A Primer on International Law _ Coursera

Prévia do material em texto

25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 1/10
HelpA Primer on International Law
A Primer on International Law
Since many of the students enrolled in this course may not have previously taken an introductory
international law course, I am providing this short “Primer on International Law” to provide basic
background about the fundamental international law concepts and principles that underlie the issues
covered in this course.
Is International Law Really Law?
As students are first exposed to international legal materials there may be a degree of skepticism
about the importance of international law. Some may believe that international law is merely illusionary
since governments seem to comply with it only out of convenience and disregard it whenever a
contrary interest appears. Others may suspect that international law cannot really be law since there
is no effective world legislature, judiciary, or police force to enforce it.
In fact, government compliance with international law is the norm and noncompliance is the very rare
exception. There are over 45,000 international treaties, which fill 1,800 thick volumes -- usually
located in some obscure place in a law school library.1 Fortunately, they are also available
electronically via CD-Rom, Lexis, Westlaw, and various sites on the Internet. Treaties govern every
aspect of international relations and commerce, including air travel, telephone communications,
television broadcasting, mail delivery, weather reporting, private contracts, protection of the
environment, human rights, and trade with foreign countries. Breaches are infrequent and not without
significant costs as discussed below.
Although there is not a world legislature per se, there is an international legislative process, which
takes one of two forms. The first relates to bilateral treaties, which are negotiated and enforced in a
manner similar to domestic contracts. The second process relates to multilateral treaties, which are
adopted by the United Nations or a Diplomatic Conference of States (in international law, the term
"States" means countries). This process can be very similar to the domestic legislative process, with
the exception that the laws do not immediately go into effect when the United Nations or Diplomatic
Conference approves the text of a treaty. Rather, each State becomes bound to the treaty only when
it has been approved through the State's internally proscribed process.
While there is no single international judiciary, there are numerous international courts established by
treaty which clarify and develop law, resolve disputes impartially, and impel nations to observe the
law. The most influential of these are the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization,
the Law of the Sea Tribunal, and Western Europe's two regional international courts -- the European
Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg. In addition,
there are two Security Council-created international war crimes tribunals (for the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda), three hybrid international criminal tribunals (for Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and
Lebanon), and a permanent international criminal court established by treaty. International law is also
interpreted by numerous international arbitral tribunals, such as the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal. But
most frequently, international law is litigated in domestic courts.
While there is no international police system whose pervasive presence might deter violation, that
does not mean that international law is without effective mechanisms for enforcement. With respect to
the most egregious breaches, the U.N. Security Council can impose economic sanctions, freeze
assets, and even employ military force to compel compliance. The New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards provides a means for enforcing international
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 2/10
arbitration awards using the assets of the liable party located in any of the over 100 States Parties to
the Convention. As with domestic contracts, the most frequent and effective means of inducing
compliance with treaty obligations is by the suspension of reciprocal obligations by the non-breaching
party until the breach is remedied. In addition, international law is routinely enforced by individual
States through their domestic laws, courts, and police forces. Thus, for example, Article I, Section 8,
of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to "define and punish ... offenses against the Law of
Nations."
The Sources of International Law
There are four sources of the rules of international law. The first is treaty, which is analogous to the
domestic law notion of contract. The word "treaty" in international law includes all the many different
sorts of international instruments intended to create binding obligations, whether the particular
instrument is labeled an "agreement," "convention," "accord," etc. (In U.S. domestic law, the word
"treaty" refers only to those international agreements that are approved by two-thirds of the Senate,
as discussed below). International lawyers use the phrase pacta sunt servanda to express the
fundamental principle that agreements between states must be complied with. The Statute of the
International Court of Justice places "international conventions, whether general or particular,
establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states," first in its list of the rules to be
applied by the Court in deciding cases before it, and most commentators assign treaties the highest
rank among the sources of international law.
A second source of international law is known as "custom." "Customary International Law" constitutes
a widespread practice of states followed out of a sense of legal obligation. It is analogous to the
domestic commercial law notions of "course of dealing" and "the usage of trade," where practice
creates justifiable expectations of future observance. Like treaty law, customary international law
reflects the consent of States. A State which persistently objects during the formation of a norm of
customary international law is not bound by it.
A third source of international law is the general municipal practice of states. The idea behind these
so-called "General Principles of Law" is that if most domestic legal systems recognize certain rules,
then it may be presumed that these rules are so fundamental as to be a part of international law.
General Principles of Law are often used as a gap-filler, where treaty and customary international law
are silent. General Principles of Law recognized by the International Court of Justice, for example,
include the principle of estoppel, the concept of unclean hands, the rule that every violation involves
an obligation to make reparation, the principle of res judicata, the principle of equity and unjust
enrichment, and the use of circumstantial evidence.2
Where the first three sources of international law may be said to emanate from the consent of states,
the fourth source, known as "jus cogens," reflects the natural law concept of fundamental rights. Jus
cogens limits the contractual power of parties to a treaty in much the way domestic contracts are void
if they are found to contravene "public policy." The notion of jus cogens may, for example, be applied
to invalidate treaties, customary international law, or domestic statutes which promote the use of
aggression, slavery, genocide, or war crimes. In the 1992 Siderman case, the U.S. Ninth Circuit ruled
that "the right tobe free from official torture is fundamental and universal, a right deserving of the
highest status under international law, a norm of jus cogens."3 The Court distinguished customary
international law and jus cogens as follows: "Whereas customary international law derives solely from
the consent of states, the fundamental and universal norms constituting jus cogens transcend such
consent, as exemplified by the theories underlying the judgments of the Nuremberg tribunals following
World War II."4
Treaties
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 3/10
A. The Rules of Treaty Interpretation
The rules of treaty interpretation are set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the
so-called Treaty on Treaties), which came into force in 1980.5 Although the United States has not yet
ratified the Vienna Convention, the U.S. Department of State recognizes the Vienna Convention as
"the authoritative guide to current treaty law and practice."6
There is an important difference between signing a treaty and ratifying a treaty. The former
constitutes authentication of a treaty's text and the intention to submit the treaty to the domestic
process necessary to approve it. After the treaty has been approved domestically, the party can bring
it into force (ratify it) by exchanging instruments of ratification (if it is a bilateral treaty) or depositing its
instrument of ratification with the designated depositary (if it is a multilateral treaty). In the United
States an international agreement must be approved either by two-thirds of the Senate or by a
majority of the House and Senate unless it concerns an area within the President's exclusive
constitutional province (such as a Status of Forces Agreement concluded pursuant to the President's
Commander and Chief Powers). When a State has signed a treaty and is awaiting the domestic
process necessary for ratification, the Vienna Convention provides that the State "is obliged to refrain
from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty."7
When ratifying a treaty, a State may often express reservations, which purport to exclude or to modify
the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State. According to the
Vienna Convention, reservations are acceptable unless specifically prohibited by the treaty or
"incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty."8 In the United States, the Senate often
attaches reservations (as well as nonbinding "understandings" and "declarations) when giving advice
and consent to ratification.
The general rule of the Vienna Convention is that a "treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in
light of its object and purpose."9 The "context" referred to in the Vienna Convention constitutes the
treaty's preamble and annexes and any reservations expressed in the instrument of ratification.10
The Vienna Convention and the practice of the International Court of Justice give comparatively less
emphasis to the negotiating record and legislative history in interpreting a treaty than is common in
domestic interpretation of legislative enactments. Under the Vienna Convention, such "supplementary
means of interpretation" are to be used only where the primary means of interpretation yield an
ambiguous or obscure meaning or a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. However, U.S.
courts tend to resort more freely to the negotiating record and legislative history in interpreting
treaties, frequently citing the Executive Report and the Report of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. In addition, U.S. courts pay great judicial deference to the interpretations asserted by the
Executive Branch, often in the form of State Department Affidavits.11
Once a State becomes party to a treaty, it must comply with the treaty's provisions unless or until: (a)
there are grounds for objecting to the treaty's validity,12 (b) the party has withdrawn from the treaty in
conformity with its provisions or with the consent of all of the other Parties,13 (c) there has been a
fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus),14 or (d) there has been a material
breach by the other party.15
Under the Vienna Convention, the grounds for objecting to the validity of a treaty include: error
relating to a fact or situation forming an essential basis of a State's consent to be bound16; the
fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State17; corruption or coercion of a State's representative
by another negotiating State18; the threat or use of force in violation of the United Nations Charter;
and conflict with a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens).
A material breach of a treaty, giving rise to the right to the other Party to terminate the treaty or
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 4/10
suspend its operation, consists of a "violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the
object or purpose of the treaty."19 In the United States, the power to suspend or terminate a treaty is
vested in the President.
B. The Effect of Treaties in the Law of the United States
In the United States, international agreements are characterized as either treaties or executive
agreements. This is to be contrasted with the international practice to refer to all binding international
agreements as treaties. In the United States, "treaties" are ratified only after receiving the advice and
consent of two thirds of the Senate pursuant to Article II(2) of the Constitution. Only 6 percent of
international agreements made by the United States have been submitted to the Senate as treaties.
Eight percent of the United States' international agreements are sole executive agreements, that is
compacts concluded by the President under his constitutional authority without any congressional
participation.20 The vast majority (over 86 percent) of the United States' international agreements
have been congressional-executive agreements. Such agreements are ratified pursuant to ordinary
legislation, that is, statutes passed by a majority of both the House of Representatives and the
Senate. So-called "implementing legislation" may authorize the President to enter into an international
agreement in advance of its negotiation or approve such an agreement after it has been signed by
the parties. There are no hard and fast rules about what route the Executive Branch must follow in
obtaining domestic approval of an agreement.
The way in which international agreements are given domestic legal effect depends on whether a
State has adopted a "dualist" or a "monist" approach to treaty incorporation. Dualist States, such as
the United Kingdom, require a legislative enactment before any treaty becomes the law of the land. In
monist States, such as France and Germany, a treaty is given domestic legal effect as soon as it is
ratified without the need for any implementing legislation.
The United States practice reflects a hybrid of the dualist and monist approaches, resting on the
distinction between "self-executing" and "non-self-executing" international agreements. Consistent
with the dualist approach, non-self-executing agreements/treaties are given no domestic legal effect
until Congress enacts implementing legislation (in which case it is the statute and not the agreement
which is given effect). But consistent with the monist approach, a self-executing agreement/treaty will
be applied in a case by U.S. courts without any legislative act.
By virtue of Article VI ofthe U.S. Constitution, self-executing agreements/treaties are made "law of the
land." Self-executing agreements/treaties are considered to be equivalent to federal statutory law;
where the two are in conflict, the one that is latter in time will prevail.21 Before applying this rule in the
case of a latter in time statute in conflict with an earlier agreement/treaty, U.S. courts will first try to
reconcile the apparently conflicting provisions if at all possible.22 This reflects recognition of the
fundamental rule of international law that a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as
justification for its failure to perform an international obligation.23
Like federal statutory law, self-executing agreements/treaties are given supremacy over state and
municipal law. And like federal statutory law, self-executing agreements/treaties are subject to the
constitutional limitations contained in the Bill of Right.24
A treaty or executive agreement is deemed to be self-executing if its provisions are aimed directly at
the courts and not at the Congress requiring legislative action. The Restatement (Third) of Foreign
Relations law suggests the following formula for determining whether an agreement/treaty should not
be deemed self-executing:
(a) if the agreement manifests an intention that it shall not become effective as domestic law without
enactment of implementing legislation; (b) if the Senate in giving consent to a treaty, or Congress by
resolution, requires implementing legislation; or (c) if implementing legislation is constitutionally
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 5/10
required.25
With respect to human rights treaties, the Senate has recently adopted the practice of declaring at
the time of giving advice and consent to ratification that the treaty is non-self-executing. Normally, the
President will not deposit the instrument of ratification of a non-self-executing agreement/treaty until
the necessary implementing legislation has been enacted.
It may be that the President has the power, when acting within his constitutional authority, to disregard
or violate an executive agreement or treaty. To do so, however, would potentially subject the United
States to liability for breach of its international legal obligations. Thus, in Goldwater v. Carter, the
Supreme Court refused to enjoin President Carter from unilaterally terminating treaties with Taiwan on
the ground that it was a nonjusticiable political question.
Customary International Law
A. Determining What Constitutes Customary International Law
Customary International Law is made up of two components: (1) a widespread practice of states; and
(2) "opinio juris" (a sense of legal obligation). Evidence of practice and opinio juris may be derived
from the constitutional, legislative, and executive promulgations of states; diplomatic correspondence;
official statements; votes in international organizations; and military actions. The requirement of opinio
juris distinguishes a practice followed by a State out of mere convenience from a practice which
implicitly recognizes an international legal rule.
Non-binding resolutions of international conferences or United Nations bodies (often thought of as
"soft law") may harden over time into legally binding international obligations. Treaties that have not
yet been ratified by the required number of States to bring them into force, or which are in force but
have not yet been ratified by a particular state, may nevertheless become binding if they are
recognized as customary international law. Domestic and international judicial and arbitral decisions,
as well as the writings of scholars, provide important evidence of the existence of a new rule of
customary international law.
To constitute customary international law, a practice must be followed repetitively by a relatively large
number of states over a relatively long period of time. How many States and how much time are
required depend on the circumstances. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has said that customary
international law is "universal law of society,"26 customary international law may exist on a regional
level. Moreover, some States may be found not to be bound by customary international law if they
have persistently dissented to the rule's formulation. But inconsistent practice does not necessary
exempt a State from the obligations of customary international law. As the International Court of
Justice observed in the Nicaragua Case:
In order to deduce the existence of customary rules, the Court deems it is 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. If a State acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a
recognized rule, but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within
the rule itself, ... the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to weaken the rule.27
B. The Effect of Customary International Law in the United States
Customary international law is treated as federal common law, which is supreme over state and
municipal law. In The Paquete Habana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "[customary] international
law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of
appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their
determination."28 Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that "an act of Congress ought never to be
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 6/10
construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains."29 But where there
is an irreconcilable conflict, a latter in time statute will supersede customary international law. A newly
emerging custom will not, however, supersede a federal statute where there is an irreconcilable
conflict between the two.
As with treaties, the President and other Executive Branch officials acting within their delegated
authority have the power to disregard a rule of customary international law. Thus, in Garcia-Mir v.
Meese, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit gave effect to an action of the Attorney
General authorizing indefinite detention of aliens although it accepted that such detention was in
violation of customary international law, stating that "the power of the President to disregard
international law in service of domestic needs is reaffirmed."
Customary international law may be raised in a variety of contexts in domestic litigation. The issue is
most frequently raised in connection with the Alien Torts Claims Act, which provides a federal cause
of action where an alien sues for a tort in violation of the law of nations (i.e., treaties and customary
international law).30 Alien Torts Claims Act cases have involved torture, terrorism, war crimes and
genocide.
The United Nations and the Formation of International Law
The United Nations came into existence with the adoption of the U.N. Charter in 1945. Its membership
is open to States and it has over 190 members. Its headquarters are in New York City, but it has
important offices in several other cities, including Geneva, Vienna, and The Hague. The United
Nations consists of six principal organs: The Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic
and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, the Secretariat, and the Trusteeship Council.
Each of thesehas played an important function in the making, interpretation and implementation of
international law.
A. The Security Council
The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the U.N. Charter, for the maintenance of
international peace and security. Article 25 of the U.N. Charter requires the members of the
organization to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While the other organs of
the U.N. are authorized to make non-binding recommendations, the Security Council is unique in that
its decisions (taken under Chapter VII of the Charter) automatically become international law.
The Security Council is comprised of 15 members: five permanent members (China, France, Russia,
the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 rotating members that are elected for two-year
terms by the General Assembly. Each member of the Council has one vote but decisions on
substantive matters require a majority including the concurring votes of the permanent members, thus
providing each permanent member a veto.
In recent years, the Security Council has taken a wide variety of measures under Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter. It has, for example, created "no-fly zones,"31 "safe areas,"32 and
humanitarian corridors;33 it has established a commission to grant compensation to the victims of
armed attack;34 it has created a commission to delimit disputed borders;35 it has instituted a
commission to supervise the elimination of a particular State's weapons of mass destruction;36 it has
created numerous investigative commissions;37 and it has established two international criminal
tribunals, and three hybrid Tribunals.38
To impel cooperation and compliance, the Security Council has on a number of occasions adopted
resolutions requiring the international community to impose economic and political sanctions on a
State which is acting in contravention of a Security Council resolution. Such sanctions have included
arms embargoes, trade embargoes, prohibitions on air flights, seizure of vessels and vehicles,
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 7/10
freezing of assets, prohibition on team participation in sports events, and reduction of diplomatic ties.
Security Council-imposed sanctions are currently in force against several states, including Iraq, Libya,
Liberia, Somalia, Angola, and the former Yugoslavia.39 In the past, sanctions had been imposed
against the military regime in Haiti and the apartheid regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa.40
The sanctions resolutions often contain numerous exceptions, for example, for the import of
humanitarian items and informational materials. The sanctions resolutions are interpreted by a
Security Council-created body known as the Sanctions Committee. The jurisprudence of the
Sanctions Committee has a direct impact on the conduct of thousands of businesses around the
world on a daily basis.41
B. The General Assembly
The General Assembly is composed of representatives of all Member States, each of which has one
vote. Large countries such as the United States, Russia, and China, are counted the same as smaller
countries such as the tiny island of Palau, which has less than 15,000 inhabitants. The General
Assembly determines the budget of the United Nations, and elects the non-permanent members of
the Security Council, the judges of the International Court of Justice, and the judges of the
International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Through its seven Main
Committees and numerous subsidiary bodies, the General Assembly studies and makes
recommendations on specific issues, such as those involving disarmament, terrorism, outer space,
human rights, the law of the sea, protection of the environment, and peace-keeping.
While the General Assembly is not empowered to render binding decisions like the Security Council,
there are two important ways the General Assembly creates international law: (1) the General
Assembly bodies regularly draft treaties and convene international conferences for their adoption;
and (2) the non-binding resolutions and declarations of the General Assembly (especially those
adopted without dissent) can constitute evidence of customary international law.
One of the General Assembly's most important subsidiary bodies is the International Law Commission,
comprised of thirty-four jurists. The ILC has produced a number of successful draft multilateral
treaties, such as the 1958 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1961 Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1973 Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, the 1978
Convention on the Succession of States, and the Statute for a permanent international criminal
court.42
C. The Economic and Social Council
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was established by the U.N. Charter as the principal
organ to coordinate economic and social work of the United Nations. ECOSOC has 54 members who
serve for three year terms. In addition, over 900 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have
consultative status and participate in the work of ECOSOC.
ECOSOC is responsible for coordinating the sixteen specialized agencies of the United Nations
system. These include the Human Rights Commission (recently re-named the Human Rights Council),
the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United
Nations Development Programme, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Health
Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
In addition to adopting numerous resolutions, ECOSOC and its specialized agencies have developed
several quasi-legal instruments known as codes of conduct. These codes establish voluntary
guidelines that are intended to influence the behavior of both governments and private enterprises.
The most important thus far has been the ECOSOC-sponsored Code of Conduct on Transnational
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 8/10
Corporations.
D. The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It is the
successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established under the League
of Nations. Located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the ICJ is composed of 15 judges, who are
elected by the U.N. General Assembly to serve nine-year terms.
The ICJ is empowered to decide two types of cases. First, the ICJ can issue advisory opinions when
requested to do so by the Security Council, the General Assembly or several other United Nations
bodies authorized to request such opinions. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued twenty-one advisory
opinions.
Second, the Court can exercise jurisdiction in a contentious case between two or more States with the
consent of the parties. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals, except to the extent that a
State espouses their claims. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued judgments in thirty-nine contentious
cases. That amounts to the Court hearing an average of less than two cases each year. During the
1990s, however, the Court became increasingly active, and it currently has eight contentious cases,
and two requests for advisory opinions on its docket.
Consent to jurisdiction over contentious cases can be given in three ways. First, States can agree to
have their disputes decided by the ICJ on an ad hoc basis. Second, many treaties containprovisions
giving the ICJ jurisdiction over any dispute between parties to the treaty as to its interpretation or
application. Third, States may make a declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ statute, agreeing to
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in relation to other States that have made a like declaration.
As of 1997, fifty-nine States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Declarations made under Article 36(2) may specifically exclude certain categories of disputes from the
ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction. Such declarations are subject to reciprocity, and a defendant state
against which a proceeding is brought may invoke an exclusion not stipulated in its own declaration
but included in the declaration of the plaintiff state.
The United States had agreed in 1946 to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with two principal
exceptions. The first, known as the "Connelly reservation," provided that the United States does not
accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ over disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. The second, known as
the "Vandenberg reservation" exempted the United States from the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction with
respect to any disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless all parties to the treaty affected by
the decision are also parties to the case before the Court. After the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction
over Nicaragua's suit against the United States concerning U.S. support of the Contras and mining of
Nicaragua harbors, the United States terminated its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
ICJ.
The termination of the United States' acceptance of the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction has not
completely immunized the United States from the ICJ. The United States has subsequently been
hailed before the ICJ on several occasions pursuant to clauses contained in multilateral treaties to
which the United States is a party. It has become the recent practice of the United States to make a
reservation opting out of the ICJ jurisdiction clause of multilateral treaties at the time of ratification, but
the United States continues to be party to over one hundred treaties containing an ICJ jurisdiction
clause.
Judgments of the ICJ are binding between the parties. Under Article 94(1) of the U.N. Charter, all
members of the United Nations have undertaken to comply with a judgment of the ICJ in any case to
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 9/10
Created Tue 9 Apr 2013 1:50 PM PDT
Last Modified Sat 31 Aug 2013 7:29 PM PDT
which they are parties. If a party fails to comply with the judgment of the ICJ, any other party may call
on the Security Council to enforce the judgment. ICJ decisions are widely recognized as important
statements of existing international law, and they are often cited as authority to support fundamental
principles of international legal development.
Contentious cases usually involve three phases. First, the parties often request that the ICJ "indicate"
provisional measures in order to preserve their respective rights while a case is pending. Decisions
on provisional measures are usually issued within a few weeks from the initial request. While
provisional measures are somewhat analogous to a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
order under U.S. domestic law, the court has never ruled whether an order indicating provisional
measures is mandatory on the parties. The second phase involves challenges to the Court's
jurisdiction. The Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the matter before making a
decision. Finally, the Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the merits of the case. From
start to finish, the ICJ may take several years to rule on a dispute. The final decision of the ICJ is not
subject to appeal.
E. International Criminal Tribunals
The UN Security Council acting under its Chapter VII authority established the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (in The Hague) in 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (in Arusha, Tanzania) in 1994, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (in The Hague) in 2009.
Through agreements between the UN and domestic authorities, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (in
Freetown and the Hague) was established in 2002, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of
Cambodia was established (in Phnom Penh) in 2006. In 2002, the permanent International Criminal
Court was established (at The Hague) through a treaty negotiated at the Rome Diplomatic
Conference; the ICC currently has 122 State parties. These six international tribunals have
prosecuted over 200 defendants and have produced extensive case law that constitutes persuasive
(though not binding) authority for other tribunals and domestic courts.
F. The Secretariat
The Secretariat is the international bureaucracy which services the other organs of the United Nations
and administers the programs and policies laid down by them. It consists of more than 50,000 men
and women from more than 150 countries.
The Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General who is appointed for a term of five years by the
General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General and other
Secretariat personnel are often called upon to serve as fact finders and mediators, and have played
an important role in ending recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Cyprus, Namibia, the Falkland Islands,
Lebanon, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia.
The Secretariat serves as an officially designated world depository for international agreements. More
than 45,000 treaties are registered with the U.N. The Secretariat publishes the United Nations Treaty
Series, which is an authoritative registry of international agreements.
The Secretariat includes the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs, headed by the Under-Secretary General for
Legal Affairs (the U.N. Legal Counsel), which plays a critical role in the interpretation of the Charter of
the United Nations and the resolutions of the Security Council, General Assembly, ECOSOC, and
other U.N. bodies. The opinions of the U.N. Legal Counsel are published annually by the United
Nations.
25/12/2013 Wiki - A Primer on International Law | Coursera
https://class.coursera.org/intlcriminallaw-002/wiki/APrimeroninternationalCriminalLaw 10/10