publich internation law
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
1/80
Public International Law Exam Notes(includes relevanttreaties)1. Nature and Development of International Law
1.1 Definition of International LawBod of le!al rules !overnin! interaction between soverei!n states (Public International Law) and
t"e ri!"ts and duties of t"e citi#ens of soverei!n states towards t"e citi#ens of ot"er soverei!n
states (Private International Law). $ince t"ere "as never been a law ma%in! bod for international
law& it "as been built up piecemeal t"rou!" accords& a!reements& c"arters& compromises&
conventions& memorandums& protocols& treaties& tribunals& understandin!s& etc. '"e statute of t"e
International ourt f *ustice (+udicial arm of t"e ,N w"ic" "as no enforcement power& and can
ad+udicate onl w"ere bot" sides a!ree to abide b its decisions) states t"e basis on w"ic" it
ad+udicates cases before it as -(a) international conventions& w"et"er !eneral or particular&
establis"in! rules expressl reco!ni#ed b t"e contestin! states (b) international custom& as
evidence of a !eneral practice accepted as law (c) t"e !eneral principles of law reco!ni#ed b
civili#ed nations.- It is not /0orld Law/ but law between consentin! soverei!n states (eac"!overnment can decide w"ic" law it will ad"ere to or not) and "as not been able to solve t"e
problems of interstate a!!ression& conflict& terrorism& and war. Despite its limited applicabilit&
"owever& it "as plaed a vital role over t"e centuries in developin! a sstem of procedures and
rules in areas (suc" as air& land& sea& outerspace& "uman ri!"ts) w"ere one state/s existence
impin!es t"at of t"e ot"ers. '"e 2eneral assembl of t"e ,N is entrusted wit" developin!
international law. 3lso called law of nations.
1.4 International Law as -Law-
no effective aut"orit to enforce
Lac%s compulsor *urisdiction
5ules of intl law suffer frm !reat uncertainit Lac% of effective sanction 6 fre7uent violations of rules of intl law
annot intervene in matters of domestic +urisdiction
8an cases "s failed to maintain order 9 peace in t"e world
1.: Basis of International Law *urisprudential '"eories
Evidence of treaties& immunities of ambassadors& usa!e of war& etc can be found in ancient E!pt&
India& t"e 2ree% 9 5oman empires present da intl owes ori!in to 2rotius a !reat *urist w"ose
wor% De *ure Belli ac Paces (1;4
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
2/80
'"e t"ree basic points of 3ustin/s t"eor of law are t"at=
t"e law is command issued b t"e uncommanded commander@t"e soverei!n
suc" commands are bac%ed b t"reats and
a soverei!n is one w"o is "abituall obeed
3ustin is best %nown t"eor of le!al positivism. >e attempted to clearl separate moral rules from
-positive law.-3ustin was !reatl influenced in "is utilitarian approac" to law b *erem Bent"am. 3ustin too% a
positivist approac" to +urisprudence "e viewed t"e law as commands from a soverei!n t"at are
bac%ed b a t"reat of sanction. In determinin! /a soverei!n/& 3ustin reco!ni#ed it as one w"o societ
obes "abituall. >owever& >enr 8aine in -Earl Institutions- proved t"at in some Empires of t"e
orient t"ere is not"in! to correspond wit" -determinate superior- or soverei!n.
riticism of 3ustin/s view (prominentl b >.L.3. >art)
Airst& in man societies& it is "ard to identif a soverei!nC in 3ustin/s sense of t"e word (a difficult
3ustin "imself experienced& w"en "e was forced to describe t"e Britis" soverei!nC aw%wardl as
t"e combination of t"e in!& t"e >ouse of Lords& and all t"e electors of t"e >ouse of ommons).
3dditionall& a focus on a soverei!nC ma%es it difficult to explain t"e continuit of le!al sstems= a
new ruler will not come in wit" t"e %ind of "abit of obedienceC t"at 3ustin sets as a criterion for a
sstem/s rulema%er.
3 different criticism of 3ustin/s command t"eor is t"at a t"eor w"ic" portras law solel in terms
of power fails to distin!uis" rules of terror from forms of !overnance sufficientl +ust t"at t"e are
accepted as le!itimate (or at least as reasons for action) b t"eir own citi#ens.
>.L.3. >art revived le!al positivism in t"e middle of t"e 4t" centur (>art 1Fart/s t"eor did not tr to reduce all
le!al rules to one %ind of rule& but emp"asi#ed t"e varin! tpes and functions of le!al rules and
>art/s t"eor& !rounded partl on t"e distinction between obli!ationC and bein! obli!ed&C was
built around t"e fact t"at some participants wit"in le!al sstems acceptedC t"e le!al rules as
reasons for action& above and beond t"e fear of sanctions. >art/s "ermeneuticC approac"&
buildin! on t"e internal point of viewC of participants w"o accepted t"e le!al sstem& diver!ed
s"arpl from 3ustin/s approac" to law.
1.H odification of International Law
odification of International Law is as important as codification of an ot"er law. >owever&
codification of International Law "as some uni7ue features because it provides=
>armoni#ation and coordination of various municipal laws to uniform statues as far as
practicable
3rran!in! t"e existin! customar international law in a sstematic process
Includes all conventions& treaties& c"arters etc.'"e process of codification of International Law be!an in 1Gt" centur w"en t"e Declaration of
Paris& 1G
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
3/80
8oves awa from individualit and mi!"t effect sentiments& customs and traditions etc.
0ron!doers can ta%e advanta!e of codified law because t"e come to %now of was of avoidin!
provisions of law
Disturbs citi#en ri!"ts at times
odified law is never complete. It is alwas constantl evolvin!.
1.< $anctions of International law
$anctions b $tates self "elp wit" strict compliance to ,N "arter usin! armed force in self
"elp a!ainst intl wron!ful acts not usin! armed attac% is forbidden. Principles similar to ri!"t of
private defence
ollective $anctions
"ap ?II of ,N "arter J $ecurit ouncil can ta%e neccessar action if t"reat to intl peace 9
securit
8ilitar $anctions
Economic 9 Ainancial $anctions severance of economic relations& trade
Political sanctions expulsion frm ,N 8embers"ip& suspension of ri!"ts 9 privele!es of
members"ip of ,N
$peciali#ed a!encies (IL& IP& 0>& &I') aut"ori#ed to ta%e action a!ainst errin! state
Decision of I* bindin! on parties to dispute& 3rt FH of ,N provides ot"r part ma approac"
$ecurit ouncil to ta%e action.
Public opinion 0orld public opinion w"ic" forced , 9 Arance to pull out troops from $ue# anal
in 1Fuman 5i!"ts 'reat of ?ersailles (1F1F) European ourt of >uman 5i!"ts Lawless ase De Bec%er ase bel!ium forced to c"an!e le!islation re!ardin! ri!"t of person
under detention 9 arrest
Duties of individuals
(i) No rimes a!ainst peace 9 "umanities pirates considered enem of man%ind espiona!e a
crime under intl law
(ii) 0ar riminals an be punised under intl law Nurembur! 9 'o%o tribunals propounded t"e
principle t"t intl law ma impose obli!ations directl a!ainst t"e individual e! officials of 2erman
9 *apan were tried as per t"e provisions of intl law
(iii) rime of !enocide
(iv) 3ircraft >i+ac%in!(v) %idnappin! of diplomatic personnel& etc onvention of prevention 9 punis"ment of crimes
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
4/80
a!ainst internationall protected persons 1F:& onvention on 'a%in! of "osta!es& 1FF
(vi) Prevention of dru! traffic%in! Narcotics Dru!s convention& 1F:
Procedural apacit of individuals treat of versailles 1F1F ,nder European onvention fr
Protection of >uman 5i!"ts& 1F5 in case of violation of an of t"eir civil 9 political ri!"ts b $tate. In Blom
vs $weden a petition of a student alle!in! discrimination ws "eld admissible.
1. 3pproac" of Developin! ountries towards International Law
4. $ources of International Law
4.1 $tatute of t"e International ourt of *ustice& 1FH< ( 3rticle :G )
1. '"e ourt& w"ose function is to decide in accordance wit" international law suc" disputes as are
submitted to it& s"all appl=
a. international conventions& w"et"er !eneral or particular& establis"in! rules expressl
reco!ni#ed b t"e contestin! states
b. international custom& as evidence of a !eneral practice accepted as law
c. t"e !eneral principles of law reco!ni#ed b civili#ed nations
d. sub+ect to t"e provisions of 3rticle
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
5/80
5ule of Int Law t"at t"e are. $o t"e basis is ustom M $anctit of ontracts essential to an
communit. Positive Norm. No unilateral deviation. 5ests on 2ood fait" Nort" 3tlantic Ais"eries
case.
'reat is Int. Le!islation.
?ienna onvention on 'reaties = Ever treat in force is bindin! and "as to be performed in !ood fait" ( 3rt 4; )
No part will attempt to +ustif its failure to perform b citin! its internal laws ( 3rt 4 )
Preamble of ,N "arter = ,N "as to establis" conditions w"ere respect for treaties and Int Law is
maintained.
3ll above point towards pacta sunt servanda
Exceptions to P$$ = = i) new state due revolt ii ) 'erritor cededKmer!ed iii) 5ebus sic stantibus =
implied clause& unc"an!ed material circumstances iv) Not an absolute principle as fails toe explain
t"e bindin! force of customar int law ( in fact it rests upon it )
( 553 )
?ienna onvention on Law of 'reaties & 1F;F =
Landmar%& Preamble& G< 3tricle& G Parts Earlier treaties still !overned b ldClaws. odifies.
Doctrines of *us o!ens& 5ebus $ic $tantibus leads to clear sstems.
3ll states are competent& includin! vassal states& except w"ere limitedK7ualified b existin!
treaties. Neutral $tates no ffensive treat for e!.
Int. r!s 'reaties N' in ?ienna scope t"e are under separate onvention adopted 1FG;.
Aree onsent is essential. Araud& orruption& oercion & Error vitiates. Error doesnOt "old if due
$tateOs own conduct or if it "ad notice (no advanta!e of own wron! )
onsent expressed b = i) $i!nature ii) Exc"an!e iii ) 5atificationKacceptanceKapproval iv) 3ccesson
v) 3n ot"er means as a!reed
AormulationKonclusion of 'reaties =
No format prescribed. 2eneral steps =
1) 3ccreditin! of Persons
4) Ne!otiationsKadoption consent of all or 4K:rds if Int onference
:) $i!natures of reps if treat not sub+ect to ratification& comes into force imm t"ereafterH) ratification = v. impstate confirms
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
6/80
'reat
5at. Not retroactive !enerall. 'o be done onl w"en r7rd b t"e 'reat. 3rt 1H = 5at. Necessar
w"en a) Express consent b) Ne!. states "ave a!reed to rat. ) 5ep "as si!ned sub+ect to d) Intention
of rat. Evident durin! tal%sK ne!.
( E3$I )
Purpose = 3t present& !enerall all need to be rat. 3) $tate can reexamineKreview. B) an even
wit"draw b act of NNrat. ) 3mend internal laws d) Public opinion buildKconsult ( 503P )
8ode = Per $tate procedure. President per adviceK onsent of $enate. ,P b rown on adv of
8inister concerned. India = President per advice of entral abinet
5efusal of = $tates not bound to ratif. No reason to be !iven. But for Int. peace and securit&
$ecurit ouncil pressure( 3rt :F and H1 of ,N "arter ). Bi! states less open to suc" influence. No
time period specified for rat. But interim $tate s"ould not do an act adverse to t"e
ob+ectKpurpose of treat ( 3rt 1G& ? ). $uc" ma impl breac" of treat ( 2erman interest in Polis"
upper $ilesta& 1F4G ). $o si!nin! of t"e rep itself confers some limited status to treat.
onse7uences of = nl if rat. Necessar. But can be applied to domestic municipal law onl after
rat. No ratification no bindin! b terms of t"e $tate w"o "asnOt . But still& a provision ma still fall
wit"in custom and opinion +uris and can be invo%ed
5eservations =
Important. 0"en onl part is accepted and oters re+ected b a $tate. ,nilateral 3ct w"ile
si!nin!Kratifin!Kacceptin! w"en t"e $tate purports to excludeK amend some provisions wrt itself
( 3rt 4(1)(d) ? ). No reservation after +oinin!. an be done even if t"e treat is silent on it.
3rticle 1F = Airstl & is t"e reservation valid use t"e le!alit test =
1) $"ould not be pro"ibited b treat.
4) $"ould be included in t"e reservations specified& as durin! ne!otiates itself it ma "ave become
clear t"at some will not a!ree to all provisions.
:) Is not incompatible wit" t"e ob+ectK purpose of treat
In writin!& eit"er to t"e depositor or directl to ot"ers. an be wit"drawn at an time b writin!
to ot"ers
0"en a state limits its treat obli!ations t"rou!" reservations& ot"er states part to t"at treat
"ave t"e option to accept t"ose reservations& ob+ect to t"em& or ob+ect and oppose t"em. ( 3rt 1F
4: of ?L' )
t"er $tate 3ccepts 5eservation ( or no comments implies acceptance ) =Bot" t"e reservin! state
and t"e acceptin! state are relieved of t"e reserved le!al obli!ation as concerns t"eir le!al
obli!ations to eac" ot"er . But 3cceptin! $tate still responsible to ot"er states w"o "ave no suc"
reservationK
t"er $tate b+ects ( 3rt 4(as to be done wit"in 14 mont"s of t"e reservation notification
t"er $tate ob+ects and pposes ( explicit & 3rticle 41(:) = $uc" a $tate wants to exclude t"e entrinto force of t"e w"ole treat between itself and t"e reservin! $tate '"ere are no le!al obli!ations
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
7/80
under t"at treat between t"ose two state parties w"atsoever. '"at is& bot" consider t"e "ave no
treat between t"em at all.
5eservations in 8ultilateral treaties ma lead to several bilaterals of variable content not !ood.
>owever as number of si!natories increases& eac" wit" t"eir own opinions& reservations areessential to a more !eneral acceptance of t"e treat.
'reaties and '"ird $tates
Pacta 'ertis nec nocent nec prosunt = '"ird parties receive neit"er ri!"ts nor duties from contracts.
Incorporated under 3 :H of ?L' = 3 treat creates no obli!ationsKri!"ts for :rd $tate wit"out its
consent.
3n!lo Iranian il o. ( 1F
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
8/80
lawful ob+ects of treaties for example.
*us o!ens and ?
3
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
9/80
3pplied in =
w"en $ino Bel!ian 'reat of 1G;< was denunciated b "ina citin! c"an!ed circumstances.
Nationalit Decrees ase = Arance said establis"ment of Arenc" protectorate over 8orocco
extin!uis"es some 3n!lo Arenc" 'reaties . Britain said Arance was resortin! to 5$$.
Ais"eries *urisdiction ase 1F: = I* reco!ni#es doctrine of 5$$ as a customar rule of Int Law.
ites two necessar conditions= Pendin! obli!ations s"ould "ave been increased so muc" t"at essentiall different from t"e
ori!inal ones.
No automatic termination. nl confers a ri!"t to call for termination. If disputed must be
submitted for arbitrationK court
5efused in Aree #ones case since function law is to enforce contracts of treaties even w"en t"e
become burden some on parties
Doctrine is controversial but man times +ustified and necessar for vital interests and even survival
of nations. $"ould be clearl defined and used wit"in narrow limits.
Invalidation of 'reaties
Per 3rt H;
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
10/80
a!ainst Nicara!ua )& ustomar rules can still exist and be applied b courts. Basic principles suc"
as Non ,se of Aorce& non Intervention& respect for terr inte!rit of anot"er& freedom of navi!ation
still bind as customar int law. Nort" $ea case clearl reco!ni#es existence of identical rules in
treat as well as customar law. Bot" can repeal K supersede eac" ot"er law of sea saw repeal of
four 2eneva onventions b ustomar Laws before final codification into ,NL$ 1FG4..
Essentiall bot" a!reements of sub+ects of int law. 5einforce eac" ot"er K supplement. But treat
superior if conflict ( $$ 0ibledon& 1F4:& I* )
4.1.4 International ustom
DevelopmentK Aormation of a ustom
a) ustom and ,sa!e
,sa!e are actions often repeated. '"e become a ustom if ac7uire t"e force of "abit under a
conviction t"at t"e are ri!"t and le!al. $o& custom is usa!e w"ic" "as force of law. 0"ile usa!e is
an international "abit w"ic" "as not et received t"e force of law.
ustom be!ins w"ere usa!e ends. 5epeated usa!e leads to expectations of similar be"avior in
same circumstances. But w"en t"is usa!e !ets reco!nition of various states in t"eir relations wit"
eac" ot"er so as to become ri!"t K obli!ation t"en suc" usa!e becomes ustom . bli!ation arises
from fear of enforcement before t"e courts.
,sa!e ma not lead to ustom. Aactors suc" as $tate interest& "istorical vents etc also add in.
,sa!e converts into custom due conduct of $tate at Diplomatic K Int Levels& forei!n polic
documents& speec"es& positions at for a suc" as ,N& I* . 3nd domesticall decisions in local courts&
tribunals etc.
'rue 'est is t"at "e ,sa!e must !et t"e common consent of cvilised nationsor !eneal consensus of
opinion.
Duration of less important now since comm. Aaster. ,nanimous opinion better indication.
b) ustom "as to be accepted as Law t"at is pinio *uris et Necessitatis
'"is is w"en $tates feel t"at t"e are actin! per law.
$o& acts s"ould be evidence of belief t"at practice is obli!ator b existence of law re7uirin! it
( Nort" $ea ont $"elf ase )
ustomar 5ules ma also be !enerated b treat ( Nort" $ea case )
(1) Lotus ase ( Arance vs 'ur%e )& PI*& $er. 3& No. 1 (1F4)
ollusion $"ips G 'ur%men passed awa riminal case in 'ur%e a!ainst aptain of Lotus
Arance contended +urisdiction customar rule of intl law !rantin! exclusive criminal +urisdiction to
t"e $tate t"e fla! of w"ic" a vessel is flin! court "eld no suc" customar rule was estb beco#
/opinio +uris/ cud nt be proved Even if facts b france were true t"at wud merel s"ow abstinence
and not obli!ation t"erefore no dut to abstain t"erefore eac" state could excercise +urisdictionw.r.t t"e incident Decision J no rule of intl law in r!d to collision cases to t"e effect t"t criminal
proceedin!s were exclusivel wit"in t"e +urisdiction of t"t $tate w"ose fla! t"e s"ip ws flin! 9
t"rfr eac" state cud exercise +urisdiction
omments Lotus ase demonstrates pinio *uris essential fr creation of a new customar rule of
intl law in t"e lotus case even if states "d refrained frm exercisin! +urisdiction ovr crimes
committed on "i!" seas in deference to t"e fla! states& t"e frenc" !ov ws unable to prove t"t
$tates acted in t"is manner frm a sense of le!al obli!ation +ud!ement critici#ed in so far as it
implies t"t intl law permits all it does nt forbid
Lotus case overruled b 2eneva onvention on Law of $ea& 1F
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
11/80
(4) Nort" $ea ontinental $"elf ases& I* 5ep. 1F;F& p. :
oncept of pposabilit
In a dispute between two $tates& 3 and B& w"ere $tate 3 supports its case b reference to some
principle or institution& $tate B ma see% to invo%e& i.e. oppose as a!ainst $tate 3& eit"er a
particular institution or re!ime under $tate B/s domestic law& or& on a different level& t"e terms ofsome !eneral or particular convention or treat& alle!in! t"at t"is is to prevail over t"e principle or
institution relied on b $tate 3.
0"et"er t"e case of $tate 3 is or is not tenable will turn -on w"at is said to be t"e -opposabilit-
(opposabilite) in law to $tate 3 of t"e institution& re!ime& or treat set up b $tate B.
$tate B will succeed ( if no treat ) onl if t"e Domestic Law cited b it is in accord wit" Int Law.
But if $tate B is proceedin! under a treat olitbli!ation& $tate 3 "as to be a si!nator to t"at treat
for BSs claim to "old.
In t"e Nort" $ea ontinental $"elf ase& t"e 7uestion was w"et"er t"e provisions of an
international convention& namel 3rticle ; of t"e 2eneva onvention on t"e ontinental $"elf&
containin! t"e e7uidistance rule for t"e delimitation of a continental s"elf common to ad+acent
countries& were opposable to t"e 2erman Aederal 5epublic& visavis Denmar% and t"e
Net"erlands& w"ere t"e 2erman Aederal 5epublic/s case was& broadl spea%in!& t"at& in t"e absence
of an a!reed division& demarcation s"ould be carried out accordin! to e7uitable principles. '"e
point was also raised incidentall in t"e cases w"et"er& apart from 3rticle ; of t"e onvention&
unilateral acts or bilateral treaties applin! t"e e7uidistance rule to t"e delimitation of common
continental s"elves& ot"er
t"an to t"e Nort" $ea continental s"elf& were opposable to t"e 2erman Aederal 5epublic.
In t"e result& neit"er t"e provisions of 3rticle ; of t"e onvention nor unilateral acts or treaties
applin! t"e e7uidistance rule were "eld opposable.
(:) 5i!"t of Passa!e over Indian territor (8erits) (Portu!al vs India)& I* 5ep. 1F; p. ;
Issue= 5t of portu!al to send its nationals 9 militar t"rou!" t"e Indian territorT ,ntil 1F
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
12/80
suspended all passa!e in 1F
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
13/80
Aor e! Pacta $unt $ervanda.
an also be derived from 8unicipal Laws if universal acceptance and no conflict wit" int law. Not
automatic 0orld ourt to reco!ni#e first per above parameters
Examples =
1) 5es *udicata = once +udiciall decided& absolute bar to action wrt same claimase G G. 3dvisor pinion of I* on t"e Effect of 3wards of ompensation made b t"e ,nited
Nations 3dministrative 'ribunal & 1Fe also carries t"e obli!ations alon!wit" of
existin!a!reements. .Palestine oncsessions ase = 8 !ot some concessions from ttoman
3ut"orities for some worls done. Britain too% from Palestine but doesnOaccept t"is concession. >eld
it s"ould since suc" concessions were valid.
H) Estoppel ( preclusion )
Prea" ?i"ar case ( 1F;4 ) = No benefit from own wron!. If a part b attitudeK actions ta%es a stand
contrar to ri!"ts it is claimin! & it is precluded from suc" claim.
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
14/80
() 3dvisor opinion of I* on t"e effect of 3wards of ompensation made b t"e ,nited Nations
3dministrative 'ribunal& 1F
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
15/80
also expressed in man national and subnational arbitration laws& for example s. 44 of t"e
ommercial 3rbitration 3ct 1FGH (N$0).
n t"e ot"er "and& t"e constituent treat of t"e EritreaEt"iopia laims ommission explicitl
forbids t"is bod to interpret ex ae7uo et bono
4.4 t"er sources of intl law
4.4.1 5esolution of 2eneral 3ssembl
3fter ,N formed& most int law dev and codification "as been t"ru itOs or!anisations. $o v. important
source.
5esolutions of 23 are not of le!al c"aracterK not bindin!. But if adopted unanimouslK ;;.;; X
ma+orit and mentioned in man ot"er subse7uent ones it is important as !ive rise to pinio *uris.
8an cases s"ow 23 announcements can be !iven le!al effect but important to consider t"e number
of states& t"eir interest& position in t"e resolution and subse7uent positions.
23 resolutions concernin! internal wor%in! of ,N are bindin!. 3lso& an state votin! in favor of a
resolution is bound b it but for t"ose opposin! it is onl indicative of w"at could be used b t"e Int
ourt as a subsidiar means.
0estern $tates feel resolutions are one of t"e element to ma%e a customar rule& provided ot"er
practices confirm. '"ird 0orld sas since representative of Int 0ill& suc" resolutions b t"emselves
form custom and declare !eneral principles of law. $ince suc" resolutions are based upon e7uit&
welfare of all etc and "ave ma+orit basis t"e well elaborate and develop Int Law to present
needs. Aor e! self determination& self defence& no force use in int relations etc.. $ome li%e ,niv
Declaration of >uman 5i!"ts& 1FHG& Declaration on Pro"ibition Nuclear 0eapons 1F;1 & Declaration
on Permanent $overei!nt over Natural 5esources 1F;4 are clearl of law ma%in! c"aracter. '"e
can also become t"e source of ,niversal Int Law Int onvention on 3part"eid& 1F: and Int.
onvention on 2enocide etc
4.4.4 5esolution of $ecurit ouncil
3 ,nited Nations $ecurit ouncil resolution is a ,N resolution adopted b t"e fifteen members of
t"e $ecurit ouncil t"e ,N bod c"ar!ed wit" -primar responsibilit for t"e maintenance of
international peace and securit-.
'"e ,N "arter specifies (in 3rticle 4) t"at a draft resolution on nonprocedural matters is
adopted if nine or more of t"e fifteen ouncil members vote for t"e resolution& and if it is not
vetoed b an of t"e five permanent members. Draft resolutions on -procedural matters- can be
adopted on t"e basis of an affirmative vote b an nine ouncil members.
'"e five permanent members are t"e People/s 5epublic of "ina (w"ic" replaced t"e 5epublic of
"ina in 1F1)& Arance& t"e 5ussian Aederation (w"ic" replaced t"e defunct $oviet ,nion in 1FF1)
t"e ,nited in!dom& and t"e ,nited $tates.
4.4.: 3dvisor pinions of PI* and I*
(1) 3dvisor pinion of I* on t"e Le!alit of t"e '"reat or ,se of Nuclear 0eapons& :<
International Le!al 8aterials GF (1FF;)
n 1< December 1FFH t"e ,N 2eneral 3ssembl adopted resolution 3K5E$KHFK
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
16/80
'"e resolution& submitted to t"e ourt on 1F December 1FFH& was adopted b G states votin! in
favour& H: a!ainst& :G abstainin! and 4; not votin!.
ourt/s analsis of ille!alit of nuclear weapons
Deterrence and -t"reat-
'"e le!alit of t"e possession of nuclear weapons
Decision '"e court undertoo% seven separate votes& all of w"ic" were passed=V1:W
'"e court decided to compl wit" t"e re7uest for an advisor opinionV;W
'"e court replied t"at -'"ere is in neit"er customar nor conventional international law an
specific aut"ori#ation of t"e t"reat or use of nuclear weapons-V1HW
'"e court replied t"at -'"ere is in neit"er customar nor conventional international law an
compre"ensive and universal pro"ibition of t"e t"reat or use of nuclear weapons as suc"-V1owever& in view of t"e current state of international law& and of t"e elements
of fact at its disposal& t"e ourt cannot conclude definitivel w"et"er t"e t"reat or use of nuclear
weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of selfdefence& in w"ic" t"e ver
survival of a $tate would be at sta%e-V1GW
'"e court replied t"at -'"ere exists an obli!ation to pursue in !ood fait" and brin! to a conclusion
ne!otiations leadin! to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control-
(11) 3dvisor pinion of I* on Namibia& I* 5ep. 1F1& p& 1;
$out"0est 3frica (3fri%aans= $uidwes3fri%a 2erman= $Ydwestafri%a) was t"e name t"at was used
for t"e modern da 5epublic of Namibia durin! t"e earlier eras w"en t"e territor was controlled b
t"e 2erman Empire and later b $out" 3frica.
2erman colon 3s a 2erman colon from 1GGH& it was %nown as 2erman $out"0est 3frica
(Deutsc"$Ydwestafri%a). 2erman "ad a difficult time administerin! t"e territor& w"ic"& owin! to
t"e 2ermans/ native polic& experienced man insurrections& especiall t"ose led b !uerilla leader
*acob 8oren!a. '"e main port& 0alvis Ba& and t"e Pen!uin islands "ad been annexed b Britain as
part of t"e ape olon in 1GG& and became part of t"e ,nion of $out" 3frica in 1F1.
3s part of t"e >eli!olandQan#ibar 'reat in 1GF& a corridor of land ta%en from t"e nort"ern border
of Bec"uanaland& extendin! as far as t"e Qambe#i river& was added to t"e colon. It was named t"e
aprivi $trip (aprivi#ipfel) after t"e 2erman "ancellor Leo von aprivi.V1W
Durin! 1F1
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
17/80
3frica& includin! 0alvis Ba.
,N trust territor
'"e 8andate was supposed to become a ,nited Nations 'rust 'erritor w"en Lea!ue of Nations
8andates were transferred to t"e ,nited Nations followin! t"e $econd 0orld 0ar. '"e ,nion of
$out" 3frica ob+ected to $out"0est 3frica comin! under ,N control and refused to allow t"eterritor/s transition to independence& re!ardin! it as a fift" province (even t"ou!" it was never
formall incorporated into $out" 3frica)
International law
'"ese $out" 3frican actions !ave rise to several rulin!s at t"e International ourt of *ustice& w"ic"
in 1F
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
18/80
(14) 3dvisor pinion of I* in 0estern $a"ara ase& I* 5ep.. 1Famra and 5io De ro and
several ot"er re!ions (8auritania& part of 3l!eria 9 part of 8ali) coloni#ed b Arance. Durin! t"e
1F;s& 8orocco succeeded in !ettin! $panis" $a"ara to be listed on t"e list of territories to be
decoloni#ed& and on December 4& 1F;;& ,nited Nations 2eneral 3ssembl 5esolution 444F called
on $pain to "old a referendum on selfdetermination in t"e re!ion.
3fter initiall resistin! all claims b 8orocco and 8auritania (w"ic" also started lain! claims to
parts of t"e re!ion)& $pain announced on 3u!ust 4& 1FH& t"at a referendum on selfdetermination
would be "eld in t"e first six mont"s of 1F< and too% a census of t"e re!ion in order to assess t"e
votin! population.
8orocco declared it cannot accept a referendum w"ic" would include an option for independence
and renewed its demands for t"e reinte!ration of t"e remainin! provinces of $a!uia el>amra and
5io de ro to t"e countr/s soverei!nt. In 8auritania& a smaller movement existed to overta%e
some amount of t"e territor& partitionin! it wit" 8orocco.
3l!erian8oroccan relations "ad been strained since 3l!eria/s independence in 1F;4& culminatin! in
t"e $and war& and a lac% of normali#ed relations. 3l!eria& after initiall supportin! 8orocco and
8auritania in t"eir demandsVcitation neededW& started in 1F< to support t"e independence of t"e
territor. '"e 3l!erian official position was t"at it supported t"e ri!"t of selfdetermination of t"e
people of t"e former $panis" colon. '"e Polisario Aront& created in 1F:& a national liberation
movement %nown as Polisario ($panis"= -Arente Popular de Liberaci[n de $a!uia el>amra 5\o de
ro- En!lis"= -Popular Aront for t"e Liberation of $a!uia el>amra and 5io de ro-) was formed in
1F: to expel t"e $paniards. '"e en!a!ed in several lowlevel acts of propert destruction& mostl
locali#ed around t"e Aosbucraa conveor belt& w"ic" exported t"e ric" p"osp"ates to t"e 3tlantic
cean.
n $eptember 1& 1FH& in! >assan II announced "is intention to brin! t"e issue to t"e I*. In
December& $pain a!reed to dela t"e referendum pendin! t"e opinion of t"e court. '"e !ave t"eir
support to I* submission on t"e !rounds t"at it be a nonbindin!& advisor opinion& rat"er t"an a
-contentious issue-& w"ere t"e rulin! would obli!e t"e interested states to act in a particular
manner.
n December 1:& t"e ,nited Nations 2eneral 3ssembl voted on submission& resultin! in ,N 2eneral
3ssembl 5esolution :4F4& affirmin! it and definin! t"e wordin! of t"e 7uestions to be submitted.
3l!eria was amon! t"e nations votin! in favor& and several '"ird 0orld nations abstained.
$ubmission
,N 2eneral 3ssembl 5esolution :4F4V4W re7uested t"at t"e International ourt !ive an advisor
opinion on t"e followin! 7uestions=
=I. 0as 0estern $a"ara (5\o de ro and $a%iet El >amra) at t"e time of coloni#ation b $pain a
territor belon!in! to no one (terra nullius)T
3nd& s"ould t"e ma+orit opinion be -no-& t"e followin! would be addressed=
=II. 0"at were t"e le!al ties between t"is territor and t"e in!dom of 8orocco and t"e8auritanian entitT
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
19/80
In t"e meantime& 8orocco and 8auritania +ointl a!reed to not contest t"e issue of partition or
soverei!nt. n *anuar 1;& 1Fassan II and $pain. 3l!eria& 8auritania&
8orocco& and $pain were all !iven permission to present evidence at t"e "earin!s (t"e Polisario was
loc%ed out as onl internationall reco!ni#ed states "ave a ri!"t to spea% 3l!eria lar!el
represented t"e $a"rawis). 'wentseven sessions were "eld in *une and *ul before t"e ourt
called t"e proceedin!s final.
'"e ar!uments presented b 8orocco and 8auritania were essentiall similar= t"at eit"er one "ad a
soverei!n ri!"t over t"e territor. In t"e case of 8orocco& t"e %in!dom of 8orocco claimed t"e
alle!iance of a variet of tribes in surroundin! territor. '"e modern 8oroccan monarc" is derived
from t"is %in!domVcitation neededW. In t"e case of 8auritania& t"ere was no clearl defined state
t"at existed at t"e time. Instead& 8auritania ar!ued t"at a similar entit existed w"ic" t"e called
-bilad "in!uetti-. $pain ar!ued a!ainst 8oroccan soverei!nt& citin! t"e relations"ip t"at $panis"
explorers and coloni#ers "ad establis"ed wit" t"e sultan& none of w"ic" ever reco!ni#ed "is
aut"orit over t"e re!ion. 3l!eria also defended t"e position t"at t"e $a"rawis were a distinct
peopleVcitation neededW& and not under t"e sub+ection of 8orocco or 8auritania.
'"e pinion
n ctober 1
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
20/80
'"e court delivered its advisor opinion on 44 *ul 41 b a vote of 1 to H& it declared t"at -t"e
declaration of independence of t"e 1 Aebruar 4G did not violate !eneral international law
because international law contains no /pro"ibition on declarations of independence/.-V4W '"ere were
man reactions to t"e decision& wit" most countries t"at alread reco!nise osovo "ailin! t"e
decision and sain! it was -uni7ue- and does not set a precedent w"ile most countries t"at do not
reco!nise osovo said t"e would not be doin! so as t"e rulin! could set a precedent of endorsin!secession in ot"er places.
5ulin!
n 44 *ul 41& t"e court ruled t"at osovo/s declaration of independence was not in violation of
international law.V11
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
21/80
Ever state decides for itself& accordin! to its le!al traditions. International law onl re7uires t"at
its rules are respected& and states are free to decide on t"e manner in w"ic" t"e want to respect
t"ese rules and ma%e t"em bindin! on its citi#ens and a!encies. But t"e are alwas accountable if
t"e fail to adapt t"eir national le!al sstem in a wa t"at t"e can respect international law.
'"e problem of lex posteriorCIn dualist systems, international law must be translated into national law, and
existing national law that contradicts international law must be "translated
away". It must be modifed or eliminated in order to conorm to international law.
However, the need or translation in dualist system causes a problem with regard
to
tional laws voted ater the act o translation. In a monist sstem& a national law t"at is
voted after an international law "as been accepted and t"at contradicts t"e international law&
becomes automaticall null and void at t"e moment it is voted. '"e international rule continues to
prevail. In a dualist sstem& "owever& t"e ori!inal international law "as been translated into
national law if all went well but t"is national law can t"en be overridden b anot"er nationallaw on t"e principle of -lex posterior dero!at le!i priori-& t"e later law replaces t"e earlier one.
'"is means t"at t"e countr willin!l or unwillin!l violates international law. 3 dualist sstem
re7uires continuous screenin! of all subse7uent national law for possible incompatibilit wit"
earlier international law.
3.2 ractice o !tates
India#dualist$, re%uires ratifcation o intl law & treaties ' intl rules are considered
in customary laws but incase o con(ict between national & intl law the national
law prevails #)ustice *hinnappa +eddy in -ramophone *ompany o India td vs
/irendra /ahadur andey$ ' 0irective principles 1rticle does ac4nowledge intl
law 9 does direct India to strive to implement +ust "onorable intl laws dut of t"e $tate to appl
t"em in ma%in! laws but Directive Principles cannot be enforced in a court of +ustice
,(dualist)& In t"e ,nited in!dom& t"e common law reco!nises customar international law as a
direct source of rules in municipal law.V1W
>owever& t"e law adopts a SdualistO stance in respect of treaties^& includin! "uman ri!"ts treaties=
t"e "ave no direct effect in national law in t"e absence of le!islation to transform t"em into rules
of t"e municipal le!al order. '"is dualism is 7ualified b t"e fact t"at courts will often use treaties
as aids in decidin! 7uestions of municipal law& albeit not as a source of law in t"eir own ri!"t.
,$3(8ixed monodualist)
'"e ,nited $tates of 3merica "as a -mixed- monistdualist sstem international law applies directl
in ,$ courts in some instances but not ot"ers. ,$ onstitution& art. ?I& does indeed sa t"at treaties
are part of t"e $upreme Law of t"e Land& as su!!ested b t"e 7uote above "owever& its $upreme
ourt& as late as t"e recent case of 8edell\n v. 'exas&VW "as restated t"at some treaties are not
-selfexecutin!.- $uc" treaties must be implemented b statute before t"eir provisions ma be
!iven effect b national and subnational courts. $imilarl wit" re!ard to customar international
law& its $upreme ourt stated& in t"e case of t"e Pac7uete >abana (1F)& t"at -international law is
part of our law.- >owever& it also said t"at international law would not be applied if t"ere is a
controllin! le!islative& executive& or +udicial act to t"e contrar. 2eneral rule is t"t if conflict btw
treat 9 national law w"ic" ever is on a later date will prevail.
(1H) In 5e Berubari ,nion No. (I)& 3I5 1F; $ GH
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
22/80
in Berubari ,nion ase No 1 it ws "eld t"t an a!reement involvin! cessation of part of Indian
territor to Pa%istan re7uired amendment to t"e onstitution "ence le!islative enactment is
neccessar.
(1
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
23/80
t"e $tate of 'amil Nadu $t to implement t"ese sc"emes exp met frm EPA(env pro fund)
(viii) losure orders fr tanneries to reopen wit" pollution control devices failin! to compl J
permanent closure
(ix) Direct $P& oll& D8& D of said districts to close tanneries wit" imm effct w"o fail to obtain
consent frm board
(x) 2ovt rder no new industries in pro"ibited area old industries to be reviewed b aut" 9relocated
(xi) standards stipuated b t"e Board re!ardin! total dissolved solids ('D$) and approved b t"e
NEE5I s"all be operative all tanneries situated in 'N to compl '"e 7ualit of ambient waters
"as to be maintained t"rou!" t"e standards stipulated b t"e Board.
(4) ?is"a%a vs $tate of 5a+& 3I5 1FF $ :11= ; $ 4H1r
$ used articles of onvention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination a!ainst 0omen to la down
!uidelines bindin! as law till t"e time re7uired le!islations was not in place
(41) 2aurav *ain vs ,oI 9 rs& 3I5 1FF $ :41
(44) I' vs P.?.3.L ulanda!an "ettiar (4H) ; $ 4:<
Issues in frnt of $ (man ot"r issues covered b >)
(a) 0"et"er t"e 8alasian income cannot be sub+ected to tax in India in t"e basis of t"e a!reement
of avoidance of double taxation entered into between 2overnment of India and 2overnment of
8alasia T
(b) 0"et"er t"e capital !ains s"ould be taxable onl in t"e countr in w"ic" t"e assets are situatedT
'reat provisions prevail over local provisions
'"e 3pex ourt in I' v. P ? 3 L ulanda!an "ettiar (4H) 1:'3ZH; in t"e context of a person
maintainin! residence in India as well as 8alasia and derivin! business incomes in 8alasia& "eld
t"at a liabilit to tax arisin! under t"e provisions of section H and < of t"e Income tax 3ct& 1F;1
w"ic" provide for taxation of !lobal income of an assessee c"ar!eable to tax& t"ere under& is
sub+ect to t"e provisions of an a!reement entered into between "e entral 2overnment and t"e
2overnment of a forei!n countr for avoidance of double taxation as envisa!ed under section F .
$uc" an a!reement will act as an exception to or modification of section H and
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
24/80
H.1 Basis of International 5esponsibilit
'"e laws of state responsibilit are t"e principles !overnin! w"en and "ow a state is "eld
responsible for a breac" of an international obli!ation. 5at"er t"an set fort" an particular
obli!ations& t"e rules of state responsibilit determine& in !eneral& w"en an obli!ation "as been
breac"ed and t"e le!al conse7uences of t"at violation. In t"is wa t"e are -secondar- rules t"at
address basic issues of responsibilit and remedies available for breac" of -primar- or substantiverules of international law& suc" as wit" respect to t"e use of armed force. Because of t"is
!eneralit& t"e rules can be studied independentl of t"e primar rules of obli!ation. '"e
establis"
(1) t"e conditions for an act to 7ualif as internationall wron!ful&
(4) t"e circumstances under w"ic" actions of officials& private individuals and ot"er entities ma be
attributed to t"e state&
(:) !eneral defences to liabilit and (H) t"e conse7uences of liabilit.
,ntil recentl& t"e t"eor of t"e law of state responsibilit was not well developed. '"e position
"as now c"an!ed& wit" t"e adoption of t"e Draft 3rticles on t"e 5esponsibilit of $tates for
Internationall 0ron!ful 3cts (-Draft 3rticles-) b t"e International Law ommission (IL) in 3u!ust
41.V1W '"e Draft 3rticles are a combination of codification and pro!ressive development. '"e
"ave alread been cited b t"e International ourt of *usticeV4W and "ave !enerall been well
received.
3lt"ou!" t"e articles are !eneral in covera!e& t"e do not necessaril appl in all cases. Particular
treat re!imes& suc" as t"e 2eneral 3!reement on 'ariffs and 'rade and t"e European onvention
on >uman 5i!"ts& "ave establis"ed t"eir own special rules of responsibilit.
(4H) orfu "annel ase& I* 5ep. 1FHF& p. H
I* did nt express an opinion on ri!"t of passa!e of wars"ips t"rou!" territorial sea. It limited its
observations to t"e case of /straits/ "owever some +ud!es in t"eir dissentin! views made obsrvtns
on t"e issue of innocent passa!e of wars"ips. *ud!e 3lvare# felt t"t since war "d been outlawed in
t"e ,N "arter& t"e mission of wars"ips can onl be to secure t"e le!itimate defence of countries
to w"ic" t"e belon!. *ud!e rlov ar!ued t"t t"r ws no ri!"t of innocent passa!e t"rou!"
territorial sea. *ud!e 3#evedo said t"t position of wars"ips in respect of passa!e ws different frm
t"t of merc"ant s"ips.
Intl Law ommission "d proposed t"t a $tate mi!"t ma%e innocent passa!e of wars"ips sub+ect to
prior aut"orisation or notification& but t"e $tate s"ld normall !rant innocent passa!e. In 1FGF ,$ 9
,$$5 made an important +t stmnt t"t /3ll s"ips& incl wars"ips& en+o t"e ri!"t of innocent passa!e
t"rou!" t"e territorial sea in accordance wit" intl law& fr w"ic" neit"er prior notification nor
aut"orisation is re7uired/. >owever its a +t stmnt made b two states 9 nt bindin! on ot"r states.
(4
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
25/80
t"e complaint from t"e court in $eptember 1FF4 (under t"e later& postA$LN& !overnment of ?ioleta
"amorro)& followin! a repeal of t"e law re7uirin! t"e countr to see% compensation.V:W
'"e ourt found in its verdict t"at t"e ,nited $tates was -in breac" of its obli!ations under
customar international law not to use force a!ainst anot"er $tate-& -not to intervene in its affairs-&
-not to violate its soverei!nt-& -not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce-& and -in breac" ofits obli!ations under 3rticle ZIZ of t"e 'reat of Ariends"ip& ommerce and Navi!ation between t"e
Parties si!ned at 8ana!ua on 41 *anuar 1Fowever Part II of t"e Draft ode(ontent of t"e Intl 5esp of a $tate) mentions dama!e as le!al
conse7uences of an internationall wron!ful act. 3rt :1 provides t"t resp $tate is under an
obli!ation to ma%e full reparation fr t"e in+ur caused b suc" an act. In+ur includes an dama!e
w"tr material or moral caused b suc" act.
H.4.4 Aault '"eor
Principle of sub+ective resp emp"asised an element of intentional or ne!li!ent conduct on part of
t"e person concerned is neccessar before "is $tate can be rendered liable fr an in+ur caused
t"is view "olds t"t presence of malice or culpable ne!li!ence is a condition precedent. In orfu
"annel case court ws concerned wit" 3lbania/s %nowld!e of t"e lain! of mines 9 t"e 7uestion of
prima facie resp fr an unlawful act committed wit"in t"e territor of t"e $tate concerned &irrespective of attribution. ourt did not reac" its conclusion b an en7uir into t"e mental state of
individual or!an or a!ent of t"e albanian !ovt.
Diff to base $tate/s liabilit on fault orfu "annel case >ome 8issionar $ociet laim& tribunal
noted t"t it ws estb in inl law t"t no !ovt ws resp fr t"e acts of rebels w"r it itself ws !uilt of no
breac" of !ood fait" or of no ne!li!ence in suppressin! t"e revolt.
H.4.: 3bsolute Liabilit and 5is% '"eor
Establis"es t"e liabilit of $tates arisin! out of t"e performance of certain activities w"ic" are
lawful but create serious ris%s& suc" as spatial 9 nuclear activities. >owever principle of ris% is not
applied as a !eneral principle of responsibilit but in circumstances 9 conditions w"ic" are clearldefined in intl conventions. E! t"e principle of strict liabilit finds application in t"e onvention on
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
26/80
Intl Liabilit fr Dama!e aused b $pace b+ects& 1F1 ,nder it a launc"in! $tate is absolutel
liable to pa compensation fr dama!e caused b its space ob+ects on t"e surface of t"e eart" or to
aircrafts in fli!"t. 3 series of treaties "ave establis"ed a re!ime of strict liabilit fr in+urious
conse7uences arisin! out of peaceful uses of nuclear ener!.
H.: '"e 3ct of $tate (5ules of 3ttribution)
Imposin! upon t"e $tate absolute liabilit w"rever an official is involved encoura!es t"t $tate to
exercise !rGr control over its various depts and reps. 3lso stimulates moves towrds complin! wit"
ob+ective stds of conduct in intl relations.
Imp to note t"t $t is nt resp under intl law fr all acts perfrmed b its nationals if an En!lis"man
were to attac% 9 in+ure a frenc"man on "olida in London& t"e , wud nt be "eld liable fr t"e
in+ur caused unless t"e offender were a policeman or a soldier in ,. 3 $t is resp onl fr acts of its
servnts t"t r imputable or attributable to it imputabilit is t"e le!al fiction w"ic" assimilates t"e
actions or omisions of $t officials to t"e $tate itself 9 w"ic" renders t"e $tate liable fr dama!e
resultin! to t"e propert or person of an alien.
_ouman/s case 8exican militia ordered to protect 3merican citi#ens instead +oin t"e riot in w"ic"
t"e 3mericans were %illed 8exican 2ovt ws "eld liable even t"ou!" t"e defaultin! soldiers
disobeed t"e orders of t"eir superiors
Incase act is completel ultra vires (beond le!al capacit of t"e official involved) no attribution of
liabilit arises. 0"en an incumbent $tate a!enc commits an ultra vires act it cannot be said to
"ave acted on be"alf of t"e $tate But a $tate ma become resp fr t"e wron!s if suc" wron!s were
made possible b t"e omission or default of some ot"er official or $tate or!an w"ic" could "ave
prevented t"e occurence of t"e offence. $tate ma incur an indirect resp arisin! out of an ultra
vires act.
(4;) La2rand ase (2erman vs ,$3) I* 5eports 41& p. H;;
'"e La2rand case was a le!al action "eard before t"e International ourt of *ustice (I*) w"ic"
concerned t"e ?ienna onvention on onsular 5elations. In t"e case t"e I* found t"at its own
temporar court orders were le!all bindin! and t"at t"e ri!"ts contained in t"e convention could
not be denied b t"e application of domestic le!al procedures.
2erman Nationals La 2rand bros armed robber J ban% one man %illed& woman seriousl in+ured
arrested tried sentenced to deat" no consular assistance acc to ?ienna onvention s"ld "v
been informed of t"eir ri!"t to consular assistance later on contacted t"e 2erman consulate
appealed t"eir sentences ar!ued in court t"at t"e were nt informed of consular assistance
federal court re+ected t"eir ar!uments on !rnds of procedural default issue cannot be raised in
federal court unless t"e "ave been raised in $tate
Bac%!round
n *anuar & 1FG4& brot"ers arl and 0alter Bern"ard La2rand bun!led an armed ban% robber in
8arana& 3ri#ona& ,nited $tates& %illin! a man and severel in+urin! a woman in t"e process. '"e
were subse7uentl c"ar!ed and convicted of murder and sentenced to deat". '"e La2rands were
2erman nationals& "avin! been born in 2erman. 0"ile t"e "ad bot" lived in t"e ,nited $tates
since t"e were four and five& respectivel& neit"er "ad ac7uired ,.$. citi#ens"ip. 3s forei!ners t"e
La2rands s"ould "ave been informed of t"eir ri!"t to consular assistance& under t"e ?ienna
onvention& from t"eir state of nationalit& 2erman. >owever t"e 3ri#ona aut"orities failed to do
t"is even after t"e became aware t"at t"e La2rands were 2erman nationals. '"e La2rand
brot"ers later contacted t"e 2erman consulate of t"eir own accord& "avin! learned of t"eir ri!"t toconsular assistance. '"e appealed t"eir sentences and convictions on t"e !rounds t"at t"e were
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
27/80
not informed of t"eir ri!"t to consular assistance& and t"at wit" consular assistance t"e mi!"t
"ave been able to mount a better defense. '"e federal courts re+ected t"eir ar!ument on !rounds
of procedural default& w"ic" provides t"at issues cannot be raised in federal court appeals unless
t"e "ave first been raised in state courts.
Diplomatic efforts& includin! pleas b 2erman ambassador *Yr!en "robo! and 2erman 8ember ofParliament laudia 5ot"& and t"e recommendation of 3ri#ona/s clemenc board& failed to swa
3ri#ona 2overnor *ane Dee >ull& w"o insisted t"at t"e executions be carried out.V1W arl La2rand
was subse7uentl executed b t"e state of 3ri#ona on Aebruar 4H& 1FFF& b let"al in+ection. 0alter
La2rand was t"en executed 8arc" :& 1FFF& b let"al !as.V4W
'"e case
2erman t"en initiated le!al action in t"e International ourt of *ustice a!ainst t"e ,nited $tates
re!ardin! 0alter La2rand. >ours before 0alter La2rand was due to be executed& 2erman applied
for t"e ourt to !rant a provisional court order& re7uirin! t"e ,nited $tates to dela t"e execution
of 0alter La2rand& w"ic" t"e court !ranted.
2erman t"en initiated action in t"e ,.$. $upreme ourt for enforcement of t"e provisional order.
In its +ud!ment&V:W t"e ,.$. $upreme ourt "eld t"at it lac%ed +urisdiction wit" respect to
2erman/s complaint a!ainst 3ri#ona due to t"e elevent" amendment of t"e ,.$. constitution&
w"ic" pro"ibits federal courts from "earin! lawsuits of forei!n states a!ainst a ,.$. state. 0it"
respect to 2erman/s case a!ainst t"e ,nited $tates& it "eld t"at t"e doctrine of procedural default
was not incompatible wit" t"e ?ienna onvention& and t"at even if procedural default did conflict
wit" t"e ?ienna onvention it "ad been overruled b later federal law@t"e 3ntiterrorism and
Effective Deat" Penalt 3ct of 1FF;& w"ic" explicitl le!islated t"e doctrine of procedural default.
($ubse7uent federal le!islation overrides prior selfexecutin! treat provisions& 0"itne v.
5obertson& 14H ,.$. 1F (1GGG)).
'"e ,.$. $olicitor 2eneral sent a letter to t"e $upreme ourt& as part of t"ese proceedin!s& ar!uin!
t"at provisional measures of t"e International ourt of *ustice are not le!all bindin!. '"e ,nited
$tates Department of $tate also conveed t"e I*/s provisional measure to t"e 2overnor of 3ri#ona
wit"out comment. '"e 3ri#ona clemenc board recommended a sta to t"e !overnor& on t"e basis
of t"e pendin! I* case but t"e !overnor of 3ri#ona i!nored t"e recommendation and 0alter
La2rand was executed on 8arc" :& 1FFF. 3s of 41 t"is is t"e last use of let"al !as in t"e ,.$.&
alt"ou!" five states still permit its use in varin! circumstances.
2erman t"en modified its complaint in t"e case before t"e I*& alle!in! furt"ermore t"at t"e ,.$.
violated international law b failin! to implement t"e provisional measures. In opposition to t"e
2erman submissions& t"e ,nited $tates ar!ued t"at t"e ?ienna onvention did not !rant ri!"ts to
individuals& onl to states t"at t"e convention was meant to be exercised sub+ect to t"e laws ofeac" state part& w"ic" in t"e case of t"e ,nited $tates meant sub+ect to t"e doctrine of
procedural default and t"at 2erman was see%in! to turn t"e I* into an international court of
criminal appeal.
I* decision
n *une 4& 41& t"e I*& re+ectin! all of t"e ,nited $tates/ ar!uments& ruled in favor of 2erman.
'"e I* "eld t"at t"e ?ienna onvention on onsular 5elations of 4H 3pril 1F;: (?ienna onvention)
!ranted ri!"ts to individuals on t"e basis of its plain meanin!& and t"at domestic laws could not
limit t"e ri!"ts of t"e accused under t"e convention& but onl specif t"e means b w"ic" t"ose
ri!"ts were to be exercised. '"e I* also found t"at its own provisional measures were le!all
bindin!. '"e nature of provisional measures "as been a sub+ect of !reat dispute in internationallawVcitation neededW t"e En!lis" text of t"e $tatute of t"e International ourt of *ustice implies
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
28/80
t"e are not bindin!& w"ile t"e Arenc" text implies t"at t"e are. Aaced wit" a contradiction
between two e7uall aut"entic texts of t"e statute& t"e court considered w"ic" interpretation
better served t"e ob+ects and purposes of t"e statute& and "ence found t"at t"e are bindin!. '"is
was t"e first time in t"e court/s "istor it "ad ruled as suc".
'"e court also found t"at t"e ,nited $tates violated t"e ?ienna onvention t"rou!" its applicationof procedural default. '"e court was at pains to point out t"at it was not passin! +ud!ment on t"e
doctrine itself& but onl its application to cases involvin! t"e ?ienna onvention.
(4) ase concernin! 3vena and ot"er 8exican Nationals (8exico vs ,$3) I* 5eports 4H& p.14
8exico v. ,nited $tates of 3merica& formall 3vena and t"er 8exican Nationals& was a case before
t"e International ourt of *ustice (I*) of t"e ,nited Nations. It was decided on :1 8arc" 4H&
findin! t"at t"e ,nited $tates "ad breac"ed its obli!ations under t"e ?ienna onvention on
onsular 5elations in not allowin! representation from 8exico to meet wit" 8exican citi#ens
arrested and imprisoned for crimes in t"e ,nited $tates.
3n order indicatin! provisional measures in t"e case of 8r. *os` Ernesto 8edell\n 5o+as was entered
on 1; *ul 4G& and on 1F *anuar 4F t"e I* found t"at t"e ,nited $tates breac"ed its
obli!ations under t"e 1; *ul order& but also t"at t"e $tatute of t"e International ourt of *ustice
-does not allow it to consider possible violations of t"e *ud!ment w"ic" it is called upon to
interpret.
H.H International rimes and Delicts
Internationall wron!ful acts= 3ccordin! to t"e Draft 3rticles& an internationall wron!ful act must=
be attributable to t"e state under international law and
constitute a breac" of an international obli!ation of t"e state.V1W
3n internationall wron!ful act w"ic" results from t"e breac" b a $tate of an international
obli!ation so essential for t"e protection of fundamental interests of t"e international communit
t"at its breac" is reco!ni#ed as a crime b t"at communit as a w"ole constitutes an international
crime. n t"e basis of t"e rules of international law in force& an international crime ma result&
inter alia& from=
(a) a serious breac" of an international obli!ation of essential importance for t"e maintenance of
international peace and securit& suc" as t"at pro"ibitin! a!!ression
(b) a serious breac" of an international obli!ation of essential importance for safe!uardin! t"e ri!"t
of selfdetermination of peoples& suc" as t"at pro"ibitin! t"e establis"ment or maintenance b
force of colonial domination
(c) a serious breac" on a widespread scale of an international obli!ation of essential importance for
safe!uardin! t"e "uman bein!& suc" as t"ose pro"ibitin! slaver& !enocide and apart"eid
(d) a serious breac" of an international obli!ation of essential importance for t"e safe!uardin! andpreservation of t"e "uman environment& suc" as t"ose pro"ibitin! massive pollution of t"e
atmosp"ere or of t"e seas.
H. 3n internationall wron!ful act w"ic" is not an international crime in accordance wit"
para!rap" 4 constitutes an international delict.
H.< Aorms of 5eparation (reparation is replenis"ment of a previousl inflicted loss b t"e criminal to
t"e victim)
H.
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
29/80
state responsibilit. In t"is sense& restitution is one of t"e forms t"rou!" w"ic" a state ma
disc"ar!e its obli!ation to provide reparation for t"e "arm caused b its wron!ful acts. 8ore
precisel& t"e term is used& in international practice& in at least two senses. In t"e strict sense& it
si!nifies t"e return of unlawfull ta%en propert to t"e ori!inal owner. In t"e broad sense&
restitution (or& in its Latin version& restitutio in inte!rum) is t"e reestablis"ment& as far as
possible& of t"e situation t"at existed before a wron!ful act was committed.
3 broad consensus exists amon! t"e international communit preferrin! restitution over ot"er forms
of reparation under international law. '"is view is in line wit" t"e essential !oal of reparation&
w"ic"& accordin! to t"e Permanent ourt of International *ustice/s "oldin! in its famous "or#[w
Aactor decision (1F4G)& -must& so far as possible& wipe out all t"e conse7uences of t"e ille!al act
and reestablis" t"e situation w"ic" would& in all probabilit& "ave existed if t"at act "ad not been
committed.-
It follows t"at restitution"ic" most closel conforms to t"at !oals to be preferred over
compensation and ot"er forms of reparation w"enever possible& unless t"e in+ured part renounces
it. '"is primac of restitution "as been embedded in t"e articles on t"e responsibilit of states for
internationall wron!ful acts& adopted on second readin! b t"e ,nited Nations International Law
ommission (41). Even advocates of t"is primac& "owever& reco!ni#e t"at it is not unconditional&
and t"e accept t"at compensation s"ould be preferred at least w"en providin! restitution would&
in a situation involvin! two states& put a burden on t"e responsible state t"at is out of all
proportion to t"e correspondin! benefit for t"e in+ured state.
5estitution for 2ross >uman 5i!"ts ?iolations 3mountin! to 2enocide and rimes 3!ainst >umanit
3lt"ou!" t"ere is no reason for excludin! t"e primac of restitution wit" re!ard to !ross violations
of "uman ri!"ts& its usefulness ma be limited& in practice& b t"e specific tpe of "arm caused b
t"ese %inds of wron!s. In effect& !enocide and crimes a!ainst "umanit cause "arm& first and
foremost& to immaterial and uni7ue interests& suc" as di!nit& personal inte!rit& and libert. '"ese
cannot be restored to t"eir ori!inal status once t"e are impaired.
5estitution is most suitable and appropriate wit" re!ard to violations of propert ri!"ts& suc" as
ille!al or arbitrar expropriations. >owever& t"is does not mean t"at t"e role of restitution wit"
re!ard to crimes a!ainst "umanit is onl mar!inal. In fact& t"e most invasive attac%s on propert
are often lin%ed wit" !ross "uman ri!"ts violations. 2enocide& for instance& ma be accompanied b
t"e destruction of "ouses and t"e pilla!e of !oods. Aurt"ermore& t"e destruction& plunderin!& and
pilla!e of private propert can b t"emselves amount to crimes a!ainst "umanit or war crimes.
'"is ma occur& for example& w"en t"e dispossession or destruction is ac"ieved t"rou!" blatant
discriminator measures& or wit" t"e intent of persecutin! a !roup or a collectivit& or w"en it is
-committed b pressure of mass terror.- >owever& a number of practical and political factors ma
"inder t"e concrete possibilit for t"e victims to !et t"eir propert bac%. '"is is particularl true
wit" re!ard to two tpes of "i!"l politici#ed restitution claims= t"ose related to "istoricalin+ustices and t"ose connected wit" armed conflicts.
'"e former tpe of claim relates to serious impairments of "uman ri!"ts committed in a distant
past& at a time w"en t"e possibl did not even constitute a breac" of t"e existin! law. '"e
specificit of t"ese claims lies in t"e fact t"at t"e are ar!uabl based on moral !rounds& rat"er
t"an on t"e le!al responsibilit of t"e state involved. '"is is one of t"e reasons w" t"is tpe of
claim is !enerall dealt wit" in t"e framewor% of political settlements& rat"er t"an in t"e courts.
'"e "u!e lapse of time passed since t"e occurrence of t"e in+ur poses an additional ma+or
obstacle for restitution in t"ese cases. Properties are often destroed or no lon!er identifiable&
t"eir economical destination ma be irreversibl c"an!ed& or t"e ma "ave been transferred to
t"ird parties actin! in !ood fait". ,nder t"ese circumstances& restitution of full owners"ip is often
a virtuall impossible option. '"is situation is well illustrated b land restitution claims put forwardb indi!enous communities for "istorical dispossessions.
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
30/80
5estitution claims connected wit" armed conflicts are complicated b t"e fact t"at t"e
dispossessions often ta%e place in con+unction wit" et"nic cleansin! and land occupation wit" a
view to annexation. >ere& restitution ma still be materiall possible but politicall unrealistic&
particularl w"en it would mean t"e return of "u!e numbers of forcibl displaced persons to
territories t"at "ave passed under t"e control of t"e same !roup w"o forced t"em to flee. In t"is
context& propert restitution can "ardl be seen as an absolute !oal but needs to be reconciledwit" ot"er& concurrin! !oals& to be settled in t"e framewor% of political ne!otiation.
5estitution in t"e Aramewor% of International& 'reatBased *udicial 8ec"anisms for t"e Protection
of >uman 5i!"ts
'"e substantive dut to provide reparations is reinforced in t"e context of +udicial mec"anisms of
protection& w"ere international courts are vested wit" t"e power to ad+udicate bot" on t"e merits
of alle!ations and on remedies. '"e potential of remedies& "owever& ma be partl frustrated b
t"e courts t"emselves ifn t"e basis of a restrictive interpretation of t"eir remedial powers timid&
lowprofile approac" to reparation is ta%en. 3 7uite restrictive approac" is adopted& for instance&
b t"e European ourt of >uman 5i!"ts& w"ic" is !enerall reluctant to order specific remedies.
>owever& it seems to be more audacious w"en it comes to infrin!ements of propert ri!"ts. '"e
court "as occasionall ordered states to return unlawfull sei#ed properties to t"e former owners&
t"us affirmin! t"e primac of restitution. '"e fact remains& "owever& t"at even in propert cases&
t"e court is not alwas prepared to order reparation to ta%e place on t"e basis of restitution.
'"e Inter3merican ourt of >uman 5i!"ts& en+oin! broader remedial powers t"an its European
counterpart& "anded down a landmar% +ud!ment in 41 in t"e 3was 'in!ni case. '"e ourt found
t"at Nicara!ua "ad violated t"e ri!"ts to propert and +udicial protection of t"e members of t"e
8aa!na ($umo) communit of 3was 'in!ni& an indi!enous communit located on t"e forested area
of Nicara!ua/s aribbean coastal re!ion. Aor reparation& t"e ourt ordered t"e !overnment to ta%e
various measures to reco!ni#e& protect& and enforce t"e communit/s "istorical title on its ancestral
land and resources. 3lt"ou!" restitution was not an issue as suc"& t"e decision s"ows t"e potential
of "uman ri!"ts mec"anisms in cases of lar!escale operations of dispossession t"at affect w"ole
communities.
H.
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
31/80
H.
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
32/80
a!ue
Peace onference (1F) in t"e form adopted as t"e Porter onvention on t"e Limitation of t"e
Emploment of Aorce for t"e 5ecover of ontract Debts. 3lt"ou!" t"e ,nited $tates opposed
European intervention in t"e 3mericas& it reserved for itself t"e ri!"t& fre7uentl used& to intervene
wit" armed force in an Latin3merican state w"ere conditions seemed to menace ,.$. interests.
Le!alit of t"e clause in 7uestion man cases null 9 void Nort" 3mercia Dred!in! ompan ase
alvo clause ws "eld to be bindin on t"e claimant(alien) to be !overned b 8exican laws& sub+ect
to t"e condition t"t it cud nt ta%e frm "im /"is ri!"t to appl to "is own 2ovt fr protection if "is
resort to t"e 8exican tribunals or ot"er aut"orities available to "im resulted in a denial or dela of
+ustice as t"t term is used in intl law.
3ccordin! to $tar%e its ille!al 9 void to t"e extent it attempts to waive in !eneral t"e soverei!n
ri!"t of a $tate to protect its citi#ens or w"ere it purports to bind t"e claimant/s !ovt nt to
intervene in respect of clear violation of International Law
H.;.4 Position of $"are"olders and Nationalit of orporation
(4G) Barcelona 'raction& Li!"t and Power o. Ltd. ase & I* 5ep 1F;H& p. ;
B'LP incorp in anada 9 ws operatin! in spain. GGX s"are"olders were Bel!ian certain restriction
appld b $pain seriousl in+ured t"e compan In t"e ees of t"e law t"e compan ws of anadiannationalit& t"ou!" a ma+orit of t"e s"are"olders affected were Bel!ian nationals. Bel!ian !ovt
espoused t"e cause of its citi#ens as s"are"olders of t"e compan. I* bsrvd 9 "eld as follows =
(i) In municipal le!al sstem !enerall a compan(w"ose capital is represented b s"ares) en+os a
separate 9 independent corporate personalit visavis its s"are"olders. $o lon! as t"e compan is
in existence& a s"are"older "as no ri!"t to corporate assets. It is to rules !enerall accepted b
municipal le!al sstems 9 nt to municipal law of a particular $tate& t"t intl law refers
(ii) 8ere fact t"at dama!e sustained b bot" compan 9 s"are"olders does nt mean bot" are
entitled to compensation. 0"ile in case of compna t"eir ri!"ts are infrin!ed& in t"e case of t"e
s"are"olders& t"eir interests are affected. Latter must loo% to compan to institute appropriate
action.
(iii) $"ares of compan w"ose activit is intl are widel scattered 9 fre7 c"an!e "ands t"usadoption of t"e t"eor of diplomatic protection of s"are"olders as suc" b openin! door to
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
33/80
competin! diplomatic claims& cud create confusion 9 insecurit in intl economic relations t"rfr
onl t"e national state of a compan concerned ws entitled to exercise diplomatic proceedin!s fr
t"e purpose of see%in! redress fr t"e wron! done to t"e compan.
(iv) 0"en wron! done to compan wron!doer nt liable to s"are"olders& t"rfr $panis" state ws nt
liable to t"e Bel!ian s"are"olders t"e situation wud be different if t"e act complained of is aimed
at t"e direct ri!"ts to an declared dividend& ri!"t to attend 9 vote in !eneral meetin!s& ri!"t tos"are residual assets of t"e compan on li7uidation. In suc" cases $tate of nationalit of an
individual s"are"older must intervene in "is favor& re!ardless of t"e compan/s nationalit.
(v) In allocatin! corporate entities to $tates& intl law is based but onl to limited extent on an
analo! wit" t"e rules !overnin! t"e nationalit of individuals t"e traditional rule attributes t"e
ri!"t of diplomatic protection of a corporate entit to t"e $tate under t"e laws of w"ic" it is
incorporated and in w"ose territor it "as re!istered office. It "s been t"e practice of some $tates
to !ive a compan incorporated under t"eir law diplomatic protection solel w"en it "s its seat or
m!mnt or center of control in t"eir territor or w"en a ma+orit of or a substantial portion of
s"ares "as been owned b national of t"e $tate concerned. >owever t"is test of !eniuine
connection "s not found !eneral acceptance
In prsnt case Barcelona 'raction/s lin%s wit" anada are manifold. Besides bein! incorporated in
anada 9 "avin! its re!istered office t"ere& its board meetin!s were "eld in anada fr man ears
in fact anadian nationalit of t"e compan "s rcvd !eneral reco!nition. 3s anada "s nt espoused
t"e cause Bel!ium "s no locus standi to espouse& befr t"e I*& t"e claim of Bel!ium nationals
s"are"olders in t"e compan
H.;.: Nationalit b naturalisation
Naturali#ation (or naturalisation) is t"e ac7uisition of citi#ens"ip and nationalit b somebod w"o
was not a citi#en of t"at countr at t"e time of birt".
In !eneral& basic re7uirements for naturali#ation are t"at t"e applicant "old a le!al status as a full
time resident for a minimum period of time and t"at t"e applicant promise to obe and up"old t"at
countr/s laws& to w"ic" an oat" or pled!e of alle!iance is sometimes added. $ome countries also
re7uire t"at a naturali#ed national must renounce an ot"er citi#ens"ip t"at t"e currentl "old&
forbiddin! dual citi#ens"ip& but w"et"er t"is renunciation actuall causes loss of t"e person/s
ori!inal citi#ens"ip will a!ain depend on t"e laws of t"e countries involved.
Nationalit is traditionall based eit"er on +us soli (-ri!"t of t"e territor-) or on +us san!uinis (-ri!"t
of blood-)& alt"ou!" it now usuall mixes bot". 0"atever t"e case& t"e massive increase in
population flux due to !lobali#ation and t"e s"arp increase in t"e numbers of refu!ees followin!
0orld 0ar I created an important class of nonciti#ens called stateless persons. In some rare cases&
procedures of mass naturali#ation were passed. 3s naturali#ation laws were created to deal wit"t"e rare case of people separated from t"eir nation state because t"e lived abroad (expatriates)&
western democracies were not read to naturali#e t"e massive influx of stateless people w"ic"
followed massive denationali#ations and t"e expulsion of et"nic minorities from newl created
nation states in t"e first part of t"e 4t" centur& but t"e also counted t"e (mostl aristocratic)
5ussians w"o "ad escaped t"e 1F1 ctober 5evolution and t"e war communism period& and t"en
t"e $panis" refu!ees. 3s >anna" 3rendt pointed out& internment camps became t"e -onl nation- of
suc" stateless people& since t"e were often considered -undesirable- and were stuc% in an ille!al
situation (t"eir countr "ad expelled t"em or deprived t"em of t"eir nationalit& w"ile t"e "adn/t
been naturali#ed& t"us livin! in a +udicial no man/s land).
3fter 0orld 0ar II& t"e increase in international mi!rations created a new cate!or of refu!ees&most of t"em economic refu!ees. Aor economic& political& "umanitarian and pra!matic reasons&
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
34/80
man states passed laws allowin! a person to ac7uire t"eir citi#ens"ip after birt" (suc" as b
marria!e to a national +us matrimonii or b "avin! ancestors w"o are nationals of t"at countr)&
in order to reduce t"e scope of t"is cate!or. >owever& in some countries t"is sstem still maintains
a lar!e part of t"e immi!rated population in an ille!al status& albeit some massive re!ulari#ations
(in $pain b *os` Luis Qapatero/s !overnment and in Ital b Berlusconi/s !overnment).
3 state "s ri!"t to protect its citi#ens abroad& it is entitled to intervene diplomaticall to lod!e a
claim fr decision befr an intl tribunal a!ainst ini+uries suffered b its sub+ects.
nce a state "s ta%en up a case on be"alf of one of its sub+ects befr an intl tribunal& t"en in t"e
ees of t"e latter& t"e state is t"e sole claimant . In+ured sub+ects ri!"t is to claim t"rou!"t t"e
$tate. $ome writers "old t"t $tates can proceed wit" t"e laim even t"ou!" t"e individual waives
it.
(4F) Nottebo"m (Liec"tenstein vs 2uatemala) ase& I* 5ep. 1Fambur!& 2erman& possessed 2erman citi#ens"ip.
3lt"ou!" "e lived in 2uatemala from 1F< until 1FH: "e never became a citi#en of 2uatemala. n
ctober F& 1F:F& Nottebo"m applied to become a naturali#ed citi#en of Liec"tenstein. '"e
application was approved under exceptional circumstances and "e became a citi#en of
Liec"tenstein. >e t"en returned to 2uatemala on "is Liec"tenstein passport and informed t"e local
!overnment of "is c"an!e of nationalit. 0"en "e tried to return to 2uatemala once a!ain in 1FH:
"e was refused entr as an enem alien since t"e 2uatemalan aut"orities did not reco!nise "is
naturalisation and re!arded "im as still 2erman. It "as been su!!ested t"at t"e timin! of t"e event
was due to t"e recent entr of t"e ,$ and 2uatemala into t"e $econd 0orld 0ar.
>e was later extradited to t"e ,$ w"ere "e was "eld at an internment camp until t"e end of t"e
war. 3ll "is possessions in 2uatemala were confiscated. 3fter "is release& "e lived out t"e rest of "is
life in Liec"tenstein.
Bac%!round of t"e I* case
'"e 2overnment of Liec"tenstein !ranted Nottebo"m protection a!ainst un+ust treatment b t"e
!overnment of 2uatemala and petitioned t"e International ourt of *ustice. >owever& t"e
!overnment of 2uatemala ar!ued t"at Nottebo"m did not !ain Liec"tenstein citi#ens"ip for t"e
purposes of international law. '"e court a!reed and t"us stopped t"e case from continuin!. $o t"e
courts decided t"at in t"is case t"e would decline t"e offer.
Decision
3lt"ou!" t"e ourt stated t"at it is t"e soverei!n ri!"t of all states to determine its own citi#ens
and criteria for becomin! one in municipal law& suc" a process would "ave to be scrutini#ed on t"e
international plane w"ere t"e 7uestion is of diplomatic protection. '"e ourt up"eld t"e principle
of effective nationalit& (t"e Nottebo"m principle) w"ere t"e national must prove a meanin!ful
connection to t"e state in 7uestion. '"is principle was previousl applied onl in cases of dual
nationalit to determine w"ic" nationalit s"ould be used in a !iven case. >owever Nottebo"m "ad
forfeited "is 2erman nationalit and t"us onl "ad t"e nationalit of Liec"tenstein. '"e 7uestion
arises& w"o t"en "ad t"e power to !rant Nottebo"m diplomatic protectionT
'"e Nottebo"m case was subse7uentl cited in man definitions of nationalit.
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
35/80
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
36/80
'"e conduct of an or!an placed at t"e disposal of a $tate b anot"er $tate s"all be considered an
act of t"e former $tate under international law if t"e or!an is actin! in t"e exercise of elements of
t"e !overnmental aut"orit of t"e $tate at w"ose disposal it is placed.
3rticle = Excess of aut"orit or contravention of instructions
'"e conduct of an or!an of a $tate or of a person or entit empowered to exercise elements of t"e!overnmental aut"orit s"all be considered an act of t"e $tate under international law if t"e or!an&
person or entit acts in t"at capacit& even if it exceeds its aut"orit or contravenes instructions.
3rticle G= onduct directed or controlled b a $tate
'"e conduct of a person or !roup of persons s"all be considered an act of a $tate under
international law if t"e person or !roup of persons is in fact actin! on t"e instructions of& or under
t"e direction or control of& t"at $tate in carrin! out t"e conduct.
3rticle F= onduct carried out in t"e absence or default of t"e official aut"orities
'"e conduct of a person or !roup of persons s"all be considered an act of a $tate under
international law if t"e person or !roup of persons is in fact exercisin! elements of t"e
!overnmental aut"orit in t"e absence or default of t"e official aut"orities and in circumstances
suc" as to call for t"e exercise of t"ose elements of aut"orit.
3rticle 1= onduct of an insurrectional or ot"er movement
1. '"e conduct of an insurrectional movement w"ic" becomes t"e new 2overnment of a $tate s"all
be considered an act of t"at $tate under international law.
4. '"e conduct of a movement& insurrectional or ot"er& w"ic" succeeds in establis"in! a new $tate
in part of t"e territor of a preexistin! $tate or in a territor under its administration s"all be
considered an act of t"e new $tate under international law.
:. '"is article is wit"out pre+udice to t"e attribution to a $tate of an conduct& "owever related to
t"at of t"e movement concerned& w"ic" is to be considered an act of t"at $tate b virtue of
articles H to F.
3rticle 11= onduct ac%nowled!ed and adopted b a $tate as its own
onduct w"ic" is not attributable to a $tate under t"e precedin! articles s"all nevert"eless be
considered an act of t"at $tate under international law if and to t"e extent t"at t"e $tate
ac%nowled!es and adopts t"e conduct in 7uestion as its own.
>3P'E5 III= B5E3> A 3N IN'E5N3'IN3L BLI23'IN
3rticle 14= Existence of a breac" of an international obli!ation
'"ere is a breac" of an international obli!ation b a $tate w"en an act of t"at $tate is not in
conformit wit" w"at is re7uired of it b t"at obli!ation& re!ardless of its ori!in or c"aracter.
3rticle 1:= International obli!ation in force for a $tate
3n act of a $tate does not constitute a breac" of an international obli!ation unless t"e $tate is
bound b t"e obli!ation in 7uestion at t"e time t"e act occurs.
3rticle 1H= Extension in time of t"e breac" of an international obli!ation
1. '"e breac" of an international obli!ation b an act of a $tate not "avin! a continuin! c"aracter
occurs at t"e moment w"en t"e act is performed& even if its effects continue.
4. '"e breac" of an international obli!ation b an act of a $tate "avin! a continuin! c"aracter
extends over t"e entire period durin! w"ic" t"e act continues and remains not in conformit wit"
t"e international obli!ation.:. '"e breac" of an international obli!ation re7uirin! a $tate to prevent a !iven event occurs w"en
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
37/80
t"e event occurs and extends over t"e entire period durin! w"ic" t"e event continues and remains
not in conformit wit" t"at obli!ation.
3rticle 13P'E5 I?= 5E$PN$IBILI'_ A 3 $'3'E IN NNE'IN 0I'> '>E 3' A 3N'>E5 $'3'E
3rticle 1;= 3id or assistance in t"e commission of an internationall wron!ful act
3 $tate w"ic" aids or assists anot"er $tate in t"e commission of an internationall wron!ful act b
t"e latter is internationall responsible for doin! so if=
t"at $tate does so wit" %nowled!e of t"e circumstances of t"e internationall wron!ful act and
t"e act would be internationall wron!ful if committed b t"at $tate.
3rticle 1= Direction and control exercised over t"e commission of an internationall wron!ful act
3 $tate w"ic" directs and controls anot"er $tate in t"e commission of an internationall wron!ful
act b t"e latter is internationall responsible for t"at act if=
t"at $tate does so wit" %nowled!e of t"e circumstances of t"e internationall wron!ful act and
t"e act would be internationall wron!ful if committed b t"at $tate.
3rticle 1G= oercion of anot"er $tate
3 $tate w"ic" coerces anot"er $tate to commit an act is internationall responsible for t"at act if=
t"e act would& but for t"e coercion& be an internationall wron!ful act of t"e coerced $tate and
t"e coercin! $tate does so wit" %nowled!e of t"e circumstances of t"e act.
3rticle 1F= Effect of t"is c"apter
'"is c"apter is wit"out pre+udice to t"e international responsibilit& under ot"er provisions of t"ese
articles& of t"e $tate w"ic" commits t"e act in 7uestion& or of an ot"er $tate.
>3P'E5 ?= I5,8$'3NE$ P5EL,DIN2 05N2A,LNE$$
3rticle 4= onsent
?alid consent b a $tate to t"e commission of a !iven act b anot"er $tate precludes t"e
wron!fulness of t"at act in relation to t"e former $tate to t"e extent t"at t"e act remains wit"in
t"e limits of t"at consent.
3rticle 41= $elfdefence
'"e wron!fulness of an act of a $tate is precluded if t"e act constitutes a lawful measure of self
defence ta%en in conformit wit" t"e "arter of t"e ,nited Nations.
3rticle 44= ountermeasures in respect of an internationall wron!ful act
'"e wron!fulness of an act of a $tate not in conformit wit" an international obli!ation towards
anot"er $tate is precluded if and to t"e extent t"at t"e act constitutes a countermeasure ta%en
a!ainst t"e latter $tate in accordance wit" c"apter II of part t"ree.
3rticle 4:= Aorce ma+eure1. '"e wron!fulness of an act of a $tate not in conformit wit" an international obli!ation of t"at
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
38/80
$tate is precluded if t"e act is due to force ma+eure& t"at is t"e occurrence of an irresistible force
or of an unforeseen event& beond t"e control of t"e $tate& ma%in! it materiall impossible in t"e
circumstances to perform t"e obli!ation.
4. Para!rap" 1 does not appl if=
t"e situation of force ma+eure is due& eit"er alone or in combination wit" ot"er factors& to t"e
(a) conduct of t"e $tate invo%in! it or(b) t"e $tate "as assumed t"e ris% of t"at situation occurrin!.
3rticle 4H= Distress
1. '"e wron!fulness of an act of a $tate not in conformit wit" an international obli!ation of t"at
$tate is precluded if t"e aut"or of t"e act in 7uestion "as no ot"er reasonable wa& in a situation of
distress& of savin! t"e aut"orOs life or t"e lives of ot"er persons entrusted to t"e aut"orOs care.
4. Para!rap" 1 does not appl if= t"e situation of distress is due& eit"er alone or in combination
wit" ot"er factors& to t"e conduct of
(a) t"e $tate invo%in! it or
(b) t"e act in 7uestion is li%el to create a comparable or !reater peril.
3rticle 4
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
39/80
continued dut of t"e responsible $tate to perform t"e obli!ation breac"ed.
3rticle := essation and nonrepetition
'"e $tate responsible for t"e internationall wron!ful act is under an obli!ation=
to cease t"at act& if it is continuin!
to offer appropriate assurances and !uarantees of nonrepetition& if circumstances so re7uire.
3rticle :1= 5eparation
1. '"e responsible $tate is under an obli!ation to ma%e full reparation for t"e in+ur caused b t"e
internationall wron!ful act.
4. In+ur includes an dama!e& w"et"er material or moral& caused b t"e internationall wron!ful
act of a $tate.
3rticle :4= Irrelevance of internal law
'"e responsible $tate ma not rel on t"e provisions of its internal law as +ustification for failure to
compl wit" its obli!ations under t"is part.
3rticle ::= $cope of international obli!ations set out in t"is part
1. '"e obli!ations of t"e responsible $tate set out in t"is part ma be owed to anot"er $tate& to
several $tates& or to t"e international communit as a w"ole& dependin! in particular on t"e
c"aracter and content of t"e international obli!ation and on t"e circumstances of t"e breac".
4. '"is part is wit"out pre+udice to an ri!"t& arisin! from t"e international responsibilit of a
$tate& w"ic" ma accrue directl to an person or entit ot"er t"an a $tate.
>3P'E5 II= 5EP353'IN A5 IN*,5_
3rticle :H= Aorms of reparation
Aull reparation for t"e in+ur caused b t"e internationall wron!ful act s"all ta%e t"e form of
restitution& compensation and satisfaction& eit"er sin!l or in combination& in accordance wit" t"e
provisions of t"is c"apter.
3rticle :
-
8/18/2019 Publich Internation Law
40/80
t"e responsible $tate.
3rticle :G= Interest
1. Interest on an principal sum due under t"is c"apter s"all be paable w"en necessar in order to
ensure full reparation. '"e interest rate an