International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
Other bodies
Although the International Law Commission is by far the most impor- tant of the organs for the study and development of the law, there do exist certain other bodies which are involved in the same mission. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNC- TAD), for example, are actively increasing the range of international law in the fields of economic, financial and development activities, while tem- porary organs such as the Committee on the Principles of International Law have been engaged in producing various declarations and statements. Nor can one overlook the tremendous work of the many specialised agen- cies like the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), which are constantly developing international law in their respective spheres. There are also some independent bodies which are actively involved in the field. The International Law Association and the Institut de Droit International are the best known of such organisations which study and stimulate the law of the world community, while the various Harvard Research drafts produced before the Second World War are still of value today. Unilateral acts In certain situations, the unilateral acts of states, including statements made by relevant state officials, may give rise to international legal 214 See above, p. 84. 122 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw obligations. 215 Such acts might include recognition and protests, which are intended to have legal consequences. Unilateral acts, while not sources of international law as understood in article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ, may constitute sources of obligation. 216 For this to happen, the intention to be bound of the state making the declaration in question is crucial, as will be the element of publicity or notoriety. 217 Such intention may be ascertained by way of interpretation of the act, and the principle of good faith plays a crucial role. The International Court has stressed that where states make statements by which their freedom of action is limited, a re- strictive interpretation is required. 218 Recognition will be important here in so far as third states are concerned, in order for such an act or statement to be opposable to them. Beyond this, such unilateral statements may be used as evidence of a particular view taken by the state in question. 219 215 See Virally, ‘Sources’, pp. 154–6; Brownlie, Principles, pp. 612–15; W. Fiedler, ‘Unilateral Acts in International Law’ in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (ed. R. Bernhardt), Amsterdam, 2000, vol. IV, p. 1018; G. Venturini, ‘La Port´ee et les Effets Juridiques des Attitudes et des Actes Unilat´eraux des ´Etats’, 112 HR, 1964, p. 363; J. Charpentier, ‘En- gagements Unilat´eraux et Engagements Conventionnels’ in Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century, p. 367; A. P. Rubin, ‘The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations’, 71 AJIL, 1977, p. 1; K. Zemanek, ‘Unilateral Legal Acts Revisited’ in Wellens, International Law, p. 209; E. Suy, Les Actes Unilateraux en Droit International Public, Paris, 1962, and J. Garner, ‘The International Binding Force of Unilateral Oral Declarations’, 27 AJIL, 1933, p. 493. The International Law Commission has been study- ing the question of the Unilateral Acts of States since 1996, see A/51/10, pp. 230 and 328–9. See also the Fifth Report, A/CN.4/525, 2002. 216 See e.g. the Report of the International Law Commission, A/57/10, 2002, p. 215. 217 The Nuclear Tests cases, ICJ Reports, 1974, pp. 253, 267; 57 ILR, pp. 398, 412. See also the Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case, ICJ Reports, 1995, pp. 288, 305; 106 ILR, pp. 1, 27; the Nova-Scotia/Newfoundland (First Phase) case, 2001, para. 3.14; 128 ILR, pp. 425, 449; and the Eritrea/Ethiopia case, 2002, para. 4.70; 130 ILR, pp. 1, 69. Such a commitment may arise in oral pleadings before the Court itself: see Cameroon v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports, 2002, p. 452. 218 Nuclear Tests cases, ICJ Reports, 1974, pp. 253, 267; 57 ILR, pp. 398, 412. See also the Nicaragua case, ICJ Reports, 1986, pp. 14, 132; 76 ILR, pp. 349, 466, and the Burkina Faso v. Mali case, ICJ Reports, 1986, pp. 554, 573–4; 80 ILR, pp. 459, 477–8. The Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases declared that the unilateral assumption of the obligations of a convention by a state not party to it was ‘not lightly to be presumed’, ICJ Reports, 1969, pp. 3, 25; 41 ILR, p. 29. The Court in the Malaysia/Singapore case, ICJ Reports, 2008, para. 229, noted that a denial could not be interpreted as a binding undertaking where not made in response to a claim by the other party or in the context of a dispute between them. 219 See e.g. the references to a press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and the wording of a communication of the text of an agreement to Parliament by the Norwegian Government in the Jan Mayen case, ICJ Reports, 1993, pp. 38, 51; 99 ILR, |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling