 et seq.
26 RIAA IV 110 (1926).
organization of the State’ (draft article 6);
27 Cf. Morton’s claim (1929), RIAA 3 ‘[t]he conduct of an organ of a territorial governmental entity within
IV 428. a State shall also be considered as an act of that State under
international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in
the case in question’ (draft article 7(1)); and that
4 ‘[t]he conduct of an organ of an entity which is not part of the formal
structure of the State or of a territorial governmental entity, but which
is empowered by the internal law of that State to exercise elements of
governmental authority, shall also be considered as an act of the State
under international law, provided that organ was acting in that
capacity in the case in question’ (draft article 7(2)).
A state is liable for the acts of its officials only if those acts are ‘imputable’
(that is, attributable) to the state. (The question of whether an act is
attributable to a state must be distinguished from the issue of whether or
not some form of fault on the part of the state needs to be established to
engage its international responsibility, a matter which is controversial.25)
The idea of ‘imputability’ creates problems when officials exceed or disobey
their instructions. Obviously it would be unjust if a state could limit its
liability simply by giving restrictive instructions to its officials (for example,
if it could escape liability for road accidents merely by telling its chauffeurs
to drive carefully); and the cases indicate that a state is liable for the acts of
its officials, even when they exceed or disobey their instructions, provided
that they are acting with apparent authority or that they are abusing powers
or facilities placed at their disposal by the state. Youmans claim26 is a striking
example of the law’s willingness to make the defendant state liable. In that
case, Mexico sent troops to protect Americans from a mob; but, instead of
protecting the Americans, the troops, led by a lieutenant, opened fire on
them. Mexico was held liable, because the troops had been acting as an
organized military unit, under the command of an officer. On the other
hand, if the troops had been off duty, their acts would probably have been
regarded merely as the acts of private individuals.27
The wording of ILC draft article 10 reflects this rule:
The conduct of an organ of a State, of a territorial governmental entity

or of an entity empowered to exercise elements of governmental
authority, such organ having acted in that capacity, shall be considered
as an act of the State under international law even if, in the particular
case, the organ exceeded its competence according to internal law
or contravened instructions concerning its authority.
28 See ILC draft articles 8 and 11.

In principle, a state is not responsible for the acts of private individuals, 29 See ILC draft articles 14 and 15 and
unless they were in fact acting on behalf of that state or exercising elements the Tehran Hostages case below. See
also Chapter 8 above, 123, 126–7.
of governmental authority in the absence of government officials and under 30 See H.Blomeyer-Bartestein, Due
circumstances which justified them in assuming such authority.28 There Diligence, EPIL I (1992), 1110–15; R.
Mazzeschi, The Due Diligence Rule and
are special rules concerning responsibility for acts of an insurrectional the Nature of the International
movement.29 But the acts of private individuals may also be accompanied Responsibility of States, GYIL 35
(1992), 9.
by some act or omission on the part of the state, for which the state is 31 The Times, 14 January 1969.
liable. Such act or omission may take one of six forms: 32 Home Missionary Society claim
(1920), RIAA VI 42. This case
concerned injuries caused by rebels, a
1 Encouraging individuals to attack foreigners. topic which gives rise to special
2 Failing to take reasonable care (‘due diligence’) to prevent the problems; see M.Akehurst, State
Responsibility for the Wrongful Acts of
individuals—for example, failing to provide police protection when Rebels—An Aspect of the Southern
a riot against foreigners is imminent.30 For instance, early in 1969 Rhodesian Problem, BYIL 43 (1968–
9), 49.
the United Kingdom compensated South Africa for damage done 33 See Chapter 8 above, 123–4.
to the South African embassy in London by demonstrators; the 34 J.L.Brierly, The Theory of Implied
State Complicity in International Claims,
demonstration had been advertised several days in advance, and BYIL 9 (1928), 42. Compare Neer’s
an attack on the South African embassy was foreseeable, even claim (1926), RIAA IV 60, with Janes’s
claim (1926), RIAA IV 82.
though the demonstrators’ main target was Rhodesia House— 35 S.Verosta, Denial of Justice, EPIL I
and there was only one policeman on duty outside the embassy.31 (1992), 1007–10.
36 Mazzei’s claim (1903), RIAA X 525.
What constitutes ‘reasonable care’ will depend on the 37 J.B.Moore, A Digest of International
circumstances—foreigners who remain in remote areas of the Law, Vol. 6, 1906, 989.
countryside in times of unrest cannot expect the same police
protection as foreigners in a peaceful capital city32 —but special
care must be taken to prevent injury to diplomats.33
3 Obvious failure to punish the individuals.34
4 Failure to provide the injured foreigner with an opportunity of
obtaining compensation from the wrongdoers in the local courts.
This is an example of what is called ‘denial of justice’35 —a term
which is used in a bewildering variety of different meanings.
5 Obtaining some benefit from the individual’s act—for example,
keeping looted property.36
6 Express ratification of the individual’s act—that is, expressly
approving it and stating that that person was acting in the name
of the state.37
The Tehran Hostages case is particularly illuminating in respect of the

above. Following the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlevi, a close ally of
the United States, and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of
Iran under the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, on 4 November 1979,
demonstrators attacked the American embassy in Tehran. Iranian
security forces did not intervene, although they were called upon to do
so. The embassy was invaded, its personnel and visitors were taken
hostage and the archives were ransacked. Most of the hostages were
kept for more than 14 months until 20 January 1981, an
unprecedented event in the history of diplomatic relations. After an
abortive military rescue attempt by the United States on 24–5 April
1980 (the helicopters encountered technical difficulties in the deserts
of Iran), the matter was finally settled by an agreement (the ‘Algiers
Accords’), mediated by the Algerian Government, which led to the
establishment in 1981 of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in

39 Tehran Hostages case , Order,
The Hague to deal with some 4,000 outstanding claims between the two
ICJ Rep. 1979, 7–21; Judgment, ICJ nations by arbitration.38
Rep. 1980, 3–65; on the case see
also Chapter 8 above, 123, 126–7.
What matters here with regard to the issue of state responsibility is the
40 See L.A.N.M.Barnhoorn, view taken by the International Court of Justice to which the United States
Diplomatic Law and Unilateral
Remedies, NYIL 25 (1994), 39–81.
had taken resort (Iran refusing to participate in the proceedings).39 The
41 See text below, 270. Court distinguished between Iran’s responsibility for a first phase of events
43 See Vagts, op. cit.
and for a second phase. In the first phase the Court regarded the militants
44 See F.V.García-Amador, Calvo as private individuals because it found no indication that they had any
Doctrine, Calvo Clause, EPIL I
(1992), 521–3; W.Benedek, Drago-
official status as ‘agents’ of the Iranian government. Thus, in this phase no
Porter Convention (1907), ibid., direct responsibility on the part of Iran could be established. However, in
1102–3. See Chapter 2 above, 15.
45 For example, G.Roy, AJIL 55
this phase Iran was held responsible indirectly for the omission to protect
(1961), 863. the embassy. The direct responsibility of Iran was assumed for the second
phase in view of public statements of Ayatollah Khomeini condoning the
hostage-taking and in view of the decision of the Iranian government to
maintain the situation from which it sought to benefit, and not to take
steps against the militants. The Court dismissed the argument submitted by
Iran in letters of December 1979 and March 1980 that the seizure of the
embassy was a reaction to criminal interference by the United States in the
affairs of Iran. Even if that were true, this would not have justified Iran’s
conduct, because diplomatic law itself provided the necessary means of
defence against illegal activities of members of foreign diplomatic and
consular missions (i.e. declaring them persona non grata and requiring them
to leave the country).40 The Court thus held Iran responsible and to be
under an obligation to release the hostages, to restore the Embassy to the
United States and to make reparation41 to the United States, which was to
be determined, if the parties failed to agree, in a further round of proceedings.
The case was later terminated in accordance with the agreement reached
between the parties in the Algiers Accords.42
Finally, there are special rules concerning the attribution of conduct of
organs of international organizations and of a foreign state acting on the
territory of another state (see ILC draft articles 12 and 13).
The minimum international standard

When someone resides or acquires property in a foreign country, he is deemed
to accept the laws and customs of that country; his national state cannot base
a claim on the fact that he would have been better treated in his home country.
But the majority of states accept that the national state can claim if the foreign
country’s laws or behaviour fall below the minimum international standard.43
During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States and the
Western European states upheld the idea of the minimum international standard,
in opposition to the Latin American countries, which argued that a state’s only
duty was to treat foreigners in the same way as it treated its own nationals
(‘national standard’).44 In arbitrations between the two groups of countries the
minimum international standard was usually applied.
History started repeating itself in the 1960s and 1970s, with certain
lawyers from Third World countries arguing in favour of the national
standard as opposed to the minimum international standard.45 However,
application of the national standard would simultaneously give the alien

too much and too little. Carried to its logical extreme, it would mean 47 RIAA IV 60, 61–2.
that aliens could not be excluded from voting, from entering certain 48 Youmans claim, see text above, 258.
professions, or from enjoying welfare benefits—rights which states are 49 Roberts claim (1926), RIAA IV 77;
Tehran Hostages case, op. cit., at 42;
not obliged to grant to aliens. Conversely, it would also mean that a J.C.Hsiung, Law and Policy in China’s
state would be entitled to torture foreigners to death, provided that it Foreign Relations, 1972, 186.
50 Ibid.
also tortured its own nationals to death—a conclusion which would be 51 R Zafiro case (1925), RIAA VI 160;
repugnant to common sense and justice. If the minimum international Hsiung, op. cit.
52 Doehring (1992), op. cit.
standard appears to give aliens a privileged position, the answer is for 53 BPIL 1964, 210.
states to treat their own nationals better, not for them to treat aliens 54 Ibid., 1966, 115.
worse; indeed, the whole human rights movement may be seen as an
attempt to extend the minimum international standard from aliens to
nationals, even though the detailed rules in declarations and conventions
on human rights46 sometimes differ considerably from those in the
traditional minimum international standard.
What critics of the minimum international standard are really opposed
to is not the principle of having such a standard, but the content of
some of the rules which are alleged to form part of the standard. They
might be reassured by reading the following quotation from the judgment
in the Neer claim:
The treatment of an alien, in order to constitute an international

delinquency, should amount to an outrage, to bad faith, to wilful
neglect of duty or to an insufficiency of governmental action so
far short of international standards that every reasonable and
impartial man would readily recognize its insufficiency.47
Some of the rules comprised in the minimum international standard are

more widely accepted than others. For instance, few people would deny
that a state’s international responsibility will be engaged if an alien is
unlawfully killed,48 imprisoned,49 or physically ill-treated,50 or if his
property is looted or damaged51 —unless, of course, the state can rely
on some circumstances justifying the act, such as the fact that it was
necessary as a means of maintaining law and order (arrest and
punishment of criminals, use of force to stop a riot, and so on). On the
other hand, excessive severity in maintaining law and order will also fall
below the minimum international standard (punishment without a fair
trial, excessively long detention before trial, fatal injuries inflicted by
policemen dispersing a peaceful demonstration, unduly severe
punishment for a trivial offence, and so on).
There are also other ways in which the maladministration of justice
can engage a state’s responsibility—for instance, if the courts are corrupt,
biased, or guilty of excessive delay, or if they follow an unfair procedure;
these rules apply to civil proceedings brought by or against a foreigner,
as well as to criminal proceedings.
In other areas the content of the minimum international standard is
much more controversial. Deportation is an example.52 Since 1914 most
states have claimed wide powers of deportation. The United Kingdom
recognizes that other states have a general right to deport United Kingdom
citizens without stating reasons.53 On the other hand, the United
Kingdom has stated that the right to deport ‘should not be abused by
proceeding arbitrarily’54 —a rather vague restriction on the right of
55 See M.Akehurst, The Uganda

Asians, NLJ, 8 November 1973,
deportation. It is often hard to prove that a deportation is arbitrary if no
1021. reasons are stated for it, but a statement of reasons given voluntarily by the
56 Jack Rankin v. Islamic Republic of
Iran, Award 326–10913–2, para. 30.
deporting state may reveal that the deportation was arbitrary and therefore
57 The Tribunal thus followed Article illegal, as was the case, for example, when the Asians were expelled from
15 of the ILC’s Draft Articles on
State Responsibility.
Uganda in 1972.55
58 Alfred L.W.Short v. Islamic The jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The
Republic of Iran, Award 312–11135–
3, paras. 33 et seq.
Hague in the so-called ‘expulsion cases’ is of particular interest in this
59 Kenneth P.Yeager v. Islamic connection. Several hundred American citizens had filed claims for
Republic of Iran, Award 324–10199–
1, para. 42.
compensation for damages from Iran, alleging that at the height of the
60 H.W.A.Thirlway, Preliminary revolution they had had to leave Iran due to acts which the government
Objections, EPIL 1 (1981), 183–7.
See also Chapter 18 below, 287.
either initiated, supported or tolerated. Generally speaking, the Tribunal
required proof in each individual case that the alien had been forced to
leave because of a specific act that could be attributed to the state, and
found that the contention that there was general ‘anti-Americanism’ was
insufficient.56 In principle, the Tribunal accepted the responsibility of a
new revolutionary government, after it had brought the revolutionary
situation under its control, even with regard to previous acts of the
revolutionary movement which had led the government to power on the
basis of the ‘continuity existing between the new organization of the State
and the organization of the revolutionary movement’.57 In the case at
issue, however, the Chamber was unable to determine that there had been
an act of an ‘agent of the revolutionary movement’ which had forced the
American claimant to leave the country. As a successor government, Iran
was found not to be responsible for the conduct of mere ‘supporters of a
revolution’, just as there is no state responsibility for acts of ‘supporters
of an existing government’.58
Under this standard the Tribunal arrived at a negative conclusion in the
case of two Americans who had understandably left Iran during the Islamic
Revolution in view of personal danger to them, but were unable to prove
that specific enforcement measures had been taken against them which could
be attributed to the state. On the other hand, the Tribunal granted
compensation to another US citizen who, together with his wife, had been
taken by Revolutionary Guards from his home to a hotel from which the
claimant later, together with other Americans, had to depart from Iran.59 In
this case the Tribunal left it open whether the Revolutionary Guards might
be seen as organs of the new government, because it found that, at any rate,
there was also state responsibility for acts of persons acting de facto on behalf
of the government in the sense of Article 8(b) of the ILC’s Draft Articles.
Preliminary objections
When a case involving the treatment of aliens is brought before an
international tribunal, it may be lost on a preliminary objection,60 before
the tribunal is able to deal with the substantive issue of whether there has
been a violation of the minimum international standard. Although the term
‘preliminary objection’ is a term of judicial procedure, the rules giving rise
to preliminary objections are so well established that they tend to be
observed in diplomatic negotiations as well as in proceedings before
international tribunals. The principal factors which can give rise to
a preliminary objection are as follows: non-compliance with the rules 61 See A.Watts, Nationality of Claims:
Some Relevant Concepts, in: V.Lowe/M.
concerning nationality of claims; failure to exhaust local remedies; waiver; Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of the
unreasonable delay; improper behaviour by the injured alien. International Court of Justice, 1996,
424–39.
62 PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 76, at 16. See
E.H.Riedel, Panevezys-Saldutiskis
Nationality of claims Railway Case, EPIL 2 (1981), 224–5.
63 P.Weis, Nationality and
A claim in respect of damage against another state will fail unless it can Statelessness in International Law, 2nd
be proved that the injured individual is a national of the claimant state. edn 1979; A.Randelzhofer, Nationality,
EPIL 8 (1985), 416–24; R.Donner, The
This ‘nationality of claims’ rule is well established in customary Regulation of Nationality in International
international law.61 In the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case (concerning Law, 2nd edn 1994; H.G.Schermers,
a claim for compensation for the expropriation of a railway company The Bond between Man and State, in
FS Bernhardt, 187–98; L.Henkin,
filed by Estonia against Lithuania in 1937), the Permanent Court of ‘Nationality’ at the Turn of the Century,
International Justice said that ibid., 89–102. See also Nationality
Decrees in Tunis and Morocco Case,
PCIJ, series B, no. 4 (1923); W.
in taking up the case of one of its nationals…a State is in reality Benedek, Nationality Decrees in Tunis
asserting its own right…This right is necessarily limited to and Morocco (Advisory Opinion), EPIL 2
(1981), 197–9. On nationality in the
intervention on behalf of its own nationals because, in the European Union after the Maastricht
absence of a special agreement, it is the bond of nationality Treaty see S.Hall, Nationality, Migration
between the State and the individual which alone confers upon Rights and Citizenship of the Union,
1995.
the State the right of diplomatic protection.62 64 For different approaches see, for
instance, R.Plender, British
Commonwealth, Subjects and
This basic principle is clear, but the detailed rules flowing from the principle Nationality Rules, EPIL 8 (1985), 53–9;
are not. This makes it imperative to say a few words on the concept of K.S.Sik (ed.), Nationality and
nationality first. Nationality may be defined as the status of belonging to International Law in Asian Perspective,
1990; R.Bernhardt, German Nationality,
a state for certain purposes of international law.63 As a general rule, EPIL II (1995), 555–9; Brownlie (1990),
international law leaves it to each state to define who are its nationals, op. cit., 386 et seq.; T.M.Franck, Clan
but the state’s discretion can be limited by treaties, such as treaties for the and Superclan: Loyalty, Identity and
Community in Law and Practice, AJIL
elimination of statelessness. Even under customary law, a state’s discretion 90 (1996), 359–83.
is not totally unlimited; for instance, it is obvious that international law
would not accept as valid a British law which imposed British nationality
on all the inhabitants of France. Indeed, the modern tendency is for
international law to be increasingly stringent in restricting the discretion
of states in matters of nationality. In fact, the nationality laws of different
states often have certain features in common.64
Thus, the commonest ways in which nationality may be acquired are
as follows.
1 By birth. Some countries confer their nationality on children born

on their territory (ius soli principle), others confer their nationality
on children born of parents who are nationals (ius sanguinis
principle); in some states nationality may be acquired in either
way (subject to certain exceptions).
2 By marriage.
3 By adoption or legitimation.
4 By naturalization. Technically, this refers to the situation where a
foreigner is given the nationality of another state upon his request,
but the word is sometimes used in a wider sense to cover any change
of nationality after birth (cf. below on ‘involuntary naturalization’).
The willingness of states to grant naturalization varies greatly from
state to state; states like Switzerland, which wish to discourage
foreigners from settling permanently, insist on a very long residence
qualification, but in Israel any Jewish person (which in practice has

66 K.M.Meesen, Option of
not been so easy to define) is entitled to apply for naturalization
Nationality, EPIL 8 (1985), 424–8. without needing to fulfil any residence or other qualification.
See also Chapter 11 above, 169.
67 F.L.Löhr, Passports, EPIL 8
5 As a result of the transfer of territory from one state to another.65
(1985), 428–31.
68 H.v.Mangoldt, Stateless Persons,
EPIL 8 (1985), 490–4; T.Jürgens,
The commonest ways in which nationality may be lost are as follows.
Diplomatischer Schutz und
Staatenlose, 1987.
1 If a child becomes a dual national at birth, as a result of the cumulative
applications of the ius soli and ius sanguinis principles by different
states, he is sometimes allowed to renounce one of the nationalities
upon attaining his majority.
2 Acquisition of a new nationality was often treated by the state of the
old nationality as automatically entailing loss of the old nationality.
Nowadays some states, including the United Kingdom, merely give
such people the option of renouncing their old nationality; many
loyal UK nationals resident abroad acquire foreign nationality solely
for purposes of business convenience.
3 By deprivation. In the United Kingdom only naturalized citizens may
be deprived of their nationality, and on very limited grounds. Other
countries apply the concept of deprivation more widely; in particular,
totalitarian states like Nazi Germany deprived vast numbers of people
of their nationality on racial or political grounds.
4 As a result of the transfer of territory from one state to another.66
Because of the difference between nationality laws in different states, some

people have dual or multiple nationality, while others are stateless. Dual
or multiple nationality was regarded as undesirable at one time; hence
the rule that acquisition of a new nationality automatically entailed loss
of the old. The fact that that rule is being abandoned by many states
reflects a realization that dual or multiple nationality is not as undesirable
as people used to believe, and dual or multiple nationality is likely to
become more common in the future as populations continue to become
more mobile.
Statelessness used to be uncommon, but is becoming more frequent
now as a result of legislation by totalitarian countries depriving people of
their nationality on racial or political grounds (though it can, of course,
arise in other ways also). It is a most unpleasant phenomenon. Being
aliens wherever they go, stateless persons have no right of entry, no voting
rights, are frequently excluded from many types of work and are often
liable to deportation. States usually issue passports only to their own
nationals,67 and this makes it difficult for stateless people to travel when
they want to. In recent years states have entered into treaties to reduce the
hardship of Statelessness (for example, by providing special travel
documents for stateless persons), or to eliminate it altogether by altering
their nationality laws.68
It is in the context of the nationality of claims that international law has
gone farthest in limiting the discretion of states concerning the nationality
of individuals. The traditional position concerning stateless persons is
simple; no state may claim on their behalf. The law applied by the United
Nations Compensation Commission for Claims Against Iraq, established
69 See Malanczuk (1996), International

by the UN Security Council after the defeat of Iraq’s aggression against Business, op. cit., 135–8.
Kuwait, however, has explicitly abandoned this rule on humanitarian 70 Salem case, RIAA II 1161.
71 ILCYb 2 (1958), 66–7. A report drawn
grounds.69 up by a member of the Commission
In the case of a person who is a dual national of two states, A and B, suggested that claims could be brought
only by the state of the master
two problems arise. First, which state can claim against a third state, C? nationality (that is, the state with which
Second, can one of the national states claim against the other? As regards the individual had the closer ties).
72 Reparation for Injuries case, ICJ
claims against third states, the most widely held view is that both states Rep. 1949, 174, 186 (obiter).
can claim,70 although this view has not gone unchallenged.71 As regards 73 Merge case, ILR 22 (1955), 443;
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal,
claims by one national state against the other, the orthodox view is that Decision in Case No. A/18, ILM 23
all such claims are inadmissible,72 but there have been cases, particularly (1984), 489. This is the rule followed by
the United States, AJIL 74 (1980), 163.
in recent years, which indicate that the state of the master nationality 74 BYIL 53 (1982), 492–3, and BYIL 54
(that is, the state with which the individual has the closer ties) can protect (1983), 520–1.
75 Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, ICJ Rep.
the individual against the other national state (as will be discussed 1953, 111–25 (Jurisdiction), ICJ Rep.
below).73 The United Kingdom still accepts the orthodox rule.74 1955, 4–65 (Judgment). See H.v.
Mangoldt, Nottebohm Case, EPIL 2
The orthodox rule applicable to dual nationals was that one national (1981), 213–6.
state could not protect the dual national against the other national state,
and some Latin American states tried to abuse this rule by imposing
their nationality on all persons in respect of whom a claim was likely to
be brought. For instance, the Mexican Constitution used to impose
Mexican naturalization on all foreigners who acquired land in Mexico
or who became fathers of children born in Mexico. The United States
protested against this rule in 1886, arguing that naturalization ‘must be
by a distinctly voluntary act’, which it was not, under the Mexican
Constitution. The United States contention was supported by several
decisions of international arbitral tribunals, and in 1934 Mexico altered
the relevant rules of its constitutional law. It was explained that
henceforth becoming the father of illegitimate children born in Mexico
was to be regarded as ‘un accidente en la vida de los hombres’ (‘an
accident in the life of mankind’), and not as evidence of permanent
affection for the Mexican nation.
It was not until many years later that international law began to limit
the power of states to turn themselves into claims agents by conferring
their nationality on individuals who had no genuine link with them. The
leading case is the Nottebohm case.75 Nottebohm, a German national,
owned land in Guatemala, and realized in 1939 that his German nationality
would be an inconvenience to him if Guatemala entered the war on the
Allied side. Therefore, in 1939 he went to stay for a few weeks with his
brother in Liechtenstein and acquired Liechtenstein nationality, thereby
automatically losing his German nationality under German law as it stood
at that time; he then returned to Guatemala. When Guatemala later
declared war on Germany, he was interned and his property confiscated.
Liechtenstein brought a claim on his behalf against Guatemala before the
International Court of Justice, but failed. The Court held that the right of
protection arises only when there is a genuine link between the claimant
state and its national, and that there was no genuine link between
Nottebohm and Liechtenstein. The effect of the decision is not altogether
certain; the Court did not say that Nottebohm’s Liechtenstein nationality
was invalid for all purposes, only that it gave Liechtenstein no right to
protect Nottebohm against Guatemala.
It is significant that the Nottebohm case, like the Mexican law mentioned
76 See Case No. A/18, op. cit.; P.E.

Mahoney, The Standing of Dual
above, was concerned with a change of nationality, or, more specifically,
Nations Before the Iran-United with naturalization. It is uncertain whether international law would apply
States Claims Tribunal, Virginia JIL
24 (1984), 695; P. McGarvey-
the same tests to acquisition of nationality at birth, for instance, or upon
Rosendahl, A New Approach to Dual marriage. It is possible to acquire the nationality of a country by virtue of
Nationality, Houston JIL 11 (1986),
305; D.J.Bederman, Saghi v. Islamic
being born there, without having any genuine link with that country; is
Republic of Iran, AWD 544–298– 2, such a nationality caught by the rule in the Nottebohm case? Maybe it
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal,
January 22, 1993, AJIL 87 (1993),
would be better to think in terms not of genuine links but of what is
447–52; Bederman, Nationality of acceptable under customary law. Thus it is perfectly normal to acquire
Individual Claimants before the Iran-
United States Claims Tribunal, ICLQ
nationality at birth under the ius soli principle, but the Mexican and
42 (1993), 119 et seq.; Bederman, Liechtenstein laws on naturalization were regarded as suspect by the relevant
Historic Analogues of the UN
Compensation Commission, in
courts because they were not accepted under customary law.
R.B.Lillich (ed.), The United Nations The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague was also confronted
Compensation Commission:
Thirteenth Sokol Colloquium, 1995,
with politically highly sensitive dual national cases in which claimants
257–310; D.S. Mathias, The seeking compensation from Iran had both American and Iranian nationality.
Weighing of Evidence in a Dual
National Case at the Iran-United
The Tribunal decided on the lines of the Nottebohm case and other
States Claims Tribunal, NYIL 26 precedents that the ‘dominant and effective nationality’ of the claimant is
(1995), 171–89.
77 See A.A.Fatouros, National Legal
decisive with regard to the admissibility of the claim; in other words, if the
Persons in International Law, EPIL claim is raised against Iran, then the Tribunal has jurisdiction if the dominant
10 (1987), 299–306.
78 Belgium v. Spain, Judgment
and effective nationality of the dual national is American, based on factual
(Second Phase), ICJ Rep. 1970, 3– criteria, such as residence, family connections, gravity of interests,
357, at 42.
79 Ibid., 31–50. See F.A.Mann, The
participation in public life, etc.76
Protection of Shareholder’s Interests Claims may also be made on behalf of companies possessing the
in the Light of the Barcelona Traction
Case, AJIL 67 (1973), 259–74.
nationality of the claimant state.77 For these purposes, a company is
regarded as having the nationality of the state under the laws of which it
is incorporated and in whose territory it has its registered office. As noted
by the ICJ in the Barcelona Traction case (which concerned injuries
allegedly inflicted by Spain on a Canadian company allegedly controlled
by Belgian shareholders), even if the company operates in a foreign country
and is controlled by foreign shareholders, the state whose nationality the
company possesses still has a right to make claims on its behalf.78 The
Court thus distinguished the Nottebohm case (see above). If there is no
‘genuine link’ between the company and the state whose nationality the
company possesses, it may be that the national state would have no right
to make claims on the company’s behalf. What the Court was really saying
in the Barcelona Traction case was that the mere fact that a company
operated abroad and was controlled by foreign shareholders did not, by
itself, prevent the existence of a genuine link between the company and
the state whose nationality it possessed.
As a rule, a state is not allowed to make claims on behalf of its nationals
who have suffered losses as a result of injuries inflicted on foreign companies
in which they own shares. The decision of the International Court of Justice
in the Barcelona Traction case recognized one exception to this rule: when
the company has gone into liquidation, the national state of the shareholders
may make a claim in respect of the losses suffered by them as a result of
injuries inflicted on the company.79 In this case the claim failed because the
company had not gone into liquidation. Where the injury is inflicted by
the state whose nationality the company possesses, it may be that the
national state of the shareholders is in a more favourable position as
regards making claims. The ICJ left this point open in the Barcelona
Traction case,80 and the obiter dicta of individual judges reached 80 ICJ Rep. 1970, at 48.
81 Ibid., 72–5, 191–2, 240–1, 257.
conflicting conclusions.81 But even in these circumstances it is probably 82 See M.Jones, Claims on Behalf of
necessary to prove either that the company has gone into liquidation or Nationals Who are Shareholders in
Foreign Companies, BYIL 26 (1949),
that the injury in question has deprived it of so many of its assets that it 225.
can no longer operate effectively.82 83 Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI)
In the ELSI case, decided by a Chamber of the ICJ, the United States case, ICJ Rep. 1989, 15–121; ILM 28
(1989), 1109. See also the Case Note
filed a claim against Italy for compensation for the alleged expropriation by T.D. Gill, AJIL 84 (1996), 249–58; G.
of an Italian corporation wholly owned by a US corporation. Judge Schuster, Elettronica Sicula Case,
Oda argued in a separate opinion, citing extensively from the Barcelona EPIL II (1995), 55–8.
Traction case, that the provisions of the 1948 Treaty of Friendship, 85 Flexi-Van Leasing Inc. v. Islamic
Commerce and Navigation concluded between Italy and the United States Republic of Iran, Order of 15 December
1982; General Motors Corporation v.
(relied upon by the United States) were not intended to protect the rights Government of the Islamic Republic of
of shareholders of companies organized under the law of another state.83 Iran, Order of 18 January 1983;
It is interesting to note that most of the ‘large claims’ (above confirmed by the Full Tribunal in Islamic
Republic of Iran v. United States of
US$250,000) brought before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal America, DEC 45-A20-FT, Iran-US CTR
involved claims of American companies against Iran, which often were 11 (1986–II), 271. See also C.Staker,
huge enterprises with many thousands of shareholders, like the General Diplomatic Protection of Private
Business Companies: Determining
Motors Corporation. These cases confronted the Tribunal with the Corporate Personality for International
question (in the light of what has been said above, one might think Law Purposes, BYIL 61 (1990), 155 et
seq.
unnecessarily, but appropriate in view of the special provisions on the 86 K.Doehring, Local Remedies,
jurisdiction of the Tribunal) of how to assess whether the nationality of Exhaustion of, EPIL 1 (1981), 136–40;
a multinational company was in practice truly (and not only formally) C.F.Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in
International Law, 1990; S.Schwebel,
American, as required by the Claims Settlement Declaration that had Arbitration and the Exhaustion of Local
established the Tribunal.84 The Tribunal developed a rather complex set Remedies, in W.E.Ebke/J.J.Norton
of criteria and accepted a presumption that a company was American if: (eds), Festschrift in Honor of Sir Joseph
Gold, 1990, 373; M.H.Adler, The
Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule
1 among a larger number of shareholders the majority had After the International Court of Justice’s
addresses in the United States; and Decision in ELSI, ICLQ 39 (1990), 641
2 the company is able to submit the following 3 documents: et seq.; C.F.Asmeringhe, Arbitration and
the Rule of Local Remedies, in FS
Bernhardt, 665.
(a) a state certificate on the incorporation and existence of
the company in accordance with the law of the compe-
tent state of the United States;
(b) copies of the relevant proxy statements which the com-
pany has submitted to the US Security and Exchange
Commission at the occasion of annual meetings and
contain information on the principal shareholders; and
(c) a sworn statement by a company official on the per-
centage of the shareholders enjoying voting rights with
addresses in the United States.85
Special problems arose with regard to ‘controlled entities’ (companies

controlled either by Iran or the United States) in third states, which
can be neglected here.
Exhaustion of local remedies

An injured individual (or company) must exhaust remedies in the courts
of the defendant state before an international claim can be brought on
his behalf.86 Thus, ILC draft article 22 provides:
When the conduct of a State has created a situation not in

conformity with the result required of it by an international
obligation concerning the treatment to be accorded to aliens,
87 For example, Brown’s claim

(1923), RIAA VI 120.
whether natural or juridical persons, but the obligation allows that this
88 Greece v. UK, RIAA XII 83, ILR or an equivalent result may nevertheless be achieved by subsequent
23 (1956), 306. See N.Wühler,
Ambatielos Case, EPIL I (1992),
conduct of the State, there is a breach of the obligation only if the
123–5. aliens concerned have exhausted the effective local remedies available
89 Switzerland v. USA, ICJ Rep.
1959, 6, at 26–9. See L.Weber,
to them without obtaining the treatment called for by the obligation or,
Interhandel Case, EPIL II (1995), where that is not possible, an equivalent treatment.
1025–7.
90 Op. cit., 42–4, 94.
91 A.M.Trebilcock, Waiver, EPIL 7 Many reasons have been suggested for this rule. The best is probably that it
(1984), 533–6.
prevents friendly relations between states being threatened by a vast number
of trivial disputes; it is a serious allegation to accuse a state of breaking
international law. However, when the injury is inflicted directly on a state
(for example, when its warships or its diplomats are attacked), there is
probably no need to exhaust local remedies; the damage to friendly relations
has already been done, and it is beneath the dignity of a state to be required
to sue in the courts of another state.
Of course, local remedies do not need to be exhausted when it is
clear in advance that the local courts will not provide redress for the
injured individual.87 But, apart from cases where local remedies are
obviously futile, the rule is applied very strictly. For instance, in the
Ambatielos case,88 a Greek shipowner, Ambatielos, contracted to buy
some ships from the British government and later accused the British
government of breaking the contract. In the litigation which followed
in the English High Court, Ambatielos failed to call an important witness
and lost; his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. When Greece
subsequently made a claim on his behalf, the arbitrators held that
Ambatielos had failed to exhaust local remedies because he had failed
to call a vital witness and because he had failed to appeal from the
Court of Appeal to the House of Lords.
Similar conclusions may be drawn from the Interhandel case89 where a
Swiss company had its assets in the United States seized during the Second
World War, on the grounds of its connection with the German company
I.G.Farben. After nine years of unsuccessful litigation in US courts, the
Swiss company was told by the State Department that its case in the US
courts was hopeless. Switzerland started proceedings against the United
States in the International Court of Justice; but, while the case was pending
before the ICJ, the United States Supreme Court ordered a new trial of the
Swiss company’s action against the United States authorities. The
International Court dismissed the Swiss government’s claim on the grounds
that local remedies had not been exhausted. It is sometimes said that local
remedies need not be exhausted when they are excessively slow; one wonders
what, if anything, the words ‘excessively slow’ mean after the Interhandel
case. The judgment in the ELSI case is noteworthy because it confirmed
that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies only requires the exhaustion
of ‘all reasonable’ local remedies.90
Waiver
If a state has waived its claim, it cannot change its mind and put the
claim forward again.91 The claim belongs to the state, not to the injured
CONSEQUENCES OF AN INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT 269
92 Barcelona Traction case, ICJ Rep.

individual; therefore waiver by the individual does not prevent the state 1964, 22–3 (Preliminary Objections).
pursuing the claim.92 See also Chapter 6 above, 102.
At one time contracts between Latin American states and foreigners 93 Geck, op. cit.; Dolzer, op. cit. See
also Chapter 2 above, 14–15.
frequently contained a ‘Calvo clause’ (named after the Argentinean 94 Text in K.-H.Böckstiegel/M.Benkö
lawyer and statesman who invented it), in which the foreigner agreed in (eds), Space Law: Basic Legal
Documents, Vol. II, D.II.4.2. See also
advance not to seek the diplomatic protection of his national state.93 Chapter 13 above, 206.
International tribunals generally disregarded such clauses, on the grounds 95 Centini’s claim (1903), RIAA X 552–5.
that the right of diplomatic protection was a right which belonged to 96 Cf. also draft article 6 bis of Part 2 of
the ILC draft articles on state
the state, not to the individual, and that the state was not bound by the responsibility.
individual’s renunciation of rights which did not belong to him. For 97 As in the I’m Alone case, op. cit.
once, the individual’s lack of rights works to his advantage. 98 See Chapter 3 above, 59–60.
99 See Part 2, draft article 5(3).
States can also waive liability claims in advance with regard to certain
situations in a treaty in order to enhance cooperation by minimizing the
risk of being confronted with huge compensation demands. For example,
Article 16 of the 1988 Agreement between the United States, member
states of the European Space Agency, Japan and Canada on the
Permanently Manned Civil Space Station lays down a ‘cross-waiver of
liability by the partner states and related entities in the interest of
encouraging participation in the exploration, exploitation, and use of
outer space through the Space Station.’94
Unreasonable delay and improper behaviour by the

injured alien
A claim will fail if it is presented after an unreasonable delay by the
claimant state.95 Furthermore, it is sometimes said that a state cannot
make a claim on behalf of an injured national if he suffered injury as a
result of engaging in improper activities—or, as the graphic phrase puts
it, ‘if his hands are not clean’.96 This is probably true, but only if the
injury suffered by the national is roughly proportionate to the impropriety
of his activities;97 a state cannot, for instance, be allowed to put a foreign
national to death for committing a parking offence. When it comes to
severe punishment of foreign nationals for drug offences, for example,
as can be seen from recent experience in some South-East Asian states
(floggings in Singapore, and the imposition of the death penalty in
Malaysia), the matter becomes more complicated.
Consequences of an internationally wrongful act
If it is established that a state has committed an internationally wrongful

act, this leads to responsibility entailing certain legal consequences,
which the ILC is attempting to codify in Part 2 of its draft articles on
state responsibility dealing with ‘content, forms and degrees of
international responsibility’. Draft article 5 contains a definition of
the term ‘injured state’ a right of which is infringed by the
internationally wrongful act of another state. In the case of an
international ‘crime’ in the sense of draft article 1998 (as distinct from
an ordinary ‘delict’), the definition is extended to encompass not only
the directly affected state but to include ‘all other states’.99 For example,
if state A commits a mere ‘delict’ by confiscating property of a
national of state B without offering compensation, only state B can
react by raising an international claim in the appropriate forum or by
100 Part 2, draft article 6.

101 See R.Wolfrum, Reparation for
adopting countermeasures. Other states are not entitled to interfere, because
Internationally Wrongful Acts, EPIL their rights are not affected. On the other hand, if state A commits an
10 (1987), 352–3. See also
F.A.Mann, The Consequences of an
international ‘crime’ by, for example, enslaving parts of the population of
International Wrong in International State B (slavery is considered to be a international crime, affecting the
and National Law, BYIL 48 (1976–
7), 1–6; G.White, Legal
fundamental interests of the international community as a whole and thus
Consequences of Wrongful Acts in the rights of all states), not only state B but all other states of the international
International Economic Law, NYIL
16 (1985), 137–73.
community may be entitled to react, but this matter is controversial and
102 Part 2, draft article 6 bis. has not yet been settled in the ILC.
103 Part 2, draft article 6 bis (2).
104 Part 2, draft article 6 bis (3),
The first legal consequence of international responsibility is that the
105 S.D.Thomson, Restitution, EPIL wrongdoing state is obliged to cease the illegal conduct.100 Moreover, as the
10 (1987), 375–8. ILC has put it, the injured state is entitled to claim ‘full reparation,[101 ] in
106 See Chapter 3, 57–8, on ius
cogens. the form of restitution in kind, compensation, satisfaction and assurances
107 Part 2, draft article 7. and guarantees on non-repetition…either singly or in combination’.102
108 E.H.Riedel, Damages, EPIL I
(1992), 929–34. See also D.B. However, account has to be taken of any negligence or wilful act or omission
Southern, Restitution or of the injured state as well as of a national of the state on the behalf of
Compensation: the Land Question
in East Germany, ICLQ 42 (1993), which a claim is made.103 The wrongdoing state cannot defend itself by
690–7. referring to its internal law to avoid providing full reparation.104
109 See J.Y.Gotanda, Awarding
Interest in International Arbitration,
The rights to restitution in kind, compensation and satisfaction need
AJIL 90 (1996), 40–63. some more explanation. Restitution in kind means that the wrongdoing
110 Part 2, draft article 8. But see
state has to re-establish the situation that existed before the illegal act was
111 E.Riedel, Satisfaction, EPIL 10 committed,105 provided that this
(1987), 383–4.
112 Part 2, draft article 10(2). (a) is not materially impossible;
(b) would not involve breach of an obligation arising from a
peremptory norm of general international law;[106 ]
(c) would not involve a burden out of all proportion to the ben-
efit which the injured State would gain from obtaining res-
titution in kind instead of compensation; or
(d) would not seriously jeopardize the political independence
or economic stability of the State which has committed the
internationally wrongful act, whereas the injured State would
not be similarly affected if it did not obtain restitution in kind.107
If restitution in kind is not available, compensation for the damage108 caused

by the act must be paid. Compensation covers any economically assessable
damage suffered by the injured state and may include interest109 and, under
certain circumstances, also lost profits.110
Satisfaction111 is a further remedy which is particularly (but not only)
appropriate in cases where there is no material damage (so-called ‘moral’
damage) —for example, if one head of state is gravely insulted by another
head of state. Satisfaction may take one or more of the following forms:
(a) an apology;
(b) nominal damages;
(c) in cases of gross infringement of the rights of the injured
State, damages reflecting the gravity of the infringement;
(d) in cases where the internationally wrongful act arose from
the serious misconduct of officials or from criminal con-
duct of officials or private parties, disciplinary action against,
or punishment of, those responsible.112
COUNTERMEASURES AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 271

However, the right to obtain satisfaction ‘does not justify demands which 114 See R.Rosenstock, The Forty-
would impair the dignity of the State which has committed the Seventh Session of the International
Law Commission, AJIL 90 (1996), 106.
internationally wrongful act’ (draft article 8(3)). ‘Nominal damages’ 115 E.Zoller, Peacetime Unilateral
seems to mean that the wrongdoing state may be held to pay a symbolic Remedies. An Analysis of
Countermeasures, 1984; Malanczuk
amount (like US$1 or FF1) to satisfy the ‘honour’ of the injured state, (1987), op. cit., 197–286; O.Y.Elagab, The
which is rather atavistic in our times. Legality of Non-Forcible Counter-Measures
in International Law, 1988; L.-A.Sicilianos,
As a final form of reparation the ILC draft articles mention guarantees Les Réactions décentralisées à l’illicite—
of non-repetition to be given by the wrongdoing state in article 10bis. des contremesures à la légitime défense,
1990; L.A.N.M.Barnhoorn, op. cit. See also
While the notion of international ‘crimes’ of states (as addressed in draft the arbitration between France and the
article 19 in Part 1)113 remained very controversial in the 1995 session United States (1978) in the Air Services
Agreement case, 18 RIAA 416; Harris
of the ILC, some progress was made with regard to ‘delicts’ and the CMIL, 11–7 and Chapter 1 above, 4.
dispute settlement issues connected with countermeasures adopted by 116 P.Malanczuk, Zur Repressalie im
Entwurf der International Law
the victim state.114 Commission zur
Staatenverantwortlichkeit, ZaöRV 45
(1985), 293–323; K.J.Partsch,
Countermeasures and dispute settlement Reprisals, EPIL 9 (1986), 330–5;
Partsch, Retorsion, ibid., 335–7. On the
distinction between reprisals and
The relevant draft articles concerning countermeasures so far dealt with retorsion see also Chapter 1 above, 4.
by the ILC in Part 2 include article 11 (countermeasures by an injured 118 See J.Charney, Third State
state), article 12 (conditions relating to resort to countermeasures), article Remedies in International Law, Mich. JIL
13 (proportionality), and article 14 (prohibited countermeasures). The 10 (1989), 57; J.A.Frowein, Reactions
by Not Directly Affected States to
term ‘countermeasures’115 basically refers to acts of retaliation which Breaches of Public International Law,
are traditionally known as ‘reprisals’.116 If state A is injured by an RdC 248 (1994–IV), 345–437, and
internationally wrongful act for which state B is responsible, in principle, 119 See Chapter 19 below, 309–18.
state A is justified in not complying with its legal obligations towards 120 See the Air Services Agreement
case, op. cit; J.Delbrück, Proportionality,
state B. Under certain conditions state A is allowed to take unilateral EPIL 7 (1984), 396–400. See also
coercive countermeasures against state B that would otherwise be Chapter 19 below, 316–17.
prohibited by international law. State A could, for example, suspend its
treaty obligations towards state B. Alternatively, state A could seize the
assets of state B available under the jurisdiction of state A in order to
induce state B to discontinue the wrongful act and provide reparation.
Such measures are a form of self-help and are characteristic of the
decentralized international legal system, reflecting its horizontal nature.117
Under certain conditions, even third states which are not directly affected
by the illegal act of one state, may be entitled to react to a serious breach
of international law if the obligation in question is an obligation erga
omnes, in the protection of which all states have a legal interest.118
But there are certain legal limits to such countermeasures or acts of
reprisal. The most important limit nowadays is the prohibition of armed
reprisals (use of military force) because of the general prohibition of
the use of force in Article 2(4) in the UN Charter (except, of course in
self-defence against an armed attack).119 Thus, if state A is responsible
for dishonouring certain obligations under a bilateral trade agreement
with state B, state B may not respond by a naval blockade of the
harbours of state A. Furthermore, the counter measure has to be
proportionate to the initial wrongful act.120 If state A imprisons a
national of state B on false charges, state B is not allowed to react
by expelling all nationals of state A and confiscating any property
of state A it can lay its hands on. Furthermore, countermeasures
which violate basic human rights or a peremptory norm of
international law121 are not admissible under international law. For
122 For a discussion see

O.Schachter, Dispute Settlement
example, state A cannot resort to the torture of citizens of state B as a
and Countermeasures in the retaliation in response to an internationally wrongful act committed by
International Law Commission, AJIL
88 (1994), 471– 7; Symposium:
state B.
Counter-Measures and Dispute One of the problematic aspects of the approach adopted by the ILC is
Settlement: The Current Debate
within the ILC, EJIL 5 (1994), 20–
that it is attempting to make the use of unilateral countermeasures
119 (with contributions by conditional upon the prior use of compulsory peaceful dispute settlement
G.Arangio-Ruiz, V.S.Vereshchetin,
M.Bennouna, J. Crawford,
mechanisms.122 The reason is to avoid a vicious circle of reprisals and counter-
C.Tomushat, D.Bowett, B. Simma reprisals. However, this may not be very realistic and in effect, as the
and L.Condorelli).
123 On conciliation and arbitration
international legal system stands at the moment, they simply open avenues
see Chapter 18 below, 278–81, of abuse to the wrongdoing state and provide excuses for continuing with
293–5.
124 See the 1995 ILC Report, UN
the violation of international law. On the other hand, where there is no
Doc. A/50/10 (1995), 192. neutral judge, there is also no neutral judgment and one should not overlook
125 The 1996 report was not
available at the time of writing.
the fact that powerful states naturally prefer to make their own judgment
on the legality or illegality of the conduct of other states, while weaker
states mostly do not have many options left other than to comply with the
demands of stronger states, if there is no third-party assessment of the real
merits of the dispute.
With regard to dispute settlement, the approach so far accepted by the
ILC provides for a formal conciliation process for disputes on the
interpretation or application of the draft articles. If conciliation fails,
arbitration is encouraged, as provided for in an annex to the articles (but
the parties must agree to it).123 The arbitral tribunal shall be given the
authority to decide upon the basic dispute as well as upon the legality of
the countermeasures. Furthermore, in order to induce states to accept
arbitration, provision is made to offer a complete scheme also with respect
to the challenge to the validity of an arbitral award on the grounds that the
tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. Such a challenge is to be decided by
the International Court of Justice.124
The ILC managed to complete its first reading of Parts 2 and 3 of the
topic in 1996 and states may submit their comments by 1998.125 It is doubtful
whether in the end states will agree to be bound by the draft articles in the
form of a multilateral treaty. Nevertheless, the draft articles and their useful
extensive commentaries summarizing state practice have already become
an important and frequent point of reference as evidence of international
law. One needs to be careful, however, to distinguish what of the material is
really the codification of existing international law and what is only
‘progressive development’, in the sense of proposals on what the law should
be in the future.
18 Peaceful settlement of
disputes between states
Disputes between states arising from claims and counter-claims concerning 1 See Harris CMIL, 908–69;
a matter of fact, law and policy are an inevitable part of international Restatement (Third), Vol. 2, 338–99;
L.B.Sohn, Peaceful Settlement of
relations and have frequently led to armed conflict. The issue of dispute
Disputes, EPIL 1 (1981), 154–6; L.B.
settlement between states1 is the area which needs the most careful attention Sohn, The Future of Dispute
in order to understand the nature of international law properly, because it Settlement, in R.St.J.Macdonald/
is the linchpin upon which the operation of all the other principles and D.M.Johnston (eds), The Structure
and Process of International Law,
rules rests, including the central area of state responsibility. Some more, 1983, 1121–46; I. Diaconu, Peaceful
deeper consideration of the matter is therefore required. Settlement of Disputes between
As noted in Chapter 2 above, the idea of peaceful settlement of States: History and Prospects, ibid.,
1095–1120; R. Higgins, International
disputes developed in international law during its ‘classical’ period,
Law and the Avoidance, Containment
while there was no general prohibition on the use of force. The UN and Resolution of Disputes, RdC
Charter2 prohibits the use of force in Article 2(4) (with certain (1991–V), 230; J.G. Merrills,
exceptions, to be discussed below in Chapter 193) and requires all International Dispute Settlement, 2nd
edn 1991, 1; E. Lauterpacht, Aspects
member states to ‘settle their international disputes by peaceful means of the Administration of International
in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, Justice, 1991; M.Brus et al. (eds), The
are not endangered’ (Article 2(3)). However, the concrete obligations United Nations Decade of International
Law: Reflections on International
following from this provision are controversial and there is no
Dispute Settlement, 1991;
agreement on the meaning of the term ‘international dispute’.4 Indeed, W.M.Reismann, Systems of Control in
one of the prime purposes of the organization is described as being International Adjudication and
‘to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the Arbitration: Breakdown and Repair,
1992; J. Tacsan, The Dynamics of
principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement International Law in Conflict
of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach Resolution, 1992; P. Pazartzis, Les
of the peace’ (Article 1(1)). Chapter VI of the UN Charter is completely Engagements internationaux en
matière de règlement pacifique des
devoted to this purpose, but, as stated in Article 33(1), it is limited to
différends entre Etats, 1992;
certain types of disputes, namely those ‘the continuance of which is C.Chinkin, Third Parties in
likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and International Law, 1993; M.Brus, Third
security’. Party Dispute Settlement in An
Interdependent World, 1995; K.-H.
Article 33(1) of the UN Charter gives a list of the usual methods of Böckstiegel, Internationale
the peaceful settlement of disputes between states in international law: Streiterledigung vor neuen
Herausforderungen, in FS Bernhardt,
671–86; I.Brownlie, The Peaceful
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
Settlement of International Disputes in
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other Practice, Pace ILR 7 (1995), 257–79;
peaceful means of their choice.5 P. Malanczuk, ‘Alternative Dispute
Resolution’ (ADR) in International
These methods can be categorized into: (1) diplomatic means of dispute Commercial Disputes: Lessons from
Public International Law, in ICC
settlement, (2) legal (or judicial) means of dispute settlement, and (3) dispute Publishing S.A.R (ed.), ADR—
settlement procedures among the member states of international International Commercial Disputes:
organizations. Diplomatic means are negotiation, good offices, mediation, New Solutions?, Special Dossier of
inquiry and conciliation. While negotiations only concern the parties to the ICC International Institute of
Business Law and Practice
the dispute, in the case of the other aforementioned diplomatic means a (forthcoming).
third party is involved in the settlement in one way or another without, 2 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 1.
however, having the power to decide on the dispute with legally binding 3 See Chapter 19 below, 308–18.
274 PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
4 See C.Tomuschat, Article 2(3), in

Simma CUNAC, 97–106.
effect. Legal means are arbitration and adjudication leading to a legally binding
5 See C.Tomuschat, Article 33, ibid., third party decision. This chapter focuses upon the diplomatic and legal
505–14. methods of dispute settlement. The role of the United Nations in the settlement
7 See K.Oellers-Frahm/N.Wühler of inter-state conflicts will be dealt with separately in Chapter 22.6
(comps.), Dispute Settlement in States have concluded quite a number of general multilateral
Public International Law: Texts and
Materials, 1984. instruments aiming at the peaceful settlement of their quarrels.7 The 1899
8 The 95th Annual Report of the
Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
Administrative Council of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration, was revised by the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, and by 1996
1995, Annex 1; text of the 1899 eighty-two states were still bound by the 1899 or 1907 Convention.8 The
Convention in UKTS 9 (1901) Cd.
798; 1907 Convention, UKTS 6 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes,9 concluded under
(1971) Cmnd. 4575. On the Hague the auspices of the League of Nations, was accepted by only twenty-three
Peace Conferences see Chapter 2
above, 22–3. states and was later denounced by Spain (1939), France, the United
9 Text in 71 UNTS 101, revised by Kingdom and India (1974), and Turkey (1978). While the UN General
the United Nations in 1949, UNGA
Res. 268A (III) of 28 April 1949. See Assembly approved a minor revision of the Act in 1949, only seven states
F.v.d. Heydte, General Act for the adhered to it.
Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes (1928 and 1949), EPIL II
But there are also a number of regional instruments, including the 1948
(1995), 499– 502; Heydte, Geneva American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Bogotá Pact),10 the 1957 European
Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes,11 the 1964 Protocol of
International Disputes (1924), ibid.,
529–31. the Commission of Mediation and Arbitration of the Organization of African
10 30 UNTS 55. See T.B.de Unity,12 the 1992 Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration Convention
Maekelt, Bogotá Pact (1948), EPIL I
(1992), 415.
Within the CSCE13 and the 1993 OAU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention,
11 320 UNTS 243. See K.Ginther, Management and Resolution.14 In addition to such general agreements on
European Convention for the dispute settlement, there are many bilateral (especially the numerous treaties
Peaceful Settlement of Disputes,
EPIL II (1995), 186. of friendship, commerce and navigation or on foreign investment)15 and
12 ILM 3 (1964), 1116. See multilateral treaties which include specific dispute settlement clauses (so-
T.Maluwa, The Peaceful Settlement
of Disputes Among African States,
called compromissory clauses)16 relating to the interpretation and application
1963–1983: Some Conceptual of the treaty in question.
Issues and Practical Trends, ICLQ In the past, states have shown themselves very reluctant to limit their
38 (1989), 299–320.
13 ILM 32 (1993), 557. See also D. sovereignty in general terms by submitting in abstracto to binding third
Bardonnet (ed.), The Peaceful party settlement of their disputes, especially (but not only) the former socialist
Settlement of International Disputes
in Europe: Future Prospects, 1991; countries and most of the developing countries in Africa and Asia. After
K. Oellers-Frahm, The Mandatory the Second World War, the predominant trend was to regard only minor
Component in the CSCE Dispute
Settlement System, in M.Janis (ed.), conflicts and issues of a more technical nature to be suitable for binding
International Courts for the Twenty- dispute settlement, in view of the diversity of the international community
First Century, 1992, 195–211.
14 UN Doc. A/47/558, 98. See J.Hilf, and the absolutist version of the concept of sovereignty that prevailed.17 It
Der neue has been noted that even regional agreements on dispute settlement either
Konfliktregelungsmechanismus der
OAU, ZaöRV 54 (1994), 1023–47.
are not ratified by a considerable number of the more important states in
15 D.Blumenwitz, Treaties of the region, if they provide for compulsory binding adjudication of ‘legal’
Friendship, Commerce and
disputes and arbitration of ‘non-legal’ disputes, such as in Europe or
Navigation, EPIL 7 (1984), 484–90.
See also Chapter 15 above, 237, on America, or they remain on the level of voluntary dispute settlement, such
bilateral investment treaties. as the 1964 OAU Protocol. Such general agreements on dispute settlement
16 See H.Fox, States and the
Undertaking to Arbitrate, ICLQ 37 mechanisms have therefore remained weak and have mostly failed in
(1988), 1; N.Wühler, Arbitration practice.
Clause in Treaties, EPIL I (1992),
236; H.v. Mangoldt, Arbitration and In view of the fruitless efforts to replace the old general treaties by new
Conciliation Treaties, ibid., 230; ones and to find a universally acceptable solution, the tendency has been
K.Oellers-Frahm, Compromis, ibid.,
712.
that states are more disposed to agree to third party decisions with regard
17 On the doctrine of sovereignty to disputes concerning more specific matters.18 The 1972 Outer Space
see Chapter 2 above, 17–18.
DIPLOMATIC METHODS OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 275
18 See K.Oellers-Frahm, Arbitration— A

Liability Convention was in a way typical of a new form of Promising Alternative of Dispute
compromissory clause acceptable to states. The claims commission it Settlement under the Law of the Sea
Convention?, ZaöRV 55 (1995), 457–
provides for is only a conciliation body unless the parties agree to accept 78, at 468 et seq.
its decision as a binding award.19 19 See Chapter 13 above, 205–6.
20 On Article 94 of the UN Charter see
But even if states agree to a particular dispute settlement mechanism, below, 288–9.
this does not necessarily mean that they will actually use it in a given 21 C.-A.Fleischhauer, Negotiation, EPIL
case or abide by a third party decision (although once they decide to 1 (1981), 152–4.
22 Text of the Declaration in Brownlie
accept the jurisdiction of a tribunal in a concrete case they usually do) BDIL, 36; see Chapter 2 above, 32.
and international law knows no effective general method to enforce the 23 ICJ Rep. 1969, 3, at 47. See also
decisions of international courts and tribunals,20 as is possible in the 24 See Chapter 12 above, 173–5.
case of domestic courts in national legal systems. 25 On the dispute settlement system
under the 1982 Convention see text
The preferred methods of dispute settlement by states in practice are below, 298–300.
diplomatic methods which leave them as much as possible in control of
the outcome of the process.
Diplomatic methods of dispute settlement
Negotiations
The vast majority of disputes between states are settled by direct diplomatic
negotiations.21 International law is not unique in this respect; the vast
majority of disputes in any legal system are settled by negotiations.
A duty of states to enter into negotiations may be implied from the
general obligation of states to settle their disputes peacefully according
to Article 2(3) of the UN Charter and from the duty listed in the Friendly
Relations Declaration of 1970 to select such ‘means as may be
appropriate to the circumstances and the nature of the dispute’.22 As
noted by the ICJ in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the parties to
a dispute may even be under an ‘obligation so to conduct themselves
that the negotiations are meaningful’.23 Specific obligations may arise
under a treaty such as under Article 283 of the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention24 which aims at keeping the disputing parties in contact
and requires them to exchange views at any stage of the dispute and
even thereafter to implement the final settlement or decision.25
But negotiation is not always a good method of settling international
disputes. Neutral third parties seldom take part in negotiations, and this
means that there is no impartial machinery for resolving disputed questions
of fact. It also means that there is little to restrain a disputing state from
putting forward extreme claims, especially where its bargaining power is
very strong. States can also deny that a dispute exists and often demand
that certain preconditions are fulfilled before entering into negotiations.
Dispute settlement clauses in treaties often provide for negotiation
only as the first step of a dispute settlement procedure and allow for the
submission of the quarrel to other means of peaceful settlement such as
mediation, inquiry, conciliation, arbitration or adjudication, if the
negotiations fail within a certain time-limit.
Good offices and mediation

Sometimes third states, or international organizations, or often even
an eminent individual, may try to help the disputing states to reach
26 R.L.Bindschedler, Good Offices,

EPIL II (1995), 601–3; R.L.
agreement. Such help can take two forms: good offices and mediation.26 A
Bindschedler, Conciliation and third party (as a ‘go-between’) is said to offer its good offices when it tries
Mediation, EPIL I (1992), 721–5; v.
Mangoldt, op. cit., 230–6.
to persuade disputing states to enter into negotiations; it passes messages
27 R.L.Bindschedler, Permanent and suggestions back and forth and when the negotiations start, its functions
Neutrality of States, EPIL 4 (1982),
133; R.R.Probst, ‘Good Offices’ in
are at an end. Switzerland, with its ‘permanent neutrality’,27 for example,
the Light of Swiss International has often acted as a protecting power in times of war or peace, such as
Practice and Experience, 1989.
28 See E.A.Schwartz, International
representing the United States in Cuba.
Conciliation and the ICC, ICSID As compared with offering good offices, a mediator, on the other hand,
Rev. 10 (1995), 98, at 100–1.
29 Beagle Channel Arbitration, ILM
is more active and actually takes part in the negotiations and may even
17 (1978), 632. See Merrills (1991), suggest terms of settlement to the disputing states (which is often seen as
op. cit., Chapter 5; K.Lankosz,
Beagle Channel, EPIL I (1992), 359;
a characteristic of conciliation). Under the Conciliation Rules of the
K.Oellers-Frahm, Beagle Channel International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) (which deal with commercial
Arbitration, ibid., 363; G.R.Moncayo,
La Médiation pontificate dans
disputes and do not apply to inter-state disputes), however, the much
l’affaire du canal Beagle, RdC 242 discussed distinction between ‘mediation’ and ‘conciliation’ makes no
(1993–V).
30 Text of the Algiers Accords in ILM
practical difference, for the Rules leave it to the conciliator whether or
20 (1981), 223. See S.A.Riesenfeld, not to make settlement proposals.28 Obviously a mediator has to enjoy
United States-Iran Agreement of
January 19, 1981 (Hostages and
the confidence of both sides, and it is often difficult to find a mediator
Financial Arrangements), EPIL 8 who fulfils this requirement. In the dispute between Argentina and Chile
(1985), 522. As to the Tehran
Hostages Case see Chapters 8,
over the implementation of the Beagle Channel award, 29 both sides
123, 126–7 and 17, 259–60 above; accepted Cardinal Antionio Samoré as a mediator, upon the proposal by
on the Iran-United States Claims
Tribunal see text below, 296–8.
the Pope. Good offices and mediation can be combined and are also not
31 Such special rules are laid down, always easy to distinguish in practice. Such was the role of Algeria in
for example, in the World Intellectual
Property Organization: Mediation,
1980 in the diplomatic hostages dispute between Iran and the United
Arbitration, and Expedited States in which both sides were not speaking directly to each other. With
Arbitration Rules, ILM 34 (1995),
559; J.A. Freedberg-Swartzburg,
the assistance of Algeria they concluded the Algiers Accords, leading to
Facilities for the Arbitration of the establishment of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague
Intellectual Property Disputes,
Hague YIL 8 (1995), 69–84.
in 1981.30
32 See Chapter 2 above, 13. The consent of the parties to mediation is not necessarily required
initially, but no effective assistance can be provided without it. General
rules of procedure for the mediation of disputes31 between states do not
exist, unless there is a clear treaty basis for them. Mediation thus takes
the form of flexible negotiations with the participation of a third party. A
mediator can also provide financial support and other valuable assistance
in the performance of the solution agreed upon. In the dispute between
India and Pakistan on the waters of the Indus basin between 1951 and
1961 the World Bank mediated successfully by granting financial aid.
Examples of successful mediations by states, usually by a great power, are
the initiatives taken by Germany at the 1878 Berlin Congress,32 by the
USSR in 1966 in the conflict between India and Pakistan, and by the
United States in the Arab-Israeli conflict in the 1978 Camp David peace
negotiations between Israel and Egypt and in the recent agreements
between Israel and the PLO.33
An old Chinese proverb says ‘the go-between wears out a thousand
sandals’. Mediation in conflicts between states is not easy and has its
drawbacks also for the mediator, because taking an active role endangers
the relations of the mediator with one or all of the disputing parties. A truly
neutral stance is often not possible without favouring one side or the other,
especially in armed conflicts. Third-party involvement in the settlement
of international disputes has also frequently failed due to the lack of
34 R.B.Lillich (ed.), Fact-Finding Before

sufficient influence of the third party. Great powers have more chances International Tribunals, 1992;
of success due to their resources and weight, but, on the other hand, K.J.Partsch, Fact-Finding and Inquiry,
EPIL II (1995), 343–5.
they tend to pursue their own interests at the same time. Small states or 35 See the report of the UN Secretary-
international organizations are less prone to such temptation, but they General on methods of fact-finding, UN
Doc. A/6228, GAOR (XXI) of 22 April
also have less leverage in persuading the parties to a dispute to reach a 1966, Annexes Vol. 2, Agenda item 87,
compromise. Mediation has most chances in the settlement of smaller 1–21.
36 See Dogger Bank Inquiry (1905), in
issues or local conflicts, in stalemate situations where escalation threatens J.B.Scott (ed.), The Hague Court
to occur, or when the dispute has in fact already been decided (i.e. by the Reports, 1916, 403–13; P.Schneider,
Dogger Bank Incident, EPIL I (1992),
military victory of one side) and the consequences have to be drawn. 1090. For another famous case in which
the commission of inquiry, chaired by
Charles de Visscher, even went beyond
Fact-finding and inquiry its prescribed fact-finding task, but
nevertheless found its findings accepted
by the parties, see Red Crusader
‘Fact-finding’ and ‘inquiry’ as methods for establishing facts in Enquiry (1962), ILR 35 (1967), 485–
international law can be used for a variety of purposes,34 including the 500; J.Polakiewicz, Red Crusader
practice of decision-making of international organizations.35 In the Incident, EPIL 11 (1989), 271.
settlement of international disputes the two terms are more or less 38 Article 90, 1977 Protocol I, ILM 16
interchangeable. Many international disputes turn solely on disputed (1977), 1391; Article 5, Annex VII of the
1982 Convention, ILM 21 (1982), 1261.
questions of fact, and an impartial inquiry is a good way of reducing the See E.Kussbach, The International
tension and the area of disagreement between the parties. After some Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission,
ICLQ 43 (1994), 174–84. On the 1949
negotiations, disputing states may sometimes agree to appoint an Geneva Conventions see Chapter 20
impartial body (mostly ad hoc, but sometimes also consisting of a below, 344.
permanent body established in advance by agreement for certain kinds
of disputes) to carry out an inquiry; the object of the inquiry is to produce
an impartial finding of disputed facts, and thus to prepare the way for a
negotiated settlement. The parties are not obliged to accept the findings
of the inquiry, but almost always do accept them.
The task of establishing the facts may also be combined with their
legal evaluation and that of making recommendations for the settlement
of disputes, which then makes a clear distinction between fact-finding/
inquiry and conciliation and mediation not always possible, as in the
case of the Dogger Bank incident.36 In 1904, the Russian Baltic fleet, on
its way to the Pacific to engage in the war with Japan, fired upon British
fishing vessels operating around the Dogger Bank in the North Sea,
alleging that it had been provoked by Japanese submarines. The parties
appointed a commission of inquiry composed of senior naval officers
from Great Britain, Russia, the United States, France and Austria, with
the task not only of establishing what had actually happened (the facts),
but also to make findings on the responsibility37 and the degree of fault
of those under the jurisdiction of both parties. On the basis of the report
of the commission, Britain withdrew its insistence on the punishment of
the Russian Admiral and Russia agreed to pay £65,000 in compensation.
Fact-finding is also mentioned in treaty instruments. The 1907 Hague
Convention, for example, describes the task of a commission of inquiry
as ‘to facilitate a solution…by means of an impartial and conscientious
investigation’ (Article 9) and limits its report ‘to a statement of facts’
which ‘has in no way the character of an award’ (Article 35). More
recent instruments, however, also give ‘fact-finding commissions’ powers
to evaluate the facts legally and to make recommendations, such as the
1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Red Cross Conventions,
or in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.38
39 UN Doc. A/6373 GOAR (XXI),

Annexes, Vol. 2, Agenda item 87,
The question of whether fact-finding and inquiry should be pure and clearly
111–4; UN GA Res. 2329 (XXII) of separated from conciliation, as envisaged in the 1899 and 1907 Hague
18 December 1967. Conventions and the 1913/14 Bryan Treaties, has remained controversial.
40 Partsch, op. cit., at 345.
41 Article 1 of the Regulation on the After intensive debate which took place from 1962 to 1967 the United Nations
Procedure of International took the position that a combination of fact-finding and conciliation would
Conciliation, Ann. IDI 49–II (1961),
385–91. For literature see Merrills be detrimental to a settlement39 and rejected the proposal to create a permanent
(1991), op. cit., 59. commission of inquiry available to states and organs of the UN and their
43 See v. Mangoldt, op. cit., at 232. Specialized Agencies. This would have avoided the necessity of having to
reach an agreement in every individual case on the creation of the body, its
terms of reference, composition and rules of procedure. General Assembly
Resolution 2329 of 18 December 1967 merely requested the Secretary-General
to prepare a register of experts on fact-finding. States found this less
compromising of their sovereignty and also dismissed any obligation to
proceed to fact-finding. The 1974 to 1977 Diplomatic Conference on
Humanitarian Law had a similar result. As of 31 March 1991, the competence,
for example, of the optional Fact-Finding Commission under Article 90(2)
of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions had been
accepted by only twenty-one states. K.-J.Partsch concludes: ‘The theory that
genuine inquiries (restricted to fact-finding) do not meet with the reluctance
of states to allow interference with their sovereignty to the same extent as
inquiries combined with elements of conciliation has not been confirmed by
international practice during the last eighty years.’40 The role of bilateral
fact-finding in preventing disputes or settling them finally has actually been
rather modest. The few successful cases have mostly been limited to special
areas such as maritime incidents, and they must be distinguished from ‘fact-
finding missions’ of political organizations, such as the United Nations.
Conciliation
The Institut de droit international in 1961 defined conciliation as follows:
A method for the settlement of international disputes of any nature

according to which a Commission set up by the Parties, either on a
permanent basis or an ad hoc basis to deal with a dispute, proceeds
to the impartial examination of the dispute and attempts to define
the terms of a settlement susceptible of being accepted by them or
of affording the Parties, with a view to its settlement, such aid as
they may have requested.41
The definition is generally accurate, but fails, however, to recognize that sole
conciliators may also be appointed, although this is not the rule in practice.
The evolution of conciliation as a separate method of dispute settlement
in international law can be traced back to the Bryan Treaties of 19137
14.42 These treaties avoided the honour and vital interest clauses of earlier
arbitration treaties and made allowance for the sensitivity of states by giving
the permanent commissions to be established only the power to make
non-binding decisions. 43 Following the German-Swiss Arbitration
Treaty of 1921 and the model of a 1925 Treaty between France and
Switzerland, there were hundreds of bilateral general arbitration and
conciliation treaties which, inter alia, often provided that voluntary or
44 Merrills, 1991, op. cit., at 60.

compulsory conciliation should precede the arbitration or adjudication 45 See Chapter 3 above, 55.
of all legal disputes, or even mentioned compulsory conciliation only44 46 Merrills (1991), op. cit., 65 et seq.
See also N.Wühler, East African
Although some conciliation treaties were also accepted by the Soviet Community, EPIL II (1995), 1–3.
Union, the only global instrument providing for compulsory conciliation 47 Ibid., 69.
(and adjudication and arbitration) was the 1928 General Act for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. But it received only a few
ratifications.
Since the Second World War the role of conciliation in bilateral treaties
has diminished, although it has not completely vanished, especially in
the practice of Switzerland, a major champion of conciliation. The picture
presented by multilateral treaties is different, because the inclusion of
conciliation, next to other forms of dispute settlement, has almost become
a routine matter.
In conciliation proceedings between states, third parties cannot take
the initiative on their own. Conciliators can be appointed on the basis
of their official function, for example heads of state or the UN Secretary-
General, or as individuals in their personal capacity. The general practice
in establishing commissions is that the parties to the dispute nominate
one or two of their own nationals and agree on a certain number of
impartial and independent nationals of other states in order to provide
a neutral majority.
Conciliation is also sometimes described as a combination of inquiry
and mediation. The conciliator, who is appointed by agreement between
the parties, investigates the facts of the dispute and suggests the terms of
a settlement. But conciliation is more formal and less flexible than
mediation; if a mediator’s proposals are not accepted, he can go on
formulating new proposals, whereas a conciliator usually only issues a
single report. (However, the conciliator usually has discussions with each
of the parties behind the scenes, with a view to finding an area of
agreement between them, before issuing his report.) The parties are not
obliged to accept the conciliator’s terms of settlement (they are only
recommendations); but, apart from that, conciliation often resembles
arbitration, particularly when the dispute involves difficult points of
law (and is not to be settled ex aequo et bono45); in order to make a
good impression on the conciliator, states are forced to rephrase their
case in more moderate language, as they would before an arbitrator. At
least the arguments tend to become more reasonable.
Most conciliations were performed with commissions composed of
several members, which is the normal arrangement under bilateral or
multilateral treaties, but occasionally states may prefer a single conciliator,
as in the case of the distribution of the assets of the former East African
Community in 1977 when Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, encouraged
by the World Bank, requested the Swiss diplomat Dr Victor Umbricht to
make proposals.46 Other examples are the case of the appointment of
the President of the International Monetary Fund in a complex matter
concerning the financial consequences of a pre-war loan of Japan, or in
a later similar case, the President of the World Bank.47
Although the practice of conciliation commissions reflects the same
basic functions, namely to examine the dispute and make non-binding
recommendations for a possible settlement, there are considerable
48 Ibid., 67 et seq.
49 v. Mangoldt, op. cit., 235.
differences of approach in essential matters, including the degree of the
50 See Merrills (1991), op. cit., 70 et formality of the proceedings.48 Often the procedures are kept highly flexible
seq.
51 See, for example, I.Seidl-
in the interest of being able to deal with the specific nature of a dispute.49
Hohenveldern, Conciliation Confidentiality of the proceedings, however, has been a key to success in
Commissions Established Pursuant
to Article 83 of the Peace Treaty with
dealing with governments. If the parties accept the proposals of a conciliation
Italy of 1947, EPIL I (1992), 725–8. commission after the usual specification of some months for consideration,
52 Merrills (1991), op. cit., 76 et seq.
53 v. Mangoldt, op. cit., at 233.
the commission drafts a procès-verbal which records the fact of conciliation
and the agreed terms of settlement. If the proposal is not accepted, the
work of the commission is at its end and there are no further obligations
for the parties. Findings of fact or legal views of the commission are not to
be used by the parties in subsequent arbitral or judicial proceedings, unless
they agree.50
Mediation and conciliation have both advantages and disadvantages,
as compared with the other methods of international dispute settlement.
They are both more flexible than arbitration or adjudication, leaving more
room for the wishes of the parties and for initiatives of the third party.
‘Package deals’ can be made more easily. Parties can avoid losing face and
prestige by voluntarily accepting (or appearing to do so voluntarily) the
proposal of a third party. They remain in control of the outcome. No legal
precedent is created for the future. The third party does not have to give
reasons and the proceedings can be conducted in secret. The whole matter
thus tends to focus on the practical issues.
The disadvantages are also obvious. Conciliation and mediation
procedures are difficult to start without the consent of the other side and
require the goodwill of the opponent. The contribution to the development
of the law is also much more reduced than in the case of arbitration or
adjudication, but this is a more abstract systemic consideration. What
matters for the parties is primarily the satisfactory settlement of the dispute
as such, whether or not the compromise reflects the substantive law.
The practical significance of conciliation in international law depends
on the area of study.51 Generally speaking, it seems that conciliation is most
desired where the dispute is a minor one and its central issues are of a legal
nature, but the solution should reflect an equitable compromise in the eyes
of the parties. It seems that in the seventy years of the modern history of
conciliation, less than twenty cases have been heard, rather more than the
number of inquiry cases, but still not an overwhelming number if one
considers the hundreds of treaties providing for conciliation.52 Of the thirteen
conciliation cases referred to by Hans von Mangoldt, the author concludes:
Nearly all of them involved legal questions, the majority of which were
submitted under a general undertaking to conciliate. Eight of these
were settled on the basis of the recommendations of the commission.
This success may be due to the fact that in all but one case, failing
conciliation, compulsory arbitration had been provided for.53
This seems to indicate that the existence of a default procedure leading to

legally binding decisions in the next stage, if no result is achieved
through non-binding conciliation, is conducive to a settlement. The
relatively small number of cases reported, on the other hand, may find some
LEGAL METHODS OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 281
explanation in the confidentiality of the proceedings. The general value 54 ILM 30 (1991), 231.
55 1992 CSCE Convention, op. cit.
that is still being attached to this method as such can be seen from the
1990 UN Draft Rules on Conciliation of Disputes Between States54 and 57 H.Mosler, Judgments of
the 1992 CSCE Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration.55 However, International Courts and Tribunals,
it has been in the context of the tragedy in former Yugoslavia where EPIL 1 (1981), 111–8; H.Steinberger,
Judicial Settlement of International
conciliation (and other) attempts by various parties and bodies have
Disputes, ibid., 120–33; H.Thirlway,
most visibly failed in recent times to settle an armed conflict fuelled by Procedure of International Courts and
historically based hatred and nationalistic claims raised by politicians Tribunals, ibid., 183–7; C.D.Gray,
hungry for power.56 One has to accept that in international affairs, Judicial Remedies in International Law,
problems often cannot be solved, because the positions of parties are 1990; E.McWhinney, Judicial
Settlement of International Disputes,
simply irreconcilable. 1991; G.Guillaume, Les Formations
restreintes des jurisdictions
internationales, 1992; M.W.Janis (ed.),
Legal methods of dispute settlement International Courts for the Twenty-First
Century, 1992; H.Thirlway, Evidence
before International Courts and
Should the above non-binding methods of dispute settlement remain
Tribunals, EPIL II (1995), 302–4; C.
fruitless, some treaties provide for arbitration and/or judicial means of Tomuschat, International Courts and
settlement which both result in a third-party decision legally binding Tribunals, ibid., 1108–15; M.Kazazi,
upon the parties. Both also require the consent of the parties. Adjudication Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A
(judicial settlement) is performed by a standing (permanent) court. The Study on Evidence Before International
Tribunals, Studies and Materials on the
judges are already selected, the procedure is fixed and the law which the Settlement of International Disputes,
court has to apply is predetermined. Arbitration is much more flexible Vol. 1 (P.Malanczuk ed.), 1996. See
and will be dealt with later. also the literature above, 273.
58 On other courts see H.Hill, Central
American Court of Justice, EPIL I
Adjudication (1992), 551–4; P.Nikken, Andean
Common Market, Court of Justice, ibid.,
Among the few standing international courts and tribunals,57 the 159–64; K.R.Simmonds, Central
American Common Market, Arbitration
International Court of Justice (ICJ) is certainly the most important one.58
Tribunal, ibid., 550–1; T.Buergenthal,
The following will therefore concentrate on the ICJ, or, as it is often, Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
somewhat emphatically, also called, ‘the World Court’. EPIL II (1995), 1008–11. See also P.
Pescatore, Court of Justice of the
European Communities, EPIL I (1992),
The International Court of Justice 852–67; W.v.d.Meersch, European
Court of Human Rights, EPIL II (1995),
The ICJ and its predecessor the Permanent Court of International Justice 201–17; G.Nolte/S.Oeter, European
Commission and Court of Human
(PCIJ) are often referred to together as ‘the World Court’. The constituent Rights, Inter-State Applications, ibid.,
treaty (or ‘Statute’) of the PCIJ was signed in 1920 and came into force 144–54. For the statute of the new
in 1921.59 The judges of the Court were not chosen by the parties to Central American Court of Justice, see
ILM 34 (1995), 921. On the European
each dispute, but were elected by the League of Nations. It is unnecessary
Court of Justice see also L.N.Brown/T.
to describe the Court in detail, because it was dissolved at the same time Kennedy, The Court of Justice of the
as the League of Nations, in 1946; besides, it was very similar to the European Communities, 1994; K.P.E.
later ICJ. Although the ICJ is not the legal successor to the PCIJ, the Lasok, The European Court of Justice—
Practice and Procedure, 2nd edn 1994.
continuity of the two courts is ensured in that cases that could be brought On the Law of the Sea Tribunal see, text
before the PCIJ under treaties still in force between parties to the ICJ below, 238–300.
Statute are now referred to the ICJ.60 This also applies to declarations 59 See Chapter 2 above, 24–5.
60 Article 37, ICJ Statute, text in
made under the optional clause (see below) of the previous Court. Brownlie BDIL, 438.
The ICJ,61 seated at the Peace Palace in The Hague, is one of the six 61 G.C.Fitzmaurice, The Law and
principal organs of the United Nations, but it has a special position as Practice of the International Court of
Justice, 1986; H.Thirlway, The Law
an independent court and is not integrated into the hierarchical structure
and Procedure of the International
of the other five organs.62 Its Statute, which closely resembles the Statute Court of Justice 1960–1989, BYIL 60
of the PCIJ, is annexed to the United Nations Charter, so that all members (1989), 1–158; Part Two, BYIL 61
of the United Nations are automatically parties to the Statute.63 However, (1990), 1– 134; Part Three, BYIL 62
(1991), 1–76; Part Four, BYIL 63
in certain circumstances, states which are not members of the United (1992), 1–96; Part
Five, BYIL 64 (1993), 1–54; Part

Six, BYIL 65 (1994), 1–102; E.J.de
Nations may appear before the Court, and may even become parties to its
Aréchaga, The Work and the Statute (Article 93(2) of the Charter). This has applied to Switzerland (1948),
Jurisprudence of the International
Court of Justice 1947–1986, BYIL
Liechtenstein (1950) and San Marino (1954). The two states which are
58 (1987), 1–38; R.Jennings, The currently not members of the UN but are parties to the Statute of the Court
Internal Judicial Practice of the
International Court of Justice, BYIL
are Switzerland and Nauru.64
59 (1988), 31–48; S. Rosenne (ed.), The Court has a double function: first, to settle legal disputes submitted
Documents on the International
Court of Justice, 1991; E.
to it by states in accordance with international law, and secondly, to give
McWhinney, Judicial Settlement of advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by international organs
International Disputes. Jurisdiction,
Justiciability and Judicial Law-
and agencies duly authorized to do so.
Making in the Contemporary
International Court, 1991;
R.Hofmann et al., World Court Composition
Digest, Vol. 1 (1986–1990), 1993; S.
Rosenne/T.D.Gill, The World Court.
What It Is and How It Works, 5th
The Court consists of fifteen judges; five are elected every three years to hold
edn 1994; H.-J.Schlochauer, office for nine years. The election procedure is complicated, but can be summed
International Court of Justice, up by saying that election requires an absolute majority of votes in both the
EPIL II (1995), 1084– 1107;
G.Z.Capaldo, A Repertory of the Security Council and the General Assembly sitting independently of each
Decisions of the International Court other.65 The Court may not include more than one judge of any nationality,
of Justice (1947–1992), 1995; M.
Schöder, ICJ, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, but the composition of the bench should represent the main forms of
673– 85; A.Effinger/A.Witteveen, civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. The recent practice
The International Court of Justice
1946– 1996, 1996; V.Lowe/ has been to select four judges from West European states, one from the United
M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of States, two from South America, two from East European states and six
the International Court of Justice,
1996.
from Africa and Asia. It should be noted that the five permanent members of
62 On the delicate question of its the Security Council are always represented by a judge in the Court. In 1996
relationship to the Security Council the Court consisted of judges from Algeria, the United States, Japan, France,
see text below, 292–3.
63 See Articles 92 and 93(1) UN Guyana, Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Hungary, China, Germany, Sierra Leone,
Charter; H.Mosler, Article 92, in Russia, Italy, the United Kingdom and Venezuela.
Simma CUNAC, 973–1001; Article
93, ibid., 1001–3. The judges are required to possess the qualifications required in their
64 On UN membership see Chapter home countries for appointment to the highest judicial office, or must be
21 below, 363–74.
65 See, for example, Elections to jurists of recognized competence in international law. At least in theory, the
the International Court of Justice members of the court are supposed not to represent their governments, but
and the International Law
Commission, AJIL 86 (1993), 173;
to act as independent magistrates.
Triennial Elections of Five Members If a state appearing before the Court does not have a judge of its own
of the International Court of Justice,
AJIL 88 (1994), 178.
nationality at the Court, it may appoint an ad hoc judge for the particular
66 For a discussion of the problem case. The institution of the ad hoc judge is a survival of the traditional
see H.Mosler, ‘Nationale’ Richter in method of appointing arbitrators, and may be necessary to reassure litigants
internationalen Gerichten, in FS
Bernhardt, 713–31. that the Court will not ignore their views; but it is hard to reconcile with
67 Article 34 ICJ Statute; the principle that judges are impartial and independent, and are not
F.Matscher, Standing before
International Courts and Tribunals, representatives of their national governments.66
EPIL 1 (1981), 191–6; J.I.Charney,
Compromissory Clauses and the
Jurisdiction of the International Jurisdiction in contentious cases
Court of Justice, AJIL 81 (1987),
855– 87.
68 See R.Jennings, The
Only states may be parties in contentious proceedings before the Court.67
International Court of Justice after This restriction is antiquated because many areas of international law
Fifty Years, AJIL 89 (1995), 493– nowadays affect individuals, corporations and legal entities other than states
505, at 504–5. See also Chapter 6
above. and the application and interpretation of the law is thus left to municipal
69 See Chapter 2 above, 27. courts.68 Jurisdiction in contentious proceedings is dependent on the consent
of states; many of the smaller states represented at the San Francisco
Conference in 194569 wanted to provide for compulsory jurisdiction in the
Charter, but the opposition of the great powers prevented the adoption of
any such provision.
The consent of a state to appear before the Court may take several 70 Corfu Channel case (Preliminary
Objection), ICJ Rep. 1948, 15–48, at
forms. Article 36(1) of the Statute provides: 27–8; on the case see also R.
Bernhardt, EPIL I (1992), 832–4 and
Chapter 19 below, 310. See also Haya
The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties de la Torre case (Judgment), ICJ Rep.
refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of 1951, 71–84, at 78; on this case see K.
the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. Hailbronner, EPIL II (1995), 683–5 and
71 See S.Rosenne, The Qatar/Bahrain
The words ‘all cases which the parties refer to it’ require some explanation. Case—What is A Treaty? A Framework
The word ‘parties’ is in the plural, and implies that all the parties to the Agreement and the Seising of the Court,
LJIL 8 (1995), 161–82.
dispute must agree that the case should be referred to the Court. Normally 72 ICJ Rep. 1947–8, 15, 31–2.
the parties refer the dispute to the Court jointly by concluding a special
agreement, but there is no reason why each party should not make a
separate reference at a separate time. The Court has held that a defendant
state may accept the jurisdiction of the Court after proceedings have been
instituted against it; such acceptance may take the form of an express
statement, or it can be implied if the defendant state defends the case on
the merits without challenging the jurisdiction of the Court.70
States can also agree in advance by treaty to confer jurisdiction on
the Court; that is what Article 36(1) of the Statute means when it refers
to ‘matters specially provided for…in treaties’.71 There are several
hundred treaties in force which contain such a jurisdictional clause
stipulating that if parties to the treaty disagree over its interpretation or
application, one of them may refer the dispute to the Court. But the
mention of ‘matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United
Nations’ raises a problem. Article 36(3) of the Charter, dealing with the
peaceful settlement of disputes, empowers the Security Council to
recommend that the parties to a legal dispute should refer it to the Court,
and in the Corfu Channel case the United Kingdom argued that such a
recommendation, addressed to the United Kingdom and Albania, was
sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction to hear a British complaint against
Albania. The Court held that Albania had agreed to accept the Court’s
jurisdiction, and most of the judges therefore found it unnecessary to
comment on the British argument about the effects of the Security Council
resolution recommending Albania and the United Kingdom to go to the
Court. But seven of the judges added a separate opinion in which they
said that the British argument was wrong, since recommendations of
the Security Council were not binding.72 If the opinion of the seven judges
is right, as it is generally accepted to be, one must conclude that there
are no ‘matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United
Nations’. The explanation of this paradox is that Article 36(1) of the
Statute of the Court was drafted at a time when it looked as if the Charter
would provide for compulsory jurisdiction; the San Francisco Conference
subsequently rejected proposals to provide for compulsory jurisdiction
in the Charter, but forgot to delete the cross-reference in the Statute.
Furthermore, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 36 provide as follows:
2 The states parties to the present Statute may at any time

declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and
without special agreement, in relation to any other state
accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court
in all legal disputes…
73 R.Szafarz, The Compulsory

Jurisdiction of the International
3 The declarations referred to above may be made uncondi-
Court of Justice, 1993. tionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or
74 ICJYb 1978/9, 56–86.
75 The Soviet decree of 10
certain states, or for a certain time.
February 1989 is published in AJIL
83 (1989), 457. See
T.Schweisfurth, The Acceptance by
This optional clause, as it is called, emerged as a compromise between the
the Soviet Union of the Compulsory advocates and the opponents of compulsory jurisdiction.73 At the end of
Jurisdiction of the ICJ for Six
Human Rights Conventions, EJIL 2
1978, forty-three member states of the UN (not even one-third of the states
(1991), 110–17. See also G. parties to the Statute at the time) had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court
Shinkaretskaya, A Changing
Attitude Towards International
under the optional clause, including eleven West European and five South
Adjudication in the Soviet Union, American countries, as well as Switzerland and Liechtenstein.74 No
LJIL 3 (1990), 59–66.
76 R.Szafarz, Poland Accepts the
Communist state ever accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
Optional Clause of the ICJ Statute, Since then there has been a modest increase in the number of declarations,
AJIL 85 (1991), 374–5.
77 South West Africa case, ICJ
amounting to fifty-nine as of 1 April 1996.
Advisory Opinions of 1950, 1955 Gorbachev proposed in his speech before the UN General Assembly in
and 1956: ICJ. Rep. 1950, 128–45;
1955, 67–123; 1956, 23–71; ICJ
December 1988 that all states should recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ
Judgments of 1962 and 1966: ICJ. with regard to human rights treaties, and in 1989 the Soviet Union accepted
Rep. 1962, 319–662; 1966, 6–505;
ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1971, ICJ
the Court’s jurisdiction under six human rights agreements.75 Other former
Rep. 1971, 16– 345. See E.Klein, socialist states then also made a number of withdrawals of their
South West Africa/ Namibia
(Advisory Opinions and Judgments),
reservations to the jurisdiction clauses of treaties of this type and the first
EPIL 2 (1981), 260–70. See Chapter former member of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe to make a
19 below, 328–9.
78 For example, in the
declaration under the optional clause was Poland, on 25 November 1990.76
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) New declarations were notably also made by African states, which had
case (US v. Italy), ICJ Rep. 1989,
15–121; see Chapter 17 above,
long been discontented with the Court after its controversial handling of
267 or in cases brought against the South West Africa case.77 (In a number of advisory opinions, judgments
the United States by Iran
concerning the Airbus incident
and orders stretching over decades starting in the 1950s, the Court had
and the destruction of oil to deal with the problem of whether the mandate had survived the
platforms in the Gulf (still
pending at the time of writing).
dissolution of the League of Nations, and what the legal consequences
The Airbus case was terminated were for the rights and obligations of South Africa and the United Nations,
on 22 February 1996 because the
parties had reached a full and
with cases filed by Ethiopia and Liberia against South Africa concerning
final settlement of the matter, see alleged violations of the mandatory obligations and with the international
ICJ Communiqué, No. 96/6 of 23
February 1996; see also Chapter
consequences flowing from the continued presence of South Africa in
13 above, 200. Namibia, after the mandate had been terminated by the UN.) On the
79 ICJ Reports 1984, 392. See the
US Department of State, Letter and
other hand, the United States withdrew its declaration under the optional
Statement Concerning Termination clause (but continued to participate in cases where it otherwise accepted
of Acceptance of ICJ Compulsory
Jurisdiction, 7 October 1985, ILM 24
the Court’s jurisdiction)78 in reaction to the Court’s decision to accept
(1985), 1742–5. See A.D’Amato, jurisdiction in the Nicaragua case.79 Appeals to reconsider the withdrawal
Modifying U.S. Acceptance of the
Compulsory Jurisdiction of the
have so far not been successful.80 In addition, El Salvador and Israel were
World Court, AJIL 79 (1985), 385– lost. It is notable that the only permanent member of the Security Council81
405; A.C. Arend (ed.), The United
States and Compulsory
that has made and maintained a declaration under Article 36(2) is the
Jurisdiction of the International United Kingdom, although, as noted above, all five members always have
Court of Justice, 1986; M.N.Leich,
The International Court of Justice.
a judge at the Court.
Termination of Acceptance of States which accept the jurisdiction of the Court under the optional
Compulsory Jurisdiction, AJIL 80 clause do so, according to paragraph 2, only ‘in relation to any other state
(1986), 163–5; K.Oellers-Frahm,
Die ‘obligatorische’ Gerichtsbarkeit accepting the same obligation’. This is known as the principle of reciprocity.82
des Internationalen Gerichtshofs. A state cannot enjoy the benefits of the optional clause unless it is prepared
Anmerkungen anläßlich der
Zuständigkeitsentscheidung im to accept the obligations of the optional clause. If state A has accepted
Fall Nicaragua gegen USA, the optional clause and state B has not, state A cannot be sued by state
ZaöRV 47 (1987), 243; S.Oda,
Reservations in the Declarations B. If the claimant state has accepted the optional clause subject to
of Acceptance of the reservations, the defendant state can rely upon the claimant state’s
Optional Clause and the Period of

reservations by way of reciprocity. The provision in paragraph 3, which Validity of Those Declarations: The
allows states to accept the optional clause ‘on condition of reciprocity Effect of the Shultz Letter, BYIL 59
on the part of several or certain states’, might appear to be redundant, (1988), 1 et seq.; R.Ostrihansky,
Compulsory Jurisdiction of the
in view of the words quoted from paragraph 2. But, according to the International Court of Justice in the
travaux préparatoires, paragraph 3 uses the word ‘reciprocity’ in a Dispute between Nicaragua and the
United States, Hague YIL 1 (1988), 3–
different sense; the effect of paragraph 3 is that a state may add a 15; T.Gill, Litigation Strategy at the
reservation to its acceptance of the optional clause, stating that its International Court. A Case Study of the
Nicaragua v. United States Dispute,
acceptance is not to come into force until states X and Y have also 1989; D.W.Greig, Nicaragua and the
accepted the optional clause. Until states X and Y have accepted the United States: Confrontation Over the
Jurisdiction of the International Court,
optional clause, the state making such a reservation cannot be sued by BYIL 62 (1991), 119–282. On the
any state. In fact, no reservations of this sort have been made. Nicaragua case see also Chapters 3
Article 36(3) permits reservations relating to reciprocity and above, 40 and 19 below, 319–22, 325.
80 A.D’Amato, The United States
reservations relating to time.83 In practice, reservations of many other Should Accept, By A New Declaration,
types are also made and have always been accepted as valid. In particular, the General Compulsory Jurisdiction of
the World Court, AJIL 80 (1986), 331–
many states have made reservations permitting them to withdraw their 6; G.L.Scott/C.L.Carr, The ICJ and
acceptance without notice. Even if such a reservation has not been made, Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for
Closing the Clause, AJIL 81 (1987), 57–
a state may withdraw its acceptance by giving reasonable notice.84 If a 76. On the ambivalent American attitude
state validly withdraws its acceptance, it prevents the Court trying future towards the Court generally see
M.Pomerance, The United States and
cases against it, but it does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the World Court as a ‘Supreme Court of
cases which have already been started against it.85 Many reservations the Nations’: Dreams, Illusions and
Disillusion, 1996.
concern disputes which fall ‘essentially’ or ‘exclusively’ within the state’s 81 See Chapter 21 below, 373–7.
domestic jurisdiction in order to exclude from the compulsory jurisdiction 82 See H.W.A.Thirlway, Reciprocity in
of the Court disputes which states view as affecting their vital interests.86 the Jurisdiction of the International
Court, NYIL 15 (1984), 97–138.
For example, the Connally reservation of the United States to its 83 See generally S.A.Alexandrov,
declaration of 26 August 1946 excluded ‘disputes with regard to matters Reservations in Unilateral Declarations
Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of the International Court of Justice,
of America as determined by the United States of America.’87 Similarly, 1995.
84 Nicaragua case, ICJ Rep. 1984, 392,
to take the example of a jurisdiction clause based on a treaty, when the at 420.
United States became party to the Genocide Convention in 1986, it added 85 Nottebohm case, ICJ Rep. 1953,
111, 122–3. On this case see Chapter
a reservation to Article IX stating in plain terms that ‘before any dispute 17 above, 265–6.
to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction 86 See Chapter 2 above, 22.
of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent 87 R.Dolzer, Connally Reservation,
EPIL I (1992), 755–68,
of the United States is required in each case’.88 88 132 Cong. Rec. S1377 (daily edn 19
Whether such ‘automatic reservations’, that is, reservations whose Feb. 1986). Ten states protested against
this wording.
scope is to be determined by the reserving state unilaterally, are consistent 89 See the dissenting opinions of
with the Statute of the Court is a matter of debate.89 In the Norwegian Judges Guerrero and Basdevant in the
Norwegian Loans case, ICJ Rep. 1957,
Loans case, the British judge, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, said that such a 9–100, at 68 and 75, and of Judge
reservation was invalid, because it was contrary to Article 36(6) of the Lauterpacht in the Interhandel case, ICJ
Rep. 1959, 6–125, at 104. See also on
Statute, which provides: ‘In the event of a dispute as to whether the these cases E.K.Mertens, Norwegian
Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Loans Case, EPIL 2 (1981), 210–11; L.
Weber, Interhandel Case, EPIL II
Court’; moreover, since the reservation could not be severed from the (1995), 1025–7; and Chapter 17 above,
rest of the acceptance, the nullity of the reservation entailed the nullity 268.
of the whole acceptance. 90 However, most of the judges left 90 ICJ Rep. 1957, 9, 43–66.
91 Ibid., 27.
Lauterpacht’s argument open; they applied the reservation, since
neither of the litigants had pleaded that it was invalid.91 An ironic
feature of the Norwegian Loans case was that the automatic
reservation was contained in the acceptance filed by the claimant
state, France, and was successfully invoked by the defendant state,
Norway. This application of the principle of reciprocity, coupled with
judicial criticisms of automatic reservations, led to the abandonment
92 Jennings, op. cit., 495 with

reference to the Portuguese
of such reservations by several states which had previously inserted them in
Declaration of 19 December 1955. their acceptances (for example, India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom).
94 Convention on Future Multilateral
But automatic reservations were still retained, for example, by Liberia,
Cooperation in the Northwest Malawi, Mexico, the Philippines and the Sudan.
Atlantic Fisheries (1978), ILM 34
(1995), 1452.
A now common reservation permits the exclusion, by notifying the UN
95 Jennings, op. cit., 495. Secretary-General, of ‘any given category or categories of disputes’.92
96 ICJ Communiqués, 95/9 of 29 Moreover, following the fisheries incident with Spain in the North-West
March 1995 and 95/12 of 2 May
1995. The case was still pending at Atlantic,93 in May 1994 Canada took the precaution of terminating its
the time of writing. existing declaration and substituting it with one excluding ‘disputes arising
97 Jennings, op. cit., 495. On the
study by C.H.M.Waldock, Decline of out of or concerning conservation and management measures taken by
the Optional Clause, see BYIL 32 Canada with respect to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area’, as
(1955–6), 244. For a new
assessment see J.G. Merrills, The defined in the relevant Convention,94 ‘and the enforcement of such measures’.
Optional Clause Revisited, BYIL 64 It also reserved the right by notification ‘to add to, amend or withdraw’
(1993), 197.
98 East Timor case (Portugal v.
any reservations.95 In the Fisheries Jurisdiction case which Spain brought
Australia), judgment of 30 June against Canada before the Court on 28 March 1995, Canada contested the
1995, ICJ. Rep. 1995, 90, ILM 34 jurisdiction of the Court which Spain based on the declarations made by
(1995), 1581. See Chapter 3 above,
59 and Chapter 19 below, 327. the two parties under Article 36(2).96
99 See Chapter 19 below, 329–30. As Jennings has recently observed:
100 See P.Lawrence, East Timor,
EPIL II (1995), 3–4. See also
B.F.Fitzgerald, Horta v. The optional clause remains an underused and less than satisfactory
Commonwealth: The Validity of
the Timor Gap Treaty and its method for augmenting the competence of the Court. It remains true,
Domestic Implication, ICLQ 44 as it was when Waldock made his famous study of the optional clause,
(1995), 643–50.
101 On the continental shelf, see
that despite the principle of reciprocity, states may well decide that
Chapter 12 above, 131–3. there is some political advantage in remaining outside a system which
102 On erga omnes obligations see
Chapter 3 above, 58–60 and on
permits states to join more or less on their own terms at an opportune
self-determination, see Chapter 19 moment. It would be difficult if not practically impossible to change
below, 326–40. the system, given the difficulties of amending the Statute of the Court.97
103 East Timor case, op. cit.,
judgment, paras. 29 and 37.
Once again, it must be stressed that the Court can only hear cases involving
states with their consent. As can be seen from the recent decision of the ICJ
in the East Timor case,98 the requirement of consent is taken rather strictly
and can lead to very unsatisfactory results. East Timor, once a colony of
Portugal and still listed as one of the non-self-governing territories with the
UN,99 had been occupied by Indonesia in 1975 and was annexed as its
twenty-seventh Province in 1976, a matter which was not accepted by the
United Nations, which repeatedly confirmed the right of the people of East
Timor to self-determination and independence, and called for Indonesia’s
withdrawal from the territory. East Timor is still on the annual agenda of
the UN General Assembly, but the topic has not been addressed since 1982.100
In 1991, Portugal, as the administrating power of East Timor (according to
Chapter XI of the UN Charter) filed an application against Australia with
the ICJ for concluding with Indonesia in 1989 an agreement on the
exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf101 between Australia
and East Timor. Portugal argued that this agreement and its
implementation would not only violate East Timor’s rights to self-
determination over its natural resources, but also the rights of Portugal
as the administrating power with regard to its responsibilities towards
the people of East Timor. Although the Court accepted the assertion
by Portugal that the right of peoples to self-determination has an
erga omnes character 102 and left no doubt that East Timor ‘remains a
self-governing territory and its people has the right to self-determination’,103 it
dismissed the case because Indonesia as a substantially affected party 104 Ibid., para. 29.
105 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru
had not consented to the jurisdiction of the Court in that case. It held Case (Nauru v. Australia), ICJ Rep.
1992, 261–2. In this case the interests
that the erga omnes character of a norm and the rule of consent of the United Kingdom and New
Zealand were also affected, but not
to jurisdiction are two different things. Whatever the nature of seen as constituting the ‘very subject
the obligations invoked, the Court could not rule on the lawfulness matter of the judgment’.
of the conduct of a State when its judgment would imply an 106 Para. 34 with reference to the
evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of another State which Monetary Gold Removed from Rome
case (1943), ICJ Rep. 1954, 32. See N.
is not a party to the case. Where this is so, the Court cannot act, Wühler, Monetary Gold Case, EPIL 2
even if the right in question is a right erga omnes.104 (1981), 195–6.
107 Four other judges gave separate
opinions, supporting the majority
The Court noted that it was not per se prevented from adjudicating a decision, but with different reasoning.
case if a judgment might affect the legal interests of a state which is not 108 C.M.Chinkin, The East Timor Case
a party to the proceedings.105 But it found in this case that (Portugal v. Australia), ICLQ 45 (1996),
712–24. See also A.Zimmermann,
ZaöRV 55 (1995), 1051–76 and K.
the effects of the judgment requested by Portugal would amount to Oellers-Frahm, VN 44 (1996), 67–9. On
a determination that Indonesia’s entry into and continued presence some earlier considerations see
Chinkin, East Timor Moves into the
in East Timor are unlawful and that, as a consequence, it does not World Court, EJIL 4 (1993), 206–22;
have the treaty-making power in matters relating to the continental M.C.Maffei, The Case of East Timor
shelf resources of East Timor. Indonesia’s rights and obligations before the International Court of Justice
—Some Tentative Comments, ibid.,
would thus constitute the very subject matter of such a judgment 223–38.
made in the absence of that State’s consent. Such a judgment 109 For a commentary see S. Rosenne,
would run directly counter to the ‘well-established principle of Procedure in the International Court,
1983. See also H.W.A.Thirlway,
international law embodied in the Court’s Statute, namely that the Procedural Law and the International
Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a State with its consent’.106 Court of Justice, in Lowe/Fitzmaurice
(eds), op. cit., 389–405; R.Plender,
Rules of Procedure in the International
This decision, carried by a majority of fourteen of the judges, met with Court and the European Court, EJIL 2
criticism in dissenting opinions by Judge Weeramantry and by the ad (1991), 1–30.
110 See also Chapter 17 above, 262–3.
hoc Judge Skubizewski, appointed by Portugal.107 But legally speaking, 111 See A.Watts, Nationality of Claims:
under the Statute of the Court the majority view is correct and it shows Some Relevant Concepts, in Lowe/
that the dependence of the Court upon the consent principle curtails its Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., 424– 39. See
also Chapter 17 above, 263–7.
capacity to act which in its results is often unfortunate with regard to 112 See Chapter 17 above, 267–8.
the requirements of justice.108
Procedure
As laid down in its Statute and its Rules of Court, adopted in 1978, the
procedure of the Court in contentious cases includes a written phase, in
which the parties file and exchange pleadings, and an oral phase of
public hearings at which the Court is addressed by agents and counsel
of the parties.109 English and French are the two official languages and
everything written or said in one is translated into the other. Following
the oral hearings, the Court deliberates in private and then delivers its
judgment at a public sitting. The judgment is final and there is no appeal.
Before it can examine the merits of the case, the Court usually has to
consider several preliminary objections.110 Defendant states often plead,
by way of a preliminary objection, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to try
the case, but preliminary objections can take many other forms; for
instance, if the claimant state is making a claim on behalf of one of its
nationals, there may be preliminary objections based on the rules
concerning nationality of claims111 or exhaustion of local remedies.112
Preliminary objections are usually dealt with separately in a preliminary
judgment, but sometimes the Court ‘joins them to the merits’, that is,
deals with them together with the merits in a single judgment.
113 R.Bernhardt (ed.), Interim

Measures Indicated by International
The Court can also be requested to take provisional measures under
Courts, 1994; K.Oellers-Frahm, Article 41 of its Statute ‘to preserve the respective rights of either party’.113
Interim Measures of Protection,
EPIL II (1995), 1027–34;
J.G.Merrills, Interim Measures of
Protection in the Recent Ad hoc chambers
Jurisprudence of the ICJ, ICLQ 44
(1995), 90–146; S.Oda, Provisional A new development since the ICJ changed its procedural Rules of Court in
Measures. The Practice of the
International Court of Justice, in
1978 to try to ‘attract more business’ has been the use of ad hoc chambers
Lowe/ Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., under Article 26(2) of the Statute.114 While normally the Court decides in
541–56.
114 S.M.Schwebel, Ad hoc
its full composition of fifteen judges (sometimes sixteen or seventeen judges,
Chambers of the International Court if ad hoc judges are appointed by the parties), the use of chambers gives the
of Justice, AJIL 81 (1987), 831–54;
S.Oda, Further Thoughts on the
parties influence as regards the number of judges to decide a case (Article
Chambers Procedure of the 17(2) of the Rules of Court) and as regards the composition of the chamber.
International Court of Justice, AJIL
82 (1988), 556–62; R. Ostrihansky,
This enables them to have more confidence in the proceedings and their
Chambers of the International Court final outcome than submitting to the uncertainties of the full Court. The
of Justice, ICLQ 37 (1988), 30–52;
E.Valencia-Ospina, The Use of
innovation has given rise to the criticism that the chamber procedure is not
Chambers of the International Court reconcilable with the judicial and independent nature of the Court, that the
of Justice, in Lowe/Fitzmaurice
(eds), op. cit., 503–27.
powers of the ad hoc chambers are too extensive, and that it has moved the
115 ICJ Rep. 1984, 246–390; K. Court into the direction of arbitration instead of adjudication.
Oellers-Frahm, Gulf of Maine Case,
EPIL II (1995), 647–51.
Nevertheless, ad hoc chambers have been preferred by the parties in the
116 ICJ Rep. 1986, 554 et seq.; K. Gulf of Maine case between Canada and the United States,115 the Frontier
Oellers-Frahm, Frontier Dispute
Case (Burkina Faso/Mali), EPIL II
Dispute case between Burkina Faso and Mali116 (settled by five judges, two
(1995), 490–4. of them ad hoc), the ELSI case between the United States and Italy,117 and
117 ELSI case, op. cit.
118 ICJ Rep. 1990, 92.
the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute between El Salvador and
119 K.Oellers-Frahm, Überlegungen Honduras case118 (with Nicaragua intervening as a third party).119 It is
anläßlich der Zulassung der
Invervention Nicaraguas im Streit
notable that in the first chamber case, the Gulf of Maine case, the ICJ was
zwischen El Salvador und frankly told by Canada and the United States that if it was not in a position
Honduras, ZaöRV 50 (1990), 795–
811. For a general analysis of
to provide a chamber with the membership the parties wished, they would
intervention under Articles 62 and resort to an ad hoc tribunal, for which the legal instruments of establishment
63 of the ICJ Statute see
S.Rosenne, Intervention in the
had already been completed. While some judges of the Court took the view
International Court of Justice, 1993. that such procedure was inappropriate, it is difficult to see why Canada
See also J.M.Ruda, Intervention
before the International Court of
and the United States had no right to express their preference and why the
Justice, in Lowe/Fitzmaurice (eds), Court should have been thereby prejudiced. After all, it remained free to
op. cit., 487– 502.
120 See Jennings, op. cit., 496.
refuse to form the chamber,120 but that, of course, would not have been
121 Ibid., 496. conducive to the future business of the Court.
122 Certain Phosphate Lands in
Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) case,
Another innovation, the Chamber of Summary Procedure, on the other
Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep. hand, has never been activated, although it is appointed every year. The
1992, 240, which was then settled
by the payment of compensation
same has applied so far to a further invention in 1993, the establishment of
by Australia, the UK and New a chamber for environmental disputes by the ICJ which is staffed by seven
Zealand; Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros
Project (Hungary v. Slovakia)
judges having a special interest in this field.121 Instead, two large cases with
case, Order of December 20, ICJ an environmental focus went to the full Court.122
Rep. 1994, 151. See also
E.Honederkamp, The Danube:
Damned or Dammed? The Dispute
Between Hungary and Slovakia Enforcement of judgments
Concerning the Gabcíkovo-
Nagymaros Project, LJIL 8 (1995), Judgments of the Court are binding (as are the judgments of all international
287–310; M. Fitzmaurice,
Environmental Protection and the
courts and arbitral tribunals).123 Article 94 of the United Nations Charter
International Court of Justice, in authorizes the Security Council to ‘make recommendations or decide upon
Lowe/Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit.,
293– 315. On the Advisory
measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment’, although these
Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear powers have not yet been used to enforce a judgment. 124 It should be
Weapons, see
noted that the only measures the Security Council may adopt in this
respect are those under Chapter VI of the Charter, dealing with the Chapters 3, 45, 50 and 16, 246 above
and Chapter 20, 347–9 below.
settlement of disputes, and not the stronger measures under Chapter VII 123 Mosler (1981), op. cit., 111–18. On
which require an immediate threat to the peace before sanctions can be the meaning of Article 59 of the ICJ
Statute in this connection see Chapter 3
adopted.125 A request by Nicaragua to the Security Council to enforce above, 51.
the Court’s decision in the Nicaragua case was vetoed by the United 124 For a thorough discussion see A.
States.126 But generally, the problem of enforcement is not as serious as Tanzi, Problems of Enforcement of
Decisions of the International Court of
one might imagine; if a state is willing to accept the jurisdiction of the Justice and the Law of the United
Court in a specific case, it is usually willing to carry out the Court’s Nations, EJIL 6 (1995), 539–72. See
also H.Mosler, Article 94, in Simma
judgment; the real difficulty lies in persuading a state to accept the Court’s CUNAC, 1005–6.
jurisdiction in the first place, or to stick to a commitment to do so made 125 See Chapter 22 below, 387–90.
in advance, in the abstract. 126 S/PV 2718 of 28 October 1986, 51
(UN Doc. S/18428). On the Nicaragua
case see text above, 287 and Chapters
3, 40 and 19, 319–22, 325 below.
Advisory opinions 127 R.Ago, ‘Binding’ Advisory
Opinions of the International Court of
In addition to its power to decide disputes between states (contentious Justice, AJIL 85 (1991), 439–51;
jurisdiction), the Court also has a power to give advisory opinions (advisory S.M.Schwebel, Was the Capacity to
Request an Advisory Opinion Wider in
jurisdiction).127 Article 96 of the United Nations Charter provides: the Permanent Court of International
Justice than it is in the International
1 The General Assembly or the Security Council may request Court of Justice?, BYIL 62 (1991), 77–
the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opin- 118; H.W.A.Thirlway, Advisory
Opinions of International Courts,
ion on any legal question. EPIL I (1992), 38–43; R.Higgins, A
2 Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, Comment on the Current Health of
which may at any time be so authorized by the General As- Advisory Opinions, in Lowe/
sembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., 567–84.
128 See H.Mosler, Article 96, in Simma
legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.128 CUNAC, 1008–17.
130 See, for example, the WHO case
The advisory procedure of the Court is not open to states, but only to on the legality of nuclear weapons,
international organizations. At present, six organs of the United Nations Chapter 20 below, 347–9.
and sixteen specialized agencies129 are authorized to request advisory 131 Admission Case, ICJ Rep. 1948,
opinions of the Court. (The mandate of specialized agencies to submit 57–119. See K.Herndl, Admission of a
State to Membership in United Nations
requests for an advisory opinion is limited by their scope of activities as (Advisory Opinions), EPIL I (1992),
laid down in their constituent treaties.130) They must concern an abstract 35–8.
legal question and not a particular dispute, although often a specific dispute 132 Reparation Case, ICJ Rep. 1949,
174–220. See also E.Klein, Reparation
may be underlying the question put to the Court. When a request is filed,
for Injuries Suffered in Service of UN
the Court invites states and organizations which might provide useful (Advisory Opinion), EPIL 2 (1981), 242–
information with an opportunity of presenting written or oral statements. 4. See Chapter 6 above, 93.
Otherwise the procedure is largely the same as in contentious proceedings. 133 See text above, 284 and Chapter
19 below, 328–9.
Unlike judgments, advisory opinions are only consultative and not 134 Western Sahara Case, ICJ Rep.
binding as such on the requesting bodies. (However, certain instruments 1975, 12–176. See also K.Oellers-
can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be binding.) Frahm, Western Sahara (Advisory
But they carry political weight and are complied with in most cases; Opinion), EPIL 2 (1981), 291–3.
135 Effect of Awards of Compensation
some advisory opinions have significantly altered the course of the
Made by the United Nations
development of international law. Inter alia, the Court has given Administrative Tribunal, ICJ Rep. 1954,
advisory opinions on the admission to UN membership, 131 the 47–97; Judgments of the Administrative
reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations,132 Tribunal of the ILO, ICJ Rep. 1956, 77–
the territorial status of South West Africa (Namibia)133 and Western 168; Application for Review of
Judgment No. 158 of the UN, ICJ Rep.
Sahara, 134 judgments rendered by international administrative
1973, 166–300; Application for Review
tribunals,135 the expenses of certain UN operations,136 the applicability of Judgment No. 273 of the UN, ICJ
of the UN Headquarters Agreement, 137 the applicability of the Rep. 1982, 325; Application for Review
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN,138 and most of Judgment No. 333 of the UN, ICJ
recently, the legality of nuclear weapons.139 Rep. 1987, 18. See further on these
cases L.Weber, M.Ruete, T.Bruha

and M.Marquardt in EPIL 2 (1981),
Compared with the number of cases in contentious proceedings and
at 29, 156, 157 and EPIL III with the respective work of the PCIJ, the advisory jurisdiction of the ICJ
(forthcoming). See also has been little used. The total number of advisory opinions of the ICJ in the
C.Amerasinghe, Cases of the
International Court of Justice period from 1948 to 1975 is only sixteen (as compared with the twenty-six
Relating to Employment in opinions rendered by the PCIJ from 1922–35) and between 1980 and 1989
International Organizations, in Lowe/
Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., 193–209. only five were issued, two of which concerned the appellate function of the
See also Chapter 6 above, 103 and Court vis-à-vis staff decisions of the UN Administrative Tribunal. Some
136 Advisory Opinion on Certain explanation for this may be found in the fact that the organizations entitled
Expenses of the UN, ICJ Rep. 1962, to seek advisory opinions (within their area of competence) have their own
151. See also Chapter 22 below,
420.
staff of legal advisors, and that states have shown themselves reluctant to
137 Applicability of the Obligation to grant the UN Secretary-General the right to go to the Court.140
Arbitrate under Section 21 of the UN
Headquarters Agreement, ICJ Rep.
1988, 12. See also Chapter 6
above, 105. Evaluation of the Court
138 ICJ Rep. 1989, 177.
139 See Chapters 3, 45, 50 and 16, The case-load of the ICJ has been light in the past. Apart from the advisory
246 above and Chapter 20, 347–9 opinions mentioned above, in the period up to the end of 1980 the Court
below.
140 See Jennings, op. cit., 503. delivered judgment in twenty-six disputes.141 The decline of the utilization
141 See the list in Schlochauer of the ICJ was particularly apparent in the 1970s, when many states had
(1995), op. cit., 1099–100.
142 See text above, 284. joined the UN as new members which preferred to avoid the judicial
143 Jennings, op. cit., 493–4. settlement of disputes. Moreover, in the words of a distinguished former
144 See the list by Oellers-Frahm,
Addendum to Schlochauer, EPIL II
President of the ICJ with reference to the South West Africa cases:142 ‘It is
(1995), 1105. often supposed that the unpopularity of the Court’s sterile Judgment of
145 M.W.Janis, An Introduction to
International Law, 2nd edn 1993,
1966, reached by the President’s casting vote…was directly responsible
122 et seq. for a falloff in the Court’s work.’143 From 1981 to 1991 the Court delivered
another twelve decisions in contentious cases, still on average dealing
with not more than one case a year.144 If one counts everything together,
from 1946 to 1990 the Court rendered fifty-two judgments in contentious
cases, sixty substantive orders and twenty-one advisory opinions, which
makes about three decisions on average per year.145 In total since 1946
the court has now delivered some sixty judgments on disputes concerning,
inter alia, land frontiers and maritime boundaries, territorial sovereignty,
the use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of a state, diplomatic
relations, hostage-taking, the right of asylum, nationality, expropriation
of foreign property and rights of passage.
This picture might have been very different if individuals and companies,
increasingly affected by international regulation, had access to the Court,
or, to take another reform proposal, if national courts could ask the ICJ for
a preliminary ruling on issues of international law, as in the case of European
Law under Article 177 of the European Community Treaty, permitting
national courts to refer a matter to the European Court of Justice:
Modelled upon German and Italian constitutional procedures, this

form of process is known in French as the renvoi préjudiciel—
reference before judgment, which more accurately describes what
it involves. The purpose is to enable a national court, faced with a
problem of Community law in a case pending before it, to obtain
an authoritative ruling from the Court of Justice on the law to be
applied. A national court or tribunal which, in the course of
proceedings before it, encounters a question involving the
interpretation of Community law or the validity of an act of a
Community institution, can stay (sist) those proceedings and
refer that question to the Court of Justice. The ruling of the Court 146 D.A.O.Edward/R.C.Lane, European
Community Law. An Introduction, 2nd
of Justice is transmitted back to, and is binding upon, the national
edn 1995, 40–1. See also E.Benvenisti,
court, which must apply it in disposing of the case.146 Judicial Misgivings Regarding the
Application of International Law: An
It is only since the end of the Cold War and the change in attitude towards Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts,
EJIL 4 (1993), 159–83,
adjudication in former socialist countries and changing perceptions in 147 H.Keith, The Peace Palace Heats
developing countries on the alleged Western bias of the Court, that a Up: The World Court in Business
hitherto unknown situation has developed. There has been a marked Again?, AJIL 85 (1991), 646–54.
148 As of April 1996 there were still
change in the docket sheet of the Court from the beginning of the eight cases pending: Maritime
1990s.147 In March 1995, there were eleven cases pending before the Delimitation and Territorial Questions
ICJ.148 This has raised questions on whether a reform of the rather (Qatar v. Bahrain); Questions of
Interpretation and Application of the
cumbersome deliberation procedures is necessary, also considering that 1971 Montreal Convention arising from
the Judges have no assistance from law clerks.149 the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya
Assessing the effectiveness of an institution such as the ICJ is always a v. United Kingdom) and (Libya v. USA);
Oil Platforms (Iran v. USA); Application
matter of perspective and value-judgment.150 It was to be expected that of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia
the official speeches given at the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of and Herzegowina v. Yugoslavia [Serbia
the Court on 18 April 1996 at The Hague would be lofty ones, in line and Montenegro]); Gabcikovo-
Nagymaros Project (Hungary v.
with the usual diplomatic courtesy at such occasions.151 Writers, however, Slovakia); Land and Maritime Boundary
frequently scorn the Court because they see a lack of respect by states between Cameroon and Nigeria
and, especially invoking cases of non-appearance152 of defendant states (Cameroon v. Nigeria); and Fisheries
Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada). On 29
before the ICJ, find that its decisions are often simply ignored.153 Judges May 1996, Botswana and Namibia
of the Court, perhaps quite naturally in their position, reject such submitted a dispute concerning the
sweeping contentions and are more optimistic with regard to the overall boundary around Kasikili/Seduda
Island and the legal status of that
acceptance of the decisions of the Court by states.154 At any rate, island, see ICJ Communiqué No. 96/19
whatever the situation has been in the past, the recent development of 30 May 1996.
appears to be generally encouraging, if one takes the increase in the 149 See the critical report of the Study
Group established by the British Institute
number of cases into account, as well as the fact that they are being of International and Comparative Law
brought from all parts of the world, including from developing countries (D.W.Bowett, J. Crawford, I.Sinclair,
which have previously, rightly or wrongly, criticized the ICJ for its A.D.Watts), The International Court of
Justice. Efficiency of Procedures and
Western-orientated composition and bias. Working Methods, Supplement ICLQ 45
For poorer small countries there has also been some inhibition to use (1996).
the Court, for simple reasons of lack of money. It is true that no fees are 150 See, for example, R.Falk,
Reviving the World Court, 1986;
demanded by the ICJ because its administrative costs are financed out S.Rosenne, The Role of the ICJ in
of the UN budget. But the costs of legal counsel, experts, secretarial Inter-State Relations Today, RBDI 20
assistance, travel and translation, as well as the costs of boundary (1987), 275–89; L.F. Damrosch (ed.),
The International Court of Justice at A
demarcation in a territorial dispute, for example, are often immense. To Crossroads, 1987; E. McWhinney, The
facilitate access to the Court, in 1989 a UN Trust Fund to Assist States International Court of Justice and the
in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice Western Tradition of International
Law, 1987; J.P.Kelly, The ICJ: Crisis
was created by the Secretary-General.155 The Trust Fund is based on and Reformation, Yale JIL 12 (1987),
voluntary contributions which shows its weakness as an effective tool, 342–74; A.Bloed/P.v.Dijk (eds), Forty
considering the reluctance of states to pay their normal UN dues.156 Years International Court of Justice:
Jurisdiction, Equity and Equality, 1988;
However, it was used to provide financial help in establishing the J.P.Kelly, The Changing Process of
boundary in the dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali. International Law and the Role of the
But the actual use of the Court is not in itself a sufficient criterion to World Court, Mich. JIL 11 (1989),
128–66; E.McWhinney, Judicial
understand its function in the international legal system in a realistic sense. Settlement of International Disputes.
Firstly, there are many ways to settle a dispute between states. Not all Jurisdiction, Justiciability and Judicial
kinds of disputes between states are suitable for adjudication by the ICJ Law-Making in the Contemporary
International Court, 1991;
(although the distinction between ‘political’ and ‘legal disputes’, as part E.Valencia-Ospina, T h e Role of the
of the fiction that only ‘legal’ disputes are considered to be justiciable and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Court of Justice in Fifty
Years of the United Nations, Hague

YIL 8 (1995), 3–10; L.Condorelli, La
thereby admissible to judgment by the ICJ is almost impossible to draw
Cour internationale de justice: 50 clearly in practice), and sometimes it may appear better in international
ans et (pour l’heure) pas une ride,
EJIL 6 (1995), 388–400. relations not to settle a dispute at all, at least for the time being, because of
151 See ICJ Communiqué No. 96/ other political considerations. Especially where states see their vital interests
15 of 19 April 1996.
152 H.Thirlway, Non-Appearance involved, they will not submit easily to adjudication; and, in fact, this has
Before the International Court of never happened in history on a voluntary basis.
Justice, 1985; J.B.Elkind, Non-
Appearance Before the International Secondly, the authority of the Court is established in those limited
Court of Justice: Functional and areas of international law where it had the opportunity to make decisions,
Comparative Analysis, 1986; J.B.
Elkind, The Duty to Appear before although it must be added that the publication of (often very lengthy)
the International Court of Justice, ‘dissenting’ and ‘separate opinions’ of judges which are almost
ICLQ 37 (1988), 674;
S.A.Alexandrov, Non-Appearance automatically added to the finding of the majority in each and every case
before the ICJ, Colum. JTL 33 tends to devalue the authority of the judgment in the eyes of the public.157
(1995), 41–72.
153 See the authors cited by Nevertheless, such opinions of individual judges are often more clearly
Jennings, op. cit., 494. and consistently formulated than the compromise text of the majority
154 Jennings, ibid.; N.Singh, The
Role and Record of the International and can be an important stimulus for the development of the law on
Court of Justice, 1989; S.Oda, The future occasions when the composition of the Court is different. The limits
ICJ— Retrospective and Prospects,
AsYIL 3 (1993), 3–13; Oda, The of the ability of the Court to adjudicate effectively in new areas of the law
International Court of Justice have not yet really been fully tested. One myth that has recently been
Viewed from the Bench (1976–
1993), RdC 244 (1993–VII), 13– destroyed by the study by Karel Wellens is that the ICJ, as a matter of
190; M.Shahabuddeen, The ICJ: principle, would lack the capacity to deal with disputes of an economic
The Integrity of an Idea, CLB 19
(1993), 738– 53; St. M.Schwebel,
nature.158
The Performance and Prospects of It should be finally mentioned that recent applications submitted by Libya
the World Court, Pace ILR 6 (1994),
253–65; C.G.Weeramantry, The
against the United States and the UK in connection with the Lockerbie incident
World Court: Its Conception, and a case filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Constitution and Contribution,
Mont. LR 20 (1994), 181–94;
Montenegro) have given rise to an interesting discussion of whether the Court
G.Guillaume, The Future of can review decisions taken by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the
International Judicial Institutions,
ICLQ 44 (1995), 848–62.
UN Charter.159 In the Lockerbie case the dispute submitted by Libya concerned
155 UN Doc. A/44/PV. 43, at 7–11 the interpretation of a multilateral convention dealing with criminal
(1989). See P.Bekker, International
Legal Aid in Practice: The ICJ Trust
jurisdiction and related rights of states to refuse to extradite their own nationals
Fund, AJIL 87 (1993), 659–68. For in connection with the measures adopted against Libya by the Security Council
details of the terms of reference,
guidelines and rules of the Trust
under the allegations of the UK and USA that Libya was responsible for
Fund see ILM 28 (1989), 1590. terrorist activity in general and the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 in
particular.160 The case filed by Bosnia Herzegovina was primarily motivated
157 I.Hussain, Dissenting and
Separate Opinions at the World by the wish to have the legality of the mandatory arms embargo imposed
Court, 1984; L.V.Prott, Role, against Bosnia reviewed by the Court. The first Application by Bosnia and
Consensus and Opinion Analysis at
the International Court of Justice, Herzegovina requested provisional measures to stop the commission of horrific
NYIL 14 (1983), 75– 105; acts of violence, rape, torture, kidnapping, and extermination allegedly
F.Jhabvala, The Scope of Individual committed by Yugoslav forces against citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Opinions in the World Court, NYIL
16 (1985), 249–77. The Application was made under Article IX of the Genocide Convention to
158 K.Wellens, Economic Conflicts which both sides were parties and the Court issued an Order on Provisional
and Disputes Before the World
Court (1922–1995), Studies and
Measures on 8 April 1993 and Order of 16 April 1993.161 The second
Materials on the Settlement of Application by Bosnia and Herzegovina of 27 July 1993 in addition invoked
International Disputes, Vol. 2 the four 1949 Geneva Red Cross Conventions, the Hague Regulations of
(P.Malanczuk ed.), 1996.
159 T.M.Franck, The ‘Powers of 1907 and the Nuremberg documents.162 But as these instruments lack a
Appreciation’: Who Is the Ultimate jurisdiction clause, the Court did not accept them as prima facie sources of
Guardian of UN Legality?, AJIL 86
(1992), 519–23; E.McWhinney, The jurisdiction and only confirmed the previous Order.163
International Court as a The history of the UN Charter reveals that the ICJ was not designed to
Constitutional Court and the
Blurring of the Arbitral/ Judicial be a constitutional court with the power to review the political decisions of
Processes, LJIL 6 (1993), the Security Council and it seems that the prevailing view is still that each
organ of the United Nations has the autonomy to determine the scope 279–7; G.R.Watson,
Constitutionalism, Judicial Review,
of its own competence under the Charter.164 However, this may change. and the World Court, Harvard ILJ 34
Two issues must be distinguished in this connection. The first issue (1993), 1–45; E. McWhinney, The
concerns the legal limits to the exercise by the Security Council of its Inaugural Manfred Lachs Memorial
Lecture—Manfred Lachs and the
broad powers. The second issue is whether there exists a procedure of International Court of Justice as
judicial review of Security Council decisions which are challenged as Emerging Constitutional Court of the
being ultra vires of the Security Council’s powers, and this is a different United Nations, LJIL 8 (1995), 41–52;
M.Bedjaoui, The New World Order
matter. The Lockerbie case and the case filed by Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Security Council— Testing
may offer an opportunity to clarify this problem. In view of the recent the Legality of Its Acts, 1995; T.D.Gill,
unprecedented activism of the Security Council,165 the recognition of a Some Legal and Political Limitations
on the Power of the UN Security
power of the ICJ to control the legality of Council decisions in one form
Council to Exercise Its Enforcement
or another may appear to be desirable because the international Powers under Chapter VII of the
community certainly has an interest in the Security Council respecting Charter, NYIL 26 (1995), 33–138;
the limits imposed on its political discretion by international law.166 K.Roberts, Second-Guessing the
Security Council: The International
However, the matter is a complicated one in view of the current structure Court of Justice and Its Powers of
of the United Nations and would require more, deeper investigation, Judicial Review, Pace ILR 7 (1995),
which is beyond the scope of this book. 281–327; J.G.Gardam, Legal
Restraints on Security Council Military
Enforcement Action, Mich. JIL 17
(1996), 285–322; M.Koskenniemi,
Arbitration The Place of Law in Collective
Security, ibid., 455–90; J.E. Alverz,
The following is only concerned with the arbitration involving states Judging the Security Council, AJIL 90
under international law and disregards the area of international (1996), 1–39.
160 Libya v. US (Lockerbie), ICJ Rep.
commercial arbitration between private parties,167 although recent 1992, 114 (Provisional Measures) and
developments indicate that there is a process of cross-fertilization between 234 (Order); Libya v. UK (Lockerbie),
public law and private law dispute resolution methods on the ibid., 3 (Provisional Measures) and
231 (Order). On the background see
international level.168 Arbitration is much more flexible than adjudication F. Beveridge, The Lockerbie Affair,
and gives the parties more choices as regards the seat of the tribunal, the ICLQ 41 (1992), 907 et seq.;
appointment and selection of arbitrators and their qualifications, the V.Gowlland-Debbas, The Relationship
between the International Court of
procedure to be applied and regulating the power of the tribunal through Justice and the Security Council in
formulating its terms of reference (the so-called compromis).169 A further the Light of the Lockerbie Case, AJIL
advantage is that arbitration proceedings can be kept confidential; there 88 (1994), 643–77.
161 ICJ Rep. 1993, 3 and 29.
is then no ‘washing of dirty linen in public’. The differences between 162 See Chapter 20 below, 344–5.
arbitration and judicial settlement, however, are being blurred on the 163 ICJ Rep. 1993, 325, at 341, para.
international level, as can be seen from the Chamber proceedings 33. See R.Maison, Les Ordonnances de
la CIJ dans l’affaire relative à
introduced at the International Court of Justice.170 l’application de la Convention sur la
A frequent pattern in arbitration treaties171 is for each of the two prévention et la répression du crime de
parties to appoint an arbitrator; the two arbitrators thus appointed agree génocide, EJIL 5 (1994), 423–39.
on the choice of the third arbitrator (or umpire); the arbitral tribunal 164 See Gill (1995), op. cit., 116 et seq.;
M.Herdegen, The ‘Constitutionalization’
consequently consists of three (or more) persons, who can decide by of the UN Security System, Vand. JTL
majority vote. Of course, the parties can also decide to refer the dispute 27 (1994), 135–59.
to a single arbitrator, including to a foreign head of state or government 165 See Chapter 22 below, 395–6.
166 See for interesting thoughts in this
(a practice which is now rare). In the nineteenth century there was a respect, K.Skubiszewski, The
tendency for arbitrators appointed by the parties to regard themselves International Court of Justice and the
as representatives of the state which had appointed them, rather than as Security Council, in Lowe/Fitzmaurice
(eds), op. cit., 606–29, 623–9.
impartial dispensers of justice. Fortunately, such attitudes are now rare
167 With regard to the advantages of
(or maybe more skilfully concealed). international arbitration in commercial
Arbitration has been used for a long time by states to settle their disputes, see A.Redfern/M.Hunter, Law
disputes and it may be considered the most effective method, in view of and Practice of International
Commercial Arbitration, 2nd edn 1991;
the large number of cases and variety of types of disputes that have been
K.I.Vibute, Settlement of International
settled in this way.172 Inter-state arbitration had its heyday in the century Trade Disputes through Litigation and
following the Jay Treaty of 1794 between the United States and Britain,173 Arbitration: A Comparative Evaluation,
Arbitration 60 (1994), 125;

W.L.Craig, Some Trends and
under which 536 arbitral awards were issued between 1799 and 1804,
Developments in the Laws and followed by more than 200 other international tribunals established between
Practice of International Commercial
Arbitration, Texas ILJ 30 (1995), 1;
1795 and 1914, mostly, however, with the participation of either the United
M.Hunter/A.Marriott/V.V. Veeder States or Britain.174 Since then, public international arbitration has declined.
(eds), The Internationalisation of
Commercial Arbitration. The LCIA
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which was set up by the
Centenary, 1995; C.Bühring-Uhle, Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
Arbitration and Mediation in
International Business, 1996.
in 1899,175 sponsored only twenty arbitrations between 1900 and 1932;
168 See, for example, J.Paulsson, since then it has been overshadowed by the Permanent Court of
Cross-Enrichment of Public and International Justice (PCIJ) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
Private Law Dispute Resolution
Mechanisms in the International and has heard very few cases. The name of this ‘Court’ is misleading.
Arena, JIArb. 9 (1992), 57–68; Each state party to the Convention176 may nominate four persons to
Malanczuk, ‘Alternative Dispute
Resolution’, op. cit.
serve on a panel of arbitrators, and disputing states may select
169 See text above, 282–3. arbitrators from this panel in the traditional way. In reality, therefore,
170 See text above, 288. But see G. the 1899 Convention did not create a court; it merely created the
Abi-Saab, The International Court
as a World Court, in Lowe/ machinery for setting up arbitral tribunals. Also the composition of the
Fitzmaurice (eds), op. cit., 3–16. ‘Court’ varies so much from case to case that it cannot develop any
171 v. Mangoldt, op. cit., 230–6.
172 See Oellers-Frahm (1995), coherent case law.
Arbitration, op. cit., 457 et seq. See Recent practice of the PCA has been limited to facilitating the
also N.Wühler, Mixed Arbitral
Tribunals, EPIL 1 (1981), 142–6; establishment of other arbitration bodies with assistance provided by
S.Schwebel, International the Bureau of the PCA, such as in the case of the Iran-United States
Arbitration: Three Salient Problems,
1987, 394–6; V.Coussirat-Coustère/ Claims Tribunal in The Hague,177 or the arbitration between the United
P.M.Eisemann, Repertory of States and the United Kingdom on airport charges raised at Heathrow
International Arbitral Jurisprudence,
3 vols, 1989–1 990; A.H.Soons airport.178 New reforms have been undertaken to attempt to find a niche
(ed.), International Arbitration. Past for the PCA in the complex web of inter-state and commercial dispute
and Prospects, 1990; A.M.Stuyt,
Survey of International Arbitrations settlement world of today. After some expert meetings, new ‘optional’
1794–1989, 1990; H.- rules of procedure of the PCA have now been adopted, inter alia, enabling
J.Schlochauer, Arbitration, EPIL I
(1992), 215–30; C.Gray/B. non-state parties, with the consent of the other side, to engage in
Kingsbury, Developments in Dispute arbitration with states. New rules on disputes involving international
Settlement: Inter-State Arbitration
Since 1945, BYIL 63 (1992), 97; organizations are planned. In 1994 the PCA Administrative Council
A.B.Boczek, Historical Dictionary of established a Financial Assistance Fund and a Steering Committee to
International Brower (eds),
International Arbitration in the 21st make recommendations on whether to revise the 1899 and 1907
Century: Towards ‘Judicialization’ Conventions.179
and Uniformity?, 1994.
The record of inter-state arbitration outside of the Permanent Court of
174 Janis (1993), op. cit., 111. Arbitration (which has in total only sponsored some twenty-two arbitrations
175 H.-J.Schlochauer, Permanent since it was created in 1899, and only two since 1945) is of some 178 cases
Court of Arbitration, EPIL 1 (1981),
157–63. See Chapter 2 above, 25. between 1900 and 1945, but since the Second World War there has been a
176 See text above, 274. clear decline, with only forty-three arbitrations between 1945 and 1990,180
178 Chapter 13 above, 201 n. 27.
although the number of states being members of the United Nations has
179 See PCA Optional Rules for risen over this period from fifty-one to 185.
Arbitrating Disputes Between Two
States, IB/doc/93/1, ILM 32
On the other hand, there is a clear recent tendency in international
(1993), 572; PCA Optional Rules bilateral and multilateral treaty-making to provide for arbitration as the
for Arbitrating Disputes Between
Two Parties of which Only One is
primary method of dispute settlement.181 Even codification treaties drafted
a State, IB/doc/94/1 . See under the auspices of the United Nations, which in the earlier practice
P.J.H.Jonkman, Introduction by
the Secretary-General of the
assigned disputes on interpretation or application to be decided by the
Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Court of Justice, now tend to accept clauses referring to
LJIL 6 (1993), 199–201;
J.L.Bleich, A New Direction for the
arbitration instead. One reason for this trend is that recourse to the
PCA: The Work of the Expert International Court of Justice has been impeded in the past for various
Group, ibid., 215–40;
P.P.Sanders, Private Parties and
reasons (see below), including the possibility of states to add far-reaching
the Permanent Court reservations to their declarations of the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction,182
reflecting the general reluctance of states to submit to compulsory of Arbitration, ibid., 289–96; Jonkmann,
The Role of the Secretary-General of
adjudication by a standing court which is considered to have too much the Permanent Court of Arbitration
impact upon their sovereignty. The comparative advantages of arbitration Under the UNCITRAL Rules, LJIL 8
(1995), 185–92; B.E.Shifman, The
in reaching a binding third-party decision, while at the same time assuring Permanent Court of Arbitration: Recent
maximum control over the procedure by the states parties to the dispute, Developments, LJIL 8 (1995), 193, and
on the other hand, seem to be obvious. However, there is a considerable ibid., 433–8. See also PCA: List of
Current Proceedings, LJIL 9 (1996),
gap between theory and practice. Thus, Hans von Mangoldt concludes 213–14.
his survey as follows: 180 Janis (1993), op. cit., 117.
181 L.B.Sohn, The Role of Arbitration in
Recent International and Multilateral
It is difficult to explain the divergence between the elaborated Treaties, Virginia JIL 23 (1982/3), 171
systems of arbitration treaties and their practical result. et seq. and 172, n. 1. See also P.
Presumably, some reasons are: (a) The smaller the probability of Peters, Dispute Settlement
a dispute arising between two States, the more they were prepared Arrangements in Investment Treaties,
NYIL 22 (1991), 91–162. On bilateral
to engage in arbitration; if a dispute already existed, it was often investment treaties, see Chapter 15
exempted from the agreement; (b) States often respected the other above, 237. See further text below, 295–
party’s unwillingness to submit to arbitration a dispute which it 6 on the settlement of international trade
considered important, in order not to risk a termination of the disputes.
general arbitration commitment as a whole; (c) it is argued that 183 v. Mangoldt, op. cit., at 233.
States may be more inclined to settle a dispute by negotiation if it 184 K-.H.Böckstiegel, Dispute
would otherwise be possible for one of the parties to submit it Settlement by Intergovernmental
unilaterally to arbitration; (d) politically sensitive disputes are not Arbitration, in E.-U.Petersmann/G.
Jaenicke (eds), Adjudication of
submitted to arbitration due to their political importance while International Trade Disputes in
politically unimportant disputes are not submitted either because International and National Economic
they are too insignificant to pursue further or because they can Law, 1992, 59, at 74.
be easily resolved even without the use of arbitrators.183 185 See S.Toope, Mixed International
Arbitration, 1990.
In a more recent analysis, K.-H.Böckstiegel arrives at the following 187 Text of the ICSID Convention in 575
conclusion: UNTS 159. See A.S.El-Kosheri, ICSID
Arbitration and Developing Countries,
ICSID Rev. 8 (1993), 104– 15; M.Hirsch,
Dispute settlement by intergovernmental arbitration has a long The Arbitration Mechanism of the
history and has been subject to many changes in the course of this International Centre for the Settlement
history. It has shared with adjudication by international courts the of Investment Disputes, 1993;
fate of being subjected to a general hesitation of states to submit to C.F.Amerasinghe, Investment Disputes,
Convention and International Centre for
future binding third party dispute settlement. But in recent decades, the Settlement of, EPIL II (1995), 1447–
states have shown to prefer international arbitration to the 51. See also Chapter 15 above, 228.
adjudication by international courts especially in view of the greater 188 See Chapter 15 above, 237.
influence they have on the selection of arbitrators and the arbitral
procedure in concrete cases. If one looks for trends, it may be said
that bilateral arbitration has been more widely acceptable for limited
fields of economic cooperation where the cooperation in the interest
of all participating states can only be assured if disputes are not left
open but brought to a final decision in due course.184
ICSID
The matter becomes more complicated if the arbitration involves a state
and a foreign individual or company, often termed mixed international
arbitration,185 which in the past has often concerned the problem of so-
called ‘internationalized contracts’ with a ‘stabilization clause’ aiming
at protecting the foreign investor from changes in the national law of
the host state.186 An institutional solution to this difficult problem has
been sought by the creation in 1965 of the International Center for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington under the
auspices of the World Bank.187 Many bilateral investment treaties provide
for recourse to this institution in cases of dispute.188
The primary purpose of ICSID is to promote foreign investment,
189 D.D.Caron, The Nature of the

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
especially in developing countries, by offering a neutral method for settling
and the Evolving Structure of disputes between states and private foreign investors. ICSID is based upon
International Law, AJIL 84 (1990),
104–56; R.Khan, The Iran-United
a multilateral treaty ratified by more than 100 states. The Centre may either
States Claims Tribunal, 1990; conciliate or arbitrate disputes and has an annulment committee to review
Chapter N.Brower, The Iran-United
States Claims Tribunal, RdC 224
ICSID awards, the practice of which has given rise to some controversy.
(1990–V), 123–396; J.A.Westberg, Municipal courts of member states have no power to control the validity of
International Transactions and
Claims Involving Government
ICSID awards, but they can be directly used by both states and private
Parties—Case Law of the Iran- parties to enforce such awards. However, not many cases have so far been
United States Claims Tribunal, 1991;
A.Avanessian, The Iran-United
filed with ICSID, and few have led to a decision.
States Claims Tribunal in Action,
1993; W.Mapp, The Iran-United
States Claims Tribunal: The First The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
Ten Years 1981–1991, 1993;
G.H.Aldrich, The Jurisprudence of The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal,189 seated in The Hague has, in
the Iran-United States Claims
Tribunal, 1996. view of the large number of cases before it (more than 3,800 cases were
190 Iran-United States Claims filed), the financial amounts involved (total value in the vicinity of US$50
Tribunal Reports (since 1983).
191 R.B.Lillich (ed.), The Iran- billion) and the wide range of issues of public international law and
United States Claims Tribunal 1981– international commercial law addressed in its decisions, which are all
1983, 1984.
192 Declaration of the Government published,190 been described as the most significant body in the history of
of the Democratic and Popular international arbitration.191 The Tribunal was created by the Algiers
Republic of Algeria (General
Declaration); Declaration of the
Declarations192 in 1981 as part of the solution to the Tehran hostages crisis193
Government of the Democratic and mediated by the Algerian Government: on 19 January 1981, the last day of
Popular Republic of Algeria
concerning the Settlement of Claims
office of President Carter, Iran released the fifty-two hostages held at the
by the Government of the United American embassy in Tehran, and the United States transferred about US$8
States of America and the billion from the Iranian assets it had frozen194 to trust accounts held by
Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran (Claims Settlement Algeria at the Bank of England. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
Declaration); Undertakings of the was established to settle the numerous claims which each of the two state
Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the parties and its nationals had against the other state, ranging from a few
Islamic Republic of Iran with respect thousand dollars in some cases to almost US$12 billion in the largest case
to the Declaration of the
Government of the Democratic and (the Foreign Military Sales case brought by Iran against the United States).195
Popular Republic of Algeria As an unprecedented mechanism in interstate claims settlement procedures,
(Undertakings), ILM 20 (1981), 224
et seq.
a special ‘Security Account’ holding US$1 billion was created at a subsidiary
193 See Chapter 17 above, 259–60. of the Dutch Central Bank (in the name of Algeria) to pay for awards
194 See Executive Order No. 12170 rendered by the Tribunal against Iran, with the additional obligation for
(14 November 1979), Federal
Register 65729 (1979). Assets of Iran to replenish the account, once it fell below US$500 million.196 Iran
Iran in all subsidiaries of American repeatedly abided by this obligation, making use, inter alia, of the interest
banks abroad were also frozen.
195 Case No. B1. that accrued to the Security Account.197
196 Para. 7 of the General The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give final and binding decisions covers
Declaration.
197 See the Decision of the Full four areas:
Tribunal in Islamic Republic of Iran
v. United States of America, DEC
12-A1-FT (Issue I).
1 claims of nationals of the United States against Iran and claims of
198 Claims Settlement Declaration, nationals of Iran against the United States, and any counterclaim which
Article II (1).
199 Article II (2).
arises out of the same contract, transaction or occurrence that constitutes
the subject matter of that national’s claim, if such claims and counterclaims
are outstanding on the date of this Agreement, whether or not filed with
any court, and arise out of debts, contracts (including transactions which
are the subject of letters of credit or bank guarantees), expropriations or
other measures affecting property rights;198
2 official claims of the United States and Iran against each other arising
out of contractual arrangements between them for the purchase and
sale of goods and services;199
200 General Declaration, para. 16.

3 disputes on whether the United States has met its obligations 201 Para. 17.
undertaken in connection with the return of the property of the 202 Paras. 8 and 11.
203 Claims Settlement Declaration,
family of the former Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlevi;200 and Article V.
4 other disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the 204 For the provisional and final text
adopted in March 1 982 and May 1 983
Algiers Accords.201 see Iran-US CTR 2 (1983–I), 405,
amended once in 1984, Iran-US CTR 7
205 ILM 15 (1976), 701 et seq.
Matters that were expressly excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction 206 J.J.van Hot, Commentary on the
were claims related to the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, The
Application by the Iran-US Claims
and injury to US nationals or their property as a result of popular Tribunal, 1991; S.A.Bakers/M.D.Davis,
movements in the course of the Islamic Revolution which were not acts The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in
Practice—The Experience of the Iran-
of the Government of Iran; and claims arising out of contracts that United States Claims Tribunal, 1992; I.
specifically provided for the sole jurisdiction of the Iranian courts.202 Dore, The UNCITRAL Framework for
Arbitration in Contemporary
With regard to the substantive law to be applied, the Tribunal was Perspective, 1993; D.D.Caron/M.
given a rather broad scope of discretion: Pellonpää, The UNCITRAL Arbitration
Rules as Interpreted and Applied, 1995.
207 The so-called ‘Mangard incident’;
The Tribunal shall decide all cases on the basis of respect for see the Documents Arising From the
law, applying such choice of law rules and principles of Episode of 3 September 1984, Iran-US
CTR 7 (1984–III), 281.
commercial and international law as the Tribunal determines to 208 I.F.Dekker/H.H.G.Post, The Gulf
be applicable, taking into account relevant usages of the trade, War of 1980–1988, 1992.
contract provisions and changed circumstances.203 209 The present author was legal
assistant to the President of the Tribunal
from 1 986–9 and continued to work on
The constitution of the Tribunal and its procedural rules were laid down the finalization of cases concerning the
expropriation of American oil companies
in the ‘Tribunal Rules’,204 a specially adapted version of the UNCITRAL with Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (also
Arbitration Rules which the United Nations had negotiated in 1976 as a Chairman of Chamber One) until 1993.
model for conducting international commercial arbitration205 and now

found the first larger (and successful) test in practice.206 The Tribunal
consists of nine Members, three Iranians, three Americans and three from
third states. The President of the Tribunal is selected from the third-party
arbitrators. Most cases are decided by Chambers of threre arbitrators.
The ‘Full Tribunal’ of all nine Members only decides on the international
law disputes between the parties and in some particularly important cases.
The Tribunal was created under unique circumstances, considering
the diverse ideological premises of the parties, their political and military
confrontation, and the volume of the economic interests at issue, and
this was often reflected in the difficulties of its operation in practice.
The Tribunal even had to interrupt its work for a longer period,
following an unprecedented event in the history of international
arbitration when, in 1984, two Iranian arbitrators physically attacked
a Swedish arbitrator.207 On the whole, however, in spite of the disruption
of diplomatic relations and the continuing confrontation between Iran
and the United States outside of the Tribunal, it was able, under some
cumbersome security arrangements and supported by a large staff of
up to 100 persons, to develop a professional working atmosphere
leading to a large body of decisions. Even in the autumn of 1987, by
when Iran and the United States were in direct military engagement
with each other in the Gulf during the war between Iraq and Iran,208
the present author recalls taking part in a large oral hearing in the
Peace Palace in The Hague concerning a claim by Iran for the delivery
of military equipment held back by the United States, with generals
and other high-ranking military officers in uniform represented on both
sides, which the Tribunal managed to conduct quietly.209

211 Iran-US Claims Tribunal
The work of the Tribunal is now nearing its end. It has only a few cases
Communiqué No. 96/1 of 22 left and some of the senior staff have already moved on to new tasks at the
January 1996.
212 Of which 248 were ‘Awards on
United Nations Compensation Commission for Claims Against Iraq in
Agreed Terms’ or ‘Partial Awards on Geneva, a body which is not arbitral or judicial in nature, and which was
Agreed terms’ recording settlements
by the parties.
imposed upon Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait.210 Its success is demonstrated
213 Award on Agreed Terms No. by the number of cases, most of which had been filed by US nationals and
483-CLTDS/86/B38/B76/B77-FT,
filed 22 June 1990.
companies, that have so far been brought to a decision or a settlement and
214 R.B.Lillich, Lump Sum which cover the entire range of international commercial transactions and
Agreements, EPIL 8 (1985), 367–
72. See also Chapter 15 above,
foreign investment. As of 31 December 1995,211 it had issued 567 Awards212
237. and 81 Interlocutory and Interim Awards, terminated 877 cases by Order
215 See AJIL 84 (1990), 891–5 for
details.
or Decision, and filed 124 Decisions in 133 other cases. The total number
216 Award No. 306-A15 (I:G)-FT. of cases finalized was 3,892. However, it must be taken into account that
217 Oellers-Frahm (1995),
Arbitration, op. cit., 458–78;
more than 2,300 so-called ‘small claims’ of less than US$250,000 had been
T.Treves, The Law of the Sea terminated by an Award on Agreed Terms in 1990213 on the basis of a
Tribunal: Its Status and Scope of
Jurisdiction after November 16,
settlement agreement reached between the two governments, under which
1994, ibid., 421. On the background Iran accepted to pay the lump sum214 of US$105 million.215 The total amount
see R.Bernhardt, Law of the Sea,
Settlement of Disputes, EPIL 1
awarded to US parties and paid out of the Security Account, as of the end
(1981), 133; A.O.Adede, The of 1995, was US$2,091,696,325.96 plus the dollar equivalents of £303,196,
System for Settlement of Disputes
under the United Nations
DM 297,051 and Rials 97,132,598 (excluding interest). The total amount
Convention on the Law of the Sea: A (excluding interest) awarded to Iran and Iranian parties (not payable out
Drafting History and a Commentary,
1987; G.Jaenicke, International
of the Security Account) was US$883,447,411.71 and the dollar equivalent
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in of Rials 7,977,343. About US$500 million of this total amount was paid
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 797–804; S.
Rosenne, Establishing the
to Iran on the basis of a Tribunal award ordering the return of frozen
International Tribunal for the Law of Iranian assets held at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.216
the Sea, AJIL 89 (1995), 806–14;
S.Oda, Dispute Settlement
The fact that the Tribunal still exists and has been able to function under
Prospects in the Law of the Sea, such delicate circumstances is in itself a remarkable contribution in the
ICLQ 44 (1995), 683–712; J.I.
Charney, The Implications of
history of international arbitration. The published decisions of the Tribunal,
Expanding International Dispute now approaching thirty volumes, constitute an invaluable collection of
Settlement Systems: The 1982
materials and jurisprudence on issues of public international law and
AJIL 90 (1996), 69–75. international commercial law, which as a source for the development of the
218 Noted by T.Eitel, Comment,
ZaöRV 55 (1995), 452, at 456.
law will not be so easily surpassed in the future.
219 On the background see Merrills
(1991), op. cit., 153 et seq. with
references.
Settlement of disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention
The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, in force since 16 November 1994,
contains an elaborate system of dispute settlement, which must be considered
as highly innovative because in most cases it will lead to a binding third-
party decision in one form or another, with arbitration as the default
procedure, if other mechanisms of dispute settlement fail.217 The 1982
Convention and the Agreement for the Implementation of Part XI of the
Convention adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 1994 make the
peaceful settlement of disputes an integrated part of the Convention. In fact
nearly a quarter of the articles of the Convention are concerned with dispute
settlement.218 It should also be noted at the outset that the dispute settlement
provisions of the Convention proved non-controversial among states,219 as
distinct from the parts dealing with the deep seabed mining regime.
The problem with earlier conventions, not only in the law of the sea,
had been that procedures with binding decisions were either not applied
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION 299
(as in the case of the 1958 Fishing Convention providing for ad hoc
commissions) or laid down in a separate protocol which was not ratified
by all members to the Convention (the other three 1958 Law of the Sea
Conventions or the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations, the 1969 Convention on
Special Missions, and others). The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention
automatically makes each ratifying state at the same time a party to the
dispute settlement provisions.
The system laid down in Part XV is rather flexible and may be briefly
summarized as follows. As a starting point, states retain their basic
freedom to select the method of dispute settlement in a given case (Article
280). They can choose other mechanisms than those provided for in
Part XV of the Convention. But if this does not result in a settlement,
the parties may return to the basic procedures of Section 1 of Part XV
(Article 281). Article 282 gives priority to dispute settlement procedures
the parties have agreed to in other general, regional or bilateral
instruments leading to a binding decision, including the acceptance of
the optional clause of the International Court of Justice.
If the methods under Section 1 fail to resolve the matter, Section 2
comes into operation which provides for compulsory procedures with
binding decisions at the request of any party to the dispute. However,
there are exceptions with regard to certain types of disputes which are
excluded from this obligation (Section 3). The system in Section 2 gives
the parties four different options of a compulsory settlement procedure
which they may choose by a written declaration (Article 287):
1 the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Ham-

burg;
2 the International Court of Justice;
3 an arbitral tribunal established in accordance with Annex
VII to the Convention; or
4 a special arbitral tribunal for the settlement of disputes con-
cerning fisheries, protection and preservation of the marine
environment, marine scientific research, or navigation and
pollution by vessels.
These courts and tribunals are competent with regard to all law of the
sea matters submitted to them under the Convention, but also with regard
to other rules of international law if they are not incompatible with the
Convention. Decisions are binding as between the parties and at their
request they can also be based on equity rather than on the law. However,
there is no provision made for enforcement. If the parties by their
declarations have chosen different procedures from the aforementioned
menu, then the dispute is submitted to arbitration in accordance with
Annex VII, defining the dispute settlement procedure which applies in
any case where a settlement under Section 1 fails or where no other type
of procedure has been accepted by both sides.
The dispute settlement system of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention,
which in the end provides for some form of binding third-party decision,
also lays down the option of non-binding conciliation (Article 284). It is
the only method specially mentioned in Section 1 of Part XV giving
220 See Treves, op. cit., at 436

et seq.
parties the basic freedom to select the means of dispute settlement. Conciliation
221 Petersmann/Jaenicke (eds), op. is also expressly mentioned as an option with regard to deep seabed mining
cit.; R.Ostrihansky, Settlement of
Interstate Trade Disputes—The
disputes (Article 285). Furthermore, in areas which are traditionally sensitive
Role of Law and Legal Procedures, from the viewpoint of territorial sovereignty and military activities, or with
NYIL 22 (1991), 163–216.
222 Text in ILM 27 (1988), 281. See
regard to fishing and research (from the perspective of developing countries),
J.-G.Castel, The Settlement of states have shown themselves unwilling to accept binding third-party decisions.
Disputes under the 1988 Canada-
United States Free Trade
The ‘optional exceptions’ under Article 298 permit states to exempt certain
Agreement, AJIL 83 (1989), 118–28. types of disputes from the rules on compulsory jurisdiction. If no declaration
223 North American Free Trade
Agreement 1992, ILM 32 (1993),
is made to the contrary, then the disputes are covered by compulsory
289, 605. See J.A.Canela, ASIL jurisdiction. Disputes that may be excluded are:
Proc. 85 (1993), 6–10; G.N.Horlick/
F.A.DeBusk, Dispute Resolution
under NAFTA, JIArb. 10 (1993), 51–
1 disputes ‘concerning the interpretation or application of Articles
61; L.B.Sohn, An Abundance of 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations’;
Riches: GATT and NAFTA
Provisions for the Settlement of
2 disputes ‘involving historic bays or titles’;
Disputes, US-Mexico LJ 1 (1993), 3 disputes concerning military activities, including such activities by
3–17 and other contributions at 19–
40; J.L. Siqueiros, NAFTA
government ships and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service;
Institutional Arrangements and 4 disputes on law enforcement activities concerning the exercise of
Dispute Settlement Procedures,
CWILJ 23 (1992–3), 383– 94;
sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from compulsory jurisdic-
J.L.Miller, Prospects for Satisfactory tion under Article 297 (2) and (3) (questions of marine scientific
Dispute Resolution of Private
Commercial Disputes Under the
research and of fisheries); and
NAFTA, Pepp. LR 21 (1994), 1313– 5 disputes in which the Security Council is exercising its functions
89; K.L.Oelstom, A Treaty for the
Future: The Dispute Settlement
under the UN Charter.
Mechanisms of the NAFTA, LPIB
25 (1994), 783–811; J.I.Garvey,
Trade Law and Quality of Life— With regard to some of the disputes belonging to categories (1) and (2),
Dispute Resolution under the
NAFTA Side Accords on Labor and
conciliation is provided for as a method of dispute settlement at the request
the Environment, AJIL 89 (1995), of one party.220 Conciliation in these areas was thus the only avenue to
439–53.
224 Agreement Establishing the
secure general consensus on the acceptance of binding settlement
WTO, ILM 33 (1994), 1144, see procedures in general as an integral part of the Convention. It is obligatory
primarily Annex 2: Understanding
on Rules and Procedures
for certain categories of disputes excluded under Section 3 of Part XV
Governing the Settlement of from adjudication or arbitration. Annex V sets out the procedure to be
Disputes, at 1226; J.-G.Castel, The
Uruguay Round and the
adopted in voluntary or mandatory conciliation under the Convention
Improvements to the GATT Dispute and the provisions largely correspond to those in other recent multilateral
Settlement Rules and Procedures,
ICLQ 38 (1989), 834– 49;
conventions.
P.T.B.Kohona, Dispute Resolution
under the WTO, JWTL 28 (1994),
23– 47; J.L.Dunoff, Institutional
Misfits: The GATT, The ICJ & Conclusions
Trade-Environment Disputes, Mich.
JIL 15 (1994), 1043– 128;
M.Reisman/M.Wiedman, Whether the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention will mark a new trend in
Contextual Imperatives of Dispute international dispute settlement remains to be seen. The same applies to
Mechanisms—Some Hypotheses
and Their Application in the
new developments in international trade agreements,221 such as the 1988
Uruguay Round and NAFTA, JWTL Canada-US Free Trade Agreement,222 the NAFTA223 and GATT under the
29 (1995), 5; S.P. Croley/ new umbrella of the WTO,224 where new mechanisms have been introduced
J.H.Jackson, WTO Dispute
Procedures, Standard of Review, to overcome the inadequate aspects of pure conciliatory dispute
and Deference to National settlement. But the reasons for these innovations are somewhat specific
Governments, AJIL 90 (1996), 193– to the nature of international trade arrangements and also they differ
213; J.H.Bello, The WTO Dispute
Settlement Understanding, ibid.,
in each case. NAFTA, for example, does not generally provide for
416–18; A. Porges, The New binding dispute settlement procedures between the states parties but
Dispute Settlement: From the follows the model of GATT panel procedures. Moreover, it should be
GATT to the WTO, LJIL 8 (1995),
115–34. See also Chapter 15 noted that many Asian members of GATT, for reasons of historical
above, 231–3. and cultural traditions, have shown themselves reluctant to use formal dispute
CONCLUSIONS 301
225 On APEC see Chapter 15 above,

settlement mechanisms and prefer non-litigious methods of dispute 225.
settlement, as witnessed by the recent APEC225 agreement on a ‘Voluntary 226 Text in ILM 35 (1996), 1102.
227 GA Res. 44/23, 44 UN GAOR
Consultative Dispute Mediation Service’.226 At any rate, the proliferation Supp. (No. 49), at 21, UN Doc. A/44/49
of different international courts and tribunals raises the problem of how (1990).
228 See AJIL 90 (1996), 499.
to ensure consistency of the law, in view of the fact that there is no 229 See L.B.Sohn, Preparation of a
superior decision-making body which could ultimately unify conflicting New Treaty for the Settlement of
International Disputes, LJIL 3 (1990),
decisions on international law. 51; see also C.M.Chinkin, The Peaceful
Since the end of the Cold War there has been no lack of new ideas Settlement of Disputes: New Grounds
concerning the improvement of international dispute settlement. One of for Optimism?, in R.St.J.Macdonald
(ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya,
the main goals of the UN Decade of International Law (1990–9) 1994, 165, at 167.
proclaimed by the UN General Assembly, for example, is the promotion 230 ILM 31 (1992), 953. On ‘preventive
diplomacy’ see B.G. Ramsharan, The
of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between states, International Law and Practice of Early-
including resort to the International Court of Justice.227 In particular the Warning and Preventive Diplomacy,
1991.
non-aligned countries, recently supported by Russia,228 have advanced
the proposal to convene a Third Hague Peace Conference at the end of
the decade (one hundred years after the First Hague Peace Conference)
which may consider a new universal convention on the peaceful
settlement of disputes.229 Another new line of discussion was initiated
by the submission in 1992 of the UN Secretary-General’s ‘Agenda for
Peace’, which apart from advocating the concept of ‘preventive
diplomacy’, inter alia, urged greater reliance by states on the World
Court for the peaceful adjudication of disputes.230
Experience shows, however, that the acceptance of international
adjucation by states cannot exactly be described as enthusiastic. Some
of the reasons for the reluctance of states to accept the optional clause
of the ICJ, for example, are fairly straightforward. For instance, a state
which has just become independent may hesitate for a time before
accepting unfamiliar commitments. Again, states may be reluctant to go
to the ICJ because they prefer other tribunals which are smaller (and
therefore cheaper and more expedient) or more specialized, and offer
more chances of control over the outcome of the proceedings, as in the
case of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.
But the reluctance of states to appear before the ICJ also has a more
fundamental significance; it is symptomatic of a distrust which states
feel for arbitration and judicial settlement in general. They are reluctant
to appear before international courts either as plaintiffs or as defendants.
(In the remainder of this chapter, the words ‘court’ and ‘judge’ are used
to include arbitral tribunals as well as courts and judges in the strict
sense.) Despite cynical views to the contrary, this reluctance is seldom
caused by a desire to be able to break international law with impunity;
still, it must be confessed that the absence of a competent court may
sometimes have the effect of tempting a state to break international
law. The rule that the jurisdiction of international courts is dependent
on the consent of states is therefore a defect in international law.
But it is not a fatal defect. International courts hardly existed before
the nineteenth century, but international law managed to work
without them; even today, after the former communist states have
changed their general opposition to international courts on
principle, the actual mechanism of inducing states to follow
international rules and principles does not in essence rest on adjudication.

232 See T.M.Franck, Fairness in
Courts are probably an indispensable part of municipal legal systems,
International Law and Institutions, because fear of sanctions imposed by courts is one of the main reasons why
1995, 324 et seq., with reference to
the statistical analysis by E.B.Weiss,
people obey municipal law; international law is different, because states
Judicial Independence and have other reasons for obeying international law, reasons which have no
Impartiality: A Preliminary Inquiry, in
Damrosch (ed.), op. cit., 123.
counterpart in municipal systems.231 We must resist the temptation to
233 See Chapter 2 above, 22. condemn international law as deficient whenever it fails to resemble
municipal law; international law and municipal law work in different ways,
but that does not mean that one works less effectively than the other.
There are two reasons why it is instructive to consider the reasons which
induce states to distrust international courts. First, such an examination
will serve to refute the conclusion that distrust of international courts
necessarily connotes disrespect for international law. Second, if an
international lawyer is going to persuade states to overcome their distrust
of international courts, he will need to have a very clear understanding of
the fears felt by states before he can hope to show that those fears are
exaggerated or unfounded.
The main reason why states are reluctant to accept the jurisdiction of
an international court is because they believe that judicial decisions are
often unpredictable. It is not that international law in general is uncertain;
but, since most states have competent legal advisers and are fairly law-
abiding, the fact that a dispute cannot be settled by negotiation often
indicates that the relevant law or the facts of the case are uncertain. And
it is these ‘unpredictable’ cases which are most likely to come before an
international court.
States can also point to the prevalence of dissenting opinions as evidence
of the unpredictability of judicial decisions; when several members of a
court dissent from the judgment given by the majority, it is easy to argue
that the case would have been decided the other way if the court had been
differently constituted. If different judges are likely to reach different
decisions, it may seem as if the outcome of litigation is sometimes a matter
of pure chance.
Where the law is uncertain, a judge is likely to be influenced, consciously
or unconsciously, by political considerations. This casts doubt on his
impartiality; and states may be forgiven for thinking that political decisions
should be taken by states and not by courts. The general allegation, however,
that the judges of the ICJ would reflect the political biases present in the
political organs of the UN has been shown to be empirically wrong.232 Be
that as it may, the element of unpredictability in judicial decisions (not
unknown also in national ligitation) may be tolerable in minor cases, but
not when important political issues are at stake. Arbitration treaties
concluded in the early years of the twentieth century often contained clauses
which excluded the obligation to arbitrate in cases affecting the honour or
vital interests of the states concerned.233 Before 1914, writers tried to explain
these clauses by saying that ‘political’ disputes (which were defined in
different ways by different writers) were, by their very nature, incapable of
judicial settlement. This view is now discredited. But the fact that disputes
affecting the vital interests of a state could in theory be decided by an
international court does not alter the fact that states usually refuse to submit
such disputes to international courts in practice.
CONCLUSIONS 303

An additional factor is that the effects of a court’s decision are not 235 See Chapter 3 above, 44–5.
limited to the facts of a particular case; it is also a precedent for future
cases. Some states distrust the ICJ because they think that its decisions
have changed the law too much. On similar grounds (albeit more with a
view to the effects upon domestic law and national sovereignty), the UK is
discontent with decisions rendered against Britain by the European Court
of Justice in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg. Indeed, when a case turns on a point of law about which the
parties honestly hold opposing views, the losing party will always feel
that the court has changed the law. States create law for themselves through
treaties and custom, and are jealous of rival sources,234 such as judicial
precedents; if changes in the law are needed, states prefer to retain the
power of deciding for themselves what the new rules should be.
Conversely, other states distrust international courts because they
think that international courts are too conservative. When a customary
rule is changing, or a state has reasons to hope that the rule is about to
change, a judgment reaffirming the old rule may, through its effect as a
precedent, delay or prevent the change. It is significant that the rich
states, which may be presumed to be satisfied with the status quo, are
much readier to accept the Court’s jurisdiction under the optional clause
than the poor (and presumably dissatisfied) states. Besides, it is only
recently that the number of Third World judges at the Court has begun
to reflect the increased number of independent Third World states.
Although courts sometimes change the law indirectly, their main
function is to apply the existing law; consequently, to expect a court to
be able to settle an international dispute, when one side is demanding a
change in the law, is rather like trying to settle a wage claim by telling
the workers that wages are fixed by the contract of employment and
that contracts can be altered only by mutual agreement. But the difference
between claims for the application of the law and claims for changes in
the law is not always clear. The law itself may be uncertain, and it is
always bad tactics for a state to concede that its position is legally
untenable; consequently, states often make claims in negotiations without
indicating whether their claim is based on the existing law or whether it
amounts to a demand for a change in the law. There is also the paradox
caused by the element of opinio iuris in the formation of new rules of
customary law;235 because a new rule sometimes cannot become law
until it is regarded as being already part of the law, claims for changes in
the law are often disguised as claims for the application of the existing
law. As a result, many cases which appear suitable for judicial settlement
are in fact not so.
Finally, there are also a number of minor reasons for the reluctance
of states to use international courts for the settlement of disputes. To
start judicial proceedings against another state is sometimes regarded as
an unfriendly act; states fear that they will lose face if the court’s decision
goes against them. Moreover, the reluctance of states to go to court
produces a vicious circle, in the sense that the large number of preliminary
objections raised by defendant states before international courts causes
great complexity in the law and makes litigation very expensive and
236 For example, global settlements

in cases of expropriation, see
time-consuming; and these consequences in turn intensify the reluctance of
Chapter 15 above, 237. states to appear before international courts, either as plaintiff or as
defendant.
What happens to disputes which states are unwilling to refer to
international courts? Most of them are eventually settled by some political
means of settlement, such as negotiation or mediation; indeed, the creation
of international organizations like the United Nations has increased the
chances of political settlement, by adding to the number of available means
of political settlement. Very often the settlement takes the form of a
compromise,236 or of a ‘package deal’, in which one state makes concessions
in one dispute in return for concessions by the other state in another, more
or less unrelated, dispute.
Alternatively, the dispute can simply result in a stalemate; states are
practically immortal and can afford to wait until a change in the law or in
the balance of power enables them to negotiate a settlement on more
favourable terms. Disputes over title to territory, in particular, can tend to
drag on for centuries, because of the virtually indestructible character of
territory; moreover, the complexity and uncertainty of the facts in most
territorial disputes makes judicial decisions particularly unpredictable, and
the strong emotional attachment felt by peoples for every inch of their
territory, however useless the disputed territory may be, increases the
unpopularity of international courts as a means of settling such disputes.
In the nineteenth century a strong state might take military action to
compel a weak state to accept arbitration; nowadays, changes in the law
and in popular attitudes concerning the use of force make such action
unthinkable, and stalemate has replaced war as the main alternative to
judicial settlement. However, the fact that many disputes lead to stalemate
instead of being settled by a court results in an unnecessary prolongation
of international tension. What is even more serious is that the absence of
compulsory judicial settlement sometimes enables states to break
international law with apparent impunity, saves them even from
condemnation, and thus produces gross injustice (and cynicism about the
effectiveness of international law).
How well founded are the reasons which induce states to distrust
international courts? At one extreme, states are clearly right in thinking
that a court cannot effectively settle a dispute which is concerned with
demands for a change in the law. At the other extreme, the idea that litigation
is an unfriendly act, and necessarily complex, expensive and time-consuming,
is correct only because states have chosen to approach litigation in this
spirit; if states accepted litigation as a normal and desirable means for settling
disputes, and did not try to obstruct international courts, litigation would
become a simple, quick, cheap and amicable process.
As for the central problem of judicial unpredictability, the fears of states
are to some extent well founded, but only in certain cases; in other cases it
is easy to predict the decision of the court. Similarly, as regards the related
problem of vital interests, states sometimes have an exaggerated idea of
what is vital; interests which states regarded as vital (and therefore non-
justiciable) sixty years ago are now seen not to be vital after all, and there
is no logical reason why this process of contraction should not continue.
CONCLUSIONS 305
Again, the fear of judicial precedents as a source of law is also probably

exaggerated; in international law judicial precedents are merely
persuasive, not binding, and in any case the effect of an unpopular
precedent can always be eliminated by a treaty or by subsequent
developments in customary law.
Finally, one or two suggestions can be made for overcoming the
distrust which states feel for international courts. In the first place, if
states do not want to submit certain categories of disputes to a court,
they should try to define those categories precisely and accept the court’s
jurisdiction over all other categories of disputes; this would avoid the
present situation, where reluctance to accept a court’s jurisdiction over
certain categories of disputes often results in a failure to accept the court’s
jurisdiction at all— or results in an acceptance coupled with vague and
unnecessarily wide reservations. Second, more care should be exercised
in selecting judges. The ideal international judge is someone who
understands the political aspirations of different states, and who, if he is
forced to make a political decision, will do so consciously and wisely, in
an attempt to reach a solution which is acceptable to both parties. The
judge who is loudest in professing his attachment to the letter of the law
and his refusal to be swayed by political considerations often turns out
to be basing his judgments on preconceived political ideas of which he is
not even conscious. Judges of the latter type have been common in the
past. But that is no reason for condemning international courts in general.
The solution is to choose better judges in future.
19 International wars, civil wars
and the right to self-
determination: ius ad bellum
1 Harris CMIL, 817–73; D.W.Bowett, Having dealt with the situation of normality, with the international law
Self-Defence in International Law, governing the peaceful relations between states, the book now turns to the
1958; I.Brownlie, International Law
and the Use of Force, 1963; situation of abnormality, to the rules governing the use of force and armed
W.Meng, War, EPIL 4 (1982), 282– conflict.1 The term ‘laws of war’ can have different meanings and refers to
90; F.Kalshoven, War, Laws of ibid., both the rules governing the resort to armed conflict (ius ad bellum) and
316–22; A. Randelzhofer, Use of
Force, ibid., 265– 76; O.Schachter, the rules governing the actual conduct of armed conflict (ius in bello). It is
The Right of States to Use Armed reasonable to treat both areas separately, because of the recognized principle
Force, Mich. LR 82 (1984), 1620;
M.Reismann, Criteria for the Lawful
that ius in bello is applicable in cases of armed conflict whether the conflict
Use of Force in International Law, is lawful or unlawful under ius ad bellum.2
Yale JIL 10 (1985), 279–85; C. The present chapter deals with the ius ad bellum and the rules governing
Greenwood, The Concept of War in
Modern International Law, ICLQ 36 the use of force in international wars, civil wars and in the exercise of the
(1986), 283–306; A.Cassese (ed.), right of self-determination. The ius in bello, for which increasingly the term
The Current Legal Regulation of the
Use of Force, 1986; D.Schindler/K. ‘international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts’ is being used,
Hailbronner, Die Grenzen des and individual criminal responsibility for violations of the laws of war will
völkerrechtlichen Gewaltverbots,
DGVR 26 (1986), 11, 49; be dealt with separately in Chapter 20. Finally, the role of the United Nations
P.Malanczuk, Countermeasures and in the maintenance of international peace and security and in dealing with
Self-Defence as Circumstances
Precluding Wrongfulness in the
armed conflicts will be taken up in Chapter 22, after describing the Charter
International Law Commission’s and the organs of the United Nations in Chapter 21.
Draft Articles on State
Responsibility, in M.Spinedi/
B.Simma (eds), United Nations
Codification of State Responsibility, Lawful and unlawful wars: developments before 1945
1987, 197–286; W.E.Butler (ed.),
The Non-Use of Force in
International Law, 1989; O. For many centuries Western European attitudes towards the legality of war
Schachter, International Law in
Theory and Practice, 1991, were dominated by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.3 One of
Chapters VII and VIII; B.Asrat, the first theologians to write on the subject was St Augustine (AD 354–
Prohibition of Force under the UN
Charter—A Study of Article 2(4), 430), who said:
1991; L.Henkin et al., Right v. Might:
International Law and the Use of
Force, 2nd edn 1991; Just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, when
L.F.Damrosch/D.J. Scheffer (eds), the nation or city against which warlike action is to be directed has
Law and Force in the New
International Order, 1992; K.J. neglected either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or
Partsch, Armed Conflict, EPIL I to restore what has been unjustly taken by it. Further, that kind of
(1992), 249–53; Partsch, Armed
Conflict, Fundamental Rules, ibid.,
war is undoubtedly just which God Himself ordains.
253–6; T.D. Gill, The Forcible
Protection, Affirmation and Exercise These ideas continued to be accepted for over 1,000 years. War was
of Rights by States under
Contemporary International Law, regarded as a means of obtaining reparation for a prior illegal act
NYIL 23 (1992), 105–73; committed by the other side (the reparation sought had to be proportional
P.Malanczuk, Humanitarian
Intervention and the Legitimacy of
to the seriousness of the illegality).4 In addition, wars against unbelievers
the Use of Force, 1993; Y. Onuma, and heretics were sometimes (but not always) regarded as being
A Normative Approach to War, 1993; commanded by God.
A.C.Arend/R.J.Beck, International
Law and the Use of Force: Beyond In the late sixteenth century the distinction between just and unjust
the UN Charter Paradigm, wars began to break down. Theologians were particularly concerned with
DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE 1945 307
1993; Y.Dinstein, War, Aggression, and

the state of man’s conscience, and admitted that each side would be Self-Defence, 2nd edn 1994; G.Best,
blameless if it genuinely believed that it was in the right, even though War and Law Since 1945, 1994; A.
Randelzhofer, Article 2(4), in Simma
one of the sides might have been objectively in the wrong (this was CUNAC, 106–28; T.Bruha, Use of
known as the doctrine of probabilism). Moreover, the category of just Force, Prohibition of, in Wolfrum UNLPP
II, 1387–99.
wars (bellum justum) began to be dangerously extended. Although 2 See A.Roberts/R.Guelff (eds),
seventeenth century writers like Hugo Grotius made some attempt to Documents on the Laws of War, 2nd
edn 1989, Introduction, 1; C.
re-establish traditional doctrines,5 the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Greenwood, The Relationship between
produced an almost complete abandonment of the distinction between ius ad bellum and ius in bello, RIS
(1983), 221–34.
legal and illegal wars. Wars were said to be justified if they were fought 3 See Chapter 2 above, 19–20.
for the defence of certain vital interests, but each state remained the sole 4 On reparation see Chapter 17 above,
270–1.
judge of its vital interests, which were never defined with any attempt at 5 H.Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis,
precision.6 Indeed, the whole doctrine of vital interests probably 1625. On Grotius see Chapter 2 above,
15–16.
constituted, not a legal criterion of the legality of war, but a source for 6 On ‘vital interests’ see Chapter 2
political justifications and excuses, to be used for propaganda purposes. above, 22.
The most realistic view of the customary law in the ‘classical’ period of 8 See Chapter 2 above, 11–12.
international law, as it came to stand towards the end of the nineteenth 9 See Chapter 1 above, 6.
century,7 is that it placed no limits on the right of states to resort to war.
Some modern writers have suggested that a legal system which made
no distinction between the legal and illegal use of force was not worthy
of the name of law. Certainly this would be true of a system of municipal
law which made no such distinction. Human beings are particularly
vulnerable to physical attack; even the strongest man has to sleep
sometimes, and, while he is asleep, anyone can kill him in a split second,
with a fair chance of escaping detection. Consequently a law against
murder is indispensable for any society composed of human beings. In
the international society of states the position is different. States derive
protection from the fact that they are few in number and are composed
of territory and population. Because states are few in number, an attack
on one state threatens the interests of the other states, which are
therefore likely to come to its help. Similarly, the fact that states are
composed of territory and population means that they cannot be
overpowered instantaneously; until tanks and aircraft were invented,
the time required for a hostile army to penetrate far into another state
was usually long enough for the victim to mobilize resistance and to
obtain help from its allies.
Alliances were, indeed, of crucial importance in the nineteenth century,
the classic period of the balance of power.8 Despite Alexander Pope’s cynical
comment—‘Now, Europe balanced, neither side prevails; For nothing’s
left in either of the scales’ —the balance-of-power system was fairly
successful in making wars rare. The expense, destructiveness and long
duration of wars, and the risks of defeat, meant that wars were not worth
fighting unless a state stood to gain a large amount of territory by going
to war; but a state which seized too much territory threatened the whole
of Europe because it upset the balance of power, and states were usually
deterred from attempting to seize large areas of territory by the knowledge
that such an attempt would unite the rest of Europe against them.
When studying comparative law,9 one often comes across a topic which
is regulated by law in one country and extra-legal factors in another. For
instance, in Germany relations between trade unions and employers are
308 WARS AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
10 See Chapter 2 above, 15. On

arbitration, see Chapter 18 above,
regulated by law, but in the United Kingdom, where the whole history of
293–5. industrial relations is radically different, they are regulated in a more
12 See H.-U.Scupin, Peace,
informal, extra-legal way, which (despite popular belief) is only slightly
Historical Movements Towards, less successful, as a means of preserving industrial peace, than the German
EPIL 4 (1982), 78–86; L.B.Sohn,
Peace, Proposals for the
method of doing things. Similarly, in the nineteenth century, the prevention
Preservation of, ibid., 91–5. of violence, which in municipal societies was largely secured by rules of
14 Article 13(4), or with a
law, was achieved at the international level by extra-legal factors such as
unanimous report by the Council of the balance of power.
the League of Nations, see Article
15(6).
Where necessary, the balance-of-power system could be supplemented
15 Text of the Treaty in 94 LNTS 57 by law (in the form of treaties), to deal with special cases. For instance,
(1929). See Chapter 2 above, 24. treaties of 1815 and 1839 guaranteed Switzerland and Belgium against
attack. Later, the Latin American states persuaded several other states to
sign the second Hague Convention of 1907, which prohibited the use of
force to recover contract debts, unless the debtor state refused to go to
arbitration or refused to carry out the arbitral award.10 The third Hague
Convention of 1907 required war to be preceded by a formal declaration
of war or by an ultimatum containing a conditional declaration of war.11
The unprecedented suffering of the First World War caused a
revolutionary change in attitudes towards war. Nowadays people (at least
in Europe) are accustomed to regard war as an appalling evil. It is hard to
realize that during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most people
(except for a few pacifists)12 regarded war in much the same way as they
regarded a hard winter—uncomfortable, certainly, but part of the settled
order of things, and providing excellent opportunities for exhilarating sport;
even the wounded soldier did not regard war as wrong, any more than the
skier with a broken leg regards skiing as wrong. All this changed after
1914, but the law took some time to catch up with public opinion. The
Covenant of the League of Nations, signed in 1919, did not prohibit war
altogether; instead, Article 12(1) provided:
The Members of the League agree that, If there should arise

between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit
the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiry by
the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three
months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or
the report by the Council.13
(The three-month period of delay was intended to allow time for passions
to die down; if states had observed a three-month delay after the
assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, it is possible that
the First World War could have been averted.) In addition, members of the
League agreed not to go to war with members complying with an arbitral
award or judicial decision.14
During the 1920s various efforts were made to fill the ‘gaps in the
Covenant’ —that is, to transform the Covenant’s partial prohibition of
war into a total prohibition of war. These efforts culminated in the General
Treaty for the Renunciation of War (otherwise known as the Kellogg-Briand
Pact, or the Pact of Paris), signed in 1928.15 Almost all the states in the
world became parties to this treaty, which provided:
THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF FORCE 309
The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare…that they 16 For the text of the UN Charter see
condemn recourse to war for the solution of international Brownlie BDIL, 1.
controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national 17 See Chapter 21 below, 369–73.
18 Nicaragua v. USA, ICJ Rep. 1986,
policy in their relations with one another. 14, 98–101. See text below, 319–22.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or 19 See Meng (1982), op. cit.; K.
solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of Skubiszewski, Peace and War, EPIL 4
whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, (1982), 74–8. See also W.M.Reisman/
J.E.Baker, Regulating Covert Action:
shall never be sought except by pacific means. Practices, Contexts and Policies of
Covert Coercion Abroad in International
and American Law, 1992.
But there is some dispute on whether the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 already 20 See Chapter 2 above, 27–8.
marks a general acceptance of the prohibition of the use of force in the 21 J.Delbrück, War, Effect on Treaties,
EPIL 4 (1982), 310–15. As to the effect
absolute sense in which it was laid down in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. of war on contracts see C.Steimel, ibid.,
303–10. See also Chapter 9 above,
145–6.
The prohibition of the use of force in the United Nations 22 C.D.Wallace, Trading with the
Enemy, EPIL 4 (1982), 245–9.
Charter 23 K.J.Madders, Internment, EPIL II
(1995), 1403–14. See also J.M.
As has been explained in Chapter 2 above, a central feature of the modern Mössner, Enemies and Enemy
Subjects, ibid., 82–7; I.Seidl-
international legal system in comparison with ‘classical’ international Hohenveldern, Enemy Property, ibid.,
law is the normative attempt to control the use of force. Article 2(4) of 87–90.
24 See R.Sadurska, Threats of Force,
the United Nations Charter provides: AJIL 82 (1988), 239–68; Randelzhofer,
Article 2(4), op. cit., 118.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the 25 On the alleged unilateral right of
humanitarian intervention by third
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political states, see Chapter 14 above, 220–1.
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent Collective humanitarian intervention
with the Purposes of the United Nations.16 authorized by the United Nations is
discussed in Chapter 22 below, 393–
407.
This rule is of universal validity; even the few states which are not
members of the United Nations17 are bound by it because it is also a rule
of customary international law.18
Article 2(4) is well drafted, in so far as it talks of ‘the threat or use of
force’, and not of ‘war’. ‘War’ has a technical (but imprecise) sense in
international law, and states often engage in hostilities while denying that
they are technically in a state of war;19 such hostilities can range from
minor border incidents to extensive military operations, such as the Anglo-
French attempt to occupy the area surrounding the Suez Canal in 1956.20
The distinction between war and hostilities falling short of war may appear
to be a very fine distinction, but it can have important consequences; for
instance, war automatically terminates diplomatic relations and certain
categories of treaties between the belligerent states,21 but hostilities falling
short of war do not; similarly, a technical state of war can have special
effects in municipal law (for example, as regards trading with the enemy22
and internment of enemy subjects).23 Article 2(4) applies to all force,
regardless of whether or not it constitutes a technical state of war.
On the other hand, Article 2(4) is badly drafted, in so far as it prohibits
the threat24 or use of force only ‘against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations’. This terminology opens up the possibility
of arguing that force used for a wide variety of purposes (for example, to
protect human rights,25 or to enforce any type of legal right belonging to
a state) is legal because it is not aimed ‘against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state’. But the reference to territorial integrity
or political independence should not distract our attention from the
words ‘or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
26 See also Randelzhofer, Article United Nations’. Although Article 1 of the Charter, which deals with the
2(4), op. cit., 117–8. For the text of
Article 1 of the UN Charter, see purposes of the United Nations, makes a passing reference to justice and
Chapter 21 below, 368. international law, which could be used to support the argument that force
27 ICJ Rep. 1949, 4, 35. See R.
Bernhardt, Corfu Channel Case, used in the interests of justice and international law is not illegal, the
EPIL I (1992), 831–4; Malanczuk overriding purpose mentioned in Article 1 is ‘to maintain international peace
(1987), op. cit., 216 et seq. See also
and security’—which must surely indicate that any breach of international
28 See Chapter 12 above, 176–7. peace is automatically contrary to the purposes of the United Nations.26
29 See G.Hoog, Mines, EPIL 3 This extensive interpretation of Article 2(4) is reinforced by an
(1982), 283–5.
30 UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 examination of other provisions of the Charter. The preamble says that
October 1970, text in Brownlie BDIL, ‘the Peoples of the United Nations [are] determined to save succeeding
36. See Chapter 2 above, 32.
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought
untold sorrow to mankind’; and Article 2(3) obliges members to ‘settle
their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered’.
The view that Article 2(4) should be broadly interpreted is also supported
by the Corfu Channel case.27 In that case, British warships had been struck
by mines while exercising a right of innocent passage28 in Albanian territorial
waters, and the United Kingdom sent additional warships to sweep the
minefield (‘Operation Retail’). Minesweeping is not included in the right of
innocent passage, but the United Kingdom argued that it had a right to
intervene in order to make sure that the mines29 were produced as evidence
before an international tribunal. The International Court of Justice rejected
this argument:
The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the
manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise
to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present
defects in international organization, find a place in international law.
The Court went on to say:
The United Kingdom Agent…has further classified ‘Operation Retail’

among methods of self-protection or self-help. The Court cannot accept
this defence either. Between independent States, respect for territorial
sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations.
No doubt it may be galling for a strong state to be prohibited from using

force against a weak state which infringes its legal rights; but the Charter is
based on the belief that international law should not be enforced at the
expense of international peace.
A confirmation of the broad normative scope of the prohibition of
armed force in international relations may be found in the Friendly
Relations Declaration, adopted by consensus by the UN General
Assembly in 1970, which states:
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or

indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs
of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other
forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality
of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements,
are in violation of international law.30
SELF-DEFENCE 311
But in legal literature the prohibition of the use of force and its limits in 31 See the literature cited above, 306–
7. See also G.Arangio-Ruiz, Third
international law have remained the subject of a long-standing
Report on State Responsibility,
controversy,31 inspired by the wide gap between official rhetoric and International Law Commission, Forty-
inconsistent actual practice of states in view of the numerous armed Third Session, UN Doc. A/CN.4/440/
conflicts since 194532 and the ineffectiveness of the UN collective security Add.1, 19 July 1991, 8.
32 For a list of the 160 wars fought in
system during the Cold War period,33 which has given rise to the question
internal and international conflicts from
whether the norm laid down in Article 2(4) can still be regarded as 1945 to 1985, see U.Borchardt et al.,
valid. 34 The prevailing view is that the Charter has enacted a Die Kriege der Nachkriegszeit, VN
comprehensive rule on the prohibition of the use of force, which has (1986), 68; for the period 1985–92, see
become recognized as ius cogens35 and still admits only narrow exceptions K.J.Gantzel/T.Schwinghammer/J.
Siegelberg, Kriege der Welt: Ein
to this prohibition. The recent decision by the International Court of systematisches Register der
Justice in the Nicaragua case has followed this direction and clarified kriegerischen Konflikte 1985 bis 1992,
some important aspects of relevant customary international law, which 1992.
will be discussed in more detail below.36 33 See Chapter 2 above, 26–8 and
It is submitted, therefore, that Article 2(4) should be interpreted as 34 See T.M.Franck, Who Killed Article
totally prohibiting the threat or use of force. However, there are other 2(4)? Or: The Changing Norms
provisions of the Charter which contain exceptions to the principle, Governing the Use of Force by States,
such as concerning military action taken or authorized by the United AJIL 64 (1970), 809–37; L.Henkin, The
Reports of the Death of Article 2(4) are
Nations or competent regional organizations, which will be dealt with
Greatly Exaggerated, AJIL 65 (1971),
in Chapter 22 below.37 544–8; Malanczuk (1987), op. cit., at
217 et seq.; Schachter (1991), op. cit.,
at 129 et seq. As observed by E.Stein,
Self-defence The United Nations and the
Enforcement of Peace, Mich. JIL 10
(1989), 304, at 314, it would be
Self-defence is another exception, although its extent is controversial. premature ‘to suggest that the
Article 51 of the Charter, which is the legal basis for alliances such fundamental Charter principle
as NATO and the Warsaw Pact38 (dissolved after the break-up of prohibiting the use of force has
the USSR), provides: become obsolete by inconsistent
practice; but the precarious state of a
system without a collective
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of enforcement mechanism is self-
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs evident.’
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council 35 See, however, the critical remarks by
has taken the measures necessary to maintain international G.A.Christenson, The World Court and
peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise Jus Cogens, AJIL 81 (1987) 93. On the
of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the concept of ius cogens, see Chapter 3
Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority above, 57–8.
and responsibility of the Security Council under the present 37 See Chapter 22 below, 387–90.
Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in 38 See Chapter 6 above, 95.
order to maintain or restore international peace and security. 39 See B.-O.Bryde, Self-Defence,
EPIL 4 (1982), 212–15; Malanczuk
There is disagreement about the circumstances in which the right of self- (1987), op. cit.; J.Mrazek, Prohibition
of the Threat and Use of Force: Self-
defence may be exercised.39
Defence and Self-Help in International
Law, CYIL 27 (1989), 81–111,
Dinstein, op. cit.; D.K.Linnan, Self-
Preventive self-defence Defence, Necessity and UN Collective
Security: United States and Other
The words ‘if an armed attack occurs’, interpreted literally, imply that Views, Duke JCIL 1 (1991), 51–122;
the armed attack must have already occurred before force can be used in D.W.Greig, Self-Defence and the
self-defence; there is no right of anticipatory self-defence against an Security Council: What Does Article 51
imminent danger of attack. (It is true that the French text uses the words Require?, ICLQ 40 (1991), 366–402;
Randelzhofer, Article 51, in Simma
‘dans le cas ou un membre…est l’objet d’une agression armée’, and a CUNAC, 661–78; K.C.Kenny, Self-
state can be the object of an attack before the attack occurs. But the Defence, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1162–
Spanish text (‘en caso de ataque armada’) is closer to the English text.) 70; S.A.Alexandrov, Self-Defense
However, supporters of a right of anticipatory self-defence40 claim that Against the Use of Force in
International Law, 1996 and the
Article 51 does not limit the circumstances in which self-defence may be literature cited above.
40 For a discussion of these views,

see Malanczuk (1987), op. cit., 246–
exercised; they deny that the word ‘if’, as used in Article 51, means ‘if and
51. only if’. This argument sometimes takes the extreme form of saying that a
41 For example, Bowett, op. cit.,
Chapters 5, 6.
state may use force in defence of a large range of interests, even when there
42 See text above, 307. is neither an actual armed attack nor an imminent danger of one.41 This
43 See Brownlie (1963), op. cit.,
250– 7, 281–301; R.Higgins, The
view, which is reminiscent of nineteenth-century ideas of vital interests,42 is
Development of International Law generally discredited.43
through the Political Organs of the
United Nations, 1963, 216–21.
The difficulty about the approach of the authors supporting a right of
44 See Chapter 22 below, 388. preventive self-defence is that it is hard to imagine why the drafters of the
45 See G.Ress, Article 53, in Simma
CUNAC, 722–52; Ress, Article 107,
Charter bothered to stipulate conditions for the exercise of the right of self-
ibid., 1152–62. defence unless they intended those conditions to be exhaustive. Supporters
of a right of anticipatory self-defence try to meet this objection in two
ways. First, they argue that the conditions stated in Article 51 cannot be
treated as exhaustive, otherwise the words ‘if an armed attack occurs against
a member’ would have the absurd result of preventing members from
protecting non-members against attack. In practice, members do claim a
right to protect non-members against attack; one of the main purposes of
NATO was to protect West Germany, although West Germany did not
become a member of the United Nations until 1973. In 1945 it was expected
that virtually all states in the world would soon become members of the
United Nations, and therefore the failure of the Charter to mention attacks
on non-members was probably due to an oversight. Second, the
aforementioned authors point out that Article 51 describes self-defence as
an ‘inherent right’, and they suggest that it would be inconsistent for a
provision simultaneously to restrict a right and to recognize that right as
inherent. This argument is less easy to refute and requires further
consideration.
In evaluating whether anticipatory self-defence is incompatible with
the Charter one should first note that Article 51 is an exception to Article
2(4), and it is a general rule of interpretation that exceptions to a
principle should be interpreted restrictively, so as not to undermine the
principle. Article 53 of the Charter provides that parties to regional
arrangements 44 may take enforcement action against a ‘renewal of
aggressive policy’ (a term which is much wider than ‘aggression’) on the
part of former enemy states,45 and one may argue that this provision
would be unnecessary if Article 51 permitted anticipatory self-defence.
(The ‘enemy state clause’ has become obsolete since all former enemy
states have become members of the UN and it is likely to be removed in a
future reform of the UN Charter.) It is also significant that the North
Atlantic Treaty and similar treaties based on Article 51 provide only for
defence against armed attacks, and not for defence against imminent
dangers of armed attacks.
Furthermore, unlike many academic writers, the United States did not
invoke a right of anticipatory self-defence in order to justify the ‘quarantine’
imposed on Cuba during the Cuban missiles crisis.46 The United States
realized that such an attitude would have created a precedent which the
Soviet Union could have used against US missile sites in Europe; indeed, on
the same reasoning, virtually every state in the world could have claimed
to be threatened by a build-up of arms in a neighbouring state and
could have resorted to preventive war. It is true that the facts of the Cuban
SELF-DEFENCE 313
47 On the legality of nuclear weapons,

missiles crisis are not a good example of the typical situation contemplated see Chapter 20 below, 346–50.
by supporters of the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence, because a 48 For a more detailed analysis of the
case, see Malanczuk (1987), op, cit.,
communist attack was probably not imminent; but the question of 245–51.
whether an attack is imminent is inevitably a question of opinion and 49 SC Res. 487, 19 June 1981, UN
Chronicle, 1981, no. 8, 5–9, 61–74, at
degree, and any rule founded on such a criterion is bound to be subjective 68; ILM 20 (1981), 965–97.
and capable of abuse. To confine self-defence to cases where an armed 50 BPIL 1963, 206.
51 B.A.Ramundo, Peaceful
attack has actually occurred, on the other hand, would have the merit Coexistence, 1967, 129–33.
of precision; the occurrence of an armed attack is a question of fact 52 See text below, 316.
53 S.Less, Aqaba, Gulf of, EPIL I
which is usually capable of objective verification. (1992), 197–202.
From the practical point of view, the exclusion of a right of anticipatory
self-defence deprives the ‘innocent’ state of the military advantage of
striking the first blow (although the advantage of striking the first blow in
hostilities between states is almost never as decisive as it can be in a fight
between individuals). But the trouble about anticipatory self-defence is
that a state can seldom be absolutely certain about the other side’s
intentions; in moments of crisis, there is seldom time to check information
suggesting that an attack is imminent. Is a nuclear power entitled to destroy
most of mankind simply because a radar system mistakes a flight of geese
for enemy missiles? (Radar systems have actually made such mistakes in
the past.) Fortunately, during the tensions of the Cold War, neither the
United States nor the Soviet Union had to rely on anticipatory self-defence,
since each had acquired a second-strike capacity (that is, a capacity to
make a crippling nuclear counter-attack on the other side, even after
suffering the effects of a previous all-out nuclear attack launched by the
other side).47
Fear of creating a dangerous precedent is probably the reason why
states seldom invoke anticipatory self-defence in practice. However, one
clear example of a state invoking it occurred in 1981, when Israel bombed
a nuclear reactor in Iraq.48 Israel claimed that the reactor was going to be
used to make atom bombs for use against Israel, and that Israel was
therefore entitled to destroy the reactor as an act of anticipatory self-
defence. The Security Council unanimously condemned Israel’s action.
The United States and the UK said that anticipatory self-defence was not
justified on the facts, inter alia, because there was no evidence that the
reactor had been going to be used for making atom bombs; they did not
deal with the question whether Israel would have been entitled to use
force in anticipatory self-defence if the reactor had constituted a real threat
to Israel. A large number of states, from all parts of the world, said that
anticipatory self-defence was always contrary to international law.49 In
the past, the United Kingdom has argued in favour of anticipatory self-
defence,50 but the Soviet Union has argued that it is illegal.51 In 1986 the
United States invoked anticipatory self-defence against acts of state-
sponsored terrorism to justify the bombing of Libya.52 When Egypt
reinstituted its blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba in 1967,53 Israel’s attack
and occupation of the Sinai was seen by many as a legitimate response.
State practice on the matter is thus rather inconclusive. But a unilateral use
of force merely in view of some deployments of weapons or modernization
of weapons systems in another country is certainly too dangerous to
54 R.N.Gardner, Commentary on
the Law of Self-Defense, in
be regarded as generally admissible. However, can one realistically expect a
Damrosch/ Scheffer (eds), op. cit., state to ‘be a sitting duck’ and wait until ‘the bombs are actually dropping
49–53, 51, citing M.McDougal.
55 See Malanczuk (1987), op. cit.,
on its soil’?54 The present author55 submits that, in the face of a manifestly
246–51, 277–8; M.Akehurst has imminent armed attack by another state, there is still a right to preventive
taken a different view; see the 6th
edn of this book, at 262, arguing
self-defence under the Charter as a strictly limited exception, after all
that anticipatory self-defence is diplomatic means available under the circumstances have been exhausted,
incompatible with the Charter.
56 See W.Meng, The Caroline,
under the conditions of the famous Caroline case,56 which is generally
EPIL I (1992), 537–8; O’Connell, regarded as the classic illustration of the right to self-defence.57
International Law, Vol. 1, 2nd edn
1970, 316; Bowett, op. cit., 58–9.
During the rebellion in Canada in 1837, preparations for subversive
57 For a good discussion of the action against the British authorities were made in United States territory.
confusion between ‘self-defence’
and the concept of ‘necessity’ in this
Although the Government of the United States took measures against the
case, see Greig, International Law, organization of armed forces upon its soil, there was no time to halt the
1970, 674–5.
58 Webster, British and Foreign
activities of the steamer Caroline, which reinforced and supplied the rebels in
State Papers 1841–1842, Vol. 30, Canada from ports in the United States. A British force from Canada crossed
1858, 193.
59 O’Connell, op. cit., 316. For a
the border to the United States, seized the Caroline in the State of New York,
critical comment see Greig (1970), set her on fire and cast the vessel adrift so that it fell to its destruction over
op. cit., 666–7. On the Nuremberg
and Tokyo trials, see Chapter 20
Niagara Falls. Two citizens of the United States were killed during the attack
below, 354–5. on the steamer. American authorities arrested one of the British subjects
60 Greig, ibid., 682.
61 Ibid; see also A.Verdross/B.
involved in the action and charged him with murder and arson.
Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht In the correspondence following Great Britain’s protest, the conditions
Theorie und Praxis, 3rd edn 1984,
288 et seq.
under which self-defence could be invoked to invade foreign territory were
62 See Chapter 10 above, 145–58. formulated by Daniel Webster in a manner that became to be treated as
classic. There must be a ‘necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming,
leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation’ and the action
taken must not be ‘unreasonable or excessive’, and it must be ‘limited by
that necessity and kept clearly within it’.58 In many subsequent occasions
the Caroline case was invoked and also employed by the Nuremberg
Tribunal in handling the plea of self-defence raised to the charge of waging
aggressive war.59
It seems hardly likely that the drafters of Article 51 of the UN Charter
should have forgotten the lessons of recent history and to insist, as Greig
puts it, ‘that a state should wait for the aggressor’s blow to fall before
taking positive measures for its own protection’.60 The Tokyo Tribunal, for
example, decided that the Dutch declaration of war upon Japan in December
1941 was justified on the grounds of self-defence, although at that time
Japan had not attacked Dutch territories in the Far East. It sufficed that
Japan had made its war aims, including the seizure of those territories,
known and which had been decided upon at the Imperial Conference of 5
November 1941.61
Self-defence and claims to territory

Self-defence cannot be invoked to settle disputes as to territory. It is unlawful
to attack territory which is in the possession of another state, even though
the state using force may consider that it has a better title to the
territory62 in question than the state in possession. Article 2(3) of
the United Nations Charter requires member states to settle their
disputes by peaceful means,63 and this obligation applies as much to
territorial disputes as to any other class of dispute. The General Assembly’s
SELF-DEFENCE 315
Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970 says that ‘[e]very State has the 64 Friendly Relations Declaration 1970,
op. cit.
duty to refrain from the threat or use of force…as a means of solving 65 See also Chapter 10 above, 148.
international disputes, including territorial disputes’.64 66 SC Res. 502 (1982), 3 April 1982,
text in ILM 21 (1982), 679. See UN
When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982,65 the Security Chronicle, 1982, no. 5, 5–10.
Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of all 67 Ibid., at 5–10.
Argentinian forces from the islands;66 this was an implied condemnation of 68 Bowett, op. cit., 34–6; Brownlie
(1963), op. cit., 382–3.
Argentina’s use of force. Jordan and Uganda voted for this resolution and 69 See Chapter 22 below, 396–9.
said that Argentina’s use of force was illegal, even though they thought that 70 See Randelzhofer, Article 51, op. cit.,
Argentina had a better title to the Falkland Islands than the United 670–1.
71 ICJ Rep. 1949, 4, 30–1. On the case,
Kingdom.67 A state in possession of territory is entitled to use force in self-
see text above, 310.
defence against invasion by a rival claimant, even though the rival claimant 72 H.Bull (ed.), Intervention in World
may consider that it has a better title to the territory than the state in Politics, 1984, 99–118; N.Ronzitti,
possession.68 Both states that were attacked by Iraq on the basis of territorial Rescuing Nationals Abroad Through
Military Coercion and Intervention on
claims in the two Gulf Wars (Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990) were therefore Grounds of Humanity, 1985; Malanczuk
entitled to self-defence, whatever the merits of Iraq’s claims may have been.69 (1987), op. cit., 218–19; C.Warbrick,
Protection of Nationals Abroad, ICLQ 37
(1988), 1002; R.J.Zedalis, Protection of
Self-defence against attacks on ships and aircraft Nationals Abroad: Is Consent the Basis
of Legal Obligation?, Texas ILJ 25
The attack which gives rise to the right of self-defence need not
(1990), 209–70; R.B.Lillich, Forcible
necessarily be directed against a state’s territory.70 Article 6 of the North Protection of Nationals Abroad: The
Atlantic Treaty 1949 provides for collective self-defence against ‘an Liberian ‘Incident’ of 1990, GYIL 35
armed attack on the territory of any of the parties in Europe or North (1992), 205; Randelzhofer, Article 2(4),
op. cit., 124–6; Randelzhofer, Article 51,
America,…on the occupation forces of any party in Europe, on the op. cit., 672. On the Tehran Hostages
islands under the jurisdiction of any party in the North Atlantic case, see Chapters 8, 123, 126–7 and
area…or on the vessels or aircraft in this area of any of the parties’. In 17, 259–60 above.
73 See, e.g., Gardner, op. cit., at 52.
the Corfu Channel case the International Court of Justice held that 74 See also the statement by
British warships, attacked while exercising a right of innocent passage Ambassador Motley, Assistant
in foreign territorial waters, were entitled to return fire.71 Secretary for Inter-American Affairs,
Dept. State Bull. 84 (1984), 70 et seq.
For a legal evaluation of the Grenada
Armed protection of nationals abroad action, cf. Dieguez, The Grenada
Intervention: ‘Illegal’ in Form, Sound
Most states and most writers agree that attacks on a state’s nationals as Policy, NYUJILP 16 (1984), 1167–
resident abroad do not entitle the state to use force in order to defend its 204; W.C.Gilmore, The Grenada
nationals without the consent of the foreign government (so-called Intervention: Analysis and
Documentation, 1984, 65–7, 74; L.S.
‘military rescue operations’, such as the Stanleyville operations in the Doswald-Beck, The Legality of the
Congo in 1964 by Belgium and the United States, the Israeli rescue U.S. Intervention in Grenada, NILR
mission at Entebbe in 1976, the abortive attempt of the United States to 31 (1984), 355–77; Joyner,
rescue the Tehran hostages in 1980).72 The contrary view insists that an Reflections of the Lawfulness of
Invasion, AJIL 78 (1984), 131; Moore,
attack on nationals of a state abroad or the failure to provide the kind
Grenada and the International Double
of protection to them, as required by international law, should be Standard, ibid., 145; Vagts,
assimilated to the law of self-defence.73 International Law under Time
In the case of Grenada one of the reasons presented by the United Pressure: Grading the Grenada Take-
Home Examination, ibid., 169; L.K.
States to justify the invasion of the island was the alleged danger to
Wheeler, The Grenada Invasion:
American nationals. 74 Mr Robinson, then Legal Adviser of the Expanding the Scope of Humanitarian
Department of State, stated: Intervention, BCICLR 8 (1985), 413;
M.J.Levitan, The Law of Force and
Protection of nationals is a well-established, narrowly drawn ground the Force of Law: Grenada, the
for the use of force which has not been considered to conflict with Falklands, and Humanitarian
Intervention, Harvard ILJ 27 (1986),
the U.N. Charter. While the U.S. has not asserted that protection of
621; S.Davidson, Grenada. A Study in
nationals standing alone would constitute a sufficient basis for all Politics and the Limits of International
the actions taken by the collective force, it is important to note that Law, 1987; R.J. Beck, The Grenada
it did clearly justify the landing of U.S. military forces.75 Invasion. Politics, Law, and Foreign
Policy Decisionmaking, 1993.
75 AJIL 78 (1984), 664.

76 Bryde, op. cit., 217; Beyerlin, Die
On policy grounds such a development in international law recognizing
israelische Befreiungsaktion von the legality of the use of armed force in the aforementioned type of cases
Entebbe in völkerrechtlicher Sicht,
ZaöRV 37 (1977), 241.
cannot be welcomed as it would privilege the powerful states enjoying the
77 See Beyerlin, ibid., 240, capability of undertaking such operations and as claims to protect nationals
Randelzhofer (1982), op. cit., 273.
abroad could serve, as often in history, as a pretext for intervention.76
212 et seq., 251–2. See Chapter 17 Nevertheless, from a moral and political point of view, there are instances
above, 271.
79 Principle 1, Res. 2625 (XXV),
where the use of armed self-help is difficult to condemn. Rescue operations
text in Brownlie BDIL, 39. to protect a state’s own nationals have found approval or understanding
80 Dept. State Bull. (1986), 1–2
and 8.
by other States under certain circumstances and have met a relative lack of
81 See text above, 311–14. condemnation by organs of the United Nations although they have not
82 KCA 1986, 34459.
83 See R.A.Friedländer, Terrorism,
been approved as being lawful.77
EPIL 9 (1986), 371–6; G.Gilbert, The
‘Law’ and ‘Transnational Terrorism’,
NYIL 26 (1995), 3–32. See also Armed reprisals
84 See the contributions by
V.P.Nanda/ T.J.Farer/A.D’Amato,
Self-defence does not include a right of armed reprisal;78 if terrorists enter
Agora: U.S. Forces in Panama: one state from another, the first state may use force to arrest or expel the
Defenders, Aggressors or Human
Rights Activities?, AJIL 84 (1990),
terrorists, but, having done so, it is not entitled to retaliate by attacking the
494–524. On the Noriega case, see other state. The Security Council has sometimes condemned Israel for
85 W.M.Reisman, The Raid on
carrying out armed reprisals against its neighbours and in 1970 the
Baghdad: Some Reflections on Its General Assembly declared that ‘States have a duty to refrain from acts of
Lawfulness and Implications, EJIL 5
(1994), 120–33; L.Condorelli,
reprisal involving the use of force’.79 In April 1986 the United States
Apropos de l’attaque américaine bombed Libya, in response to a Libyan terrorist attack against United
contre l’Iraq du 26 juin 1993: Lettre States soldiers in West Berlin, but the United States did not try to justify the
d’un professeur désemparé aux
lecteurs du JEDI, ibid., 134–44; bombing as a reprisal. Instead, President Reagan said that the bombing
D.Kritsiostis, The Legality of the was justified under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as a
1993 US Missile Strike on Iraq and ‘preemptive action against [Libya’s] terrorist installations’ (emphasis
the Right to Self-Defence in
International Law, ICLQ 45 (1996), added).80 In other words, the bombing was an act of anticipatory self-
162–76. On the Gulf War (1990–1), defence81 designed to prevent future acts of terrorism by Libya. The
86 ILM 35 (1996), 809, at 823,
Foreign Ministers of the non-aligned countries condemned the bombing by
para. 46. the United States as an ‘unprovoked act of aggression’.82 The use of the
87 Ibid. See Chapter 20 below, word ‘unprovoked’ suggests that they did not believe that Libya was guilty
347–9.
88 Nicaragua v. USA, ICJ Rep. of terrorism; on this interpretation, their statement cannot be regarded as
1986, 14, at 94 and 122–3. See dealing with the question whether the bombing by the United States would
Malanczuk (1987), op. cit., 253–5, have been legally justified if Libya had been guilty of terrorism.83 Other
278, 280–2; Ibid., 94; J.G.Gardam,
Proportionality and the Use of Force armed interventions such as the American invasion of Panama in 198984 or
in International Law, AJIL 87 (1993), reprisals, such as the bombing of Baghdad by the United States on 26 June
391–413; Randelzhofer, Article 51,
op. cit., 677.
1993, are equally legally suspect.85
In its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons (1996), the ICJ did not examine the question of armed reprisals
in times of peace. But it noted that such reprisals ‘are considered to be
unlawful’.86 The Court also refrained from discussing the different issue of
belligerent reprisals (during times of armed conflict); however, it did observe:
‘in any case any right of recourse to such reprisals would, like self-defence,
be governed inter alia by the principle of proportionality.’87
Immediacy and proportionality

Most important, force used in self-defence must be necessary, immediate
and proportional to the seriousness of the armed attack.88 This is a matter
of common sense; otherwise a minor frontier incident could be made a
pretext for starting an all-out war. The principle of immediacy requires that
SELF-DEFENCE 317
the act of self-defence must be taken immediately subsequent to the armed 89 See Chapters 1, 4, 3, 49 and 17, 271
above.
attack. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent abuse and military 90 Nicaragua case, op. cit., at 94, para.
aggression under the pretext of self-defence long after hostilities have 176.
91 ILM 35 (1996), 809, at 822, para. 41.
ceased. But the requirement of immediacy must take the individual 92 Ibid., para. 42.
circumstances into account. Therefore, in the Falkland Islands conflict in 93 See the Dissenting Opinion of Judge
1982, although almost a month passed before British forces were prepared Higgins, ibid., 934, para. 5, with
reference to Ago. See also the
to counterattack, in view of the geographical distance, Britain’s response Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel,
was immediate by ordering the Royal Navy to leave for the area of conflict. ibid., 839.
The most important limitations on the right to self-defence are the 94 See Chapter 20 below, 342–63.
95 See Malanczuk (1987), ibid., 255– 6,
traditional requirements of proportionality and necessity.89 With regard 279; J.Delbrück, Collective Self-
to customary international law, in the Nicaragua case the ICJ stated Defence, EPIL I (1992), 656–9;
Randelzhofer, Article 51, op. cit., 675;
that ‘there is a specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only Kenny, op. cit., 1168–70.
measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to 96 Bowett, op. cit., Chapter 10. For a
respond to it, a rule well established in international law’.90 The Court discussion, see R.Mushkat, Who May
Wage War? An Examination of an Old/
confirmed that this dual condition applies equally to Article 51 of the New Question, AUJILP 2 (1987), 97–
Charter, ‘whatever the means of force employed’, in its advisory opinion 151, 146–50.
in the Legality of Nuclear Weapons Case.91 The Court further held:
The proportionality principle may thus not in itself exclude the use
of nuclear weapons in self-defence in all circumstances. But at the
same time, a use of force that is proportionate under the law of self-
defence, must, in order to be lawful, also meet the requirements of
the law applicable in armed conflict which comprise in particular
the principles and rules of humanitarian law.92
The permissible use of force under Article 51 is restricted to the necessary

minimum required to repulse an attack because retaliation and punitive
measures are forbidden. It is not quite clear, however, whether
proportionality must be measured with a view to the end (definitive
repulsion of the attack or of the danger of its repetition, preservation or
restoration of the status quo ante), with regard to the means employed in
self-defence (necessary and proportional to the violation that gave rise to
self-defence), or with respect to both. But, in essence, proportionality
seems to refer to what is proportionate to repel the attack without
requiring symmetry between the mode of the initial attack and the mode
of response.93 At any rate, Israel’s seven-day bombing of South Lebanon
in August 1993 in response to sporadic Hizbullah rocket attacks on
northern Israel was clearly disproportionate. Further limits to self-
defence are set by the laws of war.94
Collective self-defence
Finally, there is a controversy concerning the scope of collective self-
defence.95 Article 51 of the Charter speaks of ‘individual or collective
self-defence’, and some have argued that a right of collective self-defence
is merely a combination of individual rights of self-defence; states may
exercise collectively a right which any of them might have exercised
individually. The corollary, according to this view, is that no state may
defend another state unless each state could have legally exercised a
right of individual self-defence in the same circumstances; thus, Greece
could not defend Peru against attack, because an attack on Peru does
not affect the rights or interests of Greece.96
State practice lends no support to this view. Under the North Atlantic
97 ICJ Rep. 1986, 14, 103–4, 105,

119–22. On the case, see text
Treaty and similar treaties, each party undertakes to defend every other
below, 319–22. For a different view party against attack, and this undertaking is not limited to circumstances
requiring not an explicit request by where an attack on one party threatens the rights or interests of another
the attacked state, but only its
consent, see Randelzhofer, Article party. According to the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. USA,
51, op. cit. one state may not defend another state unless that other state claims to be
99 R.A.Falk (ed.), The International (and is) the victim of an armed attack and asks the first state to defend it.97
Law of Civil War, 1971; D.E.T.Luard Such requests for assistance were made by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the
(ed.), The International Regulation
of Civil War, 1972; T.J.Farer, The United States and its allies in August 1990 following the invasion and
Regulation of Foreign Intervention in occupation of Kuwait by Iraq.98
Civil Armed Conflict, RdC 142
(1974), 291; J.N.Moore (ed.), Law
and Civil War in the Modern World,
1974; H.P. Gasser, International Civil wars
Non-International Armed Conflicts:
Case Studies of Afghanistan,
Kampuchea, and Lebanon, AULR A civil war can be defined as a war between two or more groups of
31 (1982), 911–26; A.Cassese, La inhabitants of the same states one of which may be the government.99 A
Guerre civile et le droit international, civil war may be fought for the control of the government of a state, or it
RGDIP 90 (1986), 553–78; G.
Klintworth, Vietnam’s Intervention in may be caused by the desire of part of the population to secede100 and form
Cambodia in International Law, a new state. While these two types of civil war are the most common, other
1989; M.Akehurst, Civil War, EPIL I
(1992), 597–603; A.Tanca, Foreign
types also exist. For example, a rebelling group may simply try to force the
Armed Intervention in Internal government to make concessions (e.g. to grant regional autonomy). A civil
Conflict, 1993; H.McCoubbrey/ war may even be fought between parties while the government remains
N.D.White, International
Organizations and Civil Wars, 1995. neutral and ineffective (Lebanon 1975–6).
100 C.Haverland, Secession, EPIL Most of the wars fought since 1945 have been civil wars; and even
10 (1987), 384–9.
101 See K.J.Partsch, Israel and the
many of the international wars since 1945 have had their roots in civil
Arab States, EPIL II (1995), 1460–8; wars (for instance, the conflict between the Arab states and Israel developed
P. Malanczuk, Israel: Status, out of hostilities which had occurred between the Jewish and Arab
Territory and Occupied Territories,
ibid., 1468–508; A.L.Schild et al., communities in Palestine during the last years of the British mandate.101)
Conflicts, Middle East, in Wolfrum In the modern world, states seldom try to enlarge their territory by sending
UNLPP I, 286–310.
102 See L.Doswald-Beck, The
their armies to overrun the territory of other states; instead, they increase
Legal Validity of Military Intervention their influence by encouraging factions sharing their own ideology to seize
by Invitation of the Government, or retain power in other states. The existence of ideologies transcending
BYIL 56 (1985), 189–252.
103 See text below. national frontiers not only makes civil wars more frequent; it also increases
104 On the role of insurgents as the dangers of civil wars developing into international wars, because the
subjects of international law, see
Chapter 6 above, 338–40. rules of international law concerning participation in civil wars by foreign
105 See Chapter 5 above, 82–90. states are not as clear as the rules prohibiting international wars.102 The
rise of internal ethnic-nationalistic conflicts in many parts of the world
after the end of the East-West conflict has made the topic even more
prominent.103
The individuals who wish to set up a new government or a new state are
often called insurgents,104 and it is proposed to use that term in the present
work; it has the merit of being less emotive than other words, such as
‘rebels’ or ‘revolutionaries’. The party on the other side is often called the
de jure government, or the de jure authorities, but in the present work it is
proposed to use the more neutral expression ‘established authorities’; the
words ‘de jure’ are misleading, because they introduce irrelevant overtones
from the law of recognition,105 and because they imply that international
law is on the side of the established authorities—which is not wholly true.
The legality of civil wars

There is no rule in international law against civil wars. Article 2(4)
of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in
CIVIL WARS 319
international relations only. It is possible that each side will regard the 106 See text below, 336–8.
other side as traitors from the point of view of municipal law, but neither 108 T.Oppermann, Intervention, EPIL II
the insurgents nor the established authorities are guilty of any breach of (1995), 1436–9; Randelzhofer, Article
2(4), op. cit., 16–7.
international law. There may, however, be one exception to this principle. 109 Res. 2131 (XX), 21 December
The use of force to frustrate the exercise of a legal right of self- 1965, UNYb 1965, 94; the resolution
determination is generally regarded as illegal nowadays, but it is uncertain was passed by 109 votes to nil.
110 See, for instance, Brownlie BDIL,
whether such wars (wars of national liberation) should be classified as 42, and ILM 19 (1980), 534, para. 7.
international wars or as civil wars. This will be discussed separately in 111 ICJ Rep. 1986, 14, 101–2 and 106–
more detail later.106 8. For the Order on the discontinuance
and removal of the case from the list of
A more complicated issue is the lawfulness of intervention by other the Court see ILM 31 (1992), 103; AJIL
states in a civil war in another country. This chapter is concerned only 86 (1992), 173–4. On the dispute
concerning this case, see D’Amato,
with unilateral intervention by third states, not with intervention authorized Nicaragua and International Law: The
by the United Nations, which is dealt with in Chapter 22 below. ‘Academic’ and the Real, AJIL 79
(1985), 657; Kahn, From Nuremberg to
The Hague: The United States Position
in Nicaragua v. United States and the
Participation by other states: help for the insurgents Development of International Law, Yale
JIL 12 (1987), 1; M.Akehurst, Nicaragua
In international wars, the rules of neutrality assist in giving fairly clear v. United States of America, Indian JIL
guidance on which kind of assistance may be lawfully given to a 27 (1987), 357; K.Highet, Evidence, the
Court, and the Nicaragua Case, AJIL 81
belligerent state by a neutral state.107 The rules governing foreign (1987), 1; G.L. Scott/C.L.Carr, The ICJ
intervention in civil wars are less clear.108 As a general rule, foreign states and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case
for Closing the Clause, ibid., 57; and the
are forbidden to give help to the insurgents in a civil war. For instance, Appraisals of the ICJ’s Decision:
General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX) declares that Nicaragua v. United States (Merits) by
various authors, ibid., 77; T.Gill,
Litigation Strategy at the International
no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate Court, A Case Study of the Nicaragua v.
subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the United States Dispute, 1989;
S.M.Schwebel, Indirect Aggression in
violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in the International Court, in Damrosch/
civil strife in another State.109 Scheffer, op. cit., 298–303;
C.Greenwood, The International Court
of Justice and the Use of Force, in V.
The rule stated in this resolution has been repeated in later resolutions,110 Lowe/M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of
and was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. the International Court of Justice, 1996,
373–85; J.Crawford, Military Activities
USA.111 In the early 1980s, the United States adopted a counter- Against Nicaragua Case, EPIL III
insurgency strategy against the establishment of the Sandinista regime (forthcoming). See also Chapters 3, 40,
44 and 18, 284 above.
in Nicaragua and the subsequent spread of revolutionary movements in 112 See Chapter 18 above, 284, 289.
neighbouring countries. The governments under pressure in Central
America received massive American military aid. In addition, the United
States established and financed an anti-government armed force in
Nicaragua, known under the name of the ‘contras’. Nicaragua took the
United States to the International Court of Justice which, although the
United States refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Court,112 proceeded
to a judgment on the merits against the United States which clarified a
number of important legal issues.
The Court held that the United States had broken international law by
aiding the contras, who were rebelling against the government of
Nicaragua. It emphasized that participation in a civil war by ‘organizing
or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands…for
incursion into the territory of another State’ and by ‘participating in acts
of civil strife…in another State’ was not only an act of illegal intervention
in the domestic affairs of a foreign state, but also a violation of the principle
of the prohibition of the use of force. While the Court clearly viewed the
arming and training of the contras as having involved the threat or use
of force, it was less explicit on the legal evaluation of other forms of
assistance. Thus it considered that the mere supply of funds to the
113 Nicaragua v. USA, op. cit., 119,

114 See Randelzhofer, Article 2(4),
contras ‘while undoubtedly an act of intervention in the internal affairs of
op. cit., 115. Nicaragua…does not in itself amount to a use of force’.113
115 Ibid., 83–6.
116 Such as H.Lauterpacht,
However, the Court failed to indicate any criteria explaining which kinds
Revolutionary Activities by Private of acts of assistance and under which circumstances are to be considered a
Persons Against Foreign States, threat or use of force.114 Thus, the specific scope of the prohibition of the
AJIL 22 (1928), 105, 126–7.
117 On state responsibility for acts indirect use of force under Article 2(4) of the Charter has still remained
of private individuals, see Chapter unclear with regard to assistance given by a foreign state to the ‘private’
17 above, 259–60.
118 KCA 1980, 30364, 30385. use of force against another state.
119 See text below, 336–8. The Court further held that Nicaragua was not liable for allowing weapons
120 ICJ Rep. 1986, 14, at 103–4,
105, 110–11, 118–23, 126–7. to be transported across Nicaraguan territory to insurgents in El Salvador,
121 See text above, 317–18. because Nicaragua had been unable to stop such transport.115 The implication
122 The question of anticipatory
self-defence (see text above, 311–
is that Nicaragua would have been under a duty to stop such transport if it
14) was not pleaded by the parties had been able to do so. The Court’s judgment does not make clear whether
and was therefore not discussed by the weapons were being transported across Nicaraguan territory by private
the Court.
individuals or whether they were being transported by agents of another
state; presumably the Court thought that this distinction made no difference
to Nicaragua’s legal position. The Court thus seems to have rejected the view
expressed by some writers116 that a state is not under any duty to prevent
private individuals supplying weapons to foreign insurgents.117
An exception to the rule prohibiting assistance to insurgents probably
exists when the established authorities are receiving foreign help. In these
circumstances, states sympathetic to the insurgents often claim a right to
help the insurgents, in order to counterbalance the help obtained by the
established authorities from other states. For instance, after the Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan at the end of 1979, Egypt started providing
military training and weapons for the Muslim insurgents against the Soviet-
backed government, and Saudi Arabia gave money to the insurgents.118
This right of counter-intervention, as it is sometimes called, is often
supported by the argument that counter-intervention is necessary to protect
the independence of the country where the civil war is taking place, on
the grounds that the established authorities have lost popular support
and have become puppets controlled by their foreign supporters.
A more controversial exception to the prohibition against giving foreign
help to the insurgents concerns wars of national liberation.119
Another possible exception to the prohibition against giving help to
insurgents was discussed by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua
v. USA.120 The United States admitted that it had been aiding the contras,
but argued that such aid was justified as a form of collective self-defence121
because Nicaragua had been supplying weapons to insurgents in El Salvador.
The Court held that self-defence was justified only in response to an armed
attack,122 and said:
an armed attack must be understood as including not merely action

by regular armed forces across an international border, but also ‘the
sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars
or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another
State of such gravity as to amount to’…an actual armed attack…‘or
its substantial involvement therein’. This description, contained in
Article 3, paragraph (g), of the Definition of Aggression annexed to
General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX), may be taken to reflect
customary international law. The Court sees no reason to deny that,
CIVIL WARS 321
in customary law, the prohibition of armed attacks may apply to 123 ICJ Rep. 1986, 14, 103–4.
124 Ibid., 331–47, 348–50 and 543–4.
the sending by a State of armed bands to the territory of another 125 Ibid. See F.M.Higgenbotham,
State, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would International Law, the Use of Force in
Self-Defence, and the Southern African
have been classified as an armed attack rather than as a mere Conflict, Colum. JTL 25 (1987), 529– 92,
frontier incident had it been carried out by regular armed forces. 548–50; T.D.Gill, The Law of Armed
But the Court does not believe that the concept of ‘armed attack’ Attack in the Context of the Nicaragua
Case, Hague YIL 1 (1988), 30–58;
includes…assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of L.A.Sicilianos, L’Invocation de la
weapons or logistical or other support.123 légitime défense face aux activités
d’entités non-étatiques, Hague YIL 2
(1989), 147–68, 153; Randelzhofer,
The Court’s definition of armed attack was condemned as excessively Article 51, op. cit., 674.
narrow, in the dissenting opinions of Judge Schwebel (USA) and Judge 126 See text above, 320. On state
responsibility see Chapter 17 above,
Jennings (UK).124 The Court did not clarify under which circumstances 254–72.
assistance given to rebel in the form of the supply of weapons or logistical 127 ICJ Hep. 1986, at 103–4, 105 and
support must be seen as so massive as to amount to an armed attack.125 118–23.
128 Annex to UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX);
When is the point reached that an injured state may defend itself by the text in AJIL 69 (1975), 480. See T.W.
use of force against such indirect forms of intervention by a third state? Bennett, A Linguistic Perspective of the
Definition of Aggression, GYIL 31
In any case, the Court held that the government of Nicaragua was not (1988), 48–69; B.B.Ferencz,
responsible for the supply of weapons to the insurgents in El Salvador.126 Aggression, EPIL I (1992), 58–65.
The United States also pleaded that Nicaragua had attacked Honduras 129 ICJ Rep. 1986, 126–7.
130 Ibid., 127.
and Costa Rica. The Court held that this did not justify United States
support for the contras as a form of collective self-defence, because
(among other reasons) Honduras and Costa Rica had not requested
collective self-defence by the United States.127
The United States’ plea of collective self-defence therefore failed on
the facts of the case (because supplying weapons to insurgents in El
Salvador did not constitute an armed attack), but would have succeeded
if the facts had been different. If Nicaragua’s help to insurgents in El
Salvador had amounted to an armed attack (for instance, if Nicaragua
had sent troops to help those insurgents), then El Salvador and the United
States might have been entitled to help insurgents in Nicaragua, as a
form of collective self-defence. To send troops to the territory of a state
without the consent of the government of that state is invasion, which is
listed in Article 3(a) of the General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression
as a form of aggression (and therefore as a form of armed attack).128
Moreover, even though supplying weapons to insurgents does not
constitute an armed attack, it is nevertheless illegal, and the injured state
is therefore entitled to adopt proportionate countermeasures against the
wrongdoing state; but such retaliation can be carried out only by the
injured state, and not by third states, since the right of collective self-
defence can be used only in response to an armed attack.129
The Court held:
While an armed attack would give rise to an entitlement to take

collective self-defence, a use of force of a lesser degree of gravity
cannot…produce any entitlement to collective counter-measures
involving the use of force. The acts of which Nicaragua is
accused…could only have justified proportionate counter-
measures on the part of the State which had been the victim of
these acts…They could not justify counter-measures taken by a
third State…and particularly could not justify intervention involving
the use of force.130
131 J.Stone, Conflict through

Consensus, 1977, 75, 183.
What the decision did not clarify further, however, is what kind of
132 Such as the aforementioned ‘proportionate counter-measures’ may be taken by the state which is the
article.
133 On states and governments,
victim of extensive assistance to insurgents by another state. The General
see Chapter 5 above, 75–90. Assembly’s Definition of Aggression is also unclear on the following. The
134 E.H.Riedel, Recognition of
Belligerency, EPIL 4 (1982), 167–
expression ‘its substantial involvement therein’ was a compromise between
71; Riedel, Recognition of those states which thought that aggression was committed only by a state
Insurgency, ibid., 171–3.
which sent armed bands to attack another state, and those states which
136 P.Malanczuk, American Civil thought that aggression also included supporting such bands or supporting
War, EPIL I (1992), 129–31.
137 See H.Lauterpacht, Recognition
violent civil strife in another state.131 As often happens with compromise
in International Law, 1947, 175–269; phrases, its meaning is not absolutely certain. ‘Substantial involvement’
C. Rousseau, Droit
international public, Vol. 3, 1977,
would probably cover the case of a state which permits armed bands to use
596–604. its territory as a base for launching attacks against another state (by analogy
138 See R.Jennings/A.Watts (eds),
Oppenheim’s International Law, I:
with Article 3(f) of the Definition of Aggression); it is uncertain whether it
Peace, 9th edn 1992, 435–9. would cover the case of a state which supplies weapons to armed bands
139 For examples, see Jennings/
Watts, ibid., 436–7.
which launch attacks from the territory of another state against a third
140 See J.L.Hargrove, Intervention state. However, it is clear from the Court’s judgment that Article 3(g) as a
by Invitation and the Politics of the
New World Order, in Damrosch/
whole applies to insurgents only if they attack the government of their state
Scheffer (eds), op. cit., 113; from the territory of another state; if insurgents do not move across state
R.Mullerson, Intervention by
Invitation, ibid., 127–34; R.M.Gune-
boundaries, even the most substantial assistance to those insurgents is
Wardene, Indo-Sri Lanka Accord: incapable of violating Article 3(g) (although it might violate other provisions
Intervention by Invitation or Forced
Intervention?, NCJILCR 16 (1991),
of the Definition of Aggression).132
211; Doswald-Beck, op. cit., Tanca,
op. cit.
Participation by other states: help for the established
authorities
The theory that help for the established authorities is legal

States have often argued that help given to the established authorities in a
civil war is always legal. The assumption upon which this argument is based
is that the government is the agent of the state,133 and that therefore the
government, until it is definitely overthrown, remains competent to invite
foreign troops into the state’s territory and to seek other forms of foreign
help, whatever the effect which that help may have on the political future of
the state.
Supporters of this ‘rule’ admit the existence of one exception to it; when
the insurgents have been recognized as belligerents,134 the rules of neutrality
applicable to international wars135 come into operation, and foreign help
for the established authorities is no longer lawful. This exception is of no
practical importance nowadays; recognition of belligerency occurred in some
nineteenth-century civil wars, especially the US Civil War of 1861–5,136 but
has virtually never occurred in any civil war during the twentieth century.137
The argument of those supporting the intervention by invitation rule is
that such intervention with the consent of the lawful government constitutes
assistance which does not conflict with any interpretation of the principle
of state sovereignty.138 However, in the light of the abuses in the past of so-
called ‘invitations’139 to intervene, the problem is how to establish what
actually constitutes valid ‘consent by the lawful government’.140
For example, in the cases of Soviet military intervention in Hungary
(1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1979), apart from
CIVIL WARS 323
141 See Mullerson, ibid., 128 et seq.

invoking the need to counter foreign aggression or external interference, also discussing other cases; M.Weller,
the USSR also maintained that it had been invited by the lawful Terminating Armed Intervention in Civil
War: The Afghanistan Peace Accords of
government. In each of these cases the latter assertion was clearly a 1988, 1991 and 1993, FYIL 5 (1994),
fabricated one.141 505–689.
Similarly, the United States (in addition to relying on self-defence, 142 See text above, 315.
143 See Mullerson, op. cit., 128–9 with
the need to rescue American nationals, and decisions of the OAS) also references.
invoked the alleged invitation from the lawful government to justify its 144 International Law and the United
States Action in Grenada: A Report, IA
military intervention in the Dominican Republic (1965) and in Grenada 81 (1984), 331.
(1983).142 In the case of the Dominican Republic, the majority of states 145 See text above, 315.
did not accept the American justifications, but regarded the invasion as 146 A.-M.de.Zayas, Spanish Civil War,
EPIL 7 (1984), 434–8.
illegal interference in the internal affairs of the Dominican Republic.143 147 See B.Nolte, Conflicts, Congo, in
In the case of Grenada (1983), the Legal Adviser of the US Department Wolfrum UNLPP I, 225–32. See
of State argued, inter alia: Chapter 22 below, 418–20.
148 A.P.Higgins (ed.), Hall’s
International Law, 8th edn 1924, 347.
The lawful governmental authorities of a State may invite the
assistance in the territory of military forces of other states or
collective organizations in dealing with internal disorder as
well as external threats.144
However, the legitimacy of the invitation by the Governor-General Sir

Paul Scoon is open to a number of doubts; namely whether the invitation
was actually made before or after the invasion, and whether the Governor-
General (who had only ceremonial functions under the constitution)
had the authority to extend such an invitation.145
The theory that help for the established authorities is

illegal
The traditional view, that help for the established authorities is legal, is
open to abuse; for instance, during the Spanish Civil War (1936–9),146
Germany and Italy tried to legitimize their help to the nationalists
(insurgents) by prematurely recognizing the nationalists as the de jure
government of Spain. Even apart from such obvious instances of abuse,
there may be situations where it is genuinely hard to say who are the
established authorities and who are the insurgents. Thus, shortly after
the Congo (now Zaire) became independent in 1960, the President
(Kasavubu) and the Prime Minister (Lumumba) came into conflict with
each other and each purported to dismiss the other.147 Again, in Angola,
rival nationalist movements formed two rival governments as soon as
the country became independent in 1975. In such circumstances it is
dangerously easy for foreign states to argue that their own protégés are
the established authorities, and that the other side are the insurgents.
But the traditional view is also open to an even more fundamental
objection. It is based on the idea that the government of a state is
competent to act in the name of the state until it is overthrown. This
idea is a fallacy; the competence of the government to act in the name
of the state is the very thing which is called into question by the outbreak
of a civil war. As Hall puts it:
the fact that it has been necessary to call in foreign help is enough
to show that the issue of the conflict would without it be uncertain,
and consequently there is doubt as to which side would ultimately
establish itself as the legal representative of the state.148
149 On counter-intervention, see

text below, 325.
Similarly, the outbreak of a secessionary revolt renders uncertain the status
150 BPIL 1963, 87. of the territory concerned and therefore suspends the right of the established
authorities to seek foreign help in order to maintain their control over that
territory.
The idea that foreign states should not intervene on either side in a civil
war is a wise one, otherwise help given by some states to the established
authorities runs the risk of provoking other states into helping the
insurgents.149 It was for this reason that many European states adopted a
policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War; the policy failed, but
only because the fascist and communist dictatorships refused to abide by it.
Non-intervention has received some support as a rule of law in subsequent
state practice; in 1963 the United Kingdom stated before the Sixth
Committee of the UN General Assembly that it
considered that, if civil war broke out in a state and the insurgents
did not receive outside help or support, it was unlawful for a foreign
state to intervene, even on the invitation of the regime in power, to
assist in maintaining law and order.150
But the practice of states is far from consistent. Only a few years after making
the statement quoted in the previous paragraph, the British Government
supplied arms to the Nigerian Government during the civil war in Nigeria
(1967–70), while refusing to sell arms to the insurgents; the United Kingdom
claimed that it was entitled to help the Nigerian Government because the
insurgents had not been recognized as belligerents. However, help given by
foreign states to a government during a civil war is usually rather limited
unless the rebels have also received help from other states; states seldom send
troops to help the government, and usually confine themselves to supplying
arms. Uncertainty about the legal position may be one reason for this partial
restraint, but fear of provoking counter-intervention by other states on behalf
of the insurgents is probably a more potent motive.
Collective self-defence against subversion

The above United Kingdom statement of support for the rule of non-
intervention was made subject to a condition: ‘if…the insurgents did not
receive outside help or support’. Virtually every state considers itself entitled
to defend an ally against foreign subversion (subversion may consist of
helping to start a revolt, or of helping a revolt which has already started).
Help against subversion can be regarded as a form of collective self-
defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.151 Force used in
self-defence must be proportionate to the other side’s use of force,152 so
foreign help given to the established authorities must be proportionate to
the foreign help given to the insurgents. This is particularly important in
cases where an insurgent movement depends partly on internal support
and partly on foreign help; in such cases foreign help to the established
authorities must not exceed the foreign help to the insurgents. Moreover,
disproportionately extensive help for the established authorities might be
inexpedient in such circumstances, because it would probably provoke a
massive increase in help for the insurgents from the other foreign state, and
CIVIL WARS 325

thus add to the dangers of the civil war escalating into an all-out 154 See text above, 321–2.
international war. However, it must be confessed that there is something 155 See text below, 326.
artificial in talking about proportionality in such circumstances, because 157 See text above, 322–3.
it will probably be impossible to calculate exactly the amount of foreign 158 See R.A.Falk (ed.), The
Vietnam War and International Law, 4
help received by the insurgents. Vols, 1968–76. See also Chapter 2
Article 51 applies only if there has been an armed attack (or, more above, 27.
doubtfully, if there is an imminent threat of an armed attack). In Nicaragua
v. USA, the International Court of Justice gave a narrow definition of
armed attack; it does not include sending weapons to insurgents.153 On
the other hand, it is obvious that sending troops to help insurgents would
amount to an armed attack.154 Consequently, if one state sends troops to
help insurgents, that is an armed attack, and other states are therefore
entitled to send troops to help the established authorities; but if one state
sends weapons to insurgents, that is not an armed attack, and other states
are therefore not entitled to send weapons to the established authorities—
this represents a serious gap in the law. (The only way to avoid this last
conclusion is to argue that it is always lawful for a foreign state to supply
weapons to the established authorities, whether or not the insurgents have
received weapons from another foreign state.155)
The point at issue in Nicaragua v. USA was whether Nicaragua’s
alleged assistance to insurgents in El Salvador justified United States
assistance to insurgents in Nicaragua, not whether Nicaragua’s alleged
assistance to insurgents in El Salvador justified United States assistance
to the government of El Salvador. But the Court’s ruling that collective
self-defence can be exercised only in response to an armed attack, and
its restrictive definition of armed attack, are probably applicable by
analogy to all forms of collective self-defence against subversion.
Anticipatory self-defence156 is not usually invoked by states in the
context of collective self-defence against subversion. Instead, states
usually claim that their help to the established authorities is a response
to prior foreign aid to the insurgents. For instance, the United States
Government argued that its participation in the fighting in Vietnam
between 1965 and 1973 was justified on the grounds that it was
defending South Vietnam against subversion from North Vietnam, and
that such subversion had started before the United States came to South
Vietnam’s defence. American critics of the US involvement argued that
the insurgents in South Vietnam were an indigenous movement which
received little or no support from North Vietnam, or that North Vietnam’s
aid to the insurgents in South Vietnam was a lawful counter-
intervention,157 provoked by prior US aid to the government of South
Vietnam. There were also many controversies about the effects of the
Geneva accords of 1954 concerning Vietnam.158
Conclusion
It seems to be generally agreed that a state may help the established authorities
of another state against foreign subversion; as regards similar help to the
established authorities against genuine insurgents, state practice is
inconsistent. It is not that some states follow one practice and other states
follow another practice; rather, each state follows one practice one year and
159 See T.Farer, Intervention in Civil

Wars: A Modest Proposal, Colum.
another practice another year. However, since 1945 there has been a tendency
LR (1967), 266. for states to try to justify their participation in foreign civil wars by saying
160 See D.Thürer, Self-
Determination, EPIL 8 (1985), 470–
that they are defending the established authorities against external
80; A.Cassese, International Law in subversion. This is certainly true of the United States’ interventions in the
a Divided World, 1986, 131 et seq.;
J.Crawford (ed.), The Rights of
Lebanon (1958), the Dominican Republic (1965) and Vietnam (1965–73),
Peoples, 1992; C. Tomuschat (ed.), and of Cuba’s intervention in the Ogaden (1977–8); even the Soviet Union
Modern Law of Self-Determination,
1993; H.Hannum, Rethinking Self-
made a half-hearted attempt to justify its invasions of Hungary (1956),
Determination, Virginia JIL 34 Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1979) by arguing that it was
(1993), 1–69; F.L.Kirgis, Jr., The
Degrees of Self-Determination in the
defending those countries against Western subversion. The fact that such
United Nations Era, AJIL 88 (1994), ‘justifications’ are often contrary to the facts is beside the point; the
304–10; M.Koskenniemi, National
Self-Determination Today: Problems
significant thing is the frequency with which the justifications are used (or
of Legal Theory and Practice, ICLQ abused) —it is almost as if states were implying that intervention in other
43 (1994), 241 et seq.;
R.McCorquodale, Self-
circumstances would be illegal.
Determination: A Human Rights It is true that British and Soviet arms supplies to the Nigerian government
Approach, ibid., 857–85; L.R.Beres,
Self-Determination: The Ironies of
during the Nigerian Civil War in the late 1960s indicate that foreign states
Self-Determination under are sometimes prepared to help the established authorities against genuine
International Law, Arizona JICL 11
(1994), 1–26; A. Cassese, Self-
insurgents, as well as against external subversion; but the arms supplies to
Determination of Peoples. A Legal Nigeria differed from the interventions listed in the previous paragraph in
Reappraisal, 1995; P. Malanczuk,
Minorities and Self-Determination in
one crucial respect—they did not involve the use of the troops of one state
International Law, in N. Sybesma- in the territory of another. It may be, therefore, that we are witnessing the
Knol/J.V.Bellingen (eds), Naar een
nieuwe interpretatie van het Recht
emergence of a new rule of customary law, which will permit states to supply
op Zelfbeschikking, 1995, 169–93; the established authorities with money and arms during every type of civil
K. Doehring, Self-Determination, in
Simma CUNAC, 56–72; A.Cassese,
war, but which will forbid states to send troops to help the established
The International Court of Justice authorities except when foreign subversion is occurring.159
and the Right of Peoples to Self-
Determination, in Lowe/Fitzmaurice
(eds), op. cit., 351– 63; J.Crawford,
The General Assembly, the
International Court of Justice and
Self-determination and the use of force
Self-Determination, ibid., 585–605;
K.-J.Partsch, Self-Determination, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1171–9;
The principle of self-determination refers to the right of a people living in
H.Hannum, Autonomy, Sovereignty, a territory to determine the political and legal status of that territory—
and Self-Determination: The
Accommodation of Conflicting
for example, by setting up a state of their own or by choosing to become
Rights, 1996. part of another state.160 Before 1945 this right was conferred by a few
162 R.Higgins, Postmodern
treaties on the inhabitants of a few territories (for instance, the Treaty of
Tribalism and the Right to Versailles 1919 provided for a plebiscite in Upper Silesia, to determine
Secession, Comments, in
C.Brölmann/R.Lefeber/M.Zieck
whether it should form part of Germany or of Poland); but there was
(eds), Peoples and Minorities in probably no legal right of self-determination in the absence of such treaty
International Law, 1993, 29.
provisions.
The ‘principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’ is explicitly
mentioned in the UN Charter in Article 1(2), Article 55, and implicitly referred
to in Articles 73 and 76(b), dealing with colonies and other dependent
territories.161 But these provisions are vague and it is doubtful whether they
lend themselves to establishing specific rights and duties. The Charter leaves
us ignorant on what is a ‘people’, entitled to self-determination, and it does
not specify the legal consequences. It is also ‘one of the great myths’162 that
the drafters of the Charter envisaged self-determination in the way it later
evolved. Their concept of self-determination did not include the right of
dependent peoples to be independent, or even to vote, but was linked to the
equal rights of states (not individuals) in the sense of protecting the people of
one state against interference by another state.
SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE USE OF FORCE 327
Since 1945, resolutions passed by the United Nations General 163 Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14
December 1960, UNYb 1960, 49;
Assembly have attributed a wider scope to the right of self-determination, Brownlie BDIL, 307.
and have brought about major changes in international law. The most 164 Texts in Brownlie BDIL, 263 and
276. See Chapter 14 above, 215–16.
important steps were the Declaration on the Granting of Independence 165 Friendly Relations Declaration
to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted unanimously by the General 1970, op. cit.
Assembly in 1960,163 and the two Human Rights Covenants: the 166 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 431–2). See
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which entered 167 East Timor case (Portugal v.
into force in March 1976, and the International Covenant on Economic, Australia), ICJ. Rep. 1995, 90. See
Social and Cultural Rights 1966, which entered into force in January I.G.M.Scobie, Self-Determination
Undetermined: the Case of East Timor,
1976.164 The two Covenants have identical Articles 1: LJIL 9 (1996), 185–212. On the case
see Chapters 3, 59 and 18, 286–7
1 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of above and text below, 332.
that right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2 …
3 The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those
having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Govern-
ing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right
of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity
with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970165 is perhaps the most

authoritative document so far, stipulating that the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples includes the right of all peoples
‘freely to determine, without external interference, their political status
and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development’ and the
duty of every state ‘to respect this right in accordance with the provisions
of the Charter’. Methods of achieving self-determination mentioned are
the creation of a sovereign and independent state, the free association or
integration with another state, and the choice of any other political status
freely accepted by the people. Self-determination is recognized by state
practice as a basic principle of international law, to which even the status
of ius cogens is attributed. Article 19 of the International Law
Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility describes as an
‘international crime’, inter alia, ‘a serious breach of an international
obligation of essential importance for safeguarding the right of self-
determination of peoples, such as that prohibiting the establishment or
maintenance by force of colonial domination’.166 As we have seen, in the
East Timor case the ICJ described self-determination as an obligation
erga omnes—however, without any further explanation.167
But what are the exact legal consequences of this principle? This
question can be best clarified by first looking at the practice which
emerged from the process of decolonization and then discussing the more
recent developments relating to the status of suppressed minorities and
other groups.
Mandated territories, trust territories and non-self-

governing territories
Mandated territories
After the First World War, some of the Allies wanted to annex Germany’s
colonies and certain Arabic-speaking areas of the Turkish Empire;
168 A.Whelan, Wilsonian Self-

Determination and the Versailles
but their plans were opposed by President Wilson, who wished to secure
Settlement, ICLQ 43 (1994), 99– recognition for the ideal of self-determination.168 Eventually a compromise
115.
169 D.Rauschning, Mandates, EPIL
was reached; each of the territories in question was to be administered by
10 (1987), 288–95; F.Ermarcora, one of the Allies, under the supervision of the League of Nations. This was
Mandates, in Wolfrum UNLPP II,
871–6.
known as the mandate system.169 Article 22 of the League of Nations
170 Namibia Case (1971), ICJ Rep. Covenant implied that the peoples inhabiting the mandated territories would
1971, 16, 28–32.
171 Articles 75–91 UN Charter. See
be allowed to exercise a right of self-determination at some time in the
U. Fastenrath, Articles 73 and 74, in future, but it did not fix a date for the exercise of that right.170
Simma CUNAC, 923–31; D.
Rauschning, Articles 75–85, ibid.,
933– 62; R.Geiger, Articles 86–91,
ibid., 963–72; D.Rauschning, United Trust territories
Nations Trusteeship System, EPIL 5
(1983), 369–76; F.Ermarcora, The United Nations Charter provides for a trusteeship system, modelled on
Trusteeship/ Trusteeship Council, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1259–66. On
the League’s mandate system.171 In 1955 there were eleven trust territories,
self-government of a former UN administered by seven different states. After Palau, the last entity of the
Trust Territory and the Covenant to
Establish a Commonwealth of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands administrated by the United States,172
Northern Mariana Islands-United had chosen free association with the United States in a plebiscite, in 1994
States, see W.S.Fields, United
States v. Guerrero, 4 F.3d 749, U.S.
the UN Security Council terminated Palau’s trusteeship status. The
Court of Appeals, 9th Cir., trusteeship system has completed its mission and now has no territories
September 1, 1993, reported in AJIL
88 (1994), 337. On US, UK, Spanish
left. The most complicated case has been the question of South West Africa
and French territories, see the (Namibia).
articles by A.-M.de Zayas, H.Fox,
C.C.Rodriguez Iglesias and
M.Fromont, EPIL 12 (1990). See
also E.W.Davies, The Legal Status South West Africa (Namibia)
of British Dependent Territories—
The West Indies and North Atlantic Of the territories administered under the League of Nations mandate system,
Region, 1995. all but one became independent before or shortly after the dissolution of
172 A.-M.de.Zayas, United States:
Dependent Territories, EPIL 12 the League in 1946, or were placed under the United Nations trusteeship
(1990), 388–97, at 390–1. system. The exception was South West Africa (Namibia), a former German
173 See P.-T.Stoll, Namibia, in colony administered by South Africa.173 The status of South West Africa
D.S.Haase, Namibia Council, ibid., has given rise to a prolonged dispute between South Africa and the United
913–17. Nations, and to four advisory opinions and two judgments from the
174 South West Africa case, ICJ
Advisory Opinions of 1950, 1955
International Court of Justice.174
and 1956: ICJ Rep. 1950, 128–45; In its first advisory opinion, the Court said that South Africa was not
1955, 67–123; 1956, 23–71; ICJ obliged to place South West Africa under the trusteeship system. However,
Judgments of 1962 and 1966: ICJ
Rep. 1962, 319–662; 1966, 6–505; unless it did so, South Africa remained bound by the obligations contained
ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1971, ICJ in the mandate, and the General Assembly succeeded to the supervisory
Rep. 1971, 16– 345. See E.Klein,
South West Africa/ Namibia powers which the League had exercised under the mandate.175 In two further
(Advisory Opinions and Judgments), advisory opinions the Court dealt with the procedure to be followed by the
EPIL 2 (1981), 260–70; Klein, General Assembly when exercising its supervisory powers.176
Namibia, EPIL 12 (1990), 232–41.
See also Chapter 18 above, 284. These expressions of judicial opinion, being advisory opinions, were
175 ICJ Rep. 1950, 128. not binding, and South Africa refused to act in accordance with them,
176 ICJ Rep. 1955, 67, and
1956, 23.
arguing that international supervision of its administration of South West
Africa had lapsed when the League was dissolved in 1946. In 1960 Liberia
and Ethiopia, two former members of the League, instituted contentious
proceedings against South Africa before the International Court of Justice;
they asked the Court to declare that South Africa had violated the mandate
by introducing apartheid into South West Africa. If the Court had decided
for Liberia and Ethiopia, its judgment, unlike the earlier advisory opinions,
would have been binding upon South Africa; that is the big difference
between advisory and contentious proceedings.
However, in 1966 the Court decided that South Africa’s obligations
under the mandate, in so far as they related to the treatment of the
177 ICJ Rep. 1966, 6.

inhabitants of South West Africa, had been owed to the League, and not 178 ICJ Rep. 1962, 319.
to individual members of the League; the Court therefore dismissed the 179 UNGA Res. 2145 (XXI) of 27
October 1966, UNYb, 1966, 606.
cases brought by Ethiopia and Liberia, holding that Ethiopia and Liberia 180 ICJ Rep. 1971, 16.
were not entitled to enforce rights which did not belong to them.177 181 Ibid., 27–45.
The Court’s judgment was severely criticized, particularly by African 182 Ibid., 45–50.
183 Ibid., 51–8.
and Asian states, because the ground on which the Court decided the 184 See M.Spicer, Namibia—Elusive
case was very similar to an argument which the Court had rejected in Independence, The World Today, Oct.
1980, 406; R.Zacklin, The Problem of
1962, when it had handed down a preliminary judgment rejecting various Namibia in International Law, RdC 171
pleas by South Africa that it had no jurisdiction to try the case.178 As a (1981), 225.
result of changes in the composition of the Court, the judges who had 185 See Basic Facts About the United
Nations, 1995, 240–4; Stoll (1995), op.
been in a minority in 1962 found themselves in a majority in 1966, and cit., 908 et seq. See also E.Schmidt-
proceeded to reverse the effect of the Court’s earlier judgment. Jortzig, The Constitution of Namibia: An
Later in 1966 the General Assembly passed a resolution declaring, Example of a State Emerging under
Close Supervision and World Scrutiny,
‘that South Africa has failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of the GYIL 34 (1991), 413–28.
administration of the mandated territory…and has, in fact, disavowed 186 J.Brink, Non-Self-Governing
Territories, EPIL 10 (1987), 316–21.
the mandate’, and deciding ‘that the mandate…is therefore terminated,
that South Africa has no…right to administer the territory and that
henceforth South West Africa comes under the direct responsibility of
the United Nations’.179
The International Court handed down a further advisory opinion in
1971,180 in which it said that the General Assembly had succeeded to the
League’s supervisory powers181 and had acted lawfully when terminating
the mandate;182 the Court also advised that South Africa was under a
duty to withdraw from South West Africa (or Namibia, as it had been
renamed by the General Assembly), and that other states were obliged,
by a binding resolution passed by the Security Council, to refrain from
any dealings with South Africa which were inconsistent with the
termination of the mandate.183
In 1978 South Africa announced that it was willing in principle to
allow elections to be held in Namibia under United Nations supervision,
which would lead to independence for Namibia. However, South Africa
failed to reach agreement with the United Nations and with the guerrilla
movement in Namibia about safeguards to ensure that there would be no
intimidation during the proposed elections, and for many years South
Africa continued to administer Namibia in defiance of the United
Nations.184 In December 1988 a tripartite agreement, mediated by the
United States, was concluded at the UN headquarters in New York between
Angola, Cuba and South Africa which, after the withdrawal of Cuban
troops from Angola, finally led to the independence of Namibia on the
basis of UN-supervised elections by the UNTAG force, held in November
1989. Thereafter, the remaining South African forces left Namibia and in
March 1990 the independence of Namibia was finally proclaimed.185
Non-self-governing territories186
Article 73 of the United Nations Charter provides:
Members of the United Nations which have…responsibilities for

the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet
attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle
that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are
paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to
187 See Fastenrath, op. cit.

188 Basic Facts, op. cit., 234–40.
promote to the utmost…the well-being of the inhabitants of these
189 Resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 territories, and, to this end:
December 1960, UNYb 1960, 509.
191 Res. 1514 (XV), op. cit. (a) to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples
concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational
advancement, their just treatment and their protection
against abuses;
(b) to develop self-government, to take due account of the politi-
cal aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the pro-
gressive development of their free political institutions, ac-
cording to the particular circumstances of each territory and
its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
(c) to further international peace and security;
(d) to promote constructive measures of development…; and
(e) to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information
purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitu-
tional considerations may require…information…relating to
economic, social, and educational conditions in the territo-
ries for which they are respectively responsible.187
Article 73 applies to colonies and to territories which resemble colonies. In

total, seventy-two territories were enumerated as non-self-governing after
1946, most of which have since gained independence. As of 1994, there
were only seventeen such territories left.188
According to Resolution 1541 (XV) of the General Assembly, there is
a presumption that Article 73 applies to every territory ‘which is
geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from
the country administering it’; this presumption is strengthened if the
territory is in a position of ‘subordination’ to the administering power.189
Thus the General Assembly considered that Article 73 applied to Portugal’s
territories in Africa, even though Portugal claimed that these territories
were not colonies but overseas provinces of Portugal. On the other hand,
the General Assembly has never regarded Northern Ireland as a non-self-
governing territory;190 Northern Ireland is geographically close to the rest
of the United Kingdom, there is little cultural or ethnic difference between
the population of Northern Ireland and the population of the rest of the
United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is not in a position of
subordination to the United Kingdom, since it is represented in the United
Kingdom Parliament.
Article 73 imposes fewer obligations than the provisions dealing with
the trusteeship system; in particular, it does not provide for supervision by
the United Nations. But in practice, and despite opposition from the colonial
powers, the General Assembly has asserted considerable powers of
supervision, by placing an extensive interpretation on the administering
powers’ duty to submit reports under Article 73(e). Anti-colonialist feeling
increased in the General Assembly as more and more newly independent
states joined the United Nations.
An important landmark in the anti-colonialist trend was Resolution 1514
(XV), passed by the General Assembly on 14 December 1960, by eighty-
nine votes to nil, with nine abstentions.191 This Resolution declares:
1 The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation and exploita- 192 ICJ Rep. 1971, 16, 31; 1975, 12,
tion constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is con- 31–3, 121. See K.Oellers-Frahm,
Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion),
trary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impedi- EPIL 2 (1981), 291–3; see also Basic
ment to…World peace and co-operation. Facts, 244–9. On Namibia, see above,
2 All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of 328–9.
193 Res. 1541 (XV), op. cit.
that right they freely determine their political status and freely 194 See J.Crawford, The Creation of
pursue their economic, social and cultural development. States in International Law, 1979,
367–77.
3 Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational pre- 195 Western Sahara case, op. cit.
paredness should never serve as a pretext for delaying inde-
pendence.
4 All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed
against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable
them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete
independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall
be respected.
5 Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Gov-
erning Territories or all other territories which have not yet
attained independence, to transfer all power to the peoples
of those territories…in accordance with their freely expressed
will…in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence
and freedom.
6 Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the na-
tional unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incom-
patible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations.
To put it mildly, the Resolution is a bold interpretation of Article 73 of

the Charter. However, even the (mainly Western) states which had
abstained when the Resolution was adopted in 1960, had by 1970 come
to accept it as an accurate statement of modern international law, a
view which was echoed by the International Court of Justice in the
Namibia and Western Sahara cases.192
Self-determination normally leads to independence, but Resolution
1541 (XV) recognizes that the people of a non-self-governing territory
may choose integration with an independent state, or free association
with an independent state, as an alternative to independence.193
‘Integration’ means that the territor becomes part of an independent
state, as Alaska and Hawaii did when they became part of the United
States. ‘Association’ means that the associated state has internal self-
government, while the independent state with which it is associated is
responsible for foreign affairs and defence. Resolution 1541 (XV) says
that the people of each non-self-governing territory should be allowed
to choose freely between independence, integration and association, but
in practice the General Assembly has shown a bias in favour of
independence as opposed to other forms of self-determination.194
In the case of very small territories (colonial enclaves) adjoining
another state, most members of the United Nations regard union with
the adjoining state as the appropriate method of decolonization,
regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants, who are regarded as too few
to constitute a separate people. This approach is applied only to very
small territories. The General Assembly regarded Western Sahara and
East Timor as too large to be treated as colonial enclaves. It is true that
Morocco and Mauritania annexed Western Sahara195 (a former Spanish
196 P.M.Lawrence, East Timor,

EPIL II (1995), 3–4.
colony) without the consent of the inhabitants, and that Indonesia annexed
197 See generally Crawford (1979), East Timor196 (a former Portuguese colony) also without the consent of the
op. cit., 377–84; S.Oeter, Die
Entwicklung der Westsahara-Frage
inhabitants, but Morocco, Mauritania and Indonesia sought to justify their
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung actions by pretending that the inhabitants had consented; the annexing
der völkerrechtlichen Anerkennung,
ZaöRV 46 (1986), 48 (see also
states admitted that the inhabitants of Western Sahara and East Timor had
Chapter 22); and see UNYb 1975 a legal right to self-determination, and the dispute between them and their
onwards, for discussions on
Western Sahara and East Timor at
many critics at the United Nations was limited to the question of fact as to
the United Nations. whether that right had been respected or violated.197 In the case of East
198 Eastern Timor Case, op. cit.
199 See T.Marauhn, Peacekeeping
Timor,198 the International Court confirmed the right of the people of East
in a Critical Stage: The Operation in Timor to self-determination, but it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
the Western Sahara, IP 2 (1995),
74–8; M. Niejahr, Conflicts,
In the case of the Western Sahara, it was planned to have a referendum to
Western Sahara, in Wolfrum take place in 1992 to allow the people of the former Spanish colony to decide
UNLPP I, 330–7.
200 See FAZ, 31 May 1996; UN
on their future.199 However, in May 1996, the UN Security Council resolved
Chronicle 33 (1996), no. 2, 54. to withdraw the UN MINURSO mission from the territory in view of
201 See Chapter 10, 148 and text,
315 above. For details of the
obstruction by both Morocco and Polisario (the national liberation movement)
relevant General Assembly against the determination of the lists of the persons entitled to vote.200
resolutions, see UNYb 1965, 578–9;
1973, 713–14; UN Chronicle, 1983,
The General Assembly has never accepted the British argument that
no. 1, 4–5; 1984, no. 1, 17; 1986, the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are entitled to self-
no. 1, 8–10; KCA 1985, 33620,
34039.
determination— perhaps because the 1,723 British settlers on the islands
202 See para. 5 of Res. 1514 (XV), are too few to constitute a people. On the other hand, the General
and the Namibia case, ICJ Rep.
1971, 16, 31.
Assembly has never accepted the Argentinian argument that the Falkland
203 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 44. Islands should be treated as a colonial enclave—probably because they
are too large (4,700 square miles) and too far from Argentina (300 miles).
Instead, the General Assembly has steered a middle course between the
British and Argentinian positions; it has passed resolutions
recommending the United Kingdom and Argentina to enter into
negotiations to settle their dispute about sovereignty over the islands,
and to terminate the colonial status of the islands. Argentina interprets
termination of colonial status as meaning transfer of the islands to
Argentina; but it could also be interpreted as including other options,
such as independence, or integration or association with the United
Kingdom.201
Double standards?
The legal right of self-determination clearly applies to non-self-governing
territories, trust territories and mandated territories.202 Whether it also
applies to other territories is uncertain. On the one hand, paragraph 2 of
Resolution 1514 (XV) says that all peoples have the right to self-
determination; on the other hand, paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514 (XV)
forbids secession (or maybe only foreign assistance to secessionary
movements). In 1970 the General Assembly declared that the principle of
self-determination did not authorize
any action which would dismember…independent States conducting

themselves in compliance with the principle of…self-determination
of peoples… and thus possessed of a government representing
the whole people…without distinction as to race, creed or colour.203
204 For the text of Articles 1(2) and 55,

This might perhaps be interpreted as implying that action to dismember see Brownlie, BDIL 3, 19.
an independent state is permitted if the government does not represent 205 See, for instance, GA Res. 2396
(XXIII), UN Chronicle, 1969 no. 1, 94;
the whole people. GA Res. 31/61, 1976 no. 11, 38–45,
In practice, however, organs of the United Nations have shown little at 79.
206 See, for instance, GA Res. 2672 C
concern for self-determination in territories other than non-self- (XXV), UN Chronicle, 1971 no. 1, 45–8,
governing territories, trust territories and mandated territories. Many at 46; GA Res. 3236 (XXIX), 1974 no.
11, 36–74; GA Res. 33/23; 1978 no. 11,
people in the West have accused the United Nations of applying double at 80; UNGA Res. 33/24, ibid., at 81.
standards, but these double standards are inherent in the Charter; 207 See Chapter 10 above, 153.
Article 73, dealing with non-self-governing territories, is far more 209 See KCA 1980, 30635.
specific than the vague general references to self-determination in
Articles 1(2) and 55, which are so vague that it is doubtful whether
they create any legal obligation at all.204
Many General Assembly resolutions stated that the inhabitants of
South Africa were entitled to self-determination.205 Since 1970 the General
Assembly has frequently declared that the Palestinians are also entitled
to self-determination;206 none of these resolutions specifies the territories
whose status is affected by self-determination for the Palestinians—self-
determination for the Palestinians could be interpreted as limited to the
West Bank and Gaza, which have been under Israeli military occupation
since 1967 but are not legally part of Israel,207 or it could be interpreted
as implying the total replacement of Israel by a Palestinian state. With
the agreements reached between Israel and the PLO following the historic
event of the signing of the ‘Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-
Government’ in Washington on 13 September 1993, the process has
been now confined to the Gaza Strip, the Jericho area, and the West
Bank, with a number of vexed questions concerning, inter alia, Jerusalem
and the permanent status of the territories (whether independent
statehood or only some form of autonomy) still to be resolved.208
The Palestinians and the inhabitants of South Africa (until the
apartheid regime was abolished) are the only ‘non-colonial’ peoples
whose right to self-determination has been expressly recognized by the
General Assembly. Several states opposed the resolution dealing with
the Palestinians and the inhabitants of South Africa, and some Western
states explained their opposition by arguing that the right of self-
determination did not apply outside the ‘colonial’ context. (But in 1980
the member states of the EEC recognized that the Palestinians were
entitled to self-determination.209) Some Third World states try to rebut
this point by arguing that South Africa and Israel were ‘neo-colonialist’;
most of the whites living in South Africa are the descendants of colonial
settlers, and most of the Jews living in Israel when Israel became
independent in 1948 had entered Palestine as immigrants while it was
being administered by the United Kingdom under a League of Nations
mandate. But, whatever the previous status of South Africa and Palestine
may have been, South Africa and Israel became independent states, and
it is illogical to treat them differently from other independent states. The
General Assembly’s extension of the right of self-determination to the
Palestinians and the inhabitants of South Africa, coupled with its failure
to extend that right to other ‘non-colonial’ peoples, has increased rather
than reduced the problem of double standards.

211 Res. 3061 (XXVIII), 2 November
Consequences of violations of the right of self-determination
1973, UNYb 1973, 143–7, at 146.
212 E.Klein, South African Violation of the right of self-determination creates a situation which has
Bantustan Policy, EPIL 10 (1987), repercussions on many areas of international law. The effects of the
393–7. See Chapter 5 above, 85,
213 J.Delbrück, Apartheid, EPIL I interaction between the new rule of self-determination and various older
(1992), 192–6. rules of international law are often unclear, and the conclusions suggested
215 Res. 34/93 G, UN Chronicle, below must be treated as tentative.
January 1980, 26. See Crawford
(1979), op. cit., 103–6, 219–27.
216 Crawford, ibid., 363–4,
217 ICJ Rep. 1960, 6–114, at 39.
Creation of new states
See L.Weber, Right of Passage
over Indian Territory Case, EPIL 2 Traditionally, secession was not regarded as creating a new state until the
(1981), 244–6. secessionary movement had established permanent control over the territory
in question.210 Has this rule been altered by the right of self-determination?
Can a national liberation movement claim to be the government of a new
state before it has established permanent control over the territory in
question? The answer is probably no. It is true that the General Assembly
passed a resolution recognizing Guinea-Bissau as an independent state in
1973, while it was still struggling for independence against Portugal, but
many of the states which voted for this resolution argued that the national
liberation movement already controlled most of the territory of Guinea-
Bissau;211 the resolution on Guinea-Bissau thus represents an application
of the traditional test of control (even though the test was probably not
applied as stringently as it usually is), and not the abandonment of the test
of control in favour of some other criterion. In any case, the resolution on
Guinea-Bissau is unique; no other national liberation movement has ever
been recognized by the United Nations as the government of an independent
state while it was still struggling for independence.
On the other hand, a state established in violation of the right of self-
determination is probably a nullity in the eyes of international law. After
1976 South Africa purported to confer independence on a number of black
states (‘Bantustans’)212 established on South African territory in pursuance
of the South African policy of apartheid.213 The General Assembly regarded
apartheid as a violation of the right of self-determination;214 the creation of
‘Bantustans’ was equally illegal and invalid, according to the General
Assembly, because it represented the implementation of apartheid. The
General Assembly urged states not to recognize the Bantustans, and no
state (except South Africa) in fact recognized any of them.215
Title to territory
A state administering a colony is under a legal duty to allow the inhabitants
of that colony to exercise their right of self-determination. Does the state
automatically lose sovereignty over the colony if it fails to carry out that
duty? Opinions differ,216 but in 1960 the International Court of Justice
decided the Right of Passage case on the tacit assumption that this question
should be answered in the negative.217 It is submitted that that assumption
is correct. Self-determination usually leads to independence, but, as we have
just seen, peoples under colonial rule are not usually regarded as forming a
new state until their struggle for independence has been successfully
completed. The view that the colonial power no longer has sovereignty
over its colony would mean that no state would have sovereignty
218 See text above, 327, 332.

over the territory in question while the inhabitants were still struggling for 219 See Chapter 11 above, 162.
independence—a conclusion which would raise all kinds of practical and 220 See Chapter 11 above, 162–3.
221 T.M.Franck, Postmodern Tribalism
theoretical difficulties. These difficulties can be avoided if we accept that and the Right to Secession, in
the colonial power retains sovereignty until the people have been allowed Brölmann/Lefeber/Zieck (eds), op. cit.,
3–27, at 9.
to exercise their right of self-determination. In the case of East Timor,218 for 222 GA Res. A/Res/1514 (XV), op. cit.
example, Portugal is still formally regarded as the continuing administering 223 See text above, 327.
power in spite of the military occupation of East Timor by Indonesia.
Self-determination does not affect boundaries between independent
states. When a colony becomes independent, it succeeds to the boundaries
established by the former colonial power, even though it may dislike
those boundaries and even though those boundaries may artificially
divide an ethnic group. The principle of automatic succession to
boundaries overrides the principle of self-determination.219 Thus,
decolonization in Africa was based on the uti possidetis principle,
borrowed from the experience of the former Spanish colonies in South
and Central America.220 Self-determination in this sense simply meant,
in the words of Thomas Franck, that
[p]eoples entitled to self-determination were defined as the

inhabitants of a colony. The exercise of self-determination must
occur, it was reasoned, within the colonial boundaries, which
would remain sacrosanct, unless the people—as a whole—within
those boundaries freely elected to change them by integrating
with another state.221
The prevailing view in state practice under the UN Charter, as distinct

from the pre-Charter situation, has been that self-determination is
basically limited to the colonial context, that is to say, to the relationship
between colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America vis-à-vis the
metropolitan powers. The 1960 UN General Assembly Resolution A/
Res/1514 (XV) stipulated that self-determination was only available ‘in
respect to territory which is geographically separate and is distinct
ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it’ in
connection with a specific reference to ‘the relationship between the
metropolitan State and the territory concerned’.222 Once independence
was achieved in this context, the right of self-determination was
considered to be consumed. This view was upheld to protect the territorial
integrity of existing states and of the new states emerging from the
decolonization process, as well as in the general interest of maintaining
stability in the international system. It naturally also had the effect of
securing the position of those groups which had assumed power in the
new states against claims of self-determination by other groups within
their territory, disregarding, for example, the arbitrary nature of the
boundaries drawn by colonial powers in Africa. It must be noted, however,
that this predominant view was not entirely unchallenged— for example,
by Germany during its quest for reunification. Furthermore, Articles 1 of
the two 1966 Human Rights Covenants went beyond the colonial context
by indicating that self-determination is not restricted to the liberation of
colonies and then the consummation of this right, but that it may be
continuously exercised by ‘all peoples’.223 The problem is that the text
fails to clarify the legal consequences of this right, although there is
224 See A.M.de Zayas, The

International Judicial Protection of
some interesting practice of the Committee on Human Rights under the
Peoples and Minorities, in 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.224
Brölmann/ Lefeber/Zieck (eds), op.
cit., 253–87; G. Alfredson/A.M.de
The effect of linking self-determination to decolonization in this sense
Zayas, Minority Rights: Protection was to deny a general right to secession of groups within a state. State
by the United Nations, HRLJ
(1993), 1–9.
practice and cases, such as Tibet, Katanga and Biafra, confirm that
225 Thürer, op. cit., 474. customary international law does not recognize the general legality of
226 See also Franck (1993), op. cit.,
at 11 et seq.; R.Higgins,
secession as a consequence of the principle of self-determination.225 The
Postmodern Tribalism and the Right acceptance of such a general right would indeed conflict with fundamental
to Secession, Comments, in
Brölmann/Lefeber/Zieck (eds), op.
principles structuring the current international system, such as sovereign
cit., at 33. equality, territorial integrity and political independence. On the other hand,
Movements, EPIL 3 (1982), 245–9;
while international law does not acknowledge a general right to secession,
H.-J.Uibopuu, Wars of National it is also generally agreed that it does not prohibit secession.226 International
Liberation, EPIL 4 (1982), 343–6;
Malanczuk (1987), op. cit.;
law is neutral in this respect, and, in other words, follows reality and the
H.A.Wilson, International Law and principle of effectiveness.
the Use of Force by National
Liberation Movements, 1988. See
The whole problem is connected with the complications with respect to
also Chapter 6 above, 104–5. the recognition of the legality of wars of national liberation and the
lawfulness of military intervention of third states in support of such
230 GA Res. 1514 (XV), op. cit. movements.
Wars of national liberation

If the people of a particular territory are regarded by international law
as possessing a legal right of self-determination but the state
administering that territory refuses to let them exercise that right, they
may need to fight a war of national liberation in order to achieve self-
determination in practice.227
Western states have always treated wars of national liberation as civil
wars, but communist states and Third World states have regarded them as
international wars; this difference of classification affects the application
of the laws of war,228 but for other purposes it has little practical importance.
There is general agreement that peoples who have a legal right to self-
determination are entitled to fight a war of national liberation. Not even Western
states dissent from this view, if only because there is no rule in international
law against rebellion,229 although they consider that General Assembly
resolutions encouraging wars of national liberation are politically undesirable.
The use of force to prevent the exercise of self-determination is probably
unlawful. Paragraph 4 of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) states
that ‘all armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against
dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise …their
right to complete independence’.230 Even the Western states, after initial
opposition in the early 1960s, have now accepted that there is a legal duty
not to use force to frustrate the exercise of a legal right to self-determination.
However, there is still disagreement between Western states and other states
about the basis of this rule. Western states regard it as derived solely from
the right of self-determination, and not from Article 2(4) of the United
Nations Charter, because Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force in
international relations only and Western states do not regard the
use of force by a state against its own nationals (including its colonial
subjects) as a use of force in international relations; most Third World
231 See N.Ronzitti, Resort to Force in

states regard the rule as derived from Article 2(4) as well as from the Wars of National Liberation, in Current
right of self-determination.231 Problems of International Law, Cassese
(ed.), 1975, op. cit., 319–53.
If a state is acting unlawfully when it uses force to prevent the exercise 232 Res. 2105 (XX), UNYb 1965,
of a legal right of self-determination, it would seem to follow, as a matter 554–5.
of logic, that other states are acting equally unlawfully if they help that 233 For example, Article 7 of the
General Assembly’s definition of
state in its struggle to frustrate self-determination. aggression, text in AJIL 69 (1975), 480.
There is still disagreement between Western states and other states as 234 AJIL 65 (1971), 730–3, 1977,
233–7.
regards the legality or illegality of help given by foreign states to national 235 See text above, 333.
liberation movements. Paragraph 10 of General Assembly Resolution 236 See, for instance, GA Res. 3236
(XXIX), UN Chronicle, 1974 no. 11, 36–
2105 (XX), passed on 20 December 1965 by seventy-four votes to six 44; GA Res. 31/61, ibid., 1976 no. 11,
with twenty-seven abstentions, 38–45, at 79; GA Res. 33/24, ibid., 1978
no. 11, 52–3, at 81; GA Res. 34/44 and
34/93 A-R, ibid., 1980 no. 1, 24, 79.
recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle by peoples under colonial 237 See text above, 319–22.
238 On humanitarian intervention, see
rule to exercise their right to self-determination and independence Chapter 14 above, 221.
and invites all states to provide material and moral assistance to 239 See text above, 317–18, 324–5.
the national liberation movements in colonial territories.232
But this view is not accepted by Western states, which abstained or voted
against the resolution. Later resolutions233 speak of the right of peoples
struggling against colonial rule to receive ‘support’ from other states;
but this formula is simply an attempt to paper over the disagreement
between the communist and Third World states, which interpret ‘support’
to include material support and/or matériel (i.e. in the form of weapons),
and the Western states, which think that support must be limited to
moral and diplomatic support.234
The General Assembly considered that the right of self-determination
applied not only to peoples under colonial rule, but also to the
Palestinians and the inhabitants of South Africa when it was under the
old regime of apartheid.235 Despite Western opposition, the General
Assembly has passed resolutions urging states to provide material
assistance to the Palestinians and the inhabitants of South Africa in their
armed struggle for self-determination.236
It is difficult to reconcile these resolutions with the general rule against
giving help to insurgents in civil wars.237 It is true that violation of the
right of self-determination is a violation of international law. But breaches
by a state of other rules of international law (for example, the rules
protecting human rights)238 are not treated as justifying help given to
insurgents against that state, and there is no logical reason for treating
violations of the right of self-determination differently from other
breaches of international law.
Alternatively, if wars of national liberation are classified as international
wars and not as civil wars, the General Assembly resolutions which urged
states to help national liberation movements in colonial territories, in
Palestine and South Africa, are hard to reconcile with the rules of
international law concerning international wars. The use of force in
international relations is normally prohibited by international law; there
are some exceptions to this rule, but the only one which has any possible
relevance to wars of national liberation is collective self-defence against
armed attack.239 This assumes that the rules of self-defence, which apply in
the event of an armed attack against a state, can be extended by analogy to

241 See Chapter 10, 151–2, 155–7
an armed attack against a people who are not yet a state—an assumption
and text, 306–8 above. which many lawyers in the West are unwilling to make. Foreign states seldom
242 See C.J.R.Dugard, The
Organisation of African Unity and
send their armed forces to help national liberation movements; instead,
Colonialism: An Inquiry into the Plea they usually confine themselves to providing weapons and military bases.
of Self-Defence as a Justification for
the Use of Force in the Eradication
Accordingly, intervention by foreign states in wars of national liberation
of Colonialism, ICLQ 16 (1967), would be lawful only if it could be shown that the national liberation
157–90.
243 B.Kingsbury, Self-Determination
movement (or the people whom it claims to represent) was the victim of an
and ‘Indigenous Peoples’, ASIL armed attack. But wars of national liberation usually start with an armed
Proc. 86 (1992), 383; S.J.Anaya,
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples
attack by (not against) the national liberation movement, in order to overthrow
and International Law in Historical the rule of the government which had previously been administering the
and Contemporary Perspective,
Harvard Indian Law Symposium,
territory peacefully. Some Third World writers and diplomats have tried to
1990, 191–225; Human Rights— get round this objection by looking at the issue in a longer historical perspective
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
UNCHR Fact Sheet 1990, no. 9;
and by arguing that the original acquisition of colonies by European states240
M.E.Turpel, Indigenous Peoples’ involved the use of force and that colonialism therefore constitutes a form of
Rights of Political Participation and
Self-Determination: Recent
permanent or continuing aggression. But not all colonies were acquired by
International Legal Developments conquest; some were acquired by cession from native rulers, or by other
and the Continuing Struggle for
Recognition, Cornell ILJ 25 (1992),
peaceful means. Even when colonies were acquired by conquest, the conquest
579–602; B.R.Howard, Human was lawful under the rules of international law which existed at the time241
Rights and Indigenous People: On
the Relevance of International Law
and was completed a long time ago. It is absurd to suggest that a right of
for Indigenous Liberation, GYIL 35 collective self-defence can be exercised today against an attack which was
(1992), 105; T.v.Boven, Human
Rights and the Rights of Peoples,
successfully and lawfully completed centuries ago; one might just as well
EJIL 6 (1995), 461–76. argue that the United Kingdom can now reopen the hostilities with France in
245 See the literature cited above,
response to the Norman Conquest of 1066.242
326.
246 See Chapter 11 above, 161,
165–7 and Chapter 22 below, New developments
409–15.
247 Text in Brownlie BDIL, 287; C. The problems of minorities and of the special category of indigenous
Tomuschat, Protection of Minorities
under Article 27 of the International peoples,243 which have been addressed in Chapter 6 above,244 have led to
Covenant on Civil and Political a vivid discussion as to whether such groups have a right to self-
Rights, in R.Bernhardt et al. (eds),
Festschrift für Hermann Mosler,
determination or whether a new definition of self-determination is required
1983, 949–79. to accommodate extreme situations.245 The debate was reinforced by the
minority problems arising in Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe after the
break-up of the USSR. 246 Contemporary international law for the
protection of minorities offers only a rather rudimentary framework built
around the cornerstone of the general rules on non-discrimination in
combination with Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which provides:
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist,

persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right,
in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their
culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their
own language.247
It implies that minorities, at least in principle, do not have a right to secession

(in the sense of ‘external’ self-determination); they are restricted to a right
of some form of autonomy within the given state structure (sometimes called
‘internal’ self-determination).
This conclusion is supported by the wording of Article 27 of the
Political Covenant which does not grant minorities a right to secession, but

only limited rights to ‘enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise 249 See the survey given by Lerner, The
their own religion, or to use their own language’. Minorities are not, as Evolution of Minority Rights in
International Law, in Brölmann/Lefeber/
such, recognized as legal subjects of international law.248 Even the rights Zieck (eds), op. cit., at 88 et seq.
in Article 27 are formulated as individual rights, rights of the members 250 UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV), op. cit.
251 UNGA Res. 47/135 of 18 December
belonging to a minority, and not as a collective right, although there is a 1992, ILM 32 (1993), 911. See Chapter
tendency in the literature to move towards a group-orientated view.249 6 above, 105.
The right of self-determination, in Article 1 of the Covenant, is reserved 253 See R.Geiger, Kashmir, EPIL 12
to ‘peoples’. From the text, a systematic interpretation and the drafting (1990), 195–200; A.Siehr, Conflicts,
Indian Subcontinent, in Wolfrum UNLPP
history of this document, it is clear that, at least in the sense of the right I, 243–54.
to secession, self-determination is not a right of minorities in existing 254 Noted by Franck (1993), op. cit.,
at 12.
states, not even of ethnic ones with a relatively clear territorial basis
within a state. This is confirmed by later pertinent instruments, including
the Friendly Relations Declaration250 and the 1992 UN Declaration on
Minorities,251 all of which, when granting certain rights, place emphasis
on the preservation of the territorial integrity of States. Article 8(4) of
the 1992 Declaration notes: ‘Nothing in the present Declaration may be
construed as permitting any activity contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations, including sovereign equality, territorial
integrity and political independence of States.’ The right to self-
determination and to secession is not mentioned in the Declaration.
International law also excludes a right of neighbouring ‘mother countries’
to intervene by force under the title or pretext of protecting sections of
the population of other states with which they have a particular
affiliation, as was, for example, invoked by Hitler in the case of the
Sudeten Germans to begin the conquest of Czechoslovakia.
Again, neither the Covenant nor any other provision of international
law prohibits minorities (as any other group in a state) from seeking
secession. In principle, to put it crudely, from the viewpoint of international
law, the armed struggle of a minority for independence is nothing more
than a civil war, the outcome of which has to be awaited, except for those
rules relevant to internal armed conflict and limits imposed by human
rights standards.252 Thus, other states are entitled to recognize the successful
secession of a minority, unless it has come about by the military intervention
of third parties. The case of Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) which
declared its independence in March 1971 is a special one, because India’s
military intervention in October 1971 in the civil war and its armed conflict
with Pakistan was caused, inter alia, by the tremendous burden caused by
about ten million refugees (90 per cent of whom were Hindus) who had
fled to India. It must also be seen against the background of the conflict
between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. (Pakistan recognized the
independence of Bangladesh in February 1974.253)
In the literature, one finds a variety of proposals for an interpretation
of the right of minorities to self-determination which go beyond these
results. Some propositions are rather radical, trying to turn the fact that
the world has recently seen an increasing number of victorious secessionist
movements into a general right under international law, by advocating
the need for a new interpretation of a ‘post-colonial right of self-
determination’.254 Such proposals, however, are neither desirable, nor
are they realistic. They are undesirable because the prospect of an infinite
255 Similarly Higgins, Postmodern

Tribalism and the Right to
cycle of the creation of numerous new states, many of which seem hardly
Secession, Comments, in viable in economic and political terms, would undermine the international
Brölmann/Lefeber/Zieck (eds), op.
cit., at 35; E.Amitai, The Evils of
order—in the absence of an unlikely world government—and strangle the
Self-Determination, FP 89 (1992–3), existing international institutions. If we have 3,000 or more ‘minorities’,
28 et seq.
256 S.Oeter,
in- or excluding ‘indigenous peoples’, are we to support the idea of having
Selbstbestimmungsrecht im as many entities claiming the right to become states and members of the
Wandel—Überlegungen zur Debatte
um Selbstbestimmung,
United Nations and still expect the organization to function? In addition,
Sezessionsrecht und ‘vorzeitige’ in many cases the recognition of the right of secession of minorities would
Anerkennung, ZaöRV 52 (1992),
741–80, at 778.
lead to new minorities then being submitted to the rule of the separatist
257 Franck (1993), op. cit., 13–14. government.255 It is also not realistic because states are unlikely to agree to
258 See T.Schweisfurth, FAZ, 20
January 1995, 13; M.R.Lucas, The
dig their own grave and accept a general entitlement of internal groups to
War in Chechnya and the OSCE secession as a legal principle threatening their territorial integrity.
Code of Conduct, HM 6/2 (1995),
32–42.
But there are also more modest proposals focusing on certain extreme
259 See F.M.Hussein, The Legal and exceptional situations. Some authors argue that, if internal conflict
Concept of Self-Determination and
the Kurdish Question, 1985;
between a government and an ethnic group has escalated into genocidal
P.Malanczuk, The Kurdish Crisis actions, as a means of last resort, ‘secession becomes a legitimate response
and Allied Intervention in the
Aftermath of the Second Gulf War,
which should be shielded by the international community’.256
EJIL 2 (1991), 114– 32; O.Bring, A particularly interesting reasoning has been advanced by Thomas
Kurdistan and the Principle of Self-
Determination, GYIL 35 (1992),
Franck, who finds that in circumstances in which
157–69; Malanczuk (1993), op. cit.,
17 et seq.; P.Akhavan, Lessons
from Iraqi Kurdistan: Self-
a minority within a sovereign state—especially if it occupies a
Determination and Humanitarian discrete territory within that state—persistently and egregiously is
Intervention against Genocide,
NQHR 1 (1993), 41–62; R. Falk,
denied political and social equality and the opportunity to retain its
Problems and Prospects for the cultural identity…it is conceivable that international law will define
Kurdish Struggle for Self-
Determination After the End of the
such repression, prohibited by the Political Covenant, as coming
Gulf and Cold Wars, Mich. JIL 15 within a somewhat stretched definition of colonialism. Such
(1994), 591–604. See also Chapter
22 below, 399–402.
repression, even by an independent state not normally thought to
260 See Chapter 10, 162–3 and be ‘imperial’ would then give rise to a right of ‘decolonization’.257
text, 335 above.
It is submitted that these are only proposals de lege ferenda, which are not
likely to succeed in practice. There is not much hope currently of fundamental
changes in the international regime protecting minorities even on the regional
European level in view of the resistance of important states to accept the
most modest reform proposals. The source of this reluctance is, of course,
the fear of destabilization and disintegration affecting the territorial integrity
and sovereignty of states, if more far-reaching rights were granted to certain
sections of the population. The experience of Russian intervention in
Chechnya and the reaction of other states is particularly illuminating.
Western states have limited themselves, so it seems, in the interest of not
further destabilizing Yeltsin and the process of economic and political reform
in Russia, to criticizing the disproportionality of the attacks on the civilian
population, but have insisted that the matter is, in principle, within the
domestic affairs of the Russian Federation.258 Similarly, one could point to
the fate of the Kurds.259 Even in the case of Eritrea, which seceded from
Ethiopia with the consent of the new government, after Colonel Menghistu
had been overthrown, and on the basis of the recognition of the right to
self-determination and secession in the new Constitution of Ethiopia, the
reaction of other states in Africa was that of concern regarding an
unfavourable precedent, in view of the principle of uti posseditis.260
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MODERN RULES 341
261 See K.J.Partsch, Israel and the

The effectiveness of the modern rules against the use Arab States, EPIL II (1995), 1460–8.
of force
For over fifty years since 1945 the world has been relatively free from
international wars, despite the existence of acute political tensions which
would almost certainly have led to war in previous ages. Such fighting
as has occurred has mostly taken the form of civil wars, although there
is always a danger that civil wars will escalate into international wars,
as the war in Vietnam did in the 1960s. It would be foolish to suggest
that international law is largely responsible for the infrequency of wars;
the destructiveness of modern warfare is a much more potent factor.
The popular revulsion against the destructiveness of modern war gave
rise to rules of law against the use of force; but those rules have in turn
served to augment popular revulsion against war (just as laws against
homicide are simultaneously a consequence and a cause of popular
revulsion against homicide).
The biggest defect in the modern rules is that they are often imprecise.
Practice has done little to reduce this imprecision. Many states want to
retain the possibility of using force in certain circumstances, but they
know that an interpretation which allowed them to do so would also
allow other states to use force against them; so they ‘keep their options
open’ by failing to adopt a clear attitude towards the problem of
interpretation. In moments of crisis a state will be tempted to exploit
such uncertainties in the law; its sense of objectivity will be lost, and it
may genuinely come to believe that a doubtful interpretation which suits
its interests is well founded. In theory the organs of the United Nations
ought to strengthen and clarify the rules by deciding whether they have
been broken in particular cases. But sometimes the member states of the
United Nations which consider that a particular state has acted legally
are as numerous as those which consider that it has acted illegally, and
in such cases the United Nations is unable to reach any decision (for
instance, it was for this reason that the United Nations adopted a ‘neutral’
attitude to the fighting between Israel and its neighbours in 1967 and
1973261). Sometimes, moreover, a state may hope to escape censure at
the United Nations if it uses force on a small scale (for example, the
Indonesian ‘confrontation’ with Malaysia in 1963–6), or if it achieves a
quick victory which presents the world with a fait accompli (for example,
the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War in June 1967).
But although there are cases where the rules are unclear, and where the
United Nations adopts ambiguous attitudes, there are also other cases
where the law is perfectly clear; the rules may be blurred around the edges,
but they have a hard core of certainty. And in cases of this second type the
law exercises a real restraining influence on the actions of states.
20 Means of waging war and
criminal responsibility: ius in
bello
1 W.Meng, War, EPIL 4 (1982), 28; This chapter deals with the rules governing the actual conduct of hostilities,
F. Kalshoven, War, Laws of, ibid.,
316–23; F.Kalshoven, Constraints
once an armed conflict has broken out (ius in bello).1 For most purposes,
on the Waging of War, 1987; F.de this body of law can be treated as separate from the rules governing the
Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of
War for Armed Forces, 1987;
resort to the use of armed force (ius ad bellum).2 The basic reason is the
I.Detter DeLupis, The Law of War, consideration that, if it is not possible to fully prevent war (and history so
1988; D.Schindler/J.Toman (eds),
The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A
far shows that it is indeed not possible), then at least warfare should be
Collection of Conventions, made subject to certain humanitarian restrictions in the interest of protecting,
Resolutions and Other Documents,
3rd edn 1988; A.Roberts/R.Guelff
for example, prisoners, the wounded and the civilian population, or by
(eds), Documents on the Laws of prohibiting certain kinds of weapons.
War, 2nd edn 1989, 491–7; There are a number of problems concerning the situations in which this
H.McCoubrey, International
Humanitarian Law, 1990; A.J.M. body of law becomes applicable. On the one hand, although formal
Delissen/G.J.Tanja (eds), declarations of war are no longer a criterion because they have become
Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict:
Challenges Ahead: Essays in uncommon,3 still the distinction between a situation of ‘war’ or ‘peace’,
Honour of Frits Kalshoven, 1991; between armed conflict and non-armed conflict, is not always easy to make.
K.J.Partsch, Armed Conflict, EPIL I
(1992), 249–53; Partsch, Armed On the other hand, the rules pertaining to international armed conflict do
Conflict, Fundamental Rules, ibid., not necessarily fully apply to non-international armed conflict, such as in
253–6; F.Kalshoven, Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Methods and
the case of civil wars. The term ‘international humanitarian law’, which is
Means of Warfare (with comments frequently used to describe the area dealt with in this chapter, suggests that
by R.Lagoni and G.J.F.v. Hegelsom),
in I.F.Dekker/H.H.G.Post (eds), The
there is some synthesis between the laws of war and international human
Gulf War of 1980–1988, 1992, 97 rights.4 But that is far from being generally accepted, simply because it is
et seq.; H.McCoubrey/N.D. White, quite unclear which of these human rights actually apply in times of war
International Law and Armed
Conflict, 1992; D.A.Wells, The Laws (which does not mean that human rights instruments are entirely irrelevant
of Land Warfare: A Guide to the to situations of armed conflict and military occupation).
U.S. Army Manuals, 1992; E.Playfair
(ed.), International Law and the Finally, it should be noted that the legal issues of disarmament and arms
Administration of Occupied control, including the problems of the demilitarization or neutralization of
Territories, 1992; J.G.Gardam, Non-
Combatant Immunity as a Norm of certain areas, are beyond the scope of the following.5 They are not directly
International Humanitarian Law, relevant to the actual conduct of armed conflict.
1993; E.Benevisti, The International
Law of Occupation, 1993;
L.C.Green, The Contemporary Law
of Armed Conflict, 1993; D.Fleck Lawful and unlawful means of waging war
(ed.), The Handbook in
Humanitarian Law in Armed
Conflicts, 1995; H.H.G. Post (ed.), The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which saw the abandonment of
International Economic Law and
Armed Conflict, 1994; Y.Dinstein,
any attempt by international law to restrict the right of states to go to war,
War, Aggression and Self-Defence, also saw the growth of rules regulating the way in which wars should be
2nd edn 1994; M.S.McDougal/F.P.
Feliciano, The International Law
fought.6 Nor was this a coincidence; in the days when the theory of the just
of War: Transnational Coercion war had been dominant, each side had usually considered that the other
and World Public Order, 1994;
H.H.G.Post, Some Curiosities
side’s cause was unjust, and it had therefore tended to treat the other side
in the Sources of the Law of as mere bandits, lacking any right to fair treatment.
Armed Conflict Conceived in a
General International Legal
To many people it seems a paradox that war, the ultimate breakdown
Perspective, NYIL 25 in law and order, should be fought in accordance with rules of law; why
LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL MEANS OF WAGING WAR 343
(1994), 83–118; K.J.Partsch,

should a nation fighting for survival allow its struggle to be impeded by Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflict,
legal restrictions? Part of the answer lies in the fact that nations did not EPIL II (1995), 933–6; H.Risse,
Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, in
regard themselves as fighting for survival in the eighteenth and nineteenth Wolfrum UNLPP I, 638–45; A.P.Rogers,
centuries. Wars were seldom fought for ideological reasons and tended Law on the Battlefield, 1996.
not to rouse the same intensity of passion as twentieth century wars. In an 3 See Chapter 19 above, 308.
age when governments interfered little with the lives of their subjects, a 4 K.J.Partsch, Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law, EPIL II (1995), 910–
change of sovereignty over territory had little effect on the way of life of 12. On human rights, see Chapter 14
the inhabitants, who consequently tended to be philosophical about the above, 209–21.
5 See C.Blacker/G.Duffy (eds),
prospect of defeat in war. In any case, the balance-of-power system7 deterred International Arms Control, Issues and
the territorial aggrandizement of states and therefore limited the territorial Agreements, 1984; J.H.Barton,
Disarmament, EPIL I (1992), 1072–6; J.
changes which would otherwise have resulted from wars. The balance-of- Kolasa, Disarmament and Arms Control
power system also necessitated flexibility in political alignments and meant Agreements—A Study on Procedural
and Institutional Law, 1995; J.Debrück,
that a state’s enemy today might be its ally tomorrow; this naturally had Arms Control, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 39–
a restraining effect on the degree of brutality practised in wars, because 47; T.Roeser, Arms, Trade in, ibid., 49–
54; O.Kimminich, Disarmament, ibid.,
states did not want to arouse undying bitterness among potential allies. 407–17; W.Lang, Compliance with
Even more important than these political considerations was the fact Disarmament Obligations, ZaöRV 55
(1995), 69–88.
that the laws of war were designed mainly to prevent unnecessary 6 See Chapter 2 above, 21–2.
suffering. ‘Unnecessary suffering’ meant suffering which would produce 7 See Chapter 2 above, 11.
8 C.P.G.v.Clausewitz, Vom Kriege,
no military advantage, or a military advantage which was very small in 1832–4.
comparison with the amount of suffering involved. However, there were 9 A.Randelzhofer, Civilian Objects, EPIL
I (1992), 603–6; A.-M.de Zayas, Civilian
a few exceptions to this general rule; for instance, it was and still is Population, Protection, ibid., 606–11;
forbidden to torture prisoners in order to obtain information, although Y.Dinstein, Prisoners of War, EPIL 4
(1982), 146–52; M.Bothe, Wounded,
the military advantage could be enormous in certain cases. Violations of Sick and Shipwrecked, ibid., 356–8.
the laws of war were therefore rare, because the military advantage to See also on the Trial of Pakistani
Prisoners of War Case, ICJ Rep. 1973,
be gained by breaking those laws was almost always outweighed by 327 and 346, and K. Oellers-Frahm,
disadvantages such as reprisals, loss of neutral goodwill, and so on. EPIL 2 (1981), 280–1.
10 Y.Dinstein, Military Necessity, EPIL 3
Wars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were wars between (1982), 274–6.
armed forces, rather than wars between peoples. ‘The destruction of the
enemy’s military force is the foundation-stone of all action in war,’ wrote
Clausewitz, the greatest military writer of the nineteenth century.8 It was
therefore easy for international law to protect civilians. But the protection
was never absolute; for instance, an army besieging a town was entitled
to hasten the fall of the town by preventing food from entering the town
and by preventing civilian inhabitants from leaving. In other words, the
army compelled the town to surrender by starving the civilian inhabitants.
Moreover, Clausewitz explained that ‘destruction of the enemy’s military
power’ meant that ‘the military power must be…reduced to such a state
as not to be able to prosecute the war’; ‘the aim of all action in war is to
disarm the enemy’. Consequently, rules grew up to protect even members
of the armed forces who were hors de combat—the sick and wounded,
prisoners of war, and so on.9 Although Clausewitz said that the laws of
war were ‘almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning’, the reason
for their imperceptibility was that they accorded so perfectly with the
limits of military necessity:10 ‘if we find civilized nations do not put their
prisoners to death, do not devastate towns and countries, this is because
their intelligence…has taught them more effectual means of applying force
than these rude acts of mere instinct.’
In the second half of the nineteenth century states began to issue manuals
of military law; containing a restatement of the laws of war, for use by
344 WAR AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
11 See P.Malanczuk, American Civil

War, EPIL I (1992), 129–31. For
their commanders in the field. A famous example is the Lieber Code. It was
other examples, see Roberts/Guelff prepared by Dr Francis Lieber from Columbia University in 1863 as the
(eds), op. cit., 7.
12 AJIL 1 (1907) Supplement 89–90.
‘Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the
13 Texts of the Geneva Field’.11 Such manuals led to greater respect for the laws of war, as well as
Conventions of 1864 and 1906 in
129 CIS 361, 202 CTS 144; the
more precision in their formulation. At the same time, the laws of war,
1907 Hague Conventions IV–XIII which had hitherto been derived almost entirely from customary law, began
are reprinted in Roberts/Guelff
(eds), op. cit., 43–119. See
to be codified and extended by treaties. The first agreement was the 1856
M.Bothe, Land Warfare, EPIL 3 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law.12 The chief treaties were the
(1982), 239–42; Y.Dinstein, Sea
Warfare, EPIL 4 (1982), 201–12.
Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1906: the Convention for the
See also Chapter 2 above, 21–2. Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field and
14 1930 London Naval Treaty, 112
LNTS 65; 1936 London Protocol,
the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
173 LNTS 353, 353–7; AJIL 31 Sick in Armies in the Field, the three Hague Conventions of 1899 (mainly
(1937) Supplement, 137–9. See
also K. Zemanek, Submarine
on the law of land and maritime warfare), and the thirteen Hague
Warfare, EPIL 4 (1982), 233–5. Conventions of 1907, which dealt with most of the remaining aspects of
15 94 LNTS 65; AJIL 25 (1931)
Supplement, 94–6. See E.Rauch,
the laws of war.13 Although these treaties were of course binding only on
Biological Warfare, EPIL I (1992), the states which became parties to them, nearly all of them stated rules
404–7; M.Bothe, Chemical Warfare,
ibid., 566–9.
which either were already part of customary law or subsequently came to
16 Texts in 249 UNITS 240, 249 be accepted as new customary law.
UNTS 358.
17 ILM 11 (1972), 310.
Since the First World War further treaties on the laws of war have been
18 ILM 16 (1977), 88. See M.Bothe, concluded from time to time. The London Treaty of 1930 and the Protocol
War and Environment, EPIL 4
(1982), 290–3.
of 1936 sought to regulate the use of submarines;14 the Geneva Protocol of
19 Conference on Prohibitions or 1925 prohibited the use of gas and bacteriological warfare;15 a convention
Restrictions on the Use of Certain and a protocol was signed at The Hague in 1954 for the protection of
Conventional Weapons, Final Act,
ILM 19 (1980), 1523. See W.A.Soll, cultural property (for example, works of art) in the event of armed conflict;16
Weapons, Prohibited, EPIL 4 a convention of 1972 prohibited the use and possession of bacteriological
(1982), 352–4; M.A.Meyer (ed.),
Armed Conflict and the New Law: (biological) and toxin weapons;17 a convention of 1977 prohibited the
Aspects of the 1977 Geneva military use of environmental modification techniques;18 and a convention
Protocols and the 1981 Weapons
Convention, 1989.
and three protocols were signed in 1980 to limit the use of cruel or
20 Text in ILM 35 (1996), 1206. See indiscriminate non-nuclear weapons, such as incendiary weapons (for
L. Doswald-Beck, New Protocol on example, napalm), land-mines and booby-traps, particularly their use against
Blinding Laser Weapons, IRRC 36
(1996), 272–99, and the report and civilians.19 The First Review Conference of the 1980 Convention on Certain
documentation by P.Herby, ibid., 361 Conventional Weapons, held in 1995, adopted new protocols on blinding
et seq.; K.Dörmann, The First
laser weapons and land-mines.20 More important, however, are the two
Review Conference to the 1980
Convention on Prohibitions or Geneva Conventions of 1929 for the protection of sick and wounded
Restrictions on the Use of Certain soldiers, of sick and wounded sailors and of prisoners of war, and the four
Conventional Weapons Which May
Be Deemed to be Excessively Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of sick and wounded
Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate soldiers, of sick and wounded sailors, of prisoners of war and of civilians,
Effects—A Story of Failure?, HV 8 together with two protocols of 1977 which supplements the 1949
(1995), 203–11.
21 1929 Geneva Conventions I– Conventions.21 The scope of the Civilians’ Convention is much less than its
II, 118 LNTS 303; 1949 Geneva name implies; it is mainly concerned with protecting only two classes of
Conventions I–IV, 75 UNTS 31,
75 UNTS 85, 75 UNTS 135 and
civilians: those who find themselves in enemy territory at the outbreak of
75 UNTS 287; 1977 Protocols I– war, and those who inhabit territory which is overrun and occupied by the
II, 1125 UNTS 3 and 1125 UNTS enemy during the war. But the Convention does contain some provisions
609. The four Geneva
Conventions replaced three which apply to all civilians, wherever they may be; for instance, it prohibits
earlier humanitarian attacks on civilian hospitals. Articles 48–60 of the First Protocol of 1977
conventions of 1906 and 1929.
go much further in protecting civilians against attacks.
See A.Schlögel, Geneva Red
Cross Conventions and Ratification of such treaties by states varies considerably.22 States have
Protocols, EPIL II (1995), been reluctant to ratify conventions of the type formulated at The Hague.
531–4.
22 See T.Meron, The Continuing Role
The 1980 Convention prohibiting the use of certain weapons, for example,
of Custom in the Formation of

has only fifty-seven parties (1995), and some of its protocols even less. International Humanitarian Law, AJIL 90
The 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of (1996), 238–49, 245 et seq.
23 1993 Chemical Weapons
Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods Convention, ILM 32 (1993), 800. The
of Warfare has 145 parties (1995). The recent Convention on the signatory states have established a
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Preparatory Commission in The Hague.
See T.Taylor, The Chemical Weapons
Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, which will enter into force Convention and Prospects for
on 29 April 1997, 180 days after the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument Implementation, ICLQ 42 (1993), 912–
19; D.Bardonnet (ed.), The Convention
of ratification (by Hungary in 1996), has so far been signed by only 100 on the Prohibition and Elimination of
states.23 Moreover, many types of weapons are still not regulated at all Chemical Weapons, 1994; W.Krutzsch/
R.Trapp, A Commentary on the
by treaties. The most positive result has so far been achieved in the case Chemical Weapons Convention, 1994.
of the 1949 Geneva Conventions where ratification is now virtually 24 IRRC 36 (1996), no. 311, 255.
25 See G.H.Aldrich, Prospects for
universal (1996:186 states).24 In the case of the 1977 Additional Protocol United States Ratification of Additional
I, however, far fewer states have decided to become parties (1996:134 Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, AJIL 85 (1991), 1–20; T.
states).25 With the accession of Cyprus on 18 March 1996 to the 1977 Meron, The Time Has Come for the
Additional Protocol II, the number of states party to the Protocol reached United States to Ratify Geneva Protocol
I, AJIL 88 (1994), 678–86; A.P.Rubin,
135.26 It is notable that only forty-seven states have so far made the Correspondence on United States’s
declaration provided for under Article 90 of Protocol I recognizing the Ratification of Geneva Protocol I, AJIL
89 (1995), 363–5.
competence of an International Fact-Finding Commission to inquire into 26 IRRC 36 (1996), no. 311, 247, 255.
allegations made by other state parties of a violation of the Protocol.27 27 Ibid., 256–7. See also E.Kussbach,
The International Humanitarian Fact-
The codification of the laws of war in treaties did not diminish the Finding Commission, ICLQ 43 (1994),
continuing role of customary principles. This is expressed in the so- 174–84. On fact-finding, see also
called ‘Martens Clause’ which was laid down in the Preamble to the 28 Cited in Roberts/Guelff (eds), op. cit.,
1899 Hague Convention II: 4. A common article in each of the 1949
Geneva Conventions draws upon the
text of the Martens Clause: I (Article 63),
Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the high II (Article 62), III (Article 142), IV (Article
contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not 158). See also Article 1 of the 1977
Additional Protocol I and the Preamble
included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and to Additional Protocol II. See further
belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the T.Meron, On Custom and the
Antecedents of the Martens Clause in
principles of international law, as they result from the usages Medieval and Renaissance Ordinances
established between civilised nations, from the laws of humanity of War, in FS Bernhardt, 173–7. On
Martens, see V.Pustogarov, Fyodor
and the requirements of the public conscience.28 Fyodorovich Martens (1845–1909)—A
Humanist of Modern Times, IRRC 36
(1996), 300–14.
The creation of new law by treaties has tended to lag far behind the 29 For a specific example of the
development of military technology. For instance, until the First Protocol problem, see E.J.Wallach, The Use of
Crude Oil by an Occupying Belligerent
of 1977 there was no treaty dealing with the bombing of civilians. This State as a Munltion de Guerre, ICLQ 41
would not have mattered much if the customary law on the subject had (1992), 387–10. On the relevance of
been clear, but it was not. State practice concerning the laws of war develops opinio iuris for the formation of
customary law, see Chapter 3 above,
mainly during wartime, and therefore lacks continuity; major wars are 44–5, But see for this special area,
infrequent, and nowadays technological changes occur so rapidly that Meron (1996), op. cit.
each war differs radically from the previous war. It is also difficult to 31 See T.Bruha, Bombardment, EPIL I
establish an opinio iuris,29 because states seldom give legal reasons for (1992), 419–22.
what they do in wartime. Nor do war crimes trials do much to clarify the
law.30 For instance, not a single German was prosecuted after the Second
World War for organizing mass bombing raids; it is understandable that
the Allies were reluctant to prosecute Germans for doing what the Allies
had also done on an even larger scale, but the result is that there is no
judicial pronouncement on the legality of bombing.31 Meanwhile, the
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 are still technically in force, but
the fact that many of their provisions are manifestly inappropriate
to modern conditions has often tempted states to break them.
32 GA Res. 1653 (XVI), 24

November 1961, UNYb 1961, 30–1.
There are two further factors which have encouraged violations of the
See also, for example, the later laws of war during the twentieth century. In the first place, the First and
resolutions of the General Assembly
on ‘Non-Use of Force in
Second World Wars produced more bitter feelings than previous wars; they
International Relations and were fought for ideological reasons, and for virtually unlimited objectives.
Permanent Prohibition of the Use of
Nuclear Weapons’, UNGA Res.
Belligerent states no longer sought to achieve a delicate adjustment to the
2936 (XXVII) of 29 November 1972; balance of power, but adopted a policy of unconditional surrender, which
‘Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and
Prevention of Nuclear War’, UNGA
naturally spurred on the other side to fight to the death. Second, economic
Res. 36/92 (I) of 9 December 1981. and technological changes vastly increased the military advantage to be
See further H.Blix, Area
Bombardment: Rules and Reasons,
gained by breaking the laws of war. (There are exceptions, of course; for
BYIL 49 (1978), 31–69; D. instance, killing prisoners of war still produces little military advantage,
Rauschning, Nuclear Warfare and
Weapons, EPIL 4 (1982), 44–50; I.
and the relevant rules of law therefore stand a good chance of surviving.)
Pogany (ed.), Nuclear Weapons and In particular, the distinction between the armed forces and civilians is largely
International Law, 1987; N.Singh/E.
McWhinney, Nuclear Weapons and
illusory, now that the whole of a country’s economy is geared to the war
Contemporary International Law, effort. Destruction of factories, and even the killing of factory workers,
2nd edn 1988; E.L.Meyrowitz, The
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons:
produces a military advantage which would have been inconceivable in
The Relevance of International Law, earlier times; and the invention of the aircraft has given belligerent states
1990; W.R.Hearn, The International
Legal Regime Regulating Nuclear
the means to carry out such acts.
Deterrence and Warfare, BYIL 61
(1990), 199 et seq.; Nuclear
Weapons and the Right to Survival, Nuclear weapons
Peace and Development, Denver
JILP 19 (1990), no. 1 (Special
Issue); B.Graefrath, Der aktuelle
In 1961 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution declaring
Stand der völkerrechtlichen that the use of nuclear weapons was illegal.32 fifty-five states (consisting
Diskussion zur Legalität von
Nuklearwaffeneinsätzen, HV 8
mainly of communist and Third World countries) voted in favour of the
(1995), 124–7. resolution, twenty states (consisting mainly of Western countries) voted
against, and twenty-six states (consisting mainly of Latin American
countries) abstained. The divergence between the positions of the communist
and Western countries is explained by the fact that the Soviet superiority in
conventional (that is, non-nuclear) forces in Europe was so great (before
the withdrawal of the Red Army from Eastern Europe) that the Western
countries would have been compelled to use nuclear weapons in order to
defend themselves against an invasion of Western Europe by Soviet
conventional forces; consequently, the Western countries argued that the
use of nuclear weapons is not contrary to international law. The Soviet
Union, on the other hand, was able to win Third World goodwill by
subscribing to the view that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal, because it
knew that it would not need to be the first state to use them; if Western
countries had used them first, the Soviet Union would have been able to
justify its own use of nuclear weapons by means of the doctrine of reprisals.33
A General Assembly resolution of this type is, at the most, merely evidence
of customary law,34 but the voting figures for this resolution show the absence
of a generally accepted custom. The Western powers, at any rate, are
probably entitled to claim that the resolution has no legal effect on them,
since they have consistently repudiated the ideas stated in it.
Certain rules of international law might be extended by analogy to deal
with nuclear weapons. For instance, Article 23(a) of the Hague Regulations
1907 declares that it is forbidden ‘to employ poison or poisoned weapons’,
and the Geneva Gas Protocol 1925 prohibits ‘the use in war of
asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids,
materials or devices’. It is arguable that the fall-out caused by nuclear weapons
35 See F.A.F.v.d.Heydte, Military

resembles poison, but the analogy is not close enough to be absolutely Objectives, EPIL 3 (1982), 276–9.
compelling; fall-out is only a side-effect of nuclear weapons, whereas 36 AJIL 72 (1978), 407.
37 But see the recent discussion among
poisoning is the main (if not the sole) effect of using poison gas. historians, Chapter 2 above, 26.
Alternatively, nuclear weapons could be compared with the mass 38 See Roberts/Guelff (eds), op. cit.,
bombing raids of the Second World War; but there was no treaty 18–9.
prohibiting those raids, and it would be difficult to argue that they were
contrary to customary law, in the light of the extensive use of them by
both sides in the Second World War. If Articles 48–60 of the First Protocol
of 1977 had been in force during the Second World War, they would
have prohibited many of the bombing raids which occurred during that
war. Article 48 of the 1977 Protocol I states as a basic rule:
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population

and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times
distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and
between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall
direct their operations only against military objectives.35
But the United States, when signing the First Protocol in 1977, placed
on record its ‘understanding…that the rules established by this Protocol
were not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit
the use of nuclear weapons’.36 Similar statements were made by the British
and French governments.
There remains the underlying principle that acts of war should not
cause unnecessary suffering, that is, suffering out of all proportion to
the military advantage to be gained from those acts. Nuclear weapons
cause enormous suffering, but they can also produce an enormous
military advantage; if nuclear weapons had not been used against Japan
in 1945, the war against Japan might have lasted at least another year.37
It would therefore be unwise to conclude that the use of nuclear weapons
is unlawful in all circumstances.
But, even if we accept that the use of nuclear weapons is sometimes
lawful, this does not mean that the laws of war restricting the use of
‘conventional’ weapons are obsolete. To drop a nuclear bomb on a city
may be lawful because the military advantage gained by destroying
military installations, factories, means of communication, and so on,
outweighs the suffering; but to drop a conventional bomb deliberately
on a school or hospital in the same city would be illegal, because there
would be no military advantage to outweigh the suffering. Thus, while
the international community, including the nuclear powers, has not yet
arrived at an explicit agreement concerning the use or non-use of nuclear
weapons, this does not mean that the general principles and other
customary rules of the laws of war which apply to the use of weapons
and methods of warfare are irrelevant. In fact, the United States and the
United Kingdom have at times confirmed that they are applicable.38
The issue of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons was brought
before the International Court of Justice on the basis of two requests for an
advisory opinion, one filed by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3
September 1993, the other filed by the UN General Assembly on 6 January
1996. As it was doubtful whether the request on the question of legality of
39 The question set forth in the

resolution (WHA 46.40), adopted by
the use by a state of nuclear weapons in armed conflict submitted by the
the WHO Assembly on 14 May WHO was within the mandate of the WHO,39 it was supplemented by the
1993, was as follows: ‘In view of the
health and environmental effects,
request from the UN General Assembly which has the competence to ask
would the use of nuclear weapons the Court any kind of legal question. The request was embodied in General
by a State in war or other armed
conflict be a breach of its obligations
Assembly resolution 49/75K, adopted on 15 December 1994, in which the
under international law including the General Assembly decided, acting on the basis of Article 96(1) of the UN
WHO Constitution?’
40 UNGA Res. 49/75K. On the
Charter, to ask the ICJ ‘urgently to render its advisory opinion on the
background and the procedural following question: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any
issues, see M.Lailach, The General
Assembly’s Request for an Advisory
circumstance permitted under international law?”’40
Opinion From the International This case is interesting because combined pressure from NGOs and a
Court of Justice on the Legality of
the Threat or Use of Nuclear
majority of states managed to overcome the strong resistance of the
Weapons, LJIL 8 (1995), 401–29. great nuclear powers, in particular the United States, the UK and France,
42 For the list of participants, see
and to put the question to the Court. The International Court of Justice
ILM 35 (1996), 816. received a petition signed by more than one million persons declaring
43 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the
Legality of the Threat or Use of
themselves against the legality of nuclear weapons with reference, inter
Nuclear Weapons, ILM 35 (1996), alia, to the ‘Martens Clause’.41 During the public hearings in the Peace
809. Further Declarations and
Separate Opinions of Judges are
Palace in The Hague, which took place from 30 October to 15 November
reproduced in ILM 35 (1996), 1343. 1995, the majority of the twenty-one states and the WHO taking part
On the case, see also Chapters 3,
42, 45, 50, 53–4 and 19, 317 above.
expressed their opposition against the legality of these weapons. The
44 On the limited legal personality of Japanese delegation included the mayors of the cities of Hiroshima and
international organizations, see
Nagasaki.42
45 ICJ Advisory Opinion, op. cit. On 8 July 1996, the Court delivered its advisory opinions on both requests.
The request made by the WHO was dismissed (by eleven votes to three)43
with the reasoning that under the ‘principle of speciality’, which governs
international organizations and limits their powers,44 the WHO had no
competence to deal with the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, even in
view of their health and environmental effects.45 With regard to the request
filed by the General Assembly, different majorities emerged among the judges
concerning different steps of the decision. The Court found that there is neither
in customary nor conventional law ‘any specific authorization of the threat
or use of nuclear weapons’ (unanimously), but also no ‘comprehensive and
universal prohibition’ (by eleven votes to three). The Court further replied
(unanimously) that ‘[a] threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons
that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and
that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful’ and that it
‘should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law
applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles of international
humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other
undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons’. The most
controversial finding (by seven votes to seven, by the President’s casting vote)
is rather mysterious:
It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or

use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the
principles and rules of humanitarian law.
However, in view of the current state of international law, and of
the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude defi-
nitely whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful
or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which 46 Ibid., at 831.

47 Ibid., 934, para. 2. On non liquet,
the very survival of a State would be at stake.46 see Chapter 3 above, 50.
48 1968 Treaty on Non-Proliferation
As noted by Judge Higgins in her Dissenting Opinion: ‘the Court of Nuclear Weapons, ILM 7 (1968), 7;
for the Final Document on the
effectively pronounces a non liquet on the key issue on the grounds of extension of the Treaty see ILM 34
uncertainty in the present state of the law, and of facts.’47 The main (1995), 959. See also G.Bunn/
R.Timerbaev/J.Leonard, Nuclear
holding is inconclusive and also the reasons give no answer to the question Disarmament: How Much Have the
of when the use of nuclear weapons is actually to be considered legal or Five Nuclear Powers Promised in the
illegal. Instead, the Court (unanimously) agreed that there was an Non-Proliferation Treaty?, 1994; G.
Bunn, Extending the Non-Proliferation
obligation to ‘pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations Treaty: Legal Questions Faced by the
leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective Parties in 1995, 1994; The United
Nations and Nuclear Non-
international control’. Recently, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Proliferation, UN Blue Book Series,
Nuclear Weapons was prolonged for an indefinite period. While the 1995; M. Rosenne, The Treaty on
treaty confirms the privileges of the five official nuclear powers, which Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, Justice-IAJLJ, 1995, 15–8;
are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, to M.v. Leeuwen (ed.), The Future of the
keep their arsenals of nuclear weapons and excludes the possession of International Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Regime, 1995; E.El
such weapons by other state parties, it also contains the obligation to Baradei, Verifying Non-Proliferation
conduct negotiations in good faith to discontinue the nuclear arms race Pledges: The Evolution and Future
and to achieve nuclear disarmament under international control.48 Direction of the IAEA Safeguards
System, LJIL 8 (1995) 347–60.
A related matter (but not an issue of the laws of war) is the legality of 49 See I.H.v.Arx, Nuclear Tests, EPIL 4
nuclear tests which are conducted in peacetime to ascertain whether nuclear (1982), 41–4. See also N.Pelzer,
Nuclear-Free Zones, ibid., 38–41; P.G.
weapons function effectively, what the results of their use are and to
Schrag, Global Action: Nuclear Test Ban
improve their development.49 There are a number of limited bilateral and Diplomacy at the End of the Cold War,
multilateral treaties which contain special provisions on this matter, and a 1992.
50 Opened for signature on 24
comprehensive test ban has been laid down in a recent multilateral treaty.50 September 1996, ILM 35 (1996), 1439.
The legal situation regarding the rights of third countries affected by such 51 Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v.
France), ICJ Rep. 1973, 99–133
tests has not been authoritatively clarified, although it is clear that in the
(Interim Protection); Nuclear Tests
case of transfrontier damage caused by a testing state to the territory or Cases (New Zealand v. France),
population of another state there is international responsibility on the ICJ Rep. 1973, 135–64 (Interim
Protection). See also A.Berg, Nuclear
part of the testing state. When the ICJ was seised by cases brought in Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New
1973 by Australia and New Zealand against France concerning its Zealand v. France), EPIL 2 (1981),
216–9; I. Scobbie, Discontinuance in
atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific,51 the Court indicated certain
the International Court: The Enigma of
provisional measures of protection against France in an order of 22 June the Nuclear Tests Cases, ICLQ 41
1973; but in its judgments of 20 December 1974 the Court held that it no (1992),
52 ICJ Rep. 1974, 253–455 (Australia v.
longer had to render a decision because it found that France had meanwhile France); ICJ Rep. 1974, 457–528
legally bound itself by a unilateral declaration52 that it would discontinue (New Zealand v. France). See C.-A.
atmospheric tests in the South Pacific. Fleischhauer, Declaration, EPIL I
(1992), 971–2. See also Chapter 9
Recent French underground nuclear tests in the South Pacific53 again above, 130.
led to action before the Court. On 21 August 1995, New Zealand filed a 53 See also the Rainbow Warrior case
in Chapter 6 above, 98–9.
request for an ‘Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 54 Under Articles 62 and 63 of the
63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests Statute of the ICJ. See Chapter 18
(New Zealand v. France) Case’, accompanied by a request for the indication above, 288 n. 119.
55 ICJ Rep. 1995, 288, 307, para.
of provisional measures. Australia filed an application for permission to 68. It should be noted that attempts
intervene on 23 August 1995, followed by similar applications54 by Samoa, to stop the French tests with
reference to the Euratom-Treaty on
the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of the level of European Community
Micronesia. However, on 22 September 1995, only one month after the Law equally failed. See
filing of New Zealand’s request, the Court issued an Order deciding M.C.R.Craven, New Zealand’s
Request for an Examination of the
that the request did ‘not fall within the provisions of the said Situation in Accordance with
paragraph 63 and must consequently be dismissed’.55 The reasoning of the Paragraph 63 of the
Court’s Judgment of 20 December

Court that the 1973 cases concerned atmospheric testing, while the present
1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New
Zealand v. France), ICLQ 45 (1996), case concerned underground tests, confirms a recent tendency of the Court
725 et seq. to interpret its jurisdiction rather narrowly.
56 R.L.Bindschedler, Neutrality,
Concept and General Rules, EPIL 4
(1982), 9–14; R.L.Bindschedler,
Permanent Neutrality of States, ibid., The law of neutrality and economic uses of maritime warfare
133–8; E.Kussbach, Neutrality
Laws, ibid., 28–31; K.J.Madders, In modern international law the traditional law of neutrality governing the
Neutrality in Air Warfare, ibid., 14–
16; K.Zemanek, Neutrality in Land
legal status of a state which does not take part in a war between other
Warfare, ibid., 16–19; H.Miehsler, states56 has become complicated due to the rules on the use of force57 and
Permanent Neutrality and Economic
the collective security system laid down in the UN Charter.58 Its state has
Integration, EPIL 8 (1985), 431–4;
S.Oeter, Ursprünge der Neutralität, been described as ‘chaotic’.59 One of the areas in which the traditional rules
ZaöRV 48 (1988), 447; S. Oeter, have retained much of their relative clarity concerns the economic uses of
Neutralität und Waffenhandel, 1992;
G.P.Politakis, Variations on a Myth: maritime warfare.
Neutrality and the Arms Trade, GYIL The sea has always been used for the transport of merchandise, and for
35 (1992), 435; S.P.Subedi,
Neutrality in a Changing World: centuries one of the main objects of naval warfare has been to cripple the
European Neutral States and the enemy’s economy.60 Enemy merchant ships may be seized at sea; the rules
European Community, ICLQ 42
(1993), 238 et seq. of naval warfare are thus different from the rules of land warfare, which
57 See Chapter 19 above, 309–18. prohibit (or used to prohibit) the seizure of private enemy-owned property,
On the effect of Article 2(6) of the
subject to certain exceptions.61 In addition, neutral merchant ships can be
UN Charter on neutral non-member seized if they try to carry contraband62 to the enemy, or if they try to run
states, see W.Graf Vitzthum, Article (that is, break through) a blockade.63 (Neutral shipowners who carry
2(6), in Simma CUNAC, 652–3; see
also B.-O. Bryde, Article 48, ibid., contraband or who run a blockade are not acting illegally—nor is their
652–3. national state acting illegally by permitting them to behave in this way—
59 See A.Gioia, Neutrality and Non-
belligerency in Post (ed.), 1994, op. but they run the risk of confiscation if they are caught.)
cit., 51–110. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries goods were divided into
60 See Y.Dinstein, Neutrality in Sea
Warfare, EPIL 4 (1982), 19–28;
three classes: absolute contraband, conditional contraband and free
Dinstein, Sea Warfare, ibid., 201– goods. Neutral ships carrying absolute contraband (that is, goods
12; W.Rabus, Booty in Sea Warfare, having an obvious military use, such as gunpowder) to an enemy
EPIL I (1992), 434–7. See further
M.Ronzitti (ed.), The Law of Naval country were always liable to seizure; neutral ships carrying free
Warfare: a Collection of Agreements goods (for example, luxuries such as silk) to an enemy country were
and Documents with Commentaries, never liable to seizure; neutral ships carrying other goods (that is,
1988; D.Fleck, Rules of
Engagement for Maritime Forces conditional contraband, such as food or cloth) were liable to seizure if
and the Limitation of the Use of the goods were intended for the enemy government, but not if they
Force under the UN Charter, GYIL
were intended for private individuals in the enemy country. The
31 (1988), 165–86; W.H.v. Heinegg
(ed.), Methods and Means of distinctions between the three categories were never very precise, and
Combat in Naval Warfare, 1992; belligerent states had a certain discretion in deciding what constituted
H.S. Levie, Mine Warfare at Sea, absolute or conditional contraband. In the First and Second World
1992; N. Ronzitti, Le Droit
humanitaire applicable aux conflits Wars the whole economy of each of the belligerents was geared to the
armés en mer, RdC 242 (1993–V), war effort, in a way unknown in previous wars, and consequently
13–196; L Doswald-Beck, Vessels, virtually all goods came to be listed as absolute contraband, even
Aircraft and Persons Entitled to
Protection During Armed Conflict at though they had been treated as conditional contraband or free goods
Sea, BYIL 65 (1994), 211–302; in previous wars.
L.Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries belligerent states were also
Manual on International Law
Applicable to Armed Conflicts at entitled to blockade an enemy coastline, that is, to send warships to sail up
Sea, 1995; W.H.v.Heinegg (ed.), and down near the enemy coastline in order to prevent other ships reaching
Visit, Search, Diversion and or leaving enemy ports. Neutral ships which tried to run (that is, break
Capture, The Effect of the United
Nations Charter on the Law of Naval through) a blockade were liable to seizure; but the right of seizure arose
Warfare, 1995; Heinegg (ed.), only if the blockade reached a certain degree of effectiveness. During the
Regions of Operations of Naval First World War German mines and submarines made it impossible for
Warfare, 1995.
61 R.Lagoni, Merchant Ships, EPIL Allied warships to operate near the German coast; instead, the Allies
11 (1989), 228–33; R.J.Grunawalt, instituted a ‘long-distance blockade’, stopping neutral vessels hundreds of
miles from the German coast and seizing them if they were found to be Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping,
1993.
carrying goods destined for Germany. Neutral states protested against 62 W.Meng, Contraband, EPIL I (1992),
this extension of the concept of blockade, and against the changes in the 809–12.
63 L.Weber, Blockade, EPIL I (1992),
practice relating to contraband; but, after the entry of the United States 408–12; Weber, Blockade, Pacific, ibid.,
into the war, neutral states were too few and weak to secure respect for 412–15.
their views. 64 D.H.N.Johnson, Prize Law, EPIL 4
(1982), 154–9; J.H.W.Verzijl/W.P.
Belligerent warships are entitled to stop and search neutral merchant Heere/J.P.S.Offerhaus, International
ships (except in neutral territorial waters), to see whether they are carrying Law in Historical Perspective. Part IX-C.
The Law of Maritime Prize, 1992; U.
contraband or trying to run a blockade; if the search confirms the suspicion, Scheuner, International Prize Court,
the merchant ship is taken into port to be condemned as a ‘lawful prize’ by EPIL II (1995), 106–8.
a Prize Court set up for this purpose by the captor state.64 However, during 65 See Zemanek (1982), Submarine
Warfare, op. cit., 233–5.
the First and Second World Wars this practice was altered in several respects. 66 13 AD 203 (1946), at 219–20.
In particular, it became more common to sink merchant ships instead of 67 For a discussion, see M.Jenkins,
Air Attacks on Neutral Shipping in the
capturing them. Before 1914 there was controversy about the circumstances
Persian Gulf: The Legality of the Iraqi
in which it was lawful to sink merchant ships, but on one point there was Exclusive Zone and Iranian Reprisals,
agreement; the warship had to rescue the crew of the sunk merchant ship. BCICLR 8 (1985), 517–49; T.W.
Costello, Persian Gulf Tanker War
All this changed with the invention of the submarine.65 The German policy
and International Law, 1987; M.H.
of sinking merchant ships at sight, without rescuing their crews, provoked Nordquist/M.G.Wachenfeld, Legal
the United States into declaring war on Germany in 1917, but both sides Aspects of Reflagging Kuwaiti
Tankers and Laying of Mines in the
adopted a similar policy in the Second World War. The Nuremberg Tribunal
Persian Gulf, GYIL 31 (1988), 138–
held that this policy was unlawful, but did not punish the German leaders 64; R. Leckow, The Iran-Iraq Conflict
for following it, because the Allies had done the same.66 in the Gulf: The Law of War Zones,
ICLQ 37 (1988), 629; S.Davidson,
Whether the experience of the attacks by Iran on neutral ships destined
United States Protection of Reflagged
for Iraq in the First Gulf War (1980–8) and the reaction of the United Kuwaiti Vessels in the Gulf War: The
States to reflag oil tankers of third countries in order to protect them Legal Implications, IJECL 4 (1989),
173 et seq.; R.Wolfrum, Reflagging
has led to any different legal situation is open to doubt.67 A recent study
and Escort Operations in the Persian
by Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg of the developments since 1945 Gulf: An International Law
concludes that the law of prize has not been extensively modified by the Perspective, Virginia JIL 29 (1989),
387–99; F.U. Russo, Targeting Theory
practice of states.68 The current state of the law may be summarized as
in the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea:
follows: belligerent states have broad discretion in determining whether The Merchant Vessel as Military
vessels, aircraft and goods have ‘enemy’ character. In principle, all ships, Objective in the Tanker War, in
Dekker/Post (eds), op. cit., 153 et seq.
whatever their nationality or function, are subject to visit, search and
(with comments by D. Fleck and
diversion beyond neutral territorial waters. Private enemy property, unless T.D.Gill); M.Bothe, Neutrality at Sea,
it enjoys special protection, may be captured and seized if it is found ibid., 205 et seq. (with comments by
C.Greenwood and A.Bos); A.Gioia/
outside neutral jurisdiction. The right of capture and seizure does not
N.Ronzitti, The Law of Neutrality: Third
apply to neutral vessels and goods, unless they contribute to the fighting States’ Commercial Rights and Duties,
or war sustaining efforts of the enemy. The law of prize applies in an ibid., 221 et seq. (with comments by
O.Bring); A.de Guttry/N.Ronzitti, The
international armed conflict irrespective of whether there is a ‘state of
Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) and the
war’. Prize measures, whether applied by the aggressor or the victim Law of Naval Warfare, 1993.
during ongoing hostilities, do not confer permanently valid legal titles 68 See W.H.V.Heinegg, The Current
State of International Prize Law in Post
over neutral private property. (ed.), 1994, op. cit., 5–31.
69 See F.Kalshoven, Belligerent
Reprisals, 1971; F.J.Hampson,
Reprisals Belligerent Reprisals and the 1977
Protocols to the Geneva Conventions
Reprisals are one of the main means of forcing states to obey the laws of of 1949, ICLQ 37 (1988), 818
war—and indeed of forcing them to obey international law in general.69 et seq.; C.J. Greenwood, The Twilight
of the Law of Belligerent Reprisals,
A reprisal is an act which would normally be illegal but which is rendered NYIL 20 (1989), 35 et seq.;
lawful by a prior illegal act committed by the state against which the F.Kalshoven, Belligerent Reprisals
reprisal is directed; it is a form of retaliation against the prior illegal act. Revisited, NYIL 21 (1990),
43–80. On reprisals in peacetime,

see Chapters 1, 4, and 17, 271–2
Reprisals may be used only when other means of redress (for example,
above. protests and warnings) have failed.70
70 See Chapters 1, 4 and 17, 271
above.
Reprisals have an undoubted deterrent effect; it was fear of reprisals
71 See Chapter 20 above, 318–26. which prevented gas being used during the Second World War. But reprisals
72 Nicaragua v. US, ICJ Rep. 1986,
14, 113–4. On the case, see
often cause hardship for innocent persons, and consequently the four Geneva
Chapter 19 above, 319–22. Conventions of 1949 forbid reprisals against the persons, buildings, vessels,
73 D.P.Forsythe, Legal
Management of Internal War: The
equipment and property protected by those Conventions.
1977 Protocol on Non-International
Armed Conflict; AJIL 72 (1978),
272; D.Schindler, The Different
Types of Armed Conflicts According Rules governing the conduct of civil wars
to the Geneva Conventions and
Protocols, RdC 163 (1979), 125; Y.
Sandoz/C.Swinarski/ Under customary international law, it was uncertain whether the laws of
B.Zimmermann (eds),
Commentaire des Protocoles
war protecting civilians, the sick and wounded, prisoners of war, and so
additionnels, 1986; R.Abi-Saab, on, applied to all civil wars regardless of recognition of belligerency. The
Droit humanitaire et conflits
internes: origines internationale,
appalling brutality of the Spanish civil war showed how unsatisfactory this
1986; H.S.Levie, The Law of Non- position was, and Article 3 of each of the four Geneva Conventions of
International Conflict, Protocol II to
the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
1949 tried to remedy the situation by extending some of the more basic
1987; T.Meron, Human Rights in laws of war to civil wars.71 In the Nicaragua case, the ICJ clarified that
Internal Strife: Their International
Protection, 1987; C. Meindersma,
common Article 3 is more than a mere treaty provision. The Court viewed
Applicability of Humanitarian Law it as an expression of ‘fundamental general principles of humanitarian law’
in International and Internal
Armed Conflict, Hague YIL 7
which are legally valid independent of any treaty basis. Reflecting ‘elementary
(1994), 113–40. considerations of humanity’, Article 3 is thus a minimum yardstick forming
74 On this latter point, see also
UNYb 1973, 549–50, 552–3.
also part of customary law.72
The Second Protocol to the 1949 Conventions, signed in 1977, goes
further than Article 3 of the 1949 Conventions, by extending more (but
not all) of the laws of war to civil wars.73 Protocol II has a relatively high
threshold of application; according to Article 1(1), it applies to armed
conflicts
which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between

its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed
groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control
over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained
and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
Paragraph 2 continues:
This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances

and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence
and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.
Article 1(4) of the First Protocol to the 1949 Conventions, also signed in
1977, goes further still by classifying as international wars for the purposes
of applying the rules contained in the First Protocol (and also perhaps, by
implication, for the purposes of applying the laws of war in general):74
armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial

domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination.
WAR CRIMES TRIALS 353
75 See E.Chadwick, Self-Determination,

Article 3 has not worked well in practice, and it remains to be seen Terrorism and the International Law of
whether the 1977 Protocols will enjoy more success.75 In a civil war Armed Conflict, 1995.
each side tends to regard the other side as traitors, which does not create 76 See M.Veuthey, Guérilla et Droit
Humanitaire, 1983.
a favourable climate for the application of the laws of war. Moreover, 77 On wars on national liberation and
civil wars are often fought by guerrillas or other irregular forces, which liberation movements see Chapters 6,
104–5 and 19, 336–8 above. See also
makes it difficult to distinguish between combatants and civilians.76 Even C.Koenig, Der nationals Befreiungskrieg
when a civil war is ‘internationalized’ by the participation of foreign im modernen humanitären Völkerrecht,
1988; S. Oeter, Terrorism and ‘Wars of
troops, experience in Vietnam between 1965 and 1973 indicates that National Liberation’ from a Law of War
the likelihood of compliance with the laws of war is not noticeably Perspective, ZaöRV 49 (1989), 445.
78 See A.Eide/A.Rosas/T.Meron,
increased. However, fear of reprisals and fear of war crimes trials have Combatting Lawlessness in Gray Zone
sometimes secured a certain amount of compliance with Article 3. Desire Conflicts through Minimum
to make a favourable impression on foreign public opinion has also Humanitarian Standards, AJIL 89
(1995), 215–23.
often acted as a restraining influence. 79 H.-H.Jescheck, War Crimes, EPIL 4
A number of internal armed conflicts in the 1970s and 1980s which (1982), 294–8; D.Schindler, Crimes
against the Law of Nations, EPIL I
escalated following the intervention of third states (Cuba in Angola and (1992), 875–7; H.-H.Jescheck,
Ethiopia; South Africa in Angola and Mozambique; Vietnam in Kampuchea; International Crimes, EPIL II (1995),
1119–23. See also D.A.Wells, War
Syria and Israel in the Lebanon; the USSR in Afghanistan) have shown that Crimes and Laws of War, 1984; A.P.V.
common Article 3 and Article 1(4) of the Second Additional Protocol (which Rogers, War Crimes Trials under the
Royal Warrant: British Practice 1 945–
only reclassifies ‘wars of national liberation’ as ‘international armed conflicts’) 1949, ICLQ 39 (1990), 780 et seq.; F.
are not sufficient.77 Although there has been some debate on the Malekian, International Criminal Law:
The Legal and Critical Analysis of
‘internationalization’ of civil wars by such intervention, state practice, in International Crimes, 1994; idem, The
principle, viewed them still as purely internal conflicts. As we have seen in Monopolization of International Criminal
Dinstein (ed.), War Crimes in
the recent conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Liberia and Chechnya, International Law, 1996.
unfortunately, often not even the most elementary of these minimum 80 See Chapter 7 above, 113–15.
81 US v. Medina, 20 USCMA 403, 43
standards are observed. Modern humanitarian law still needs to be adopted CMR (1971), 243. See also the 1996
fully to internal situations of war.78 United States War Crimes Act with a
definition of ‘grave breach of the
Geneva Conventions’, ILM 35 (1996),
1539.
War crimes trials 82 Final Report of the Commission of
Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee
Camps in Beirut, 7 February 1983, ILM
War crimes trials are another means of forcing states to obey the laws of 22 (1983), 473. See further, R.Maison,
war.79 For centuries, members of the armed forces and other persons who Les Premiers cas d’application des
dispositions pénales des Conventions
commit breaches (or, at any rate, serious breaches) of the laws of war have de Genève par les jurisdictions internes,
been liable to prosecution. Theoretically any state may try them (under the EJIL 6 (1995), 260–73.
principle of universal jurisdiction),80 but in practice jurisdiction is usually

exercised by a state on the opposite side in the relevant war. There is obviously
a danger that war crimes trials may sometimes degenerate into mere
instruments of revenge, but abolition of a state’s right to try enemy nationals
for war crimes would mean that many guilty men would escape punishment.
It is rare to find a state trying its own nationals for war crimes, although
such trials do sometimes occur, and are usually used to create a favourable
impression on neutral public opinion; for instance, in November 1968
Nigeria tried a Nigerian officer for shooting a Biafran prisoner, and executed
him in front of British television cameras. One could also mention the
Vietnam case of My Lai tried in the United States,81 or the investigation into
the tragedy caused by Israeli forces in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra
and Shatila in the Lebanon.82
Defendants in war crimes trials often put forward the defence that they
were carrying out the orders of a superior, but this defence rarely succeeds.
The general view is that superior orders are not a defence, but that they
83 For a recent analysis, see J.W.

Grayson, The Defence of Superior
may be taken into account to reduce the level of punishment imposed. A
Orders in the International Criminal few cases, however, treat superior orders as a valid defence to minor
Court, Nordic JIL 64 (1995), 243–60.
On the rules applied by the
charges.83
Yugoslavia Tribunal, see text below, War criminals should be distinguished from ‘unprivileged belligerents’,
357.
84 E.Rauch, Espionage, EPIL II
such as spies.84 Unprivileged belligerents are not entitled to be treated as
(1995), 114–6. prisoners of war, and may be shot upon capture, provided that their status
85 Trial of German Major War
Criminals, 1946, Cmd. 6964, Misc.
as unprivileged belligerents is proved by a fair trial. But unprivileged
No. 12, at 65; 11 Trials of War belligerents, and the states which employ them, are not guilty of violating
Criminals before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals under Control
the laws of war; the state employing them is under no obligation to pay
Council Law No. 10, at 462, 533–35 compensation for their activities, as it would have been if those activities
(1948). See Q.Wright, The Law of
the Nuremberg Trial, AJIL 41 (1947),
had been contrary to international law. Similarly, a spy who returns to his
39–72; H.-H.Jescheck, Nuremberg own forces cannot subsequently be punished for spying; there is no similar
Trials, EPIL 4 (1982), 50–5;
B.V.A.Röling, Tokyo Trial, ibid., 242–
rule of international law extinguishing a war criminal’s liability.
5; J.F.Willis, Prologue to The Nuremberg Tribunal, which (like the Tokyo Tribunal) was set up by
Nuremberg: The Politics and
Diplomacy of Punishing War
an inter-Allied agreement at the end of the Second World War, tried the German
Criminals of the First World War, leaders not only for war crimes, but also for crimes against peace and crimes
1982; Le Procès de Nuremberg:
Consequences et actualisation.
against humanity.85 Crimes against peace were defined in the Tribunal’s Charter
Centre de droit international de as ‘planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a
l’Institut de Sociologie de
l’Université Libre de Bruxelles,
war in violation of international treaties’. This provision in the Tribunal’s
1988; G.Ginsburg/V.N. Kudriavtsev Charter was criticized by some people as retroactive legislation. Clearly a
(eds), The Nuremberg Trial and
International Law, 1990; T.Taylor,
war of aggression was illegal under the Kellogg-Briand Pact, but there was
The Anatomy of the Nuremberg nothing in the Kellogg-Briand Pact to indicate that aggression was a crime,86
Trials, 1992; B.V.A.Röling/
A.Cassese, The Tokyo Trial and
or that the Pact imposed obligations on individuals. However, a number of
Beyond, 1993; G. Ginsburg, unratified treaties and League of Nations resolutions dating from the 1920s,87
Moscow’s Road to Nuremberg: The
Soviet Background to the Trial,
which can be regarded as evidence of customary law, did declare specifically
1995; D.de Mildt, In the Name of the that aggression was a crime. It should be noted that liability for crimes against
People: Perpetrators of Genocide in
the Reflection of their Post-War
peace falls only on the leaders of the state, and not on the ordinary soldiers
Prosecution in West Germany, who take part in a war of aggression. In this respect crimes against peace
1995.
86 Many acts are unlawful (for
differ from war crimes (and from crimes against humanity).
example, torts and breaches of As for the question of individual liability, pre-existing types of
contract in municipal law) without
being crimes.
‘international crimes’, such as war crimes, entailed individual liability, and
87 They are quoted in the it was therefore reasonable to apply the principle of individual liability by
Tribunal’s judgment: AJIL 41
(1947), 172, 219–20.
analogy to the new international crime of aggression.
88 B.B.Ferencz, Crimes Against The accusation about retroactive legislation is closer to the truth as
Humanity, EPIL I (1992), 869–71;
M.C. Bassiouni, Crimes Against
regards crimes against humanity.88 These were defined in the Tribunal’s
Humanity in International Criminal Charter as follows:
Law, 1992. The 1968 UN
Convention on the Non-Applicability
of Statutory Limitations to War murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other
Crimes Against Humanity (text in inhumane acts committed against any civilian population before or
ILM 8 (1969), 68) has been ratified
only by 43 countries; see ILM35 during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious
(1996), 1566. grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the
89 See Chapter 14 above, 209. jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic
law of the country where perpetrated.
In some respects, crimes against humanity are wider than war crimes; they
can be committed before a war as well as during a war, and they can be
directed against ‘any civilian population’, including the wrongdoing state’s
own population. The prohibition of ‘crimes against humanity’ thus
constituted an exception to the old rule that a state was entitled to treat its
nationals as it pleased;89 and it is fairly clear that this prohibition was not
accepted as part of international law before 1945. However, the Tribunal 90 See the Eichmann case (1961), ILR,
Vol. 36, 5, 48–9. On the case, see also
restricted the scope of crimes against humanity by stressing the words Chapter 7 above, 113.
‘in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction 91 See L.Mansfield, Crimes Against
of the Tribunal’, and by interpreting the words ‘any crime’ to mean ‘any Humanity: Reflections on the Fiftieth
Anniversary of Nuremberg and a
other crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal’—that is, war crimes
Forgotten Legacy, Nordic JIL 64 (1995),
and crimes against peace. In other words, an act can constitute a crime 293–341.
against humanity only if it is ‘in execution of or in connection with’ a 92 See Chapter 3 above, 61.
war crime or crime against peace. Thus, confiscation of Jewish property 93 See Ferencz (1992), op. cit.
94 B.B.Ferencz, International Criminal
in Germany before the Second World War would have constituted a Court, EPIL II (1995), 1123–7.
crime against humanity if the property had been used to finance a war 95 See also Chapter 22 below, 409–15.
of aggression, but not if it had been used to finance the Olympic Games. 96 The Security Council had established
a Commission of Experts to report on
(But this restriction on the scope of crimes against humanity was not
grave breaches of international
followed in some of the other post-war war crimes trials.)90 humanitarian law in the Former
Whether certain provisions in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal Yugoslavia in October 1992, see SC
constituted retroactive legislation has remained a matter of dispute. Be Res. 780 of 6 October 1992, UN Doc. S/
RES/780 (1992). See also T. Meron,
that as it may, while it is true that retroactive legislation can lead to
The Case for War Crimes Trials in
injustice in certain cases, anyone who thinks that justice demanded the Yugoslavia, FA 72 (1993), 122; J.
acquittal of the men convicted at Nuremberg has a very peculiar idea of O’Brien, The International Tribunal for
justice.91 In any case, there can be no complaints about retroactive Violations of International Humanitarian
legislation in future cases; the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal Law in the Former Yugoslavia, AJIL 87
(1993), 639; P.Szasz, The Proposed
constitutes a precedent for the future, and the principles laid down in
War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia,
the Charter and judgment of the Tribunal were later approved by the NYUJIL 25 (1993), 405; T.Meron, Rape
General Assembly (in 1946) and by the International Law Commission as a Crime under International
which was asked by the Assembly in 1947 to prepare a draft code relating Humanitarian Law, AJIL 87 (1993), 424–
to the Nuremberg principles. 8; S.Oeter, Kriegsverbrechen in den
Konflikfen um das Erbe Jugoslawiens,
However, in practice the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals remained ZaöRV 53 (1993), 1–43; A.Stiglmayer
isolated precedents for the next five decades, in spite of many wars of (ed.), Mass Rape: The War Against
aggression and atrocities, such as the genocide committed by the Khmer Women In Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1994;
Rouge in Cambodia, which would have also called for the application T.Meron, War Crimes in Yugoslavia and
the Development of International Law,
of their principles. The projects of the International Law Commission92
AJIL 88 (1994), 78; C.Chinkin, Rape and
on a draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind93 Sexual Abuse of Women in International
and on a permanent international criminal court to deal with war crimes94 Law, EJIL 5 (1994), 326–41; D.Petrovic,
failed to make progress until the events in former Yugoslavia and in Ethnic Cleansing—An Attempt at
Rwanda led to a historic turning point. Methodology, ibid.; O.Gross, The Grave
Breaches System and the Armed Conflict
in the Former Yugoslavia, Mich. JIL 16
(1995), 783–830.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
97 The decision of principle to establish
Yugoslavia the Tribunal was taken by SC Res. 808
of 22 February 1993 and SC Res. 827
The massive violence and brutality in the war that erupted in former
of 25 May 1993, reprinted in ILM 32
Yugoslavia,95 with an unprecedented scale in Europe since 1945 of mass (1993), 1203; the Security Council
killings and the implementation of policies of so-called ‘ethnic cleansing’, adopted the Statute of the Tribunal, UN
the existence of concentration camps and organized torture and rape,96 Doc. S/25704 (1993), Annex, reprinted
caused the UN Security Council to decide to establish, by its resolution in ILM 32 (1993), 1192; the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence adopted by the
827 of 25 May 1993, an ad hoc international criminal tribunal which Tribunal on 11 February 1994, are
would be required to ‘try those persons responsible for serious breaches reproduced in ILM 33 (1994), 484, with
of international humanitarian law committed on the territory of Former two amendments at 838 and 1620; for
Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and a date to be determined by the the most recent version of the Rules,
see Doc. IT/32/Rev.8 (23 April 1996); for
Council after peace has been restored’.97 This decision was based upon
other Rules of the Tribunal, see ILM 33
Chapter VII of the UN Charter98 and followed a report that the Council (1994), at 1581 and 1590. See also K.
had requested from the UN Secretary-General.99 The Statute of the Tribunal Oellers-Frahm, Das Statut des
as proposed by the Secretary-General was approved without change. Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs zur
Verfolgung von Kriegsverbrechen im

ehemaligen Jugoslawien, ZaöRV 54
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
(1994), 416–45; M.C.Bassiouni,
Commentaries on the Statute and The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited both in territorial and temporal
Rules Governing the International respects.100 It does not extend beyond the territorial bounds of the former
Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia, 1995; V.Morris/ Yugoslavia.101 Its temporal jurisdiction extends to the period beginning from
M.P.Scharf, An Insider’s Guide to 1 January 1991102 to the date which the Security Council will eventually
the International Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia: A Documentary determine for the restoration of peace and security. The starting date was
History and Analysis, 2 vols, 1995; chosen as a neutral date in order not to prejudice the question of the
K.Lescure/F.Trintignac, International
Justice for Former Yugoslavia: The international or internal nature of the conflict and in order to cover all crimes
Workings of the International by whomsoever committed in the territory of former Yugoslavia in 1991.103
Criminal Tribunal of The Hague,
1996; M.C.Bassiouni/P. Manikas, The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Tribunal is intended to be limited
The Law of the International to those violations of international humanitarian law, the customary law
Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia, 1996. nature of which is beyond any doubt and which have also customarily led
98 See Chapter 22 below, 387–90, to the criminal responsibility of the individual: grave breaches of the Geneva
425.
99 Report of the Secretary-General
Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, the crime of genocide
Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security and crimes against humanity.104 Thus, care was taken to avoid any criticism
Council Resolution 808 (1993), UN that the principle of nullem crimen sine lege is not respected with regard to
Doc. S/25704 (1993), reprinted in ILM
32 (1993), 1163. For an explanation of the law to be applied.
the report see D.Shraga/R.Zacklin, The grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions105 include acts
The International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia, EJIL 5 (1994),
committed against persons or property protected under the Conventions,
360–80. such as wilful killing; torture and inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great
100 P.H.Kooijmans, The Judging of
War Criminals: Individual
suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction or
Responsibility and Jurisdiction, LJIL appropriation of property not justified by military necessity; compelling a
8 (1995), 443–8; G.Aldrich,
Jurisdiction of the International prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile power; wilfully
Criminal Tribunal for the Former depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of a fair and regular
Yugoslavia, AJIL 90 (1996), 64–9.
101 Article 6, Statute of the Tribunal. trial; unlawful deprivation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a civilian;
102 Articles. and the taking of civilians as hostages.106 The extended protection offered
103 Alternative dates considered
were 25 June 1991, the under Additional Protocol I was not included in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
proclamation of independence by because of doubts concerning the customary law nature of a number of
Croatia and Slovenia; 27 June 1991,
the intervention of the Federal Army provisions of the Protocol.107
in Slovenia; and 3 July 1991, the The list of war crimes under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal draws upon
first clashes between Serbian and
Creation militia; see Shraga/ the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare and the practice of the
Zacklin, op. cit., 362–3. Nuremberg Tribunal. The list includes the use of poisonous weapons or
104 Articles 2–5 of the Statute.
105 As set out in the common weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; the wanton destruction
articles 50/51/130/147, Geneva and devastation of cities not justified by military necessity; attack, or
Conventions 1949, op. cit.
106 See Article 2 of the Statute. bombardment of undefended towns; the seizure of or destruction and
107 See Shraga/Zacklin, op. cit., damage to institutions dedicated to religion, charity, education, historic
364.
108 Article 3 of the Statute. monuments or works of art or science; and the plunder of public or private
109 Article 5. property.108 However, this list of crimes is not necessarily exhaustive because
110 Text in 78 UNTS 278. See
Article 4 of the Statute. the Tribunal may determine that other war crimes may equally fall within
its subject matter jurisdiction.
With regard to crimes against humanity, the Statute of the Tribunal also
reflects the Nuremberg precedent.109 It includes the crimes of murder,
extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape,
persecution on political, racial and religious grounds and other inhumane
acts, when committed in an armed conflict, whether international or national
in character, and directed against any civilian population.
Genocide is a specific case of crimes against humanity and the Statute
of the Tribunal draws upon Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention.110
111 See the Advisory Opinion of the

When committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, International Court of Justice in
ethnic, racial or religious group, genocide consists of any of the following Reservations to the Convention on the
acts: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, ICJ Rep. 1951, 23.
harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group See E.Klein, Genocide Convention
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in (Advisory Opinion), EPIL II (1995),
544–6.
whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within 112 See Chapter 17 above, 257–60.
the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another 113 Application of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the
group. Such acts engage the individual criminal responsibility of those Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
who commit the crime, independently of whether the home state has Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)), ICJ Rep. 1993, 3 and
ratified the Genocide Convention, because the principles underlying the 325. See Chapter 18 above, 292.
Convention are generally recognized as binding upon states ‘even without 114 Article 6 of the Statute. The
any conventional obligation’. 111 Moreover, individual criminal Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals had the
power to declare an organization to be
responsibility can be accompanied by separate and independent criminal which entailed subsequent
responsibility of the state for the crime of genocide, if the conduct of the prosecution of its members by national
courts.
individual can be attributed to the state.112 In the latter sense, Bosnia 115 Article 7.
and Herzegovina instituted proceedings at the International Court of 116 On immunity in general, see
Chapter 8 above, 118–29; on immunity
Justice against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia concerning alleged of state representatives, see 119 n. 11.
violations of the Genocide Convention.113 117 Article 7(4) of the Statute.
118 Article 9. For details of the
The Tribunal has jurisdiction only over natural persons, excluding legal procedure and the obligations of states
persons, organizations and states.114 Any person accused of planning, to cooperate under Article 29 of the
Statute, see Shraga/Zacklin, op. cit.,
instigating, ordering or committing a crime falling within the jurisdiction 371 et seq.
of the Tribunal can be held criminally responsible whether as a principal 119 Articles 18–28.
120 See Shraga/Zacklin, op. cit., 376–7.
or as an accomplice.115 Thus, the whole chain of command is included, 121 See M.Leigh, The Yugoslavia
from the top level of political decision-makers, down to officers, soldiers, Tribunal: Use of Unnamed Witnesses
Against Accused, AJIL 90 (1996),
militia or civilians. Those who ordered the commission of the crime, those 235–8.
who only knew of the crime (or could have known of it) but failed to
prevent or repress it (when in a position and under a duty to do so), and
those who actually committed the act, can all be held criminally responsible.
Heads of State cannot plead their immunity116 from prosecution. As in
the case of the Nuremberg Tribunal, an accused also cannot defend himself
by invoking obedience to superior orders, although this may be considered
as a circumstance mitigating the punishment.117
The Tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction with national courts
prosecuting persons for the same crimes, but its jurisdiction has been
given primacy. It has the power to intervene at any stage of the national
criminal proceedings and request that the national authorities or courts
defer to the competence of the Tribunal.118
A number of provisions of the Statute deal with the principles of criminal
procedure, such as due process of law and the rights of suspects and
accused, and the various stages of the legal process.119 One important
point is that the possibility of conducting trials in absentia (as was allowed
in the Nuremberg Trial) is excluded. Thus, an accused can only be tried in
his presence in The Hague. The drafters of the Statute were primarily
concerned about the detrimental effect that such ‘show trials’ would have
upon the credibility of the Tribunal as an institution in cases in which
states parties to the conflict would refuse to surrender an accused to the
Tribunal.120 Among the procedural provisions which have caused concern
are those aiming at the protection of witnesses and victims, especially the
use of witnesses who remain anonymous to the defence.121 But in general
they appear to be as fair as they can be under the circumstances. The
122 Article 63 of the Statute.

123 Article 24.
accused also has a limited right of appeal (as distinct from the Nuremberg
124 See L.Vierucci, The First Steps Tribunal, the decisions of which were final). The structure of the Tribunal
of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia, EJIL 6
provides for two Trial Chambers (three judges each) and a separate Appeals
(1995), 134–43; R.Kushen/ Chamber (five judges) to which both the Prosecutor and the defendant are
K.J.Harris, Surrender of Fugitives by
the United States to the war Crimes
entitled to resort against a judgment of the Tribunal on grounds of law or
Tribunal for Yugoslavia and fact.122 It is further remarkable that only prison sentences (to be pronounced
Rwanda, AJIL 90 (1996), 510–18.
125 Indictment 1, ILM 34 (1995),
in accordance with the general practice of the courts of former Yugoslavia)
996. may be imposed; the death penalty is excluded—another difference to the
126 See ICTY Bull. No. 3 of
22.2.1996, 4.
Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials.123
127 Case IT-94–1-T, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Aug. 10, 1995). On the
appeal case see Prosecutor v. The work of the Tribunal
Tadic, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72,
Appeal on Jurisdiction (2 October
1995), reprinted in ILM 35 (1996),
It is too early to evaluate the work of the Tribunal which has just
32. See further C. Meindersma, commenced.124 The fact of its institution is a milestone in the development
Violations of Common Article 3 of of international law and it is almost a miracle that it has actually started to
the Geneva Conventions as
Violations of the Laws or Customs operate. The Yugoslavia Tribunal held its first plenary session on 17
of War under Article 3 of the Statute November 1993 in The Hague and started operating as a judicial body in
of the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia, NILR 42 November 1994 by issuing an indictment and warrants of arrest against
(1995), 375–97; Meron (1996), op. Dragan Nikolic, a former commander of the Suscica camp in Bosnia-
cit., 238– 49; L.G.Maresca, The
Prosecutor v. Tadic—The Appellate Herzegovina, and by issuing a request for deferral by Germany of the
Decision of the ICTY and Internal criminal proceedings being carried out in German courts in the case of the
Violations of Humanitarian Law as
Internal Crimes, LJIL 9 (1996), 219–
Serb Dusko Tadic accused of genocide on the basis of information provided
32; J.E.Alvarez, Nuremberg by Muslim refugees.125 As of February 1996, the eleven Judges, with Antonio
Revisited: The Tadic Case, EJIL 2 Cassese from Italy as the President, and the Prosecutor, first Richard
(1996), 245–64; C.Greenwood,
International Humanitarian Law and Goldstone from South Africa, succeeded by Louise Arbour from Canada,
the Tadic Case, ibid., 265–83; are supported by a staff of almost 300 persons of more than thirty-five
R.Maison, La Décision de la
Chambre de première instance no. nationalities.126 It has commenced with the Tadic case and dismissed a
1 du Tribunal pénale international defence motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the accused
pour l’ex-Yougoslavie dans l’affaire
Nikolic, ibid., 284–98; C. Warbrick/ currently before it.127 As of March 1996, it had issued thirteen indictments
P.Rowe, The International Criminal naming fifty-three alleged war criminals.128 These include first indictments
Tribunal for Yugoslavia: The
Decision of the Appeals Chamber
issued (on 25 July 1995) against high-ranking political and military leaders,
on the Interlocutory Appeal on including Radovan Karad•ic, the President of the Bosnian Serb
Jurisdiction in the Tadic Case, ICLQ
45 (1996), 691–701.
Administration of Pale, Ratko Mladic, army commander of the Bosnian
128 See ICTY Bull. No. 4 of Serb Administration, and Milan Martic, the President of the former Croatian
15.3.1996, 3. Serb Administration of Knin.129
129 See R.Dixon, New
Developments in the International But, as an old German proverb (dating from the Middle Ages and nothing
Criminal Tribunal for the Former to do with the Nuremberg Trial) says, ‘the Nurembergers do not hang a
Yugoslavia: Prominent Leaders
Indicted and Jurisdiction man, unless they have him’. Is the Tribunal toothless, as many have said,
Established, LJIL 8 (1995), 449–61. including its own President? What if the defendants do not appear and if
130 Especially to Articles 50–61, as
amended in January 1996, see states parties to the conflict refuse to surrender their indicted leaders? The
ICTY Bull. No.3 of 22.2.1996, 2–3, Tribunal answers by referring to its Rules of Procedure and Evidence.130
These rules enable the Tribunal to issue an international arrest warrant
against an indicted person and to inform the Security Council that
there has been a lack or refusal of cooperation on the part of the
authorities who were to serve the indictment on the accused. It is
then up to the Security Council to decide on whether any enforcement
measures should be taken. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, it matters
that the non-appearance of the accused only prevents a trial (in
absentia) temporarily until the warrant has been executed. In the view
of the Tribunal, the accused will also suffer under the fact of being
branded ‘an international fugitive’ and remain confined to an ‘open-air 131 Ibid., 3.
prison’ in the country sheltering him. Political changes in this country 133 Text in ILM 35 (1996), 89. For a
may also eventually lead to the loss of protection of the accused. Finally, summary of the obligations of the
respective state parties to cooperate
accused leaders would be seriously affected in the exercise of their with the Tribunal see P.C.Szasz, The
international and domestic responsibilities by being a ‘wanted person’. Protection of Human Rights Through
At least the victims of the crimes would be able to testify to build up a the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement on
Bosnia, AJIL 90 (1996), 301–16, at
historic record against the accused, preventing him from escaping 313–4.
international justice.131 134 See A.Fatic, The Need for a
Politically Balanced Works of the Hague
Whether this really works, remains to be seen. One problem is to International War Crimes Tribunal, RIA,
combine the requirements of justice with the requirements of peace. It is 1044 of 15 May 1996, 8–11.
still difficult to envisage that peace negotiations in the region can lead to 135 Ibid., 10–11.
successful and lasting results if they have to be conducted with leaders

who are at the same time indicted by the Tribunal and sought by
international warrants, as long as they enjoy the political support of
their people. The reluctance of the NATO’s IFOR force in former
Yugoslavia132 to act as a police arm of the Tribunal and arrest suspects
also bears witness to the existing difficulties, as did the refusal of the
United States in June 1996 to adhere (at least for the time being) to the
call of the President of the Tribunal to impose sanctions upon certain
states in the region for refusing to cooperate with the Tribunal in
accordance with their obligations under the 1995 Dayton/Paris Peace
Agreement.133 Furthermore, as a subsidiary body created by the Security
Council, in theory, the Tribunal could also be abolished by the Security
Council, although such a drastic measure is not likely to be taken in
view of public opinion and the victims. However, there are other more
subtle ways of restricting its impact, if necessary—for example, by
reducing its financial resources.
It may not come as a surprise that from the Serbian point of view the
Tribunal is accused of ‘selective justice’ (with reference to an alleged
imbalance in the prosecution of Creation crimes) and being a ‘political
court’ manipulated by Western powers.134 As noted by one writer:
The Hague International War Crimes Tribunal has serious

procedural and related questions to answer: amongst others, those
relating to the facts that, unlike any other court, it has no parliament
to control it and to legislate about it, that it (more precisely, its
Appeals Committee) is reviewing and considering appeals against
its own decisions, that in its work it takes on legislative as well as
judicial actions and tasks, etc. But the most important issue is
that the Hague Tribunal must shed the influence of the major
international players and must at least try to become more of a
court of law, and less of an instrument of political vengeance.135
Other sceptical considerations are whether in the end the Tribunal will
be limited to sentencing the ‘small fish’, while the ‘big fish’ who are
ultimately responsible will manage to escape its nets. The experience
with the Nuremberg Tribunal has also not been such that one would
easily expect the Yugoslav Tribunal to be sufficiently effective to overcome
the legacy of having being established to cover the failure of the
international community to actually stop the war and the atrocities
committed in Former Yugoslavia for more than five years.
A legal issue is whether the Security Council has the authority to
136 See Chapter 18 above, 281–

305.
establish such a judicial organ as a subsidiary organ with criminal jurisdiction
137 See Chapter 1 above, 3. over individuals under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. As we have seen in
139 See K.Oellers-Frahm, Die
Chapter 18,136 the establishment of any kind of international jurisdiction
Einsetzung des ‘Internationalen normally requires the consent of states in the decentralized international
Tribunals über Kriegsverbrechen im
ehemaligen Jugoslawien’ durch den
legal system.137 One may perhaps be able to argue that in the case of such
Sicherheitsrat, in FS Bernhardt, crimes to be investigated by the Tribunal, which have an erga omnes nature138
733–51.
140 See J.M.Sjöcrona, The
and in view of the broad political discretion the Security Council enjoys
International Criminal Tribunal for under Chapter VII, the powers of the Council are sufficient to do so.139
the Former Yugoslavia: Some
Introductory Remarks From a
Still, there are doubts with regard to the contention that the Tribunal is an
Defence Point of View, LJIL 8 ‘independent’ body, while it is at the same time clearly a subsidiary organ
(1995), 463–74.
141 See also Chapter 22 below,
of the Council.140 There are also doubts whether the Security Council can
425–6. ‘delegate’ functions, such as judicial ones, which it does not possess itself.141
142 For the Statute of the Rwanda
Tribunal see SC Res. 995, Annex, of
It is also clear that practical reasons prevailed in the decision to opt for a
8 November 1994, reprinted in ILM binding resolution under Chapter VII, rather than creating a Tribunal on
33 (1994), 1602.
143 See T.Meron, International
the basis of a treaty concluded between states, simply because the latter
Criminalization of Internal Atrocities, process would have taken too long and, in view of the ongoing atrocities in
AJIL 89 (1995), 554.
144 See the interview with Richard
former Yugoslavia and the lack of political will (or capacity) to intervene
Goldstone, UN Chronicle 1996, no. militarily, there was a widespread feeling of a strong need to do at least
2, 35–8, at 36 and 38–40. See
further R.S.Lee, The Rwanda
something.
Tribunal, LJIL 9 (1996), 37–62;
P.Akhavan, The International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: The The Rwanda Tribunal
Politics and Pragmatics of
Punishment, AJIL 90 (1996), 501–10.
145 See J.Crawford, The ILC’s Draft Similarly, in November 1994 the Security Council decided to establish a
Statute for an International Criminal Criminal Tribunal to deal with the crimes committed in the massacre in
Court, AJIL 88 (1994), 140–52;
Crawford, The ILC Adopts a Statute Rwanda.142 Although the Rwanda Tribunal shares its appellate chamber and
for an International Criminal Court, prosecutor’s office with the Yugoslavia Tribunal, there are some differences
AJIL 89 (1995), 404–16; S.Suikkari,
Debate in the United Nations on the regarding the respective jurisdiction of both Tribunals.143 As of 1996, the
International Law Commission’s
Draft Statute for an International
Rwanda Tribunal had issued three indictments concerning ten people.144
Criminal Court, Nordic JIL 64
(1995), 205–21. For the earlier
discussion see M.C.Bassiouni, A Towards a permanent international criminal court?
Draft International Criminal Code
and Draft Statute for an It should also be mentioned that in the autumn of 1994 the International
International Criminal Tribunal,
1987; B.Graefrath, Universal Law Commission submitted to the UN General Assembly a draft statute for
Criminal Jurisdiction and an a permanent international criminal court.145 In December 1995 the General
International Criminal Court, EJIL 1
(1990), 67–88. Assembly established a Preparatory Committee to draft an acceptable
146 UNGA Res. 50/46 of 11 consolidated text of a convention for such a court which could then be
December 1995.
147 UN Chronicle 33 (1996), no. 1, considered to be adopted at an international conference.146 The report of the
66; no. 2, 70. Committee147 is expected to be submitted in the autumn of 1996.
The establishment of a permanent international criminal court would
indeed overcome the problems arising from the time and efforts required to
create ad hoc tribunals on a case-by-case basis, as for Yugoslavia and
Rwanda. It would also dispense with the inevitable selective application of
justice under the ad hoc method by only addressing certain conflicts and
not others. Finally, the creation of such a court on a treaty basis would
remove any doubts as to the proper legal basis of the court under
international law, as distinct from the constitution of ad hoc tribunals by
Security Council resolutions. But the practical disadvantage is, of course,
that the court will only be able to operate with respect to states which
decide to join the convention. To what extent a universal consensus on its
POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 361
148 See generally G.I.A.D.Draper, War,

statute can be achieved, in view of the conservative force of the doctrine Laws of, Enforcement, EPIL 4 (1982),
of state sovereignty, has to be awaited. 323–6.
149 A.Cassese, International Law in a
Divided World, 1986, 285.
Possible future developments
Writers often assume that the erosion of the traditional laws of war,
which took place during the First and Second World Wars, will continue
in future wars.148 In 1986 Antonio Cassese, the current President of the
Yugoslavia Criminal Tribunal, remarked:
[international legal control of warfare has kept pace with the

developments in organized armed violence only to a limited
extent. Major military Powers have not accepted sweeping
restraints, with the consequence that this body of law is beset
with deficiencies, loopholes, and ambiguity.149
It is possible, however, that the development of nuclear weapons will have

the indirect and paradoxical effect of re-establishing some of the traditional
rules which fell into decline during the two world wars. Different
considerations apply to civil wars, or to wars which are ‘semi-civil’ and
‘semi-international’, like the war in Vietnam, and to internal conflicts of the
type that has become virulent and dominant after the end of the Cold War.
Since 1945 fear of nuclear war has prevented nuclear powers from
entering into even the most limited conflict with one another (apart
from minor incidents on the Soviet-Chinese border), and it is likely that
this state of affairs will continue, as long as there is sufficient nuclear
balance. In future international wars, therefore, at least one of the two
sides will probably not possess nuclear weapons. The corollary is that
there are likely to be a large number of states, including one or more
nuclear powers, which will be neutral in future wars, even though their
sympathies may lie with one side or another. As a result, belligerent
states will have to pay far more attention to neutral opinion than they
did during the two world wars. Disregard of the rights of neutral shipping
was by no means the only violation of the laws of war during the two
world wars which was facilitated by the fact that neutrals were few and
weak. If neutrals outnumber belligerents in future wars, the position
will be very different. The parties involved in the wars in Nigeria and
Vietnam in the late 1960s were very sensitive to allegations that they
had committed atrocities, and this sensitivity shows the influence which
sometimes can be exercised by public opinion in neutral countries. On
the other hand, it is equally clear that public opinion as such had little
impact on constraining the atrocities committed by the conflicting parties
in situations such as in former Yugoslavia or Rwanda.
Even if nuclear powers become involved in ‘conventional’ hostilities with
one another, the fear that the fighting may escalate into a nuclear war is
likely to induce them to conduct the hostilities cautiously, on a limited scale
and for limited objectives. In other words, the hostilities will bear more
resemblance to the ‘limited wars’ of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries than to the ‘total war’ of the two world wars; and it is not
unreasonable to hope that respect for the laws of war, which characterized
150 M.Meijer/H.Fischer, Keeping

Hope Alive—Do the Resolutions
the wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, will be revived in such
Fulfil the Expectations?, HV 1 hostilities. However, the experience of the vicious war between Iraq and
(1995), 198.
151 M.Montani, Eine einzige Spur
Iran from 1980 to 1988, and of the other armed conflicts since 1990, is far
von Heuchelei—Wie das from encouraging.
Völkerrecht den modernen Krieg
humanisieren will und seine
This raises the question of how ‘legal’ can a war be conducted at all? Can
Inhumanität legalisiert, HV 8 (1995), war really be ‘humanized’ by international rules? Or are we submitting
216–7. For a critical response to ourselves to an illusion, considering that, after 1945, 22 million people died
Montani, see M.Sassòli,
Kriegsvölkerrecht: eine Heuchelei, in more than 120 armed conflicts?150 There are different views on this matter.
die Inhumanität legalsiert, oder ein Some authors argue that attempts to ‘humanize’ the use of force in wars by
Minimum von Menschlichkeit für
eine unmenschliche Situation?, international rules have failed historically and that such rules have ultimately
HV 8 (1995), 218–20. only contributed to the spread of armed conflict by providing war with a
152 See R.Normand/C.Jochnick,
The Legitimation of Violence: A legal cloak.151 Are we dealing only with cynical rhetorical language in the
Critical Analysis of the Gulf War, international documents on the laws of war? At the Hague Peace Conference
Harvard ILJ 35 (1994), 387–416 with
extensive references.
of 1899, states agreed, in principle, to prohibit the use of long-range artillery
153 See Chapter 1 above, 5. But for against unfortified cities, but the German delegate added that his government
other aspects of the conflict understood the prohibition as not to prevent it from destroying buildings ‘of
concerning the conduct of Iraqi
forces, see also W. Klein (ed.), military advantage’. The British delegation vetoed the prohibition of the use
Human Rights in Times of of dumdum ammunition with the argument that only these projectiles, causing
Occupation: The Case of Kuwait,
1995. terrible wounds, would be able to contain the ‘wild people’.
154 See Chapter 22 below, 396. Even the Second Gulf War conducted by the Allied forces against Iraq to
155 See UNEP Governing Council,
16th Session, Nairobi, 20–31 May repel its aggression against Kuwait, under the auspices of the United Nations,
1991, Introductory Report of the raises questions. The method of warfare was portrayed in the media as a
Executive Director, Environmental
Consequences of the Armed
‘high-tech’ event with overwhelming forces deployed against Iraq using
Conflict Between Iraq and Kuwait, ‘surgical’ attacks against military targets; but apparently the fact is that,
UNEP/GC.16/ 4/Add.1, 10 May
1991; M.Bothe, The Protection of
according to official statements of the US military, only 7 per cent of the
the Environment in Times of Armed bombs reached the programmed targets.152 It is also questionable whether
Conflict, GYIL 34 (1991), 54– 62; the almost complete destruction of the infrastructure and the energy system
H.H.Almond, The Use of the
Environment as an Instrument of of Iraq, which caused the death of thousands of civilians after the war due
War, YIEL 2 (1991), 455–68; to the lack of water and health care, was pursuing a legitimate military
G.Plant, Environmental Protection
and the Law of War: A ‘Fifth Geneva’ objective or only seeking to create conditions under which the Iraqi
Convention on the Protection of the government could be put under political pressure.153 Was this ‘collateral
Environment in Time of Armed
Conflict, 1992; M.A. Ross, damage’ legally covered by military necessity, the principle of proportionality
Environmental Warfare and the and the relevant Security Council resolution?154
Persian Gulf War, Dick. JIL 10
(1992), 515–39; A.Roberts,
Serious questions have arisen with regard to the use of oil as a weapon
Environmental Destruction in the by Iraqi forces (the setting on fire of Kuwaiti oil wells and oil pollution of
Gulf War, IRRC 291 (1992), 538–53; the Gulf) which has given impetus to a review of the law protecting the
R.C.Tarasofsky, Environmental
Protection and Armed Conflict, YIEL environment during armed conflict.155 In a resolution adopted in 1992 on
3 (1992), 217–21; K.M. Kelly, the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, the UN
Declaring War on the Environment:
The Failure of International General Assembly stated that
Environmental Treaties during the
Persian Gulf War, AUJILP 7 (1992),
921–50; A.Leibler, Deliberate destruction of the environment, not justified by military necessity and
Wartime Environmental Damage: carried out wantonly, is clearly contrary to existing international law.156
New Challenge for International
Law, CWILJ 23 (1992–3), 67–131;
R.G.Tarasofsky, Legal Protection of Similarly, in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or
the Environment during International
Armed Conflict, NYIL 24 (1993), 17– Use of Nuclear Weapons, the ICJ found that there is
79, F.P.Feliciano, Marine Pollution
and Spoliation of Natural Resources
as War Measures: A Note on Some a general obligation to protect the natural environment
International Law Problems in the against widespread, long-term and severe environmental
Gulf War, in R.St.J. Macdonald
(ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang damage; the prohibition of methods and means of warfare
Tieya, 1994, 285–310; H.-P. which are intended, or may be expected, to cause such
POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 363
Gasser, For Better Protection of the

damage; and the prohibition of attacks against the natural Natural Environment in Armed
environment by way of reprisals. 157 Conflict, AJIL 89 (1995), 637–43;
W.D.Verwey, The Protection of the
Environment in Times of Armed
However, this statement must be read in connection with the earlier Conflict, LJIL 8 (1995), 7–40. See also
reference by the Court to ‘what is necessary and proportionate in the 156 UNGA Res. 47/37 of 25 November
pursuit of legitimate military objectives and the requirement that states 1992. See text above, 347–9.
157 ILM 35 (1996), 809, at 821, para.
‘must take environmental considerations into account’ when making 31.
such an assessment.158 In the light of this wording, the problem lies legally 158 Ibid., para. 30.
159 Meron (1996), op. cit., 238–49. See
in determining what is exactly covered by ‘military necessity’ or ‘the also C.Greenwood, Customary Law
pursuit of legitimate military objectives’ in a given case, which would Status of the 1977 Geneva Protocols, in
Delissen/Tanja (eds), op. cit., 93;
have to take the overall context of the armed conflict and the position G.AbiSaab, The 1977 Additional
and conduct of both sides into account. This area of the law still needs Protocols and General International
Law: Some Preliminary Reflections,
to be clarified in more detail. ibid., at 115.
Be that as it may, it would be wrong to conclude that international 160 G.H.Aldrich/T.A.v.Baarda,
Conference on the Rights of Children in
humanitarian law only serves to legitimize war. Its function is to provide Armed Conflict, 1994; G.S.Goodwin-Gill/
minimum standards of humanity in a situation of inhumanity, although I.Cohn, Child Soldiers: The Role of
Children in Armed Conflict, 1994.
recent conflicts show that even the most elementary of these standards 161 M.Bothe et al. (eds), National
are often disregarded. The ius in bello certainly needs further Implementation of International
Humanitarian Law, 1990; H.Fox/M.A.
development; but one has to take into account that such development Meyer (eds), Armed Conflict and the
requires the consent of states which make the law and shape it according New Law. Effecting Compliance, Vol. II,
1993. See for more details on the need
to their interests, including military considerations concerning the to improve international humanitarian
preservation of effective means of warfare. Nevertheless, it is desirable law the Resolutions of the 26th
International Conference of the Red
that more states ratify the 1977 Additional Protocols, including the Cross and Red Crescent, HV 8 (1995),
United States, and other humanitarian treaties. Also customary law on 224–9.
humanitarian law needs to be further developed to cover the gaps in
situations where treaties are not applicable.159 Another problem which
has been receiving attention is the role of children and of child soldiers
in armed conflicts.160
The main problem, however, is not so much the creation of new rules,
but rather the application and enforcement of the existing body of
humanitarian principles and rules. Only a few of the states parties to the
1949 Geneva Conventions have so far met their obligation to transform
the Conventions into their national legal systems to ensure the
punishment of war crimes and the misuse of the sign of the Red Cross.161
It is also to be hoped that the development of effective international
legal machinery to punish war crimes will succeed and may thus
contribute to deter such serious violations of international law, wherever
they may be contemplated.
21 The Charter and the organs
of the United Nations
1 See Chapter 2 above, 26–8. L.M. As we have seen in Chapter 2 above,1 the creation of the United Nations in
Goodrich/E.Hambro/A.P.Simons, 1945 was the second attempt at establishing a universal international
Charter of the United Nations:
Commentary and Documents, 3rd organization with the main purpose of maintaining peace by a system of
edn 1969; J.A.Frowein, United collective security. The emergence of differences between the Soviet Union
Nations, EPIL 5 (1983), 272–81;
O.Schachter, United Nations and Western powers, and the Cold War, however, soon removed the basis
Charter, ibid., 287–93; J.-P.Cot/
A.Pellet (eds), La Charte des
for cooperation in the new organization between the founding members.
Nations Unies, 2nd edn 1991; Y.Z. The operation of the United Nations became even more complicated with
Blum, Eroding the United Nations
Charter, 1993; A.Roberts/
the later admission of a large number of new states following the process of
B.Kingsbury (eds), United Nations, decolonization. It was only after the end of the Cold War that a new scenario
Divided World: The UN’s Roles in
International Relations, 2nd edn of world order with a different role for the UN seemed to emerge, particularly
1993; P.R.Baehr/L. Gordenker, in view of the firm international response to the aggression committed by
United Nations in the 1990s, 2nd
edn 1994; E.Luard/D.Heater, The Iraq against Kuwait in the Second Gulf War (1990–1), the unprecedented
United Nations: How It Works and proliferation of various types of UN peacekeeping operations, and other
What It Does, 2nd edn 1994;
B.Simma (ed.), The Charter of the forms of UN Security Council activism.2 Meanwhile, a more sober view
United Nations: A Commentary, has come to prevail.
1995; S.D.Bailey, The United
Nations: A Concise Political Guide, The following will deal with only certain aspects of the United Nations:
1995; R.Wolfrum (ed.), United the UN Charter and the problem of interpretation, membership and the
Nations: Law, Policies and Practice,
2 vols, 1995; H.G.Schermers/N.M. main organs of the UN. The functions of the UN with regard to the peaceful
Blokker, International Institutional settlement of disputes between states, the maintenance of peace and security
Law, 3rd edn 1995; O.Schachter/
C.C. Joyner (eds), United Nations and the problems of UN enforcement action and peacekeeping will be
Legal Order, 2 vols, 1995; treated separately in Chapter 22 below.3 It is important to note, however,
C.Tomushat (ed.), The United
Nations at Age Fifty, 1995; that, while the prime task of the UN today is still in the field of international
S.H.Mendlowitz/B.H.Weston (eds), peace and security, the UN has many other important roles,4 which are
Preferred Futures for the United
Nations, 1995. The text of the UN addressed in other parts of this book, such as with regard to
Charter is reprinted in Brownlie decolonization,5 human rights,6 humanitarian assistance and assistance
BDIL, 1.
2 See Chapter 22 below, 395–6, to refugees,7 economic development and the relations between rich and
423–9. poor states,8 the protection of the environment,9 and the development of
4 See A.Roberts/B.Kingsbury, international law.10
Introduction: The UN’s Roles in
International Society since 1945, in
Roberts/Kingsbury (eds), op. cit., 1–
62. The United Nations Charter and the problem of interpretation
5 See Basic Facts About the United
Nations, 1995, 231–49. See also
Chapters 2, 28 and 19, 326–38 Like most international organizations, the United Nations was set up by a
above.
6 See T.J.Farer, The UN and
treaty:11 the United Nations Charter. The Charter defines the purposes for
Human Rights: At the End of the which the United Nations was set up, and confers certain powers on it. If
Beginning, in Roberts/Kingsbury
(eds), op. cit., 240– 96; Basic Facts,
the United Nations acts for other purposes, or attempts to exercise other
op. cit., 189–214. See also Chapter powers, it is acting illegally.
14 above, 209–21.
7 See Basic Facts, op. cit., 217–27;
It is no exaggeration to say that the whole history of the United Nations
A. Grahl-Madsen, Refugees, United has been a series of disputes about the correct interpretation of the Charter.12
Nations High Commissioner, EPIL 5
Language is inherently ambiguous, and there will often be disputes
THE UN CHARTER AND THE PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION 365
about the interpretation of rules of law which are expressed in words; (1983), 255–8; E.Jahn, Refugees, EPIL
8 (1985), 452–6; P.Macalister-Smith,
laymen may be surprised by this fact, but lawyers take it for granted.13 United Nations Relief and Works
However, there are several reasons why the United Nations Charter has Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
given rise to an abnormally large number of problems of interpretation. Near East, ibid., 519–22.
8 See K.Dadzie, The UN and the
It was drafted mainly by politicians, with little assistance from lawyers; Problem of Economic Development,
often it is ambiguous, or fails to make provision for a certain problem in Roberts/Kingsbury (eds), op. cit.,
(either by accident, or because no genuine agreement could be reached 297– 326; Basic Facts, op. cit., 133–
85. See also Chapter 15 above, 233–
by the parties on the point at issue); often it sets up machinery which 5, 239–40.
has not worked well in practice, so that other machinery has had to be 9 See P.Birnie, The UN and the
improvised to fill the gap. Environment, in Roberts/Kingsbury
(eds), op. cit., 327–83. See also
There are five official texts, each of which is equally authentic: English, Chapter 16 above, 240–53.
French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese.14 These are the ‘authentic’ languages 10 See N.Singh, The UN and the
relevant for the interpretation of the Charter. They must be distinguished Development of International Law, in
Roberts/Kingsbury (eds), op. cit., 384–
from the ‘official’ languages and the ‘working’ languages of the UN. Arabic
419; Basic Facts, op. cit., 253–70.
was designated as one of the ‘official’ languages of the General Assembly in 11 See Chapters 6, 92–6 and 9, 130–46
1973, which has no effect on the interpretation of the Charter. Negotiations above.
at the San Francisco Conference were in English and French, and the other 12 See R.St.J.Macdonald, The United
Nations Charter: Constitution or
three texts were later translations of the English and French texts; but, even Contract, in R.St.J.Macdonald/D.M.
if one looks only at the English and French texts, there are differences between Johnston (eds), The Structure and
the two. One of the objects of interpretation is to reconcile such differences, Process of International Law, 1983,
889–912; C.F.Amerasinghe,
but reconciliation is not always easy.15 It must also be remembered that Interpretation of Texts in Open
neither English nor French was the native language of the majority of the International Organizations, BYIL 65
delegates at San Francisco, so imprecise drafting was inevitable. (1994), 175–210; G.Ress, The
Various methods of interpretation are discussed below.16 But it must Interpretation of the Charter, in Simma
CUNAC, 25–44.
not be imagined that such methods provide a simple answer to all 13 For the rules of the interpretation of
problems of interpretation. Interpretation is an art, not a science. In a treaties see Articles 31–3 of the 1 969
sense, there are no rules of interpretation, only presumptions; and the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, reprinted in Brownlie BDIL, 388.
presumptions very often conflict with one another. The choice between On the law of treaties, see Chapter 9
conflicting presumptions is almost bound to be influenced by political above, 130–46.
factors, however hard one tries to exclude them. And it is this intermixture 14 Article 111 UN Charter. See M.Hilf,
Article 111, in Simma CUNAC, 1196–
of political factors with legal factors which explains why states are
1200.
reluctant to refer disputes about the interpretation of the United Nations 15 Article 33, 1969 Vienna
Charter to the International Court of Justice.17 Convention. See M.Hilf, Die
Auslegung mehrsprachiger Verträge,
1973; L.D.M. Nelson, The Drafting
Literal interpretation Committee of the Third United
Nations Conference of the Law of the
Literal interpretation may be described as a method of interpretation Sea: The Implications of Multilingual
Texts, BYIL 57 (1986), 169–200;
which looks exclusively at the words of a document, and which applies
C.B.Kuner, The Interpretation of
a number of different presumptions to determine the meaning of those Multilingual Treaties: Comparison of
words.18 For instance, words are presumed to be used in their ordinary Texts versus the Presumption of
meaning, unless it is clear from the context that a technical meaning is Similar Meaning, ICLQ 40 (1991), 953
et seq.
intended, in which case the technical meaning is applied; the document 16 See B.Vitanyi, Treaty Interpretation
must be read as a whole, and it will be presumed that the same word in the Legal Theory of Grotius and its
used in different parts of the document will have the same meaning; if Influence on Modern Doctrine, NYIL
14 (1983), 41–67; E.S.Yambrusic,
possible, a particular provision should not be interpreted so as to conflict
Treaty Interpretation: Theory and
with another provision, or to make another provision redundant, or to Reality, 1987; R.Bernhardt,
lead to a manifest absurdity. Interpretation in International Law,
EPIL II (1995), 1416–26.
This is the method of interpretation used most frequently, for example,
17 See Chapter 18 above, 281–93,
by English judges when interpreting Acts of Parliament and other 300–5.
documents, and it is also used by international lawyers to interpret treaties. But 18 Article 31, 1969 Vienna Convention.
366 THE CHARTER AND THE ORGANS OF THE UN

20 Article 32, 1969 Vienna
in international law it does not always provide a clear answer, because
Convention. treaties are usually drafted in less precise and less technical language than
21 Article 31(3)(b).
Acts of Parliament; this is particularly true of the United Nations Charter.
23 See W.Karl, Vertrag und spätere The Charter was drawn up mainly by politicians, and often recalls the
Praxis im Völkerrecht, 1983.
24 H.G.Schermers, Voting Rules in
deliberate vagueness of an election manifesto. Different parts of the Charter
International Conferences and were drawn up by different committees at the San Francisco Conference in
Organizations, EPIL 5 (1983), 395–
8; H.G.Schermers, Weighted Voting,
1945,19 and several amendments were made at the last minute; as a result,
ibid., 398–9. coordination between different provisions is sometimes poor.
Intention and travaux préparatoires

The intentions of the parties to a treaty may be discovered, not only by
reading the treaty itself, but also by looking at the historical context in
which the treaty was negotiated, and at the records of the negotiations
themselves. Such records are called the travaux préparatoires (preparatory
work), and are often used as a subsidiary means of interpretation in
international law.20
But travaux préparatoires are used less for interpreting treaties setting up
international organizations than for interpreting other kinds of treaty. Treaties
setting up international organizations are intended to last longer than most
other types of treaty, and recourse to travaux préparatoires would not always
be appropriate in such circumstances, because it would mean looking at the
(possibly distant) past, instead of looking at the present and the future; the
intentions which states had in the 1940s may provide little guidance for
solving the very different problems of the 1990s. Moreover, the fact that the
majority of the members of the United Nations joined the United Nations
after 1945 and were not represented at the San Francisco Conference makes
it politically awkward to rely on the travaux préparatoires of the Charter.
Practice
The way in which states perform their obligations under a treaty can be
evidence of what they originally intended when they drafted the treaty.21
This is particularly true of treaties setting up international organizations,22
because such treaties, by their very nature, are applied constantly over a
number of years. In fact, one of the reasons why the United Nations Charter
was loosely drafted was because the drafters wanted to leave room for
flexibility in subsequent practice;23 unfortunately, the lack of trust between
the member states has not resulted in flexibility, but in constant disputes
about interpretation.
When an organization is empowered to take decisions by majority vote,24
it is inevitable that the practice supported by the majority of the member
states will come to be regarded as the practice of the organization itself,
and will be used as a means of interpreting the treaty setting up the
organization, despite the fact that the practice in question is opposed by a
minority of the member states. (Naturally, states forming the majority in
an international organization tend to rely heavily on practice as a means of
interpreting the constituent treaty, while states in a minority favour a strict,
literal interpretation, with more reliance on travaux préparatoires.)
PRACTICE 367
Moreover, with the passage of time, it becomes a fiction to regard 25 For an example, see text below
(domestic jurisdiction), 368–9.
practice merely as evidence of the parties’ original intentions. Practice 26 See Chapter 9 above, 141–2.
acquires a force of its own, and may actually develop in the opposite 27 See A.Tanzi, Notes on the
‘Permanent Conference of Revision’ of
direction to the parties’ original intentions.25 the United Nations Charter at the 50th
Practice may even develop in such a way as to run counter to the Anniversary of the Organization, Rivista
di Diritto Internazionale 1995, 723–37;
words of the treaty. Is such a practice illegal, or can it amend the treaty? M.Schöder, Amendment to and Review
There is little authority on this point, because the supporters of a of the Charter, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 20–
particular practice usually defend it by saying that it is a mere 6; W.Karl/B.Mützelberger, Article 108, in
Simma CUNAC, 1163–78. On the
interpretation of the treaty, not an amendment; but, if practice can discussion of the reform of the UN, see
terminate a treaty,26 there is no logical reason why practice should not Chapter 22 below, 430.
28 On the different general meaning of
also be capable of amending a treaty. However, although the practice of the principle in international law, see
the majority of member states can be used to interpret a treaty setting Chapter 10 above, 153.
up an international organization, practice cannot be used to amend such 29 ICJ Rep. (1949), 174, at 180, 182;
see Chapter 6 above, 92–4. See also
a treaty unless it is unanimously accepted; all the parties must agree G.Jaenicke, Article 7, in Simma CUNAC,
before a treaty can be amended. 201–2; Ress, op. cit., 42–3.
The situation is different where the treaty itself provides for
amendment by majority vote. For instance, Article 108 of the United
Nations Charter provides that (express) amendments of the Charter
shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when
they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members
of the General Assembly and ratified…by two thirds of the
Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent
members of the Security Council.27
If this provision is applied by analogy to amendments implied from

practice, it would seem that practice can amend the United Nations
Charter provided it is accepted by two-thirds of the members, including
all the permanent members of the Security Council.
Effectiveness and implied powers

There is a presumption of interpretation in international law that a treaty
should be interpreted so as to give full effect to its purposes. At first
sight this presumption might seem to conflict with another presumption,
that a treaty should be interpreted restrictively so as not to limit the
sovereignty of states. In fact, however, the two presumptions are usually
applied in different circumstances. The principle of restrictive
interpretation is used most often to interpret treaties conferring
jurisdiction on international tribunals, and treaties which place heavier
burdens on one party than on the other party or parties (in such cases,
restrictive interpretation seeks to minimize the inequality of the parties).
Conversely, the principle of effectiveness28 is used most often to interpret
treaties placing identical burdens on all parties—such as treaties setting
up international organizations.
The principle of effectiveness received a striking application in the
Reparation for Injuries case, where the International Court of Justice
advised that the United Nations possessed not only powers expressly
conferred by the Charter, but also such implied powers as were necessary
to enable it to achieve the purposes for which it was set up.29
However, it would be dangerous to regard the doctrine of implied
powers as a solution to all problems of interpretation in international
organizations. Most of the disputes about the interpretation of the United
30 See R.Wolfrum, Article 1, in

Simma CUNAC, 49–56;
Nations Charter have concerned powers which were clearly conferred
A.Randelzhofer, Purposes and expressly on the organization; the questions in dispute were: Which organ
Principles of the United Nations, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 994– 1002.
should exercise the power? And in accordance with what procedure? The
31 See Chapter 15 above, 233–5, doctrine of implied powers provides little help in answering such problems,
239–40.
because it is concerned with the powers of the organization as a whole, not
with the internal distribution of powers within the organization.
The purposes of the United Nations

An international organization acts illegally if it acts for purposes other
than those for which it was created (it is then said to act ultra vires, making
the act in question legally void); and the purposes for which it was created
must always be borne in mind when the constituent treaty of the organization
is being interpreted. This makes it particularly important to ascertain the
purposes of the United Nations, which are stated in Article 1 of the Charter
as follows:
1 To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to

take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal
of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of ag-
gression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by
peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice
and international law, adjustment or settlement of international
disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and
to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international
problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian char-
acter, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights
and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to
race, sex, language, or religion; and
4 To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the at-
tainment of these common ends.
Obviously the purposes are defined in very wide terms.30 Politicians in

Western countries have sometimes been too ready to assume that the main
or only purpose of the United Nations is to preserve international security;
but Third World countries attach equal importance, if not greater
importance, to ‘solving international problems of an economic …character’31
and to securing ‘respect of the principle of equal rights and self-determination
of peoples’ (or at least of peoples under colonial rule).32
Domestic jurisdiction
One provision of the Charter which is, or could have been, a serious limitation
on the powers of the United Nations is Article 2(7), which provides:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the

United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially
MEMBERSHIP 369
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the 33 See A.D’Amato, Domestic
Jurisdiction, EPIL I (1992), 1090–6; F.
Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Ermacora, Article 2(7), in Simma
Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of CUNAC, 139–54; G.Arangio-Ruiz, Le
enforcement measures under Chapter VII. domaine réservé—L’Organisation
internationale et le rapport entre droit
international et droit interne, RdC 225
Article 2(7) has given rise to more controversy than any other provision (1990–VI), 13–484; G.Arangio-Ruiz, The
in the Charter, but in practice its interpretation is still as uncertain as Plea of Domestic Jurisdiction Before the
International Court of Justice:
ever.33 States which consider that Article 2(7) prohibits (or does not Substance or Procedure?, in V. Lowe/
prohibit) the United Nations from taking a certain course of action in a M.Fitzmaurice (eds), Fifty Years of the
particular case use all sorts of arguments to support their point of view, International Court of Justice, 1996,
440–64.
and the multiplicity of arguments used prevents the final decision from 34 See Chapter 14 above, 209.
constituting an intelligible precedent. 35 See Chapter 14 above, 211–12.
The corresponding provision (Article 15(8)) of the Covenant of the 37 See Chapter 14 above, 214 and
League of Nations spoke of matters ‘which by international law’ were Chapter 22 below, 426–7.
within a state’s domestic jurisdiction. Domestic jurisdiction has a clear 38 See Chapter 19 above, 326–38 and
meaning in international law; it refers to those matters (for example, 39 See M.Schröder, Non-Intervention,
treatment by a state of its own nationals, until recently)34 where a state’s Principle of, EPIL 7 (1984), 358–61; P.
discretion is not limited by obligations imposed by international law. But Malanczuk, Humanitarian Intervention
and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force,
the San Francisco Conference deliberately rejected the idea that ‘domestic 1993, 12 et seq.; U.Beyerlin,
jurisdiction’ in the Charter should be defined by reference to international Intervention, Prohibition of, in Wolfrum
UNLPP II, 805–13.
law, on the grounds that international law was vague. There is some truth 40 On Chapter VII of the Charter, see
in this criticism, since the Charter itself contains a number of references to Chapter 22 below, 387–90.
human rights,35 self-determination,36 and so on, which are so vague that it 41 See Article 3 UN Charter and
is difficult to say what, if any, legal obligations they impose.
In the practice of the United Nations, a number of different tests are
applied in order to determine whether a matter falls within a state’s
domestic jurisdiction. Thus, a matter is unlikely to be regarded as within
a state’s domestic jurisdiction if it amounts to a breach of international
law, an infringement of the interests of other states, a threat to
international peace, or a gross violation of human rights,37 or if it concerns
progress towards self-determination in a colony.38 Political factors
influence the votes cast by states, which are not always consistent. But
in general the practice is to interpret ‘domestic jurisdiction’ narrowly—
the opposite of what was intended by the drafters of the Charter.
Article 2(7) states that the principle of non-intervention39 in matters
of domestic jurisdiction ‘shall not prejudice the application of
enforcement measures under Chapter VII’. Chapter VII is entitled: ‘Action
with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of
aggression’.40 According to the recent practice of the United Nations,
the proviso at the end of Article 2(7) is unnecessary, because a threat to
the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression is nowadays
automatically treated as not constituting a matter of domestic jurisdiction.
Membership
The founding members of the United Nations were the states which
were on the Allied side in the Second World War.41 The admission of
new members is governed by Article 4 of the Charter:
1 Membership in the United Nations is open to all other

peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained
in the present Charter, and, in the judgment o f t h e
42 This means that both the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
Security Council and the General
Assembly must vote in favour of 2 The admission of any such state to membership in the United
admission. See also K. Herndl, Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly
Admission of a State to Membership
in United Nations (Advisory
upon the recommendation of the Security Council.42
Opinions), EPIL I (1992), 35–8; H.-J.
Schütz, Membership, in Wolfrum
UNLPP II, 877–83; K.Ginther, Article
At present (1996) there are 185 member states of the United Nations, of
4, in Simma CUNAC, 158–75. which only fifty-one were founding members. The growth in numbers is
44 For an account of the admissions primarily attributable to decolonization in the 1960s43 and the break-up
after 1990 see Ginther, op. cit., 172– of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.44 Almost all independent states in the
5. On the problem of the Russian
Federation taking over the world are now members of the United Nations.45 There are at present
membership of the former USSR in only a few non-member states, such as Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu,
the UN, including permanent
membership in the Security Council, the Vatican State, Taiwan and Switzerland (which seats many important
see Chapter 11 above, 166 and text UN bodies, but has never applied for UN membership—a referendum
below, 373.
45 See the overview in VN 43 held in 1994 was negative). The members of the UN include micro-states
(1995), 46–8; Roberts/Kingsbury with areas of less than 500 square miles and populations under 100,000,
(eds), op. cit., Appendix C, 530.
46 SC Res. 963 (1994) of 29 such as Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, the
November 1994.
Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, Liechtenstein
48 J.Kokott, Micro-States, EPIL 10 (admitted on 18 September 1990), San Marino (admitted on 2 March
(1987), 297–9; J.Rapaport/
E.Muteba/ J.J.Therattil, Small
1992), Monaco and Palau, which was admitted in November 199446 and
States and Territories—Status and constituted the last territory under the control of the UN trusteeship
Problems, 1971; M.N.Gunter, What
Happened to the United Nations system.47 Obviously, the equality in terms of membership of such micro-
Ministate Problem, AJIL 71 (1977), states with larger nations raises a number of problems which were reflected
110–24. See also Chapter 5
above, 76. in the discussions in the United Nations up until 1971 on whether they
49 See Chapter 22 below, 387–90. could be admitted at all.48 In the end, the principle of universality of
50 Article 5 of the UN Charter. See
H.J. Schütz, Article 5, in Simma membership of states, whether big or small, succeeded without solving
CUNAC, 175–85; L.Makarcyk, Legal the underlying issue of voting rights and by circumventing the question
Basis for Suspension and Expulsion
of a State from an International whether such states are actually, as required by Article 4 of the Charter,
Organization, GYIL 25 (1982), 476– able to carry out its obligations. With the end of the trusteeship
89.
51 Article 6. See O.Kimminich, administration by the United States, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands
Article 6, in Simma CUNAC, 185– entered into a compact of association with the United States under which
93.
52 See R.Suttner, Has South Africa the United States remains responsible for the defence of these two states.
Been Illegally Excluded from the
United Nations General Assembly?,
But this was not seen as a reason for denying that they were eligible for
CILSA 17 (1984), 279–301; membership of the UN.
C.N.Patel, The Legal Aspects of
State Expulsion from the United A member state against which enforcement action49 is being taken may
Nations: South Africa a Case in be suspended from exercising the rights of membership,50 and a member
Point, NULR 3 (1982/3), 197–213.
53 See P.Malanczuk, Israel: Status, state which has persistently violated the principles of the Charter may be
Territory and Occupied Territories, expelled;51 in each case the decision is taken by the General Assembly
EPIL II (1995), 1468–1508, at 1488;
M. Halberstam, Excluding Israel upon the recommendation of the Security Council. These provisions have
from the General Assembly by a never yet been applied, although many African and Asian states tried to
Rejection of its Credentials, AJIL 78
(1984), 179–82. The UN General expel South Africa during the period of apartheid,52 and Arab states and
Assembly Resolution 3379 (XXX) of Iran used to take regular initiatives to delegitimize gradually the presence
10 November 1975, which equated
Zionism with racism and racial of Israel in the United Nations by rejecting the credentials of the Israeli
discrimination, was revoked on 17 delegation in the General Assembly.53 South Africa was only excluded
December 1991, albeit with only 111
votes in favour and twenty-five from participating in the work of the General Assembly from 1974
against, with thirteen abstentions,
Malanczuk, ibid., at 1501.
until 1993 on the basis of a decision of the Credentials Committee of
the General Assembly stating that the government of South Africa
did not represent all its people. The legality of this finding is doubtful,
considering that the legitimacy of the form of government, as such, is not a
MEMBERSHIP 371
54 See also Chapter 5 above, 79.

criterion for UN membership.54 Expulsion, at any rate, is not necessarily 55 See Chapter 2 above, 23–6.
an effective sanction; some people might interpret it as a confession on 56 Text in United Nations Conference on
International Organization: Documents,
the part of the organization that it has failed to impose its will on the Vol. 7, 328–9.
expelled member. 57 See Schwelb, AJIL 54 (1960),
The Charter says nothing about withdrawal by member states; the 661–72.
omission is deliberate, because the insertion of a right of withdrawal in 202, Reporters’ Notes, 76; R.Heuser,
the Covenant of the League of Nations had encouraged many member Taiwan, EPIL 12 (1990), 367–73; E.A.
Danaher, The Representation of China
states to withdraw, thereby seriously weakening the League.55 But the in the United Nations, Harvard ILJ 13
San Francisco Conference in 1945 did recognize a right of withdrawal (1972), 448–58; U.Fastenrath, Article 3,
in Simma CUNAC, 197.
in exceptional circumstances, for example, ‘if…the organization was 59 On the difference between states
revealed to be unable to maintain peace or could do so only at the expense and governments, see Chapter 5
of law and justice’, or if a member’s above, 75–90.
rights and obligations as such were changed by Charter

amendments in which it has not concurred and which it finds
itself unable to accept, or if an amendment duly accepted by the
necessary majority in the Assembly or in a general conference
fails to secure the ratifications necessary to bring such
amendment into effect.56
This statement of opinion forms part of the travaux préparatoires of the

Charter, and may therefore be used to interpret the Charter.
The question of withdrawal has arisen only once in practice. In January
1965 Indonesia purported to withdraw, in protest against the election of
Malaysia (part of whose territory was claimed by Indonesia) as a non-
permanent member of the Security Council. Although the election of
Malaysia could hardly be regarded as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ within
the meaning of the San Francisco statement, the Indonesian withdrawal
was apparently accepted as valid by the Secretariat at the time.57 But in
September 1966 Indonesia resumed participation in the United Nations.
If its withdrawal had really been effective, Indonesia would have had to
seek readmission under Article 4; instead, it simply resumed its seat, as if
nothing had happened—which suggests that its withdrawal had been void.
Logically, Indonesia should have had to pay all the arrears of its
contributions as a member in respect of the period between January 1965
and September 1966, but, since it had derived no benefits from membership
during that period, it was agreed that it should pay only 10 per cent of the
arrears of its contributions.
The representation of China

The communists seized power in China at the end of 1949, but until
1971 China was represented at the United Nations by the nationalist
government of Chiang Kai-shek based on Taiwan.58 During that period
one frequently heard people arguing that communist China should be
‘admitted’ to the United Nations; but, by treating the question as one of
admission, they were unwittingly siding with the United States, which
argued that communist China should not be ‘admitted’ because it did
not fulfil the requirements of Article 4—it was not peace-loving, it was
not willing to carry out the obligations of the Charter, and so on.
The correct analysis is that states, not governments,59 are members of
the United Nations; the state of China is and always has been a member of
60 UNGA Res. 2758 (XXVI) of 25

October 1971. See also Schütz,
the United Nations; the question is, which government should represent it
Membership, op. cit, 881. at the United Nations? Although Article 4 could perhaps be applied by
61 FAZ of 23 September 1994, 6.
analogy to questions of representation, it seems more logical to hold that a
63 See K.J.Partsch, Belgrads member state has a right to be represented by its effective government until
leerer Stuhl im Glaspalast. Das
Einfrieren der UN-Mitgliedschaft
that member state is suspended or expelled; any other solution would be
Jugoslawiens durch Sicherheitsrat out of keeping with the general principles governing the relationship between
und Generalversammlung, VN 40
(1992), 181–8; Y.Z.Blum, UN
states and governments in international law. Although many states did not
Membership of the ‘New’ recognize the communist government of China until the 1970s, it is
Yugoslavia: Continuity or Break?,
AJIL 86 (1992), 830–3. See also
undeniable that that government had been the effective government of China
the contributions on the ‘UN since the end of 1949.
Membership of the Former
Yugoslavia’, AJIL 87 (1993), 240–
The distinction between admission and representation is important in other
8 and Ginther, op. cit., 174. See respects, too. If communist China had been admitted as a new member state,
Chapters 5, 89–90 and 11, 167
above and Chapter 22 below,
nationalist China (Taiwan) could have remained a member of the United Nations
409–15. (and a permanent member of the Security Council) even after the admission of
communist China. If, however, the question is treated as one of representation,
the arrival of communist representatives must inevitably be accompanied by
the departure of nationalist representatives from all the organs of the United
Nations, because a state cannot be represented simultaneously by two rival
governments in an international organization; and this is, in fact, what happened
in 1971 when the General Assembly decided ‘to restore all its rights to the
People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government
as the only legitimate representatives of China in the UN.’60 In 1994, several
UN member states made an attempt to restore the UN membership of Taiwan
by instituting a committee on the question, which, however, failed.61
Moreover, questions concerning the admission of new members or the
suspension or expulsion of existing members are treated as non-procedural
questions, which means that the veto applies in the Security Council;
questions concerning representation are treated as procedural questions,
which means that the veto does not apply.62
The case of Yugoslavia

An indirect form of expulsion has been applied in the case of former
Yugoslavia after 1991, following the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia.63 With the exception of rump Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) all the new states seceding from the former
federation applied for UN membership. They were admitted even though
the armed conflict in Yugoslavia was continuing and the border issues were
still unsettled. The early admission of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 20 May
1992 had the purpose of strengthening the position of a weak state against
aggression. On the other hand, the admission of the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia met with difficulties because of Greek objections
to the unqualified name ‘Macedonia’ adopted by the new state, which Greece
viewed as a possible claim to its northern province with the same name.
Greece also opposed the claim of the new state to use on its flag the star of
Vergina (the emblem of the old Macedonian dynasty). Under a
compromise the new state was admitted on 8 April 1993 under the
condition that it would provisionally be called ‘The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia’ until the differences with Greece were settled. 64
THE ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS 373

The UN refused to allow the ‘Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’, represented 66 Res. 47/1 of 22 September 1992.
by Serbia and Montenegro, to take the seat of the former Socialist Federal 67 See Chapter 19 above, 326–32.
Republic of Yugoslavia, arguing that it was not the same legal entity 68 See Chapter 18 above, 281–93.
69 See G.Jaenicke, Article 7, in Simma
because the former state of Yugoslavia had ceased to exist and there was CUNAC, 195–207.
no general recognition of the claim to continuity.65 The Security Council 70 E.J.de Aréchaga, United Nations
Security Council, EPIL 5 (1983), 345–9;
and the General Assembly decided that the Federal Republic of R.Geiger, Article 23, in Simma CUNAC,
Yugoslavia should apply for new membership and meanwhile refrain 393–6; T.Bruha, Security Council, in
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1147–61; K.C.
from taking part in the work of the Assembly,66 although the state was Wellens (ed.), Resolutions and
allowed to continue to participate in some UN bodies. Statements of the United Nations
Security Council (1946–1992): A
Thematic Guide, 2nd edn 1993.
The organs of the United Nations 72 For a discussion see Y.Z.Blum,
Russia Takes Over the Soviet Union’s
Seat at the United Nations, EJIL 3
There are six principal organs of the United Nations: the General Assembly, (1992), 354–61. See Chapter 11 above,
consisting of all the member states; the three Councils, which have more 166.
specialized functions and consist of a limited number of member states— 73 See J.Delbrück, Article 24, in Simma
CUNAC, 397–407.
the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship
Council;67 and two organs composed not of member states but of
individuals—the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice.68 There
is also a vast number of subsidiary organs created by the principal organs.69
The Security Council is the most important political organ.
The Security Council

The Security Council consists of fifteen member states.70 Five are permanent
members: China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and
Russia, which had informed the UN in 1991 that, with the support of the
eleven members of the Commonwealth of Independent States arising from
the remains of the former Soviet empire, it would continue the membership
of the USSR in all UN organs.71 This step taken by the Russian Federation
is remarkable because it did not meet with any protest by a UN member
state, although, strictly speaking, one could argue that in this matter an
amendment of the Charter was necessary to change the composition of
the Security Council.72 The other ten members of the Security Council are
non-permanent, elected for two years by the General Assembly. The number
of non-permanent members was increased from six to ten on 1 January
1966, as a result of an amendment to the Charter; as the membership of
the United Nations increased, it was considered that the membership of
the Security Council should also be increased, in order to give more states
an opportunity of sitting on the Security Council. The current practice is
that five of the non-permanent places are filled by African and Asian
states, two by Latin American states, one by an Eastern European state
and two by Western European and other states (the ‘other states’ being
principally the ‘white’ members of the Commonwealth— Canada,
Australia and New Zealand).
Article 24(1) of the Charter provides:
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United

Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this
responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.73

The Security Council’s principal functions consist of making
76 See Chapter 22 below, 416–25. recommendations for the peaceful settlement of disputes74 and taking
77 This does not apply to mere
recommendations issued by the
enforcement action to deal with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace
Council, see J.Delbrück, Article 25, and acts of aggression.75 The Council also played an important role in the
in Simma CUNAC, 407–18.
78 Before the membership of the
development of UN peacekeeping operations, an institution that was not
Security Council was increased in foreseen in the Charter.76
1966, decisions were taken by an Article 25 of the Charter provides:
affirmative vote of seven members
(instead of nine), ‘including the
concurring votes of the permanent
The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out
members’ in the case of non- the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the
procedural questions. See S.D. present Charter.
Bailey, The Procedure of the UN
Security Council, 2nd edn 1988;
Bruha, op. cit., 1151–3; R.Wolfrum, The Security Council thus has a power to take binding decisions, which
Voting and Decision-Making, in
member states are under a legal obligation to obey.77
B.Simma/S. Brunner, Article 27, in Voting procedure in the Security Council is regulated by Article 27 of
Simma CUNAC, 430–69; the Charter:
M.C.Wood, Security Council
Working Methods and Procedure:
Recent Developments, ICLQ 45 1 Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
(1996), 150–61. 2 Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall
79 F.Münch, Veto, EPIL 5 (1983), be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
389–92.
80 An important document in this 3 Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made
respect is the Statement of the Four by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring
Sponsoring Powers on Voting
Procedure in the Security Council, votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions un-
dated 7 June 1945, reprinted in der Chapter VI…a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.78
Brownlie BDIL, 46.
The effect of Article 27(3) is that each permanent member of the Security
Council has a ‘veto’79 on non-procedural questions. The veto does not apply
to procedural questions. How does one decide whether or not a question is
procedural? At the San Francisco Conference, the four powers which had
convened the Conference (USA, USSR, UK and China) listed certain
questions which would be regarded as procedural (for example, decisions
under Articles 28–32 of the Charter, and questions relating to the agenda)
and certain other questions which would be regarded as non-procedural
(for example, recommendations for the peaceful settlement of disputes, and
decisions to take enforcement action); in cases of doubt, which were expected
to be rare, the preliminary question (that is, the question whether or not a
particular question was procedural) would itself be a non-procedural
question.80 This led to the ‘double veto’; a permanent member of the Security
Council could veto any attempt to treat a question as procedural, and then
proceed to veto any draft resolution dealing with that question. By means
of the ‘double veto’, the Soviet Union sometimes tried to convert a number
of questions, which were clearly listed as procedural in the four-power
statement, into non-procedural questions. But the device of the presidential
ruling can be used to prevent such abuse of the double veto. The post of
president of the Security Council is held in turn by each member of the
Security Council for a period of one month; if the president reacts to an
attempted abuse of the double veto by ruling that the preliminary question
is itself procedural, his ruling is final unless it is reversed by a (procedural)
vote of the Security Council.
Each of the permanent members has used its veto on occasions, although
the Soviet Union used it more frequently than the other permanent
81 See Roberts/Kingsbury, Introduction,

members of the Security Council. From 1945 to 1992 the actual use of op. cit., 10.
the veto was as follows: Soviet Union 114; USA sixty-nine; United 82 S.D.Murphy, The Security Council,
Legitimacy, and the Concept of
Kingdom thirty; France eighteen; China three.81 While in the period from Collective Security After the Cold War,
1945 to 1990 there were a total of 279 vetos, since then the veto has Colum. JTL 31 (1994), 201–88, at 207.
See also A.W.Patil, The UN Veto in
been hardly used. This development is remarkable, considering that since World Affairs 1946–1990: A Complete
the founding of the UN until 1990 there were only some 650 Security Record and Case Histories of the
Security Council’s Veto, 1992.
Council decisions, an average of less than eleven per annum, while 83 See Simma/Brunner, op. cit., 466.
between 1990 and 1993 there were about 250 resolutions, an average 84 This conclusion is spelt out even
more clearly in the French text: ‘Les
of more than sixty per year.82 On 31 May 1990 the United States vetoed decisions du Conseil de Securité sur
a resolution on the territories occupied by Israel and on 11 May 1993 toutes autres questions sont prises par
un vote affirmatif de neuf de ses
Russia vetoed a resolution concerning the financing of the peacekeeping membres dans lequel sont comprises
force in Cyprus. The significance of veto statistics, however, is limited les voix de tous les membres
permanents.’
because they do not include the ‘hidden veto’ (in the case of a sufficiently 85 ICJ Rep. 1971, 16, 22. See Chapter
large number of abstentions), nor the ‘unofficial veto’ (preventing a 19 above, 328–9.
motion from being put to a vote).83
The veto has often been criticized as a crippling limitation on the powers
of the Security Council. It has in fact undermined the role of the Security
Council in armed conflicts in which the permanent members were directly
involved (e.g. Suez 1956, Hungary 1956, Vietnam 1946–75, and the war
between China and Vietnam 1979) and prevented it from acting in many
of the armed conflcits in which the permanent members were indirectly
involved or had an interest. But the existence of the veto recognizes the
realities of power politics; it is the price which must be paid for the unusually
large powers conferred on the Security Council. Again, it must be stressed
that it so happens that all the permanent members of the Security Council
are nuclear powers; abolition of the veto would add little to the power of
the United Nations, because it would still be virtually impossible for the
United Nations to take enforcement action against a nuclear power.
In any case, some of the worst features of the veto have been softened in
practice. A literal interpretation of Article 27(3) would produce the result
that all permanent members would have to vote for a draft resolution in
order for it to be passed; an abstention would constitute a veto.84 But, since
the first years of the United Nations, there has been a consistent practice of
not treating abstentions as vetoes, and this practice was recognized as lawful
by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case.85
The effect of absence by a permanent member is less certain, because
the problem has really arisen only once. In 1950 the Soviet Union
boycotted the Security Council in protest against the Council’s refusal
to seat the communist representatives of China. In June 1950, when
North Korea invaded South Korea, the absence of the Soviet Union
enabled the Security Council to pass a resolution recommending
member states to send forces to help South Korea.86 The Soviet Union
challenged the legality of the resolution on the grounds that it had
been passed in the absence of the Soviet Union. It is debatable whether
the practice which has developed in relation to abstentions by a
permanent member can be applied by analogy to the absence of a
permanent member; but the Soviet boycott was itself probably a
violation of the Soviet Union’s obligations under Article 28(1) of
the Charter, which provides: ‘The Security Council shall be so
organized as to be able to function continuously. Each member of the
87 See T.Schweisfurth, Article 28, in

Security Council shall for this purpose be represented at all times at the seat
88 On this case see Chapter 18 of the Organization.’87 On this reasoning, the absence of a permanent
above, 292–3.
89 See, for example, Roberst/
member ought not to prevent the Security Council from taking a decision;
Kingsbury, op. cit., 39 et seq.; otherwise the illegal act of one state would bring the whole work of the
M.Smith, Expanding Permanent
Membership in the UN Security
Security Council to a halt. At any rate, the action taken by the Security
Council: Opening a Pandora’s Box Council in June 1950 has had one salutary effect: since then no permanent
or Needed Change?, Dick. JIL 12
(1993), 173.
member has attempted to boycott the Security Council.
90 UN Doc. A/34/246 (1979). See Article 27(3) of the Charter provides that in decisions under Chapter VI
Geiger, op. cit., 396–7.
91 UN Doc. A/48/26 (1993).
a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. Chapter VI deals with the
92 See E.Kourula/T.Kanninen, peaceful settlement of disputes—and also with the peaceful settlement of
Reforming the Security Council: The
International Negotiation Process
situations which might give rise to a dispute, and the distinction between
Within the Context of Calls to disputes and situations is singularly imprecise. Moreover, it is often difficult
Amend the UN Charter to the New
Realities of the Post-Cold War Era,
to tell who is a party to a particular dispute; there are comparatively few
LJIL 8 (1995), 337. For details on states in the world, and many of them are linked together by alliances or
the positions taken by states, see
D.Bills, International Human Rights
other close ties, so that a dispute can affect the interests of many states to
and Humanitarian Intervention: The varying degrees. In the first few years of the United Nations, there were
Ramifications of Reform of the
United Nations’ Security Council,
arguments about the difference between disputes and situations, about the
Texas ILJ 31 (1996), 107–30. definition of parties to a dispute and about the precise scope of Chapter VI.
93 See Chapter 18 above, 292–3
and Chapter 22 below, 425–9.
Since about 1950 such legalistic arguments have become rarer, and in many
cases the obligation to abstain from voting has been simply ignored; states
have frequently taken part in votes about disputes to which they were parties,
and objections have seldom been made by other states. One recent example
is the sanctions adopted by the Council against Libya for its alleged
responsibility in the Lockerbie case, in which the United States, the UK and
France took part in the voting.88
Recently, the composition of the Security Council, as well as its voting
procedure, has come more fiercely under attack because the system does
not reflect the changes in the international system since 1945.89 The question
of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security
Council had already been raised by the non-aligned and developing countries
in 1979.90 But nothing came out of this initiative until after the end of the
Cold War when Germany and Japan, followed by a number of other
countries, expressed their interest in permanent membership. At the end of
1993, the General Assembly decided to establish an ‘Open-ended Working
Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the
Membership of the Security Council’91 to commence negotiations which, at
the time of writing, are still continuing.92 In view of the vested interests of
the current permanent members which are not keen to renounce their
privileges (and can veto any amendment or revision of the Charter they feel
uncomfortable with) the process of reform is likely to be difficult. There is
also no agreement on which state should represent which region, for
example, in Africa or Latin America. Finally, there is the problem that, in
the interest of the efficiency of the Council, there are political limits to
making it too large, on the one hand, and to reducing the privileged position
of the nuclear powers too much, on the other.
In part, this discussion is fomented by the perception that the enhanced
role of the Security Council and its activism in the post-Cold War era raises
broader consitutional issues relating to the use of the powers of the
Council and the limits of these powers.93 This concerns not only the lack of
transparency of the decision-making by the P5 (the five permanent 94 See W.M.Reisman, The
Constitutional Crisis in the United
members) or P3 (the Western powers) which often hold meetings in secret, Nations, AJIL 87 (1993), 83–100, 85–6.
following which only the formal votes become part of the public record.94 95 See Bills, op. cit., 117–18, referring
to such views, and Chapter 22 below,
It also concerns the claim that the Security Council has now come under 395, 427–8.
the effective control of the Western states, particularly with regard to 96 S.F.Vallat, United Nations General
action undertaken under the leadership of the United States.95 Assembly, EPIL 5 (1983), 323–9; C.
Tomuschat, General Assembly, in
Wolfrum UNLPP I, 548–7; S.Magiera,
Article 9, in Simma CUNAC, 217–26.
The General Assembly 97 Article 10 UN Charter. See K.
Hailbronner/E.Klein, Article 10, ibid.,
The General Assembly96 consists of all the member states of the United 226–42.
Nations. Some idea of the wide scope of the questions which it is 98 Article 11(2). See K.Hailbronner/E.
competent to discuss may be obtained from examining the following Klein, Article 11, ibid., 242–53.
99 Article 13(1). See C.-A. Fleischhauer,
provisions of the Charter: Article 13, ibid., 265–78. See also
Chapters 3, 52–4 and 14, 211–15
above.
The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters 100 Article 14. See O.Kimminich, Article
within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers 14, ibid., 279–87; J.Delbrück, Peaceful
and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, Change, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 970–81.
and…may make recommendations to the Members of the United 101 Article 15. See R.Hilger, Article 15,
in Simma CUNAC, 287–93.
Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such 102 Article 17. See R.Schmidt/W.
questions or matters.[97 ] Koschorreck, Article 17, in Simma
… CUNAC, 293–317; R.Wolfrum, Budget,
in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 78–86.
The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to 103 Article 19. See C.Tomuschat, Article
the maintenance of international peace and security brought 19, in Simma CUNAC, 327–39.
before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security
Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United
Nations…and…may make recommendations with regard to any
such question to the state or states concerned or to the Security
Council or to both…[98 ]
…
The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make
recommendations for the purpose of:
(a) promoting international co-operation in the political field

and encouraging the progressive development of in-
ternational law and its codification;
(b) promoting international co-operation in the economic,
social, cultural, educational and health fields, and as-
sisting in the realization of human rights and funda-
mental freedoms for all…[99 ]
…the General Assembly may recommend measures for the

peaceful adjustment of any situation…which it deems likely to
impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations.100
In addition to these general powers, the General Assembly has certain

more specific powers. For instance, it receives and considers reports from
all the other principal organs of the United Nations.101 It approves the
budget of the organization and fixes the amounts of the budgetary
contributions which each member state must pay.102 A member state
which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the
organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount
of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due
from it for the preceding two full years, although the General Assembly
may waive this rule if it considers that failure to pay is caused by
circumstances beyond the member state’s control.103
104 See The Independent Advisory

Group on UN Financing: Financing
The UN budget is indeed a chronic problem104 which has been increased
an Effective United Nations, 1993; by the broader scope of activities after the Cold War, especially the increased
W. Koschorreck, Financial Crisis, in
peacekeeping activities around the globe,105 which are not financed from
105 See Chapter 22 below, 423–5. the regular budget.106 The basic principle of the UN budget system is the
106 See for details A.Plaga, VN 43
(1995), 30.
‘capacity to pay’ (roughly related to the size of a member state’s gross
107 VN 43 (1995), 20–1. national product) which puts the burden on the largest economy, that of
67.
the United States. The United States originally had to pay almost 40 per
109 See R.Wolfrum, Article 18, in cent of the UN budget, while Argentina and Brazil were asked for less than
2 per cent and India for a little more than 4 per cent. The contributions of
111 See Chapter 14 above, 211–15. the United States were subsequently gradually reduced to 25 per cent in
112 See Hailbronner/Klein, Articles
10 and 11, op. cit., 231–42, 243–53.
1972, although the actual capacity of the country to pay is above this level.
In 1994, the UN adopted a new and more flexible, but also much more
complicated system for 1995–2000. In effect, the United States will still
pay the highest level of 25 per cent, while ninety-four member states (more
than one half) contribute the minimum of 0.01 per cent each, a total of not
even 1 per cent of the budget. Of the 185 member states fourteen pay more
than 1 per cent and cater for more than 86 per cent of the regular budget
(USA, Japan and Germany together close to 50 per cent).107 As of 30 April
1996, the UN debt totalled US$2.8 billion—US$1.7 billion for peacekeeping
and US$1.1 billion for the regular budget. More than half of the debt was
owed by the United States (US$1.5 billion), over US$400 million by Russia
and US$245 million by Ukraine.108
The voting procedure in the General Assembly is regulated by Article 18:
1 Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.

2 Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall
be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and
voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with re-
spect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the
election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council,
the election of members of the Economic and Social Council, the
election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance
with paragraph I(c) of Article 86, the admission of new members
to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges
of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to
the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.
3 Decisions on other questions, including the determination of ad-
ditional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds
majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present
and voting.109
On certain questions concerning the internal running of the United Nations,

the General Assembly may take decisions which are binding on member
states; budgetary resolutions are an obvious example. But, as regards other
questions (for example, disputes between member states,110 or questions of
human rights),111 the General Assembly has no power to take binding
decisions, nor does it have any power to take enforcement action; it can
only make recommendations.112 In these respects its powers are much less
than those of the Security Council, which explains why the veto exists in
the Security Council but not in the General Assembly.

But, although General Assembly resolutions are not binding, they 114 See K.Hailbronner/E.Klein, Article
can have important legal effects.113 They may be evidence of customary 12, in Simma CUNAC, 253–64.
law, or of the correct interpretation of the United Nations Charter. A 115 See Chapter 2 above, 28 and
resolution condemning a state for breaking international law is a useful 116 See Chapters 2, 28–30 and 16,
means of putting pressure on that state to reconsider its position. A 233–5; 19, 326–38 above.
resolution condemning state A for committing aggression against state 425–9.
B implies that it is lawful for other states to go to state B’s defence, and 118 See P.Wilenski, The Structure of the
UN in the Post-Cold War Period, in
may therefore encourage them to do so. Roberts/Kingsbury (eds), op. cit., 437, at
The drafters of the Charter took some care to prevent conflicts arising 445–8; M.Bertrand, The Historical
Development of Efforts to Reform the
between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Article 12(1) UN, ibid., 420–36; K.Dicke, Reform of
provides: the United Nations, in Wolfrum
UNLPP II, 1012–24. See also Chapter
22 below, 430.
While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute
or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the
General Assembly shall not make any recommendations with regard
to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.114
Actually, Article 12(1) has turned out not to be a serious limitation for
the General Assembly. Very often the Security Council has been unable
to reach a decision on a question because of the veto, and in such cases
the Security Council has adopted the practice of removing the question
from its agenda (this decision is procedural, so the veto does not apply),
in order to leave the General Assembly free to deal with the question.
In the early years of the United Nations, the Western powers were
keen to emphasize the powers of the General Assembly, where they
had a majority; despite Soviet objections, there was a shift of power
from the Security Council to the General Assembly. The newly
independent states of Africa and Asia became the largest group of states
in the General Assembly, and acted as the chief supporters of an
influential role for the General Assembly. By the same token the
enthusiasm of the Western powers for the General Assembly declined.
Communist countries came to realize the value of the General Assembly
as a forum for propaganda and discussion, but neither the Soviet Union
nor China was ever prepared to entrust real power to a body where it
did not have a veto. When the Western powers dominated the General
Assembly in the 1950s, they tried to develop it into a body which
could take military action to preserve the peace of the world.115 The
African and Asian states, which dominate the General Assembly
nowadays, never tried to use the General Assembly in this way; when
there was still a balance between the superpowers they favoured the
view that the Security Council is the most appropriate body for taking
military action, and, in the past, they preferred to use their position in
the General Assembly to try to obtain respect for their views on
economic questions, colonialism and apartheid.116 Now, in the post-
Cold War era, the frequent practice of military intervention authorized
by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter117 is viewed
rather critically by many smaller states in the South and is one of the
aspects underlying the demands for a reform of the Security Council.
On the other hand, it is also the General Assembly which, in view of
its overcrowded agenda, needs reform to improve its performance and
effectiveness, but little progress has been made on the basis of recent
(rather modest) proposals.118
119 See B.Lindemann/D.Hesse-

Kreindler, Secretariat, in Wolfrum
The Secretariat
UNLPP II, 1129–35; T.Meron,
International Secretariat, EPIL II The UN Secretariat employs about 14,000 people, all of whom are
(1995), 1376–9; J.Lemoine, The located at UN Headquarters in New York and at other UN offices (such
International Civil Servant—An
Endangered Species, 1995. as in Geneva). In addition, there are about 17,000 people assigned to
120 S.M.Schwebel, United Nations the secretariats of the various UN subsidiary organs.119 The Secretariat
Secretary-General, EPIL 5 (1983),
341– 5; J.E.Parber, Electing the UN is headed by the Secretary-General who is appointed by the General
Secretary-General after the Cold Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.120 This
War, Hastings LJ 44 (1992), 161–
84; H.v. Morr, Secretary-General, in means that a candidate for the post of Secretary-General must secure
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1136–46. the support both of the Security Council and of the General Assembly
122 Article 97. See W.Fiedler, Article in order to be elected; the election is regarded as a non-procedural
97, in Simma CUNAC, 1019–32. question,121 and consequently the veto applies in the Security Council.
123 Article 98. See Fiedler, Article
98, ibid., 1033–44. The Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the
124 See Fiedler, ibid., 1044–57. organization,122 and performs such other functions as are entrusted to him
125 See J.P.de Cuéllar. The Role
of the UN Secretary-General, in by the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social
Roberts/ Kingsbury (eds), op. cit., Council and the Trusteeship Council.123 In addition, according to Article
125–42; R. Lavalle, The Inherent
Powers of the UN Secretary- 99, he ‘may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which
General in the Political Sphere: A in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and
Legal Analysis, NILR 37 (1990),
22–36; P.Szasz, The Role of the security’. Article 99 is important not only because of its actual terms, but
Secretary-General. Some Legal also because of the light which it throws on the general nature of the
Aspects, NYUJILP 24 (1991),
161–98. Secretary-General’s functions; he is not a mere servant of the political organs,
126 See T.M.Franck/G.Nolte, The but is expected to take political initiatives of his own. At any rate, that is
Good Offices Function of the UN
Secretary-General, in Roberts/ the interpretation placed upon Article 99 by Western states; the Soviet Union,
Kingsbury (eds), op. cit., 143–82; on the other hand, always tried to minimize the power of the Secretariat.124
M.C. Bourtoyanns, Fact-Finding by
the Secretary-General of the United None of the great powers, however, have ever been interested in seeing a
Nations, NYUJILP 22 (1990), 641– too independent Secretary-General.
69; K.Skjelsbaek, The UN
Secretary-General and the In sum, the role of the UN Secretary-General is not merely an
Mediation of International Disputes, administrative one, but also a political one,125 including the function of
JPR 28 (1991), 41–145; T.M.Franck,
The Secretary-General’s Role in offering ‘good offices’ in the settlement of international conflicts.126 The
Conflict Resolution: Past Present influence of the office of the Secretary-General also much depends on the
and Pure Conjecture, EJIL 6 (1995),
360–87. person occupying it, the intellectual leadership the person can exercise, the
127 de Cuéllar, op. cit., 126.
willingness to take hard decisions without bending too much to the great
powers, while at the same time not falling out of touch with the reality of
power politics. As noted in a lecture at Oxford University in 1986 by a
former UN Secretary-General, speaking from his own experience:
Anyone who has the honour to be cast as Secretary-General has

to avoid two extremes in playing his, or her, role. On one side is the
Scylla of trying to inflate the role through too liberal a reading of the
text: of succumbing, that is, to vanity and wishful thinking. On the
other is the Charybdis of trying to limit the role to only those
responsibilities which are explicitly conferred by the Charter and
are impossible to escape: that is, succumbing to modesty, to the
instinct of self-effacement, and to the desire to avoid controversy.
There are, thus, temptations on both sides. Both are equally
damaging to the vitality of the institution.127
Following the appointments of a Norwegian (Trygve Lie, 1946–53), a Swede

(Dag Hammarskjöld, 1953–61), a Burmese (U Thant, 1961/2–71),
128 Agenda for Peace, reprinted in

an Austrian (Kurt Waldheim, 1972–81), and a Peruvian (Javier Pérez de Roberts/Kinsbury (eds), op. cit., 468
Cuéllar, 1982–91), the UN selected Boutros Boutros-Ghali from Egypt with an introductory note by Boutros
in 1992 to give the opportunity for the African region to be represented. Boutros-Ghali. See Chapter 22 below,
423–5.
In June 1992 Boutros-Ghali published a much discussed report with the 129 See Chapter 22 below, 402–5.
title ‘Agenda for Peace’ which contained proposals to member states on Boutros-Ghali was replaced by Kofi
Annan from Ghana.
improving the capacity of the UN to deal with the new challenges, 130 See C.Schreuer, Article 100, in
including concepts such as ‘peace-making’, ‘peacekeeping’, ‘preventive Simma CUNAC, 1051–76.
131 See W.Göttelmann, Article 101,
diplomacy’ and ‘post-conflict peace-building’.128 Some months before ibid., 1077–1100.
the November 1996 elections in the United States, however, the United 132 See Chapters 6, 103 and 18, 289
above.
States made it known that it would veto the reappointment of Boutros-
Ghali (who was, inter alia, blamed (wrongly) for the death of American
soldiers in the UN-sponsored intervention in Somalia)129 for a second
five-year period of office.
Article 100 provides:
1 In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and

the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any gov-
ernment or from any other authority external to the Organiza-
tion. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on
their position as international officials responsible only to the
Organization.
2 Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect
the exclusively international character of the responsibilities
of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to in-
fluence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.130
Article 100 has not always been observed; some states have tried to
treat their nationals working in the Secretariat as if they were national
agents or representatives. But the principles laid down in Article 100 are
nevertheless indispensable if the Secretariat is to do its job properly. The
staff of the Secretariat are appointed by the Secretary-General.131
Recruitment for posts in the Secretariat, other than manual and clerical
posts, is subject to complicated rules about national quotas, which favour
the nationals of smaller countries; obviously a certain degree of
cosmopolitanism is essential if the Secretariat is to be genuinely
international and impartial, but the rules about national quotas have
sometimes resulted in the appointment of poorly qualified candidates.
The terms of service of the staff are laid down mostly in Staff
Regulations enacted by the General Assembly, and in Staff Rules issued
by the Secretary-General under powers delegated to him by the Staff
Regulations. Allegations by staff members that their terms of service
have been infringed are heard by an Administrative Tribunal set up by
the General Assembly; the Administrative Tribunal has applied a number
of general principles of administrative law to fill gaps in the Staff
Regulations and Rules.132 The existence of the Tribunal is really in the
long-term interests of the organization, because officials will not serve
the organization loyally, or resist pressures from member states and other
authorities outside the organization, unless they are given guarantees of
fair treatment and security of tenure.
The Secretariat has been under increasing pressure (especially
financial pressure from the United States due to the negative position
133 See Wilenski, op. cit., 449

et seq.
towards the UN taken by Congress) since the 1980s to do something about
134 See R.Wolfrum, Article 55 (a) disorganization and inefficiency.133 This led to a 14 per cent cut-back in the
and (b), in Simma CUNAC, 759–76 number of staff. However, futher reforms are required, aiming at a
and Chapter 15 above, 222–40.
135 See K.-J.Partsch, ibid., 776–93 rationalization of the bizarre structure of the Secretariat and at a more
and Chapter 14 above, 211–15. equitable and transparent method of recruiting senior officers. When
137 See R.Wolfrum, Article 56, in Boutros-Ghali came into office in 1992 he took some steps in these directions,
Simma CUNAC, 793–5. but the issue of the reform of the Secretariat is still a burning one.
138 Article 60 UN Charter. See W.
Meng, Article 60, ibid., 821–5.
139 Article 61. See R.Lagoni, Article
61, ibid., 827–34; J.Frederic/ The Economic and Social Council and the specialized
L.Kirgis, United Nations Economic agencies
and Social Council, EPIL 5 (1983),
310–14; R. Lagoni, ECOSOC, in
Article 55 of the United Nations Charter provides:
67, in Simma CUNAC, 871–5. With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being
141 Article 62. See Lagoni, Article
62, ibid., 835–50. which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among
142 Article 65. See P.Kunig, Article nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
65, ibid., 865–7.
143 Article 66. See Kunig, Article 66, determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
ibid., 867–71.
71, ibid., 902–15. (a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions
of economic and social progress and development;
(b) solutions of international economic, social, health, and re-
lated problems; and international cultural and educational
co-operation;134 and
(c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language, or religion.135
Article 56 provides: ‘All Members pledge themselves to take joint and

separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement
of the purposes set forth in Article 55.’ The extent to which Articles 55 and
56 create legal obligations for member states has already been discussed.136
Futhermore, ‘responsibility for the discharge of the functions[137 ] set forth
in’ Articles 55 and 56 is ‘vested in the General Assembly and, under the
authority of the General Assembly, in the Economic and Social Council’.138
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) consists of fifty-four
members of the United Nations; eighteen are elected each year by the General
Assembly to serve for three years.139 Decisions of the Council are taken by a
majority of the members present and voting.140 The Council may make or
initiate studies and reports, make recommendations, prepare draft conventions
and organize international conferences;141 like the General Assembly, its terms
of reference are wide, but its powers are limited, in the sense that it cannot
take decisions which are binding on member states. It also assists the Security
Council at the Security Council’s request,142 and performs such other functions
as are assigned to it by the General Assembly; with the approval of the General
Assembly, it may also perform services at the request of members of the
United Nations or at the request of specialized agencies.143
The Economic and Social Council may arrange for consultation with
non-governmental organizations which deal with matters within its
competence.144 Such arrangements have been made with hundreds of
non-governmental organizations, giving them the right to send observers

to the Council’s meetings and (in some cases) to make written or oral 146 Article 57. See D.W.Bowett, The
statements to the Council.145 So far, these arrangements have not produced Law of International Institutions, 1982,
108 et seq.; E.Klein, United Nations,
very impressive results, but they do provide a useful channel of Specialized Agencies, EPIL 5 (1983),
communication between the United Nations and public opinion. 349–69; D.Williams, The Specialized
Agencies and the United Nations, 1987;
One of the main functions of the Economic and Social Council is to I.Seidl-Hohenveldern, Specialized
coordinate the activities of the ‘specialized agencies’, which are defined Agencies, in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1202–
8; W.Meng, Article 57, in Simma
as organizations ‘established by intergovernmental agreement and having CUNAC, 796–816.
wide international responsibilities…in economic, social, cultural, 147 Article 57.
148 Article 63. See W.Meng, Article 63,
educational, health and related fields’.146 Such an organization becomes in Simma CUNAC, 851–9.
a specialized agency when it is ‘brought into relationship with the United 149 See Chapters 18, 289–90 and 20,
347–9 above.
Nations’147 by means of an agreement made by the agency with the 150 Article 17(3).
Economic and Social Council and approved by the General Assembly.148 151 See Chapter 6 above, 94.
The terms of the agreements vary from agency to agency, but certain 153 See Chapters 6, 94, 2, 24 and 15,
features are common to most agreements. For instance, each of the two 224 above.
parties (the United Nations and the specialized agency in question) is
usually given a right to send representatives (without voting rights) to
meetings of certain organs in the other organization. Most of the
specialized agencies agree to consider recommendations made by the
General Assembly, and to transmit regular reports to the Economic and
Social Council; many of them are given a right to request advisory
opinions from the International Court of Justice on questions falling
within their competence.149 Provision is also usually made for the mutual
exchange of information and documents, and for the enactment of similar
Staff Regulations and Staff Rules by each of the organizations concerned.
The Economic and Social Council is empowered by Article 63(2) of
the Charter to ‘co-ordinate the activities of the specialized agencies
through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and
through recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members
of the United Nations’. The General Assembly may ‘examine the
administrative budgets of…specialized agencies with a view to making
recommendations to the agencies concerned’.150 There is also an
Administrative Committee on Co-ordination, composed of the Secretary-
General of the United Nations and the administrative heads of the
specialized agencies, which coordinates operations at the administrative
level; but the coordination efforts have so far been of only limited success.
Various UN specialized agencies have already been mentioned in
Chapter 6 above.151 Currently there are sixteen such specialized agencies
associated with the UN. They include the financial institutions of the
World Bank Group (i.e. IMF, IBRD)152 and the ‘big four’ (ILO, FAO,
UNESCO and WHO).153 Most of the specialized agencies have no power
to take decisions binding on their members, but their constituent treaties
often provide for interesting means of putting pressure on member
states to act in a particular way. For instance, the ILO, UNESCO
and WHO can draw up recommendations and draft conventions;
member states are not obliged to accept the recommendations and
draft conventions, but they must make periodic reports to the
relevant organization about their law and practice in the fields
covered by the recommendations and draft conventions in question,
and in some cases they must state their reasons for not accepting
them. On certain topics the WHO can adopt regulations, which are binding
on every member state which does not ‘opt out’ of the regulations concerned.
These are useful means of overcoming the inertia of states, and of inducing
them to act together.
22 The United Nations and
peace and security
After having discussed the interpretation of the UN Charter and the role 1 See Chapter 18 above, 273–305.
of the main organs of the United Nations, we can now turn to the main 3 See text below, 416–25.
functions of the organization in the field of the maintenance of peace 4 See R.Wolfrum, Article 1, in Simma
and security. For the sake of convenience, these functions can be classified CUNAC, 49–56; Wolfrum, Peaceful
Settlement of Disputes, in Wolfrum
into three broad categories of activities: The first category concerns the UNLPP II, 982–93; UN Handbook on
political role of UN organs in the peaceful settlement of disputes, a matter the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
Between States, Annex to UN Doc. A/
mainly addressed in Chapter VI of the Charter entitled ‘Pacific settlement 46/33 (1991), 23; S.R.Ratner, Image
of disputes’. The judicial role of the International Court of Justice, which and Reality in the UN’s Peaceful
Settlement of Disputes, EJIL 6 (1995),
is also one of the six principal organs of the UN (albeit an independent 426–44 and the literature in Chapter 18
one which is not integrated into the structure of the other UN organs), above, 273 n. 1.
5 See C.Tomuschat, Article 2(3), in
and the general methods of international dispute settlement have already Simma CUNAC, 97–106.
been discussed in Chapter 18 above.1 The second category encompasses 6 See Chapter 21 above, 380–1.
enforcement action which can be taken under Chapter VII dealing with
‘Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and
acts of aggression’.2 The third category, finally, deals with the peculiar
institution of UN ‘peacekeeping’ operations which have no explicit legal
basis in the Charter, but have developed in practice and are often
described as being based upon ‘Chapter VI and a half’.3
Pacific settlement of disputes under the United Nations Charter

(Chapter VI)
Article 1(1) of the United Nations Charter states that it is one of the
purposes of the United Nations
to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the

principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might
lead to a breach of the peace.4
Article 2(3) obliges member states to
settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that

international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.5
The two most important political organs of the United Nations for the
peaceful settlement of disputes are the Security Council and the General
Assembly. But, as noted above,6 the UN Secretary-General also plays an
important role in offering ‘good offices’ to conflict parties, a function
which, to be effective, is often performed in secrecy.
A dispute may be brought before the Security Council:
386 THE UN AND PEACE AND SECURITY
7 Art. 35(1) UN Charter. See T. 1 by a member of the United Nations, whether or not it is a party to
Schweisfurth, Article 35, in Simma the dispute;7
CUNAC, 527–34.
8 Article 35(2). See Schweisfurth, 2 by a state which is not a member of the United Nations, provided
ibid. that it is a party to the dispute and ‘accepts in advance, for the
9 Article 11 (3) and also Articles 10 purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement pro-
and 11(2). See K.Hailbronner/
E.Klein, Articles 10 and 11, in vided in the…Charter’;8
Simma CUNAC, 226–53. 3 by the General Assembly, which ‘may call the attention of the Secu-
10 Article 99. See W.Fiedler, Article
99, ibid., 1044–57.
rity Council to situations which are likely to endanger international
11 See Chapter 21 above, 374. peace and security’;9
12 ICJ Rep. 1971, paras. 114–16; 4 by the Secretary-General, who ‘may bring to the attention of the
see Chapter 19 above, 328–9. See
P. Malanczuk, Countermeasures Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the
and Self-Defence as Circumstances maintenance of international peace and security’.10
Precluding Wrongfulness in the
International Law Commission’s
Draft Articles on State
Responsibility, in M.Spinedi/
However, a state, the General Assembly, or the Secretary-General can only
B.Simma (eds), United Nations request the Security Council to consider a dispute; it is for the Security
Codification of State Responsibility,
1987, 197–286, at 237. But see Council to decide whether to accede to that request by placing the dispute
R.Higgins, Peace and Security: on its agenda. Similarly, a dispute can be removed from the Security Council’s
Achievements and Failures, EJIL 6
(1995), 445–60, at 446, who notes agenda only by the Security Council, and not by the parties to the dispute;
(with reference to para. 105 of the the wisdom of this practice was shown a few days after the Soviet invasion
Judgment) that the Court ‘made the
extremely important observation of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, when the Security Council refused to
(which has implications for other accept a request from Czechoslovakia (which was, of course, acting under
chapters of the Charter as well) that
resolutions may in any event have Soviet pressure) to remove the question of the invasion from its agenda.
operative effect—that is to say, the Decisions concerning the agenda are procedural decisions, and therefore
findings of fact, or applications of
law within an organ’s own the veto does not apply.11
competence, are determinative.’
13 Article 36 of the Charter. Seel
Chapter VI empowers the Security Council to make various types of
Stein/S.Richter, Article 36, in Simma recommendations for the peaceful settlement of disputes; the Security
CUNAC, 534–46.
14 As to decisions of the Security
Council also has certain powers of investigation. According to the letter
Council on measures to give effect of the Charter, the circumstances in which the Security Council may
to a judgment of the ICJ under
Article 94 (2) of the Charter, see recommend terms of settlement are different from the circumstances in
Chapter 18 above, 288–9. which it may recommend procedures for settlement; but the
237; J.A.Frowein, Article 39, in circumstances in question are defined in very imprecise terms. In practice,
Simma CUNAC, 613. the Security Council usually disregards these complexities and makes all
sorts of recommendations, without citing any articles of the Charter, and
without bothering about the tortuous and imprecise distinctions made in
Chapter VI.
There has been some dispute in the literature on whether Security Council
decisions taken under Chapter VI can be binding. The broader view which
the International Court of Justice had expressed in its opinion in the Namibia
case in 1970 failed to be established in practice. (The Court argued that a
Security Council resolution not based on Chapter VII, but directly on Article
25 in Chapter V of the Charter, which states that UN Members ‘agree to
accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance
with the present Charter’, could be binding.12) Recommendations made by
the Security Council under Chapter VI therefore do not generally create
legal obligations,13 although they often exercise great political influence.
The Council has authority to pass binding decisions only under
Chapter VII. 14 The difficulty remains, however, that the Security
Council has frequently refrained from clearly indicating upon which
Articles of the Charter its decisions are based. 15 As regards voting
COLLECTIVE SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT (CHAPTER VII) 387
16 On the veto see Chapter 21 above,

procedure, recommendations under Chapter VI are non-procedural, so 374–5.
the veto applies.16 17 See Chapter 21 above, 377–9.
18 See A.Berg, The 1991 Declaration
The General Assembly may also deal with disputes under Articles on Fact-Finding by the United Nations,
10, 11(2), 12 and 14 of the Charter.17 Any member state of the United EJIL 4 (1994), 107–14.
Nations may ask the General Assembly to consider a dispute; and so 19 See Chapter 18 above, 275–81.
C.Murphy, The Conciliatory
may a non-member state, provided it is a party to the dispute in question Responsibilities of the United Nations
and accepts in advance, for the purposes of that dispute, the obligations Security Council, GYIL 35 (1992), 190–
204.
of pacific settlement contained in the Charter. The General Assembly 20 See Chapter 2 above, 25–6.
may make recommendations and appoint fact-finding missions; states 21 See Chapter 19 above, 309–11.
22 On Chapter VII (Articles 39–43) see
are under no legal obligation to comply with such recommendations or Frowein, in Simma CUNAC, 605–39;
to cooperate with fact-finding missions,18 although General Assembly B.O.Bryde, Articles 44–50, ibid., 640–
61; Harris CMIL, 874–907, 1010–17;
recommendations often exercise great political influence. O.Schachter, International Law in
The functions of the Security Council and the General Assembly in Theory and Practice, 1991, Chapter
XVII; E.Stein, The United Nations and
connection with the settlement of disputes represent a mixture of good the Enforcement of Peace, Mich. JIL 10
offices, mediation, inquiry and conciliation.19 But the Security Council (1989), 304–16; J.Delbrück, Collective
and the General Assembly are not, and were never intended to be, judicial Security, EPIL I (1992), 646–56; idem,
Collective Measures, ibid., 643–4; K.
bodies. Although they take legal factors into account, they also take Doehring, Collective Security, in
political factors into account, and political considerations often Wolfrum UNLPP I, 110–15; P.
Malanczuk, Humanitarian Intervention
overshadow legal considerations in their deliberations. Moreover, members and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force,
of the Security Council and the General Assembly are not always impartial; 1993; H.Freudenschuß, Between
Unilateralism and Collective Security:
during the Cold War members of an alliance tended to support one another, Authorizations of the Use of Force by
and small neutralist states tried to avoid giving offence to the two the UN Security Council, EJIL 5 (1994),
492–531; Higgins (1995), op. cit.; Y.
superpowers. Experience has shown that if a dispute between two members Kerbat, La Réference au Chapitre VII de
of the same alliance is brought to the United Nations, enemies of the la Charte des Nations Unies dans les
alliance may try to aggravate the dispute (instead of encouraging the parties résolutions à caractère humanitaire du
Conseil de sécurité, 1995; Société
to settle it), in the hope of disrupting the alliance. In view of these factors, Française pour le Droit International.
the absence of a power to take binding decisions should be regarded as a Collogue de Rennes: Le Chapitre VII de
la Charte des Nations Unies, 1995; J.
necessary safeguard for member states, and not as a defect in the system. Quigley, The ‘Privatization’ of Security
Normally states take disputes to the United Nations in order to put Council Enforcement Action: A Threat to
Unilateralism, Mich. JIL 17 (1996), 249–
political pressure on their opponents, by mobilizing world opinion against 83; F.R.Tesón, Collective Humanitarian
them. Sometimes, however, recourse to the United Nations may serve Intervention, ibid, 323– 71;
A.P.Mutharika, The Role of the United
another purpose; a state which is under pressure from its own domestic Nations Security Council in African
opinion to take a ‘strong line’ against another state may try to satisfy Peace Management: Some Proposals,
ibid., 537–62; D.Bills, International
domestic opinion by making fierce speeches at the United Nations, as a Human Rights and Humanitarian
substitute for action of a more damaging character. In such cases, the Intervention: The Ramifications of
Reform of the United Nations’ Security
United Nations acts as a safety valve, which enables states to ‘let off Council, Texas ILJ 31 (1996), 107–30;
steam’. But the frequency with which the United Nations is used for this R.E.Gordon, Humanitarian Intervention
by the United Nations: Iraq, Somalia,
purpose explains why states sometimes regard it as an unfriendly act to and Haiti, ibid., 43–56.
complain to the United Nations against another state.
Collective security and enforcement action (Chapter VII)
Based on the negative experience with the League of Nations,20 the drafters
of the Charter aimed to create a more advanced system of collective security
for the enforcement of peace. Its pillars were to rest on the comprehensive
prohibition of any force or threat of force in Article 2(4) of the
Charter 21 and an elaborate system of economic, political and
military enforcement measures against aggression in Chapter VII of the
Charter.22 The monopoly in enforcement power was made subject only to

two exceptions: first, the unilateral or collective right of self-defence in
24 Article 53 has not worked well in
practice, see the 6th edn of this Article 5123 and, second, enforcement measures by regional organizations
book, 267–8. On Chapter VIII of the authorized by the Security Council under Article 53.24
Charter which deals with ‘Regional
Arrangements’ see further The General Assembly was strengthened and accorded subsidiary
W.Hummer/ M.Schweitzer, Article functions in the maintenance of international peace. The Secretary-General
52, in Simma CUNAC, 679–722;
was to play a stronger political role than his counterpart under the League
G.Ress, Article 53, ibid., 722–52;
Hummer/Schweitzer, Article 54, system. It is helpful to first consider the general normative framework set
ibid., 752–7; S.v. Schorlemer, Blocs out in the text of the Charter before looking at how Chapter VII has worked
and Groups of States, in Wolfrum
UNLPP I, 69–77; U.Beyerlin, in actual practice.
Regional Arrangements, in Wolfrum Chapter VII is entitled: ‘Action with respect to threats to the peace,
UNLPP II, 1040–51. See also
breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression’.25 The Charter does not try to
J.Wolf, Regional Arrangements and
the UN Charter, EPIL 6 (1983), 289– define these terms (although it is fairly clear from the context that ‘threats
95; J.A. Frowein, Legal to the peace’26 and ‘breaches of the peace’ were intended to refer to
Consequences for International Law
Enforcement in Case of Security international peace);27 instead, Article 39, the first Article in Chapter VII,
Council Inaction, in J. Delbrück provides:
(ed.), The Future of International
Law Enforcement, 1993, 111–24;
R.Wolfrum, Der Beitrag regionaler The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to
Abmachungen zur the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall
Friedenssicherung: Möglichkeit und make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken
Grenzen, ZaöRV 53 (1993), 603–7; in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore
G. Nolte, Restoring Peace by
Regional Action: International Legal
international peace and security.28
Aspects of the Liberian Conflict,
ZaöRV 53 (1993), 603–37; M.Weller But the Council may also adopt provisional measures in accordance with
(ed.), Regional Peacekeeping and Article 4029 which provides:
International Enforcement: The
Liberian Crisis, 1994; J.A.Frowein,
Zwangsmaßnahmen von In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security
Regionalorganisationen, in FS Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon
Bernhardt, 57–69. Recent proposals the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties
to give a central role to regional
organizations in the area of military concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems
collective security overlook the fact necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without
that most regional organizations are prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.
not equipped for such tasks and are The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply
also often not sufficiently impartial,
see Higgins (1995), op. cit., 445–60,
with such provisional measure.30
450–2. On regional organizations,
see Chapter 6 above, 94–5. The words ‘call upon’, used in Article 40, cause some problems of
25 B.B.Ferencz, Aggression, EPIL I interpretation. They are often used in United Nations resolutions as a
(1992), 58–65.
26 H.Neuhold, Peace, Threat to, synonym for ‘recommend’,31 but member states seem to agree that the words,
EPIL 4 (1982), 100–2. when used in Article 40, mean ‘order’; this interpretation is reinforced when
27 For the extension of the
interpretation of these terms to
Article 40 is read in conjunction with Article 25.32 For instance, on 15 July
situations of internal conflict in the 1948 the Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution calling upon the
practice of the Security Council, see Arabs and Israelis to stop fighting, and this resolution was clearly understood
28 See Frowein, Article 39, in to be mandatory—that is, it was an order which created a legal obligation
Simma CUNAC, 605–16. to obey.33 Naturally, such resolutions are not always followed, unless they
29 M.Weller, Comments: The Use of are backed up by the threat of more severe measures, if the parties have not
Force and Collective Security, in I.F.
Dekker/H.H.G.Post, The Gulf War
already decided, for political or military reasons, that they offer a welcome
of 1980–1988, 1992, 69, at 82, opportunity to lay down arms, while saving face.
notes that it is not clear from the In general, however, the Security Council has made sparing use of its
Charter and practice whether a
powers under Article 40.34 Most ceasefire resolutions are phrased as
determination as specified in
Article 39 is required before recommendations, not as orders. The reason is probably that members of
Article 40 can come into operation. the Security Council would feel morally obliged to take enforcement action
The position of Article 40 in Chapter against states which disobeyed an order, and they are reluctant to take
VII, however, shows that it requires
that Article 39 be applicable; enforcement action against states which are their own allies or protégés.
Even when phrased as recommendations, however, ceasefire resolutions see Frowein, Article 40, in Simma
CUNAC, at 618.
have often succeeded in stopping the fighting; states are reluctant to 30 See Frowein, Article 40, ibid.,
continue fighting in defiance of the great powers and of world opinion 617–21.
generally. 31 For instance, see text below, 390.
Enforcement action stricto sensu (that is, action to deal with a threat 33 See text below, 391.
to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression) can take two 34 See text below, 419, 422.
forms; Article 41 provides for non-military enforcement action and 35 J.A.Frowein, Article 41, in Simma
CUNAC, 621–3; U.Beyerlin, Sanctions,
Article 42 provides for military enforcement action. in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1111–28; J.
Article 41 reads as follows: Combacau, Sanctions, EPIL 9 (1986),
337–41; M.P.Doxey, International
Sanctions in Contemporary Perspective,
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving 1987; P.Weckel, Le Chapitre VII de la
the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its Charte et son application par le Conseil
de Sécurité, AFDI 37 (1991), 165–202;
decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United E.Klein, Sanctions by International
Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete Organizations and Economic
or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, Communities, AVR 30 (1992), 101–13;
R.Lapidoth, Some Reflections on the
postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, Law and Practice Concerning the
and the severance of diplomatic relations. Imposition of Sanctions by the Security
Council, ibid., 114–27.
36 See J.A.Frowein, Article 42, in
Decisions of the Security Council taken under Article 41 on measures Simma CUNAC, 628–36; see also text
not involving the use of armed force, such as to apply economic sanctions, below, 389–90, 396–9.
37 See D.W.Bowett, International
are binding for the member states called upon.35 Military Force, EPIL 3 (1982), 221; R.
Article 42 provides: Sommereyns, United Nations Forces,
EPIL 4 (1982), 253; J.A.Frowein, Article
43, in Simma CUNAC, 636–40.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided 38 For the recent development of stand-
for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be by arrangements of member states with
inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as the UN to earmark national contingents
for UN peacekeeping, see text below,
may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace 424–5.
and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade,
and other operations by air, sea or land forces of Members of
the United Nations.36
Article 42 must be read in conjunction with Article 43, which provides:
All Members of the United Nations…undertake to make available

to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special
agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities,
including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security…The agreement or
agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the
initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between
the Security Council and Members…[of the United Nations].
Member states have never made any of the special agreements envisaged
in Article 43 and the Military Staff Committee established under Article
47 has remained a dead body which only holds regular ritual meetings.37
The absence of special agreements with the Security Council in the sense
of Article 43 does not preclude member states from placing troops ad hoc
at the disposal of the Council. But the Security Council cannot order a
state to take part in military enforcement action in the same way that it
can order a state to take part in non-military enforcement action. This is
so because a state is not obliged to take part in military operations under
Article 42 unless it has concluded a ‘special agreement’ under Article 43.38
However, the Security Council can authorize a state to use force, even in
circumstances where force would normally be illegal, if the conditions of
39 See Frowein, Article 39, op. cit.,

614–6.
Articles 39 and 42 are met. Article 42 empowers the Security Council to
40 However, Frowein, ibid., at 615, use force in such circumstances, and therefore may be interpreted a fortiori
argues that action taken by member
states against the target state
as enabling the Security Council to authorize states to do the same. Such
pursuant to such a recommendation a decision of the Security Council can logically only be a recommendation
may nevertheless be justified,
technically not by the
to member states. It cannot bind member states to carry out a resolution
recommendation, but by the to adopt military measures without their consent. However, it is binding
presumption of legality created by
the underlying legal opinion of the
upon the target state with the legal effect that it is barred from invoking
Security Council as the body of the self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, taking resort to reprisals
United Nations responsible for
securing international peace. He
short of the use of force, or later claiming reparation in response to the
suggests that this could be possible use of force by the member states so authorized by the Council. Legally,
under the condition that the Security
Council has correctly assessed the
the decision of the Security Council under Article 42 therefore has a double
legality of the conduct nature. With respect to the target state it is a binding decision, with regard
recommended to member states.
But the question this view begs is
to the authorized member states it is a recommendation which justifies in
who decides on whether the Council law the use of armed force otherwise prohibited by Article 2(4) of the
has done so.
41 Frowein, Article 42, op. cit., 633;
Charter.
see also Frowein, Article 39, op. cit., There is some dispute on the question of whether a mere recommendation
613.
42 The Resolution seems to have
adopted by the Security Council solely under Article 39 without direct
been adopted under Chapter VI; see reference to Articles 41 and 42 may include enforcement measures. The
Beyerlin, Sanctions, op. cit., 1115.
See also text below, 393–5.
better view, in the light of the text and genesis of the Charter and the system
43 See Chapter 21 above, 374–5. of Chapter VII, is that such enforcement measures require a clear decision
of the Council to apply Articles 41 or 42 and to determine which parties
are placed under legal obligations.39 As noted above, enforcement measures
taken by the Council within its competence are binding upon the target
state and prevent it from invoking other grounds of international law for
the illegality of, for example, boycott measures. A mere recommendation
under Article 39 by itself cannot have this effect.40 In practice, however, the
Security Council tends to refer only to Chapter VII as such and not to
specific articles. Article 42, for example, has never been expressly invoked.41
There are also resolutions of the Council which give no indication at all as
to their legal basis. For example, in Resolution 569 (1985) of 26 July 1985,
the Security Council requested member states to impose embargo measures
on South Africa without having previously decided that there was a threat
to international peace in the sense of Article 39.42
In examining the way Chapter VII has been applied in actual practice,
the following will distinguish between the practice during the Cold War
period and after the end of the Cold War because it marks an important
turning point.
Practice under Chapter VII during the Cold War

During the Cold War the collective security system of the United Nations
remained largely crippled, because the required continuing cooperation of
the five major allied powers had evaporated soon after the Second World
War was over. While the Soviet Union tended to view the UN as being
controlled by inherently hostile powers, and made excessive use of its veto
right,43 in the early phase the United States, relying on its ‘mechanical
majority’, favoured a normative approach based upon the Charter
provisions. Eric Stein notes:
It was United States diplomacy that championed the normative- 44 Stein, op. cit., 312.
45 See N.D.White, Keeping the Peace:
institutional approach to peace maintenance, particularly when it The United Nations and the
suited the American goals of the day. Without American support Maintenance of International Peace and
Security, 2nd rev. edn 1993.
there seemed little strength behind the Charter claim of 46 For examples, see M.Koskenniemi,
prohibition of force. With the ‘normative retreat’ by the United The Place of Law in Collective Security,
States, due as much to the changed constituency of the world Mich. JIL 17 (1996), 455–90, at 457;
Beyerlin, Sanctions, op. cit., 1113–14.
community as to Soviet policy and to the emerging limits of 47 See text below, 391–2.
American power, the United Nations’ claim to the role of 48 SC Res. 502 (1982) calling upon
centralized peace enforcement lost any reality.44 Argentina and the UK to cease their
hostilities referred to a breach of the
peace ‘in the Falklands region’. See
During the Cold War the procedures for collective measures in Chapter VII Chapters 10, 148 and 19, 315, 322
above.
were largely substituted by balance of power strategies implemented by the 49 See Koskenniemi, op. cit., 458.
great powers outside the framework of the United Nations.45 There was 50 Such as in the Congo and in Cyprus,
not much enforcement activity by the Security Council up to 1990. It was see text below, 412–20, 420–2.
51 SC draft resolution S/13735, 13
focusing on aspects of decolonization and did not affect any of the great January 1980. See UN Chronicle, 1980,
powers or their close allies. Occasional attempts by the General Assembly no. 2, 18–26. See also Chapter 17
to revitalize collective security remained fruitless.46 From 1946 to 1986, above, 259–60.
there were only two determinations under Article 39 by the Security 53 See Chapter 2 above, 27.
Council that there was a ‘breach of the peace’, in the case of Korea in 54 See Chapter 6 above, 95.
55 See Chapter 2, 27 and Chapter 19,
195047 and concerning the Falklands war in 1986.48 In the same period the 325 above.
Council referred to ‘aggression’ only in the cases of Israel and South Africa 56 See text above, 388.
and determined that there was a ‘threat to international peace and security’ 57 See Chapters 17, 259–60 and 19,
315 above.
in not more than seven instances.49 From 1945 to 1990, there were only 58 See Chapter 19 above, 322–3.
two cases in which the Security Council is considered to have authorized 59 See text below, 396–9.
the use of force (apart from the use of self-defence to protect the mandate of
peacekeeping operations conducted with the consent of the parties),50
namely in the cases of Korea and Southern Rhodesia. Binding non-military
sanctions were also only adopted twice, with the economic blockade of
Southern Rhodesia (1966–79) and the arms embargo imposed upon South
Africa in 1977. An attempt to apply Article 41 against Iran in January
1980, in order to compel Iran to release the United States diplomats being
held as hostages in Tehran, was defeated by a Soviet veto.51
Thus, few of the more than seventy international wars that occurred
until the end of the 1990s52 led to a response under Chapter VII, and
major conflicts in this period failed to be addressed by binding decisions
of the Security Council. In the Cuban missile crisis of 1962,53 involving
a dangerous direct confrontation between the two great powers, the
United States based its unilateral ‘quarantine’ action primarily on the
authority of the Organization of American States.54 The Vietnam War
was kept outside of the Security Council and the General Assembly.55 In
the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Security Council repeatedly made threats
to adopt sanctions under Chapter VII. But they remained empty threats
and therefore lost all credibility.56 The Council was unable to find a
consensus on sanctions during the Tehran Hostages crisis of 1979–81.57
The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (1979–89) also never occupied
the Security Council.58 In the First Gulf War between Iraq and Iran (1980–
8), one of the most vicious wars of modern times, it took seven years
before the Security Council effectively responded.59
The United Nations force in Korea

When North Korea invaded South Korea (‘the Republic of Korea’) in
June 1950, the Security Council, profiting from the absence of the Soviet

61 SC Res. 83 (1950).
representative,60 passed a resolution recommending member states to ‘furnish
62 SC Res. 84 (1950). See D. such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the
Bindschedler-Robert, Korea, EPIL
12 (1990), 202–8; L.Gordenker, The
armed attack and to restore international peace’;61 later it passed another
United Nations and the Peaceful resolution recommending them to place their forces in Korea under a unified
Unification of Korea: The Politics of
Field Operations 1947–1950, 1959;
command to be appointed by the United States.62
D.B. Bowett, United Nations Forces: It is doubtful whether the forces in Korea constituted a United Nations
A Legal Study of United Nations force in any meaningful sense. They were always called a United Nations
Practice, 1964, 29–60; T.-H.Yoo,
The Korean War and the United force, they were authorized by the Security Council to fly the United Nations
Nations: A Legal and Diplomatic flag and they were awarded United Nations medals by the General Assembly.
History, 1965; M.Hastings, The
Korean War, 1993; S.Brammer, But all the decisions concerning the operations of the forces were taken by
Conflicts, Korea, in Wolfrum the United States (sometimes after consulting the other states which had
UNLPP I, 278–85; L.Fisher, The
Korean War: On What Legal Basis sent forces to Korea), and the Commander took his orders from the United
Did Truman Act?, AJIL 89 (1995), States, not from the United Nations; the decision to dismiss the original
21–39.
Commander, General MacArthur, and to replace him by a new Commander,
64 See text above, 389–90. was taken unilaterally by the United States. Moreover, when the fighting
65 See J.Delbrück, Article 24, in
ended and a conference met at Geneva in 1954 to try to reunify Korea, the
66 ICJ Rep. 1962, 151, 162–3. See ‘Allied Side’ at the conference did not consist of representatives of the United
text below, 420–2. Nations, but of representatives of the individual states which had sent forces
67 UNGA Res. 377 (V), UNYb 1950,
193–5. See H.Reicher, The Uniting to Korea.
for Peace Resolution on the The states which sent forces to Korea might be regarded as exercising a
Thirtieth Anniversary of its Passage,
Colum. JTL 20 (1981), 1–49; right of collective self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter;63 alternatively,
E.Stein/R.C. Morrissey, Uniting for they might be regarded as acting under an authorization conferred by the
Peace Resolution, EPIL 5 (1983),
379–82; B.Nolte, Uniting for Peace, Security Council (if the Security Council can use force itself, it can a fortiori
in Wolfrum UNLPP II, 1341–8. authorize member states to do the same).64 But the forces were probably
68 Article 28 UN Charter. See T
Schweisfurth, Article 28, in Simma national forces, not United Nations forces.
CUNAC, 469–80.
69 Article 20. See G.Zieger et al.,
Article 20, ibid., 339–59.
70 Article 21. See M.Schaefer,
The Uniting for Peace Resolution
Article 21, ibid., 360–80.
The Security Council had been able to act in Korea because the Soviet
Union had been boycotting the Security Council; it was unlikely that Soviet
boycotts would recur in the future. After the outbreak of the Korean War,
Western states therefore tried to strengthen the General Assembly, in order
that it might be able to act when the Soviet veto prevented the Security
Council from acting. Article 24 of the Charter gave the Security Council
‘primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security’,65 and it was argued that this did not preclude the General Assembly
from exercising a secondary or residual responsibility—an argument which
was approved by the International Court of Justice in the Expenses case.66
On 3 November 1950 the General Assembly passed the Uniting for Peace
Resolution, in order to increase its ability to exercise this secondary or
residual responsibility.67
Unlike the Security Council, which is ‘so organized as to be able to
function continuously’,68 the General Assembly meets only ‘in regular annual
sessions and in such special sessions as occasion may require’. 69
Consequently, the General Assembly might find it difficult to deal with
trouble which occurred when it was not in session. To remedy this defect,
the Uniting for Peace Resolution streamlined the procedure for calling
special sessions of the General Assembly. This was an exercise of the
General Assembly’s power to ‘adopt its own rules of procedure’;70 even
the communist countries, which challenged the legality of the resolution in
71 See for other examples C.

1950, have made use of this procedure when requesting special sessions Tomuschat, General Assembly, in
of the General Assembly (for example, at the time of the Suez invasion Wolfrum UNLPP I, 548–57, at 550; Nolte,
in 1956).71 Uniting for Peace, op. cit., 1346–7.
The Uniting for Peace Resolution states that, if the Security Council 73 ICJ Rep. 1962, 151, 165, 171–2. On
fails in its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and this case, see text below, 420–2.
security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with 75 See Chapter 2 above, 27–8.
a view to making recommendations for collective measures, including the 76 See J.E.S.Fawcett, Security Council
Resolutions on Rhodesia, BYIL 41
use of armed force where necessary; and it recommends members to (1965–6), 103; R.Higgins, International
maintain contingents in their armed forces which could be made available law, Rhodesia, and the UN, The World
Today 23 (1967), 94; R.Zacklin, The
‘for service as a United Nations unit…upon recommendation by the United Nations and Rhodesia, 1974; H.
Security Council or the General Assembly’. Needless to say, the communist Strack, Sanctions: The Case of
countries opposed this part of the Resolution with special vehemence; Rhodesia, 1978; J.Nkala, The United
Nations, International Law and the
and its legality is certainly open to doubt. Article 11(2) of the Charter Rhodesian Independence Crisis, 1985;
says that ‘any…question on which action is necessary shall be referred to W.Morvay, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, EPIL
12 (1990), 319–32; V.Gowlland-
the Security Council by the General Assembly’, and it is fairly clear that Debbas, Collective Responses to
this gives the Security Council a monopoly of ‘action’.72 In the Expenses Illegal Acts in International Law: United
Nations Action in the Question of
case, the International Court of Justice interpreted ‘action’ to mean Southern Rhodesia, 1990; P.-T.Stoll,
‘enforcement action’, and said that the United Nations Emergency Force Conflicts, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, in
in the Middle East, created by the General Assembly in 1956, was not 77 SC Res. 217 (1965), AJIL 60 (1966),
contrary to Article 11(2) because it was not designed to take enforcement 924; ILM 5 (1966), 167. Despite the use
of the words ‘call upon’ in the resolution,
action;73 the Court clearly implied that the General Assembly would have it was not mandatory; see BPIL 1965,
acted illegally if it had set up a force designed to take enforcement action. 101, 176–8.
On the other hand, states have a right of collective self-defence under 78 SC Res. 221 (1966), AJIL 60 (1966),
925; ILM 5 (1966), 534.
Article 51 of the Charter,74 and there is nothing to prevent the General 79 SC Res. 232 (1966), ILM 6 (1967),
Assembly from recommending them to exercise this right in order to 141. Subsequent resolutions, which
were all based on Articles 39 and 41,
defend the victim of aggression; but in this case it is difficult to describe reaffirmed these sanctions decisions;
the forces of the states concerned as ‘a United Nations unit’. see, e.g., SC Res. 253 (1968) and SC
Res. 277 (1970).
The Uniting for Peace Resolution was first invoked in 1956 in response
to the military action taken by France, the United Kingdom and Israel
following Egypt’s seizure of the Suez Canal. The United States and the
Soviet Union collaborated and succeeded in demanding the withdrawal
of the foreign forces from Egypt.75 However, the call of the General
Assembly for a termination of the Soviet armed intervention in Hungary,
which coincided with the Suez Canal crisis, found no response.
Rhodesia and South Africa

On 11 November 1965, the white population of the British colony of
Rhodesia unilaterally declared Rhodesia independent, against the wishes
of the United Kingdom and without reference to the Africans who formed
94 per cent of the population of Rhodesia.76 The first resolution of the
Security Council on Rhodesia, passed immediately after the declaration
of independence, in effect merely recommended member states to suspend
trade in certain commodities with Rhodesia.77 On 9 April 1966, the Security
Council passed a resolution authorizing the UK to search ships on the
high seas to see whether they were carrying oil destined for Rhodesia.78
On 16 December 1966, the Security Council decided that ‘the present
situation in…Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace’, and
ordered member states to suspend trade in certain commodities with
Rhodesia.79 The ‘sanctions’ were made mandatory. Indeed, the Rhodesia
80 SC Res. 418 (1977), UN

Chronicle, December 1977, 10. This
resolution of 1966 represents the first clear occasion on which the
made a voluntary arms embargo Security Council gave an order under Article 41. Apart from Rhodesia,
instituted by the Council in 1963
mandatory; J.C. Heunis, United
during the Cold War, an order was issued under Article 41 on only one
Nations versus South Africa, 1986; occasion: in 1977 the Security Council imposed a mandatory ban on
T.Roeser, The Arms Embargo of the
UN Security Council Against South
exports of arms to South Africa.80 The Security Council revoked its
Africa: Legal and Practical Aspects, resolutions imposing sanctions on Rhodesia by Resolution 460 (1979),
GYIL 31 (1988), 574–94; L.B.Sohn,
Rights in Conflict: The United
after the ‘government’ of Rhodesia had agreed to revoke the unilateral
Nations and South Africa, 1994; declaration of independence and to accept the principle of majority
Beyerlin, Sanctions, op. cit., 1116–
17; P.-T.Stoll, Conflicts, South Africa,
rule.81 The Council lifted the embargo and other restrictions against
in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 317–29. South Africa on 25 May 1994 by Resolution 919 (1994), after South
13–6.
Africa’s new (non-racial and democratic) constitution had entered into
82 See UN Chronicle, 1994, no. 4, force.82 On 23 June 1994, South Africa resumed its seat in the General
4–14 for the end of apartheid and a
chronology of UN involvement.
Assembly.
83 See text below, 426–7. Some right-wing politicians in the United Kingdom denied that the
84 See Chapter 18 above, 292–3
and text below, 426–8.
situation in Rhodesia constituted a threat to international peace; but Article
85 See Chapter 5 above, 73–80. 39 gives the Security Council a discretionary power to determine what
86 See, for example, J.Delbrück, A
Fresh Look at Humanitarian
constitutes a threat to the peace,83 and member states cannot substitute
Intervention under the Authority of their own opinion for that of the Security Council. Nor can it be said that
the United Nations, Indiana LJ
(1992), 887–901, at 894; P.Fifoot,
the Security Council’s decision was wholly unreasonable or an abuse of its
Functions and Powers, and discretionary power (in some systems of municipal law an administrative
Inventions: UN Action in Respect of
Human Rights and Humanitarian
body’s decisions are invalid if they are wholly unreasonable or an abuse of
Intervention, in N.S.Rodley (ed.), To that body’s discretionary power; but it is not certain whether a similar rule of
Loose the Bands of Wickedness—
International Intervention in Defence
international law applies to the Security Council84). The whole purpose of
of Human Rights, 1992, 149–51, the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia was to preserve the
describes the determination of the
Security Council in the case of
political and economic dominance of the whites (numbering 6 per cent of the
Rhodesia that there was a threat to population) over the Africans. There was obviously a risk that sooner or
international peace and security as
‘a legal fiction which enabled it to
later the Rhodesian Africans would react violently against this state of affairs,
resort to Chapter VII in order to and a risk that fighting between the Rhodesian Africans and the white regime
further the policy of the United
Nations of self-determination for
might spill over into the territory of neighbouring states; indeed, both these
colonial peoples and the objective of risks became realities in the 1970s. If a situation is likely to lead to such
ensuring the purposes of article 24
of the Universal Declaration of
results, it is not unreasonable to describe it as a threat to international peace.
Human Rights that everyone has the Some people also criticized the Security Council action on Rhodesia
right to take part in the government
of his country’ (at 151).
on the grounds that Rhodesia was not a state,85 and had not committed
87 Frowein, Article 39, op. cit., 612, any breach of international law. (These two arguments were linked, because
observes that one has to take into
consideration that the special
it was argued that Rhodesia could not have or break any obligations
situation in South Africa entailed the under international law unless it was a state.) But there is nothing in the
danger of armed conflicts with the
neighbouring states and that, in the
Charter to suggest that a threat to the peace necessarily connotes action
case of Rhodesia, the United by a state or a breach of international law. Article 39 says that the Security
Kingdom, as the state which was
internationally responsible for the
Council’s function is ‘to maintain or restore international peace and
territory, had agreed to the security’—not to punish breaches of international law.
measures.
88 See Fifoot, op. cit., 51–3.
The cases of Southern Rhodesia and South Africa in which, inter alia,
Article 41 was applied to impose boycott measures are often cited as evidence
that internal conditions in a state, such as massive violations of human
rights, could be viewed as by themselves creating a threat to the peace,
meriting at least the imposition of collective economic sanctions under
Chapter VII. 86 There are doubts, however, whether the special
circumstances of the Rhodesian case admit this conclusion.87 In the case
of South Africa’s regime of apartheid, the relevance of external factors for
the Security Council’s decision-making also raises some questions,88 but it is,
89 See A.Rapp/Chapter E.Philipp,

on the whole, an important precedent. At the same time, however, one Conflict, Cambodia/Kampuchea, in
could inquire into the significance of a ‘colonial situation’ in both cases Wolfrum UNLPP I, 200–8.
90 Frowein, Article 39, op. cit., 615– 16;
and of the fact that the Security Council failed to adopt enforcement Article 42, op. cit., 633–4, arguing that
measures in quite a number of other obvious cases of gross violations of because of the special circumstances,
the case should not be seen as a
human rights during the Cold War, such as in Biafra (1967–70), precedent for the ‘recommendation’
Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime,89 and many other situations. (under Article 39) of enforcement
It must also be noted that in the two aforementioned cases the Security measures according to Article 42, but as
a decision taken under Article 42 itself.
Council did not adopt resolutions authorizing member states to use armed 91 SC Res. 221 (1966), op. cit.
force generally within the territory of either Southern Rhodesia or South 92 See, for example, P.B.Stephen/B.M.
Klimenko (eds), International Law and
Africa. In the Rhodesian case the authorization by the Security Council, International Security: Military and
properly to be construed as an application of Article 42,90 of Great Britain Political Dimensions (U.S.-Soviet
to use force against oil tankers with cargo for Southern Rhodesia destined Dialogue Series), 1991; B.B.Ferencz,
New Legal Foundations for Global
for the harbour of Beira in Portuguese Mozambique,91 was in fact, applied Survival: Security Through the Security
against a third state, the flag state Greece, under special circumstances. Council, 1994; D.F.Vagts, Repealing
the Cold War, AJIL 88 (1994), 506–11;
W.M.Reismann, Haiti and the Validity of
International Action, AJIL 89 (1995),
Practice under Chapter VII after the end of the Cold War 82–4.
93 Higgins (1995), op. cit., at 449.
With the break-up of the Soviet Union, the changing political conditions 94 SC Res. 598 (1987). See Post/
seemed to place the Security Council, now dominated by the Western Dekker (eds), op. cit.; I.F.Dekker/H.H.G.
Post, The Gulf War From the Point of
powers under the leadership of the United States, into a new and central View of International Law, NYIL 17
position with regard to the maintenance of international peace and (1986), 75–105; E.David, La Guerre du
security.92 As noted by Rosalyn Higgins: golfe et le droit internationale, RBDI 20
(1987), 153–83; C.Gray, The British
Position in Regard to the Gulf Conflict,
Since the end of the Cold War there has been a marked decline ICLQ 37 (1988), 420, Part 2, ICLQ 40
in the unilateral use of force by the United States outside of the (1991), 464; G.Eibach, Conflicts, Iran/
Iraq, in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 255–60. See
United Nations. Since the coincidence of its own objectives and also the literature in Chapter 20 above,
those of the United Nations in the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, the 351 n. 67.
advantage has been seen in the United States of making the 95 See I.Jahn-Koch, Conflicts,
Afghanistan, in Wolfrum UNLPP I,
United Nations the centre of foreign policy. The disappearance 176–88.
of the old, hostile Soviet Union has made the Security Council a 96 SC Res. 435 (1978).
more comfortable environment. There has been a substantial 97 See N.Bassenge, Conflicts, Central
and South America, in Wolfrum UNLPP
common interest in peace and security matters between the I, 209–24.
United States, France and the United Kingdom, with much
common ground also with the Russian Federation. China remains
uneasy, but does not feel strongly enough to veto.93
The new cooperation among the five permanent members of the Security
Council had an early impact, bringing the First Gulf War between Iraq
and Iran to an end in August 1988.94 The withdrawal of Soviet forces
from Afghanistan in 1988–9 was based upon a plan mediated by the
UN Secretary-General.95 In Africa, Cuban forces withdrew from Angola
in 1989 and Namibia became independent in March 1990 on the basis
of a resolution which the Security Council had adopted in 1978.96 UN
involvement in the solution of the conflicts in Central America became
significant.97 However, the two main developments which led to a
challenge of the role of the United Nations emerged from the invasion
of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990, which was reversed by allied military
action based upon Chapter VII in 1991, and from the spreading of
massive violence in internal conflicts, mostly ethnically inspired, such as
the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda.
The new climate among the permanent members of the Security Council
resulted in a much celebrated statement made in January 1992, after a
98 Note by the President of the

Council, UN SCOR, 47th Session,
meeting in which the Council for the first time in its existence met at the
3046th meeting, UN Doc. S/23500 level of Heads of State or Government. It emphasized that
(1992), ILM 31 (1992), 759, at 761.
99 Koskenniemi, op. cit., 458 with
references. [t]he non-military sources of instability in the economic, social,
100 SC Res. 660 (1990), ILM 29
(1990), 1323. See Agora: The Gulf
humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace
Crisis in International and Foreign and security.98
Relations Law, AJIL 85 (1991), 63
and 506; C.Greenwood, Iraq’s
Invasion of Kuwait: Some Legal A hitherto unknown activism on the part of the Security Council developed
Issues, The World Today (March in the short period from 1990 to 1995. Collective measures were taken
1991), 39; D.Raic, The Gulf Crisis
and the United Nations, LJIL 4 under Chapter VII in eight instances, concerning Iraq, Liberia, former
(1991), 119; D.W.Greig, Self- Yugoslavia, Somalia, Libya, Angola, Haiti and Rwanda, all of which entailed
Defence and the Security Council: binding sanctions under Article 41.99 In five cases the Council authorized
What Does Article 51 Require?,
ICIQ 40 (1991), 366; N.Schrijver, the use of force (Iraq, Somalia, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Haiti).
The United Nations and the Use of The latter five cases will be addressed in the following.
Force: Comparing the Korea and
the Gulf Crises from a Legal
Perspective, in P.J.v.Kieken/C.O.
Pannenberg (eds), Liber Akkerman, The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq
In-and Outlaws in War, 1991, 255;
L.C. Green, The Gulf War, the UN When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 and declared it to
and the Law of Armed Conflict, AVR be Iraq’s seventeenth province, the Security Council responded immediately
28 (1991), 369; C.Dominicé, La
Sécurité collective et la crise du by condemning the act as a breach of the peace and of international security,
Golfe, EJIL 2 (1991), 85; B.Conforti, and requiring Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal.100 Iraq did
Non-Coercive Sanctions in the
United Nations Charter: Some not abide by this requirement and subsequently the Security Council adopted
Lessons from the Gulf War, ibid., more than thirty resolutions on the conflict and its consequences. Inter alia,
110; Entre les lignes: La guèrre du
golfe et le droit international it imposed an arms and trade embargo upon Iraq and Kuwait on 6 August
(Seminar of the Law Faculty 1990101 and instituted a committee to supervise the implementation of the
University of Brussels), 1991;
C.Warbrick, The Invasion of Kuwait
sanctions.102 Following a naval blockade authorized on 25 August 1990,103
by Iraq, ICLQ 40 (1991), 482, Part II, on 28 November 1990 the Security Council finally adopted Resolution 678,
965; E.Lauterpacht et al. (eds), The
Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents,
in which the Council, ‘[a]cting under Chapter VII of the Charter’, authorized
Vol. I, 1991; S. Sucharitkul, The
Process of PeaceMaking Following Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless
Operation ‘Desert Storm’, AJPIL 43
(1992), 1; R.Lavalle, The Law of the Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
United Nations and the Use of paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary
Force, under the Relevant Security
Council Resolutions of 1990 and means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
1991, to Resolve the Persian Gulf subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace
Crisis, NYIL 23 (1992), 3–65; K.H.
Kaikobad, Self-Defence, and security in the area.104
Enforcement Action and the Gulf
Wars, 1980–88 and 1990–91, BYIL
63 (1992), 299–366; J.N.Moore,
Under the leadership of the United States the coalition forces launched
Crisis in the Gulf: Enforcing the Rule ‘Operation Desert Storm’ on 16/17 January 1991 with airborne attacks
of Law, Vol. 1, 1992; T.Eitel, The against Iraqi targets in Iraq and Kuwait, followed by the main land offensive
Escape and Parole of the
Imprisoned God of War. An on 24 February. A suspension of hostilities came into effect on 28 February
Overview of the Second Gulf War after the allied forces had occupied Kuwait and a part of southern Iraq.
from the Perspective of International
Law, GYIL 35 (1992), 170; P.Rowe There is no doubt that the wording in Resolution 678 ‘to use all
(ed.), The Gulf War 1990–1991 in necessary means’ was an authorization to use armed force. But there are
International and English Law, 1993; a number of other legal problems concerning the conduct of Operation
M.Weller (ed.), Iraq and Kuwait:
The Hostilities and Their Aftermath, Desert Storm which have given rise to some concern. One question is
1993; D.Campbell, Politics Without whether the Security Council may delegate its responsibility for military
Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics, and
the Narratives of the Gulf War,
action under Article 42 and authorize states to employ force at their own
1993; F.Malekian, Condemning discretion without retaining at least some form of control.105 It is arguable
the Use of Force in the Gulf Crisis, that the Security Council was not exactly acting according to Chapter VII
1994; C. Gray, After the Ceasefire:
Iraq, the Security Council and because Articles 46 and 47 imply that enforcement measures will be under
the Use of Force, the control of the Security Council and its Military Staff Committee.106
However, it must be said that the UN is ill-equipped to BYIL 65 (1994), 135–74; J.A.Frowein,
Gulf Conflict (1990/1991), EPIL II
effectively handle the complicated command and control functions (1995), 643–7; The United Nations and
involved in such complex military operations. Furthermore, it is also the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990–1996, UN
Blue Book Series, Vol. IX, 1996,
clear, as a matter of fact, that the United States would not have been 101 SC Res. 661 (1990), ILM 29 (1990),
prepared to accept anything other than American control over its forces 1325.
102 See P.Conlon, Lessons From Iraq:
and their cooperation with the allies. Without the leadership of the United The Functions of the Iraq Sanctions
States under these conditions, it is not likely that there would have been Committee as a Source of Sanctions
any UN-sponsored action at all, although there would still have been Implementation Authority and Practice,
Virginia JIL 35 (1995), 633–68.
room for Allied support for Kuwait in the sense of collective self-defence 103 SC Res. 665 (1990), ILM 29 (1990),
under Article 51 of the Charter.107 Nevertheless, the broad discretion 1329.
104 SC Res. 678 (1990), ibid., 1565.
left to the coalition forces has led to accusations that the Security Council 105 See M.Bothe, The Legitimacy of the
was ‘hijacked’ by the United States.108 Use of Force to Protect the Rights of
A second issue concerns the point whether the international community Peoples and Minorities, in C.Brölmann/
R.Lefeber/M.Zieck (eds), Peoples and
should not have waited longer to see whether the economic sanctions Minorities in International Law, 1993,
would lead to the desired result, before resorting to armed force and its 289–99, at 296. His view is that
peacekeeping by the Council is meant
consequences for the Iraqi civilian population.109 In essence, this is a to be a real alternative to the unilateral
political question in which also a number of military considerations (inter use of force: ‘It is, thus, not the role of
the Security Council to just give its
alia, connected with the build-up of Allied forces in the region, their delicate blessing to a unilateral use of force.’
presence in Saudi Arabia and climate conditions) have played an important See further Schachter (1991),
International Law, op. cit., 396–9.
role. There is also much doubt as to the general effectiveness of economic 106 See, for example, B.Urquhart, The
sanctions in view of past experience which indicates that they have more UN and International Security after the
Cold War, in Roberts/Kingsbury (eds),
political and symbolic importance than real effect.110 But there is also a op. cit., 80, at 83.
legal point, namely whether, in the light of the wording of Article 42 of 107 See Chapter 19 above, 317–18. On
the Charter and its position after Article 41, the Security Council must the dispute on the relationship between
Res. 678 and Articles 42 and 51 of the
first make a formal determination that the economic and other sanctions Charter see Frowein, Article 42, op. cit.,
have been inadequate, before authorizing military measures.111 It is at 634–5.
108 See, for example, the critical article
submitted that such a requirement may be overstretching the matter; if by B.H.Weston, Security Council
the Security Council decides to adopt measures under Article 42, it Resolution 678 and Persian Gulf
Decision-Making: Precarious
implicitly says that other measures have been (or are) insufficient in its Legitimacy, AJIL 85 (1991), 516–35.
view and there is no reason to see what would be legally gained from the 109 See Chapter 1, 5 and Chapter 20,
362 above.
formal expression of this view, except that there may be more debate on 110 See L.Rosenzweig, United Nations
the inadequacy of the sanctions because it is then a separate item to be Sanctions: Creating a More Effective
formally decided. Tool for the Enforcement of International
Law, AJPIL 48 (1995), 161–95.
A third problem that should be mentioned is related to Article 50 of 111 Urquhart, op. cit., 84. See further
the UN Charter which provides that in the case of enforcement measures D.L.Bethlehem (ed.), The Kuwait Crisis:
Sanctions and Their Economic
adopted by the Security Council, any state (not only a UN member state) Consequences, 1991.
112 Agenda for Peace, United Nations,
1992, 24. The matter has also been
which finds itself confronted with special economic problems raised by the former UN Legal Advisor
arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the and now Judge at the International
right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of Court of Justice, C.-A.Fleischhauer,
Wirtschaftliche Zwangsmaßnahmen in
those problems. Recht und Praxis der Weltorganisation,
VN (1991), 41.
A number of states tried to obtain compensation under this Article for
damage which they or their companies incurred by adhering to the UN
sanctions imposed upon Iraq. But these efforts remained fruitless. This may
be a bad precedent for the future willingness of states to follow sanctions of
the United Nations. Therefore, measures to address this problem have been
proposed by the UN Secretary-General in his ‘Agenda for Peace’.112
Harsh conditions were imposed upon Iraq in the monumental ceasefire
Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991, which in UN parlance is referred to as
the ‘mother of all resolutions’ because of its length and broad range of
113 SC Res. 687 (1991), ILM 30

(1991), 84.
application.113 The resolution requires Iraq, inter alia, to destroy or remove
114 See T.Marauhn, The all weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and nuclear weapons,
Implementation of Disarmament and
Arms Control Obligations Imposed
as well as missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometres (during the
Upon Iraq by the Security Council, war with the coalition forces Iraq had sought relief and other popular Arab
ZaöRV 52 (1992), 781–803;
M.Weller/P.Hatfield (eds), The
support by attacking Israel with Scud missiles, as it had been attacking
Control and Monitoring of Iraqi Tehran with missiles in the First Gulf War). The respective disarmament of
Weaponry of Mass Destruction,
1996.
Iraq is supervised and enforced by the United Nations.114 Other issues
115 See Chapter 10 above, 151. addressed by Resolution 687 concern the determination of the border
116 Text in ILM 35 (1996), 1095; see
also UN Chronicle, no. 2, 1996, 14–
between Iraq and Kuwait by the Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Commission,115
18. However, the implementation of the monitoring of the border by the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission,
this deal was suspended when later
in September 1996 Iraqi forces
the coordination of the return of property to Kuwait, and the supervision
intervened at the request of the of the continuing arms and trade embargo, including the prohibition of the
Kurdish leader Barzani in the
Kurdish civil war in the safety zone
export of oil, against Iraq by the Sanctions Committee of the UN Security
in northern Iraq, which caused the Council. With the purpose of addressing the serious shortages of food
United States to retaliate unilaterally
(except with the support of the UK)
supplies and medicine in Iraq, on 4 April 1995 the Security Council adopted
by destroying military targets in the Resolution 986 (1995) allowing, under certain conditions and strict control
south of Iraq.
117 For a highly critical evaluation
measures, states to import oil and oil products from Iraq amounting to the
as to the legality of the regime, see equivalent of US$1 billion every ninety days. Iraq refused to accept the
B. Graefrath, Iraq: Reparations and
the Security Council, ZaöRV 55
conditions of this ‘oil-for-food’ deal because it saw its sovereignty as being
(1995), 1– 68. See also impaired, until finally a memorandum of understanding was agreed upon
E.J.Garmise, The Iraqi Claims
Process and the Ghost of Versailles,
between the UN Secretariat and the Government of Iraq in spring 1996.116
NYULR 67 (1992), 840–76; Another aspect which needs to be mentioned is the novelty of the
A.A.Levy, The Persian Gulf War
CeaseFire Agreement Compared
reparations regime imposed upon Iraq by the Security Council, also acting
with the Japanese Peace Treaty in under Chapter VII.117 Already in October 1990, the Council had reminded
Terms of Reparations and
Reconstruction, Dick. JIL 10 (1992),
Iraq that it was liable under international law for all damage caused to
541–66. Generally, on war Kuwait, other states, companies and individuals arising as a consequence
damages, see A.Steinkamm, EPIL 4
(1982), 298–301; V.Gowlland-
of the invasion of Kuwait.118 After the defeat of Iraq, the Council demanded
Debbas, Security Council in a resolution adopted on 2 March 1991119 that Iraq accepts its international
Enforcement Action and Issues of
State Responsibility, ICLQ 43
liability ‘in principle’ as part of the ceasefire conditions. Paragraph 16 of
(1994), 55–98. Resolution 687 then confirmed (under Chapter VII):
118 SC Res, 674 (1990), para. 8.
119 SC Res. 686 (1991), para. 1(b).
120 SC Res. 687 (1991), op. cit. [t]hat Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq
121 SC Res. 692 (1991).
arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the
normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct
loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion
of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals
and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and
occupation of Kuwait.120
On the basis of this resolution the Security Council created a Compensation

Fund and the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), seated
in Geneva, by a resolution adopted on 20 May 1991.121 The UNCC is a
subsidiary body of the Security Council and its main political organ, the
Governing Council, mirrors the composition of the Security Council. Its
task is to deal with the unprecedented amount of more than 2.6 million
claims filed against Iraq from more than 100 countries, ranging from
a mass of claims by persons who had to depart from Iraq or Kuwait
or who suffered injury, corporate, property and business loss
claims, various types of claims by governments and international
organizations to the new field of claims for environmental damage caused 122 See Chapter 18 above, 281–98.
123 See P.Malanczuk, International
by Iraq (accusing Iraq of using oil as a weapon polluting the Gulf and Business and New Rules of State
depleting or burning Kuwait’s oil resources during the war) in the Responsibility? —The Law Applied by
estimated total amount of US$160 billion. There are a number of legal the United Nations (Security Council)
Compensation Commission for Claims
questions concerning the establishment and mode of operation of this against Iraq, in K.-H.Böckstiegel (ed.),
new body, which is not a form of arbitration or adjudication,122 but a Perspectives of Air Law, Space Law and
International Business Law for the Next
system of imposed administration of claims, often in a summary fashion,
Century, 1996, 117–64; R.Lillich (ed.),
under which the defendant state (Iraq) has been deprived of any The United Nations Compensation
meaningful standing and is required to pay one-third of its annual oil Commission, 1995; R.J.Bettauer, The
United Nations Compensation
revenues into the Fund when the embargo is lifted; but they are beyond
Commission—Developments Since
the scope of this book.123 October 1992, AJIL 89 (1995), 416– 23.
The documents concerning the
settlement of claims against Iraq and
The Kurdish crisis UNCC Decisions 1–2 are in ILM 30
(1991), 1703; UNCC Decisions 3–13
One of the great myths of the analysis of the events in the immediate and associated Report are reprinted in
ILM 31 (1992), 1009; UNCC Decisions
aftermath of the Gulf War is that the Security Council also authorized
14–23 and associated Panel Reports
Allied forces by Resolution 688 to militarily intervene in Iraq to protect and Recommendations in ILM 34
the Kurds.124 Therefore, the development deserves some closer attention. (1995), 235; and UNCC Decisions 24,
‘Operation Comfort’, the allied intervention in 1991 to create ‘safe 30, 35 and associated Panel Reports in
ILM 35 (1996), 939 (Introductory Notes
havens’, in northern Iraq for the vast numbers of Kurdish refugees which by D.D.Caron).
had fled to Turkey and Iran from the Iraqi Army and were suffering 124 See P.Malanczuk, The Kurdish
under appalling conditions, was conducted by more than 13,000 soldiers Crisis and Allied Intervention in the
Aftermath of the Second Gulf War, EJIL
from various Western countries under the leadership of the United States, 2 (1991), 114–32; Malanczuk (1993),
including Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and Australia.125 op. cit., 20 et seq. Generally on the
Security Council Resolution 688, adopted on 5 April 1991, has often Kurdish problem see G.Chaliand, The
Kurdish Tragedy, 1994; see also
been referred to as the ‘legal basis’ for the action (and also for later military
strikes against Iraq) and the allies themselves have repeatedly described 125 An allied contingent of about 5,000
the intervention as being ‘consistent’ with that resolution. In the literature soldiers remained based in Turkey
it has been interpreted as evidence that the Council may adopt measures (‘Operation Raised Hammer’) until 10
October 1991 and the aircraft base of
under Chapter VII with regard to an internal situation if a massive violation Incirlik thereafter continued to be used
of human rights amounts to a threat to or breach of the peace, in spite of with the consent of Turkey, see
the non-intervention principle in Article 2(7) of the Charter.126 A closer Malanczuk (1991), op. cit., at 122–3; L.
Freedman/D.Boren, ‘Safe Havens’ for
analysis of the resolution, the discussion at the Security Council meeting Kurds in Post-War Iraq, in Rodley (ed.),
and the factual context does not support these contentions. 1992, op. cit., 43.
Resolution 688, the draft of which was put on the agenda of the 126 U.Heinz/C.Philip/R.Wolfrum,
Zweiter Golfkrieg; Anwendungsfall
Security Council on 5 April 1991 by Belgium and France, joined by the von Kapitel VII der UN-Charta, VN
United Kingdom and the United States as sponsors,127 was accepted, 39 (1991), 121, at 125; Bothe (1993),
with the least wide support of all the resolutions until then adopted by op. cit., 294–5 also considers
Resolution 688 as an example of the
the Council in response to the invasion of Kuwait,128 by ten votes in
Security Council’s application of
favour, three against (Cuba, Yemen, and Zimbabwe) and two members, Chapter VII.
including one permanent member, abstaining (China and India). The 127 UN Security Council, Provisional
significance attributed to the issue is apparent from the fact that thirty- Verbatim Record, S/PV 2982, 5 April
1991, at 3. The meeting was convened
one states expressed their views at the meeting. in response to requests from Turkey and
The operative part of the resolution begins by condemning ‘the repression France. Text of SC Res. 688 (1991) in
of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently ILM 30 (1991), 858.
128 See N.S.Rodley, Collective
in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international Intervention to Protect Human Rights
peace and security in the region’ (paragraph 1). These ‘consequences’ and Civilian Populations, in Rodley
are clearly identified in the preamble as ‘a massive flow of refugees (ed.), 1992, op. cit., 29.
129 On the legal aspects of state
towards and across international frontiers’ and as ‘cross border
responsibility for causing refugee flows,
incursions’.129 Thus the resolution cannot be cited as a precedent for the see R.Hofmann, Refugee-Generating
Policies and the Law of State

Responsibility, ZaöRV 55 (1985)
proposition that the Security Council views massive, but purely internal
694. human rights violations as such, without transboundary effects, as a direct
130 SC Res. 688 (1991), op. cit.
However, as noted by Rodley
threat to international peace and security. For cases with external effects of
(1992), Collective Intervention, op. human rights violations, however, it is indeed an important precedent.
cit., at 31, it is true that there is also
no reference to Chapter VI. This
It is not a precedent, however, for the authorization of the use of force
leads back to the difficulty that the by the Security Council to protect human rights in such circumstances.
Security Council often does not
clearly indicate under which
Resolution 688 contains no reference to Chapter VII,130 its wording does
provision it is acting. The point is not mention any collective enforcement measures, and it did not expressly
that, although in theory it can not be
excluded that Resolution 688 may
authorize or endorse the allied military intervention.131 The resolution
be based on Chapter VII, what ‘demands’ that Iraq, ‘as a contribution to removing the threat to international
matters is that no authorization of
enforcement measures was made
peace and security in the region’, end the repression immediately, and
by the Security Council, or, as expresses the hope for an ‘open dialogue’ to ensure ‘that the human and
Rodley says himself, considered at
the time when the resolution was
political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected’ (paragraph 2). After
adopted. requiring Iraq to allow immediate access by international humanitarian
131 See also O.Schachter, United
Nations Law in the Gulf Conflict,
organizations (paragraph 3), the resolution requests the Secretary-General
AJIL 85 (1991), 452, at 468. to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq, to report forthwith (paragraph
132 SC Res. 688 (1991), op. cit., at
859.
4), and to ‘use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant
133 SC Res. 678, op. cit., at 1565, United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees
para. 2.
134 SC Res. 794 of 3 December
and displaced Iraqi population’ (paragraph 5). The Security Council
1992, UNYb 1932, 209. See text concluded by appealing to all Member States and all humanitarian
below, 403–4.
organizations to contribute to the relief efforts (paragraph 6), demanding
119–20. that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General (paragraph 7), and deciding
136 See also Rodley (1992),
Collective Intervention, op. cit., at
‘to remain seized of the matter’ (paragraph 8).132 There is no language in
29; Schachter, AJIL 85 (1991), op. Resolution 688 such as in the earlier Resolution 678 which authorized
cit., at 469 observes that ‘the
Security Council was not asked to
member states ‘to use all necessary means’ to repel the Iraqi aggression
authorize or endorse the protective against Kuwait.133 And there is also no comparable wording to the later
measures in the safety zones,
presumably because not all of the
Resolution 794 of 3 December 1992 on Somalia, in which the Council
permanent members were prepared called upon ‘all Member States which are in a position to do so to provide
to support them. The absence of
explicit Security Council
military forces’ (paragraph 11), or ‘to use all necessary means’ to secure the
endorsement, together with the humanitarian relief operations in Somalia (paragraph 10), or ‘to use such
basic Charter provision against
intervention in matters essentially
measures as may be necessary’ to enforce the earlier Resolution 733
within domestic jurisdiction, was (paragraph 16).134 In fact, at the time of the adoption of Resolution 688,
cited by dissenting UN members as
grounds for condemning the use of
on 5 April 1991, the idea of military intervention to create such safety
troops in the safety zones as zones had not yet found the support of the United States.135 While the plan
Charter violations of serious import.
All states, it was argued, had reason
found approval at the summit meeting of the European Communities on 8
to fear the effect of that precedent.’ April 1992, three days after the resolution, the reaction of the United States
on the same day was that it had ‘no position’ on the question of Kurdish
‘safe havens’ and was unable to give the proposal ‘specific endorsement’. It
was only later that the United States clarified its position and, on 10 April
1991, demanded that Iraq cease all military activity on its territory north
of the 36th parallel with the warning to Iraq that it would use force if there
was any military interference in international relief efforts for the Kurds.
The allied intervention itself started a week later, on 17 April 1991.
The statements made at the Security Council meeting reveal that nearly
all states, even among those supporting the resolution, carefully balanced
the right of the Security Council to deal with the matter with the principle
of non-interference in the internal affairs of Iraq to avoid an unwelcome
precedent for the future.136 The wording of Resolution 688 is such to
accommodate these concerns by giving room to their interpretation. While
137 UN Doc. S/PV. 2982, 5 April 1991

the resolution begins with a reference to duties and responsibilities of (Provisional), 55–6.
the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and 138 See Malanczuk (1991), op. cit., at
129.
security, it immediately recalls Article 2(7) of the Charter. The preamble 139 ILM 30 (1991), 862 (annex, para.
expresses grave concern on the part of the Council towards the Iraqi 6); see Malanczuk (1991), op. cit., at
repression of the civilian population and notes that it was deeply 129–30.
140 See L.Minear, Humanitarian
disturbed ‘by the magnitude of the human suffering involved’, but it Intervention in a New World Order,
also reaffirms ‘the commitment of all Member states to the sovereignty, Overseas Development Council, Policy
Focus (1992), 1, at 2 et seq.
territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States
in the area’.
In practice, apart from humanitarian tasks assigned to the Secretary-
General, Resolution 688 amounted to little more than a formal censure
of Iraq. Otherwise it is most likely that it would have been vetoed by
China. China explained its abstention, after expressing its concern with
the situation in Iraq and the refugee influx into Turkey and Iran and the
effects for these countries, by stating:
However this is a question of great complexity, because the

internal affairs of a country are also involved. According to
paragraph 7 to Article 2 of the Charter, the Security Council should
not consider or take action on questions concerning the internal
affairs of any State. As for the international aspects involved in
the question, we are of the view that they should be settled
through the appropriate channels. We support the Secretary-
General in rendering humanitarian assistance to the refugees
through the relevant organizations.137
It is further of interest that the reaction of the UN Secretary-General to

the ‘safe havens’ plan was to immediately raise the question whether
enclaves for the Kurds could be imposed upon Iraq in disrespect of its
sovereignty. On 17 April he expressed the view that any deployment of
foreign troops in northern Iraq would require permission by Iraq.138 Iraq
denounced the allied action but it did not respond militarily. It continued
to negotiate with both the United Nations Mission led by Erik Suy (Personal
Representative of the UN Secretary-General) and with the UN Inter-Agency
Mission led by Sadruddin Aga Khan (Executive Delegate of the UN
Secretary-General for the UN Humanitarian Programme for Iraq, Kuwait
and the Iraq/Iran and Iraq/Turkey Border Areas) on humanitarian relief.
Agreements were concluded on 18 April and in May 1991.139 Aga Khan
and Iraq signed a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the role of
the United Nations in providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq; based
on discussions held on 17 and 18 May 1991 with the Iraqi Government,
an annex to this Memorandum laid out the details of the deployment of
about 500 ‘UN Guards’ and their light armament. The deployment of
these ‘UN Guards’ therefore rested on the consent of the Iraqi government.
The reaction of states from what used to be the ‘Third World’ to the
allied intervention during the General Assembly debate in November 1991
on strengthening the UN ability to respond to human emergencies indicates
that many saw in the rescue operation a fundamental breach of sovereignty
with negative implications.140 Erik Suy also views the allied intervention
as unilateral action without authorization. He notes that the allied action
was not condemned (which, one is tempted to add, as far as the
Security Council is concerned, was not likely in view of the veto power
141 E.Suy, Commentaar: of three of the Allies), and he also states that ‘world opinion’ supported the
Humanitaire interventie—Tussen
soevereiniteit en mensenrechten, operation. But Suy arrives at the conclusion that it was illegal under
Transaktie 21 (1992), at 319. international law and, as a single precedent, was not capable of creating a
142 See IHT, 18 January 1992, 1 (a
White House spokesman stated that
new customary norm.141
the purpose of the attack against a It is true that Resolution 688, invoked by the allies as justification, not
‘nuclear installation’ near Baghdad
‘is to seek compliance with UN
only for the Kurdish action, but also, to justify the imposition of the no-fly
resolutions’); NRC Handelsblad, 18 zones over Iraq, and, at least partly in addition to the non-compliance by
January 1992, 1; European and
Arab support for the US-led military
Iraq with UN resolutions among other reasons, to legalize military air strikes
action against Iraq began to waver in and against Iraq in January 1992,142 does not support such contentions.
on 19 January 1992; see IHT, 20
January 1992, 4; NRC Handelsblad,
But the matter of the legality or illegality of the intervention to protect the
19 January 1992, 1, 5; France did Kurds is more complex. First, there is still the controversial issue of whether
not participate in the action of
attacking the outskirts of Baghdad
unilateral, unauthorized, humanitarian intervention may be still de lege
on the grounds that it exceeded the lata admissible under exceptional circumstances.143 Second, a more detailed
framework of Security Council
resolutions, as stated by the French
analysis of the factual circumstances would have to inquire whether Iraq,
Foreign Minister, FAZ, 21 January in spite of its formal protest, may have later in fact acquiesced144 in the
1992, 1. Russia, in consultation with
Arab states, requested the United
rescue operation. Third, there is also the difficult question of whether the
States not to take further action action, as a so-called ‘follow-up measure’, can be isolated from the general
without express authorization by the
Security Council, FAZ, 20 January
context of the Gulf War, including the previous authorization of enforcement
1992, 1. A Russian Foreign Ministry action by the Council and/or the exercise of collective self-defence.145
statement accused Iraq of flouting
UN resolutions, but also said: ‘Our
Nevertheless, the conclusion stands that Resolution 688 by itself did not
firm position is that reaction to the provide the legal basis and as such is not a precedent for the Security Council
actions of Iraq must be
proportionate and proceed from
practice of forcible humanitarian measures under Article 42.146 The legal
agreed decisions…The time is ripe significance of the allied action as state practice, on the other hand, for the
to again review the situation in the
UN Security Council’, IHT, 19
development of customary international law will become apparent only in
January 1992, 1. See also Chapter a longer-term perspective, provided that it can find general acceptance as a
19 above, 316–17.
precedent outside of the peculiar circumstances of the Gulf War.
143 See Malanczuk (1993), op. cit.
144 This seems to be the view of R.
Jennings/A.Watt (eds),
Oppenheim’s International Law, I: Somalia
Peace, 9th edn 1992, 443, n. 18,
stating that ‘Iraq’s attitude was The case of Somalia, with the engagement of 37,000 foreign soldiers from
ambivalent, formally protesting at
more than twenty countries under the leadership of the United States in
the infringement of its sovereignty
(e.g. UN Doc S/22459 of 8 April, S/ 1992, is a normative landmark of the genuine Security Council practice of
22513 of 22 April and S/22531 of 25 humanitarian intervention which was based upon Chapter VII of the UN
April), but not resisting the action
and in substance acquiescing’. Charter.147 At the same time it is an example of the failure of collective
Delbrück, A Fresh Look, op. cit., at humanitarian intervention.
985–6, presents the different
Somalia is unique among the sub-Saharan countries in that it is the only
argument that the Security Council
‘clearly acquiesced in the temporary one which is composed of a single ethnic group. Nevertheless, the country,
presence of American, British and which in the last quarter of the nineteenth century had been divided under
French military forces in Northern
Iraq…’ (at 986). On the legal the rule of three colonial powers (Britain, France and Italy) has been torn
concept of acquiescence, see apart by clan-based civil wars which led to the collapse of the government
Chapter 10 above, 154–5. structure and made Somalia the prime example of the new phenomenon of
145 See the argument made by
Schachter, AJIL 85 (1991), op. cit., ‘failed states’,148 to a much higher degree than other states such as Liberia149
at 469. and Rwanda.150
146 See also Rodley (1992),
Collective Intervention, op. cit., at
After independence, for twenty-one years Somalia had been ruled by
33; Freedman/ Boren, ‘Safe Havens’ President Siad Barre who attempted to overcome the clan structure on the
for Kurds in Postwar Iraq, in Rodley basis of a combination of pan-Somali nationalism with a centralized Soviet
(ed.), 1992, op. cit., at 82; E.Suy,
Transaktie 21 (1992), 317, at 319.
model of socialism, although Barre himself was primarily basing his power
147 Malanczuk (1993), op. cit., 24 et on the Merihan clan and two other clans, the Ogadeni and Dolbahante.
seq.; J.Clark, Debacle in Somalia, FA When Barre’s regime fell in 1991, a power struggle and clan clashes in
72 (1993), 109; M.R.Hutchinson, Note,

many parts of the country emerged. In the capital Mogadishu, factions Restoring Hope: U.N. Security Council
supporting Interim President Ali Mahdi Mohamed, on the one hand, Resolutions for Somalia and an
Expanded Doctrine of Humanitarian
and General Mohamed Farah Aidid (Chairman of the United Somali Intervention, Harvard ILJ 34 (1993),
Congress), on the other, engaged in heavy fighting. The county was torn 624; and the literature cited above, 387
n. 22.
apart by widespread death and destruction forcing hundreds of thousands 148 See I.Zartman (ed.), Collapsed
of people to leave their homes. Almost five million people were suffering States: The Disintegration and
Restoration of Legitimate Authority,
from hunger and disease; almost one million people fled to neighbouring 1995.
countries. In May 1991, the north-western part of Somalia proclaimed 149 See Nolte, op. cit., 603–37; Weller
(ed.), 1994, op. cit.
its independence as the ‘Somaliland Republic’. 150 See text below, 405–7.
The United Nations and a number of non-governmental organizations 151 See Basic Facts about the United
Nations, 1995, 50 et seq.
were engaged in humanitarian relief operations in Somalia and the UN 152 SC Res. 733 (1992), op. cit. This
Secretary-General, in cooperation with the Organization for African was in response to a request for an
immediate Security Council meeting, to
Unity (OAU), the League of Arab States (LAS) and the Organization of address the deteriorating security
the Islamic Conference (OIC) made political efforts to restore peace.151 situation in Somalia, see Letter Dated
20 January 1992 From the Chargé
On 23 January 1992, the Security Council imposed an arms embargo d’Affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission
on Somalia and called upon all parties to discontinue hostilities.152 of Somalia to the United Nations
Addressed to the President of the
Negotiations at the UN Headquarters involving the UN Secretary- Security Council, UN SCOR, 47th
General, the LAS, the OAU and the OIC led to an agreement on a cease- Sess., UN Doc. S/23445 (1992).
153 SC Res. 751 (1992).
fire between interim President Ali Mahdi and General Aidid to be 154 Provisional Verbatim Record of the
monitored by UN observers. Agreement was also reached on the Meeting on 3 December 1992, S/
PV.3145, 3 December 1992.
protection of humanitarian relief convoys by UN security guards. In 155 SC Res. 794 (1992), op. cit.
April 1992 the Security Council created the United Nations Operation 156 Provisional Verbatim Record, op.
cit.
in Somalia (UNOSOM) which resulted in the deployment of fifty UN
military observers and about 500 UN security personnel.153 The Security
Council later decided to increase the security force up to 3,000 in view
of the continuing fighting and attacks against humanitarian operations.
But UNOSOM was not able to fulfil its mandate.
Following an offer made by the United States to lead a military operation
to protect the delivery of humanitarian relief, on 3 December 1992, the
Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 794 under Chapter
VII of the UN Charter and authorized the use of all necessary means to
provide a secure environment for the relief operations. The circumstances,
however, as expressed in Resolution 794 and by many states at the Council’s
meeting,154 were special, as emphasized in the resolution, because of ‘the
unique character of the present situation in Somalia’ with ‘its deteriorating,
complex and extraordinary nature, requiring an immediate and exceptional
response’.155 While there had been requests for help from Somalia to the
UN, the fact that Somalia has no government and nothing akin to a
structure of government must not be overlooked when evaluating the
relevance of this precedent for the future.
It was the chaos of the endless civil war involving some fifteen different
parties, mass starvation threatening millions, armed interference with
humanitarian assistance, and the inability of the UN peacekeeping contingent
with its limited mandate to make any difference that led the Council to
determine ‘that the magnitude of the human tragedy caused by the conflict
in Somalia, further exacerbated by the obstacles being created to the
distribution of humanitarian assistance, constitutes a threat to
international peace and security’.156 For the first time it is clearly stated
in a Council resolution, without also invoking external ‘consequences’, that
157 Ibid. internal aspects of a humanitarian problem, although in connection with

158 Ibid. Res. 794 states merely
that the Council welcomes ‘the offer armed interference with international humanitarian relief operations,
by a Member State described in the threaten international peace and security and require military enforcement
Secretary-General’s letter to the
Council of 29 November 1991 (S/ measures under Chapter VII.
24868) concerning the A further point of interest is that the Security Council assumed
establishment of an operation to
create such a secure environment’ responsibility for restoring ‘peace, stability and law and order with a view
(para. 8). to facilitating the process of a political settlement under the auspices of the
159 See the document from the UN
Department of Human Affairs, United Nations’ under the proviso, however, that the ‘people of Somalia
Review of the 100-Day Action bear ultimate responsibility for national reconciliation and the reconstruction
Programme and Beyond: Key
Issues for Somalia, 3 December if their own country’.157 It is known that the United States, the inaugurator
1992. The programme was of ‘Operation Hope’ and in military command of the operation in the first
launched in Geneva on 12 October
1992. phase, but for political reasons only very indirectly referred to in the
160 See Quigley, op. cit., 267. resolution because of the controversy regarding the extent to which the UN
161 SC Res. 794 (1992), at 4.
should be in control,158 had views different to those of the Secretary-General
on the issue of how far its intervention should go beyond terminating the
fighting and securing the supply of relief. The text of the resolution, while
guarding the principle of sovereignty by referring to the ultimate
responsibility of the people of Somalia, raised the question of what exactly
the long-term objectives of the UN were to be in the second phase of the
operation, whether they were to include, for example, establishing a police
force, law and order, and an administration, or reorganizing the educational
system and the economy.159
It is further of interest to note that the reason why Resolution 794 was
adopted unanimously (in contrast to the other resolutions authorizing the
use of force in the cases of Rwanda, Haiti, etc.) was that it provided for
mechanisms aiming at maintaining UN control over the operation.160 The
UN Secretary-General was to consult with the states taking part regarding
their efforts and to arrange for ‘the unified command and control of the
forces involved’.161 An ad hoc commission of members of the Security
Council was to report to the Council on the conduct of operations by the
participating states. Reports ‘on a regular basis’ were required from both
the Secretary-General and the participating states.
In December 1992, the Unified Task Force (UNITAF) comprising military
forces from twenty-four countries under the command of the United States
was sent to Somalia and by March 1993, with about 37,000 soldiers, covered
40 per cent of the territory of the country. This resulted in a significant
alleviation of the starvation conditions. On 26 March 1993, the Security
Council decided to transform UNITAF into UNOSOM II and expanded its
size and mandate. UNOSOM II was authorized under Chapter VII to use
force to establish a secure environment in all of Somalia. It was also
authorized to assist in rebuilding the economy and social and political
institutions of the country. At a conference held in Addis Ababa in March
1993, the leaders of fifteen Somali political movements agreed on national
reconciliation, disarmament and security, rehabilitation and reconstruction,
restoration of property and settlement of disputes and on the creation of a
transitional national council.
However, the agreement was only the prelude to further disaster. In June
1993, twenty-five Pakistani soldiers were killed by an attack upon
UNOSOM II in Mogadishu. UNOSOM II became a party to the conflict
162 See Quigley, op. cit., 281.

and engaged in military operations in Mogadishu which led to casualties 163 Mutharika, op. cit., at 548.
among the civilian population and UNOSOM forces. The United States 164 See J.Clark, Debacle in Somalia:
deemed it necessary to defeat General Aidid and took military action Failure of the Collective Response, in
L.F.Damrosh (ed.), Enforcing Restraint:
against his forces, including a helicopter attack upon a command centre Collective Intervention in Internal
in Mogadishu which resulted in the death of fifty civilians.162 The Conflicts, 1993, 205. On the lack of
clarity of the mandate of UNOSOM II
American approach was criticized by other states, especially by Italy, which contributed to the undermining of
which requested the UN command to suspend combat operations in the operation see R.Zacklin, Managing
Peacekeeping from a Legal
Mogadishu. The UN command responded by requesting Italy to replace Perspective, in D.Warner (ed.), New
the commander of its contingent, which Italy refused to do, with reference Dimensions of Peacekeeping, 1995,
160.
to its right to appoint the leader of its own forces. Thus, becoming a 165 See Chapter 20 above, 360.
party to the conflict led to dissent among the member states and to an 166 See Basic Facts, op. cit., 46 et seq.;
early withdrawal of forces. UN Chronicle, 1996, no. 2, 52–3.
167 SC Res. 872 (1993). For the
After eighteen US soldiers were killed in October 1993, the United background see M.Mubiala,
States finally announced that it would withdraw from Somalia by 31 (L’Opération des Nations Unies pour les
droits de l’homme au Rwanda, Hague
March 1994. Belgium, France and Sweden also announced their YIL 8 (1995), 11–6; The United Nations
withdrawal. The mandate of UNOSOM II was revised in February 1994 and Rwanda, 1993–1996 (UN Blue
Book Series), 1996.
emphasizing its role in providing assistance to political reconciliation,
reconstruction and stability. The Security Council also provided for a
gradual reduction of UNOSOM forces and stated that its mission would
be completed by March 1995. After further UN efforts in 1994 failed to
make any progress in reconciliation between the Somali factions, the
withdrawal of UNOSOM II was completed in March 1995. Neither the
Somali factions nor the humanitarian agencies and NGOs requested an
extension of UNOSOM’s mandate.163 The UN-sponsored collective
intervention in Somalia thus ended in a débâcle, although it had been
successful in distributing humanitarian aid.164
Rwanda
The case of Rwanda is an appalling human tragedy with mass killings
arising from internal ethnic conflict which, as mentioned in Chapter 20
above,165 has led to the establishment of an international criminal tribunal.
Rwanda had been first colonized by Germany and was later transferred
to Belgian colonial rule until it gained its independence in 1967. The
country has a long history of ethnic clashes between the Hutu majority
and the Tutsi minority, which reappeared in the form of a full-scale internal
and cross-border conflict in October 1990 between the Hutu-controlled
armed forces of the French-backed Government of Rwanda and the Tutsi-
led Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) operating from Uganda and areas in
the north of Rwanda.166 In February 1993, hostilities recommenced in
spite of a number of cease-fire agreements and disrupted peace negotiations
between the parties sponsored by the OAU and Tanzania. At the request
of Rwanda and Uganda, on 22 June 1993, the Security Council decided
to establish the United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda
(UNOMUR) to help to prevent the military use of the border area. After
the two civil war parties had signed a peace agreement in Arusha, Tanzania
in August 1993, at their request the Security Council set up another
international force, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
(UNAMIR), to assist in the implementation of the agreement on 5 October
1993.167 Its mandate was to supervise the election and establishment of a
new government by October 1995.
168 See Tesón, op. cit., 363.

169 SC Res. 912 (1994).
There were difficulties in implementing the agreement, which exploded
170 SC Res. 918 (1994). into a severe crisis after the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed
171 SC Res. 929 (1994). See UN
Chronicle 31 (1994), no. 4, 4–13.
by a missile attack on their aircraft on 6 April 1994 while returning from
peace negotiations in Tanzania. Total chaos and massive ethnic violence
with genocidal dimensions emerged throughout Rwanda in the weeks that
followed. It was estimated that by September 1994 the pre-civil war
population of 7.9 million in Rwanda had fallen to five million. Estimates
of the number of people slaughtered ranged from several hundreds of
thousands to one million, those of internally displaced persons from 800,000
to two million, and those of refugees fleeing to Zaire, Tanzania, Burundi
and Uganda counted at more than two million.
The lightly armed 2,700 UNAMIR observer forces were not in a position
to stop the killings, nor was this within its mandate. Belgium withdrew its
440 soldiers and the rest remained in their barracks after ten Belgian soldiers
guarding the Prime Minister had been hacked to death when the Prime
Minister was murdered.168 On 21 April 1994, the Security Council decided
to reduce the number of UNAMIR forces to 270 to prevent further UN
casualties.169 The mandate was changed to include working with the parties
on a cease-fire agreement and in assisting in the resumption of relief
operations.
At the beginning of May the Security Council, being aware that the
massacres were continuing, commenced discussion on sending 5,500
African troops to Rwanda. On 17 May 1994, the Security Council
determined that the situation in Rwanda constituted a threat to
international peace and security and imposed an arms embargo against
Rwanda.170 It also authorized the enlargement of UNAMIR up to 5,500
soldiers and recognized the possible need for the force to use force against
persons or groups threatening protected locations and populations.
However, it had obtained no commitment from member states to supply
such forces and a month later only Ethiopia had shown itself prepared
to provide a fully equipped unit. It was only after France offered to
intervene in Rwanda that on 22 June 1994, the Security Council adopted
Resolution 929 and with reference to Chapter VII (by a vote of ten to
nil with five abstentions) authorized France and other willing member
states to use ‘all necessary means’ as a temporary multinational operation
to protect the civilian population in Rwanda as a strictly humanitarian
and impartial task without regard to the merits of the dispute between
the Government of Rwanda and the RPF.171 ‘Opération Turquoise’
established a safe protection zone in the south-west of Rwanda and was
terminated on 21 August 1994, when the responsibilities in the zone
were taken over by UNAMIR with units from Ethiopia, Ghana and
Zimbabwe. UNAMIR’s strength reached 4,270 in October 1994. The
civil war in Rwanda was terminated by a unilateral cease-fire declared
by the RPF on 18 July 1994 when it took control of Rwanda except for
the protection zone.
The French-led intervention in Rwanda has most clearly shown the
problem of self-interest of states authorized by the Security Council to take
military action under Chapter VII. As one recent writer has observed:
In Rwanda, France had a history of involvement that cast doubt 172 Quigley, op. cit., 271–2. See also
the analysis at 281–2.
on its good faith in taking military action. France had backed 173 See Agora: The 1994 U.S. Action in
the Hutu-led Rwandan government in its civil war against the Tutsi- Haiti, AJIL 89 (1995), 58–87; O. Corton,
led Rwanda Patriotic Front. France was alleged to favour the Hutus La Résolution 940 du conseil de
because they used French as their second language, while the sécurite autorisant une intervention
militaire en Haiti: L’emergence d’un
Tutsis used English. France was criticized for failing to denounce principe de légitimité démocratique en
major massacres of Tutsis by Hutus. French arms shipments to droit international?, EJIL 6 (1995), 116–
the Rwandan government continued as the massacres were 33; H.-J.Heintze, Völkerrecht und
underway. When the Rwanda resolution was adopted, the civil demokratische Staatsordnung. Zur
Wiederherstellung der Demokratie in
war still raged, and the Tutsi rebel force announced its objection Haiti, VRÜ 29 (1996), 6–30; M.Weller/
to France’s planned entry into Rwanda, vowing to attack French A.MacLean (eds), The Haiti Crisis in
forces. Of all states in the world, France was probably the worst International Law, 1996. On the
choice for intervention, but it was France that was willing to act.172 subsequent development in Haiti see
UN Chronicle, 1996, no. 2, 57. See also
Chapter 2, 31 and the literature, 387 n.
On the other hand, one has to take into account that, without self- 22 above.
174 Tesón, op. cit., at 355.
interest, states are not likely to be willing to intervene militarily in distant 175 See UN SCOR, 46th Sess., 3011th
countries and without such willingness the United Nations is powerless Meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.3011 (1991).
to act effectively on its own.
Haiti
Haiti is a special case in which the Security Council authorized the use
of force under Chapter VII to implement a democratic election result
without, however, explicitly determining that there was a threat to
international peace and security.173 Since 1957 Haiti had been ruled by
the Duvalier family. After Jean-Claude Duvalier, the ‘President for Life’
had left the country in February 1986 and following the approval of a
new constitution by referendum, in 1990 the Provisional Government
of Haiti requested the UN to monitor the elections that were to be held.
This led to the establishment of the UN Observer Group for the
Verification of the Elections in Haiti (ONUVEH). The Reverend Jean-
Bertrand Aristide was elected by 67 per cent of the vote and inaugurated
President on 22 February 1991. On 30 September 1991, a military coup
removed Aristide from office.
On the same day, the Security Council met at the request of Haiti’s
Ambassador to the United Nations. But it did not formally convene to
address the coup because the majority, quite in accordance with
international law, viewed the coup as an internal domestic matter which
did not constitute a threat to the peace and thus bringing it within the
ambit of the competence of the Council.174 The Organization of American
States (OAS), on the other hand, formally condemned the coup on 2
October 1991 and recommended its member states to adopt economic
and diplomatic sanctions against Haiti. When one day later the Security
Council assembled to listen to President Aristide, all members of the
Council denounced the coup and expressed strong support for the
position of the OAS, but no formal resolution on the coup was adopted
because China and other non-aligned states were worried about
increasing Security Council intervention into affairs which are
traditionally considered to belong to the domestic jurisdiction of states
under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter and are consequently not any
business of the United Nations.175
However, on 16 June 1993 the Security Council finally, expressly
referring to previous General Assembly and OAS resolutions and, acting
under Chapter VII, imposed a mandatory embargo on the delivery of oil,
176 SC Res. 841 (1993).

177 SC Res. 861 (1993).
petroleum products, arms and police equipment to Haiti, and froze assets
178 SC Res. 867 (1993). of the Haitian government and its military leaders.176 An agreement was
179 SC Res. 873 (1993).
180 SC Res. 875 (1993).
subsequently reached with the military junta, known as the Governors Island
181 SC Res. 940 (1994). Agreement, in July 1993 that provided for the return to power of President
182 Tesón, op. cit., 355.
183 Provisional Verbatim Record,
Aristide. The UN economic sanctions were lifted on 27 August 1993.177
UN SCOR, 3413th meeting, UN The UN Mission in Haiti (UNMIH) was established to provide assistance
Doc. S/ PV.3412 (1994), at 12 (Mr Li
Zhaoxing, China).
in reforming the Haitian armed forces and to assist in creating a new police
force.178 The failure of the Junta to comply with its promises and violence
preventing UNMIH troops from disembarking in Haiti, however, induced
the Security Council to reimpose the economic sanctions on 13 October
1993.179 In a further resolution adopted on 16 October 1993, the Council
authorized member states to use armed force to enforce the sanctions.180 In
May 1994, the Council added a trade embargo to the sanctions, excepting
only medical products and foodstuff.
On 31 July 1994, the Security Council adopted Resolution 940 which
authorized member states ‘to form a multinational force’ and ‘to use all
necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti of the military
leadership’.181 The United States delivered an ultimatum to Haiti’s military
government on 15 September 1994 via an address to the American public
by President Clinton on television. On 18 September 1994, mediation
efforts by the former US President Jimmy Carter, Senator Sam Nunn and
the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell,
persuaded the junta to agree to leave the country by 15 October 1994.
The agreement was reached only some hours before a multinational force
under American leadership was to invade Haiti. On 19 September 1994,
3,000 US soldiers arrived and within a few days the foreign forces reached
the number of more than 20,000. President Aristide returned to power
on 15 October 1994 and the United States officially handed over the
mission to the United Nations on 31 March 1995. Of the 6,000 UNMIH
troops, the task of which was to assist the government to maintain a
secure and stable environment and to enable free and fair elections, about
2,400 were US soldiers.
The case of Haiti has been described as the most important precedent
supporting the legitimacy of an international principle of democratic rule
as well as of collective humanitarian intervention.182 But under traditional
international law it is a strange case because it has never previously been
the practice to regard the overthrow of a democratic government by a
military coup as a matter of international concern in terms of Chapter VII
of the Charter. The United Nations and the United States never intervened
against the establishment of military rule in most of the countries in South
America after 1945. It is of no surprise that China abstained in the Security
Council concerning the Haiti operation, arguing, inter alia, that
[t]he practice of the Council’s authorizing certain Member States to

use force is even more disconcerting because this would obviously
create a dangerous precedent.183
Because it happened in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps the Haiti case,

mainly a US operation, is better understood as an application of the
184 See P.Malanczuk, Monroe Doctrine,

Monroe Doctrine, which since its formulation by US President Monroe EPIL 7 (1984), 339–44.
in 1823 has served as a political justification for frequent military 185 See, for example, C.E.Philipp/W.
Plesmann, Conflicts, Yugoslavia, in
intervention by the United States in Latin America,184 this time under Wolfrum UNLPP I, 338–49; B.Bagwell,
the umbrella of the United Nations. Yugoslavian Constitutional Questions:
Self-Determination and Secession of
Member Republics, GJICL 21 (1991),
489–54; M.Glenny, The Fall of
Yugoslavia Yugoslavia: The Third Balkan War,
1992; C.J.Gow/L.Freedman,
The most complicated conflict the United Nations was confronted with Intervention in a Fragmenting State: The
after the end of the Cold War has been the tragedy in Yugoslavia.185 The Case of Yugoslavia, in Rodley (ed.),
1992, op. cit., 93; M.Weller, The
former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was composed of six International Response to the
republics: Solvenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro Dissolution of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, AJIL 86 (1992),
and Macedonia, and the two autonomous regions of Kosovo and 569; R.Higgins, The New United
Vojvodina. After the collapse of communism, secessionist tendencies Nations and Former Yugoslavia, IA 69
(1993), 465–83; A.L.King, Bosnia-
became stronger and hostilities commenced when in June 1991 Croatia Herzegowina-Vance-Owen Agenda for a
and Slovenia declared their independence from Yugoslavia. The Serb- Peaceful Settlement: Did the UN Do Too
Little, Too Late, to Support This
controlled Federal Government and the Yugoslav People’s Army opposed Endeavour?, Ga. JICL 23 (1993), 347–
the move and supported the Serbian militias in their struggle against the 75; A.D’Amato, Peace v. Accountability
in Bosnia, AJIL 88 (1994), 500–6; M.
Croatian and Slovenian authorities. The armed conflict was aggravated Mercier, Crimes sans châtiment: L’action
when Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence in March 1992, an humanitaire en ex-Yugoslavie 1991–
act supported by Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims, but violently 1993, 1994; AJIL 89 (1995), 92–4;
P.C.Szasz, Peacekeeping in Operation:
opposed by Bosnian Serbs. A Conflict Study of Bosnia, Cornell ILJ
The European Community and the CSCE were unable to resolve the 28 (1995), 685–700; T. Varady, The
Predicament of Peacekeeping in
Yugoslav crisis within the framework of the Conference on Yugoslavia, Bosnia, ibid., 709; P. Akhavan/R.Howse
chaired by Lord Carrington, and had considerable difficulties in dealing (eds), Yugoslavia, the Former and
Future, 1995; E. O’Ballance, Civil War in
with the complicated questions of recognition of the new states in former Bosnia 1992– 1994, 1995; G.A.Moor,
Yugoslavia.186 As far as the UN Security Council is concerned, it remained The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
and Article 51: Inherent Rights and
inactive for three months, in spite of the massive scale of bloodshed. It was Unmet Responsibilities, Fordham ILJ 18
only on 25 September 1991 that the Council adopted Resolution 713 (1995), 870; A.M.Weisburd, The
(unanimously) which expressed concern about the armed conflict in Emptiness of Jus Cogens, as Illustrated
by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Yugoslavia and its consequences for neighbouring countries and stated that Mich. JIL 17 (1995), 1; S.L.Woodward,
‘the continuation of this situation constitutes a threat to international peace Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution
After the Cold War, 1995; V.Brunce, The
and security’.187 While this is a somewhat ambiguous reference to Article 39 Elusive Peace in the Former
of the Charter, the preamble of the resolution also declared that no territorial Yugoslavia, Cornell ILJ 28 (1995), 709–
18; M.Weller, Peacekeeping and Peace-
gains or changes within Yugoslavia brought about by force would be Enforcement in the Republic of Bosnia
acceptable. In its operative part, Resolution 713 expressed support for the and Herzegovina, ZaöRV 56 (1996),
70–177.
efforts of the European Community and the CSCE and invited the UN 186 See Chapter 5 above, 89–90.
Secretary-General to offer his assistance. The Council called upon all parties 187 SC Res. 713 (1991), ILM 31 (1992),
1431.
to strictly observe the cease-fire arrangements and to settle their differences 188 Para. 6, at 1432.
peacefully within the framework of the Conference on Yugoslavia. Moreover,
the Council, invoking Chapter VII of the Charter, decided
that all States shall, for the purposes of establishing peace and
stability in Yugoslavia, immediately implement a general and
complete embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military
equipment to Yugoslavia until the Security Council decides
otherwise following consultation between the Secretary-General
and the Government of Yugoslavia.188
There are two interesting points to be made concerning this resolution.

First, at this stage the majority of the delegations in the Council still viewed
the conflict in Yugoslavia as an internal one, except for the aspect of
189 See Weller, The International

Response, op. cit., 580.
its consequences for neighbouring states.189 Second, the complete arms
190 See Chapter 18 above, 292–3. embargo was welcomed by the Yugoslav central government (which was
191 SC Res. 743 (1992), ILM 31
(1992), 1447.
present at the Council meeting, while Croatia and Slovenia were not invited)
192 For details on UNPROFOR see because it was in possession of the rich arsenals, including heavy weapons,
M. Bothe, Peacekeeping, in Simma
CUNAC, 565–603, 584–5.
of the Yugoslav People’s Army. The maintenance of the undifferentiated
193 SC Res. 752 (1992), ILM 31 arms embargo later led Bosnia-Herzegovina, the right to self-defence of
(1992), 1451.
194 SC Res. 757 (1992), ibid.,
which under Article 51 of the UN Charter was curtailed by the arms
1453. embargo, to bring a case against former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
195 Basic Facts, op. cit., 115.
196 See J.Kramer, Bericht, VN 40
before the International Court of Justice, indirectly challenging the legality
(1992), at 208. of the embargo.190
197 SC Res. 764 of 13 July 1992,
ILM 31 (1992), 1465, para. 10:
Soon after the adoption of Resolution 713, the UN Secretary-General
‘Reaffirms that all parties are bound appointed Cyrus Vance as his Personal Envoy for Yugoslavia to negotiate
to comply with the obligations under
international humanitarian law and
cease-fire agreements and explore the option of deploying UN peacekeeping
in particular the Geneva forces. Cease-fire agreements, however, were frequently broken and it was
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
that persons who commit or order
only on 21 February 1992 that the Security Council decided that the
the commission of grave breaches conditions were present to establish a United Nations Protection Force
of the Conventions are individually
responsible in respect of such
(UNPROFOR) for immediate deployment.191 The force was to consist of
breaches’ (at 1467). 13,870 military and police personnel, complemented by 519 civilians.
UNPROFOR was deployed in four ‘United Nations Protected Areas’ in
which Serbs were the majority or the substantial minority of the population
and where ethnic clashes had led to armed conflict. The mandate of
UNPROFOR was to supervise the withdrawal of the Yugoslav People’s
Army from the areas and to ensure their demilitarization and the protection
of the population from armed attacks. The force was also to assist
humanitarian agencies in their work and to facilitate the return of refugees
to their homes.192
However, the situation in former Yugoslavia continued to deteriorate,
particularly after the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina broke out in
April 1992. When the Security Council responded on 15 May 1992 by
adopting Resolution 752,193 it did not consider peacekeeping measures
because the traditionally required consent of the conflicting parties was
absent. Resolution 752 called upon the parties fighting in Bosnia-
Herzegovina to stop immediately and demanded that units of the Yugoslav
People’s Army and Croatian units be withdrawn. Because the ‘Yugoslav’
authorities failed to comply, on 30 May 1992, the Council adopted
Resolution 757 and imposed comprehensive economic sanctions under
Article 41 of the Charter and demanded that all parties permit the delivery
of humanitarian aid to Sarajevo and other areas of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.194
In mid-1992 widespread reports of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and mass sexual
assault, mostly conducted by Bosnian Serb forces, were made public. The
number of refugees had risen to more then 2.2 million.195 Indeed, it took
quite a while until the United Nations finally recognized the dimension of
‘ethnic cleansing’ in Bosnia.196 Security Council Resolution 764 of 13 July
1992 still only briefly reaffirmed the obligations of all parties under
international humanitarian law and indicated that individuals could be
held responsible for violations.197 On 4 August 1992, the President of the
Security Council demanded that the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC) and other organizations must have immediate access to the camps
198 UN Doc. S/24378, 4 August 1992.

holding Muslim prisoners and reminded all parties to the conflict of the 199 SC Res. 769 (1992), ILM 31 (1992),
obligations under humanitarian law, the violation of which would entail 1467, at 1468, para. 4. The report of the
Secretary-General of 27 July 1992 (UN
individual responsibility.198 In Resolution 769 of 7 August 1992, the Doc. S/24353 and Add. 1) suggested to
Council condemned ‘the abuses committed against the civilian expand the mandate and strength of
UNPROFOR.
population, particularly on ethnic grounds’, referred to in a report from 200 SC Res. 770 of 13 August 1992,
the Secretary-General,199 but no enforcement measures were envisaged. ILM 31 (1992), 1468.
201 SC Res. 771 of 13 August 1992,
In Resolution 770 of 13 August 1992, the Council recognized that ILM 31 (1992), 1470.
‘the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes a threat to 202 Kramer, op. cit., at 210 states that
international peace and security and that the provision of humanitarian the deployment of 100,000 to 300,000
soldiers was seriously considered.
assistance in Bosnia and Herzegovina is an important element in the
Council’s effort to restore international peace and security in the area’. It
expressed its deep concern at ‘reports of abuses against civilians imprisoned
in camps, prisons and detention centres’. Making reference to Chapter
VII, it reaffirmed its demand that all parties stop fighting and called upon
states ‘to take nationally or through regional agencies or arrangements all
measures necessary to facilitate in coordination with the United Nations’
the delivery of humanitarian assistance. It further demanded that
‘unimpeded and continuous access to all camps, prisons and detention
centres be granted immediately’ to the ICRC and other organizations and
‘that all detainees therein receive humane treatment, including adequate
food, shelter and medical care’.200 At the same meeting the Security Council
adopted Resolution 771 which for the first time expressly condemned the
practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’. The preamble expressed
grave alarm at continuing reports of widespread violations of

international humanitarian law occurring within the territory of the
former Yugoslavia and especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina
including reports of mass forcible expulsion and deportation of
civilians, imprisonment and abuse of hospitals and ambulances,
impeding the delivery of food and medical supplies to the civilian
population, and wanton devastation and destruction of property.201
The resolution repeated previous demands by the Council and requested

information from states and relevant organizations relating to the violations
of humanitarian law. Invoking Chapter VII, the Council decided that all
parties and others concerned in the former Yugoslavia and all military
forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina shall comply with the resolution, ‘failing
which the Council will need to take further measures under the Charter’.
Resolution 770 must be seen in connection with the discussion at
the end of July and the beginning of August 1992 on launching a
massive military relief operation for Bosnia-Herzegovina, not with
UN ‘blue helmets’, but with national contingents of Western armies,
for example within the NATO framework.202 Resolution 770 may
have been understood as an authorization of Western states to proceed
with such plans, although the text limits the purpose of action by
Member States to the facilitation of the delivery of humanitarian
assistance. However, the idea vanished when the international
conference on former Yugoslavia was convened in London on 26
August 1992. Action was restricted to supplementing UNPROFOR
by 6,000 soldiers, deployed and financed separately, by six European
states and the United States (without combat forces) and Canada at the
203 See Kramer, ibid., On the

expanding of the mandate and size
beginning of November 1992 (UNPROFOR II) to ensure the delivery of
of UNPROFOR see Res. 769 of 7 humanitarian supplies.203 The success of this force was limited because of
August 1992 (ILM 31 (1992), 1467),
Res. 776 of 14 September 1992
the military opposition of Bosian Serb militias.204 The Security Council also
(ibid., 1472) and Res. 779 of 6 instituted a ‘no-fly zone’ in October 1992, banning all military flights over
October 1992 (ibid., 1474). The
Security Council had decided by
Bosnia and Herzegovina.205
Res. 727 of 8 January 1992 (ibid., On 6 October 1992, the Council took the unusual step of creating an
1437), Res. 743 of 21 February
1992 (ibid., 1447) and Res. 749 of 7
impartial Commission of Experts to investigate the allegations concerning
April 1992 (ibid., 1449) first to send the violation of international humanitarian law.206 The five members of
fifty liaison officers and then to
deploy 14,000 ‘blue helmets’ in
the commission, chaired by Professor Frits Kalshoven, were appointed by
former Yugoslavia for a period of the Secretary-General on 23 October 1992.207 Following the attacks by
one year. Serbian militia in Bosnia and Herzegovina on civilians fleeing from the
204 J.B.Steinberg, International
Involvement in the Yugoslavia city of Jajce, on 30 October 1992, the President of the Security Council
Conflict, in L.F.Damrosch (ed.), condemned these attacks, and reaffirmed that those who committed or
Enforcing Restraint: Collective
Intervention in Armed Conflict, 1993, ordered serious violations of humanitarian law were individually
27, 44. responsible, and advised to inform the Commission of Experts of such
205 SC Res. 781 of 9 October 1992,
ILM 31 (1992), 1477; SC Res. 786 violations.208 In addition, the Human Rights Commission in Geneva met
of 10 November 1992, ibid., 1479. for the first time in its history for a special meeting on 14 August 1992 to
While China abstained in the vote
on the first of these resolutions, the adopt a resolution by consensus which condemned the policy of ‘ethnic
second was adopted unanimously cleansing’.209 The former Polish Prime Minister Mazowiecki was then
with China maintaining its
reservation as to any future appointed as special rapporteur for Yugoslavia, and he submitted reports
authorization of the use of force to confirming serious human rights abuses.210
implement the ban on military flights
in the airspace of Bosnia and In Resolution 787 of 16 November 1992, concerning the
Herzegovina, see Provisional enforcement of the economic sanctions imposed on Serbia and
Verbatim Record of the Security
Council Meeting on 9 October 1992, Montenegro, the Council again also addressed the massive and
S/PV.3122, 9 October 1992 at 7, systematic breaches of human rights and humanitarian law in former
and of the Meeting on 10 November
1992, S/PV.3133, 11 November
Yugoslavia, declared that annexation of territory by force and the
1992 at 8. practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’ were illegal and that all persons expelled
206 SC Res. 780 (1992), ILM 31
(1992), 1476.
must be permitted to return to their homes in peace. While the Council
207 Kramer, op. cit., at 208. authorized states under Chapters VII and VIII of the Charter to take
208 UN Doc. S/24744, 30 October the necessary measures which were appropriate under the circumstances
1992.
209 Human Rights Commission to control the cargo and destination of ships and to ensure respect for
resolution 1992/S-1/1. Resolutions 713 (1992) and 757 (1992), no measures were adopted in
210 Kramer, op. cit., at 209 with
reference to S/24516-A/47/418, 3 response to the continuing violation of human rights. The Council
September 1992; S/24766-A/47/ merely requested the Secretary-General, in cooperation with other
635, 6 November 1992; and S/
24809-A/47/ 666, 17 November bodies, to examine the possibility and requirements to promote the
1992. idea of safety zones for humanitarian purposes.211 Based on reports of
211 SC Res. 787 (1992), 16
November 1992; ILM 31 (1992),
‘the massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women,
1481. It was adopted by thirteen in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, on 17 December 1992, the Council
votes to nil, with China and adopted Resolution 798, which had been introduced by Belgium, France
Zimbabwe abstaining.
212 SC Res. 798 (1992), quotations and Britain, and demanded that all the detention camps and camps for
from provisional text UN Doc. S/ women be immediately closed, condemned ‘these acts of unspeakable
24977, 17 December 1992.
brutality’ and supported the dispatch of the delegation from the
European Communities to investigate the facts. It further decided to
‘remain actively seized of the matter’.212
On 18 December 1992, the General Assembly passed a strongly worded
resolution on the ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the detention camps, on the violation
of the territorial sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Serbia
and Montenegro, and urged the Security Council to consider, by 15
January 1993 at the latest, authorizing member states under Chapter
VII ‘to use all necessary means’ in cooperation with Bosnia to repel Serbian
213 UN Doc. A/47/L.47/Rev.1, 17

and Montenegrin forces, to exempt Bosnia from the arms embargo and December 1992, adopted as Resolution
to consider additional measures, such as establishing an ad hoc 47/121.
international war crimes tribunal.213 It must be noted, that while there 215 Sc Res. 816, 31 March 1993, UNYb
were no votes against this resolution, fifty-seven states abstained. 1993, 463, at 464.
216 Quigley, op. cit., 280.
The developments in the following years of war in former Yugoslavia 217 SC Res. 819 (1993), UNYb 1993,
included unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, such as the 452; SC Res. 824 (1993), ibid., 455.
218 On the dispute between Macedonia
Vance-Owen plan, the establishment by the Security Council of an and Greece, see Chapters 5, 90 and 11,
International Criminal Tribunal with jurisdiction to prosecute crimes 167 above.
committed in the armed conflict in former Yugoslavia,214 and the
authorization of member states by the Security Council in Resolution
816 in 1993, with reference to Resolution 770 of 1992, to take
all necessary measures in the airspace of the Republic of Bosnia

and Herzegovina, in the event of further violations, to ensure
compliance with the ban on flights.215
China abstained in the vote on this resolution and later Russia protested
against the use of the Bosnia resolutions of the Security Council by the
United States and NATO to justify air strikes around Sarajevo against
Bosnian Serb emplacements, apparently because Russia viewed their true
objective as being to open an arms supply route to Sarajevo for the
Bosnian government, rather than to protect the delivery of humanitarian
aid.216 On 6 May 1993, Security Council Resolution 824 declared
Sarajevo, Tuzla, •epa, Gorazde and Bihac safe areas, after Srebrenica and
its surroundings had already been declared safe areas by Resolution
819 of 16 April 1993.217 Between April 1994 and February 1995 NATO
airplanes conducted nine limited attacks against Serbian targets on the
ground. In March 1995, the Security Council decided on the replacement
of UNPROFOR by three separate but interlinked peacekeeping
operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNPROFOR), Croatia (UNCRO)
and Macedonia218 (UNPREDEP).
After the Mladic army and Bosnian Serbian militias had conquered
Srebrenica (11 July 1995) and •epa (25 July 1995), two of the enclaves
vanished which had made agreement on borders in a future peace
settlement rather difficult. Moreover, the Krajina campaign of the
Croatian President Tudjmann (4 to 7 August 1995) ended with
considerable territorial gain by the allied Croats and Muslims in West
Bosnia. Thus, the previously agreed formula of a settlement envisaging
51 per cent for the Muslims and Croats and 49 per cent for the Serbs
was now almost reflecting the reality of the control of territory by
the parties. These conditions led to a new American peace initiative
with the mission led by Richard Holbrooke who took up negotiations
with the parties on 15 August 1995. The Serbs were offered two new
important concessions. First, they obtained the option of establishing
an independent state. Second, the long-term possibility of a close
connection, or even unification, with the Serbian Republic was offered
under conditions similar to those which had been granted to the
Muslims and Croats one year earlier. On 29 August 1995, the Serbian
leaders Karad•ic (Republic of Serbia) and Miloševic (Bosnian Serbs)
agreed to accept peace negotiations on this basis.

220 See R.Mutz, Legenden auf
One day earlier, on 28 August 1995, thirty-eight persons were killed in
dem Balkan, Der Spiegel 27/1996, the Muslim part of Sarajevo by artillery fire, for which Serbian forces
114–6.
221 The texts of the General
were held responsible. This provided a cause for the launching of the
Framework Agreement for Peace in NATO operation ‘Deliberate Force’ on 30 August 1995 which lasted until
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
Dayton Agreement on Implementing
14 September 1995 and which included heavy bombardment of troops,
the Federation of Bosnia and weapons, military installations and production sites, as well as of civilian
Herzegovina are in ILM 35 (1996),
75 et seq., 170 et seq. The text of
traffic routes, intersections and bridges. Thus, the action is difficult to
the Conclusions of the London qualify as an act of self-defence 219 and because it included targets
Meeting (12 December 1995) of the
Peace Implementation Conference
comprehensively in the whole part of Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled by
for the Bosnian General Framework Serbian forces, it went beyond the UN mandate concerning the protection
Agreement is in ILM 35 (1996), 223.
See also UN Chronicle, 1996, no. 1,
of the safety zones.
25 et seq., 35 et seq. For the It is important to note that the NATO decision to take retaliatory
International Conference on the
former Yugoslavia Documentation
measures against the Serbs had already been taken at the end of July
on the Arbitration Commission 1995, following the war crimes committed against the civilian population
under the UN/EC (Geneva)
Conference: Terms of Reference,
when Srebrenica and •epa fell to the Serbs. Operation ‘Deliberate Force’
Reconstitution of the Arbitration was an American idea, reluctantly accepted by NATO allies, and de facto
Commission, and Rules of
Procedure, see ILM 32 (1993),
it was also largely a US enterprise. Although eight NATO states
1572. See further P.Gaeta, The participated in the operation, two-thirds of the 3,500 air strikes were
Dayton Agreements and
International Law, EJIL 2 (1996),
conducted by aircraft of the US Air Force and US Navy. It is a myth that
147–63; N.Figà-Talamance, The NATO ended the war in the former Yugoslavia by military action.220 The
Role of NATO in the Peace
Agreement for Bosnia and
basic agreement of the Serbian leadership to negotiate a peace settlement
Herzegovina, ibid., 164–75; S.Yee, had already been made prior to Operation ‘Deliberate Force’, the
The New Constitution of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, ibid., 176–93;
implementation of which was more likely to endanger the success of the
E.Andersen, The Role of Asylum Holbrooke mission. On 5 October 1995, the Bosnian parties to the conflict
States in Promoting Safe and
Peaceful Repatriation under the
finally agreed on a cease-fire which came into effect five days later and
Dayton Agreements, ibid., 193–206; led to a significant improvement of the situation.
J.Sloan, The Dayton Peace
Agreement: Human Rights
A decisive break of the deadlock was then achieved with the General
Guarantees and Their Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina that was
Implementation, ibid., 207–25;
J.R.W.D.Jones, The Implications of
initialled on 21 November 1995 at a US Air Force base near Dayton, Ohio,
the Peace Agreement for the and signed in Paris on 14 December 1995.221 The agreement is a treaty
International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia, ibid., 226–4;
between three of the five successor states to former Yugoslavia, the Bosnia
B.Ramcharan, The Bosnian Peace and Herzegovina Republic, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the
Accord, LJIL 9 (1996), 131–40.
222 SC Res. 1031 (1995), ILM 35
Republic of Croatia and was witnessed by the five members of a ‘Contact
(1996), 251. Group’ (USA, Russia, France, Germany and Britain) which had been formed
223 SC Res. 1035 (1995), ibid.,
256.
in May 1994 to facilitate the final stage of negotiations, and by the European
224 SC Res. 1021 (1995) and 1022 Union. In accordance with the terms of the peace agreement, on 15 December
(1995), ibid., 257 and 259. On the
further development and problems
1995, the Security Council authorized the deployment of a 60,000-strong
of implementing the agreement, see multinational military implementation force (IFOR),222 composed of NATO
UN Chronicle 33 (1996), no. 2, 24–
34. Noting that elections took place
and non-NATO forces, to replace UNPROFOR as of 20 December 1995
in Bosnia on 14 September 1996, and to ensure compliance with the Dayton/Paris Agreement. A UN civilian
SC Res. 1074 (1996) of 1 October
1996 lifted the sanctions on the
police force in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the International Police Task Force
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; ILM (IPTF), was established by the Security Council on 21 December 1995.223
35 (1996), 1561.
In view of the developments the Security Council had already on 22
November 1995 lifted the arms embargo imposed by Resolution 713 of 25
September 1991 (Russia abstaining) and indefinitely suspended the economic
sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro).224
How can one explain the reluctance of the Security Council to (apart
from the air strikes) back up by military sanctions its decisions taken under
225 On this point see C.J.P.Terry, The

Chapter VII following the initial Resolution 713 of 25 September 1991 Criteria for Intervention: An Evaluation of
in the case of Yugoslavia? Since the London conference in summer 1992 U.S.Military Policy in U.N.Operations,
Texas ILJ 31 (1996), 101–5.
a series of agreements had been signed and broken by the parties, while 226 IHT, 11 January 1993, 1; 13 January
in fact the practice of ethnic cleansing, rape, and the deterioration of the 1993, 2.
situation of the civilian population continued also during the subsequent
negotiations in Geneva.
It appears that states with the power to do so were for a variety of
reasons reluctant to intervene militarily in Yugoslavia, especially with
ground troops. First of all, there were different interests of states, as can
be seen from the sympathetic attitude of Russia towards Serbia and the
Greek position on the Macedonian question, which conflicted with the
view of other members of the European Communities. There was also
no clear or common Western policy on what the future order in the
Balkans should be. Furthermore, it seemed difficult to clearly define
limited objectives of military intervention with troops and their
requirements. Special technical difficulties for effective military operation
in the area, the prospect of having to face at least one well-equipped,
trained and determined enemy army, and the risks involved for the lives
of their soldiers, including those of the national contingents of the UN
peacekeeping forces already in place, were other more specific
considerations. There was also the fear of becoming entangled in a
complex guerrilla war with eventual long-term commitments as to
military presence in the area. Thus, the calculation may have been that
it was better, by maintaining pressure with sanctions and by involving
the parties in the negotiating process, to at least try to reduce the suffering
and to contain the conflict, until the warring parties had exhausted
themselves. The long-term effect of the perceived inaction of Western
powers and the UN in view of the fate of Bosnian Muslims on the
relationship to the Muslim world, however, remains an open question.
In a complicated scenario such as the war in Yugoslavia, political
choices are not easy to make, perhaps even on the limited question of
lifting the undifferentiated arms embargo that was imposed on all parties.
The United States appeared to view the problem in Yugoslavia as a
primarily European responsibility and to consider American vital
interests225 only to be affected should the war have spread to other areas
of the Balkans, threatening to engage Greece and Turkey. It was only at
a late stage that the United States decided to engage its air forces to
retaliate massively against the Serbs and to exercise pressure to complete
a peace settlement. European institutions and states were unable to
respond militarily to a major conflict in their own region without
American leadership. There were some statements from the French
government on whether France might be prepared to use military force
unilaterally to liberate civilians from prison camps in Bosnia which,
however, remained rather confusing.226 Other European states were not
willing to go along with Dutch demands for stronger action. The
experience has clearly demonstrated the need for strengthening the
common elements of the foreign and defence policy of the member states
of the European Union, of the upgrading of the Western European Union
(WEU) and of improving other aspects of regional security in Europe.
227 See D.W.Bowett, United

Nations Forces, 1964; R.Higgins,
UN peacekeeping
United Nations Peacekeeping
1946–1967, Documents and
Commentary, Vols 1–3 (1969–60);
UN peacekeeping operations 227 have traditionally been clearly
E.Suy, United Nations distinguished from ‘enforcement action’ authorized by the UN Security
Peacekeeping System, EPIL 4
(1982), 258; I.Pogany, The
Council under Chapter VII, because they have always been based upon
Evaluation of United Nations Peace- the consent of the conflicting parties to the deployment of peacekeeping
Keeping Operations, BYIL, 57
(1986), 357–70; UNITAR, The
troops and military observers under the auspices of the UN. The distinction
United Nations and the Maintenance between UN ‘enforcement action’ and ‘peacekeeping’ has increasingly
of International Peace and Security,
1987; R.C.R.Siekmann, Basic
become blurred, due to new kinds of operations (often labelled ‘second
Documents on United Nations and generation peacekeeping’ or ‘mixed peacekeeping’ which may include some
Related PeaceKeeping Forces, 2nd
edn 1989; Siekmann, National
enforcement elements). Indeed, the terminology concerning UN
Contingents in United Nations peacekeeping has recently become rather confusing. For the sake of
Peace-Keeping Forces, 1991;
Y.Hirose, Peace-Keeping
convenience, it is useful to distinguish in the following simply between
Operations of the United Nations, the ‘old’ peacekeeping during the Cold War and the ‘new’ peacekeeping
1992; R.Connaughton, Military
Intervention and UN Peacekeeping,
after the Cold War. In practice, both forms continue to exist alongside
in Rodley (ed.), 1992, op. cit., 165; each other.228
P.F.Diehl, International
Peacekeeping, 1993; Bothe,
Peacekeeping, op. cit., 565– 603;
K.Rudolf, Peace-Keeping Forces, in The ‘old’ peacekeeping during the Cold War
Wolfrum UNLPP II, 957–69; D.
Warner (ed.), New Dimensions of After 1945 Chapter VII of the Charter, which contemplated action by the
Peacekeeping, 1995; M.Bothe/
R.C.R. Siekmann (eds),
Security Council, did not work well in practice, and states sometimes
International Peacekeeping, Vols (especially during the 1950s) turned to the General Assembly and the
1–3, 1994–6; R.S. Lee, United
Nations Peacekeeping:
Secretariat to fill the gap. The Soviet Union always used to oppose this
Development and Prospects, trend, and after 1960 power swung back to the Security Council.229 In the
Cornell ILJ 28 (1995), 619–30;
R.Wedgwood, The Evolution of
1950s the General Assembly claimed the power to create a United Nations
United Nations Peacekeeping, peacekeeping force, and actually exercised this power in 1956.230 From
ibid., 631–44. See also the
literature cited below, 423–5.
1960 onwards all United Nations peacekeeping forces have been created
228 See S.R.Ratner, The New UN by the Security Council, and no serious attempt has been made to get the
Peacekeeping: Building Peace in
Lands of Conflict After the Cold War,
General Assembly to create another such United Nations force; the question
1995. whether the General Assembly has the legal power to create a United Nations
peacekeeping force is no longer of much political importance, although it is
231 See text above, 389. still worth examining because it throws light on wider legal issues.
232 Expenses case, ICJ Rep. 1962,
151, 166, 171–2, 177. See text
As noted above, no agreements have been concluded under Article 43 of
below, 419, 420. the Charter.231 This has not prevented the United Nations from assembling
233 Ibid., 167.
forces by other means. Such forces were, for instance, sent to the Middle
East in 1956 and to the Congo in 1960. The Soviet Union argued that these
two forces were illegal, because they had not been set up in accordance
with Article 43. The International Court of Justice replied that the forces in
question were not designed to take enforcement action, and that Article 43
applied only to forces designed to take enforcement action; consequently,
failure to comply with the procedure of Article 43 did not invalidate the
creation of the forces.232
It seems, however, that the International Court did not intend to imply
that failure to comply with the procedure of Article 43 would have
invalidated the creation of a force designed to take enforcement action.233
When Article 42 says that ‘action by…[United Nations] forces…may
include …operations by…forces of Members of the United Nations’, it
clearly implies that there is more than one way in which United Nations
forces may be recruited.
UN PEACEKEEPING 417
The purpose of Article 43 was to facilitate action by the Security 234 GA Res. A/3276 of 4 November
1956, UNYb 1956, 36. See Higgins, op.
Council; it would be wholly alien to that purpose to argue that the cit., Vol. 2, 221 et seq.
absence of agreements under Article 43 should prevent action by the 235 Ibid., 61.
236 ICJ Rep. 1962, at 171–2. See also
Security Council. In other words, Article 43 provides a procedure by text below, 420. Most commentators
which the Security Council may act, but it does not prevent the Security have described UNEF as a
Council from choosing an alternative procedure. ‘peacekeeping force’. The concept of
peacekeeping forces, and the distinction
between peacekeeping and
enforcement action, are not mentioned
The first United Nations Emergency Force in the in the Charter, but as noted at the
beginning of this chapter, have been
Middle East (UNEF) developed by practice.
At the end of October 1956 Israel, France and the United Kingdom
attacked Egypt. But within a few days the states concerned agreed to a
ceasefire, and on 5 November 1956 the General Assembly set up a United
Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) ‘to secure and supervise the cessation
of hostilities’.234 Later, when Israel, France and the United Kingdom had
withdrawn their troops, UNEF was sent to patrol the Israeli-Egyptian
armistice line, in order to encourage ‘the scrupulous maintenance of the
armistice agreement of 1949’.235
The Force consisted of contingents of national armies, made available
under agreements between the contributing states and the Secretary-
General. The General Assembly appointed the Commander of the Force,
and authorized the Secretary-General to enact regulations setting out the
rights and duties of soldiers serving in it. The Force was paid by the United
Nations, and it took its orders solely from the General Assembly and the
Secretary-General. Consequently, although certain questions such as
promotion were still dealt with by the contributing states, the Force was a
United Nations force in a much more real sense than the forces in Korea.
The Force was founded very largely on the principle of consent. No
state was obliged to provide a contingent unless it consented to do so.
The Force could not enter the territory of any state without that state’s
consent; thus it operated solely on Egyptian territory and not on Israeli
territory, because Israel, unlike Egypt, did not consent to its presence.
The Force was authorized to fight in order to defend itself, but it was
not expected to resist large-scale invasions across the armistice line;
indeed, the fact that it never numbered more than 6,000 men would
have made such a role impracticable. Its function was to patrol the
armistice line and to report troop movements taking place near the line;
it was also used to arrest individuals trespassing near the armistice line
and hand them over to the Egyptian police. For over ten years, until it
was withdrawn at the request of Egypt in 1967, its presence helped to
create a peaceful atmosphere in which there were very few guerrilla raids
across the armistice line.
The legal basis for the creation of the Force was uncertain. The
communist countries, which abstained in the vote setting up the Force,
said that the use of any type of United Nations force constituted
enforcement action, which could be taken only by the Security
Council. In the Expenses case, the International Court of Justice said
that the operations of UNEF did not constitute enforcement action
because they were not directed against any state without that state’s
consent.236 But it is one thing to show that there is no provision in
the Charter forbidding the creation of the Force; it is quite
another thing to find a provision authorizing its creation. The
International Court suggested that the force might have been based
237 Ibid., 172. For the text of these

Articles, see Chapter 21 above, 377.
either on Article 11 or on Article 14 of the Charter.237 The trouble with
238 Effect of Awards of these Articles is that they merely empower the General Assembly to
Compensation made by the UN
Administrative Tribunal, ICJ
recommend measures to be taken by somebody else; they do not empower
Pleadings, Oral Arguments, it to take measures. But the practice of the General Assembly suggests that
Documents 1954, 295–301.
239 See B.Nolte, Conflicts, Congo,
the fact that the General Assembly can only make recommendations does
in Wolfrum UNLPP I, 225–32; D.W. not prevent it from setting up subsidiary bodies to carry out those
Bowett, United Nations Forces: A
Legal Study of United Nations
recommendations, provided that the consent of the states concerned is
Practice, 1964, 153–254; G.Abi- obtained.238
Saab, The United Nations
Operations in the Congo 1960–
1964, 1978.
240 SC Res. 4383 (1960), UNYb The United Nations Force in the Congo (ONUC)
1960, 97.
241 Ibid. On 30 June 1960 Belgium granted independence to the Belgian Congo.239
242 See Chapter 21 above, 374. Little had been done to prepare the Congo (subsequently renamed Zaire)
243 SC Res. 4424 (1960), UNYb
1960, 98. for independence, and almost immediately the Congolese army mutinied
and began attacking Europeans resident in the Congo. Belgium, which
had retained military bases in the Congo, deployed troops to protect the
Europeans, and the Congolese government appealed to the United Nations
for military assistance against ‘Belgian aggression’. On 14 July 1960 the
Security Council authorized the Secretary-General to provide the Congo
with military assistance;240 the Secretary-General had announced in
advance that he would interpret this resolution as authorizing him to
create a force modelled on UNEF, and the action which he took to set up
the force was approved unanimously by the Security Council eight days
later.241 Despite the circumstances in which the force was set up, it was
not intended to take military action against Belgian troops; its function
was to help the Congolese government to maintain law and order, and
thus to create a situation in which the Europeans in the Congo would not
need protection by the Belgian army. The force was modelled on UNEF,
but a number of differences soon began to appear.
In the first place, the Security Council was prevented by the veto from
giving clear instructions to the Secretary-General, and consequently the
Secretary-General had to take all sorts of decisions which, in the case of
UNEF, had been taken by the General Assembly (for example, appointing
the Commander of the force).
Second, although the force was intended to operate with the consent of
the Congolese government, this principle became difficult to observe when
the Congolese government disintegrated into warring factions. Another
departure from the principle of consent can be seen in the Security Council
resolution passed on 9 August 1960, which referred to earlier resolutions
on the Congo and reminded member states that they were under a legal
obligation, by virtue of Article 25 of the Charter,242 ‘to accept and carry out
the decisions of the Security Council’.243 One of the earlier decisions referred
to in the resolution of 9 August 1960 was the resolution of 22 July 1960,
which inter alia requested ‘all states to refrain from any action which
might…impede the restoration of law and order…and also to refrain
from any action which might undermine the territorial integrity and
political independence…of the Congo’. This request, which was
transformed into an order by the resolution of 9 August 1960, was
ignored by certain Western financial interests, which assisted the
secessionist activities of Moise Tshombe in Katanga, and by the Soviet
UN PEACEKEEPING 419
244 ICJ Rep. 1962, at 177.

Union, which supported the Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba, in his 245 See text above, 418.
struggle against President Kasavubu. 246 see Chapter 21 above, 369–71.
247 For the text of Article 40, see text
Third, although the force was originally intended to fight only in order above, 388.
to defend itself, it was subsequently authorized to fight in other 248 See text above, 388.
circumstances as well—in order to prevent civil war, and in order to expel 249 See text above, 393–5.
250 UNYb 1961, 104.
foreign mercenaries. In the end the force found itself engaged in extensive
military operations against the secessionist movement in Katanga.
The legal basis for the creation of the force is obscure and
controversial. The Soviet Union argued that the creation of the force
was illegal for a number of reasons, including the fact that the force was
virtually under the control of the Secretary-General, instead of being
under the control of the Security Council, as it ought to have been. But
there is no reason why the Security Council should not delegate its powers
to the Secretary-General under Article 98 of the Charter, which provides
that ‘the Secretary-General…shall perform such…functions as are
entrusted to him by’ the Security Council. In any case, the Soviet position
is hard to reconcile with the fact that the Soviet Union had voted for the
resolutions creating the force.
In the Expenses case the International Court of Justice said that the
operations of the force did not constitute enforcement action.244 This
statement by the Court is rather surprising, considering the scale of the
military operations in Katanga. However, commentators have generally
described the operations of the force as ‘peacekeeping action’, as opposed
to ‘enforcement action’. But one of the resolutions concerning the force
was phrased in mandatory terms;245 several commentators suggested that
the creation of the force constituted ‘provisional measures’ within the
meaning of Article 40, and this view received some support from the
United Nations Secretariat. Although Article 40 appears in Chapter VII,
it would seem that ‘provisional measures’ under Article 40 do not
constitute ‘enforcement action’; otherwise, a state which had been called
upon to comply with provisional measures could be suspended from
exercising the rights and privileges of membership under Article 5,246
which would be incompatible with the principle, laid down in Article
40, that ‘provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights…of
the parties concerned’.247
Reliance on Article 40 implies that the situation in the Congo must
have amounted to (at least) a threat to international peace.248 Although
the original resolutions concerning the Congo contained no express
finding to that effect by the Security Council, it is obvious that the
danger of civil war in the Congo was a threat to international peace in
the same way that the danger of civil war in Rhodesia was a threat to
international peace.249 The preamble to the Security Council’s later
resolution S/4722 of 21 February 1961 recited that the Security Council
was ‘deeply concerned at…the danger of widespread civil war and
bloodshed in the Congo and the threat to international peace and
security’.250 Indeed, the situation in the Congo was much more serious,
because there was a risk of the Soviet Union and the United States
taking sides in the civil war. The United Nations action did not entirely
succeed in averting that risk, but, if it had not been for the United
Nations action, the two superpowers might have found themselves
251 ICJ Rep. 1962, 151. See M.

Bothe, Certain Expenses of the
dragged against their will into a war of Vietnamese proportions in the Congo.
United Nations (Advisory Opinion), Each superpower was therefore probably glad that the United Nations filled
EPIL I (1992), 557–60.
the vacuum in the Congo and thus prevented the Congo falling under the
253 See Chapter 21 above, 377. control of the other.
The Expenses case

When the United Nations forces in the Middle East and the Congo were set
up, the General Assembly decided that member states were under a legal
duty to pay for the forces. However, the forces were not financed out of the
ordinary budget, but out of separate accounts (one for each force); and a
different scale of contributions was used, which reduced the size of the
contributions payable by the poorest member states. These facts led some
states to argue that the expenses of the forces were so different from the
ordinary expenses of the United Nations that member states were under no
obligation to pay for the forces. The communist countries also argued that
there was no duty to pay for the forces because the forces had been created
illegally. Soon it became clear that the United Nations was facing a major
financial crisis, and shortage of money forced the United Nations to reduce
the force in the Congo in 1963 and to withdraw it altogether in 1964.
Consequently the General Assembly asked the International Court of
Justice to advise whether the expenses of the two forces were indeed expenses
of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 17(2) of the Charter,
which provides that ‘the expenses of the organization shall be borne by the
members as apportioned by the General Assembly’. On 20 July 1962 the
Court answered this question in the affirmative, by nine votes to five.251
The question put to the Court was not directly concerned with the legality
of the creation of the forces, and the Court’s brief remarks about the legality
of their creation were somewhat inconclusive; it limited itself to saying that
the creation of the forces was probably legal, and to rejecting various
arguments against their legality, but it did not say precisely which provisions
of the Charter constituted the legal justification for their creation.
The Court’s opinion, being an advisory opinion,252 was not binding,
and, although some of the states which had previously defaulted began to
pay after the Court had delivered its opinion, the Soviet bloc and France
remained adamant in their refusal to pay. The United States and its allies
threatened to invoke Article 19 of the Charter, which deprives a defaulting
state of its right to vote in the General Assembly ‘if the amount of its arrears
equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the
preceding two full years’.253 The Soviet Union retorted by threatening to
leave the organization if it was deprived if its vote in the General Assembly.
Eventually, in August 1965, the United States and its allies gave way and
agreed not to invoke Article 19; in return, the Soviet Union promised to
make a voluntary contribution towards the expenses of the two forces.
The United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)

When Cyprus became independent in 1960, it had a complicated
constitution designed to protect the interests of the Turkish-speaking minority;
UN PEACEKEEPING 421
254 See T.Oppermann, Cyprus, EPIL I

in a 1960 Treaty of Guarantee Cyprus agreed not to alter the basic (1992), 923–6; E.Michos-Ederer,
provisions of the constitution, and gave each of the other parties to the Conflicts, Cyprus, in Wolfrum UNLPP I,
233–42; Z.M.Necatigil, The Cyprus
treaty (Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom) a right to take unilateral Question and the Turkish Position in
‘action’ (a word which was probably deliberately ambiguous) in order International Law, 1989; S.Muller/W.
Mijs (eds), The Cyprus Question and the
to uphold the constitution.254 In 1963 President Makarios of Cyprus Turkish Position in International Law,
declared that the constitution was unworkable and would be altered. 2nd edn 1993.
255 SC Res. 186 (1964), UNYb 1964,
This led to fighting between the Greek and Turkish communities in 165.
Cyprus, and British troops arrived, with the consent of all the interested 256 For further information about the
functions of the force, see A.J.R.
parties, to keep the peace between the two communities. Keeping the Carrion, The United Nations Force in
peace turned out to be a harder task than the British had expected, and Cyprus: An Uncertain Case of
PeaceKeeping, in A.Cassese (ed.),
so the British asked the United Nations to send a peacekeeping force to United Nations Peace-Keeping, 1978,
the island. 158–60, 163–9. On subsequent
developments see Michos-Ederer, op.
There was clearly a danger that war between Greece and Turkey could cit., 237; Bothe, Peacekeeping, op. cit.,
develop out of clashes between the Greek and Turkish communities in 578.
Cyprus. The Security Council therefore decided unanimously on 4 March
1964 to set up a United Nations force for the purpose of preventing a
recurrence of fighting between the two communities in Cyprus.255
The force was largely modelled on UNEF, but with some significant
differences. First, it was financed by voluntary contributions. Second,
as in the case of the force in the Congo, the composition and the size of
the force were to be decided by the Secretary-General, and the
Commander was to be appointed by him. On the other hand, a certain
distrust of the Secretary-General was shown by the fact that the force
was set up for only three months; since then the Secretary-General has
had to ask the Security Council to prolong the existence of the force for
successive periods of three or six months.
The Secretary-General instructed the force to be impartial and to
fight only in order to defend itself. These restrictions have not limited
the usefulness of the force as much as one might have expected. The
force patrols territory separating areas held by the rival communities,
and escorts people from one community across areas held by the other
community; if it is fired upon when carrying out these functions, it has
the right to return fire in self-defence. It also investigates and reports
outbreaks of fighting, and tries to persuade the parties to cease fire when
such outbreaks occur. However, it was not intended to impose a political
settlement on the parties, who have still not yet reached agreement about
the constitutional future of Cyprus. Nor was it intended to take part in
large-scale hostilities, and consequently it did not attempt to resist the
invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkey in 1974.256
As usual, the resolution setting up the force does not specify the
Articles of the Charter justifying its creation. Some commentators have
suggested that it is based on Chapter VI of the Charter (peaceful
settlement of disputes)257 rather than on Chapter VII (enforcement action).
The preamble to the resolution setting up the force says that ‘the present
situation with regard to Cyprus is likely to threaten international peace
and security’, which echoes the language of Chapter VI (‘dispute or
situation…likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace
and security’), rather than the language of Chapter VII (Chapter
VII applies only when there is already an actual threat to the peace,

259 ILM 12 (1973), 1528–30, 1537–
breach of the peace, or act of aggression). Unlike Chapter VII, the relevant
40; ILM 14 (1975), 1450 et seq.; on provisions of Chapter VI do not authorize the Security Council to address
the first United Nations Emergency
Force, cf. text above, 417–18.
orders to states, but that does not matter in the present context, because
260 SC Res. 350 of 31 May 1974, the resolution setting up the force in Cyprus was not phrased in mandatory
UN Chronicle, June 1974, 26–8, at
26. See I.S.Pogany, The Security
terms. A more serious limitation to Chapter VI is that, interpreted literally,
Council and the Arab-Israeli it does not authorize the Security Council to do anything; it merely empowers
Conflict, 1984
261 SC Res. 425 and 426 of 19
the Security Council to recommend states to do certain things. But, if the
March 1978, UN Chronicle, April General Assembly could set up UNEF on the basis of Articles 11 or 14,258
1978, 5–22; SC Res. S/12611, ibid.,
75–6. See I. Pogany, The Arab
there is no reason why the Security Council should not set up a similar
League and Peacekeeping in the force on the basis of Chapter VI.
Lebanon, 1987.
262 Cf. text above, 388, 419. This
view is strengthened by the fact that
para. 6 of SC Res. 521 of 19 New forces in the Middle East
September 1982 ‘insists that all
concerned must permit UN…forces Further fighting broke out between Egypt and Israel in October 1973. The
established by the Security Council
in Lebanon to be deployed and to
Security Council called for a ceasefire and set up a second United Nations
discharge their mandates Emergency Force (UNEF II) to supervise the ceasefire. Later, Egypt and
and…calls attention to the
obligations on all member States
Israel entered into two disengagement agreements, which provided that
under Article 25 of the Charter to UNEF II should occupy a buffer zone between the Egyptian and Israeli
accept and carry out the decisions
of the Council in accordance with
forces, and should carry out periodic inspections to ensure that Egypt and
the Charter’ (text in ILM 21 (1982), Israel were complying with the terms of the disengagement agreements which
1169).
263 Cf. text above, 385–7.
limited the forces which each state was allowed to keep in the areas adjacent
264 On the right of peacekeeping to the buffer zone.259
units to use force in self-defence
see Bothe, Peacekeeping, op. cit.,
In May 1974 Israel entered into a disengagement agreement with Syria,
589 et seq. under which Israel withdrew from some of the Syrian territory which it had
occupied in 1967 and 1973, and the Security Council set up a Disengagement
Observer Force (UNDOF), which performs the same type of functions as
UNEF II performed under the disengagement agreements between Egypt
and Israel.260 But UNDOF consists of only about 1,050 men, compared
with 7,000 in UNEF II.
In March 1978 Israel invaded Lebanon, as a reprisal against raids by
Palestinian terrorists from Lebanon against Israel. The Security Council
called on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, and decided ‘to
establish a United Nations Interim Force for Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL)
for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring
international peace and security and assisting the government of Lebanon
in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area’.261 Despite the
presence of UNIFIL, fighting has continued in southern Lebanon between
right-wing Lebanese Christians (armed and paid by Israel) and their
Palestinian or Shiite opponents; each of these rival factions has attacked
UNIFIL from time to time.
UNEF II, UNDOF and UNIFIL have many things in common. They
were created by the Security Council, but the relevant resolutions and debates
do not indicate which provisions of the Charter provided the legal basis
for the Forces. One possibility is that the Forces were based on Article
40 of the Charter,262 another possibility is that they were based on
Chapter VI.263 However, it is clear that all three of these Forces were
intended to be peacekeeping forces; they were authorized to fight
only in order to defend themselves,264 and therefore UNIFIL did not try
to resist Israel’s second invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Each of the Forces was
UN PEACEKEEPING 423
265 IR (May 1981), 1044–7.

created originally for six months, and since then their mandates have 266 See GA Res. 3101 (XXVIII) of 11
been renewed by the Security Council for successive periods varying December 1973 on UNEF operations,
UN Chronicle, January 1974, 72–4; GA
between three and twelve months; when the mandate of UNEF II expired Res. S-8/2 on UNIFIL, 21 April 1978,
for the last time in July 1979, it was not renewed because the Soviet ibid., May 1978, 5–17, 44–8; GA Res.
33/14 on UNIFIL, ibid., December 1978,
Union had threatened to veto any attempt to renew it.265 The Secretary- 59–60; GA Res. 33/13 B, C, D, E and on
General appointed the Commander of each Force, with the consent of UNEF and UNDOF, ibid., January 1979,
73–4; GA Res. 34/9 and 34/166 on
the Security Council, and selected contingents (from states willing to UNIFIL, GA Res. 34/7 A-D on UNEF
provide them) in consultation with the Security Council. The General and UNDOF, ibid. March 1980, 84–6.
267 GA Res. 36/116 A and B of 10
Assembly decided that members of the United Nations were under a December 1981, UNYb 1981, 1298–
legal obligation to pay for the Forces, but the contributions which 300; UN Chronicle 19 (1982), no. 2, 61–
2; The Economist, 5 December 1981,
members were required to pay were based, not on the scale used for the 52. On the development of the financing
ordinary budget, but on a special scale, which increased by more than of peacekeeping see Bothe,
Peacekeeping, op. cit., 594 et seq.
15 per cent the proportion which the permanent members of the Security 268 N.J.Prill, Observers, EPIL 4 (1982),
Council were required to pay, and reduced by 80 or 90 per cent the 60–2.
269 See Bothe, Peacekeeping, op. cit.,
proportion which the developing countries were required to pay; however, 597 et seq.
some states have refused to pay their contributions.266 China, which had 270 S.Vohra, Impartiality in United
Nations Peace-Keeping, LJIL 9 (1996),
been one of the states refusing to pay contributions, announced at the 63–86.
end of 1981 that it would pay contributions for the Forces.267
New forms of peacekeeping after the Cold War

The ‘old’ forms of UN peacekeeping during the Cold War were aimed at
avoiding further violence by trying to freeze the conflict, for example by
observing a cease-fire line on the basis of a military mandate.268 The UN
presence in the field with military and civilian personnel focuses upon
monitoring the implementation of agreements of cease-fires or the
separation of forces, to help to promote a settlement of the conflict and/
or to secure the delivery of humanitarian aid. Such operations always
require the consent of the host state269 and normally also of the other
conflicting parties involved and they must be conducted in an impartial
manner without favouring one side or the other.270 The operation may
consist of unarmed officers or of peacekeeping troops provided by UN
member states, or of a combination of both, financed by the international
community. Armed force may normally be used by UN peacekeeping
forces only in self-defence.
In the first forty years of the existence of the UN, thirteen peacekeeping
operations were launched; apart from the ones discussed above there
were also missions concerning the conflict between India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP 1949; UNIPOM 1965–6), in West New Guinea (UNSF
1962–3), Yemen (UNYOM 1963–4), and the Dominican Republic
(DOMREP 1965–6). After the end of the Cold War, between 1988 and
1994 alone, twenty-one new peacekeeping operations were undertaken
by the UN, including conflict areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan
(UNGOMAP 1988–90), Iran and Iraq (UNIIMOG 1988–91), Iraq-
Kuwait (UNIKOM 1991–), Angola (UNAVEM 1989–91; UNAVEM II
1991–5; UNAVEM III 1995–), Namibia (UNTAG 1989–90), Central
America (ONUCA 1989–92), El Salvador (ONUSAL 1991–5),
Cambodia (UNAMIC 1991–2; UNTAC 1992–3), Somalia (UNOSOM
1992–3; UNOSOM II 1993–5), Mozambique (ONUMOZ 1992–4),
Uganda-Rwanda (UNOMUR, 1993–4), the Aouzou Strip (UNASOG 1994),
271 See Ratner, op. cit., 22.

Western Sahara (MINURSO 1991–), Yugoslavia (see above), Georgia
273 Basic Facts, op. cit., 28; G.S. (UNOMIG 1993–), Liberia (UNOMIL 1993–), Haiti (see above), Rwanda
Goodwin-Gill, Free and Fair
Elections: International Law and
(see above), and Tadjikistan (UNMOT 1994–).
Practice, 1994; W.M.Reisman, The nature of recent peacekeeping operations has also changed. They
Preparing to Wage Peace: Toward
the Creation of an International
still rest upon the consent of the parties, but often their purpose is to
Peacemaking Command and Staff implement a settlement that has already been negotiated, as in the recent
College, AJIL 88 (1994), 76; N.T.Vu,
The Holding of Free and Fair
case of the peace agreement concerning Yugoslavia. Thus they are often
Elections in Cambodia: The part of an attempt to implement an agreed political solution of a
Achievement of the United Nations’
Impossible Mission, Mich. JIL 16
conflict.271 The mandate is still often predominantly military, but it may
(1995), 1177 et seq. include a range of civilian tasks. Certain operations have focused upon
274 See Ramcharan, op. cit.
275 Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian aid. Such
Empowering the United Nations, FA new forms of peacekeeping are much more complex. More actors are
3 (1992) at 93–4, noting, however,
that although the operation would be
involved (guerrilla movements, regional organizations, NGOs and
deployed without the express domestic parties) and the UN often has to play conflicting roles as
consent of the parties, its basis
would be a ceasefire agreement
executor, mediator and guarantor.
previously reached between them. A special new task has developed with regard to election monitoring.
See also his ‘Agenda for Peace’
suggesting ‘peace-enforcement
Since the engagement of UNTAG in 1989 in Namibia where the UN
units’, ILM 31 (1992) 956, at 966, monitored the whole electoral process, governments have requested such
para. 4; D.Leurdijk, A UN Rapid
Deployment Brigade, 1995.
UN assistance in Nicaragua and Haiti (1990), Angola (1992), Cambodia
276 C.Tomuschat, Die Zukunft der (1993), El Salvador, South Africa and Mozambique (1994). The UN has
Vereinten Nationen, EA 2 (1992),
42, at 46 et seq. See also
also monitored the referendum in Eritrea (1993) on independence from
E.G.Primosch, The Roles of United Ethiopia.272 An Electoral Assistance Division, which was created in 1992
Nations Civilian Police (UNCIVPOL)
within United Nations Peacekeeping
within the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, has provided
Operations, ICLQ 43 (1994), 425. technical assistance in election issues to fifty-five states.273
277 UN Chronicle, 1996, no. 1, 39.
See further L.J.Sise, Illusions of a
Moreover, in recent years, emphasis has been laid on the concept of
Standing United Nations Force, conflict prevention, because of the experience that once there is armed
Cornell ILJ 28 (1995), 645–8;
D.J.Scheffer, United Nations Peace
conflict between or within states, it is very difficult to restore peace, in
Operations and Prospects for a particular, for the UN. ‘Early warning’ and ‘preventive diplomacy’,
Standby Force, ibid., 649–60;
A.Morrison, The Theoretical and
focusing on the internal situations of states (which is a problem because
Practical Feasibility of a United of the principle of state sovereignty) have become magic catchwords.274
Nations Force, ibid. 661–73;
S.Telhami, Is a Standing United
There are some new proposals by the UN Secretary-General which clearly
Nations Army Possible? Or go beyond traditional UN peacekeeping. They envisage not only more
Desirable?, ibid., 673–84.
effective military protection of humanitarian operations against armed
interference, but also the creation of UN ‘ceasefire enforcement units’ to
be deployed without the express consent of the parties to a domestic
conflict to enforce by military means the respect for a ceasefire agreement
the parties have signed, but fail to honour.275 Furthermore, there are
attempts in recent UN practice which, in the sense of ‘peacemaking’ place
much more influence on establishing or re-establishing governmental
structures and law and order in a state.276
A new development has been to try to establish a ‘rapid reaction capacity’
of the UN in peacekeeping operations by inviting member states to make
‘stand-by arrangements’ with the United Nations (which are not to be
confused with the special arrangements envisaged in Article 43 of the Charter
concerning collective security measures) to make contingents of national
troops and equipment available for peacekeeping operations. However,
as of 31 October 1995, only forty-seven member states had made
such a commitment, involving a total of 55,000 personnel. 277 Under
the stand-by arrangements member states also retain their discretion whether
CONCLUSION 425

or not to cooperate on a case-by-case basis. It is illustrative of the lack of 279 See Chapter 21 above, 378.
true enthusiasm of member states to note that when in May 1994 the 280 UNGA Res. 49/59 of 9 December
1994. See M.-C.Bourloyannis-Vrailas,
Security Council decided to enlarge the UNAMIR force in Rwanda,278 The Convention on the Safety of United
not one of the nineteen states which at that time had made such stand- Nations and Associated Personnel,
ICLQ 44 (1995), 560–90; E.T.Bloom,
by arrangements agreed to contribute. Protecting Peacekeepers: The
The demands of the new peacekeeping have overstretched the capacity Convention on the Safety of United
of the United Nations both in quantitative and qualitative terms. This is Nations and Associated Personnel, AJIL
89 (1995), 621–30.
quite apparent from the financial crisis of UN-peacekeeping showing that 281 See Higgins (1995), op. cit., 445–
member states expect the UN to respond to the many conflicts in the 60, 450.
282 Ibid., 459–60.
world while at the same time they refuse to pay the financial contributions 283 See Chapter 10 above, 151.
they owe to the organization.279 The experience in Somalia, Rwanda and 284 See text above, 396–8.
Yugoslavia, in view of the dangers involved for the safety of UN and 286 See Chapter 20 above, 355–60.
associated personnel, has also led to the drafting of a special treaty in 287 See Chapter 18 above, 292, 293.
288 See the earlier Resolution 1044
1994.280 But there is a more fundamental conceptual problem regarding (1996) of 31 January 1996.
the new forms of peacekeeping, peace making, peace-building and peace
enforcement and humanitarian assistance. The approach suggested by
the UN Secretary-General, in essence, abandons the requirement for clear
prior agreements by the parties in the conflict to UN involvement.281
Experience has shown that this creates a dangerous situation with regard
to the operation of UN forces on the ground both with regard to the
security of UN personnel as well as with respect to the effectiveness of the
undertaking. ‘Mixed peacekeeping’ trying to incorporate enforcement
elements confuses the different legal basis and functions of enforcement
action, on the one hand, and peacekeeping, on the other. The two forms
of UN action should remain clearly differentiated.282
Conclusion
After the end of the Cold War, it seemed that the Security Council was
now able to make full use of its powers under Chapter VII, not only to
repel external aggression, but also to pursue quite different goals, such as
to intervene militarily in internal conflicts for humanitarian reasons and
even to enforce democracy. As we have seen, the use of powers by the
Security Council under Chapter VII has in fact gone much further than
that, ranging from the determination of borders (Iraq-Kuwait),283 the
imposition of a disarmament scheme backed by comprehensive controls
and sanctions against a state (Iraq),284 and the creation of ‘subsidiary bodies’
of the Security Council to assess and administer claims for war damages
(UN Compensation Commission for Claims Against Iraq),285 to the
prosecution of individuals for crimes (Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals)286
and the ordering of sanctions against a state for refusing to extradite
persons accused of state-sponsored terrorism (concerning Libya in the
Lockerbie case).287 Furthermore, following the assassination attempt on
the life of the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on 26 June 1995 at a
conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, acting under Chapter VII, the Security
Council (Russia and China abstaining) adopted Resolution 1054 (1996)
against Sudan, which was accused of supporting terrorism. Sudan’s failure
to extradite to Ethiopia three suspects wanted in connection with the
assassination attempt288 was found to constitute a ‘threat to international
289 See also UN Chronicle, 1996,

no. 2, 55.
peace’. If Sudan failed to comply by ‘one minute after midnight Eastern
290 See Chapters 2, 23–6 and 19, Standard Time on 10 May 1996’, member states would be required to
308 above.
291 The attempted definition of
reduce the number and level of staff at Sudanese diplomatic missions and
aggression by the United Nations to restrict the movement within their territories of remaining Sudanese staff
General Assembly, adopted in 1974,
has not brought more clarification,
and entry into and transit through their territories of officials and members
see Chapter 19 above, 320–2. At of the Sudanese Government and armed forces. In addition, international
any rate, such subsequent attempts
at definition do not have the same
and regional organizations were called upon not to convene any conferences
legal status as the Charter itself. in Sudan.289
292 See, for example, the argument
by Tesón, op. cit., at 338 et seq.
It has become clear from the above analysis that the Security Council
293 On this point see Chapter 18 enjoys wide discretion in deciding when to apply collective measures under
above, 292–3.
Chapter VII of the UN Charter to preserve peace and security. In other
words, a threat to the peace in the sense of Article 39 seems to be whatever
the Security Council says is a threat to the peace, which is a political decision
and, as a matter of principle, not easily subject to legal evaluation. This
may seem startling, but it demonstrates political reality. The Covenant of
the League of Nations obliged member states to apply sanctions against a
member state which had resorted to war in violation of its obligations under
the Covenant, but every member state was left to itself to decide whether
another member state had resorted to war in violation of its obligations
under the Covenant; and naturally different states reached different
conclusions.290 Article 39 of the United Nations Charter was intended to
prevent a repetition of that state of affairs. The omission of definitions
from the Charter is equally realistic; there is a danger that definitions of
aggression will merely leave loopholes which will be exploited by future
aggressors.291
However, especially with regard to the use of force under Chapter VII,
this does not necessarily mean that the authority of the Security Council is
unlimited and open to its complete political discretion.292 The Security
Council is also bound by the Charter and has to act within the law. It is
therefore also subject to legal criticism for acting beyond its competence or
violating well-established principles of international law. An entirely different
question is whether a decision taken by the Security Council is procedurally
subject to a formal legal review by another body, such as the International
Court of Justice.293
Under Chapter VII the Security Council is empowered to adopt
enforcement measures only if it determines that there is a threat to the
peace, breach of the peace or an act of aggression. This refers to international
peace and security. Apart from the special case in which Article 39 might be
applied to the oppression of a ‘people’ exercising its right of self-
determination, the question has emerged whether internal conflicts and the
domestic gross violation of human rights can be considered as constituting
at least a threat to international peace or affecting international security, or
whether there must be at least some relevant external aspect with
transboundary effect for the right to impose enforcement measures, in
particular authorizing the use of force under Article 42.
Indeed, we have seen that there is a tendency in the practice of the
Security Council to relate internal conflicts and especially human rights
violations to international peace and security. The analysis of the
practice of the Security Council shows that its authority to authorize the use
CONCLUSION 427

of force under Chapter VII is not limited to cases of military aggression, 295 See the analysis by F.L.Kirgis, The
or military threats to international peace and security. To intervene by Security Council’s First Fifty Years, AJIL
force in a human emergency within a member state, whether or not there 89 (1995), 506–39.
296 Tesón, op. cit., 371. On human
are external effects, can be brought within the scope of Chapter VII, if the rights see Chapter 14 above. See
circumstances are such as in Somalia or Rwanda and the government further S.D.Bailey, The UN Security
Council and Human Rights, 1995; N.M.
structure in the member state has collapsed. If there are transboundary Blokker/M.Kleibor, The
effects of a human emergency, such as a large exodus of refugees, or other Internationalization of Domestic Conflict:
The Role of the UN Security Council,
external aspects which threaten international peace and security and are LJIL 9 (1996), 7–36.
determined as such under Article 39 by the Security Council, the case for 297 See Koskenniemi, op. cit., 460; O.
Russbach, ONU contre ONU: Le Droit
applying forceful collective measures would seem even stronger. But as international confisqué, 1994.
Resolution 688 (1991)294 in the case of the Kurdish crisis shows, this 298 Koskenniemi, ibid., 460–1.
conclusion is difficult to draw in cases where a government exists even if
it is responsible for the problem. The case is evidence for the link between
massive human rights violations to international peace and security in
general, but not for the specific application of force under Chapter VII.
The case of Yugoslavia has only delivered an example of a rather limited,
and largely ineffective, authorization of the use of force by the Security
Council to protect humanitarian relief operations.
While the effectiveness that had been apparently regained by the Council
in the post-Cold War phase was originally hailed by many, some even
euphorically expecting the dawn of a ‘New World Order’, recently more
sober conclusions have come to the forefront,295 although there are still a
number of authors who welcome the development as a chance to argue
that the establishment of internal freedom, democracy and respect for
human rights (in the Western sense) are ‘the only morally defensible
foundation of international law’.296 The question is to what extent the
collective security system as envisaged by the drafters of the Charter has
really been revitalized, or whether this practice is actually something
different, namely the use of the umbrella of the UN by Western powers,
foremost among which is the United States, for operations conducted
under their own command and control and for interests of their own.
Thus, questions have been raised, in particular, with regard to the
Council’s ‘notorious selectiveness’.297 Professor Matti Koskenniemi from
Finland, for example, has asked:
Why Libya, but not Israel? Why the Council’s passitivity during
most of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war? Why has the Council’s
reaction in Africa been markedly less vigorous and effective than
in the Gulf? Why the discrepancy between the Council’s forceful
attack on Iraq (an Islamic country) and its timidity to defend the
Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina? The choice of targets, as well
as the manner of reacting, has certainly not been automatic.
The argument is made that the Council has not reflected the
collective interests of United Nations members as a whole, but
only the special interests and factual predominance of the United
States and its Western allies within the Council.298
Of course, the Security Council is not under a legal duty to act in each
and every case. But such questions have been reinforced by the
experience in various UN operations led by the United States that the
role of the United Nations is in effect reduced to authorizing the use of
299 Quigley, op. cit., 248–83, at force, and thereby providing legitimacy to the action (and for claims to
282–3.
300 See text above, 396. assistance and financial support from the international community), without
301 Weston, op. cit., 523–4. having much say in, or meaningful control of, what happens on the ground.
302 See Chapter 21 above, 376–7,
379.
In a critical analysis of the use of the authorization technique used by the
303 See Chapter 1 above, 3. Council after the Cold War, Professor John Quigley concludes:
Member states, and particularly the major powers, have not been willing
to subordinate their actions to the organization and have insisted on
retaining the free hand that the authorization technique affords. These
states have, in effect, blackmailed the United Nations into accepting
authorization. Their implicit message to the organization has been
that it either accept authorization or stand by idly in the face of threats
to the peace. If the Security Council succumbs to such blackmail,
perhaps the fault lies less with the Council itself than with the states
that pressure it…The Western powers, enjoying predominance in the
Security Council, are in a position to secure the adoption of resolutions
giving themselves a free hand to use military force.299
It is indeed illuminating to read what Professor Burns H.Weston has noted

regarding the circumstances under which Resolution 678, authorizing the
use of force against Iraq,300 was adopted:
To ensure the votes of the Latin American and African delegations

(Colombia, the Côte d’lvoire, Ethiopia, Zaire), the United States is
said to have promised long-sought financial help and attention. To
win reliable Soviet support, the United States, according to news
accounts, agreed to help keep Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania out of
the November 1990 Paris summit conference, and it additionally
pledged to persuade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to provide Moscow,
as they ultimately did, with the hard currency that Moscow desperately
needs to catch up on overdue payments to commercial creditors.
And, it is reported, to secure a ‘voluntary’ Chinese abstention in lieu
of a threatened Chinese veto, the United States, disregarding a then-
current crackdown on political dissidents, consented to lift trade
sanctions in place since the Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-
democracy protesters, to support a $114.3 million loan to China from
the World Bank, and to grant a long-sought Washington visit by the
Chinese Foreign Minister, since realized, and the resumption of
normal diplomatic intercourse between the two countries. Not to be
overlooked either is the ‘reward’ reportedly communicated to Yemen
as a result of its opposition and negative vote: a cutoff of Washington’s
$70 million in annual aid.301
Such observations reflect reality and they tend to reinforce the argument
that the structure and method of decision-making of the UN Security Council
needs reform.302 But one should perhaps not jump too easily to conclusions.
The international legal system is decentralized,303 composed of very unequal
states in factual terms, and the interests of great powers simply cannot be
discarded in any system of ‘collective security’, a concept which is in itself,
for the same reasons, a dubious one, if it is associated on a too high level of
abstraction with so-called ‘communal interests’.304 Such interests do
exist among states, but they exist on different levels of intensity,
depending on the degree of reciprocity involved. This degree is rather
different in the fields of, for example, immunities accorded to diplomatic
CONCLUSION 429
staff or in airline agreements, than in the much more vital and sensitive 305 See Terry, op. cit., 101–5; R.N.
Haass, Intervention: The Use of
area of national and international security. American Military Force in the Post-Cold
But that is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that War World, 1994.
306 J.Helms, Saving the U.N. A
no state can be expected to act outside the limits of its national self- Challenge to the Next Secretary-
interest, as defined by its government. This can be clearly seen from the General, FA 75 (1996), 1–7, at 7.
recent guidelines adopted by the United States stipulating the specific
conditions, taking into account primarily the national interest, under
which American forces may be committed to intervention in foreign
countries, whether or not under the auspices of the UN.305 Military
intervention inevitably has human, financial and political costs, and
elected governments cannot easily disregard their impact on the electorate,
no matter how urgent an intervention to stop ongoing atrocities in a
distant country may seem from an international and domestic moral or
political perspective. Once dead bodies of soldiers start arriving back
home, the media will make sure that the politicians will have to answer
as to why the soldiers were sent there in the first place. If the national
interest to intervene, however, is considered to be overriding, as in the
case of the intervention of Western powers to repel the invasion and
occupation of Kuwait by Iraq to protect the stability of the Middle East
and its oil production, then such matters become secondary. It is not
legal considerations, but rather material, political and strategic interests
which primarily, if not often exclusively, govern such situations.
Many people, especially in Western countries, feel that the United
Nations has achieved very little. Unfortunately, such people often have
very exaggerated ideas about what the United Nations set out to achieve;
they tend to imagine that the United Nations was intended to be a sort
of embryonic world government. On the other hand, some politicians,
especially when elections are pending, seem to see an advantage in
overstating the actual power of the UN. For example, an article published
in Foreign Affairs in 1996 (before the elections in America) by Senator
Jesse Helms, the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, accused the UN of having usurped power from its member
states and of threatening American interests, with the conclusion that
‘[t]he time has come for the United States to deliver an ultimatum: Either
the United Nations reforms, quickly and dramatically, or the United
States will end its participation.’306 It is true that the provisions of the
United Nations Charter concerning enforcement action give the United
Nations one or two of the powers of a world government, and it is also
true that those provisions have not worked well. But taking enforcement
action is only one of the functions of the United Nations. The United
Nations has had far more success in performing its other functions:
economic and social cooperation, peaceful settlement of disputes,
decolonization and the development of international law. These other
functions have one thing in common: they involve cooperation by states,
and not coercion by the United Nations. Indeed, experience shows that
the United Nations achieves most when it works with the consent of
states, rather than when it tries to work without their consent; United
Nations peacekeeping forces, for instance, which operate with the consent
of the states concerned, have been more successful than the United
Nations’ attempts to take enforcement action.
307 On the current discussion in the

UN see C.L.Willson, Changing the
Obviously, states would cooperate with one another to some extent even
Charter: The United Nations if there were no United Nations. But the existence of the United Nations
Prepares for the Twenty-First
Century, AJIL 90 (1996), 115–26.
increases the readiness of states to cooperate with one another; debates and
See also M.Bertrand, The Third votes at the United Nations exert political influence, which often induces
Generation World Organisation,
1989; J.P.Renninger (ed.), The
the minority to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority. For
Future Role of the United Nations in instance, the colonial powers would probably not have granted independence
an Interdependent World, 1989;
J.W.Müller, The Reform of the
to their colonies so quickly, or on such a wide scale, if it had not been for
United Nations, 2 vols, 1992; B. the political influence exerted by and through the United Nations.
Urquhart, The United Nations: From
Peace-Keeping to a Collective
In the final analysis, the effectiveness of the United Nations depends on
System?, Adelphi Papers 1992, no. the willingness of member states to cooperate, and no amount of changes
265, 18–29; E.Childers/B.Urquhart,
Renewing the United Nations
in the structure of the United Nations307 will guarantee its effectiveness
System, 1994; K.P. Sakensa, unless member states are willing to cooperate with the United Nations and
Reforming the United Nations: The
Challenge of Relevance, 1993; W.
with one another. To a large extent, the United Nations is a mirror of the
Gordon, The United Nations at the world in which we live, and there cannot be a perfect United Nations in an
Crossroads of Reform, 1994; A.
Roberts/B.Kingsbury, Presiding
imperfect world.
Over a Divided World: Changing UN
Roles, 1945–1993, 1994; T.G.Weiss/
D.P. Forsythe/R.A.Coate, The
United Nations and Changing World
Politics, 1994; S. Hoffmann,
Thoughts on the UN at Fifty, EJIL 6
(1995), 317–24; M. Koskenniemi,
The Police in the Temple —Order,
Justice and the UN: A Dialectical
View, ibid., 325–48; M. Bertrand,
The UN as an Organization. A
Critique of its Functioning, ibid.,
349– 59; The United Nations in its
Second Half-Century. A Report of
the Independent Working Group on
the Future of the United Nations,
1995; South Centre, Whither the
United Nations? A View from the
South. Contribution to an Economic
Agenda for the Non-Aligned
Movement, 1995; D.M. Snider/
S.J.D.Schwartstein (eds), The
United Nations at Fifty: Sovereignty,
Peacekeeping and Human Rights,
1995; R.Righter, Rosemary, Utopia
Lost: The United Nations and World
Order, 1995; D.Bourantonis/
J.Wiener (eds), The United Nations
in the New World Order: The World
Organization at Fifty, 1995. See also
Chapter 21 above, 376–7, 379,
381–2.
Table of cases
Aaland Islands Case, LNOJ, Special Supplement No. Application of the Genocide Convention (Bosnia and
3, 1920, 18 159 Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Achille Lauro Incident 111, n. 22, 188 Montenegro)), ICJ Rep. 1993, 3 (Order of 8 April
Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the 1993); 29 (Order of 16 April 1993; 325 (Order
Committee on South West Africa, ICJ Rep. 1956, of 13 September 1993) 292, 357
23 284, 328 Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the
Admission Case (see Conditions of Admission of a UN, ICJ Rep. 1973, 166 289 n. 135
State to Membership in the United Nations) Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or UN, ICJ Rep. 1982, 325 289 n. 135
Use of Nuclear Weapons, ILM 35 (1996), 809, Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the
1343 26 n. 108, 39 n. 29, 42, 45, 50, 53, 58, 90 UN, ICJ Rep. 1987, 18 289 n. 135
n. 114, 246, 289, 316, 317, 348, 362 Arabian-American Oil Co. v. Saudi Arabia, ILR 27
Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (USA v. USSR), (1958), 117 235 n. 116
ICJ Rep. 1956, 9 177 n. 4 Arantzazu Mendi Case, The [1939] AC 256 121 n. 31
Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (USA v. Arbitration between the UK and France on the
Czechoslovakia), ICJ Rep. 1956, 6 198 n. 4 Delimitation of the Continental Shelf, 54 ILR 6;
Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (USA v. USSR), ILM 18 (1979), 397 193 n. 120, 196
ICJ Rep. 1958, 158 198 n. 4 Arbitration between Canada and France on the
Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (USA v. USSR), Delimitation of Maritime Areas (St. Pierre et
ICJ Rep. 1959, 276 198 n. 4 Miquelon), ILM 31 (1992), 1145 195 n. 136
Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.,
ICJ Rep. 1959, 127 198 n. 6 488 US 428; 109 S. Ct. 683 114 n. 51, 120
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. USA), ICJ Rep. Asya Case [1948] AC 351 186
1989, 132, ILM 29 (1990), 123 200, 284 n. 78 Asylum Case, ICJ Rep. 1950, 266 41, 47
Affaire du Lac Lanoux Case, RIAA XII 281 (1963) Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 US 398
246 (1964) 70 n. 45, 123 n. 43
Air Services Agreement Case, 18 RIAA 416 271, n. Barbuit’s Case, 25 ER 77 69
115 n. 120 Barcelona Traction, Power and Light Co. (Belgium
Airbus Case (see Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988) v. Spain), Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep. 1964,
Alfred L.W.Short v. Iran, Iran-US CTR 16, 76 262 6 269 n. 92
n. 58 Barcelona Traction Case, Second Phase, ICJ Rep.
Alvarez-Machain Case (US v. Alvarez-Machain), 504 1970, 3 58, 59, 220, 257, 266–7
US-, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 119 L. edn 2d 441 (1992) Beagle Channel Arbitration, ILM 17 (1978), 632 276
66, 110 Bernadotte Case (see Reparation for Injuries Suffered
Ambatielos Case (Greece v. UK), RIAA XII 83, ILR in the Service of the United Nations Case)
23 (1956), 306 268 Blackmer v. United States, 284 US 421 (1932) 111
Amerada Hess v. Argentine Republic, 830 F. 2d 421 n. 17
(2d Cir. 1987) 70 n. 43 Brown’s Claim, RIA A VI 120 169
American International Group, Inc. v. Iran, Iran-US Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (No. 3) [1982]
CTR 4, 96 235 n. 116 AC 888 120 n. 21
Anna Case, The (1805), 165 ER 809 151 n. 28 Caroline Case, The (1837), 29 BFSP 1137; 30 BFSP
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the 195 314
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Case No. A/18, Iran-US CTR 5, 251 265 n. 73, 266
the United Nations, ICJ Rep. 1989, 177 128 n. n. 76
67, 289 Centini’s Claim (1903), RIAA X 552 269 n. 95
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Certain Expenses of the United Nations Case, ICJ
Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Rep. 1962, 151 289, 392, 393, 416 n. 232, 417,
Agreement, ICJ Rep. 1988, 12 105, 289 419, 420
432 TABLE OF CASES
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia Case Fisheries Case (UK v. Norway), ICJ Rep. 1951, 116
(1926), PCIJ series A, no. 7 170 n. 69 42, 43, 47, 51, 149 n. 18, 153, 181
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru Case (Nauru v. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v. Ireland),
Australia), Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep. 1992, Jurisdiction, ICJ Rep. 1973, 3 139 n. 32, 145
240 287 n. 105, 288 n. 122 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v. Ireland), Merits,
Chamizal Arbitration (USA v. Mexico) (1911), RIAA ICJ Rep. 1974, 3 43, 183
XI 316 151 n. 28 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada) (1995)
Chorzow Factory Case (1928), Merits, PCIJ series 188, 286, 291
A, no. 17 170 n. 69 Flexi-Van Leasing Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
Chung Chi Cheung v. R. [1939] AC 160 69 n. 39, Order of 15 December 1982, Iran-US CTR 1, 455,
178 n. 51 457 267 n. 85
Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico) (1932), Foreign Military Sales Case, Case No. Bl, Iran-US
RIAA XI 1105 148 n. 11 CTR 19, 273 296
Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 US (2 Pet.) 253 (1829)
in the United Nations Case, ICJ Rep. 1948, 57 67 n. 20
289 Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex
Continental Shelf Case (Libya v. Malta), ICJ Rep. (Free Zones Case), PCIJ series A/B, no. 46 (1932)
1985, 13 39, 184, 193 n. 120 64, 145 n. 46, 159
Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libya), ICJ Rep. Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Fasa v. Mali), ICJ
1982, 18 162 n. 9, 184, 193 n. 120 Rep. 1986, 554 162–3, 288
Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Preliminary Frontier Land Case (Belgium v. Netherlands), ICJ
Objection, ICJ Rep. 1948, 15 283 Rep. 1959, 209 154n. 57
Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Merits, ICJ Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary v.
Rep. 1949, 4 177, 310, 315 Slovakia), ICJ Rep. 1994, 151 288 n. 122
Cosmos 954 Case, Böckstiegel/Benkö (eds.), Space General Motors Corporation v. Iran, Iran-US CTR
Law. Basic Documents (1990) Vol. 1, AVI. 2 206 2, 33; 3, 1; 7, 220 267 n. 85
Cristina Case, The [1938] AC 485 121 n. 31 Genocide Case (see Reservations to the Convention
Cutting Case (1886), Moore’s Digest of International on Genocide Case)
Law (1906) Vol. 2, 228 111 German Bundesverfassungsgericht (Immunity Case)
de Sabla’s Claim (1933), RIAA VI 358 235 n. 116 (1977), BverfGE 46, 342 118 n. 3
Delimitation of Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of German Settlers Case (1923), PCIJ series B, no. 6
Maine Case (US v. Canada), ICJ Rep. 1984, 246 170 n. 69, 171
154, 288 Gulf of Fonseca (see Land, Island and Maritime
Demjanuk (John) Case 115–16 Frontier Dispute Case)
Dogger Bank Inquiry (1905), Scott (ed.), The Hague Gulf of Maine Case (see Delimitation of Maritime
Court Reports 1916, 403 277 Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Case)
Eastern Greenland Case (1933), PCIJ series A/B, no. Gut Dam Case (US v. Canada), ILM 8 (1969), 118
53 149, 150, 155, 158 n. 81 246
East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Rep. Haile Selassie v. Cable & Wireless Ltd. [1939] ChD
1995, 90; ILM 34 (1995), 1581 59, 195 n. 136, 182 169 n. 67
286, 327, 331–2 Harmattan, The, WLR 1 (1975), 1485 70 n. 40
Echeverria-Hernandez v. United States Immigration Haya de la Torre Case, ICJ Rep. 1951, 71 283 n. 70
& Naturalization Serv., 923 F. 2d 688 (9th Cir. High Commissioner for India v. Ghosh, [1960] 1 QB
1991), vacated, 946 F. 2d 1481 (9th Cir. 1991) 134 129 n. 72
70 n. 44 Home Missionary Society Claim (1920), RIAA VI
Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the 42 259 n. 32
United Nations Administrative Tribunal, ICJ Rep. Huntington v. Attrill, [1893] AC 150 111 n. 20
1954, 47 289 I Congreso del Partido, [1981] 3 WLR 328 120 n.
Eichmann Case (Eichmann v. Attorney-General of 24
Israel) (1961), 36 ILR 5; on appeal (1962), 36 I’m Alone Case (Canada v. USA), RIAA III 1609 187,
ILR 277 113, 355 n. 90 257, 269 n. 97
ELSI (Elettronica Sicula S.p.A.) Case (US v. Italy), Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Collco Dealings
ICJ Rep. 1989, 15 267, 268, 284 n. 78, 288 Ltd. [1962] AC 1 65 n. 14, 66 n. 15
Expenses Case (see Certain Expenses of the United Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. USA), ICJ Rep.
Nations Case) 1959, 6 268, 285 n. 89
Falkland (Malvinas) Island Case 148, 315, 332 International Responsibility for the Promulgation
Filartiga v. Peña-Irala (1980), 630 F. (2d) 876; ILM and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the
19 (1980), 966 113 Convention, Advisory Opinion of the Inter-
TABLE OF CASES 433
American Court of Human Rights, ILM 34 Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1 QB 149 119 n. 11
(1995), 1188 220 n. 81 Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France v. UK), ICJ Rep.
International Status of South West Africa Case, ICJ 1953, 47 155 n. 63
Rep. 1950, 128 50, 284, 289, 328 Mortensen v. Peters (1906), 8 F. (J.C.) 93 69 n. 37
International Tin Case (Australia & New Zealand Morton’s Claim (1929), RIAA IV 428 258 n. 27
Banking Group Ltd. et al. v. Australia et al.), Namibia Case (see Legal Consequences for States of
House of Lords, ILM 29 (1990), 671 66 the Continued Presence of South Africa in
Iran v. United States, Case No. A/20, Iran-US CTR Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding
11 (1986–11), 271 267 n. 85 Security Council Resolution 276 (1970))
Iran v. United States, Case No. A/1 (Issue I), Iran-US Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco Case, PCIJ
CTR 1 (1981–2), 189 296 n. 197 series B, no. 4 (1923) 263 n. 63
Island of Palmas Case, RIAA II 829 (1928) 75, 109, Neer’s Claim (US v. Mexico) (1926), RIAA IV 60
147 n. 3, 148, 150, 154 n. 51, 156, 157–8 259 n. 34, 261
Jack Rankin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR New Zealand’s Request for an Examination of the
17, 135 262 n. 56 Situation in accordance with Paragraph 63 of the
Janes’s Claim (US v. Mexico), RIAA IV 82 259 n. 34 Court’s 1974 Judgment in the Nuclear Tests Case
Juan Ysmael & Co. v. Republic of Indonesia, [1955] (New Zealand v. France), Order of 22 September
AC 72 121 n. 33 1995, ICJ Rep. 1995, 288 349
Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO, Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. USA) Jurisdiction, ICJ
ICJ Rep. 1956, 77 289 n. 135 Rep. 1984, 392 40, 142, 284, 285 n. 84
Kenneth P.Yeager v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran- Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. USA) Merits, ICJ Rep.
US CTR 17, 93 262 n. 59 1986, 14 39, 41, 43 n. 62, 46, 53, 221, 289, 309
Lac Lanoux Case (see Affaire du Lac Lanoux Case) n. 18, 311, 316 n. 88, 318, 319–20, 325, 352
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case Noriega Case 110, 316 n. 84
(El Salvador v. Honduras), Application to North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration (US v. UK)
Intervene, Order of 28 February 1990, ICJ Rep. (1910), RIAA XI 167 159 n. 90
1990, 92 288 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, ICJ. Rep. 1969,
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case 3 44 n. 66, 46, 76, 193, 196, 275
(El Salvador v. Honduras), Judgment, ICJ Rep. Norwegian Loans Case, ICJ Rep. 1957, 9 285
1992, 351 182 Norwegian Ships Case (1921), RIAA I 307 235 n.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued 116
Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala),
Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Jurisdiction, ICJ Rep. 1953, 111; Merits, ICJ Rep.
Resolution 276 (1970), ICJ Rep. 1971, 16 212, 1955, 4 266, 285 n. 85
284, 328–9, 331, 332 n. 202, 375, 386 Nuclear Tests Cases (Interim Protection), ICJ Rep.
Legality of Nuclear Weapons Case (see Advisory 1973, 99 (Australia v. France); 135 (New Zealand
Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of v. France) 349
Nuclear Weapons) Nuclear Tests Cases (Judgment), ICJ Rep. 1974, 253
Lighthouses Arbitration, RIAA VI 120 169 n. 63 (Australia v. France); 457 (New Zealand v. France)
Lockerbie Case (Libya v. UK), ICJ Rep. 1992, 3 49 n. 105, 98 n. 58, 130 n. 2, 349
(Provisional Measures); 231 (Order of 19 June Pan-American World Airways Inc. v. Department of
1992) 117, 292, 293, 376 Trade (1975), 60 ILR 431 66 n. 15
Lockerbie Case (Libya v. US), ICJ Rep. 1992, 114 Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case, PCIJ series A/
(Provisional Measures); 234 (Order of 19 June B, no. 76 263
1992) 117, 292, 293, 376, 425 Paquete Habana Case, The, 175 US 677 (1900) 70
Lotus Case, PCIJ, series A, no. 10 (1927) 44, 47, n. 42
111 n. 15, 112, 190 Parlement Belge Case, The (1880), 5 PD 197 121 n.
Marcos Case 115 30
Mariposa’s Claim (1933), RIAA VI 338 235 n. 116 Peter Pazmany University Case (1933), PCIJ series
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions A/B, no. 61, 237 170 n. 68
(Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Phillips Petroleum Company of Iran v. The
ICJ Rep. 1994, 112, ILM 33 (1994), 1461; Government of Iran, Iran-US CTR 21 (1989–1),
Judgment, ICJ Rep. 1995, 6, ILM 34 (1995), 1204 79 238 n. 128
195, n. 136 Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 KB 857 65 n. 13
Mavrommatis Case (Greece v. UK) (1924), PCIJ series Preah Vihear Temple Case, ICJ Rep. 1962, 6 154 n.
A no. 2, 28 171 n. 78 58, n. 63, 155 n. 64
Mazzei’s Claim (1903), RIAA X 525 259 n. 36 R. v. Chief Immigration Officer, Heathrow Airport,
Merge Case, ILR 22 (1955), 443 265 n. 73 ex p. Salamat Bibi [1976] 3 All ER 843 66 n. 15
434 TABLE OF CASES
R.v.Kent [1941] 1 KB 454 128 n. 69 Taba Arbitration (Egypt v. Israel), ILM 27 (1988),
R.v.Keyn (1876), 2 ExD 63 178 n. 50 1427 151
R.v.Madan [1961] 2 QB 1 128 n. 70 Tadic Case (Prosecutor v. Tadic), ILM 35 (1996), 32
R.v.Secretary of State for Home Affairs, ex p. Bhajan 358
Singh, [1975] 2 All ER 1081 66 n. 15 Tehran Hostages Case (US v. Iran), Provisional
R Zafiro Case (1925), RIAA VI 160 261 n. 51 Measures, ICJ Rep. 1979, 7 259
Rainbow Warrior Case (New Zealand v. France), Tehran Hostages Case, Merits, ICJ Rep. 1980, 3 123
Ruling of the UN Secretary-General of 6 July n. 47, 126–7, 259–60, 276 n. 30, 315
1986, 74 ILR 241, ILM 26 (1987), 1346 98, 122, Texaco v. Libya (1977), 53 ILR 389; ILM 17 (1978),
349 n. 53 1 236 n. 122
Rainbow Warrior Arbitration (Greenpeace v. France), Tinoco Arbitration (UK v. Costa Rica), RIAA I 369
Greenpeace Press Release of 2 October 1987 99, (1923) 82, 84, 88
189 n. 110 Torrey Canyon Incident (1967) 190
Rainbow Warrior Arbitration (New Zealand v. Trail Smelter Case (1938), RIAA III 1905 245
France), ILR 82 (1990), 499 99
Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War Case, ICJ Rep.
Red Crusader Enquiry (1962), 35 ILR 485 277 n.
1973, 327 and 346 343 n. 9
36
Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the
Nigeria [1977] QB 529 69 n. 35, n. 39, 70 n. 40,
United Nations Case, ICJ Rep. 1949, 174 51, 91
n. 5, 93, 265 n. 72, 289, 367 120 n. 4
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide Case, Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports
ICJ Rep. 1951, 15 51, 136, 357 n. 111 and Petitions concerning the Territory of South
Rights of Nationals of the United States in Morocco West Africa, ICJ Rep. 1955, 67 284, 328
Case, ICJ Rep. 1952, 176 47 n. 96 United Nations Headquarters Agreement Case (see
Right of Passage Case (Portugal v. India), ICJ Rep. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under
1960, 6 159 n. 90, 334 Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters
River Meuse Case (Netherlands v. Belgium) (1937), Agreement)
PCIJ series A/B, no. 70 55 USA and France v. Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie [1952]
Roberts Claim (1926), RIAA IV 77 261 n. 49 AC 582 121 n. 32
Salem Case, RIAA II 1161 265 n. 70 US v. Hungary (Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft
Sedco, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Company and and Crew of the US Case), ICJ Rep. 1954, 99
Iran, Iran-US CTR 8, 28; 9, 248; 10, 180; 15, 23; 198 n. 4
21, 31 235 n. 116 US v. Medina, 20 USCMA 403, 43 CMR (1971),
Shufeldt’s Claim (1930), RIAA II 1079 235 n. 116 243 353 n. 81
Siderman Case (Siderman de Blake v. Republic of US v. Percheman (1833), 32 US 51 170 n. 69
Argentina), 965 F. 2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992) 114 US v. Yunis (No. 2), 681 F.Supp. 896 (1988), 82 ILR
South-West Africa Case (Preliminary Objections), ICJ 344 111 n. 22
Rep. 1962, 319 284, 328–9 West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. The King
South-West Africa Case (Second Phase), ICJ Rep. [1905] 2KB 291 170
1966, 6 284, 290, 328–9
Western Sahara Case, ICJ Rep. 1975, 12 148 n. 13,
Spanish Zone of Morocco Case (1925), RIAA II 615
235 n. 116 155 n. 71, 289, 331
Starrett Housing Corporation Case (Starrett Housing Wimbledon Case, The (1923), PCIJ series A, no. 1
Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran), Iran-US CTR 18, 160 n. 96
21 (1989–I), 112 237 Youmans Claim, RIAA IV 110 258, 261 n. 48
Table of treaties, declarations and
other documents
1648 Treaties of Westphalia (Peace of Westphalia) 9, 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International
10, 11, 20 Justice 55, 281
1713 Peace Treaty of Utrecht 147 1921 German-Swiss Arbitration Treaty 278
1776 American Declaration of Independence 14 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty 158
1794 UK-US Treaty of Amity, Commerce and 1925 France-Switzerland Arbitration Treaty 278
Navigation (Jay Treaty) 20 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in
1814 Additional Articles to the 1814 Paris Peace Treaty War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases,
21 and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare 344,
1842 Treaty of Nanking 13 345
1854 US-Japan Treaty of Trade and Friendship 14 1926 Slavery Convention 113, 188
1856 Aaland Convention 159 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International
Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law 40– Disputes 274, 278
1, 344 General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an
Paris Peace Treaty 12, 40 Instrument of National Policy (Pact of Paris or
1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Kellogg-Briand Pact) 24, 152, 308–9, 354
Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Field 21, 344 Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies
1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg 21 in the Field 344
1878 Treaty of Berlin 23, 158, 276 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
1888 Constantinople Convention 160, 235 n. 115 Prisoners of War 344
1890 General Act of Brussels 21 1930 Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality
1898 Paris Peace Treaty 148 Laws 60
1899 Hague Conventions (I–III) 22, 60, 274, 344, 345 London Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of
Hague Convention I for the Pacific Settlement of Naval Armament 344
International Disputes 274, 278 1932 Convention and Regulations of the International
1901 Protocol of Peking 14 Telecommunication Union 202, 208
US-UK Treaty (on the Panama Canal) 160
1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of
1903 US-Panama Treaty (on the Panama Canal) 160
States 75, 79–80, 84
1906 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
1936 London Protocol to the 1930 London Treaty
Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies
344
in the Field 344
1907 Hague Conventions (I–XIII) 22, 60, 344, 345 1941 Atlantic Charter 26, 27, 209, 223
Hague Convention I for the Pacific Settlement of 1944 Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary
International Disputes 274, 277, 278 Fund 226–7
Hague Convention II respecting the Limitations Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for
of the Employment of Force for the Recovery Reconstruction and Development 227
of Contract Debts (Drago-Porter Convention) Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation
15, 308 198, 200
Hague Convention III relative to the Opening of 1945 Charter of Nuremberg Tribunal 354–5
Hostilities 308 Statute of International Court of Justice 2, n. 16,
Hague Convention IV on Land Warfare 346, 356 36, 39, 46, 48, 49, n. 114, 51–2, 55, 56, 61,
1913/4 Bryan Treaties 22, 278 101, 281–8
1919 Constitution of the International Labour United Nations Charter 2 n. 15, 3, 25–8, 32, 36,
Organization 24, 218 40, 48, 52, 59, 85, 89, 92, 94, 97, 109, 117,
Covenant of the League of Nations 23–5, 27, 139, 145, 152, 205, 209, 211–14, 220, 224,
152, 308, 328, 369, 371, 426 271, 273, 275, 281–3, 286, 288–9, 292–3, 300,
St. Germain Peace Treaty 23, 103, 209 309–12, 314, 316–18, 320, 324, 326–31, 333,
Versailles Peace Treaty 18 n. 48, 23, 25, 103, 335, 336–7, 348, 350, 355, 360, 364–84, 385–
209, 326 404, 406–12, 415–22, 424–7, 429
436 TABLE OF TREATIES, DECLARATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Paris Conventions on Third Party Liability in the
the United Nations 127–8, 130–46 Field of Nuclear Energy 244
International Convention for the Regulation of Treaty of Guarantee Cyprus 421
Whaling 243 1961 European Social Charter 218
1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 101, 223, Protocol Concerning the Constitution of an
228–31 International Commission for the Protection of
Protocol of Provisional Application of the the Moselle Against Pollution 243
GATT 228 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 60,
UN-US Headquarters Agreement 105 123–6, 129, 299
1948 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of 1962 Cotton Textiles Agreement 229
Bogotá) 274 General Assembly Resolution on Permanent
Charter of the Organization of American States Sovereignty Over Natural Resources 207, 236
(Charter of Bogotá) 84 1963 Agreement Concerning the International Commission
for the Protection of the Rhine Against
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Pollution 243
the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention)
Brussels Supplementary Conventions to the 1960
37, 216, 285, 356–7
Paris Convention on the Liability of Operators
Havana Charter for an International Trade
of Nuclear Ships 244
Organization 228 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the
Italy-US Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
Navigation 267 of Outer Space 202
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 31, 212– Toyko Convention on Offences and Certain Other
15, 217, 220 Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 201
1949 Geneva Red Cross Conventions (I–IV) 31, 92, 113, Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the
216, 344–6, 352 Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water
North Atlantic Treaty 315, 317–18 (Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) 202
1950 European Convention for the Protection of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 60,
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 127, 299
94, 217–19 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Damage 244
216 1964 Protocol of the Commission of Mediation and
1952 Protocol No. 1 to the 1950 European Convention Arbitration of the Organization of African Unity
on Human Rights 216 (OAU Protocol) 274
1954 Hague Convention and Protocol for the Protection 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment
of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Disputes between States and Nationals of Other
Conflict 344 States (ICSID Convention) 228, 295
International Convention for the Prevention of EFTA Treaty 225
Pollution of the Sea by Oil 242 International Convention on the Elimination of
1955 State Treaty for the Re-establishment of an All Forms of Racial Discrimination 216
Independent and Democratic Austria 147 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and
1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement Cultural Rights 28, 215–16, 327, 335
of Disputes 274 International Covenant on Civil and Political
Treaty Establishing the European Economic Rights 28, 135, 215–16, 217, 327, 335–6, 338
Community (EC Treaty) 5 n. 40, 96, 232, (First) Optional Protocol to the International
290 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 216
1958 Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea 60, 1967 Anti-Dumping Code Agreement 229
173–5, 299 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States
Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space
Contiguous Zone 60, 173–83, 195, 299 including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf (Outer Space Treaty) 149, 202, 204–8
60, 173–5, 191–3, 195–7, 299 1968 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return
Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation
of Astronauts and the Return of Objects
for Living Resources of the High Seas 60,
173–5, 184–90, 205, 209 Launched into Outer Space (Rescue
Optional Protocol of Signature (to the 1958 Geneva Agreement) 202, 204
Conventions) Concerning the Compulsory Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Settlement of Disputes 173, 299 Weapons (Non-Proliferation Treaty) 27, 349
1959 Antarctica Treaty 149–50 United Nations Convention on the Non-
1960 Convention on the Protection of Lake Constance Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War
Against Pollution 243 Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity 354 n.
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to 88
Colonial Countries and Peoples 28, 327, 330– 1969 American Convention on Human Rights 219
1, 332, 335–6 Convention on Special Missions 299
TABLE OF TREATIES, DECLARATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 437
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Declaration on the Establishment of a New
Pollution Damage 190, 242 International Economic Order 29, 194, 234
International Convention Relating to Intervention Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the
on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area
Casualties 190, 242 242
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 40, Paris Convention on the Prevention of Marine
49 n. 105, 57–8, 60, 64, 130–46, 195 Pollution from Land-Based Sources 242
1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security
Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation and Co-operation in Europe 54, 89, 220
among States in Accordance with the Charter 1976 Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the
of the United Nations (Friendly Relations Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution 242,
Declaration) 3, 32, 152, 155, 156, 275, 310, 245
314–16, 327, 332 Convention on the Protection of the Rhine
Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed and Against Chemical Pollution 243
the Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil Thereof, Convention Concerning the Protection of the
Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction 193, Rhine Against Pollution by Chlorides 243
194 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any
Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
Seizure of Aircraft 201 Techniques 202, 244, 344
1971 Convention Relating to Civil Liability in the Field Protocol I Additional to the 1949 Red Cross
of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material Conventions 31, 104, 216, 277, 278, 344, 345, 347,
244 352, 356
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Protocol II Additional to the 1949 Red Cross
Especially as Waterfowl Habitat 243 Conventions 31, 104, 216, 344, 345, 352
International Convention on the Establishment of United Nations Draft Code of Conduct on
an International Fund for Compensation for Transnational Corporations 103
Oil Pollution Damage 242 1978 Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation
Montreal Convention for the Suppression of in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (NAFO
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation Treaty) 188, 286
201 Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on
1972 Convention on the Prohibition of Bacteriological the Protection of the Marine Environment
(Biological) Weapons 344 from Pollution 242
Convention Concerning the Protection of the US-Mexico Extradition Treaty 66
World Cultural and Natural Heritage 243 Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in
Convention on Liability for Damage Caused by Respect of Treaties 60
Objects Launched into Outer Space (Liability 1979 Agreements on Interpretation and Application of
Convention) 202, 204–5, 274–5 Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the GATT
European Convention on State Immunity 118, 229
119 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on
London Convention on the Prevention of Marine the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Treaty) 202, 203, 208
Matter 242 Convention on the Preservation of Migratory
Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine Species of Wild Animals 243
Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft Convention on the Conservation of European
242 Wildlife and Natural Habitats 243
Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
241–2, 245, 247, 250, 251 Discrimination Against Women 216
1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 243 Air Pollution 243, 248
International Convention on the Suppression International Convention Against the Taking of
and Punishment of the Crimes of Apartheid Hostages 113
112 1980 Convention and Protocols on Prohibitions or
International Convention for the Prevention of Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional
Pollution from Ships 242 Weapons Which May be Deemed to b e
Multi-Fibre Textiles Arrangement 229 Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate
Treaty Establishing the Caribbean Community
Effects 344–5
(CARICOM Treaty) 225 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility 43 n.
1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of 64, 58–60, 104, 190 n. 111, 220–1, 246, 254–60,
States 234–5, 236 262, 269–72, 327
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched 1981 African Charter on Human and People’ Rights
into Outer Space (Registration Convention) (Banjul Charter) 219
202, 204 US-Iran Hostage Agreement 276
438 TABLE OF TREATIES, DECLARATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
1982 Law of the Sea Convention 60–1, 173–6, 178, in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
180–5, 187–90, 192–7, 208, 233, 242, 274, 277, 188
298–300 1989 Australia-Indonesia Agreement on the Exploration
Montreal Draft Convention on State Immunity and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf
(ILA) 119 286
World Charter for Nature 241 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
1983 Inter-American Draft Convention on Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Jurisdictional Immunity of States 119 n. 14 Disposal 243
Protocol No. 6 to the 1950 European Convention Convention on the Rights of the Child 216
on Human Rights Concerning the Abolition of Helsinki Declaration on the Protection of the
the Death Penalty 217 Ozone Layer 245
Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in (Second) Optional Protocol to the 1966 International
Respect of State Property, Archives and Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 216
Debts 60, 161–2, 172 1990 Charter of Paris of the Conference on Security
1984 China-UK Agreement on Hong Kong 158 and Co-operation in Europe 89, 220
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Response and Co-operation 242
216 Protocol to the American Convention on Human
Protocol to the 1979 Geneva Convention on Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty 219
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Treaty on the Final Settlement with respect to
Long-term Financing of Monitoring 243 Germany 167 n. 54
1985 Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment United Nations Draft Rules on Conciliation of
Guarantee Agency (MIGA) 228 Disputes Between States 281
Protocol to the 1979 Geneva Convention on 1991 Agreement Establishing the Commonwealth of
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Independent States (Minsk Agreement) 94
the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions or their Agreement on the Establishment of the Republic
Transboundary Fluxes by at Least 30 Per of Yemen 168
Cent 243 Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Africa and Management of Hazardous Wastes
Ozone Layer 244, 245 within Africa 243
1986 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment
219 in a Transboundary Context 245
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties European Community Declaration on Yugoslavia
Between States and International Organizations and on the Guidelines on the Recognition of
or Between International Organizations New States 89, 166
60, 131 European Energy Charter 225
European Convention on the Recognition of the ILC Draft Articles on the Jurisdictional Immunities
Legal Personality of International Non- of State and Their Property 119
Governmental Organizations 97–8 Protocol Amending the European Social Charter
United Nations Declaration on the Right of 218
Development 239 Protocol to the 1959 Antarctica Treaty on
1987 Rhine Action Programme 243 Environmental Protection 244
Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer 245, 248 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range
1988 Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Transboundary Air Pollution on the Reduction
218 of Volatile Organic Compounds 243
Andean Pact 225 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe
Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement 167
(FTA) 101, 225, 300 Treaty Establishing the African Economic
Permanently Manned Civil Space Station Community 225
Agreement 206, 269 Treaty Establishing a Common Market between
Protocol to the 1979 Geneva Convention on Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (MERCOSUR) 225
Concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen 1992 Agenda 21 97, 207, 247, 250–1, 252, 253
Oxides 243 Agreement on the European Economic Area
Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful (EEA) 225
Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation Agreement on the North American Free Trade
188 Agreement (NAFTA) 101, 225, 300
Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Environment of the North-East Atlantic 242
Located on the Continental Shelf 188 Convention on Biological Diversity 247, 249,
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic 251
TABLE OF TREATIES, DECLARATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 439
Convention on the Protection and Use of Convention on the Safety of United Nations and
Transboundary Watercourses and International Associated Personnel 425
Lakes 243 Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational
Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration Use of International Watercourses 243
Convention Within the CSCE 274, 281 European Energy Charter Treaty 225
European Charter for Regional or Minority ILC Draft Statute for an International Criminal
Languages 105 Court 61, 355, 360
Framework Convention on Climate Change Protocol No. 11 to the 1950 European Convention
244, 247–9, 251–2 on Human Rights 219
Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Protocol to the 1979 Geneva Convention on
Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on
Management, Conservation and Sustainable
Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions 243
Development of all Types of Forests 54, 247, 251
Statute of the Rwanda Tribunal 360
Protocol to the 1991 Minsk Agreement (Alma-Ata
Protocol) 95 United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights
Rio Declaration on Environment and of Indigenous Peoples 106–7
Development 54, 107, 239, 247, 250–1 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions
Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea
96 n. 36 Relating to the Conservation and Management
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory
Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Fish Stocks 185
Religious and Linguistic Minorities 105, 339 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the
1993 Commonwealth of Independent States Charter United Nations Fourth World Conference on
(CIS Charter) 95 Women 216, n. 52
Commonwealth of Independent States: Treaty on Belgium-France-Netherlands Agreements on the
Creation of Economic Union 225 Protection of the Rivers Meuse and Scheldt
Convention on the Prohibition of the 243
Development, Production, Stockpiling and Cambodia-Laos-Thailand-Vietnam Agreement
Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their on the Cooperation for the Sustainable
Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) Development of the Mekong River 243
345 Council of Europe Framework Convention for the
Declaration of Principles on Interim Self- Protection of National Minorities 105
Government (Israel-PLO) 333 Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement 359
Economic Community of West African States General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia
Revised Treaty 225 and Herzegovina 414
Governors Island Agreement 408 Protocols to the 1980 Conventional Weapons
Holy See-Israel Fundamental Agreement 76, n. Convention 344
16 Protocol Amending the European Social Charter
Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Providing for a System of Collective Complaints
Yugoslavia 355–7 218
Vienna Declaration on Human Rights 239 1996 Agreement between Macedonia and the Federal
1994 Additional Protocol on the Institutional Structure Republic of Yugoslavia 90 n. 199, 167 n. 52
of MERCOSUR 225 Agreement on the Normalization of Relations
Agreement Establishing the World Trade between Croatia and the Federal Republic of
Organization (WTO Agreement) 101, 231–3, Yugoslavia 90 n. 119, 167 n. 52
300 International Convention on Liability and
Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Compensation for Damage in Connection with the
Part XI of the 1982 Convention on the Law of Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances
the Sea 174, 194–5, 298 by Sea 243 n. 17
Convention to Combat Desertification in those Protocol Amending the Convention on Limitation
Countries Experiencing Serious Drought of Liability for Maritime Claims 243 n. 17
and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa Treaty on the Formation of the Community of
248 Belarus and Russia 95 n. 38
Index
abandonment of territory 148 ‘armed attack’ 320–2, 325

acquisition of territory: acquiescence and 150, 154–5; arms embargoes see sanctions
adjudication, by 151; cession, by 148; civil wars and Asia: economic organizations 225; generally 6, 9; see
153–4; conquest, by 151–4; estoppel and 154–5; also individual countries
generally 147; geographical contiguity and 157–8; Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 95
asylum 117
historical contiguity and 157, 158; intertemporal law
Atlantic Charter 26, 209, 223
and 155–7; legal and political arguments 157–8; Austin, John 17
minor rights over territory 158; modes of 147–54;
occupation, by 148–50; operations of nature, by 151; Baltic states: annexation of 88; independence of 165–6
prescription, by 150–1; recognition and 154–5; self- Bangladesh 85, 339
determination and 157, 158; servitudes and 158–60 Biafra 78, 85, 395
act of state doctrine 121–3 Biodiversity Convention 244, 247, 249, 251–2
adjudication 151, 274, 279, 280, 281–93, 301 boundaries: maritime 195–7; self-determination and 335;
Afghanistan, Soviet intervention in 320, 322–3, 326, state succession and 162–3, 335
391, 395 breach of international law 254
Africa: economic organizations 225; generally 6, 9, 13; Bretton Woods economic system 223–4
poverty in 234 Bryan Treaties 22, 278
Byelorussia 81
African National Congress (ANC) 104 Bynkershoek, Cornelis van 16
aggression 321, 322, 354, 388, 391; see also force, use
of; war canals: law of the sea and 175; servitudes and 159–60
aircraft: rules governing 201; self-defence against attacks ceasefire enforcement units 424
on 315 ceasefire resolutions 388–9
air space: customary law and 199; generally 76, 198– cession of territory 148
201; law of the sea and 177, 179, 185 characteristics of international law 3–5
Algeria 154 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States 234–5,
aliens, treatment of: deportation 261–2; diplomatic 236
protection 256–7, 263; exhaustion of local remedies Charter of the United Nations: ambiguity of 364, 365;
and 267–8; generally 256–7; improper behaviour by amendment of 367; collective security and
injured alien and 269; imputable acts of state 257– enforcement action and 387–416; domestic
60; minimum international standard 256–7, 260–2; jurisdiction provision 368–9; drafting of 365, 366;
national standard 260–1; nationality of claims and Friendly Relations Declaration and 32; generally 3,
263–7; preliminary objections and 262–3; 27, 364; human rights and 211–12, 220, 221, 369;
intention of the parties 366–7; interpretation of 364–
unreasonable delay and 269; waiver of claims and
8; languages of 365; official texts 365; peaceful
268–9 settlement of disputes and 273–4, 275, 310, 385–7;
Angola 323, 330, 395 self-determination and 326, 333, 369; travaux
annexation 19, 151–2, 153, 158 préparatoires 366; use of force and 27, 32, 152, 309–
Antarctica 149–50, 207, 244 11, 318–19, 336, 387
apartheid 112, 394 Chechnya 340
Arab League 95 China: boundary disputes 156–7; colonial period and 12,
arbitration: adjudication compared 293; compulsory 22; 13–14; Japanese aggression against 25, 26;
conciliation compared 280; equity and 55; generally Manchukuo puppet-state 85, 152; UN representation
3, 20, 274, 279, 293, 294; historical background 371–2
293–4; International Center for the Settlement of civil wars: acquisition of territory and 153–4; collective
Investment Disputes (ICSID) 228, 295–6; self-defence against subversion 324–5; Congo, in 419;
International Law Commission approach 272; Iran- customary law and 326, 352; definition of 318;
United States Claims Tribunal 296–8; Law of the Sea foreign assistance to established authorities 320, 322–
Convention and 298, 299–300; mediation compared 4, 325–6; foreign assistance to insurgents 319–22;
280; mixed international arbitration 295; Permanent generally 78, 318; legality of 318–19; recognition of
Court of Arbitration 22, 25, 294; primary method of states and 85; rules governing conduct of 352–3;
dispute settlement, as 294–5 wars of national liberation as 319, 336; see also
secession
442 INDEX
classical system of international law 10, 15, 16, 17, 22, 347; opinio juris 44–5, 46; outer space and 206;
30, 31 resolutions of international organizations 52, 53–4;
codification of international law 60–2 psychological element in formulation of 44–5;
collective responsibility of communities 5 relationship with treaties 56; repetition and 41–3;
collective security see enforcement of peace by United state immunity as part of 118; state practice 41–3,
Nations 46, 47, 48; United States law and 70; Universal
colonial enclaves 331 Declaration of Human Rights as 213; universality
colonization: international law facilitating 19; relation to and 46–8; use of force and 309, 317, 321; war and
non-European powers and 12–14; see also 307, 344, 345, 347, 352, 354, 356
decolonization Cyprus: British administration of 158; recognition of
northern Cyprus 85; UN peacekeeping operation
comity 73
420–2
common heritage of mankind principle 207–8, 233 Czechoslovakia, dismemberment of 167
Commonwealth 95
Commonwealth of Independent States 94–5, 166, 225 decolonization: composition of the international
Communist theory of international law 2, 23, 33, 47 community and 2, 28, 364, 379; expropriation of
companies: international legal personality of 91, 100, property and 170; recognition of states and 85;
103–4; investment disputes 101; nationality of 266; treaties and 164–5; see also self-determination
rights of 100, 101–2; state responsibility and 266–7; definition of international law 1–2
see also multinational companies Demjanuk, John, trial of 115–16
compensation 82, 270 dependent states 78–8, 80
Concert of Europe 12 deportation 261–2
conciliation 3, 20, 272, 273, 278–81, 299–300, 387 developing countries see Third World states
condominium 158 development, right to 239–40
conflict of laws 72 development of international law 9 ff.
conflicting decisions 51 diplomatic immunity: generally 123–4, 126–7;
Congo 323, 416, 418–20 jurisdiction of courts, from 125–6; limitations on
consensual theory of international law 46–8 125; waiver of 125, 128–9
consular immunity 127 diplomatic protection 256–7, 263
contracts: contract-treaties 37–8; expropriation of dismemberment of states, state succession and 166–7
contractual rights 238–9; generally 37; disputes, peaceful settlement of see peaceful settlement of
internationalized contracts 38–9, 50, 102, 295; state disputes
domestic law see national legal systems
succession and 170–2
Dominican Republic, US intervention in 323, 326
Costa Rica 82, 84, 86 Dumbarton Oaks Conference 27
Council of Europe 94
countermeasures see reprisals East Timor 59, 286–7, 327, 331, 332, 335
Court of Justice of the European Union, jurisdiction of economy: Bretton Woods system 223–4; Charter of
4–5 Economic Rights and Duties 234–5, 236; customary
continental shelf 191–3, 195–6 international law and 223; expropriation see
conventions see treaties expropriation; generally 222–3; international
Crimean War 20 organizations 223, 224 ff.; New International
crimes against humanity 354–5, 356 Economic Order (NIEO) 29, 194, 233–5, 239; right
criminal jurisdiction of national courts: concurrent to development 239–40; see also individual
jurisdiction 116; conflicts of jurisdiction 116–17; organizations
effects doctrine 111, 116; generally 110; John Eichmann, Adolf 110, 113
Demjanuk, trial of 115–16; law of the sea and see El Salvador, Nicaraguan assistance to insurgents 320,
law of the sea; nationality principle 111, 116; 321, 325
protective principle 111–12; territorial principle 110– election monitoring 424
11, 116; universal jurisdiction over crimes against enforcement of international law 5, 6
human rights 113–15; universality principle 112–13 enforcement of peace by United Nations: ceasefire
Cuba: economic sanctions against 116–17; missile crisis resolutions 388–9; Cold War, during 390–5; generally
27, 312–13, 391 27, 387–8; Haiti and 407–9; Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
customary international law: air space and 199; changes and 396–9; Korean War and 28, 391–2; Kurdish
in 45; civil war and 326, 352; codification of 60–2; crisis and 399–402; military action 389–90; non-
military action 389; post-Cold War practice 395–415;
common heritage of mankind principle and 208;
provisional measures 388, 419; Rhodesian sanctions
consensual theory of international law and 46–8; 393–5; Rwanda and 405–7; sanctions 4, 5, 389, 393–
doctrine of incorporation 69; doctrine of 5, 396, 397; Security Council’s role 388–90, 425–30;
transformation 69; economic law and 223; English Somalia and 77, 402–5; South African arms embargo
law and 69–70; environmental law and 245–7, 251; 390, 391, 394–5; Uniting for Peace Resolution 392–
evidence of 39–41, 52, 53–4; expropriation and 235, 3; United States’ role 390–1, 395, 397
237; general practice 42–3; generally 35, 36, 39; English age 9
human rights and 220–1; inconsistencies and 41–2; environment: Action Plan for the Human Environment
‘instant’ 45–6; ius cogens and 57–8; law of the sea as 242; Agenda 21 97, 207, 247, 250–1, 252, 253; air
173, 174, 175, 179, 183, 188, 191–2, 196; national pollution 243, 246, 248; Antarctica 244; Biodiversity
legal systems and 68–71; nationality of claims and Convention 244, 247, 249, 251–2; Bruntland Report
263; new states and 47; nuclear weapons and 346, 1987 241; codification of law 246; conservation of
INDEX 443
species 243, 249; Convention on Climate Change frontier disputes, ‘state’ and 76
247–9, 251–2; customary law and 245–7, 251;
deforestation/desertification 244, 248; general General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):
principles and 245–7; generally 241–2; global developing countries and 228–9; dispute settlement
warming 244, 248–9; hazardous waste 243, 244; 300–1; exceptions 229–30; generally 223, 228;
international trade regulation and 244, 248; lakes influence of industrialized countries 229; most-
243, 246; liability for damage 242; marine favoured nation status 229; problems of 230; purpose
environment 242–3, 244; nature protection 243, 244; of 228; quantitative restrictions 229; success of 230;
nuclear energy 244; ozone layer 244, 245, 248; supplementary agreements 228, 229; Uruguay
piecemeal approach 245; rivers 243, 246; scope and Declaration of 1986 230–1; see also World Trade
nature of international law 242–5; slowness of treaty- Organization
making process 245; ‘soft law’ instruments 244–5; General Agreement on Trade in Services 231, 232
Stockholm Conference 1972 241; ‘sustainable General Assembly of the United Nations: binding
development’ 241, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252; UNCED decisions of 378; decolonization and 28, 379;
see United Nations Conference on Environment and domination of 379; enforcement powers 378;
Development; UN Environment Programme (UNEP) generally 377; nature of 3, 4; peaceful settlement of
242, 246–7; war and 244, 362–3, 399; World disputes and 377, 378, 387; peacekeeping operations
Charter for Nature 241 and 416, 417–18; powers of 377, 378, 379, 388;
equity, source of international law, as 55–6, 57 reform of 379; resolutions of 4, 52, 53–4, 378–9;
erga omnes obligations 58–60 special sessions of 392–3; Uniting for Peace
Eritrea 154, 163, 340 Resolution and 392–3
Estonia: annexation of 88; general international law 2
independence of 165–6 general principles of law: international environmental
estoppel 154–5 law and 245–7; source of international law, as 48–50,
Estrada Doctrine 87, 88 56
ethnic minorities: definition of minority 105–6; General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 24, 152,
international legal personality of 105–6, 107–8, 339; 308–9, 354
secession and 338–40; self-determination and 338–40 Geneva Conventions 1949 21, 31, 344, 345, 352–3, 356,
European Convention for the Protection of Human 363
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 94, 217–19 genocide 355, 356–7, 406
European international law: features after 1648 11–18; German Democratic Republic, recognition of 83–4, 85
First World War, up to 18–23; formation of 9, 10; Germany, unification of 167–8, 335
universalization of 23 Goa 156–7
European public law 11, 23 good offices 273, 275–6, 380, 385, 387
European Social Charter 218 governments: generally 81–2; recognition of 82, 86–8,
European Union: Court of Justice see Court of Justice of 88–90; statehood and 77–9
the European Union; economic organizations 225; Greenpeace 98–9
generally 96 Grenada, US invasion of 315, 323
expropriation of contractual rights 238–9 Grotius, Hugo 15, 16, 19, 307
expropriation of property: act of state doctrine and 122– Group of 77 28–9
3; compensation and 235–8; customary law and 235, guarantees of non-repetition 271
237; decline in 237; developing countries and 235–6; Guinea-Bissau 79, 334
disguised expropriation 238; generally 170, 235; Gulf Cooperation Council 95
individuals and 101–2; minimum international gun-boat diplomacy 15
standard 235
extradition 117 Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 22–3, 60, 274,
294, 308, 344, 345, 346, 356
Falkland Islands 120, 148, 315, 317, 332, 391 Haiti, UN intervention in 407–9
federal states 81 ‘hard law’ 54
fishing see law of the sea Helms-Burton Act 116
force, use of: customary law and 309, 317, 321; history of international law 9 ff.
effectiveness of rules prohibiting 341; Friendly Holy See see Vatican City
Relations Declaration and 32, 155, 310, 315; Hong Kong 13, 158
generally 10, 11, 15, 19–20, 152; human rights horizontal system of law, international law as 3, 5, 6
protection and 400, 426–7; League of Nations and humanitarianism: development of humanitarian law 22;
24, 308; self-defence and see self-defence; self- Haiti and 408; intervention on grounds of 19–20, 31,
determination and 336–8; UN Charter and 27, 32, 77, 221, 400, 402–5, 406, 408, 411, 425, 426–7;
152, 309–11, 318–19, 336, 387; see also war prohibition of slave trade and 21; Rwanda and 406;
foreign aid 233–4 Somalia and 402–5; Yugoslavia and 411–12
forum state 118 human rights: African Charter 219; American
French age 9 Convention 219; complaints 101, 216, 218–19;
Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970 3, 32, 152, 155, concept of 209–11; Conference on Security and
156, 275, 310, 314–16, 327, 337 Cooperation in Europe and 220; customary
444 INDEX
international law and 220–1; economic development international law as ‘law’ 5–7
as 239; European Convention 94, 217–19; general International Law Association 62
international law and 220–1; generally 92, 100–1, International Law Commission: generally 61; state
209; ‘generations’ of 210; International Human responsibility, codification of 58–60, 104, 220–1,
Rights Covenants of 1966 28, 215–16, 327, 335–6, 246, 254–6, 262, 269–72, 327
338; interventionism and 19–20, 31, 221; Kurdish International Monetary Fund: conditionality of loans
crisis and 399–400, 402; matter of international 227; control over members 4, 227; functions of 226–
concern, as 220–1; minority rights as 106; non- 7; generally 223, 225–6; influence of industrialized
governmental organizations and 97; regional level, on countries 224, 226; purposes of 226
211, 217–20; self-determination and 28, 327; social international organizations: acts as source of
rights and 210, 213; state sovereignty and 211, 220; international law 52–4; definition of 92; duplication
treaties 216–17; UN bodies active in 213–15; UN of functions 96; economic organizations 223, 224 ff.;
Charter and 211–12, 220, 221, 369; Universal employment in 103; first forms of 22, 92; immunities
Declaration of Human Rights 31, 212–15, 217, 220; of 127–8; international legal personality of 91, 92–4,
universal jurisdiction of national courts over crimes 104; nature of 95; proliferation of 31, 94; regional
against 113–15; universal level, on 210–17, 220; use organizations 94–5; supranational organizations 95–
of force to protect 400, 426–7; violations as threat to 6; see also non-governmental organizations and
peace 400, 426, 427; Yugoslavia and 412 individual headings
International Tin Council 94
immunity: act of state doctrine 121–3; consular 127; international trade: environmental protection and 244,
diplomatic 123–7; generally 118; international 248; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 101,
organizations, of 127–8; sovereign (state) immunity 223, 228–31; generally 223–4; increase in 230;
118–20; waiver of 128–9 international organizations 224–5, 228–33; World
implementation of international law 2, 5 Trade Organization 231–3
incorporation, doctrine of 64, 69 internationalized contracts 38–9, 102, 295
independence: criterion for statehood, as 78–9; internationally wrongful acts: consequences of 269–71;
recognition of states and 85 generally 254
India, invasion of Goa 156–7 intertemporal law, acquisition of territory and 155–7
indigenous peoples: definition of 106–7; international intervention, doctrine of 19–20, 25–6, 31, 32, 85, 221
legal personality of 106–8; self-determination and Iran: fatwa against Salman Rushdie 112; seizure of US
338–40 diplomats 123, 126–7, 259–60, 315, 391; war with
individuals: complaints by 103; international legal Iraq 315, 391, 395
personality of 91, 92, 100, 103–4; rights of 2, 31, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 259–60, 262, 267,
100–2; state responsibility and 257; see also human 276, 296–8
rights Iraq: border with Kuwait 151, 398, 425; claims against
Indonesia: East Timor and 59, 286–7, 332, 335; 101, 398–9, 425; collective responsibility of
recognition of 88; withdrawal from United Nations population 5; conditions imposed upon 397–8;
371 Institute of International Law 62 disarmament of 398, 425; invasion of Kuwait 315,
insurgents 1, 104–5; see also civil wars 318, 362, 396–9; Israeli attack on nuclear reactor
intellectual property: Biodiversity Convention and 249; 313; Kurdish safe havens 399–402; methods in war
trade-related aspects agreement (TRIPS) 231, 232–3 against 362; reparations imposed upon 398;
intergovernmental organizations 1 sanctions against 5, 396, 397, 398, 425; territorial
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development claims 315; war with Iran 315, 391, 395
see World Bank Islamic law 6, 9, 33, 79
International Center for the Settlement of Investment Israel: annexation of territory 153; armed reprisals 316,
Disputes (ICSID) 228, 295–6 317; attack on Iraqi nuclear reactor 313; kidnapping
international comity 2 of Adolf Eichmann 110, 113; murder of Count
International Court of Justice: ad hoc chambers 288; Bernadotte 93; occupation of Sinai 313; Taba dispute
advisory opinions of 289–90; composition of 282; 151; UN membership 370
effectiveness of 290–3, 301; enforcement of Italy, aggression against Abyssinia 25, 152
judgments 288–9; generally 25, 101, 281–2, 290–3; ins cogens 57–8
jurisdiction in contentious cases 3, 282–7, 301;
procedure of 287–8; review of Security Council Japan: aggression against China 25, 26; colonial period
decisions 292–3, 426; sources of law 36 and 12, 13, 14
international crimes 58–60, 269–70, 271, 327 judicial decisions, source of international law, as 51, 56–
international delicts 59–60, 269–70, 271 7
International Development Association (IDA) 228 jurisdiction: criminal jurisdiction of national courts see
international economic law see economy criminal jurisdiction of national courts; definition of
International Finance Corporation (IFC) 228 109; forms of 109–10; immunity from 118 ff.
International Human Rights Covenants 28, 215–16, 327,
335–6, 338 Kellogg-Briand Pact 24, 152, 308–9, 354
INDEX 445
Korean War 28, 86, 391–2 Marxist-Leninist theory of international law 2, 23, 33,
Kurds, safe havens in northern Iraq 399–402 47
Kuwait, Iraqi invasion of 315, 318, 364, 396–9 mediation 3, 20, 273, 275–7, 280, 304, 387
Mexico: Estrada Doctrine 87, 88; passive nationality
lakes: environmental law and 243, 246; Lake Constance principle 111
158 micro-states 76, 370
Las Palmas 75–6, 150, 156 minorities see ethnic minorities
Latin America: economic organizations 225; European Monaco 80
system of international law and 14; generally 9 Monroe Doctrine 14, 24, 409
Latvia; annexation of 88; moving treaty boundaries 163–4, 168
independence of 165–6 Mozambique 330
‘law’, international law as 5–7 multinational companies: attitudes towards 102–3; codes
law of the sea: air space and 177, 179, 185; arrest, of conduct 103, 233; international subjects, as 102;
power of 177–8, 186, 187–8, 189; baseline for
non-governmental organizations, as 97
measuring territorial sea 180–2; belligerent rights
municipal law see national legal systems
189; boundaries and 195–7; codification of 173–4;
collisions at sea 190–1; contiguous zones 182–3;
Namibia 104, 328–9
continental shelf and 191–3, 195–6; Conventions
national legal systems: attitude of international law to
173–5; crimes in internal waters 176; crimes in
territorial sea 178; crimes on the high seas 188, 190– 64; attitude to international law 65–71; conformity
1; customary law, as 173, 174, 175, 179, 183, 188, with international law 64, 65; criminal jurisdiction of
191–2, 196; deep seabed 174, 193–5, 233; division of national courts 110–16; customary international law
sea into zones 173; drug trade and 188; exclusive and 68–71; dualist theory of relationship with
economic zones 183–4, 185; fishing and 178–9, 183– international law 63–4; general principles of
4, 185, 188; flag states 185; flags of convenience international law and 68–71; general principles of
185–6; high seas 173, 184–91; hot pursuit 187; national law as source of international law 48–50;
interference with ships on the high seas 186–90; identification of law 35; implementation of
internal waters 173, 175–6; international straits and international law by 5; international law
180; land-locked states 185; measurement of distinguished 3, 5, 6; monist theory of relationship
territorial sea 180–2; piracy and 189; pollution and with international law 63–4; primacy of 65;
242; right of approach 187; right of innocent passage relationship with international law 63–4; self-help
176–7, 310; self-defence and 189–90; settlement of and 3; treaties and 65–8, 138
disputes 298–300; ships in internal waters 175–6; national liberation movements 104–5
ships in territorial sea 176–8; ships on the high seas nationality: acquisition of 263–4; companies, of 266;
184–5, 186–90; slave trade and 188; stateless ships definition of 263; dual/multiple 264, 265, 266; loss
186–7; submarines and 177, 180; territorial sea 173, of 264; state responsibility and 263–7; state
176–82; three-mile rule 178–9; twelve-mile limit 180; succession and 169; statelessness 264–5
UNCLOS I 173; UNCLOS II 173; UNCLOS III 173– nationalized industries, part of state, as 121
4; warships and 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 186; naturalist doctrine of international law 15–17, 32, 57,
width of territorial sea 173, 178–80 100
League of Nations: failure of 25–6; functions of 24; naturalization 263–4, 265–6
generally 23–4; membership of 25; United States neutrality, economic uses of maritime warfare and 350–1
refusal to join 24, 25; use of force, attempt to restrict New International Economic Order (NIEO) 29, 194,
24, 308 233–5, 239
leasing of territory 158 New Zealand, Rainbow Warrior affair 98–9, 110, 122
Lebanon, UN Interim Force (UNIFIL) 422–3 Nicaragua: assistance to El Salvadorean insurgents 320,
legal personality: companies, of 91, 100, 103–4; ethnic
321, 325; US assistance to contras 319–20, 325
minorities, of 105–6, 107–8, 339; indigenous
Nigeria, civil war 78, 85, 324, 326, 361
peoples, of 106–8; individuals, of 91, 92, 100, 103–
non-governmental organizations (NGOs): activities of
4; international organizations, of 91, 92–4, 104; non-
96, 98–100; generally 92, 96–7; governmental use/
governmental organizations, of 97–8, 99–100
misuse of 99; multinational companies as 97; role in
Liberia 396, 402
Libya: Lockerbie bombing and 117, 292, 425; US international legal system 97, 100; status of 97–8,
bombing of 313, 316 99–100
Lithuania: annexation of 88; independence of 165–6 non-self-governing territories 329–32
North American Free Trade Agreement 225, 300
Macau 158 North Atlantic Treaty 95, 311, 312, 315, 317–18
Macedonia 90 North Korea 86
making of international law 2 Northern Ireland 157, 330
Manchukuo 85, 152 nuclear energy 244
mandated territories 327–8 nuclear tests 349–50
446 INDEX
nuclear weapons: customary law and 346, 347; ports, law of the sea and 175
dismemberment of USSR and 166–7; effect on rules positivist doctrine of international law 1, 16–17, 32, 33,
of law 361–2; legality of 26, 50, 53, 58, 346–9; 100
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms 27, prescription of territory 150–1
349 primitive legal system, international law as 5
private international law: act of state doctrine and 122–
obligations erga omnes 58–60 3; public international law and 71–4
occupation of territory 148–50 promises 130
opinio juris 44–5 protectorates 80
oral treaties 131 public international law; private international law and
Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe 94 71–4
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) 224 Rainbow Warrior affair 98–9, 110, 122
Organization of African Unity 95 recognition of governments 82, 86–8, 88–90
Organization of American States 84, 95 recognition of states: constitutive theory 83–4, 85; de
Organization of Central American States 95 jure and de facto recognition 88–89; declaratory
origins of international law 9 ff. theory 83, 84–5; Estrada Doctrine 87, 88; European
outer space 201–8 Union guidelines 89–90; evidential role of 84;
generally 82–3; independence of state and 85; legal
effects in domestic law 86; legal effects in
Pacific area, economic organizations 225
international law 83–6; non-recognition 85–6;
Palestine: self-determination and 333; state, as 77
secession and 78, 84, 85; statehood and 80
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) 105
reductionist perception of international law 5
Panama: Canal 160; prosecution of General Noriega regional international law 2
110; US invasion of 110, 316 regional organizations 94–5
Paris Pact of 1928 on the Banning of War 24, 152, 308– remedies for violation of international law 3, 5
9, 354 reparations 23, 270, 398
particular international law 2 reprisals 4, 58–9, 271–2, 316, 346, 351–2, 353, 390
peace, enforcement of see enforcement of peace restitution in kind 270
Peace of Westphalia 9, 10, 11 retorsion 4
peaceful settlement of disputes: adjudication, by 151, Rhodesia: recognition of 80, 85; UN sanctions 393–5
274, 279, 280, 281–93, 301; arbitration, by see Rio Declaration 54, 107, 239, 247, 250–1
arbitration; conciliation, by 3, 20, 272, 273, 278–81, rivers: environmental law and 243, 246; law of the sea
299–300, 387; diplomatic means, by 273–4, 275 ff.; and 175; servitudes and 159–60
distrust of judicial settlement 301–3, 305; fact- role of international law, limited nature of 6
finding and 277–8; generally 273, 300–5; good Rushdie, Salman 112
offices, by 273, 275–6, 380, 385, 387; historical Russia: intervention in Chechnya 340; state succession
background 20; inquiry and 277–8, 387; and 166–7; treaties and 68, 71; UN membership 373;
International Court of Justice, by 281–93; see also Commonwealth of Independent States
International Law Commission approach 272; Law of Rwanda: UN intervention in 405–7; war crimes tribunal
the Sea Convention, under 298–300; legal means, by 113, 360, 425
273, 274, 281 ff.; mediation, by 3, 20, 273, 275–7,
280, 304, 387; multilateral instruments 274; sanctions: Cuba, against 116–17; effectiveness of 4, 5;
negotiation, by 273, 275, 304; regional instruments generally 4; Haiti, against 407–8; Iraq, against 5,
274; stalemate 304; third parties and 273, 274–5, 396, 397, 398, 425; League of Nations imposing 24,
276–7, 279; UN Charter and 273–4, 275, 310, 385– 25, 426; Libya, against 425; Rhodesia, against 393–
7; UN General Assembly and 377, 378, 387; UN 5; Rwanda, against 406; Somalia, against 403; UN
Secretary-General and 380, 385; UN Security Council imposing 4, 5, 389, 391, 393–5, 396, 397, 398, 403,
and 373–4, 385–7 406, 407–8, 409–10, 426; Yugoslavia, against 409–
peacekeeping operations: Cold War, during 416–23; 10, 412, 415
satisfaction 270–1
conflict prevention and 424; Congo, in 416, 418–20;
scope of international law 7–8
Cyprus, in 420–2; enforcement actions distinguished
sea see law of the sea
416; Expenses case 289, 392, 393, 417, 419, 420;
secession: Baltic states, of 165–6; Biafra, of 78, 85;
financial crisis 425; General Assembly and 416, 417–
Congo, in 418–19; consent to 154; ethnic minorities
18; generally 416–17; Middle East, in 417–18, 422– and 338–40; generally 78, 84, 85, 336; self-
3; ‘mixed peacekeeping’ 416, 425; post-Cold War determination and 332–3, 334, 336, 338–40; state
423–5; rapid reaction capacity 424–5 succession and 165–6; Yugoslavian republics, of 409;
peremptory norms of general international law 57–8 see also civil wars
Permanent Court of Arbitration 22, 25 Security Council of the United Nations: absence of
Permanent Court of International Justice 24–5 permanent member 375–6; abstention from voting
piracy, law of the sea and 189 375, 376; activism of 31; binding effect of decisions
population, statehood and 76–7 374, 386, 390; ‘double veto’ 374; equitable
INDEX 447
representation on 376; increase in membership of South West Africa (Namibia) 104, 328–9
376; enforcement of peace see enforcement of peace sovereign immunity 118–21
by United Nations; membership of 373, 376; Military sovereignty 10, 17–18
Staff Committee 389, 396; non-permanent members Soviet Union see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
of 373; parties to disputes 376; peace and security space see outer space
responsibilities 373–4, 385–7, 388–90, 392–3, 425– Spain, civil war 323, 324
30; peacekeeping operations and 416; permanent Spanish age 9
members of 27, 373, 376; political body, as 4, 373; state immunity 118–21
principal functions of 374; procedural/non- state liability 254
procedural questions 374; reform called for 428; state responsibility: generally 254; International Law
review of decisions by International Court of Justice Commission, work of 254–6; treatment of aliens see
292–3, 426; Russian membership of 373; sanctions aliens, treatment of state sovereignty 78–9, 211, 220
and see sanctions; Uniting for Peace Resolution and state succession: boundaries and 162–3, 335; clean
392–3; veto, power of 4, 27, 374–5; voting procedure
slate doctrine 165; decolonization and new states
27, 374; Western leadership of 377
164–5; dismemberment and 166–7; dispositive
self-defence: anticipatory 311–14, 325; ‘armed attack’
treaties and 162; generally 161–2; international
320–1, 325; armed protection of nationals abroad
claims and 169; moving treaty boundaries and 163–
315–16; armed reprisals 316; attacks on ships and
aircraft, against 315; barring state from invoking 4; nationality and 169; private property and 170–2;
390; claims to territory and 314–15; collective 311, public property and 169–70; secession and 165–6;
317–18, 320, 321, 324–5, 388, 393; foreign servitudes and 162; unification and 167–8; Vienna
assistance to insurgents and 320; generally 4, 19, 24, Conventions on 60, 161–2, 172
27, 311; immediacy and 316–17; law of the sea and statelessness 264–5
189–90; preventive self-defence 311–14, 325; states: act of state doctrine 121–3; capacity to enter into
proportionality and 316–17, 324–5; wars of national relations with other states 79–80; defined territory
liberation and 337–8 75–6; definition of state 75; dependent 78–9, 80;
self-determination: American Declaration of effective control by a government 77–9; federal states
Independence and 14; basic principle of international 81; independent 78–9, 80; jurisdiction of 91–2;
law, as 327; Friendly Relations Declaration and 327; population 76–7; recognition of see recognition of
generally 77, 326–7; mandated territories and 328; states; role in international law 2, 91; self-
methods of achieving 327; non-self-governing determination 80
territories and 329–32; Palestine and 333; principle Stimson Doctrine 152
of 28, 59, 78, 326; right of intervention and 19; Sudan 425–6
secession and 332–3, 334, 336, 338–40; South Suez Canal 160
African peoples and 333; South West Africa Suez crisis 27–8, 393, 417–18
(Namibia) and 328–9; statehood and 80; territorial supranational organizations 95–6
disputes and 157, 158; title to territory and 334–6; SWAPO 104
trust territories and 328; UN Charter and 326, 333,
369; UN resolutions 327, 335–6; use of force and Taiwan, UN membership 371–2
336–8; violations of right of 334–8; wars of national territorial sovereignty 75–6, 109–10, 147
liberation and 319, 336–8 territory, acquisition of see acquisition of territory
self-help 3–4, 19, 271 theory of international law 15 ff.
services, trade in 232 Third World states: attitudes to international law 28–30;
servitudes: generally 158–60; debt crisis 227, 233; expropriation and 235–6; New
state succession and 162 International Economic Order and 233–5
ships: self-defence against attacks on 315; see also law of
torture 112, 114–15, 120, 216, 343
the sea
trade see international trade
slave trade: law of the sea and 188; prohibition of 21
transnational companies see multinational companies
socialist bloc 28, 94
transnational law 72
‘soft law’ 54–5
Somalia, UN intervention in 77, 402–5 treaties: acceptance of 134; accession to 133, 134;
sources of international law: acts of international adoption of text of 131; amendment of 367;
organizations 52–4; custom see customary application of 137; approval of 134; boundary
international law; equity 55–6; general principles of treaties 162–3; breach of 142–4; changes of
law 48–50, 56; generally 35–6; hierarchy of sources circumstances and 144–5; clean slate doctrine 165;
56–60; judicial decisions 51, 56–7; learned writers coercion of representative of state 139; conclusion of
51–2, 56–7; ‘soft law’ 54–5; treaties see treaties 131–4; consent to be bound by 131–4; contract-
South Africa: African National Congress (ANC) 104; treaties 37–8; corruption of representatives
recognition of homelands 85, 334; self-determination invalidating 140; decolonization and 164–5;
for inhabitants of 333; South West Africa (Namibia) definition of treaty 130–1; dismemberment of states
and 328–9; UN arms embargo 390, 391, 394–5; UN and 166–7; dispositive 162; Dutch law and 67–8;
membership 370–1 effectiveness principle 367; English law and 65–6;
South America see Latin America entry into force of 134–5; environmental law and
448 INDEX
242–5; evidence of customary law, as 40; exchanges of 128; implied powers of 367; international legal
of notes 134; executive unconstitutionally concluding personality of 92, 93; membership of 369–73;
138; force used or threatened, when 139–40; fraud peacekeeping see peacekeeping operations; purposes
invalidating 140; generally 36–7, 130–1; human of 368; ‘safety valve’, as 387; Secretariat 52, 380–2;
Secretary-General 380–1; Security Council see
rights 216–17; implied powers doctrine 367–8;
Security Council of the United Nations; specialized
implied right of denunciation or withdrawal 142; agencies 94, 383–4; states only as members 2, 371;
impossibility of performance 144; intention of the suspension of members 370; withdrawal of members
parties 366–7; international organizations, between 371; Yugoslavia and 372–3
131; internationalized contracts 38–9; interpretation United Nations Compensation Commission 398–9, 425
of 365–8; invalid 137–41; ius cogens and 57–8, 140, United Nations Conference on Environment and
145; law-making treaties 37–8; mistakes invalidating Development (UNCED): Agenda 2191, 207, 247,
140; moving treaty boundaries 163–4, 168; national 250–1, 252, 253; Biodiversity Convention 244, 247,
legal systems and 65–8, 138; natural law and 57; 249, 251–2; Convention on Climate Change 247–9,
open for accession 134; oral 131; parties to 251–2; generally 241, 244, 247–8; non-governmental
organizations and 97, 247; objectives of 247;
international treaties 38–9; persons not authorized to
outcome of 251–3; right to development and 239;
represent state entering into 138–9; practice 366–7; Rio Declaration 54, 107, 239, 247, 250–1
provisional application of 135; ratification of 65–6, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
131–3, 134, 135; rebus sic stantibus and 144–5; 241
registration of 136–7; relationship with custom 56; United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East
reservations to 135–6; restrictions on authority to (UNEF): UNEF1417–18; UNEF II 422–3 United
express consent of state disregarded, when 139; Nations Environment Programme 242, 246–7 United
restrictive interpretation 367; retroactive application States of America: European system of international
of 135, 140; Russian law and 68, 71; secession and law and 14; intervention guidelines 429; treaties and
165–6; signature to 131–2, 133, 134; state succession 66–7; UN peace enforcement and 390–1, 395, 397,
429
and 162–8; states and international organizations,
Uniting for Peace Resolution 392
between 131; successive treaties relating to same Universal Declaration of Human Rights 31, 212–15,
subject matter, application of 137; suspension of 217, 220
142–4, 146; termination of 141–6; territorial scope universal international law 2, 30–2
of 137; third states and 137; travaux préparatoires uti possidetis principle 162, 163
366; unequal 140; unification of states and 167–8;
United States law and 66–7; validity of 137–41; Vatican City 1, 76, 80
Vienna Convention 40, 130–1; war, effect of 145–6, Vattel, Emerich von 17
309; withdrawal from 141–2 Venezuela, gun-boat diplomacy against 15
Treaty of Versailles 23, 25, 103, 209, 326 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 40, 57–8, 60,
64, 130–46, 195
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms 27,
Vienna Conventions on State Succession 60, 161–2, 172
349 Vietnam War 27, 325, 326, 353, 361, 391
trust territories 328 violation of international law 3, 5, 58–9, 254
Turkey 12, 13
war: balance of power and 307–8, 343; bombing 26,
Ukraine 81 345, 347; civil wars see civil wars; civilians and 343,
unification of states, state succession and 167–8 344, 345, 346, 347, 352; consequences of 309;
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): customary law and 307, 344, 345, 347, 352, 354,
dismemberment of 166–7; military intervention in 356; declarations of 308, 309, 342; developments
other countries 320, 322–3, 326, 391; relationship to before 1945 306–9; environment and 244, 362–3,
399; First World War 308, 346; Hague Conventions
international law 23
and 22, 60, 308, 344, 345; hostilities distinguished
United Nations: admission of new members 369–70; 309; humanization of law of warfare 21–2, 342, 353,
arrears of members 377; budget of 377–8; Charter 362, 363; ius ad bellum 306; ius in bello 306, 342,
see Charter of the United Nations; China and 371–2; 363; just and unjust wars 306–7, 342; Kellogg-Briand
Cold War and 27, 364, 390–5; collective security see Pact (Pact of Paris) 24, 152, 308–9, 354; lawful and
enforcement of peace by United Nations; creation of unlawful means of waging 342–52; laws of 306, 342–
26–7, 364; debt 378; decolonization and 28, 364; 6, 361–3; League of Nations and 24, 308; meaning of
domestic jurisdiction and 368–9; Economic and 309; neutral opinion and 361; neutrality and
Social Council 382–3; economic organizations 224; economic uses of maritime warfare 350–1350;
effectiveness of 27, 429–30; election monitoring 424; nuclear weapons and see nuclear weapons; Paris Pact
of 1928 on the Banning of War 24, 152, 308–9, 354;
enforcement action see enforcement of peace by
prohibition/limitation of certain weapons 344–5;
United Nations; expulsion of members 370, 371, reprisals and 271, 346, 351–2, 353; self-defence and
372; failure of collective system 27; General see self-defence; treaties, effect on 145–6, 309;
Assembly see General Assembly of the United ‘unnecessary suffering’ 343, 347; ‘unprivileged
Nations; human rights activities of 213–15; immunity belligerents’ 354; see also force, use of
INDEX 449
war crimes trials: generally 113, 345, 353; International World Trade Organization: Agreement on Intellectual
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 113, Property Rights (TRIPS) 231, 232–3; dispute
355–60, 413, 425; John Demjanuk case 115–16; settlement 300; General Agreement on Trade in
Nuremberg Tribunal 26, 43, 354–5, 356, 357, 359; Services (GATS) 231, 232; generally 231, 233; trade
permanent international criminal court 61, 355, 360– agreements on goods 231–2; see also General
1; Rwanda Tribunal 113, 360, 425; Tokyo Tribunal Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
26, 354, 355 writers, source of international law, as 51–2, 56–7
wars of national liberation 319, 336–8
Warsaw Pact 311 Yemen, unification of 168
warships see law of the sea Yugoslavia: boundaries 163; creation of 161;
Western European Union 95 dismemberment of 161, 163, 167, 338; ethnic
Western Sahara 331–2 cleansing 410, 411, 412, 415; peaceful settlement of
World Bank: complementary organizations 228; disputes and 281; recognition of new states 78, 89,
functions of 227–8; generally 223, 227; influence of 90, 167, 409; sanctions against 409–10, 412, 415;
industrialized countries 224, 227; purposes of 227 UN intervention in 409–15; UN membership of
World Charter for Nature 241 former states 372–3; war crimes tribunal 113, 355–
World Court see International Court of Justice 60, 413, 425

International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AKEHURST’S MODERN

‘Professor Malanczuk has written a new edition of Michael Akehurst’s

First published in 1970, A Modern Introduction to International Law

Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law is ideal for

Peter Malanczuk is Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty

Seventh revised edition

London and New York

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

Seventh edition 1997

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

ISBN 0-415-16553-9 (hbk)

2 History and theory 9

3 Sources of international law 35

4 International law and municipal law 63

5 States and governments 75

6 International organizations, individuals, companies and groups 91

8 Immunity from jurisdiction 118

The consequences of invalidity 140

10 Acquisition of territory 147

11 Legal consequences of changes of sovereignty over territory

12 The law of the sea 173

13 Air space and outer space 198

14 Human rights 209

Disguised expropriation 238

17 State responsibility 254

18 Peaceful settlement of disputes between states 273

19 International wars, civil wars and the right to self-determination:

20 Means of waging war and criminal responsibility: ius in bello 342

21 The Charter and the organs of the United Nations 364

22 The United Nations and peace and security 385

Table of cases 431

arrangement and treatment have been made for these divergencies to be

jurisdiction, and added new parts on universal jurisdiction of national

Colum. JIL Columbia Journal of International EUTELSAT European Telecommunications

consists of rules and principles of general application dealing

Some recent textbooks refrain from any attempt to define international

11 See, for example, I.Brownlie,

34 See Chapter 19 below, 306–18.

40 Articles 169 and 170, EC Treaty.

It is no longer possible for a ‘generalist’ to cope with the volume

79 J.Schwietzke, Review of:

809–18; A.T.Y.Serra, Latin America,

The formation of European international law

12 See A.-M.de Zayas, Westphalia,

18 See S.Verosta, Aix-La-Chapelle,

As to your entreaty to send one of your nationals to be accredited

31 Hamsworth, History of the World,

The Western hemisphere

45 M.W.Janis (ed.), The Influence of

46 N.G.Onuf, Civitas Maxima: Wolff,

The theory of sovereignty

48 Wimbledon case, PCIJ, series A,

63 Grewe (1984), op. cit., at 578,

The peaceful settlement of disputes

Humanization of the law of warfare

73 The Institute is a private

87 Text in 225 CTS 188. See E.v.