DJ Harris (eee Mle eR) I) International Law RC m Se LLtCol) THOMSON Pres eccneCONTENTS: Acknowledgenenis Preface Table of Cases (UK) Table of Statutes Table of Treaties Table of Other Documents Table of Abbreviations 1 Ivmopucrion 1. International Law as “Law” 2. The Development of Intemational Law 2, Tae Sounces oF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1, Generally 2. Custom 3. Treaties 4, General Principles of Law 5, Judicial Decisions 6. Writers. 2. General Assembly Resolutions 8. “Soft Law" 9. Codification and Progressive Development of Interna tonal Law 3. InteenaTionat Law ano Munictpat LAW 1. Monism and Dualism 2. Municipal Law in International Law 3, International Law in Municipal Law 4. The Executive Certificate 4, Pensonaury 1. Generally 2. States 3. Mandated and Trust Territories 4. Other Legal Persons 5. Recognition of States and Governments 6. The Effect of Recognition in British Courts 18 18 20 50. 53, 61 62 6 0 72 98 99 130 BL 144 162,5, Tenairony Title to Territory . Polar Regions . Land Boundaries Airspace 5. Outer Space 5. Rights in Foreign Territory 6. Stare JURISDICTION 1. Introductory Note 2. Criminal Jurisdiction 3, State Immunity 4, Diplomatic Immunity 7. THE Law oF Tae Sea 1. Introductory Note 2. The Territorial Sea 3, The High Seas 4, The Exclusive Economic Zone 5, The Continental Shelf 6, Maritime Boundaries 7. The Deep Sea-Bed 8, Settlement of Disputes 8. Srare Responswitiry 1. Introductory Note 2. The Theory of Responsibility 3. The Treatment of Aliens 9. Human Ricos 1. Introduction 2, Action through the United Nations 3. Customary Intemational Law 20, Tue Law oF Treaties 1. Introductory Note 2. General Considerations 3. The Making of Treaties 4 Observance and Application of Treaties 5. Treaty Interpretation 6. Third States 7, Validity of Treaties 187 187 29 239 245, 265 265 306 381 381 476 484 490 496 SESEgRaa8, Termination of, Suspension of and Withdrawal from. Treaties 9, General Provisions on the Invalidity, Termination and Suspension of Treaties 10. Registration of Treaties 11. Tue Use oF Force ey Srares 1. The Unilateral Use of Force by States 2. Collective Measures through the United Nations 112, ARBITRATION AND JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES 1. Introductory Note 2. Arbitration 3, The World Court ‘Aprenpnx I Charter of the United Nations ‘Appenpix IT ‘Members of the United Nations Arrenor I Index General Assembly Declaration on Principles of Intemational Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations 1970 858 87 883 886 886 972, 1024 1024 1025 1027 1089 ang mai 427TABLE OF CASES (UK AND INTERNATIONAL) [Page references in bold type indicrle extracts of the cnse:) Avy Australia (1998) 5 LHR. 78... Av New Zealand (2000) 7 LEAR, 44, cnsscnn AvS (1978) 1 Selected Decisions HRC. 17... AGILE. v Congo (1962) 21 LLM. 726 ARI. v Austtlia (1997) 5 LARR. 683 cs u he Aaland Islands Case (1920) L.NOJ. Special Supp., NO3, p3. ‘Abebofiri v Newego, USD.CN.DGa August 19,1983. ‘Abu Dhabi Arbibation (982) .CLLQ, 247,951) 1B LCR 1 en 7, 602 73 179 537 566 Administrative Decision Nout (923) ‘Administrative Decision NoV (0928) 7 RIAA. 19... tive Tribunal Case, LC Rap, 3954, a7 lity of Hearings Case, ECJ. pea 1B ‘Namisione Case Soe Conidors of Adrtasion os Sito Marbarhip in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) ‘Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case, LCJ.Rep. 1978, p. . 236, 793, 837, 1027, 1043, 1066 ‘Angean Sea Continantal Shelf Case (Interim Protection), LCJ.Rep. 1976, p32 1084 ‘Aerial Incident Cases, LC Rep. 1956, 195 1040 ‘Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999' Case (Pakistan v india), 1) Rep. 2008 nnn = 1035, 1042, 1046 ‘Aerial Incident of 27 july 1958 Case, LJ. Pleadings, p580..-—...... 619, 1055 Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988 Case, LC. Rop. 1996, p.9 23 ‘Afouneh v Avtorey-General CA 14/42, (90) 9 PLR: G8 10 269 ‘ ‘Agbor v Comins Polic (965) Wik 703; [1968] 2 All ER. 707, CA.. 368 ‘Agreement between W.H.O. and Egyp' ‘Agreement OF25 March 1951 betreen W.ILO. and EEyp Ahm inner London Education Authonty 1978] QU.96 697719 W.LR. 995, CA 88 Ahmed v Saudi Arabia (1996)2 All ER 248; (996) TCR 28, CAT A 321 ‘Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 (United States v France) (1979) 18 RLAA. S16 ctseinesntntnetntnsreene~ 558, 558, 560, 561 Akayesu Case. See Prosecutor v Akayesu ‘Al Adsani v Government of Kuwait (1936) 107 LR, $36 --n.--.-549, 781, 785 ‘ALAdsani v UK, (2001) 34 EHR, 273, ECHR. ovens 341, 344, 348, 353, 781 ‘Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872) Moore 1 Int Ab. 495... so 69, 1026 ‘Al Fin Corp’s Patent, re [1970] Ch. 160; [1969] 2 W.LR 1905, Ch D. 96, 184, 186 ‘Aan ySwzrland, 1 BER. 5985 1997] IN.LR. 29; 0987) ALR 97, UN CAT... nes 767 Alcom ¥ Colum 324 ‘Alocboctoe Case (1994) 1-2 LH.R.R. 208. a7 ‘Ambatielos Arbitration (1956) 12 RLA.A. 645 “Ambaticlos Case (Greece v United Kingdom), LC.J.Rep. 1952, p28... 834, 840 ‘American Bell International Ine, v Iran (1984) 6 IraneUS.CTR, 78... SBAa nen ay Sine ass i aaneriuens American Intemational Group Case (1983) 4 Iran-US.CT.R, 96... 393, 594, 598, 600 Aminoil Case, See Kuwait v American Independent Oil Co. ‘Amoco Intemational Finance Corp. v Iran (1987) 15 kran-US.C.TR. 189... 578, 506, $92, 595, 896, 598, 599, 613 Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case (1978) Misc.15, Cmnd. 7438; (1979) 18. LLM, 397 vse 53, 475, 487, 489, 1026 Angloviranian Gil Case (interim Measures), LC). Pleadings 1951, p89... 586, ‘505, 586, 1075 Anglo-tranian Oil Case, LCJ.Rep. 1952, p93... 1. 791, 837, 842, 10381, 1039, 1043, 1044, 1076 Jo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, LCJ.Rep. 1951; p-1N6......01 20, 23, 32, 34, 39, Ane! gon ep YB 7, 30, 3 287, 3839, ‘401, 404, 1046 Annette, The, and The Dora [1919] P. 105 PD... “Antari Cases (UK. v Azgenting; UX. v Ci 1972, pas sovapanssssevenenesxe B65, 1046 Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, 1C.} Rep. 1988, p.12 520 Application for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations ‘Administrative Tribunal, LC}.Rep. 1973, p372.. + 1078 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Caso (Preliminary Objections), LCJ.Rep. 19%, P55 545-547, 802 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the ‘Crime of Genocide Case (Provisional Measures No.1), LCJ.Rep. 1993, Beeeere 3081, 1075 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the ‘Ceime of Genocide Case (Provisional Measuces No2}, LCJ.Rep. 1993, PBB anno 548, 1034, 1035, 1099 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Case (Counterclaims), LCJRep. 1997, Ponsenen 548 ‘Aramco Case. See Saudi Arabia v Aramco Arantaazu Mendi, The, See Spain v Owners of the Arantzazu Mandi ‘Asbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Hon- dduras v. Nicaragua), LC) Rep. 1960, p92... eorneene 1059, 1061 ‘vba Award of July 1989 (Guines-Bisou V Senegal, 1C}.Rep. 1991, PB on Argentine Republic ¥ Amerada’ Hess Shipping: Corp. 268 US a28 (0988) . — . ene 78-TBA Argoud, Re (196i) SILK. 90. 290 ‘Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), LCJ-Rep. 2002, p3.... 283, 295, 304, 348, 953, 458, 1046 Asakura v City of Seatie, 265 US. 582 (928). ‘Asian Agricultural Products Ltd Caso (1990) 50 LLM. 577. Ashby v Trinidad (2002) 9 LHRR. 906. ‘Asylum Case, LCJ-Rep. 1950, p26... “Athens Maritime Enterprises Corp v Hellenic Mulual War tion (Bermuda) (The Andreas Lemos) [1983] Q.B. 647; [1983] 2 WLR. 425, QBD (Comm Cb. Attomey General for Canada ¥Attorne 'No.100 of 1936) [1937] A.C. 326, PC ‘Altorney Geral of Canada v Can Atomney Gonatl of Canada v Gila [1906] A.C. 542, PC (Can).. 57 2085 Sener for‘Attomay General v BEC; sub nom. Dible v BBC [1981] AC. 30 [1980] 3 WLR 105, HL... ‘Attomey General v Guardian Newspapers Lid (0.3); Attomey ‘Observer Lid (No.2); At Goneral_v Times Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109; 1988] 3 W.LLR. 776, HL... ‘Attorney-General of the Government of Istael v Bichmann (1963) 36 (LR. 277, SC; (1961) 36 MLR. 8, DC nse senvrre- 283, 290, 291, 294, 335, 519, 548 ‘Aumeeruddy-Cuifra v Maucitus (1981) 1 Selected Decisions HRC. 67 682, 685 ‘Austro-German Customs Union Case, ?.C.L], Series A/B, No.41 (1931) 108, 108 ‘Autism Europe v France (2004) 13 LELR.R. 843, 748,750, 753, 754 ‘Avellanal v Peru (1989) HRC Rep, GAOR, 44 Sess, Supp, p.19%... 711, 73 By B Divorce: Northem Cyprus) [200] 2 FL. 707; (2001) 3 BCR. 331, Fam Div... BP Case (1978) 53 LR. 297. Baboeram v Suriname (1985) 2 Selected Decisions HRC. 172.. Baccus Srl v Servicio Nacional del Trigo [19574 1 Q.B. 438; [ 948, CA... Banco Nacional de Cuba v Chase Manhattan Bank, 686 F. 24 875 a 7981) Bankovie ¥ Belgium (001) 11 BALK. Barbato v Uruguay (1982) 2 Selected Decisions IRC. 112 Barcardi Corp. v Domenech, 311 US, 150 (1940) . Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Case (Preliminary Objections), CJ. Rep. 1964, ps. Barcelons Traction, Light and Power Co, Case, LCjRep. 1970, be a 4,49, 33, 72, 545, 547, 600, 614, 682, 642, 1038 Bautshe ARzlona v Colombis (1958) 3 THAR 318 Beogle Channel Case (1977) 52 L1-R. 93; (1978) 17 LLM. 632, Belilos ¥ Switzerland (1988) 10 EJH.R.R, 466; 0988) Eur CEH, Series A, Wol132, ECHR... sence Benin v Whimster [1976] Q'3. 297; [1975] 3 W.LR. 542, Benn Pau James) v HM Advocate, 1985 SIT. B15 1994 SCCR 903, Bexne Cy v Bani of England (103) 8 Ves Je 347 Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v Ghana Investments Centre (1989) 95 LR 183 Blake v Guatemala (1998) Inter-Am.CLiLR, Series C, NO36.0.00 Blathwayt v Baron Cawley [1976] A.C. 397; [1975] 3 W.LR. 684, HL... Bleier v Uruguay (1962) 1 Selected Decisions H.R, 109... nn 683, 684, 687 Bolanos v Ecuador (1989) H.RCRep., GAOR., 44" Sess, Supp.40, p.246 712 Bordes and Temeharo v France (1997) 4 LELRR, 264...r:sesstv 68 Borisenko v Hungary (852/98) 707 Brazilian Loans Case, P.C.IJ, Series A, No.2t (1929). i British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco (1925) 2 RiLA.A. 615... 517,539 Broeks v Netherlands (1987) 2 Selected Decisions FRC, 196,01. 719, 721, 722 Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No.1) [1972] A.C. 1027; [1972] 2 WLR. 645, HL "88 icragua) (817) 1 AJL 540 Burgos v Uruguay (1981) ions SIN aa Burkina Faso and Mall Frontier Dispute Cae, LC] Rep. 1585, p $82. ‘45, Tis, 128 597, 236-259, 798an esos uy Cou Wess Burrell v Jamaica (1997) 4 LHR. 350... 688 Buttes Gas and Oll Co v Hammer (No.3); Occidental Pettoleam Corp v Buttes Gas and Cit Co (No.2) [1982] A.C. 888; [1981] 3 W.LR. 287, HL. +307 Buvol v Barbuit (1797) Cases tTalb. 281 98, 73,76 ‘Buzau-Hehoiasi Railway Case (1936) 3 RLA.A. 1835... 540 Cy Australia (2002) 10 LHR, 364, 706 C (An Infani), Re [1959] Ch. 363, [1958] 8 WLR 309, Ch D: 380 € Czamikow Ltd v Centrala Handlu Zagranicznego Rolimpex (CH) 12979] Ac. 351; [978] 3 WLR. 274; (1978) 2 ALLER 108, fe oa ~ Bingham Gispecor of Taxes) [198] SFC"EED) 1 156, Sp Corn 179, 186 aire Case (1929) 5 RLAA. 516 ‘Cameron v HM, Advocate (1871 ‘Camouco Case (Panama v France), TTLOS, 7 Februacy 2000. Canevaro Case (1912) 11 RLA.A. 397; (1912) 6 AJ.L1. 746 Carboy Uruguay (198) 1 Seeced Desons HRC 63 Carl Zeiss Stiftung r & Keeler Ltd; Rayner & Keeler Ltd v Courts & Coltaar|T Re. soe GS WLR ORT 3617. 175,177,178, 180, 182-184 Caroline, The, Case, 29 BES. 1137-1138; 30 BFSP. 195-196, 529, 921, 922, 934 Celis Laureano v Peru (997) 4 LELRR. 5 687 Certain Criminal Proceedings in France Case, June 17, 2003...» 305, 1044 Certain Expenses of the United Nations Case, LC} Rep. 1962, p-i51..... 12, 835, 981, 964, 1015, 1022, 1077, 1086 ‘Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits) Judgment No.7), PICU], Series A, No? (1926). 446, 508, 587, 59, 1089 Certain Phosphate Lands in Naurn Case, [CJ Rep. 1992, p.240. 53, 1068 Chamizal Arbitration (1911) 5 AIL, 282.0000 208, 229 Gheung (Chang Cv The King [1991 A.C 36 58) 62 LL ap. 381, . 7 3. 543, 568 Chevrea Cas 18) 2 Chorz6w Factory Case (turisdiction), PCJ, Series ~ 45, 5, 53, 875 Choraéw Factory Case (Merits), PCI, Series A, NoI7 (1928)... 352, 536, 539, 542, 589, 590, 592, 595, 996, 999, 601, 1039 hur of Scientology Case (V1 ZR 267/76) (1979) NUM 10% 65 CLR estes 510 iy ef Sena’ anf gland Se ores City wank of England Civil Air Transport Ine v Central Air Transport Corp [1953] AC. 70; (3952) 2 All ER, 733, PC (BK) oe we Civilian War Claimanis Association Lid v King, The [1932] AC. 14, HE. 566 Claim against the Empire of Tran Case (1965) 45 1I.R. 57... 311, 313, 323, 325 Clark v Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947)... ceoccnences BB Clipperton Island Case (1932) 26 ALL 390, 198, 216, 1026 Coeriel and Aurik v Netherlands (1995) 2 LHL 297. 76 Colquhoun v Brooks (1889) LR. 14 App. Cas. 493; 2 T.C. 490, HL: affirming (1888) LR. 21 BD. 52, CA 839 Commission v Couneil (C-23/70) [1971] E« 19 ‘Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Ministry of Industries an ‘ary Manufacturing, Republic of Iraq, unreported, 1992... 32 ‘Competence Case. Ser Competence of the General Assembly for the "Kdmission of a State to the United NationsCompetence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations, LC] Rep. 1980, p 836 Competence ofthe LL. wily expect to the Agel Laur Ce BCL. Rep., Series B, No. (192). Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership (Article 4 of the Charter), LCJRep. 1948, 757 Conteris v Uruguay (1985) 2 Selected Decisions HRC. 168, Continental Shelf Case (Libya v Malta), LCJ.Rep. 1985, p.13 Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v Libya), LCJ.Rep. 1982, p18... 49, 385,395, 402, 472, 483, 459) Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v Libya) (Application) for Revision & Interpretation of the Judgment) LCT. Rep. 1985, p92... Cook v US, 288 US. 102 (1933) : Corfu Channel Case (Preliminary Objections), LCJ-Rep. 1948, pi Corfu Channel Case (Merits), LCJ.Rep. 1989, pd. 45, 293,405, 422, “24-426, 606, 507, 537, 835, 802, ‘900, $17, 955, 1027, 1028, 1041 Costa Rin Packet Case (G2. v The Netherlands (1897) Meese 5 Ini An 948. Cox v Canada (1994) 2THRR. Curran v City of New York, 191 Misc. 229; 77 Ni 4 Cutting Case (187) US. For Rely p51 conser DF. Sweden (1985) 1 Selected Decisions H.R. 55 Daley v Tran (1988) 18 fran-US.C.TR 232 Dames and Moore v Iran (1983) 14 Iran-USCTR 212... Danning v Netherlands (1987) 2 Selected Decisions H.R.C. 208, David, The (1933) 6 RIAA. 382. De Becker v Belgium (1958-59) 2 V.BEGAR 211. Delagoa Bay Cast (1888-69) BF SP, 691.v.ssnueasesnnsinunsnncnveurnees [Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. (1985) 77 LL.R. 636. 486,488 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary on the Guif of Maine Area (Canad /Unlied Sats of meric) LCL Rep. 184 246. 40,49 385 5, 487-488, 1036 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary on the Gulf of Maine Arca (Canada/United States of America) (Order), LC).Rep, 1982, p:10...-.. 1030 Demjanjuk v Petrovsky (1985) 603 F Supp, 1468; 776 F. 24 571 Beutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft v Polish State (1929) 5 AD. ii - Dickinson v Del Solar {1930] 1 K.B. 376; (1929) 34 LI, L. Rep. 445, KBD... 377, *kson Car Wheel Co, Case (US. v Mexico) (1991) #RLAA. 669.rcens 628 rgaart v Namibia (2001) 8 LHRR. 48... Difference Relating to Immunity from Logal Process of a Special Rappor- teur of the Commission on Human Tights, 1C..Rep. 1999, p62... 506, 508 PP Doot; DPP v Shanahan (Thomas); DPP v Watts Games Wesley); DPP Fay (Michael Augustus); DPP v Loving (leffeey Richard); sub nom. R vy Doot (Robert Leroy); R. v Shanahan (Thomas); Rv Watts James Wesley); R. v Fay (Michael Augustus); Rv Loving (eflrey Richard); R. x Shanahan (Thomas) [1973] A.C, 807; 1973] 2 WLR 532, Hse. 279 Diversion of Water from the Meuse Case, PC], Series A/B, No.70 (1537) DDollfus Mieg et Compagnie SA v Bank of England (No.1); sub nom. United States v Dolifus Mieg ef Cie SA [1952] A.C. 582; [1952] 1 All ER. 572, HL.Dubai/Sharjah Border Arbitration (1981) 91 1.L.R, 543. 205, 236, 398, 488 Duff Development Co Lid v Kelantan [1924] A.C. 797, HL... 96, 173, 325 ELSI Case, LC.Rep. 1989, p14 368, 585, 645, 651 East Aftican Asians Cases (1978) 3 EAR 576 ast Timor Case Portugal v Australia), LC].Rep. 1989, p30... 17, 118, 219, 545, 547, 549, i067, 1070 astem Greenland Case, PCL, Series A/B, NOS (1933)... 200,206,207, ‘26, 793, 95, 758, 80, 639, 885 Effect of Reservations Case (1981) 22 LLM. 37... woe B13 tv Camal-Eldin [1996] 2 All E.R 237; 11996] LCA 13, EAT... 518, 322 Eichmann Case. See Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v Bich- ‘mann Fisler Case (1949) 26 BY.11. 468 - 432 Ekbatana v West-Hindor Case (1914) 41 JB 1327... 276 ‘Oro Mining and Reilway Co. Case (1931) 5 RLA.A. 191. 650 El Salvador v Honduras (1917) 11. ALL. 674 . 402 Hleciricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Order of 5 December 1938, PCI], Series A/B, No.7... 1048, 1074 Ellerman Lines Ltd v Murray; White Star Line & Co Ltd v Comerford; sub ‘hom. Murray v Ellerman Lines Ltd (Ownets of the Steamship Croxtoth Hall; Comerford v White Star Line (Owners ofthe Steamship Celtic) [1931] A.C. 126; (1930) 38 LLL. Rep. 193, HL 89 hiot, Ex p. See R. v Officer Commanding Depot Battalion RASC Coiche- ster Ex p. Eliot Elmi v Australia, 6 BELRC, 433; (1999) LN.LR. 341; UN CAT (2000) 7 THRR, 603, UN CAT. nnn 765, 766, 767 ‘min v Yoldag, [2002] 1 PIR 986; {2003} Fam Law 419, Fam Div nn. 17D Employment of Women Case, PCJ. Rep, Series A/B, NoS0 (1932)....-. BAL Empson v Smith [1966] 1 Q.B. 426; (1965) 3 W.LR. 380, CA 376 Encuento/Palena Case (Argentina/Chile Frontier) (1966) LLR38, p19. 236 Engelke v Musmanny sub tom. Musmann v Engel (1928) A.C. 423, HL. 380 English Channel Arbitration (1979) 18 LLM, 397-0. : 813 Eritrea v Yemen (1996) 114 LLR. ‘198195, 197, 205, 256, 1026 Eritrea v Yemen (Phase two: (20599) 119 11.17.” 403 Fphahanian v Bank Tejarat (1983) 2 Iran-USCTR. 157........ : Estate of Marcos, Re, 25 F. 3d 1457 (9" Cir, 1992)... Estrella v Uruguay (1983) 2 Selected Decisions IRC. 93 Ethiopia Boundary Cage (Meri) 2002) ILM. 4 Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations Case, PC 0925)... Ex-King Farouk of Egypt v Christian Dior (1957) 24 LLB. 238, F(A Minor) (Child Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad), Re; sub nom. F (A Minor) (Child Abduction: Risk If Retueed), Re [1995] Fam. 224; [1995] 3 W.LR. 339; [1995] 3 All ER. 641, CA. . Fagernes, The; sib nom. Coast Lines Ltd v Societa Nazionale di Naviga ‘ione of Genoa (The Fagernes) [1927] P. 31; (1927) 28 LI. L. Rep. 261, CA... <9 Falklond Islands Case. 52, 923,976 Fanali v Maly (1989) 2 683 Faurisson v France, 2 BHRC. 1; (1996) ¢1HRR. 4d. 7 Fei v Colombia (195) 2 LH.RR. 583, mt Filartiga v Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (i 95, 548, (68, 778, 780, 781 a1Fillastre and Bizouarn v Bolivia (1992) HR.CRep, G.AOR, 48" Sess, Suppd, p.2%... Finnish Ships Arbitration (1) 3 RUA 179. Fisheries Jurisdicion Case Qurisdiction), 1C} Rep. 1973, pi Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Merits), LCJ.Rep. 1974, p3.. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada), IC J.Rep. 1988 Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway), LC}. Rep. 1951, p30 Hlegenhieimer Claim (1958) 25 LR. 91. Forests of Central Rhodope Case (1933) 3 RLA.A. 1405. Foster and Elam v Neilson 27 US. (2 Pet) 253 (1629): 7 L.Ed. ais. Foteagill v Monarch Aidines Lid [1981] AC. 251; 1980] 3 WLR. 209, 0 90, 91, AL Free Zon of Upper Savoy and the Dict of Gon Case BC ep Sores A7B, NOME (1932). rere French Indemnity of 1831 (1831) Moore 5 tat Arb. 4467.” Frontier Land Case, 1C }Rep. 1953, p 209. Furundzia Case. See Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija, GT. v Australia (1997) 5 LAR. 737. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary; 1997, p.7; The Times, October 31, 1997, ‘534, 838, 554, 556, 559, 561, 787, ‘865, 866, 870, 875, 1035 Garcia-Mir v Meese, 788 F. 2d 1446 (1986). 35 Gatoil Intemational ine v Arkwwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Instr ance Co (The Sandrina) [1985] A.C. 255; [1985] 2 WLR 74, HL. 91 Gdynia Ameryka Linie Zeglugowe Spolka Akeyjna v Boguslawsli; sub nom. Boguslawski v Gdynia Ameryka Linie Zeglugowe Spolka Akcyjna [1953] A.C. 11; {1952] 2 All E.R, 470, HL. 12 Genocide (Bosnia v Yugoslavia) Case. See Application of the Conventions ‘on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case. German Reparations Case. Ser US. v Reparation Commission Gill Case (1931) 5 RLA.A. 157 .. 97 Government of Kuwait v American Independent Oil Co, (1982) 661.1-R.529 539 Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (2001) 1 S.A, 46... 1755, 756, 757 Grand Prince Grigin v Russia (2001) 8 LHR. 41. Grisbadarna Case (Norway v Sweden), YO Guerrero v Colombia (1982) 1 Selecied Decisiong HLIRC. 12, Gueye v France (1989) HRC Rep, GA.OR, 44! Sess, Supp 9.189. =. 722 Gulf of Maine Case. See Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary an the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) Gulf of Maine Case (Order). Se Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary on the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) (Order) Gur Coop Trust Bank of Africa Ltd [19871 QU, 59; [1986] 3 WLR. Se, 4, 177-180 Haile Selassie v Cable and Wireless Ltd (No.2) [2939] Ch. 182, CA. 157 Hanzalis v Greek Orthodox Patriarchate Court (1969) 48 LR 93, 26 Hatch v Baez (1876) 7 Hun 596 «0. 337 Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Head Money Case (Edye v Robertson) (1864) 112 US. 580 91, 93,98Heathfield v Chilton (1767) 4 Burr. 2018; 98 E.R. 50. a % Heirs of the Duc de Guise Case (1951) 13 RILA.A, 150 509 Hermoza v Peru (1989) HLRCRep., GA.OR, 4d® Sess, Supp.i0, p20... 712 Herrera Rubio v Colombia (1985) 2 Selected Decisions {RC 192........ 688 Hertzberg v Finland (1982) 1 Selected Decisions HRC. 124-1. 682,719 Hesperides Hotels v Muftizade; sub nom. Hesperides Hotels v Aegean “Turkish Holidays (1979) A.C. 908; 11978] 3 WLR. 378, FL... 178,179 Hick v US. (1995) 120 LL 606. een 317 Higginson v Jamaica (2002) 9 LHR 959, UN HRC. 698 Hispano Americana Mercantile SA. v Central Bank of Nigeria {1979} 2 Lloyd's Rep, 277; 123 $}. 336, CA. 229 Holland v Lanapen-Wolfe [2000] 1 W.LR. 1573; (2000) 3 All ER 835, HL. 313, Home Missionary Society Case (1920) 6 RLA.A. 42.. 517 Hyatt International Corp. v Govt. of slamic Republic of ra (185) 9 ‘rare USCIR 72 oe 52 1 Congreso del Partido. See Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Playa Larga v Owners of the 1 Congreso del Partido Ym Alone Case (1935) 3 RLA.A. 1609 --eeeseeess 450, 466, 544 INA Case (1988) 8 [ran-USCTR 373 + 592, 599-600 Immunity om Lagal Prose Cas, 1 Re, 199, pi oe Inieshandel Case Switzland v US), LC] Rep. 1958, p.6... 1047, 1038, 1048, 1054 International Commission of Jurists v Porkugal, Complaint 1/98, ECSR.... 752 International Technical Products Corp. v ran (1985) 9 Iran-US.C.T.R. 18). 573 Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne, PCL, No.1? (925) x Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania Case ‘First Phase), LCJ.Rep. 1950, p71. ee 1078, 1079 Tterpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania Case’ ‘Gacond Phase), LCT-Rep. 1950, p22! Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between W.HLO. and Egypt LC} Rep. 1980, p73 snipig Hopes gv Soe 833 Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) ECHR, Series A, No: Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America (Cases AiS(IV) and A 24) (1996) 32 Iran USCTR 15. Island of Palmas Case (1928) 2 RIAA. &29 esses S87 58, 187, 194, 195, 197, 210, 522, James Buchanan & Co Ld vBabco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Lia [1978] AC. 1M [1977]3 WLR 907, HL. Jan Mayen Case (1981) 20 1.1.M, 797. 403, 475, 469, 1024 Jan Mayen Case. (CJ) See Maritime Boundary in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen. Jimonee v Aristeguieta (1962) 511 F.2d 547. Johnson v Browne, 205 US. 309 (1907) . yet Johnson v Jamaica, 1 BRC. 37; (1997) 4 LHLRR. 21, UN HRC... Joyce v DPP [1946] A.C. 347, HL. Juan Yamal & Co in v Indonesia (19551 A.CKahan v Pakistan Federation [1951] 2 KB. 1003; [1951] 2 T.LR. 697, cA Kasilli/Sedulu island Case (Botswana/Narnibia), LCJ.Rep. Kelly v Jamaica (1997) 4 LHR. 334 Kennedy v Tenidad and Tobago (Admissl LHR 315, UN HRC. Kerr v Iiinois, 119 US: 436 (1886). Khan v Canada (1995) 2 LH.RR. 397 Kindlor v Canada (1993) 12 LHRR. 98. King of Spain Award Case, LCIRep, 1960p ‘tok v Sweden (1995) HRCRep, GAO, 44 Sess, Supp, part. 728 Korean Airline Flight 007 incident oor 998, 976 Krajina v Tass Agency [1949] 2 All ER. 274; [1989] W.N. 309, CA 323, 306, 329, Kawait v American independeitt Oil Co, sn. 56, 578, $88, 689, 591, 592, 594, 598,60, cl, co, o13 Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways [1995] 1 WAAR US7. soe Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No.6); Kuwait Airways Corp v Teal airvays (Ao 5 sb son Kune Airways Corp v rag Airways Ca (Ro. [2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 A.C. 883, HL LaGrand (Germany v United States of America) Case (Merits), LCJ.Rep. 2001, pes ssoee 520, 534, 844, 1071, 1078, 1076 LaGrand (Germany v ‘America) Case (Provisional Mea- Sure), LYRE. 1999, D9 vorsesseoninrnnvninnnnesres seen 508 Land and’ Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria Case, (Preliminary Objections) LCJ.Rep. 1998, p.275 712, 488, 489, 804, 28, 1042-1688, 1046, 1071 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Boundary Dispute Case, LCJ.Rep. 1990, p92... seis 45, 1071 Land, Island and Waridime Frontier Dispute Cave (El Salvador v Fion- duras}, LC] Rep. 1992, p351 49, 58, 195, 197, 205, 208, 212, 288, 402, 837, 1076 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria Case, LC. Get 10, 2002, General List No. 94...... 212, 239, 484, 468, 489, 864, 838, 1070 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case (El Salvador v Honduras: agua Intervening) (Application for Permission to Intervene), 1CJ.Rep. 1990, p82. . Lansmann v Finland (198 Lanwsov v Russia 2002) 9 LHR. $35. aver incident (1860) 1 MeNaie 78. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Reso- lution 276, LCJ-Rep. 1971, p16 56, 8, 134, 131, 551, 552, 776, 787, ‘864, 988, 1068, 1083, 1086, 1087 Legal Status of Fasten Greenland Case. See Bastern Greenland Case Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case (United Nations), LCA Rep. 1995, p.226; (1997) 35 LLM. 809; The Times, July 18, 1996... 2,20, 22, 37, 38, 47, 39, 135, 547, 549, 699, 891, 04, 923, 927, 939, 989, 1077, 1075, 1081 Legality of Use of Force Case (Yugoslavia v U.S. etal) (Provisional Mea- ‘sutes), LCJ.Rep. 1999, pO16 1 B14, 956, 958, 1027 Lena Goldfields Arbitration (1930) § A.D. 3. * 602 Letellier v Chile, 488 FSupp.665 DDC. (1 780 Liameo Case (1981) 20 TEM. 53 594iangsiriprasert v United States [1991] 1 A.C. 225; [1990] 3 W.LLR. 606, PC (HK) Libyan Peo Life Insurance Ciaims (US. v Germany) Lighthouses Arbitration. Se Ottoman Empire Lighthouses Concession Lithgow x United Kingdom; sub nom. Lithgow « United Kingdom 90067 Vosper Plev United Kingdom (9262/81); English Electric Co Ltd v United Kingdom (9263/81); Banstonian Co ¥ Urited Kingdom (9265/ 81); Yarrow Ple v United Kingdom (6266/81); Viekers Ple v United ‘Kingdom (9813/81); Dowset Securities Lid v United Kingdom (9405/ 81) (1986) Eur CHR Rep, Series A, No.102; (1986) 8 EHRR. 329, ECHR 599 Littrell v United States (No.2) 119951 1 WLR. $2; [199414 ANER 203,CA_ 313, 315, 316 Lockerbie Case. See Questions of Interpretation and Application ofthe 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary Objections) (1995) 20 ELRR. 99; (1995) ECUIRRep, AZO, ECHR, eis Lotus Case, PCL, Series A, No: : 288, 298, 299, 302, 457, 458 Lovelace v Canacla (1981) 2 Setected Decisions HRC 28 oa.tosceee-685, 725 Ligh Moni of Genoa v Cechofracht Co (1956) 2 QB 62 [1956] 3 WLR. "480, QBD... 164, 185, Lusitania Case (1923) 7 RLA.A. 32..su.csusnsrursnmarnnnuenarcraenaee 543 Luther Co v James Sagor & Co; sub nom. Aksionaimoye Obschestvo AM Luther Co v James Sagor & Co [1921] 3 XB. 592; (1921) 7 LL L. Rep. 218, CA; reversing [1921] 1 KB. 456; (1920) 5 LU. L. Rep. 451, KBD... 157, 168, 172, 175,177 MOX Plant Case (Ireland v U.K), ITLOS, 3 December 2001 M/V Saiga (No.2) Case (1999) 38 1..M. 1523; (1999) 120 LR. 143. 503 64,72, 424, 439, 440, 441, 452, 465, £66, 459, 474,503 Macartney v Garbuit (1890) LR. 24 Q.8.D. 368, OBD. 379 Macaine Walon v Dept of Trade [1969] 9 All EX 525 {1991 Ch. 72 Mahuika v New (2001), Mallén Case (1927) 4 RLAA. 173 Malone ¥ Commissioner of Police 11979] 2 WLR. 700, Ch D.... ‘Mansaraj v Sierra Leone (2001) 8 LHLRR.947.. Mareva Compania Naviere $A v Intemational Bulk Cazriers SA (The ‘Mareva) {1980} 1 AUl E.R. 213; [1975] 2 Lloyds Rep. 509, CA . Jeritza Seery v U.S, 127 F. Supp. 601 (958)... ime Boundary in the ‘Area between Greenland and Jan’ Mayen (Denmark v Norway), LC-Rep. 1993, p.3 .. 59, 487, 897, 1046 Maritime Delimitations and Ternitorial Questions etween Qatar and Bahrain Case (Merits), LCJ.Rep. 2001, p.40 38, 197, 201, 202, 403, 485, 488, 489, 1025 Maritime Delimitations and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain Case (jurisdiction No.1), LCJ.Rep. 1994, p.112.. vee 8B Maritime Delimitations and Territorial. Questions Between Gatar and Bahrain Case Gurisdiction No.2), LCJ.Rep. 1995, p-. Martini Case (1950) 2 RLAA. 973. Mavromatts Talesne Concesions Case N02 (1928) -rrveenMavromatia Paleatne Concessions Cove, (Merit, P.CIY. Stes A, No (1925) ens Mayaguez Case [I Mbenge v Zaire (1983) 2 Selected Decisions Medivid Case (1986) ALL. 622.00... Mellenger v New Branswick Gevelopment Corp; sub nom. Mellinger ‘New Brunswick Development Corp (39731 1 WLR. 6Ot fis7i} 2 All ER. §83, CA 327,929 Mergé Clim (1958) 22 LLL 43 628, 61 Mexican Eagle Co. Case, Cd. 5758, p5. 63 Miango v Zaire (1987) cece ct nsivisrnsnivrsevnnennennnt Military and Paclismentary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua ¥ United States of America) (Provisional Measures} LC. Rep. 1984, PAG, P25 orenervorieree 1076, 1071 Military and Paramilitary Activites in andl against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United Ststes of Ameria) (ursiieion and Admibsiblity), LC -Rep, 1984, p82. 045-1046, 1054-1056 Military and Paramilitary sgainst Nicaragua (Nicaragua. ‘United States of Arverica) (Merits), [CY Rep. 1986, pid + 4, 5,20, 36-99, ‘41, 36-59, 62, 242, 243, 386, 422, 515, 516, 548, 550, 584, 587, 791, B57, 889-891, 893, 912-214, 915, 917, 922, $23, 827, 931, $32, 936, 950, 959, 979, 1027, 1028, 1082, 1083, 1045, 1046, 1654-1056, 1071, 1076, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Provisional Measures), LCJ.Rep. 1984, 33 pie. Millan v Uruguay (id80) 1 Selected Decisions HIRE 33. 383 Minitor of Halls v Treatment Action Campaign (2003) 8 S.A. 733; 18 BHRC. 1 755 Minquiers and Ecrehos Case Qudgment), IC .Rep. 1953, p87 207, 1035 586, 613 687 Mobil Oil an Ine. Iran (1987) 16 francUSCTR. 3. Mojica Dominican Republic (1995) 2 LHR. 66 Molvan v Attomey General of Palestine. Sor aim Moivan, Owner of Motor ‘Vessel Asya y Attorney General of Palestine Molyneaux, Ey p.[1986) 1 WLR. 331; (1986) 83 L8G. 1314, QBD.... 06 Monetary Gold’ Removed from Rome in 1943 (lily v. France, United dom and United States), LC). Rep. 198551958 0. 1028, 1040, 1070 Srnurco Case (Seychelles Feance, FTLOS, 16 Becomiber 2000. 274 Moracl v France (989) Mortensen v Peters (1908) 14 Si. 1. 337; 1908) 8 FG) 93, HG) Mukong ¥ Cameroon (195) 2 LHL, 131. Masa Atorey Goer 180] 8.116 (57513 WIL 78, GBB.” Ser ‘Mutombo v Switzerland (1994) 1-3 [H.R 122. 766 Muzonzo v Sweden (1997) 4 LHRR. 78. 766 Myers ine v Canada (2000) 121 LLR. 73... S85 [Naim Melvan, Owner of Motor Vessel Asya v Attorney General of Pales- tine [1948] A.C, 351; (1947-48) B1 LL. Ls Rep. 277, PC (Pal) 21, 440 Nanni v Pace and the Sovereign Order of Malta (1995-37) 8 A.D. 2 Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Moroceo Case, P.CIJ,, Series 1923). - 106, 195, 616, 1024 Naulilaa Case (Responsibility of Germany for damage caused in the Por- tugese colonies in the south of ‘rs (Portugal v Germany) (938) 2 RIAA. 1011... Neer Ciatin (2926) 4 RIAA. 60. 142 $37 167,568,ane poneie yy Coe eas re aries muninay Ng ¥ Conada (1994) $2 LURR. 16h sv 92, 704 NEstagua (Merits) ose. See Miliary and Patsaitay Aaiides In and ‘Agnna Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of Ameria) (Meri6) ‘ican v Unie Soles Can, Se Cae Concering Milian an Ft trilnry Activities in and Aguins! Nicormgun (enragua «7 Urted Siates of Ameria} (Meats) se ee Nielsen Case (1958-59) 2 Y.B.E.CHLR, 433 .......... Norris v Ireland (1988) E.C.H.R., Series A, No.142.. Nom Amerizon Dredging Company Case (08. Nsic) G8R6) TREA A, coon 8,650 26, 50 North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (1910) i RLAA. 167; (910) Hague Court Reports 141 os 105, 106, 254, 828 North Sea Continentil Shelf Cases, LC} Rep. 1969, p3 23, 24, 35-36, 49, 63, 236, 254, 382, 384, 472, 477, 486, 489, B14, 857, 895, 897, 902 Norwegian Loans Case LC Rep. 1987, p.9 45, 818, 880, 1019, 1053-1055, Nottebohm Case, LC Rep. 1959, pl .....0..."83, 243, 452, 616, 623-625, 628, 681, 637, 642 Nuclear Tests Cases (Interim Protection), LC.J.Rep. 1973, p.99.. 4075 Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v France; New Zealand v France), .CJ. Rep. 1974, pp.253, pas? ~- 436, 995, 788, 798, 1027, 1043, 1045, 1062, 1076 Nuclear Weapons Case. See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case (United Nations) and also WHO Nuclear Weapons Case. OB, v Norway (1984) ? Selected Decisions HRC. 44 eo 73 Getjen v Central Leather Co, 246 US. 297. a Gil Platform Case (Merits), LC.Rep, 2003, 922, 925, 925, 928, 901 Gil Platform Cose (Preliminary Objections), Lj Rep. 1986, p.803. 71 Ominyake and Lubicon Lake Bond v Canada (1950) HRC Rep, GAO 45 Sess, Supp.40, Vol Il, pl. Opinion No. (0991), EC. Aiton Commission, Yugeslavia, 92 TLR, [eee - . 119, 121, 122, 128-126, 129, 145, 150, 158, tation Cernmission, Yugoslavia, 92 4199, 421, 122, 124, 125 igoslavia, 92 LR, "15, 125,120, 151,150,151, 238 Opinion No3 (1992), EC. Arbitration Commission, Yugoslavia, $2 LLR. VD vareesnssns 121, 128, 130, 238 Opinion ‘Nos (992), EC. "Ambitcation Commission, Yugoslavia, $2 LR. VB vaso ene TH, 2A Opinion Nos 4-7 (993), 2. Arbitration Commission, Yugoslavia, 9211-8. 173. 79 151 Opinion Nos (4982), EC. Arbitcation Commission, Yugosiavia, 92 LR. 121, 124 - 197, 146, 152, 153, ion Commission, Yugoslavia, $2 LER. esesesustsnstn 101, 127, 146, 149, 152, 154 Opinion Nos 12-15 (1993), EC. Arbitration Commission, Yugoslavia, (1993) Opinion No.10 (1992), BC. 206. 32 LLM, 1589 126 Ortiga ¥ OncleJose 276 Glioman Empire Lighthouses Concession (1956) 27,591 ‘Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Playa Larga v Owners ofthe L Congreso del Partido; sub nom. Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board The Marble Islands v Owners of The f Congreso del Partido 11983) 1 A.C, 244; [1981] 3 WAL. 328, HL......308, 310, 812, 313, 315,317, 322, 324, 328,333,esene ay Con ann wn irene? any ine Admsical v Walle Shipping (Hong Kong) Ltd i spine omiealy Ter Sh Corp v Owners of the Shig Sitippine hemaral 19771 AC. 07; [7G 2 MELA 3m, Pe A, 322 Pakistani Prisoners of War Case, LC] Rep. 1973, p28. 1027 Panevezys-Saldutiskis Case, PCI, Series A/B, No.76 (1935), 14, 650 Paquete Habana, The, 175 US. 677 (1900) .....- 95 Parkinson v Potter (1665-86) L-R. 16 Q.B.D. 152, Q8D. 378 Partement Belge, The (1878.79) 4 P-D. 129, PDAD: reversed (1879-80) Lk 5 PD. 197; [1874-80] AUER. Rep. 104, CA... ee BB Paul v Aveil, 812 FSupp 207 (SD. Fla, 1993). : 780 Pallat Case (1929) 5 LAA. 538. $08 Peru v Dreyfus Bros & Co (1888) R38 Ch, B. 348, Ch D. 170 Pesaro, The, 271 US. 562 (1926). 306 Philippine Admiral, The. See Owners of the Philippine Ad Shipping (Hong Kong) Ltd (The Philippine Admiral) Piandiong v Philippines (3001) 8 LH.RR. 349... - 684 Pianka v'The Queen; sub nom. DPP v Pianka [1979] AC. 107; (19771 3 W.LR. 859, PC (am)... 76, 428 Pietroroia v Uruguay (1981) 1 Selected Decisions HRC. 76.. aor Pinkney v Canada (1981) 1 Selected Decisions FERC. 95... m Pinochet Case. See R. v Bow Sect Metropolitan Supendiary Magistrate Ex B. Pinochet Ugaste (No3) Pinson Case (1956) 12 RLA.A. 155.0... ‘S18 Planmount Lid v Zaire [1981} 1 Ali ER 1110; f1580j 2 yds op. 393, BD (Comm Cer 322 Playa Larga, The. Set Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Playa ‘Large v Owners ofthe | Congreso del Pariige Polay Campos v Peru (2003) 10 THR 628 m Polly Peck International Ple v Nadir (asi) (No3) 11953) 4 All ER. 705; {1992] 2 Lives ep, 38, CA. . 79 Porter v Freudenberg: Kreglinger 'S Samuci é& Rosenfeld; sub nom Merten’s Patents R Re [1915] 1 K.B. 857, CA.. cs Porto Alexandre, The [1920] P, 30, CA. 306 Post Office v Estuary Radio Lid (1968) 2 86, ca 81, 90,56, 402 Pratt and Morgan v Attorney General of jamaica (1994) 2 A.C. 1; 11993] 3 WLR. 995,.PC Jam). vse, 684, 685, 701, 705, 713, 826 Propend Finance Py Ld ¥ Sing (197) Ui LL. rt The Tne, May 2 1997, CA. 29 Prosecutér v Akayesu LCT-96-47, (2002) 9 LHI. 606 Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija, -S517/1-1, (2002) 9 LHR R. 750.......335, 349 Prosecutor v Blaskic (Case I1-95-14-AR 108bis) (1997) 110 LLR. 688, 56 Prosecutor v Tadic (Case 1T-94-1} (1999) 38 LLM. 1518. 518 acc v Commisione-Goneral ofthe Goverment offi (861) Li Wacseeevnene ve a Qari Halimi-Nedzibi v Austria (1994) 2 LHLRR. 190. 782 Qatar Case (1959) 20 LR. $34 on Qatar v Bahrain (2001) Case. Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain Case Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Can- vention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United States) (Provisional Measures), LC.}.Rep. 1992, plo. esa 082 Questions ‘of Interpretation and’ Application of the 1971 Montreal Con-sow Le yy Capes Was mae cen vention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom) (Provisional Measures), C.J Rep. 1992, pas UK MIL, 1992, (1992) 3 B/Y IL. 722... 260,975, 976, 1082, 1087 Quiteros v Uruguay (1983) 2 Selected Decisions Hii8C. 138 701 R. v Anderson (1868) 11 Cox's C.C. 198. evecemearness 429 Ry Bottll Ex p. Kuechenmeister [1947] KB. i; (1946) 2 All E.R 434, CA 887 R. vBow Street Metropolitan Suipenciary Magistrate Ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (Nod); 8 v Bartle Ex p. Pinochet Ugate (No); sub nom. Rv Evans Exp. Pinochet Ugarte (No.1); Pinoehot Ugarte (No.1), Re [2000] 1 A.C. Gr fi898) 9 WLI 1656, Hse ccm 73, 78,296 Rv Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex p, Pinochet Ugarte No.3) 2000) 1 A.C. 147; [1999] 2 WLR. 827, HL... 73, 321, 338,340, 343, 344, 347, 348, 589, 785 R. v Brixton Prison Governor Ex p. Minervini: sub nom. Onofrio Minervi Re [1959] 1 QB. 155; 1958) 3 WLR, 559, OBD.. Hv Cambridge DH Fx p.¥ (Nos) (935) 1 WLR 129, CA. veeraenvn R.v Guildhall Magistrates Court Ex p. Jarret Thorpe, The Times, October 5, 1977, DC enews a 4 Ry Hartley 11978] 2NZLIC 199. noes Rv Horseferry Road Magistrates Court Ex p. Bennett (No.t); sub nom, Bennett v Horselerry Road Magistrates Court {1994] 1 A.C, 42; [1993] 3 WIE. 90, Hhiccec censor ensnrnnnanee 293-295 R. International Trustee for te Protection of Bondholders AG 48810; sub ‘nom. International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG v The King [1907] 4. 50; 937) 57 LL Rep 148, HL. seeseees 606 . v Kelly (William Robert); R._v Murphy (David James); Riv Avison, (Steven Paul) [1982] A.C. 665; [1981] 3 WLR. 382, Hla, 268 1. v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex. 63. fovvnornen F525, 77, 9, 28, 29, 963 . v Lambeth Justices Ex p. Yusulu; sub nom. R. v Govemor of Brixton Prison Ex p. Yusufy [1985] Crim. LR. 510, 361, 369 R. v Mills, unceported, 1995, QED. Ry Madan (Kanhya Lal) [1961] 2 QB. Rv Nahlovu 11968] (9 S.A. 513... R. ¥ Officer Commanding Depot Battalion RASC (1949] 1 All ER. 373; 1948] WAN. 52, KBD... Rv Roques (1984)..- - ne R. v Sansom (Alec james); &v Williams (Thomas Richard); R. v Sauth (Nicholas James); Rv Wilking (Joseph Herbert) [1991] 2 Q1. 130; [1991] 2 WALR, 366, CA (Crim DIN) es snene oe 2 R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex P. “Trawnik, Te Times, Apri 18, 1985, Q8D ssveitgennes 96,322 Rv Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p. Samuel [1990] CO.D.17; The Times, August 17, 1989, CA srcceeoeuteornens R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p. Lord Rees-Mogg [1994] QB. $52; [1964] 2 WLR. 115; [ 280 ‘ail 735 363 294 Gap. Rv Secretary of 636; (1991) 2 W.LR. 588, HL. a R. w Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. [1989] A.C. 1014; [1988] 3 W.LLR. 938, HL. Rw Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Sivakumaran; Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Vilvarajahy R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Vanathan; R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Rasalingan; Rv late for the Home Depeuve yy Goes (a ane aMternuctone axe ‘Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p, Navaratnaam [1988] ‘AC 958 (1968) 1A ERLI93, He ones, S78 R.v Secreiary of State for the Home Depariment Ex p. Thalaar, sub nom. R, ¥ immigration Officer at Heathrow Airport Ex p. Thakar [1974] O.B, 94; 1924] 2 WLI 593, CA 77, 876 1 (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and ‘Commonwealth Affairs; sub nom. R. (on the application of Abassi) « Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Alfairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, [2003] UK IRR, 76,CA = 366 ‘Radwan v Radwan (No.1) [1973] Fam. 24; [1972] 5 WAR 735, Fam Div... 371 Fahimteclaw Nizam of tera sub nom: Nizam of Hyderabad ang [1958] A.C. 379; [1957] 3 W.LR. 884, HI. 309 37,52, 52, $8, 58, 56, 537,58, 4, 10 TR 195 s7i Rann of Kutch Case (1968) 7 LIM. 633.. 236 Rayner JH (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and indus Maclaine Watson & Co Lid v Department of Trade and Industry No) Macleine Watson & Co Ltd v International Tin Couneil (No.1, TSB England and Wales v Department of Trade and Industry, Amalga mated Mola Trading v Interational Tn Coun (1990]2 AC. 416; {486513 WL. 969, airing 1985] Ch 72; 188) 3 WLR 1035, ~ cn 303, 325 ea Crusades oe (Be 3 a “30,466, 1024 Reel v Holder (1981) 1 W.L.R. 1226; [961] 3 All ER 331, CA” 196 Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 37 LLM. 1340 SOIT on Reid v Jamaice (1995) 2 LHR. 57. S68 Renard, The (1778) Hay & M. 22254 Reparations for Injures Suffered in the Service ofthe United Nations Case, UCHRep. 1999, p17... 52, 1K, 138, 508, 628, 634, 635, 790, 635, 1034 Republic of Peru v Dreyfus. See Peru v Dreyfus Bros & Co Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention snd Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Case, CJ.Rep. 1951, p35... 42, 52, 633, B11, “aid. bug, 819,601, 624 Restrictions to the Death Penalty Case (1984) 23 L1.M. 320 813, 836 Revere Copper Inc. ¥ OPC. (1978) 17 LLM. 132Ioevesena a3 Right of Passage Case (Preliminary Objection) CJ Rep. 1957, p.125_ 1082, 1065 Aight of Passage Case (Merits, LC.Rep. 1960, 6... 22, 258, 1028, 1082, 1043, 1046, 1048 Rights of Nationals of the US. in Morocco Case, LCJ-Rep. 1952, p.176....." 106, $28, 1036 River Meuse Case, See Diversion of Water from the Meuse Case Robert E, Brown Case (1923) 6 RLA.A. 120... scons 651 Roberts Claim (1926) 4 RIAA. 120... CII 568 Robinson v Jamaica (1989) serous coc 7D Romano-Arericana Case, 5 Hackworth 840... one 525, 68 Rustomjee v The Queen (187677) LR. 2 Qi Be 3. v Ebrahim, 1991 (2) $.A.553, CAsososce oss sensenisnnnenecntenn 24 Saiga. See M/Y Saiga (No.2) Cise St Pierre and Miguelon Case (1992) 31 LLM. 1148... 482, $88 Salem Case (1939) 2RLA.A. M61. “53, 626, 627, 619, Salomon v Customs and Excise Commissioners; sub nora. Solomon v ‘Customs and Excise Commissioners [1967] 2 Q.B, 116; [1966] 3 W.L.R, 1223, CA - 87, 88 Santa Maria Incident, 4 Whiteman 668 I 59xvi age of Lnses (Las anc anerrignorasy Sapphire Int. Petroleums v N1LO.C. (1967) 23 LR. 136... 591, 602 Saudi Arabia v Aramco (1963) 27 LR. 117. 423, 594, 601, 602 Saudi Arabia v Nelson (1993) 123 L.Ed. 47.. 784 Savarar Case (France ¥ GB) (911) 11 RLA.A. 243; Scot, (911) Hague Court Reports 275 292 ‘Schooner Exchange, The v McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812) i, 309,433, Sencovv Iran (1998) 28 ns USCTe 196 a Sea-Land Service v bran (1984) 6 tran-USCTR, 149. a Seca Case (Gand Intelocutry Award) (988) 10 inSG R 576, 599-601 seco ne. VNLOG. (First Inkerocutory ‘award) ‘a385)9 Pian SCTR 584 sei Fut 52, cn 98 Semco Salvage and Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Lid (The ‘Nagasaki Spirit) [1997] A.C. 455; (1997] 2 W.LR. 298, HL on Sengupta v Republic of India [1983] LCR. 223 : 318 Serbian Loans Case, P-CLJ, Series A, No.20 (1929) oT Shave v Shave [1979] Fam. 62; [1979] 3 W.LLR. 24; [1979] 3 All BR 1, Fam Div... o 37 Short v fran (US. ¥ Tan) (987) 16 fran-USETR. 76. 573 Siderman de Blake v Argentine, 965 F. 2d 699; (1992) 103 [LR 455 ....0. 549, 783, 784 Sidhu v British Airways Plc; Abnett (known as Sykes) v British Airways Plc 119971 AC. 490; (199712 WLR. 26, HE... 3 Sierra Leone Telecommunications Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc; sub nom. ‘Sierratel v Barclays Bank Plc [1998] 2 All ER. 820; {1998] C.LCC. 501, QBD (Comm Cp... 168 Silva v Uruguay (1981) 1 Selected Decisions HRC. 65. 792 Simunek v Czech Republic (1996) 3THRR. 2. 723 Canada (1995) 2 LHRR. 169. 7s Soctal and Economic Rights Action Ce ‘and Social Rights v Nigeria (2001) 10 LURR. 282. 753 United Kingdoms (1989) CtH.R Rep, Series A, (RR 49, ECHR... 7 Sokoloff v National City Bank 145 NIE. 917 (isan 92828) 2A. ‘Nod 7 Sola Tiles Case (1987) 14 Tran-US.CTR 223. 598 Solis Case (1928) 4 RIAA. 358 517 Solorzano v Venezuela (1986) 2 Selected Decisions HRC. 183. m2 Somalia v Woodhouse Drake & Carey (Suisse) SA (The Mary) {1983} Q8. 34; [1992] 3 WER. 744, QD (Comm C0... 101, 186, 162, 167-169, 172,177 Soobramoney v Minister of Health, Kwazulu-Natal (1998) 1 S.A. 965... 754, 756 South Africa Cases (Preliminary Objections}, LC.].Rep, 1962, P30... 791 South West Aftica Case. South West Aftica Case, I.CJ.Rep. 1950, p12 seveee 45,131, 838 South West Africa Cases (Second Phase), L.C).Rep, 1966, pib.e-nn.. 39, 47, 59, 131, 835, 1027, 1031, 1032 ipadan Case, [CJ.Rep. 2001. 197, 261, 1071 Spain v Owners of the Arantzazu Mendi [1939] A.C. 256; (1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 89, Flan 1157, 164,165 Spanish Zones of Mococco Claims (55) 2 REAIA. 818 nnn 58,849 Spinney’ G94) Lid Roya Torance Co Ld (19801 Loy ep 96,186 Sprenger v Ruste 532) HRCRep, GAOR, a Ses, Supa, PSDB soso Sovereignty over Pulau Litigan and Pulau‘Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v International Tin Couneil (1987] 1 W.LR. ‘641; 11996] 3 All ER. 257, QBD xy Starrett’ Housing Corp. v Iran. ( US.CTR 122; (1984) 23 LLM. 1090... 581, 584, 586 Status of Eastern Carelia, P.C.LJ, Series B, No. 1079, 1081, Steiner and Gross v Polish State (1927-28) 4 A.D. 291 140 Suarez (No.1), Re; sub nom. Suarez v Suarez [1918] 1h 176, CA 378 Sun Yat Sen Incident, 1 McNair 85. 364 ‘Swordfish Stocks in the South Bast Pacific Case, ITLOS, 19 December 2000503 TAC Case. Ste Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign TK. v France (1990) HRCRep,, GAOR., 43°" Sess, Supp.a0, p-118 725 ‘LT. v Austealia, Communication No. 706796. 695 ‘Taba Award (1988) 80 LLR. 226... ssessse 236 Taena-Arice (Chile v Peru) Arbitration (1925) 2 RLAA. $21, 862 ‘Tadic v Karadzic, 70 F, 2d 232 (2d Cir, 1995) 781 Tadic v Prosecutor Qurisdiction) (1996) 35 LLM. 35; (1996) 3 LHR. 578, ‘837, 1088 cone 326 Tapicca Case. Ste Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Lid v Pakistan of Agricultural Supplies (The Harmattan) Taylor v Best (1858) 14 QB, 487; 1854) 14 CB. 487.1. 379 Temeltasch v Swvitzeriand (1983) 5 EH.RR. 817, Eur Comm HR... 812, B15, Temple of Preah Vihear Case, LC}. Rep. 1962, 7.6. _ 236, 54, 851, 1048 Territorial Jurisdiction of the international Commission of the River Oder Case, P.C.L) Rep, Series A, No2 (1929)... 822 Territory of Fiawaii'v Ho 41 Hawaii 565 (1957) 26 LR 887... 95 Texaco v Libya (1977) 53 LL 389; (1978) 17 L194. 1 4,86, 578,550, ‘591, 593, 601, 606, 613, ‘Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Lid v Pakistan Dircetorate of ‘Agricultural Supplies (The Harmattan); sub nom. “Thal-Burope Tapioca Service Lid v Pakistan, Ministry of Food and Agriculture (The Harmattan) (1975} 1 W.LR. 1485; [1975) 3 All ER 961, CA. svete is 7B, 928 ‘Thakrar v Secretary of State for the Home Office. See tv Secretary of Sate for the Home Department Ex p. Thakrar ‘Thompson v St Vincant and the Grenadines (2000) 8 LELR.R. 336 695 Tinoco Arbitration (1923) 1 RLA.A. 369. 160 ‘Tippotts v TAMS-ATTA (1985) 6 Tran-U: 5a Toonen v Australia (1994) 1-3 LER R97... os. 658, 682, 714, 716, 719, 722 Topco Case. See Texaco v Libya Tvl See Rv Stcretry of tatefor Foreign and Comaonvelth ar x p. Trawnik Treacy v DPP; sub nom. R. v Treacy (Eugene Anthony) [1971] AC. 537; 971] 2 W.LR. 112, HL. aavranga ones Trextment in ungary of Aca and Ce ofthe ed Sse of Americ (United States v. Hungary), (United States v USSR), LC] Re oso Teal Hungaiy of Ascavcand Crew ofthe nied Sats cf Ameria {United States «, USSR), LC} top. 1954. seuss Trendtex Trading Corp v Central Bank of Nigeria (1977] QB 529; 119712, 278 1010 WLR 356, CA. 77, B, 310, 311, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329 Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938, 1941) 3 RLAA. 191 ‘537 Teiquet v Bath (1764) 3 Bucr. 1478. suvenentns 72,78, 76 ‘Tyrer v United Kingdom (1978) E.C ies A, No. 28; (1979-80) 2 ERRR1 ECHR... nieineneenseiienens 658a sumone op Coe yeas ame a US. v Alvarez-Machain (1992) 119 LEd. 2 441. US. v Angog (1961) LLR. 32 - 2 US. ¥ Benitez, 71 F. 24 1312. 283 US. v Fishing Vessel Taiyo Maru No28, 395 F Supp. 419 (DM. 1975). e US. v Guatemala (1920) 2 RLA.A. 1083 586 US. v Guy W. Capps Inc, 204 F. 24 655 (0953) 95 US. Pink, S15 U5. 205 (1942) 94 US. + Reparation Commission (1938) 2 RLA.A. 9 - eu US. ¥ Ushi Shiroma (1958) 11-121. 27 US. ¥ Yunis (No2) (1988) 62 LR. 344 co B81, 295; US. Air Raids on Libya and Entebbe Cases 923, 932, 97 US. Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Case (Provisi LC }Rep. 1979, p7 US. Diplomatic and Consular Saif in "Tehran Case, LC] Rep. 1980, 367, 9, 507,519, ‘935, 1027, 1035, 1076, 1084 US. Insurance Companies .... - 7 Underhill v Hemnandes, 168 US, 250. m United Painting Co. Inc. v Iran (1989) 23 iran-USC.LR, 351 534 United States v Burns (2001) SC]. 8. 691 Upright v Mercury Business Machines Co. nc, 213 (NYS) 24.417 0951) 177 Vagrancy Cases (1971) EurCLHLRRep, Series A, Vol2.. 650 Valentin v France (1997) 4 IHRE. 583 van Alpen v The Netherlands, 27 July 1950... 706 Van der Houvien v The Netherlands, Communication No, 583/94. 707 Yan Duyn « Home Office [1975] Ch, 58; {19751 2 WLR. 260; [974] ECR 1337, EC). oe 576 Velisquer Rosiriguez (1585) InterrAm CLL, Series C, No. 4. 307 Velésquez Rodriguez v Honduras (Compensation) (1989) inter AM.CULR, Series C, NO? sous 955, p@ Rep, G. Voting Proceduves Case, iC] Voolanne v Finland (1989) pais. Waddington v Mish (Otherwise Usk, sub rom: Rv Miah oat Waddington v Miah alias Ullah [1974] 1 W.L.R. 683; (1974] 2 377, HL. sss a7 ‘Wemboif Case (1968) Eur CUHR, Series A, Vol; (1968) 1 EHLICR35.... 836, on ‘West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v [1905] 2 KB. 39ers 76 ‘Western Sahara Case, LCJ-Rep. 1978, p.12.srsr.seser» 58, 113, 114, 116, 117, 196, "200, 205, 1668, 1077, 1075 Westminster City Coun han {19861 WL. 979; 19863 Al ER 284, ch D. cn 955 WHO Nuclear Weapons Case LC. Rep. 1996 p.66. 455, 1081 Wight v Madagascar (1985) 2 Selected Decisions HLILC. 151. 72 Wildenhus’s Case, 120 US. 1 (1887). Williams v Bruffy, 96 US. 176... Wimbledon Case, P.C.L, Series A, Now Gi Wolff v Oxholm (1817) 6M, & 5. 92... Wright and Harvey v Jamaica (1996) 3 11 RR, Y v Australia (2000) 7 LHR, 906 asco.Yerodia. See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the ‘Congo v Belgium) Young v Australia (2004) 11 LHR. 146 ..-scsseesse Zafico, The (1925) 6 RLA.A. 160 - Zamora, The (No.1) [1816] 2 A.C. 77; (516) 13 Asp. Zelaya Blanco v Nicaragua (1995) 2 LHRR. 123 ‘Zwann de Vries v Netherlands (1987) 2 SelectedTABLE OF NATIONAL STATUTES, ETC. [Page references in bold type indicate extracts of the statwie] Unereo Kinpow 1215 1351 708 9 24 1858 1861 1078 1881 1889 1598 1895 1937 1947 1989 Magna Catta cc cecveuns 788 ‘Treason Act (5 baw3.<2) 286 Diplomatic Privileges Act 7 Anine C12).0. 72,73, 378 33 38 Nosth American Fisheries ‘Act (9 Geo €38).... 256 Slave Trade Act (5 Geod e113) SB veretctenereeeene 459 Comal” Submarine Mines Act (1 & 22 Viet ©.108) 52.0 484 Offences against the Per ‘son Act (24 & 25 Viet 100) Tervitgrial” Waters Jur ‘sdiction Act (41 & 42 Viet €.78) or seees-s 424) 429 ugitive Offenders Act (4a $5 Vict C69) rene. 292 Herring Fishery Geoiland) Act (G2 & $3 Viet <2) 73, 80 Merchant Shipping Act (57 & 58 Vict. 260) $686(1) 00 268 Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act (58 & 59 Viet. e42) $106) a Firearms Act (1 Edw 8 & 1 Ge0.6 62) cron Crown Proceedings Act (10 & 11 Geo6 44)... 308, 326 20 Patents Act (12, 13 & 14 ‘Geo. 662) SBeacrecesreeeserens 18d, 185 s24(1) - 184 1952 Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Repub- Tic of Ireland) Act (15, 16 Geos & 1 Ehz2 8) 106). Customs and Excise Act (5 & 16 Geos & 1 Bliz. 244), Visiting Forces Act (15 & 15 Geos & 1 liz? [ 1961. Carriage by Air Act @ & 10 Fliz2 ¢27) SD cece 3964 Continental Shelf Act (629). Fishery Livnlts Act (€72) Diplomatic Privileges Act (c81)...... 320, 321, 368, 377, ‘378, 378, 380 st 82(1) 307 88 3a m1 489 467 ©) $86). - Behl sn snn B21, 976, 37 Sch? a7 1965. Carriage of Goods by Road Act (37) slow 90 Sch. S90 Nuclear nstallaions Act (57) 21716). m1 1967 Public Records Act (64).. 24 Criminal Law Act (€58)... 433, 1968 Commonwealth | Immi- AMES ACE (CH) oon 575 Consular Relations” Act (EB) cess 320,221and Legal Separations Act (€53) Imomigration ct (677). 7, 87 1972 Island of Rockall Act (62). 475 1975 Criminal Jurisdiction Act (659). Fishery Limits Act (686) Northem Ireland (Emer ‘gency Provisions) Act «5. State immunity Act 33). 306, 310, 314, 315, 316, 317, 322325, 342, 344,345, 346, 347,781, 78 +315, 321 5, $17, 322, 341, 783,784 817, 322, 781 37 1976 1978 1978 2 322,33 315, 316, 317 347, 218, 322 16, 817, 323 - 317, 323, * 317,322 ‘317-318, 319, 322, 323, 325 316, 318, 322, 323, 328 - 318, 323, ‘316, 238, 323, 324, 329, 318, 320, 321 318 318 318 318 318 318, 322, 318 "318, 319, 761-782 319 9 Qn BI 1978 State Immunity Act—cont s1000}a) 319 cies B19 319, 324 39 319, 924 a2 oe hag "Se 320 ‘a 1981 Deep Sea Mining (Tem- porary Provisions) Act [65D vsienennen, 12,496 510) ‘ 96 British Nv PUY. Breadeasting 5290)1984 Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provi- sons) Act (€Blaciennr 95 1985 Hong Kong Act (c18)..... 257 Child Abduction and Cus fody Act (6.60). a 1986 Quler Space Act (38) ..0. 252 1987 Diplomatic and Consislar Premises Act (48) 32. sensei 360 ‘enttotial Sea Act (6.49)... 387 Channel Tunnel Act (€53) $10... or 238, 486 1988 Income’ and "Corporation Taxes Act (1) 331. 186 (Ceiminal Justice Act (€33)_ S134. +334, 759, 785 1989 fl Seca Ac (6) 267, 268 s.15(1) Batten el (38), 238 1991 Foreign Corporations Ac (ca), wa si)... v8 1993 Criminal Justice Act (€36) 279 51-2. 279 $30). 279 330) 279 Antarctic AG (@25)- 0000" 24 1995 Merchant Shipping Act (en) SIB7 ccceeceeeeeeceee 29D S21 268 1997 Sex Otfendars ‘Act (@51) specail” Youmigaion ‘Appeals Commission Act (c.68). 1998 Human Rights 2001. Anti-tercorism, Crime ané Security Act (e24).... 734 Uniran Stars 1787 Constitution of the United States of America. Art, $2... AE ArtVl, e12._ th Amendment, 1789 fudiciary Act... 1790 Alien Tort Act... 780, 781, 785 1974 Anti-Hijacking Act... | 282 1976 Foreign Sovereign immu nities Act . 306, 344, 782, 784 S16 Es) 1980 Deep Sea-bed Hard Min. eral Resourees Act... 495 1986 Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act... 298 1991 Torture Vietin Protect ‘Act 780 1996 Hostage Taking Act. 282 Canna Indian Acte..-1.+ 725, 726, 727 12. 7 dure Art323) Nensextanps ‘ArtBd.. SIBO)D) teens Td Msceuraneous Belgian Penal Code APLI2S SexieS 61.15 829, 830 AYLI nomieS cy eases 830 Colombian Legislative ‘Decree No.0070..... 685, 686 Constitution and Law of Kuvaitsercessoncesne 609 Constitution of Croatia... 151Constitution of the Russian Federation 106 Constitution list Pederal Republic of Yugoslavia 129 of 755, 756 758, 756 785, 756 755, 756 2 158, 756 788, 756 754 nt 38s, 756 Constitution of the Swiss ‘Confederation ‘Ast366) 510 ArtI726) 510 Constitution 28d TObAGO eres 826 Guinea Customs Code ‘Anat 46 Taw on Military Dis. ai Procedure Bnlind) wn 709 Mental Hesith Act (New Zealand) 707 Merchant Shipping Aes (St Vincent and the Cre- 40 Reindeer Husbandry “Act (Sweden). ne Tasmanian Criminal Code 74 3122. 714, 715, 714, 716 “na, 76 3123 4, 715, 718 1865 Norwepan Becce (el Norway's ishery Zone). 88, 93 1889 1926 1934 1935 1951 1951 1958 1967 197 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1994 Norwegian Decree (deli miting Norway's “Fishery Zone”)... 368, 393 ‘Turkish Penal Code ‘Art. 2m Art6. 272, 273,277 Liechtenstein Law 617, 619, 622 Norwegian Decree (deli- miting Norway's “Fishery Zone")... 388, 391, 392, 393, 50d preamble, 388 Traeli Nazi and Nazi Col- laborators —(Punish- ment) Law. ‘Nationalization of the lea nian Oil Industry Act. 589, Central Bank of Nigeria {lsrael), 1967-5727 ..... 226 Kuwaiti “Decree Law 606, O24 ssstenes Basic Law: Jerusalem, ‘Capital of Israel, 5740- 1930. Iranian Single Article Act, 586, 587, 588, 589 Golan Heigh's Law, 5742— 1981... Republic of Ciskei Con stitution Act si)... R Human “Rights Gexual Conduct) Act (Aus- tralia). .csesessee1688 ana 1794 1810 iia 1815 1518 1999 a 133 1807 1848 1856 1860 1867-1 1868 1880 1883 TABLE OF TREATIES [age references in Wold type indicat extracts ofthe treaty] Netherlands-Spain, Treaty of Peace of Minster... 194 “Treaty of Usecht. 13 ‘Art a, 28 GBAUS, Treaty of Amity, Commerce ane Navi gation Jay Treaty) Franco-Netherlands Treaty on the Probibi- tion of Commezce ait. ‘treaty of Gini 828 Final Act of the Congress Of Vienna cree a GB-US. Treaty respect ing Fishing off. the Coast of Nevsfound Tadao PDS, 256 Convention for Defining Sind Rogue imi ofthe Exdusve Right of the Oyster and Other Fis the Coasts of ‘Creat Britain and France... 203, 1026 ‘208 ‘Treaty of Nanking... 257 Belgium-Netherland: ‘Supplementary Boundary Convention of Maastticht....---- 210 ‘Treaty of Erzerum 803 Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo 208, 209 Declaration” of” Paris General “Treaty of Peace between France, Great Britain and Russia... 256 Treaty of Poking 72. Wancrole Treat: Dedlaration of St Ug een 964 Beigium-S. Consular Conventionssnerven ChilePecu Treaty of ‘Anco... 1884 Convention for the Protec ion of Submarine Cables APEX Mexico-US. Convention.. 3885. Act of Berlin. 200 4888 Convention "Respecting Frea Navigation of the Suez Canal 1890 Anglo-German Treaty . 187, 189, 190 1899 Hague Convention ‘for the Pacific Settlement of International Dis- putes 63, 886, 1026 1901 USEGB, Fiay-Paunecfote ‘Treaty on the Panama Canal. 87 1904 White Slave Trafic Agree ‘ment. 218 1908 Act of Algeciras m8 Pan-American Convention ‘on the status of natur- alised citizens who resume residence in their country of origin 619 1907 Hague Convention for the ‘Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 886, 1025, 1026 Hague Convention on Land Warfare........ 84, 516 Hague Convention on the Conversion of | Mer- chantships into War- ships 20 Hague’ Convention Rela- tive to the Laying of Automatic. Submarine Contact Mines ann 507 we Regulations... 226 1916 Bryan-Chamorro Treaty... 540, 3819 Covenant of the Le ‘Nations... 13, 140, 219, 788, 853, 864, BBS, 981, 9839 1920 2 1923 1924 1925 1926 1928 1929 ‘Treaty of Saint-Germain (Treaty of Peace between the Allied and. Associated. Powe ers and Austria)... 104, 105 ‘Treaty of Versailles (Treaty ‘of Peace between the ‘Allied and. Associated Powers and Germany) 140, 262, 780, 800, ‘42, 044 Protocol_ of Signature of the Statute of the Per- manent Court of International Justice .. 1056, 106i, 1065 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Hastie e170, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1075, Gormany-Poland Geneva Convention. concer ing Upper Silesia. Convention of Lausanne respocting conditions of Residence, Business and Jurisdieton 140 Treaty of Lausanne on the Exchange of Grook and Turkish Populations... 70, 1035 UScMexcan General ‘Claims Convention RIM cerns UK-US. Convention on the Rgulation of Liquor Traffic. .osn Geneva Proto¢dl.w nce Brussels Convention for the Unification of Cer- fain Rules relating to the Immunity of State Owned Vessels... 306, 320, 328 Slavery Convention. 75 General Act of Arbittation 1035, 1083 General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (‘Briand-Kellogg Pact”/Pact of Paris)... 218, 219, 853, 888, 892 Ialy-Holy See ‘Lateran ‘Treaty (Conciliation re 651 13 sowie yp reuse 1929 Warsaw Convention for ‘the Unification af Cer- tain Rules regarding Air Transport... 1930 Forced Labour Convention 75 Hogue Convention on ‘Certain Questions Relating to he Conflict ‘of Nationality Laws... 615- 616, 625, 628, 625, 634, 31 1933 Montevideo Convention ‘on Political Asylum... 22 Montevideo Convention ‘on Rights and Duties Of Stas. 98, 105, 110, 148, 149, 151, 154, 568 1934 Protocol tothe Brussels ‘Convention for the Unification of Cectain Rules relating to the Immunity of | State Owned Vessels 1926... 306 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of AUliaNeEsenyssvrseees 855 “Treaty of Montreux (Cone ‘vention Regarding the Regime of the Straits). 425, om 1938 Munich Agreement for the Cession by Czechoslo- alia to Germany of Sudeten German Ter- tory 855 1939 Czechosiovakian-German “Treaty establishing German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravitcen nen 852, 853 Montevideo "Convention on Political Asylum... 22 ‘Treaty of Mutual. Assis- tance between France, Turkey and the United Kingdom 1 79 1944 Chicago Convention on Intemational Civil Aviation ..... 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 24 Chicago International Air Services Transit Agreement — ("Two Freedoms” Agree- EMH) oeeesccennee 2M1914 Chicago International Air 10945 Statute of the International ‘Transport Agreement Court of Justice—cout, ("Five Freedoms” 1056 Agreement) a BM 36, 1037, 1039 1945 Agrooment for the Prose- 071, 1072, ution end. Punish- ment of Major War Criminals “(London Agreement) and Char- APCD. on. 237, 1070, 1071 ter of the International us sss 237, 1070, 1071 Military Tribunal . (Nuremburg).- 141, 338, 350, 546, 775 Statute of the International Court of Justice... 48, 53, . 140, 1037, 1051, 1054, United Nations Charter 4,15, 11069, 1673, 1085, 1084, 1107 36,37, 56, 58, 61, 65, 92, 94, 1051 99, 112, 143, 125, 129, 152, 1029 135, 136, 141, 147, 218, 221, ag 222, 223, 240, 243, 245, 288, 1029 302, 374, 375, 411, 417, 461, 1030 524, 526, 545, 549, 350, 557, 1031 ‘578, 654, 657, 659, 668, 778, SS 1030 77, 789, 842, 852, 853, B54, 1030 £857, 860, 884, 885, 887, B90, 1032 891, 893, 894, 896, 897, 698, 1034 899, 900, 901, 914, 919, 922, 1034 928, 924, 994, 937, 938, 940, 1036 941, 943, 948, 953, 954, 955, ‘1042, 1044, 1051, 959, 960, 961, 964, 968, 969, 1053, 1076 970, 976, 977, 978, 979, S81, (1) sou 1035, 1056, 1087, ‘983, 984, 985, 987, 988, 1086, 1072 +1004, 1005, 1007, 1009, 2)... 893, 1040, 1041, 1013, 1014, 1915, 102, 1029, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1036, 1038, 1041, 1085, 1046, 1050, 1060, 1061, 1054, 1054, 1068, 1073, 1063, 1068, 1066, 1076, 1077, 1079, 1083, 1067, 1068-1070 1084, 1085, 108, 1087 1042, 1045, 1050, Preamble... 2. 1056, 1057, 1058, Fee 59; 99,3, 0, 1059, 1060, 1061, 4, 773, 88, 90,1028 1064, 1065 Wetec (0) sovssseens 1050, 1051, Bo ae 1053, 1054 @).- 77 1035 a 132 19, 20, 21, 44, G2 seescsece BD, BBB “45, 60, 471, 481, @.- 220, 1024 £896, 1051, 1083 yn 811, 43,58, o scene 18, 58 99, 111, 218, 219, 220, 221, {a}. 18, 19, 45 222, 229, 853, 855, 867, 888, QE) eercrene 20 ‘589, 890, 891, 892, 693, 994, wo £898, 917, 920, 922, 923, 930, 932, 934, 987, 948, 950, 956, 959, 960, 961, 967, 979, 980 o- 132, 137 - 8,1945. United Nations Charter— 1945 United Nations Charter— cont, cont ‘ArL2(7),.... 650, 949, 950, 952, Ant55.... 92, 93, 113, 114, 658, 955,972, 1014, 1018 749, 773, 773 Arta... 1080 Arts 55-56. a ‘ArtI0.. 920 A560 92,98, 113, 114 Arti : 930 68, 47,78 @ + 1013 ants. Art2 onsen 1013, 1014, 1084 ‘Arto. a5 184103, 1009 ‘Art13, + 32, 6,78 Ang 1034 ‘Art1?, 1023 Art 94 1074 a) 58 a 1074 Ar18(3) 988 ORR, 1074 938, 1085, 1086 AtbS6.00 1076 "1085, aoe 1076 1085 ore, 108 1, 832, 975, 981, Arbt00 1334, 135, 1036, 1085, 1086 ‘Art-102 791-792, 801, 883, 884 : 988 ACt1O3 ccs osve B31, 920.1085, 988 ‘Aret08 ve OH 1087 ‘Arb105 | 94 ‘Art 33, 436, 502, 861,972, 1024 ArIOB 988 ATS B38 cece OTE Adit 2 1073 972 1946 Charter of the tnterna coe 972 tional Military Tribu won 972 ral at Tokyo ...... 141, 950, "972, 1036, 1038 Constitution of the WHO. 1081 erence 108 ED nen 1081 108, Convention on the Privi +1038, 1081 ‘and Immunities 9 ‘the United Nations. 132, : 97 1077 554, 869, 951, 972, International Convention ‘973, 976, 960, 961, 963, for the Regulation of 987, 989, 1017, Whaling... 233 1082/1087, 1088 1987 924, 981, 989, 1019 - 498 Inter-American Testy of joni, 1013 Reciprocal Assistance sae $54, 959, 986, 981, (Rio Treaty)... 900, 929, 990 962, 983, 984, 965, 987, Peace Treaty between the 988, 995, 994, 1023 ‘Allied Powers and Arts3.....-. 897, 980, 981, 984, Bulgaria... 833, 834 985, 987, 992, 994 Peace Treaty between the Artaz. 993, ‘Allied “Powers and Ar49.. S98 AMAL nanan $33, 8B AAD. 991, 1012 Peace Treaty between the Ast], 243, 526, 894, 895, 399, ‘Allied Powers and $900, 906, 922, 923, 924, 925, 929, 930, 931, 932, 985, 936, 937, 941, 948, Allied Powers 959, 960, 966, 967, 968, Romania. 833, 634 981, 985, 985, 990,983 1948 American Declaration of ArS2... cee 930 the Rights and Duties Art 53... 982 OP MAN seen 7B1948 Convention on the Pre vention and Punish- ment of the Crime of Genocide ....... 42, 283, 285, 506, S45, 623, 662, 670, 775, 802, 804, 811, B12, 814, 815, B19, 821, 823, 824, 863, 1034, 1035, 1039, 1081, 1075 International Labour ‘Organisation Conven- ton on Freedom of Association and Pro- teetion of the Right to Victims (Red Cross) (Collectively)... 43, 226, 296, India-Bhutan Friendship AME cen North Atiantic Treaty ~ ‘ArS 1950 Convention on the Vai tion of Goods for Cus- toms Purposes... 88, European Convention for the Protection of Human "Rights and Fundamental Free- doms . 5, 86,87, 88, 261, 34, 650,654, (62, 664,685,716, 718, 764, 77, 816, g 1950 1951 19582 1953 1984 1955, ‘Buropean Convention for the Protection of Human ‘Rights and Fundamental Freedoms—eort Art64.. 813, 815, 816, 817, 818 wy 815, 817 @ 2. 817 ‘Agreement ‘regarding ‘Status of Fores of Parties to the North ‘Atlantic Treaty ..... 269, 280 ANZUS Pact. 42 Convention concerning the naming of cheeses... 803 Geneve” Convention rogarding the Status of Roku eo 9, 576, 662 Aresz(i) 574 ‘Are33(0) 574, 766 578 Be ry, iii Bes ons Gai se Se, cece, ois” eas the Now Pace Bon bot 138 Artll.. 88 Convention on the Political Rights of Women...... 804 Convention on Diplomatic Asylum (Caracas)... 366 European Convention on Establishment. Iran-US. Treaty 0} Economic Relations and Consular Rights .. 925, 928 ABD cine OD ‘Art20(I)(4)...- 925, 927, 928 Convention on the Con tract for the Intema- onal Carriage of 5 Goods by Road... 90 TAEA Statute APLXV. 138 US-Nicaragua Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation... 893, 912, 1056, 1064, 1065 ARXIX sui, 912 ABORT TT 061957 Treaty establishing the European Economic ‘Community (Treaty of Rome).. Art2B1 ‘Art310. . 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf....... 25, 26,27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 361, 482, 483, 938 ABE ssssteses 26, 35,472, 481, 482, 838 26, 35, 472, $82, 139 139 139 1958 Geneva Convention on the ‘Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone....... 381, ‘386, 400, 401, 402, 404, 421, 425, 426, 427, 460, 475, 837 . 386 : SSOREESSL EAS ESE ee (Collectively)... 382, 384, 385, 403, "465, 502, 837 1958 Optional Protocol to Gen- ‘eva Law of the Sea Conventions concern- ing the Compulsory Seltlement of Disputes 381, 337 1959. Antarctic Treaty.... 44, 229, 231, 3 238, 962 CO aa, 2331959. Antarctic Treaty—cout, 1961 Vienna Convention on ARM occcticrnne 230 Diplomatic Rela- one tions—co Arts 27-30. -. 37% At... 336, 378 Arts 29-35. 358 ‘Arts 29-36. 2 358 AAO. 386, 368 Ae. A ard. 1960 France-US. Agreement on NATO Nuclear Weap- ons. vse 88M “Treaty “Concerning the Establishment of the Ang 20 Annex 8, $1(1) 237 1961 Buropean Social Charter... Single Convention on ‘Narcotic Drugs. 428 ‘Vienna Convention” on Diplomatic Relations. 43, ‘63, 321, 348, 354-360, 361, 364, 365, 367, 368, 371, 372, 373, 373, 377, 769, 814, B63 @) preamble, 354 Analg) © 360 Art. : 1360, 365 Asto(i). + 360, 367 ATL22.o.0.., 358, 365, 367, 368 360, 380 (1) occ eenees 385, 361, 374 - 360 Svcs 355, 373, Qn - 360 35, 361, 374 1961 Protocol to the Diplomatic Relations Convention, ing the Acquit sition of Nationality 361 Protocal to the Diplomatic Relations Convention, the Com: pulsory Settlement of Disputes. - 361, 381 1962. Anglo-japanese Treaty of ‘Commerce, Establish+ ‘ment and Navigation - 574 ARB) se S5751962 Western Samnoa-New Zealand, ‘Treaty of Friendship. feoceee 107) 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty... 436, 853, 962 Tokyo Convention _on ‘Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed ‘On Board Aireraft Ants Area... Vienna Convention on Consular Relations..... 348, 372, 373, 1072 oe 373 374 1. 373, 534 ion, wa a 27 281 Art5.. Art33., A036. a) )... Optional Protocol” con ‘cerning the Settlement of Disputes to the ‘Vienna Convention on Consular Relations..... 1965 Convention on the Settle. ‘ment of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. 142, 614, 1028 Convention on Transit ‘Trade of Land-Locked States.. 261, 437 European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasting from Stations "outside National Waters 1965 International Convention ‘on the Blimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Ard Ant 1966 International Covenant on ‘Civil and Political Righis .... 112, 655, 658, 661, 677, 678, 680, 681, 682, 684, 685, 686, 688, 689, 691, 695, ‘00, 745, 717, 718, 719, 720, ‘721, 723, 724, 725, 726, 729, 1730, 731, 732, 733, 735, 744, 745, 763, 767, 770, 773, 774, 818, B19, 820, 821, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 43 1072 112, 659, 66 813 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—eont. Pela, 723 Pull 72 preamble Bi Arti... 112, 120, 668, 735, 819 ersten 668 @). 558, 668 8) Art2...0 668-669, 676, 679, (688, 726, 730, 744, 748, 746, 775 (1)... 668, 678, 679, 680, 983, 724, 727, 748, 820 * 668-669, 694, 820 669, 679, 693, 2, 745, 777, 820 "669, 715, 745, 669, 723, 726, 721, 730, 745 Ath ores, 669, 659, 696, 712, 730, 731, 732, 733, 830 0 669, 729, 730, "31, 733, 734, 735 669, 730, 731, 732, 735 665, 733. 669, 670, 685, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 683, 694, 695, 730, 732, 773, 828 670, 686, 650, 691, 632, 693, 695 670, 685, 690, 691, 692, 695, 702 670, 691, 682, 694 - 670, 685 670, 695 670, 691, ‘Asi. 343, 658, 669, 670, 679, ‘681, 687, £93, 695, 697, £688, 700, 701, 702, 703, ‘704, 705, 713, 730, 731, 763, 767, 776, 8201966 International Covenant on i) and Political Righss—east At8Q). ®, 671, 706, ‘671, 706, 707, 708, 733 (8) cscs ceca 671, 708, 708 ‘Act10. 672, 697, 698, 704, 705, 708, 712, 731, 777 (1)... 672, 687, 696, 700 Art... 669, 672, 730, 820 . 516, 672, 726, 727, 728, 71 672, 726 I 876, 672. 672, 726, 576, 672 1. 875, 672 ‘Act14.. 673-674, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 732, 77, 819 .. 63, 710, 711, 3, 723, 730, 733 673, 710, 712 673, 712 = 673, 695 713 (673/655, 710, 7M, 712, 713 (©). 673, 701, 712, 713, (a): 673, 695, 712, 713, €) oon 673, 695, 713, (one nnee 673, 713 ()srereets ven 673, 713 AttS...... 669, 674, 732, 277 ‘ArkI6, sane 669, O74 AIRIT...00 674, 679, 74, 715, ‘7G, 719, 726, 727 «715, 716 At18... 669, 674-675, 730, 731 674-675, 730 5 675, 681, 705, 77,718, 719 = 673, 706, 718 77, 718 W)eciccoee TZ, 7B 675, 732 675,729 675-676 © 676, 727, 730 Art24.. esos 676, 727 CB) essere 676, 730 Art25... 676, 723, 730, 732, 733 A826... 677, 679, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 726, 721, 730, 735 1966 Intemational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—cont Ast27....... 672, 719, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 728, 826 ana?.. ARQ o First Optional Protocol, ICCPR ven 682,683, 68, (685, 698, 722, 723,738, 764, 826, 921, 822, 625, 827 Att ccsnenecenein 682 Economic, Social and Cultural Rights..... 112, 120, 557, 958, 655, 659, 661, 678, 721, 722, 735-741, 782, 743, 744, 745, 746, 748, 749, 754, 756, 767, 710, 773, 774 1967 Treaty for the Prob of Nuclear Weapons Latin America and the Caribbean (Tlatelolco, Trealy) eoecreoene 962, 963 Protocol” 12 Tatelotco ‘Treaty 966 Protocol Relating to tie Status of Reftigees ‘Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activ- ities. of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Colestial Bodies 574 WIPO Convention Axt12(1)1968 1968 1969 1969 1970 197 19m ‘Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Retum of (Objects Launched into Outer Spacevsserenns 249 ‘Treaty on the “Non-Pro- liferation of Nuclear Weapons...... 148, 982, 963, 966, 967, 997 AstVI. 967 American Convention on Human Rights... 655, 685, 694, 763, 764, 777, 778, 789, 813 Intemational Convention ‘0a Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. 141 New York Convention on Speci Missions 348 Viena Convention on he Taw of Treaties 16, 35,63 90,349,532 538 946,54, 548, 691, 786, 787, 788-883, ‘O44, 1072, 1073, 1074 Hogue Convention for the ‘Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft... 296, 297, 301, 763 299 the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation essen see BOL, 1082, Ant. eevee 1082 Basle Convention... 343 Convention for the Con- servation of Antarctic ‘Convention for the Protec: tion of the World Cul- tural and Natural Heritage Are4, 510 convention "on iniema: ‘ional Lsbity for Damages caused & Space Objects 249,250 Convention on the’ Probie bition of the Devslop- ment, Production and Stockpiling of Bacter iologal © Biological) ne Toxic. Weapons fd ther Destruction » 962 1972 European Convention on State Immunity ....208, 307, ‘314, 319, 322, 32h, 335 Protecel to European Convention on State Emmunity...... 1973 CITES Convention, Convention on the Pre vention and Punish- ‘ment of Crimes against Internationally Pro- tected Persons, includ- ing Diplomatic 306 218 ts rene 301-302, International "Convention ‘on the Suppression ‘and Punishment of the ‘Crime of Apartheid, 1974 Convention on. Regista- tion of Objects aun had into Cuter Space 1976 Agpesment establish SNPAD nee 1977 Hungary-Coecheslovakla “Treaty on constuctn of Danube lock system 662, 778 250 138 870, B71, 872, 873, 874, 875 Panama Canal Treaty ‘Treaty concerning the Per ‘Mansa Newall and Operation of the Panama Canal. Protocols Ili Additional to Geneva Canven- tions (Red Cross) relating to the Protec- tion of Victims of Intemational Armed Conflicts. 264 26 299, 300, 304, 514, 557-558, 559, 655, 887 1978 USSR-Afghanistan Bila ‘eral Treaty of Friend- ship. Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in, as Respect of Treaties... 65,126, 125,127, 518 1879 Agreement Governing the ‘Activities of States on the Moon and. otter Celestial Bodies .... 50, 251, 2531979 Convention on the Elim ination of all Forms of “Taking of 282, 297, 302, 338 feos Isouk-Heypt Treaty of 854 2S ) for the Con- servation of Antarctic Marine Living Resour- 8 ft Seivador Honduras General "Treaty of sae ‘interratonl ‘Noducton. Vienna Convention on the Physica Frotetion of Nuclear Materials 1981 Afian Charter on Huan, Tigh and "Peoples Reh... 753,70, AMES ose 8 Chile 2 ARB oo Art23... Art2he 1982. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Statute of the International ‘Tribunal for the Law of the Sea AR2ovcnn 1985 Co-operation” Agreement with Yugostawa enn 1989 Vienna Convention on the ‘Succession of States in respect of State Prop- erty, Archives and Debts. 23,126, 1% 1984 China UK, Agreement on Hong Kong. 257 1984 U.N. Convention against ‘Torture and Other Cruel, inhuman or Degeading Treatment or Punishment... 281, 236, 362, 393-334, 336, 338,338, 344, 61, 697, 758-762, 763, 764, 765, 765, 767 1985 Anglo-trish Agreoment... 108 Inter-American Conven- fon on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treat ment oF Punishment. UN. Convention on Con Alitions for Registration of Ships 439-440, 45 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organi sations or between Intemational Organi sations. Rarotonga Treaty Protocols to Treaty 0... a European” Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treat- ‘ment ot Punishment. Convention on the Rog. ulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources Activities. IMO Convention for the Suppression of Unlaw- ful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation «ns.» 302, 459 Montreal” Protocol ” con- ‘ceming Acts of Viow lence at Airports... Protocol for the Suppres- sion of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Loca- ted on the Continental Shelf... 302, 459 UK-Franco Agreement ‘on Territorial Sea Limits... 763 1986 65, 791 1962, 963 Rarotonga 966 763 1988 233 302 3991988 U.S-Canadian Agreement ‘on Arctic Co-pperation 235 Vienna ‘Convention ‘Ageinst Mlicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- STANCES ape eennnene 30D 1989. Australia-Indonesia ‘Treaty an the Con- tinental Shelf between, imor and Aus Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)... 43, 661 TLO Convention on Indigenous Tribal 1990 Convention on the Protec- tion of the Rights of All Migrant Workers... 661 German Settlement Treaty 962 1991 Agreement on the Com- echersive Politi sat in Cambor ai 102 Djibouti Agreement .... 162, 165 Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty on Environ- mental Protection ... 233-234 281 1992 (Maastricht Treaty)... 139 1993 Agreement to Promote ‘Compliance with International Con- servation and = Man- agement Measures by ishing Vessels on the bition of the Develop- ment, Production, Stock piling and Use of Chemical Weapons and fon their Destruction 962 Declaration of Principles of Taterio | Sell-Govern- ment in the West Bank and Gaza eeecsninie BS 138 1994 1994 1995 Agreement Establishing. the World Trade Organisation Annex 2. ‘Agreement on Trade fed Aspects of Intel- lectual Property Rights, Cairo Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area. COMESA Treaty , New York Agreement Relating to the Imple- sentation of Part Xi oF the 1982. Convention fon the Law of the Sea. Protocol on the MERCO- ‘SUR institutions... ‘Statute of the International ‘Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. “Agreement for the Lmple- ‘mentation of the Pro- visions of the United Nations Convontion fon the Law of the Sea of 10. December 3982 Relating to the Conservation’ and ‘Management of Strad- dling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Bangkok Treaty an the Southeast Asia Nucloar-Weapon-Free Zone... Collective” Compi Protocel to. the Eure ‘opean Social Charter .. Dayton Agreement (1996). uropean Framework ‘Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Stalute of the Intemational Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia... 383, 493, 494, 498 138 301, us 450 753, 754 102, 150 75 301, 38, 3501995 Washington Interim 1999 New York Convention for ‘Agreement on the the Suppression of the West Bank and Gaza Financing of Terrorism 302 Strip . ws 25 2000 Optional Protocols to the 1996 Caio ‘Treaty on tho Crea. Convention onthe ion of “a Nuclear Rights of the Child on Weapons-ree Zone in Chitdren in Armed Abner 968 Gonflict end on. the Sele of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pomography. ot 2001 Agreement an Succession 1997 Convention on Non-Navi- Issues of the Socialist igational Uses of Inter- Former Republic of ational Watercourses. 50 ‘Yogoslavia- w New York Convention for Draft Frotocal to the Gon the Sappression of vention on Intema- Terrorist Hombings.... 302 tional Interests in 1998 Rome Statute of the ine Mobile Equipment... 252 rational Criminal 2008. Draft .U. Constitution Court. 45,138,301, “Arts 1-6 338,390, 351, 2002 Additional Protocol to the 731 Enropean Convention UK-Ireland_ Agreement on Homan Rights. 281 ‘on Shelf Boundaries... 475 2003. Optional Protocol to UiNi UK-Nethestands Convention against ‘ment. evens 280 Torture. creer: 758TABLE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS [Poge references in bold type indicate extracted materia.) Genenat. Assemey Resouions Date 1946 1947 1948. 1949 1999 1950 1951 1952 1958 1960 1961 Title Alfirmation of the Principles of International Law recognised, by the Charter of the Noremburg Tetbunal ‘The Crime of Genocide The Future Government of Patestine Universal Declaration of Human Rights Reparations for Injuries incurred in the Service of the U.N. Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States The problem of the independence of Uniting for Peace Resolution Korea” (Decoration of those Personnel serving under UN. Command) Korea (Calling for Withdrawal of China) Korea (Repatriation of | War Prisoners Resolution on Nuclear Tests on the High Seas Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples Principles which should guide ‘Members in determining ‘whether an obligation exists t0 transmit the Information called for under Art73e Declaration on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear and Thermo- Nuclear Weapons Resoltion 9501) 96 () 181 (1) 217A (uD 365 (IV) 375(1V) 376 (¥) a7) 483 (V) 498 (V) 610 cv) 436, 837 1514. CW) 1541 XV) 1653 (XVI) un 75 228 ‘88, 59, 62, 88, 113, 348, 374, 65, 655, 659, 662-667, 668, 678, 720, 770, 773, 774, 77S, 725, 777, 778, 779 138 © 987 1013 ‘380, 987 987 16, 57, 110, 112 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 207, 221, 222, 491 113, 116 964Date Title International Co-operation inthe Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 1962 Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources 1963 Regarding Weapons of | Mass ‘Destruction in Outer Space 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing Activities of States, in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space 1964 1963 Question of the Falkland Islands “Malvinas) Question of Gibraltar (inviting ‘Regotiations) Declaration on the Tnadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Alfeirs of States and the Protection oftheir Independence and Sovercignty 1966 Question of South West Afticn (lermination of South Aftica’s mandate) (Question of ifni and Spanish Sahara (self-determination) 1968 Question of Southern Rhodesia 1969 Moratorium on Exploitation of Resources of Deep Sea Bed 1970 Programme of Action for the Full ‘mplementation of G.A.Res.1814 (1960) Declaration’ on Principles of International Law Concemning. Friendly Relations and Co- operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations Resottion 1721 (XVI) 1805 (XV) 1964 (XVI) 1962. (XVII) 1995 2065 C00 2070 (x) 2131 GO) 2145 OX) 2229 OX), 2378 (XXII, 2574D (XXIV) 2601 (XX) 2625 (XV) Page 248, 250 57, 977-578, 560, 584, 593, 595, 597, 598, 599, 604, 607, 608 248, 249 57, 248-249 580 ns ns 57, 901, 912, 316-917 1864, 1086, 1087 14 0 493 us 56, 57, 58, 59 60, 113, 116, 129, 130, 218, 219, 220, 549, 550, 557, 779, 889, 80, 891, 892, 897, 898, 899, 901, 902, 904, 912, 913,917, 919, 920, 939, 978, 9901970 wr 1973 1974 1975 1976 97 1978 1979 Title Declaration of Principles Governing the Seaed. andthe Ocean Floor, and the Subsoil thereof, Beyond the Limits of National Jussdieton Implementation of the Declaration oon the Granting. of Independence (0 the Colonial Countries and Territories Deg" Occupation by Postuguese Mitary Fores” of Certain Section of the. Republic of Guinea-Bissau Permanent Sovereignty over Natural, Resources Declaration onthe Establishment of 2. New Intemational Economic Order Charter of Economic Righis and Duties of States Resolution on the Definition of ‘Aggression UN. Declaration on the Protection ‘of All Persons from being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading ‘Treatment or Punishment Question of Western Sahara al, ants Bere, ae lution”) Sect Report of the Trade and Development Board Importance of the Universal Realisation of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination and of the Speedy Granting of Independence {0 Colonial Countries. and peoples for the Effective Guarantee and Observance of Human Rights Resolution 2749 (xXW) 2908 (xxv) 30610XVIN) S71 poxvim) 3201 ($V) 23281 (OD) 3314 (OD) 3452 (XX) 3457 3458A 000K) 34588 31/6 31/6A 3215 (XIX) 32/105 93/24 34/936 57, 493, 494 913 uo 580, 604 57, 580, 604 49, 57, $79, 580, 584, $93, 995, 597, 598, 604, 605, 609) £99, 913, 915, 953, 976-978 62, 763, 78, 779, 782 us 116, 117 au? 109 55 226 581 pre 5BDate Titte Resolution Page 1980 The Situation in Afghanistan and its Implications for International Peace and Security ES6/2 58, 919 Right of Palestinians to Self Determination 57/2 Fat 1981 Amending Arts 2 and 9 of the LL.C. Statute 36739 oo 1983 The Situation in Grenada 38/7 920 1985 Declaration on the Fiuman Rights of Individuals who are’ not Nationals of the Country in which They Live sofas 570 1986 Condemning tack on Libyan targets 38 525-524 Declaration on the Right to ‘Development sy 747,767,770, 72 1987 UN. — Declaration on the Enhancement ofthe Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat lr Use of Force in International Relations 2a 80. 1992 Security Council Recommendation of September 19, 1992 A 127, 128 1994 High Commissioner for the Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights ag/4t 661 Resolution and Agreement Relating, to the Implementation of Part XI of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea 48/263 494 1997 ‘A/RES/52/114 228 Request for an Advisory Opinion from the CJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons 49/75 959, 961, 1079 1998 ‘A/RES/52/250 226, 1999 Former Yugoslavia 53/35 952 2001 Reform of poncekceping operations 57/129 1023 Reform of peacekeeping operations 57/767 1023 2008 58/109 7 ‘A/Res/ES-10/ 226 B A/Res/ES-10/ 226 “ Stouemry Counci, RESOLUTIONS Date Title Resolution Page 1946 International Court of Justice 9 1950 Complaint of Aggression upon the Republic of Korea 2 ‘986, 9871950 1956 1960 1961 1962. 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 3972 1073 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Title ‘Complaint of Aggression upon the conte of Keren ‘omplaint of Aggression upon the Republic ofkorea ‘The Congo Question. ‘The Congo Question Complaint by Yemen (Fort Harib Incident) Question Concerning the Situation in Southern Rhodesia Question Concerning the Situation in Southern Rhodesia Questian Concerning the Situation in Southern Rhodesia S.C. Resolution on the Middle East Situation in Lebanon (Beirut Raid) ‘The Situation in Namibia ‘The Situation in Narnibia ‘The Situation in Narnibia Yom Kippur War, Ceasefire Resolution Cyprus (Demanding an end to foreign military intervention) Guinea-Bissau (recommendation for membership of the U.N.) Western Sahara (requesting Sec. Gen. to consult the parties) East Timor (calling on Indonesia fo withdraw from the territory) ‘Complaints by Kenya, on behalf of the African Group of States at the U.N, Concerning the Act of cession committed by South ‘Africa against the People’s republic of Angola, South Africa (mandatory arms embargo) ‘The Situation in Cyprus Iranian Hostages (calling for the release of the Hostajes and. 8 Peaceful Setdesnent Drafts Resolution against USSR Taterventon in Afghanistan “The Situation in the Middle East 161 242 (XU) 262 £89 8 8 2 Be See 88 r as 457 19 178 Page 986, 987, 994 986 857 381 288 972, 981, 1017 981, 1017 587 857 551 552 999 203-224, 225, 425, 938 11086 1086 551, 552, 864, 1086, 1087 357 110 7 a7 118, 220 980 Sat 52 920 980 372 226Date 1981 1983 1984 1985, 1986 1987 1999 1991 Titte ame yy Urner verses ‘The Situation in the Occupied Arab ‘Territories ‘The Situation in Cyprus South Africa (attack on Botswana) Israeli Raid on PLO Headquarters Draft condemning US air strike on Libya ‘The Situation between Iran and Iraq, between Iraq and The Situation ‘Kuwait The_ Situation Kuwait ‘The Situation Kuwait ‘The Situation Kuwait The. Situation Kuwait ‘The Situation Kuwait The. Situation ‘Kuwait ‘The Situation Kuwait The. Situation Kuwait ‘The. Situation Kuwait The. Situation Kuwait ‘the. Situation Kuwait ‘The Situation Kuwait ‘The. Situation Kuwait Letter from between between between between between between betweon between between the Iraq, troq, rag Iraq, Jag Iraq, aq Taq, snag Iraq Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and RERERERR REE and and Permanent representatives of Turkey and France to the U.N. (repression Of the Iraqi Population in fraq) The Situation between Iraq and ‘Kuwait Iraq Resolution 497 541 550 568 569 573 sev 588 650 661 662 ora 678 ae g as Page 226 m mM 980 552 557, 939, 980, 936 976 989, 990, 992, 994, 998, 1003 990-991, 992, 993, 997, 998, 1012 551, 991, 992 991, 992 984, 985, 992, 993 91 91 991 om 991 992 983, 984, 985, 993 994, 995, 998, 1003, 1004, 2005, 1006, +1007, 1008, 1010 995, 998, 999, 1008 537, 614, 995-997, ‘998, 989, 1000, 11002, 1003, 1008, 1005, 1006, 1008, 3011, 1012 949, 950, 951, 973, 998, 999 997 998seve yy Wer oucsenn Date Title 1991 Letter from the Permanent Representatives of Austria, Canada, Hungary and, ‘Yugoslavia to the President of the Security Council (Mandatory Arms Embargo against Yugoslavia) rag, 1992 Letter dated December 20 and 23, 1991. (International Terrorism and Threats to Civil Aviation) Letter from Chargé d’Affaires. of Permanent Mission of Somal to the UN, Further Report of the Secretary General’ pursuant to Security ‘Council Resolution 721 of 1991 (Peacekeeping in Yugoslavia) Libya to Comply with Resolution AL Further Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Security Coureit Resolution 759 of 1992 (@escekesping in Yogosiavis) Inturnatlonal Economic’ Sanctions against Serbia (Former Socialist, Republic of Yugoslavia and Membership of the UN) The Station’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina Report of the Secretary General on the Situation in Bosnt Herzegovina Draft resolution contained in Document —5/24570 (Former Socialist Republic. of Yugoslavia and Membership of dew) 1993 The Situation in Bosnia and vina Sanctions against Serbstand ontoegss) ‘The Situation in Liberia 1992 The Situation in Somalia 1093 The Situation in Somalla The Situation. in Bosnia and Herzegovina (No-ly zone over Bosnia) The Situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ‘The Situation. in the Republic of ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina The Situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Resotution m3 715 724 731 738 73 748 782 787 70 76 787 788 734 4 a6 s19 m4 563, 952, 973, 975 998 973 1082, 1085 166, 973 150 ‘975, 1082 1s 125, 153, 952, 1012 951, 982, 951 ur 952, 982, 973 952, 974, 981 952, 981, 984, 1021 952, 982 952 952 952, 982, 984, 1020wun Date 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 1997 1998 1999 1998 1999 2001 note oy Umer Locuments Title ‘The Situation in Somalia The Question Concesning Hat ‘The Situation in the Republic of ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina ‘The Situation in Angola ‘The Question Concerming Haiti The Question Concerning Hat ‘The Situation Concerning Revanda ‘The Situation Concerning Rivandla ‘The Situation Concaming Rwanda ‘The Question Concerning Haiti Iraq “The Situation in Sudan ‘The Siluation in Sudan ‘The Situation in Burundi ‘The Situation in Zaice ‘The Situation in Albania The Situation in Albania ‘The Situation in Central African Republic ‘The Situation in Angola ‘The Situation in Sierra Leone lkaq “The Situation inthe Central Afvican Republic 1raq ‘Terrorism The Situation in Kosovo “The Situation in Kosovo Iraq, “The Situation in Kosovo “The Situation in East Timor “The Situation in Afghanistan Tercorism The Situation in Siera Leone ‘The Situation in East Timor aq ‘The Situation in Sierra Leone The Situation in Congo ‘The Situation in Sierra Leone Reform of peacekeeping operations Reform of peacekeeping operations ‘The Situation in Afghatiston Reform of peacekeeping operations Conderaning terrorist tacks of ih Seplember 2001, Declaration on terrorism (Gn Measures against international terrorism Resolution a7 at Ben 864 875 917 1078 m1 cary 1125 127 1132 1134 136 1154 1160 189 n92 1199 1208 1205 ror 1264 1267 1269 1270 72 1284 1289 pa 1296 1306 1318 322 137 1333 1353 1368 37 1373 Page 952, 984, 1021 974, 1012 952. 973 982 974, 982, 1012 973, 982, 934 982 953, 973, 974, 982 974, 982. 998 975 75 73. 973, 974 973 973 973 573 169, 973, 974, 982 1002 973 4002, 1007 956 5 280 54, 956 954, 956 3002 102, 982 973, 982 975 975, 974, 982, 984 102, 973, 982 998, 999 973, 974, 982, 984 982, 984 978 973, 974 1023) 7, 1023 75 1023 734, 941, 942, 993, 944, 946, 983 975no. of User Locuments ax Date Title Declaration on terrorism, ‘The Situation in Iraq, Kabul 2002. The Situation in Iraq 2003, Misceuiansous 1919 Thien Declaration... 793, 794, 849 1929 Harvard Draft Convention on Territorial Waters ABEIB cece 492 1982 Harvard Research’ Drait ‘Convention on Diplo- matic Privileges and Immunities Att 366 1995 Harvard Research Drait Convention on Jur- isdiction with sespect to Crime. 265, 266, 267, 279, 281,290, 192, 1945 Truman Proclamation on. the Continental Shelf sees nr--- 476-477, 483 1946 Regulations concerning ‘the Registration ant Publication of Teeaties and International 885 684 685 = 63, 66 1849 Agreement between Uni- ted Kingdom and Norway regarding the landing of fresh white fish in the UK from Norwegian fishing vessels. = 801 Intemational “Law Com mission Draft Declara- tion on Rights and Duties of Sates ..ce, 6, (69, 219, 568, 829, Resolution Page 734, O41, 942, 975, 983 a7 975 1382 998 1386 982 ai ‘998-2002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1008, 1009, 1010 1495 ur 1949 Intemational Law Com- ‘mission Draft Declara- ton on Rights and Duties of States—cont 68 1955 Minimum Rules for the Treat ment of Prisoners... 70L 1956 International Law Com= ‘mission Draft Articles Concerning the Law of the $22... 381, 401, 458, 460 Ast24.. 420 APD. 1958 International Law Com- mission Draft Articles fon Diplomatic Rela- ONS eetensesiene 361 1961. Harvard Draft Convention ton the International of States for Injuries to Aliens. - 586, 689 ‘mission Draft Articles of the Vienna Convan- tion on the Law of ‘Treaties ... 786, 789, 812, $37 Art.-17(8)(0) an 812 ECOSOC Resglution 1235. 659 ECOSOC Resolution 1503. 589, 1659, 660, 683, 765 FFinal_Act of the Helsinki ‘Conference on Secur ity and Co-operation in Burope.».... 62, 130, 147, (095, 791, 792, 885, 901 1967 1970 19751976 177 1978 1978 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987 1985 1989 1989 able of Utner Vociments Bogota Declaration on the Geostationary Ont. canes nt on tng Contacts with South Aten Bonn Declaration on Intemational Tero 254 PL mm Resolution of UNCTAD Committee on Ship- ‘he “Court of stce 1036, 1087 1037, 1039 1040, 1041 1082 ‘An386) Axt102() ven Fira Act of UNCLOS ill 495 Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. 1024, 1067 202 ICAO Council Resolution British Foreign and Com- monwealth Office Rules regarding Tnter- national Clsims..... 623-628, 629, 644 ECOSOC Resolution 17.... 743 Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant ‘on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 744, 748. ECOSOC Resolution 5... 788 ‘Third Restatement of US. Foreign Relations Law § 702. TAT ECOSOC Resolution 4.0... 783 International Law Com ‘mission Draft Articles fon the Status of the Diplomatic Courier ard the Diplomatic Bag not Accompanied by Diplomatic Courier 361, 370, 371 USAUSSR Statement on Rules of International Law Covering Tnno- cont Passage... 384, ‘419-420, 421, 423 1990 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Provisional Rules of Procedure Rule 63... 1991 EC. Declaration on Vugo- ‘havi 783 se 143, 4149, 150, 151, 152 EC. Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Eur- ‘ope and in the Soviet Union 47-148, 158, 154 International Law Com mission Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Tmawunities of States and Their Property .... 322, 330, 333 Rio Declaration on the Environment UN. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities .. World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of For- ‘eign Direct Investment 601 1992 a 728 1993. Bangkok Declaration wu... 657 Vienna Declaration ‘Human Rights... 657, 651 1994 Intemational Law Asso Ed. Sea, eg. the British Justification for the invasion of Suez: the Lord Chancallor (Lord Silmuir), Hansard, HL Vol199, ol 1348 (November, 1936), and the Argentinian jest- Ration for the invasion of the Falkland Islands, below, 525. 4 Firat Book of Jarispradeuce, p28. 5 Ed. In The Outlook for International Lew (1944), p'5, Brierly writes: "The best evidence for the existence of international law is that every actual stale recognises Unt it does exist and that i is Itself under obligation to observe it States may often violate Internaicnal law, just as individuals offen violate municipal lave, but no more than individuals do sales dofend their violations by claiming that they are above the law. ° Ed. of Cotbet, Law ix Diplomacy (1959), pp-273-274: “What Is principally missing i tho ‘measure of agrcement on supreme commten values, the sense of community, loyally, and ‘mutual tolerance Which within the State make compulsory institutions bearable, The reserved domain and the whole legal concapt of sovercignty correspond (the fact thatAmong the most serious shortcomings of the present system are the rudimentary character of the institutions which exist for the making and the application of the law, and the narrow restrictions on its range. There is no legislature to keep the law abreast of new needs in the international society; no executive power to enforce the law; and although certain administrative bodies have been created, these, though important in themselves, are far from being adequate for the mass of business which ought to be treated today as of intemational concer. ‘There exist also convenient machinery for the arbitration of disputes and 2 standing court of justice, but the range of action of these is limited because resort to them is not compulsory.” ‘The restricted range of international Jaw is merely the counterpart of the wide freedom of independent action which states claim in virtue of their sovereignty. ... Law will never play a really effective part in international relations until it can annex to its own sphere some of the ‘matters which at present lie within the “domestic jurisdictions” of the several states. ..* It is a natural consequence of the absence of authoritative law- declaring machinery that many of the principles of international law, and ‘even more the detailed application of accepted principles, are uncertain. But on the whole the layman tends to exaggerate this defect. It is not in the nature of any law to provide mathematically certain solutions of problems which may be presented to it; for umcettainty cannot be eliminated from law so long as the possible conjunctions of facts remain infinitely various. Although thecefore the difference between interna- tonal law and the law of a state in this respect is important it is one of degree and not of kind, and it tends to be reduced as the practice of resorting to international courts, which are able to work out the detailed practical implication of general principles, becomes more common.” The difficulty of formulating the rules of international law with precision is a {he State remain the hears and minds of men the highest center of huran auhorty fn chief guardian ofthe mont treasured values the Sat contines tobe for pratal ern ween mano ong sy eter th onan or sane ogres ila sume i ra postion of yea sbjton to ‘wr of rations” Ed See below, Ch EL Mater: wiin te "domestic jurisdiction” of a state are mates not ruled by lntematonal Iw so thot a sate i fre to act ins dcretion Tey ate nomerocs and ‘oried, ranging fom the admission of aliens tothe regulon of erucy of eats, Other ‘examples a ste i he Mog (Meis) ease, para, Seow, p90). The extent of "Sbte's domestic jurledictlon changes with he development of custom and withthe taty ‘obligations ieunderakes, For exaple the pest 1945 terovnal aw of human Fights ‘out customary and heaty—greay fit a sate former freedoms to rest thelr ‘atlonae au Ch Fr One concept ia the UN Chater, see below, p10 EE. This i optimistic Although the World Courts docket is now fuller than has generally been, se below, 9.568, and there are nose more international cout and er Exide than formerly, tne nck of many canes nlerpreting the inereasing numberof Law snaking” treaties (sce below, p43) presents a problem. In municipal law, a eve stale {hat ruses questons of interpretation is soon taken to curt for a fling, Unfortunatly, {hat unlely to happen in ieratcna aw eg tot over $0 years fer the LC 8necessary consequence of the kinds of evidence upon which we have to rely in order to establish them.. ‘Brierly then discusses the international law attitude to the legality of war.” ‘Whether from a review of all these shortcomings we ought to conclude that international law is a failure depends upon what we assume to be its aim. [thas not failed to serve the purposes for which states have chosen to use it; in fact it serves these purposes reasonably well... the practice of international law proceeds on much the same lines as that of any other ind of law, with the foreign offices taking the place of the private legal adviser" and exchanging arguments about the facts and the law, and later, more often than is sometimes supposed, with a hearing before some form of international tribunal. The volume of this work is con- siderable, but most of it is not sensational... That does not mean that the matters to which it does relate are unimportant in themselves; often they are very important to particular interests ot individuals. But it means that intemational law is performing 2 useful and indeed a necessary function in international life in enabling states to carry on their day-to-day intercourse along orderly and predictable lines. That is the role for which states have chosen to use it and for that it has proved a serviceable instrument, Notes 1 Ub sce it. thee a nterational society wih scent sense of community to permit one raliiealy to expect a more than fagmentary =ystom Stintemaora law? Or me the attudes and inerest of te word's ciferent {eorpoltical groupings of states too divere 10 allow this? An important positive evelopment in ths regard hasbeen the end ofthe Cold War and ofthe influence ofthe Soviet theory of international lve, with ty emphasis upon sate sovereign Sd rejection of bourgeois law." ANhough some communist states (eg. Chia, Cae, North Korea, Vietnam) remain, the mos! signfiant divisions among slates ave those between developing and developed sates, whose economic and other construe AR.2), UN Charter see the Micra ease, belose, p93. An oustanding ‘xeepion i the European Convention on Human Right the meaning of which has boon established by the jurisprodence of the European Cou of Human Highs 2 Soo botow, Chall Ed On the role ofthe Foreign Otc lgal adviser, see Berman in Wickremasinghe, cd, “The International Laeger as Practitioner (2000), p3; Meriat, ed, Lig Advisers an Foe “Afr (1964); Vallat Iterations! Cw and the Prettionce (1963; and Wood in Evans el, Ihteratonal Lau 2003), p25 "© Bd. Tae UK. for examplesenters into over 100 treaties each year and requires legal advice sand representation in the UN ad other international fore " Onthe Soviet theory, sce Tank, Theory of Ineritionr Law (1970), English translation by Bulle (1974), and Karioshkin in Macdonald and Johnston eds, Tie Strclere and Process of ieratignal Lae (1983), p79, On international lw afer the Cold Wor, see Daenosch, Danilenko and Millorson eds, Beyond Gouftvtatin: Intemational Lave for the Pest Ca ‘War Era (1995); Reisman (1093) 87 AJ.LL. 3; are Macdonald in Welles, ed nleraional law: Theory nd Practice ($958), pS “4 For the Chinese approach, see Chi (1967) 28 H.11J. 269, Chinese Society of Intemational Ls, Ske Ais ro he Chinese Yenlao of ierltnal Leo (1983);and Wang Tey (4996-1) Hague Reewel 199.interests iff greatly, and, in some respects, belweon Islamic states and the Jest ® ‘A problem of a different kind, namely the continuing reluctance ofall states to surrender sovereign powers, is pointed aut by De Visscher" Its therefore pure illusion to expect from the mere arrangement of inter State relations the establishment of a community order; this can find a solid foun- dation only in the development ofthe true intcrational spirit in men, ‘There will be no international community so long as the political ends of the State overshadow the human ends of power. 1s De Visscher unduly pessimistic? Even if states from different geo-political sgoupings have widely diferent interests n some respects and states generally fo shrink from surrendering the sovereignty they need to surrender to extend significantly the “range of intemational law” and permit its enforcement, are there now at least some signs of the recognition by states of more common interests (¢g, in environmental protection) and of more accommodation of the hhuman rights of individuals? 2. The Austivian Handicap. “Is international law ‘law’ is a standard sherry party question, Its sometimes irritating persistence is very largely the responsi- bility of John Austin, an English jurist of the first part of the nineteenth century and a familiar friend of any student who has taken a course in jurisprudence. He defined laws “properly so-called” os commands and “positive law”, which he regarded as the “appropriate matter of jurisprudence”, as the commands of a sovereign.” A sovercign he defined as a person who ceceived the habitual obe~ diene ofthe members ofan independent politcal society and who, i tun, did not owe such abadiance to any other person. Ruler of intemational law did not qualify as rules of “positive law’ by this test and, not being commands of any sort, were placed by Austin in the category of “laws improperly so-called”. This “uncompromising and unhappily phrased rejection of international law's claim to be law of the same order as municipal law has, to this day, upset intematicnal lawyers and placed them on the defensive. Although international law is still not “law” according to Austin’s test, most international lawyers would at least dis- ppute that that testis more helpful than certain others (eg. that of Pollock, quoted by Brierly) by which intermational lave could be said to be “law”. 3. The “Law Habit”, No weiter would seem to dissent from the view expressed by Briecly that, in terms ofthe number, a opposed to the political importance, of the occasions on which international law is complied with, itis more honoured in the observance than in the breach. Jessup,” for example, takes Brierly's view: Wars, breaches of treaties, oppression of the weak by the strong, are the headlines of the daily press and of the history textbooks. The superficial observer has not noted the steady observance of such treaties as that under which letters are carried all over the world at rates fixed by the Universal ™ See Bahar (1992) 33 HLLLLJ.145. On the problems that sharia law presents for hunt ‘Hghts see below, p58 % De Visscher, Teor an Rell n Pic international Law (rans. by Corbett cov, d, 1968) BM. See also Moser op. cit, pal, 2, above, pp.17—17, ¥ Boe The Province of frisnudenee Deterned (1832), Lectures I, Vand VI. A recent edition is that edited by Harti 1954 2% Tiss the term used in intarmatonal In to refer to he lave of stat. For the view that the question whather iteratinal [aw is law" fs a verbal one not worth bothering with: see Glanville Wiliams (1945) 2 BY.LL. 148 at 163 See also Hart, “The Conept of rw Gnd ed, 195), pp-215 ® Modern Law of Nations (1948), pp oS.Postal Union. He ignores the fact that there is scarcely an instance in two Jhundred years in which an ambassador has been subjected to suit in courts of the country where he is stationed... The superficial observer has not read the Ihundreds of decisions handed down by international cours called Mixed Claims Commissions, which have awarded money damages duly paid by the defendant states.... He may be unfamiliar with the extent to which intema- onal nw has ean incorporated in national iw and has thus secured an enforcement a the ordinary governmental machinery of the national states, ¢ wisest and most experienced of them all, John Brosrt Moor, has recorded No ebverraion at on te whale itera Jaw is as well observed as national law. The Director of the Yale Institute of International Studies has recently remarked that those ‘who make light of treaty commitments in general seem to ignore the fact that the vast majority of such engagements are continuously, honestly, and regularly observed even under adverse conditions and at considerable inconvenience to the part ‘The record proves that there isa ‘law habit in international relations. Ibis not material fo add thatthe instances in which judgments of international ‘bunals have been flouted are so rare that the headiine-reader may well place them in the man-bites dog category." Although there is clearly some merit to the “law habit” view, might it not, to some ext be misleading? What hao be emphasised ag srongly i that sate can usually flout intemational law if it wants to and get away with it. How ‘Savant ako ya comparcon of the nuaver or percentage of vikton of ‘municipal and international law? The point about a train robber is that if there is 4.800 ase agains him and if his whereabouts are known he wil be punished ‘The USSR and the US were not arraigned for intervening unlawfully in Algha- ristan in 1975" and Grenada in 1983 respectively and Isreel, though condemned by the UN, has not been brought to book for its annexation of Middle East tersitory-* Political and economic considerations may be crucial to the decision of the intemational community to act. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, which affected Westem oil interests, was rapidly dealt with, but there was no such physical retaliation against Indonesia's invasion of East Tirnor, sce below, p.218. But are we asking too much of international law? Are we expecting it to be effective often in disputes in which we would not imagine law to apply, or at least not to be in the forefront, within a state because of the political importance ofthe probe? Note als, by way of apology for ineratinal lw, the following statement, Writing of the North Atlant Peay,” Kate™ suggests » as, The Enforce of Ilorin juice Decisions and Arbinel Anes in Pubic Internatio Tae (1968), CATV, records dnly 9 few cases, consbiting buts very small Proportion ofthe whale in wich the losing sate has not complied with the decision or [ward All of te designs and opinions ofthe PCE). were followed; those of the 1. ihave bee les ffcive: ce below, p1027- Wer Court jurisdiction is voluntary so that dpe me pliped (although this is not necessay tie of cases brought under tthe “optonel cause se below, p04) to accept De ruling ade Note Gal one ofthe Flings ofthe i ot compli wih was tat agairat Abas in te Cf Canal Coxe “Wohi ha italy been brought before the Court very much agalnst Abana’ will sce below, p36. Note alo tat the porcenlage of disputes between states refezed to the Court minute 2% See below, paIB 2 See below po}, 4 Se below, 226, % (949) DFS. 56, Cd. 780; 34 UNCES, 24; (1938) 43 ALLL, Supp. 159 % The Relarace of iteration Adjudication (1968) pp 58.54. And se Dean Acheson's be made of the impact of globalisation upon international law. Hobe has sum- marised this impact as follows”: fone can observe three elements of globalisation which increasingly challenge the structure ofthe current international sytem. Fst, autonomous transnational actors gain, in a growing way, political negotiation power. Second, global prcl demand answers beyond state and inter- ‘governmental regulation. And third, social and political integration is subject {tp profound change. (Of great importance 100 is the increage in the subject-matter of international law to cover what Friedmann has called the international law of co-operation.” ‘The development of the intemational law of human rights and intemational environmental law are notable examples of this more positive, community- minded kind of law. Science too has had considerable effect. It has added two ‘new territorial areas—outer space and the deep sea-bed—for which international law rules are required, and it has produced nuclear weapons, which have revised thinking about some existing rules and caused the introduction of new anes. * A system of capitulatons, which in some cases lsted well into the present century, commonly applied by which Europesn nationals present in the teritory of the capi lating state were subject not to is local law of courts, but were subject instead to their rabonal law administered in the territory of the eapitulating stale by their national consular cours. ¥ But ce the Security Council ation against Iraq inthe fist, but notte second, lrg War, ‘below pp.989 and $95, On te compari impct of conmantt ae rng the Sov ped ec above, “* Oppenheim (ste, 1905) Vo. para t3. Oppenheim, p95, now rain its Re, Vol 1, p26, “States ate the principal subjecis of intemaional Law” A sighticant recent development nas been te re-emergence of individual intematicnal ‘minal responsibilty for heinous crimes, coupled wilh interational bodies to enforce itt see below, p.656, 074. See Jessup, Trausuntinal Lao (1956), pp.AS-16.. 2 In Likely, e., Transnational Lega! Process (2002), p378 at 379. © op. cit, pall, n3, pp.) el seqGi) New Srares*™ HENKIN, HOW NATIONS BEHAVE (2ud ed., 1979), pp.121-127. Some footnotes omitted We are frequently reminded that intemational law was the product of European civilization. .,. One might expect, then, that this law would not survive the decline of Europe's dominance, surely would not govern a society of nations most of which were not Buropean, not Christian, not imperialist, not capitalist, which did not participate in the development of the law, and whose interests were different from those of the nations that shaped the law. In fact, however, international law has survived and ‘would not be unrecognizable to our parents and teachers in the law and in diplomacy. The new nations raised the theoretical difficulties which have long troubled jurists as to why newborn nations should be bound by pre-existing law.” Some of those nations spoke and speak suspi- ciously of white, colonial law and have proclaimed the need for revo- lutionary transformations. Many indeed have challenged particular principles. But all were eager to enter intemational society and to accept its law. ‘The reasons why new nations accepted international law are not dif ficult to perceive. They came into an established system accepted by all nations, including the revolutionary governments and the many small powers which had supported their struggle for self-determination. ‘Acceptance into that society as an independent equal was the proof and crown of their successful struggle, and international law provided the indispensable framework for living in that society. They adopted traci- tional forms in intemational trade and the growing co-operation for welfare of which they have been the principal beneficiaries, and early in their young history they have had to invoke international law in their disputes, among themselves or with others—on the Indus River and in Kashmir, between India and Bangladesh, on the definition of the con- tinental shelf... ‘The explosion of new states ... has made it yet more difficult to make new law. It has been long established that law of universal applicability can be made only by universal agreement or acquiescence; the likelihood Cf general agreement decreases, of course, as the number of nations who must agree increases. New universal customary law, then, may become a rarity... The multilateral convention, then, has become the principal form of general law-making, but already experience suggests that uni- 5 S00 also Anand, ed. Asion States and the Development of Univers! Iteration! Law (1972) Elis, New Horigous i interactional Law Qnd 04. by Ssekandi, 1992); Hogue Academy Woskshop, The Faure of lterstioual Lay ine Mltieuuural World (1984); Figgins, Cauftet offers Inlrmationet Lwin Divided World (1963); Kilson, a, New Stee the Madera ‘ord (1975); Makonnen, Intemational Law and the New Stats of Aficn (1983). Ed. See below, 102,versality (or general acceptance) will be hard to come by.... General agreement may be possible only to codify accepted basic principles and practices, or perhaps to adopt some general, imprecise, and ambiguous standards to which time and experience may give some agreed content. «+» Regional law and law for other, smaller groupings may be the new Jaw of the future, with universality a distant hope that we must learn not to expect or even desire. ‘The reluctance to make new law and the difficulties of making it do not apply equally to unmaking or remaking old law. Whatever the theory, ‘new nations can in fact have a sharp impact on the law by collective “massive resistance”, especially where older states are reluctant to insist on the old Iaw.... Customary law cannot long retain validity if a sub- stantial number of states reject it... In several particular respects, however, the new nations, especially as they joined with other developing states and emerged as the Third World, have created new law in their image and interest. The Third World has succeeded where it was united and determined, had the full support of the Communist World, and had some support or sympathy, at least not resistance, among Western powers. They have succeeded in making that new law in the face of the principle of unanimity, by rein- terpreting universal agreements (eg. the UN Charter), by overwhelming or silencing or even disregarding remaining opposition, especially through the use of UN resolutions. To date, the changes they have achieved in international law have been limited and special. The success of Third World countries in virtually ending colonialism and tacism, their solidarity on economic issues and their ability to extend that solidarity to other issues, on which enough of them feel strongly, have stirred dreams or fears that they might try to eliminate or erode the principle of unanimity in favor of more law-making by majority. Increasingly, they have been encouraged to seek new institutions based essentially on “one state-one vote” and majority rule (eg. the Interna- tional Sea-bed Authority (see below, p.495)); to eliminate special voting rights (like the veto in the UN Security Council); to increase the matters subject to majority vote, eg. in UN General Assembly resolutions. They have effectively exploited other procedures, for example, decision by “consensus.” The developed majority perhaps originally saw in that change protection against being overwhelmed by top-sided majority votes, but in time the drives for consensus, where the Third World lar- gely agreed, began to weigh heavily on would-be dissenters not to dis- sent. And resolutions in the United Nations and other multilateral bodies have begun to weigh more heavily in the law-making process, * Ed, On the attempt at “consensus” in tho drafting ofthe 1982 Convention nthe Law of the Ses, see bolow, p38.Notes 1. For instances of the impact of the “new nations” upon international law, see the General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties® (which was the Brst of the “law-making” treaties prepared by the International Law Commission in the drafting of which the "new nations” participated fully) and ‘the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Note also the impact they have had. in the debate over the rules on the treatment of aliens,* and the rules concerning, the use of force HENKIN, INTERNATIONAL LAW: POLITICS AND VALUES (2995), pp.280-283, ‘The international system is substantially changed from what it was a half-century ago. Sixty states have become near-200, most of them new states. ... For a quarter-century they grouped in three “worlds,” two of them defined by ideology, the third by non-alignment—by a spirit of “a plague on both your worlds” and by bonds of common colonial history, resentment, poverty. Towards the end of the twentieth century, that configuration of three worlds has vanished: there is no Second World, therefore no Third World. But surely we are not one world. The political system is fluid and its configuration difficult to describe and (o char- acterize: surely, it is too early for confident prognostications as to what will emerge. ... ‘The demise of Communism, the disintegration of the Soviet empire, and the fragmentation of the Soviet Union changed the world order fundamentally. Immediately, dramatically, importantly, it revived the Security Council [which] ... acted, almost as originally intended, to defeat aggression and restore international peace in the Persian Gulf. It took a broad view of the demands of international peace and security to support humanitarian intervention by various means (including eco- nomic sanctions) in the former Yugoslavia, Haiti, Libya and Cambodia, and by a measure of military intervention to bring food and order in Somalia.” ., Despite revolution in East and Central Furope, and the resulting changed world ordet, one ought not anticipate radical change in the law in the decades ahead. The inter-state system will be long with us and therefore inter-state politics and inter-state (international) law ... But the international political system is no longer characterized by intense bipolarism and we have moved into a field of more fluid political forces. % Below. p12. 5 Below, Ch10- * Below, Ch? Below, ChB 4% Below CAL Ea. Sadly, these promising developments in the early post-Cold War period have proved 2 floc diver: hero is now such les optima about the role tal the Security Counel ‘on continue to play: see further below, Ch,le wreonnupmneri uy mcr By some measures, the United States is the only super-Power, but others may claim super-Power status by virtue of other indicia, and all are exploring hesitatingly, uncertainly, their place and their posture. The former USSR, now fragmented and in financial difficulties, in search of internal stability and new international roles, is not to be discounted. The Third World will stil have the solidarity forged by a common colonial history and common problems of underdevelopment, and its numbers will count, but the significance of being “Third,” unaligned, will lessen, and perhaps too its political weight and influence. The system, T expect, will be characterized by divisions that are pragmatic rather than ideo- logical, economic rather than political, and even the common gross dis- tinction between developed and less-developed states will blur and we will recognize a fluid spectrum of degrees of development as some state economies flourish and others falter. The new array of forces in the system will surely have effect on the content of international law and on compliance with that law. The former USSR is not a super-Power, but cooperation rather than confrontation between it and the United States promises new law" and better com- pliance from both of them and in the system at large. Surely, global cold war will not be the obstacle to the development of new law and insti- tutions, for peace and security, human rights,"' the environment, or to the use and growth and modemization of the International Court of Justice. No other state—China—or groups of states will succeed to the USSR. role, though China may continue norms and institutions—in human rights, in collective economic-social action, in Security Council intervention. “© Ea, «3, two commnan poston of he US and the Russian Federation on the innacent passage of warships *\ Ed og se the beneficial offest ofthe end of the Cold War on the working ofthe UN Hiina Rights Commitee, bees, p81, a2(Carter 2 THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1. Generauiy! See Article 38(1), Statute of the International Court of Justice” SCHWARZENBERGER, INTERNATIONAL LAW (Grd ed., 1957), Vol. 1, pp.26-27. Footnote omitted Tins paragraph [Art.38(1)] deals with two different issues, Sub- paragraphs (q)-(c) are concerned with the pedigree of the rules of international law. In sub-paragraph (d), some of the means for the determination of alleged rules of international law are enumerated. In order to enable the World Coutt to apply any asserted rule of international law. it must be shown that itis the product of one. or more. Of three law-creating processes: treaties, international customary law or the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations, The sig- nificance of this enumeration lies in its exclusiveness. It rules out other potential law-creating processes such as natural law, moral postulates or the doctrine’ of international law, Conversely, the court is bound to take into consideration any asserted rule which bears the hall-mark of one of these three law-creating processes. tis immaterial whether such a rule is also claimed as their own by any of the various brands of natural law, hhas its origin in considerations of humanity, or is postulated by the standards of civilisation, This interpretation of paragraph 1 of Article 38 is further strengthened by the following paragraph.* The power of the Court to decide a case ex ‘aequo et bono, that is to say, to ignore rules which are the product of any of the above three law-creating agencies and to substitute itself as a law- * a Dailenko, Late Maing it the Ineration! Community (1959), Degen, Sours of Inert Late 1957 Etamaurce, Syl Vora (938), p.153; Jennings, Cire Tibug Cactures: 3 Series (1983), pp.3-32: thi, 1961) 37 Aire Sus 9; Mendelson, i Lowe and Fitzmouriee eds Fifi Yer ofthe Inertial Court of si: (980; Parey, The Sours and Eedoce of Internatio Lat (1965), ase i Seer aed Joyner eds, Ute Nations Lge! Orde (199), Vol, Ch: Van Hoof Relating te eure ter reine! Law (1983); Viral, i Sorensen, ed, Manual of Pubic ncrutionl Le (868, fs meant the views of writerscreating agency, depends on agreement of the parties to a dispute. In other words, such power must itself rest on a rule created by one of the three normal Jaw-creating processes, in this case, a treaty. In terms of a more conventional terminology, sub-paragraphs (a)-(c) of paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Statute of the World Court deal with the three formal sources of international law to which the Court may resort and exclude material sources as such’... By way of contrast to the law-creating processes, sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1 of Article 38 refers to decisions of judicial institutions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists as “subsidiary means for the determination of cules of law.” It follows that principal means for the determination of rules of law must exist. In close leaning tn this text, these principal and subsidiary means of evidence are called Iaw-determining agencies. Each of these is composed of more or less fallible human beings, and these cannot be taken to be passive agents who merely reflect true international law as it were in a faithful mirror. This term, therefore, is also meant to bring out the unavoidable subjective and formative element which all these agencies have in common. ‘Whereas, in the case of the law-creating processes, the emphasis lies on the forms by which any particular rule of international law is created, in the case of the law-determining agencies it is on how an alleged rule is to be verified. Notes 1. Art38 follows the wording of the same Article in the Statute of the Perma- rent Court of International Justice (which preceded the Intemational Court of Justice as the primary court of the international community’, except that the ‘words “whase function is lo decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it” are inserted in para.1. The original text was drafted in 1920 by an Advisory Committee of Jurists appointed by the League of Nations? Although they were concerned to draft a toxt relating directly only to the functioning of the P-C.1J,, Art 38 is generally accepted as a correct statement of the sources of international Jaw. 2. Classification of sources. The distinction between “formal” and “material” sources to which Schwarzenberger refers was explained by Salmond* in the Following terms: ‘A formal source is that from which a rule of law derives its force and validity. . The material sources, on the other hand, are those from which is derived ‘matter, not the validity of the law. The material source supplies the sub- stance of the rule fo which the formal source gives the force and nature of law. For example, a rule will be legally binding if it meets the requirements of ‘custom, which is a formal source of international law, and its substance will be 5 i For the view that treaties are nota formal source of la, see Fitzmaurice, below, p42 & The term World Court is commonly usod to refer to each of these Courts 7 For a record of the Commitiee’s work, see Permanent Court of International Justice, ‘Advisory Commitee of fursts, Proce ertaux of te Proceedings ofthe Commie, ane 15: July 24, 1920, LIN, Publication, 1920) ° Jursprience sed, 1924), para 44.~ ne sources yy snes sueuons ates indicated by state practice, which is the material source of custom. The form cuidenceis then used in tne sense that diplomatic correspondence, for example, is evidence of state practice. 3. Order of applicalion® When drafting the original text of Anticle 38, the Advisory Commuttee of Jurists considered a proposal that itshould state that the sources listed should be considered by the Court “in the undermentioned corder™® (iz the order (a) to (d) in which they now appear). Opposing the pro- posal, M. Ricci-Busatti (Italy) is reported as saying: ‘These words were not only superfluous, but they might also suggest the idea that the judge was not authorised to draw upon a certain source, for instance point 3," before having applied conventions and customs mentioned respec- tively in points 1 and 2. That would be a misinterpretation of the Comunitice’s intentions.” In response, the President of the Committee, Baron Descamps (Belgium), remarked, however, that: thore was a natural classification, If tivo States concluded a treaty in which the solution of the dispute could be found, the Court must not apply international ‘custom and neglect the treaty." If a well-known custom exists, there is no ‘occasion to resort to a general principle of law. We shall indicate an order of natural précellence, without requiring in a given case the agreement of several sources." “M. Ricci-Busatti held to his opinion. He said: if the expression “ordre successif” [undermentioned order] only meant that a convention should be considered before, for instance, customary law, it is unnecessary. Iti fundamental principle of law that a special rule goes before general law. This expression also seers to fail to recognise that these various Sources may be applied simultaneously, and also tht the nature of exch source differs. Agreement with M. Ricci-Busatti was expressed by other members and the statement was omitted. 2, Custom’ See the Lotus case, below, p.267, the Anglo-Nonocgin Fisheries case, below, p88, the Nicaragua (Merits) case, below, p.893, and the Legality of Nuclear Wenpous case, 7 See Akohurst (1974-75) 47 BY.LL. 273; Bos (1978) 3 NALLR, 34; Czaplinst ae Dane iy Jetko (1990) 21 NEVLL, 3 1 Br Cesta eset 2 Re hit paw A “This must now be fend subject to Ihe rules conceming is cogent se blow, PASE i ° id, 388. See ‘Akehure (1974-75) 47 BY.11. 1; Byers, Custon, Power andthe Powe of Res (1995); DeAmato, Te Concept of Cstom in Intemaonal tau (1970); Lauterpacht, The Deteopnent {ftntreton! La by the tration Cort (0958), pp 368-395; Lowe (1983) 9 Re ntbelow, p.959, These cases are important to an understanding of the nature of custom and the extracts printed later in this book should be read at the same time as those from the cases extracted In this chapter. ASYLUM CASE" Colunbia v Pern LC J. Reports 1950, p.266 After an unsuccessful rebellion in Peru in 1948, a warrant was igsued for the arrest on a criminal charge arising out of the rebellion of one ofits leaders, laya de la Tors, a Peruvian national He was granted asylum by Colombia in its eran Embassy in Line Colona sought and Fra ete asalecondueto allow Haya de la Torre out of the country. Colombia brought this case against Peru, asking the Court to rule, inter ali, that: Colombia, a the sate gransing asylum i competent to qualify the offence” for the puzposes of the sid ayluin = Ttargued for such 2 ruling on the basis of both treaty provisions and “American international law in, general’. In the following extract, the Court considered the latter basis for the Colombian argument. Judgment of the Court ‘The Colombian Government has finally invoked “American interna tional law in general.” In addition to the rules arising from agreements which have already been considered, it has relied on an alleged regional ‘or local custom peculiar to Latin-American States. The Party which relies on a custom of this kind must prove that this ‘custom is established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other Party. The Colombian Government must prove that the rule invoked by itis in accordance with a constant and uniform usage prac- tised by the States in question, and that this usage is the expression of a right appertaining to the State granting asylum and a duty incumbent on the territorial State. This follows from Article 38 of the Statute of the Court, which refers to international custom "as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.” the Colombian Government hes referred to a large number of cases in which diplomatic asylum wes in fact granted and respected. But it has not shown that the alleged rule of unilateral and definitive qualification Studies 207; Mendelson (199) 272. Hague Recuell 185; Mallen, in Wellens, ed, Interatina La Theory od Practice (1958), p16; Tia, nero? Cesta (st tu Cadifeation (1972) Wale, Casini Braga utero! Law (2nd, 1983), Fos) Repost ofthe Corunitce on the armation of Customary iteatlonat Lvs, LLA. 637 Confereee Report (2000), p12 See Briggs (1951) 45 ATL. 728 to characirse the olfence—in this caseto say whether it was 2 poltial offence or not % LG] Rep. 1950, p27was invoked or ... that it was, apart from conventional stipulations, exercised by the States granting asylum as a right appertaining to them and respected by the territorial State as a duty incumbent on them and ‘not merely for reasons of political expediency. The facts brought to the knowledge of the Court disclose so much uncertainty and contradiction, so much fluctuation and discrepancy in the exercise of diplomatic asy- Jum and in the official views expressed on various occasions, there has bean so much inconsistency in the rapid succession of conventions on asylum, ratified by some States and rejected by others, and the practice has been so much influenced by considerations of political expediency in the various cases, that it is not possible to discem in all this any constant and uniform usage, accepted as Jaw, with regard to the alleged rule of unilateral and definitive qualification of the offence. ‘The Court cannot therefore find that the Colombian Government has proved the existence of such a custom. But even if it could be supposed that such a custom existed between certain Latin-American States only, it could not be invoked against Pera which, far from having by its attitude adhered to it, has, on the contrary, repudiated it by refraining from ratifying the Montevideo Conventions of 1933 and 1939, which were the first to include a rule concerning the qualification of the offence in matters of diplomatic asylum. Notes 1. The Courts description of custom as 2 “constant and uniform usage accepted as law” has long been quoted as a convenient and accurate formula. In other terns, in the Legality of Nuclear Weapons case," the Court confirmed that the substance of customary rules is to be found “primarily in the actual practice and opinio juris of states.” These two are sometimes referred to as the objective and subjective elements of custom respectively. 2. Ganeral and Local Custous. As the Court recognised in this case, although ‘Art 38(1)(Q) refers to “a general” practice it allows for local (or regional) customs, amongst a group of states or just hwo states” in their relations fufer se ag well as ‘for general customs binding upon the international community as a whole, Local customs may supplement or derogate from general customary intemational law (Gubject to rules of iis cogens®), “A leading Soviet writer, Tunkin,* identified socialist international law as a form of local intemiational law which was “coming. to replace contemporary general international law” in the relations between socialist states. An example of such law was the Brezhnev Doctrine, which jus- tified intervention by socialist states in the affairs of any one of them to preserve socialism. The Brezhnev Doctrine no longer applies and it is not clear that any other rules of socialist international law remain in the post-USSR era. ‘Although local customs exist, general customs are by far the more numerous and important, 2 or the full passage from the opinion, see below, p63, % Such a custom was found to exit between India and Portugal in the Right of Passage case, below, 9.258. 2% On ius cogans, see below, p.836. 2 Theory of hilernntons! Lao, op. ct, p5, 9.13, ove, pak * iia. p33,3. Slate Practice, By “usage” the Court means a usage that is to be founel in the practice of states The Intemational Law Commission included the fellowing in a non-exhaustive list” ofthe forms that state practice may take: treaties, decisions of intematienal and national cours ational legislation, diplomatic correspon: dence, opinions of national legal advisers a practice of international organisthore® Other categorie iste by Browrle® ar peliny stern, pest releases, official manuals on legal questions (eg. manuals of military’ lav), ‘executive decisions and practices, orders to naval forces, and comments by governments on drafts produced by the International Law Commission." In his opinion in the Aglo-Norwepia Fisheries case" Judge Read said in respect ‘of state practice and with particular reference to the facts of the case before him: ‘This cannot be established by citing cases where coastal States have made exsnsve diy buthave not maintained this din by the cual mzron Sovereignty over espasting foreign ships. Such claims may be important ss starting points which, net calle n ripen into historic Stein the Course of time. The only convincing evidence of State practice is tbe found in seizures, whore the ehasal State aserts tt sovereignty aver the waler in guestion by arresting 9 foreign ship and by maintaining it poston in the ours of diplomatic negodation and international abtaton,” How far should Judge Read's emphasis upon “action rather than words" be carried? Although acts in support of a claim may be “the only convincing evie dence” where the claim is challenged by the acts of another state, abstract statements of a tegal position have been recognised as being of value in other ‘cases, as the extract from the North Sen Continental Shelf cases below shows. As to the relevance of General Assembly resolutions. see below. p.55. (On the need to take care in assessing the significance of state's acts oF pro- nouncements, Brierly states: ‘There are multifarious occasions on which persons wito act or speak in the iname of a state do acts or make declarations which either express or imply some view on a matter of international law. Any such act or declaration may, 30 far as it goes, be some evidence that a custom, and therefore that a rule of {international lave, does or does not exist; but of course its value as evidence will be altogether determined by the occasion and the circumstances. States, like individuals, often put forward contentions for the purpose of supporting a particular case which do not necessarily represent their settled or impartial opinion, Unfortunately,” the evidence of state practice is not as available as it should be to permit considered opinions on many questions of customary international law. 3 On the question whether the practice of other intemational persons may contribute tothe ‘development of custom, se below, p14. 2 G950) ii Y.BLLC., 368-372, 2 Second of ine cimlating prac ofnterational orgaisatons may te spared 23 tvtence of cstoraryinerononal a ih Fret Sie sonst lw on Shoo par 7 Brownlie, p.6. > Ff Coverment ean the practic of such bodies as he Human Tights Commitee: Leela IC), Rep 1051, pASL. i. be Anyone who has speni time sifting through records of state practice may nat agree with theo of ti wan4101. For these reasons, THE COURT, by eleven votes to six;® finds that, in each case, (A) the use of the equidistance method of delimitation not being obli- gatory as between the Parties; and (B) there being no other single method of delimitation the use of which is in all circumstances obligatory; (©) the principles and rules of international Jaw applicable to the delimitation as between the Parties as follows: (1) delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles, and taking account of all the relevant circumstances, in such a way as to leave as much as possible fo ‘each Party all those parts of the continental shelf that constitute ‘a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the land territory of the other; @) if, in the application of the preceding sub-paragraph, the delimitation leaves to the Parties areas that overlap, these are to be divided between them in agreed proportions or, failing agreement, equally, unless they decide on a régime of joint jurisdiction, user, or exploitation for the zones of overlap or any part of them; (D) in the course of the negotiations, the factors to be taken into account are to include: (1) the general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, as well as the presence of any special or unusual features; @) so far as known or readily ascertainable, the physical and geological structure, and natural resources, of the continental shelf areas involved; (@) the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality, which a delimitation cazried out in accordance with equitable princi ples ought to bring about between the extent of the continental shelf areas appertaining to the coastal State and the length of its coast measured in the general direction of the coastline, account being taken for this purpose of the effects, actual or prospective, of any other continental shelf delimitations between adjacent States in the same region. The judges in the majority were President Bustamente y Rivero; Judges Sir Geral Bismaurie, Jessup, Sir Muhammad Zafrlla ‘Khan, Padilla Nero, Forse, Gros, “Amanoun, Bein and Onyeama, Judge at foe Mosler. Vice-President Koretky: Jadges ‘Tanaka, Morell, Bengzon and Lacks; Judge wi Hoe Savensen dissented. “+ Fal The partes agreed upon the delimttation of their continental sbelvesjurse om the basis ofthe Courts judgment by trates made in 1971 for texts see Ferd of te J 1970-71, pAb spDisszwrine Ortnton oF Juoce TANAKA. To decide whether these two factors [usage and opinio juris] in the formative process of a customary law exist of not, is a delicate and difficult matter. The repetition, the number of examples of State practice, the duration of time required for the generation of customary law cannot be mathematically and uni- formly decided. Each fact requires to be evaluated relatively according to the different occasions and circumstances... what is important in the matter at issue is not the number or figure of ratifications of and acces~ sions to the Convention ot of examples of subsequent State practice, but the meaning which they would imply in the particular circumstances. ‘We cannot evaluate the ratification of the Convention by a large maritime ‘country ot the State practice represented by its concluding an agreement ‘on the basis of the equidistance principle, as having exactly the same importance as similar acts by a land-locked country which possesses no particular interest in the delimitation of the continental shelf. Next, so far as... opinio juris sive necessitatis is concerned, it is extre- mely difficult to get evidence of its existence in concrete cases. This factor, relating to international motivation and being of a psychological nature, cannot be ascertained very easily, particularly when diverse legislative and executive organs of a government participate in an internal process of decision-making in respect of ratification or other State acts. There is no other way than to ascertain the existence of pinta juris from the fact of the external existence of a certain custom and its necessity felt in the international community, rather than to seck evi- dence as to the subjective motives for each example of State practice, ‘which is something which is impossible of achievement... Dissewric Ormvion oF Junce Laces. Delay in the ratification of and accession to multilateral treaties is a: well-known phenomenon in con- temporary treaty practice... experience indicates that in most cases [it is] caused by factors extraneous to the substance and objective of the instrument in question. .- [This] indicates that the number of ratifications and accessions cannot, in itself, be considered conclusive with regard to the general acceptance of a given instrument. In the case of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, there are other elements that must be given their due weight. In particular, thirty-one States came into existence during the period between its signature (lune 28, 1958) and its entry into force une 10, 1964), while thirteen other nations have since acceded to independence. Thus the time during which these forty-four States could have completed the necessary procedure enabling them to become parties to the Convention has been rather limited, in some cases very limited. Taking into account the great and urgent problems each of them had to face, one cannot be surprised that many of them did not consider it a malter of priority. This notwith- standing, nine of those States have acceded to the Convention, Twenty- six of the total number of States in existence are moreover land-lockedand cannot be considered as having @ special and immediate interest in speedy accession to the Convention (only five of them have in fact acceded). Finally, it is noteworthy that about seventy States are at present ‘engaged in the exploration and exploitation of continental shelf areas. Ikis the above analysis which is relevant, not the straight comparison between the total number of States in existence and the number of parties to the Convention. It reveals in fact that the number of parties to the Convention on the Continental Shelf is very impressive, including as it does the majority of States actively engaged in the exploration of con- tinental shelves. ---in the world today an essential factor in the formation of a new rule of general international law is to be taken into account: namely that States with diffecent political, economic and legal systems, States of all continents, participate in the process. No more can a general rule of international law be established by the fiat of one or of a few, or—as it ‘was once claimed—by the consensus of European States only... All this leads to the conclusion that the principles and rules enshrined in the Convention, and in particular the equidistance rule, have been accepted not only by those States which are parties to the Convention on the Continental Shelf, but also by those which have subsequently fol- lowed it in agreements, oF in their legislation, or have acquiesced in it when faced with legislative acts of other States affecting them. This can be viewed as evidence of a practice widespread enough to satisfy the criteria for a general rule of law, For to become binding, a rule or principle of international law need not pass the test of universal acceptance. This is reflected in several state- ments of the Court, eg.; “generally ... adopted in the practice of States”” CEisheries, Judgment, LCJ. Reports 1951, p.128). Not all States have ....an opportunity or possibility of applying a given rule. The evidence should be sought in the behaviour of a great number of States, possibly the majority of States, in any case the great majority of the interested States. DisseNTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SORENSEN. I agree, of course, that one should not lightly reach the conclusion that a convention is, binding upon a non-contracting State, But I find it necessary to take account of the fact--to which the Court does not give specific weight— that the Geneva Convention belongs to a particular category of multi- lateral conventions, namely those which result from the work of the United Nations in the field of codification and progressive development of international law, under Article 13 of the Charter... According to classic doctrine... [the] practice [necessary to establish a rule of customary international law] must have been pursued over a certain length of time. There have even been those who have maintained the necessity of “immemorial usage”. In its previous jurisprudence, however, the Court does not seem to have laid down strict requirementsa to the duration of the usage or practice which may be accepted as law. Jn particular, it does not seem to have drawn any conclusion in this respect from the ordinary meaning of the word “custom” when used in other contexts.... The possibility has thus been reserved of recognising the rapid emergence of a new rule of customary law based on the recent practice of States. This is particularly important in view of the extremely dynamic process of evolution in which the international community is engaged at the present stage of history. Whether the mainspring of this evolution is to be found in the development of ideas, in socia and eco- nomic factors, or in new technology, it is characteristic of our time that new problems and circumstances incessantly arise and imperatively call for legal regulation. In situations of this nature, a convention adopted as part of the combined process of codification and progressive develop- ment of international law may well constitute, or come to constitute the decisive evidence of generally accepted new rules of international lav. The fact that it does not purport simply to be declaratory of existing customary law is immaterial in this context. The convention may serve as an authoritative guide for the practice of States faced with the relevant new legal problems, and its provisions thus become the nucleus around which a new set of generlly recognised legal rules may crystallise. The word “custom,” with its traditional time connotation, may not even be ‘an adequate expression for the purpose of describing this particular source of law. ‘The adoption of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf was a very significant element in the process of creating new rules of international law in a field which urgently required legal regulation. .. No State which has exercised sovereign rights over its continental shelf in conformity with the provisions of the Convention has been met with protests by other States..., ido not find it necessary to go into the question of the opinio juris. This is a problem of legal doctrine which may cause great difficulties in international adjudication, In view of the manner in which international relations are conducted, there may be numerous cases in which it is practically impossible for one government to produce conclusive evi- dence of the motives which have prompted the action and policy of other governments, Without going into all aspects of the doctrinal debate on this issue, T wish only to cite the following passage by one of the most qualiffed commentators on the jurisprudence of the Court. Examining the conditions of the opinio necessitatis juris Sir Hersch Lauterpacht writes: “ Ee. Judge Lach took the sume view in his Opinion. He gave the folowing exile ofthe “rapid emergence” ofa customary ru”. heist ittruments tat man set nla euler spice taversed the aipace of Sates and cieled above them in our space, yet he inunehing States sought no permission nor did the other States prota. Ths how lng freedom of maversent ino Gulcr Spee, anc in, came to be establishes and Tecognie ab las within a remarkably short perio of timc” (p20)Unless judicial activity is to result in reducing the legal significance of the most potent source of rules of international law, namely, the conduct of States, it would appear that the accurate principle on the subject consists in regarding all uniform conduct of Governments (or, {in appropriate cases, abstention therefrom) as evidencing the opinio necessitats juris except when it is shown that the conduct in question was not accompanied by any such intention. (Sir Hersch Lauterpacht: ‘The Development of international Law by the International Court, London, 1958, p.380,) Applying these considerations to the circumstances of the present As the Court indicates in its judgment in the \Nortlr Sea cases (para.77), the second requirement of a custom™—acceptance that itis binding in law-—is necesoary to distinguish ft from a rule of international comity, which is a rule based upon a consistent practice in the relations of states ‘which is not accompanied by a feeling of logal obligation. The saluting by a ship at sea of another ship flying a different flag is an example. Another exomple— which ‘may now have been translated ino a rule of customary international leis tho tle by which the goods of «diplomatic agent and his fay ate Jmmune from customs duty. ‘AS the judgments of Judges Tanaka and Sorensen stress, I is often dificult to discover the necessary opinio juris because the reason underlying, a state's ‘adoption of acceptance of a particular practice is not clear. In Uns connection, Judge Sorensen (following Lauterpacht) suggested that opivio juris may be pre ‘sumed to exist if a uniform practice Is proven. The judgment of the Court (ars 78), however, adopts a stricter approach. Accordingly, in the Leglity of Nuclear Wenpons case,® the Coust declined to find @ rule prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons from the fact that no recourse had been had to them for 50, years, Tt was necessary also to show thet this “constant and uniform” non-use {esulted froma feeling of obligation on the part of states generally, which was not the case: many states reserved the right fo use them as a patt of a policy of deterrence ‘Another difficulty with opinio juris is thatthe first states to adopt anew practice are supposed to be acting on the basis that itis binding even as they do so. Ik was this that Lauterpacht™ had in mind when he referred to: the mysterious phenomenon of customary intemational law which is deemed tobe a source of law only on condition that itis in accordance with law. ‘Would itbe correct to say tat in the early days of the formation of a new rule the sate of states adopting the practice either do not think about whether it is, binding or, if they are thinking about its significance in the development of international law, put if forward more as an “offer which other states can accept or reject, rather than as something which they are Convinced is already binding? % cage Merits) case, judgment para 38, below, p886-In the Morne Delton ant Teron! Qretions Beto Goer and Bon cate (CJ, Rep. 200, p40), te Court otal hat “Une pov agrce atthe provisons of Astle 5 othe 188 Coseeton on the Law of the Eo fon Sine badass ae pa customary lab then ‘wenton toate and apply the Cours ewncacisin that Arie 18 "tobe regaed [Shwingscstomary rates Me Court dd not fet ts Mangus udgment The Shustotconidered above ferent rom te stations Wich te ates paras to the cave agree (or one of them eset to he Courts extstcton) tha Ure 3 local ‘usar being on Unt in which case there ino cd to lok the practi oftales nea 2% Re'Cheng, in Yeo and Wang, lnterlonsl Lao tthe Pos-Cold War Period 2001) 565 32 (1958) H LCL SOL, Mas (1994) 6ALJIC L597, Mendelson (1995) 668411. ree GY LL 7 (00, es an ovtiap bee the two equiements nthe sens hat pir ito be {bund insta pce for ramp where ee protest e conti of ober state on the bars tari loge 5 Stet natonal cour emetimes use the er ines cm" a8 «synonym {or interraional lao se Atehurst (BP2-1979) a BIL. Mo a 8-716 2 Soe Arts 3 and 37, Varuna Coneention on Diplomatic Retin’ 96, below, p38. 2 Judgment, pura €L€7 below, p90. 9 fy bh, past, above 395(On this view, the feeling of obligation if it arises at all arises only later when there has been general adoption or acceptance of the practice or “olfer”. ‘The above discussion supposes that the apiio juris required for a customary rule is accompanied by “constant and uniform” state practice in the subject arca of the rule. In a new departure, in the Nicaragua case, below. p.895, the LC. relied upon evidence of apne found io General Assembly eslution to establish the customary rule on the use of force by states, without referring also fo any extra-General Assembly state practice involving the use of force. Although referring in its judgment to the need for both “actual practice and opinio juris” (para.183), the Court would, in the particular context of General Assembly resolutions, seem to have found proof of opti juris by itself to be sufficient ™ 5. What if one state or just a few states, protest at a practice? Can it, or they, prevent it from establishing a custom? Judge Tanaka, in his dissenting opinion in the South West Africn Cases, (Second Pirse) stated: ts srt nh me me et ile gh 1(b), of the Statute does not exclude the possibility of a few dissidents for the Irs Seed cata antec ey frente ee tale aria ron esis Sates tect iy a iene ait seat Does the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case indicate, as Judge Sorensen suggests, taltcugl’ dsoning state nay nat by tel prevent sale om coming le being, a state will not be bound by the rule ft aint it dissent throughout the rule's formative poriod? Would any state, for example, tat were to have protested consistently rom 1957 (when the first satelite was launches) onwards sant he of atti ng i space, now be und by any change in te law affecting the upper init of state's sapace that may have tesulfed from the general acquiescence by states inthe passage of satellites over their teritory? And what was the effect of te consistent opposition by France to say ate pring nia atom the high nan dng Te ey ar ely 19702” is France bound by any such rule that leveloped? Gn this question ofthe "persistent objector”, the US Restatement reads: Principle a state that indicates its dissent from a practice while the law is in the process of development is not bound by that rule even after it ‘matures, Historically, such dissent and consequent exemption from a princi- ple that became general customary law has been rare. In the view of some writers” a persistent objector cannot escape being bound by a new rule of customary international law that has the character of ius cagens. The 6 See further the discussion of General Assembly resolutions, below, p55. 9 1G). Rep. 1865, p31 Below, p38, See ale the final paragraph ofthe extroc from the Asylum case quoted sore p22 1 Sevteibw, 4X6. See loth potion of daveoped states in expat ofthe majo view ink Bsn ep snow pS cea op nba mang ee ‘6 Restaliton ofthe Foveg Relations Law f the US. Third (1987), Vol, para 102, comment, PassOn npr eb ae Chany O05) 36 BLL Clr 38D Vash, LR. ‘Stein (1985) 26 H.1.LJ. 457. © See, eg. Henkin, International Lav: Politics and Values (1995) p39. Fora full discussion of {he isu, se ‘Chamey (1993) 87 AJ.LL. 529 at 541; and Danilenko, op. cit., p.18, 9.1,concept of ius cogens originated in the Taw of teats, in which there isa rule prohibiting states rom making a ent by whieh they derogae fom arte of is agers, ie a vale that proscrbes condict that is fundamentally immoral or anti social In the view of these writers, the same concept has been transposed into the law on the formation of general custom.” For example, Henkin.” citing state practice, states that "South Aia’s objection to including apartheid asa violation Of customary law and of ius cogens has been generally cd" 6. What is the effect of dissent by a state aflera custom has been established? ‘Can this by itself affect the application ofthe custom to the dissenting state? In answering this question, docs it matter whether the dissenling state ws in ‘existence or not at the tire that the custom came into being?” Can the dissent of one state bring down a custom if itis coupled with that of others? If so, there is leorly a stage when states leading an assault upon a custom are, although par- Hicipating in an accepted law-changing process, delinquents.” Another intinsic ‘weakness in the customary international law-making process is that, in some ‘cases, eg. that concerning the breadth of te territorial sea," the change from ane rule of customary international law to another is unacceptably slow with an interim period of considerable uncertainty.” 7. or the purpose of the formation of rules of customary international law, consent is coimonly indicated by state practice not in the form of pesitive statements or other action approving or following the practice in question, but of acquiescence. This MacGibbon™ describes as “silence or absence of protest in rcumstances which generally call for a positive reaction signifying an objec- tion.” For example, ifthe law concerning airspace has been changed 98a result of the use of satelite, the practice of all but the states participating in salllite launching has consisted mostly of acquiescence in this sense. AS the Anglo- [Nonegian Fiseries case shows, acquiescence cannot be established unless a state Yhas actual or constructive knowlege of the claim boing mado. Hlow strict 3 standard did the Court apply in that casein finding that the United Kingdom did have knowledge of the Norwegian claims? Would you agree with Johnson's comment that: under the Court's formulation, it would seem that ignorance as to another State's legislation on territorial waters, however excusable, can be fatal, and that States may neglect at their own risk, to study each other's statute-books?”” On ts cogent inthe law of treaties, soe below, p86, Examples of ius cages rules ane ‘hose prohibiting genocide snd the use of armed force. “ Diffecet from this is the position concerning local custom: states may cedainly not ‘derogate by local custom from existing general custom that is ins cogens, Joc ei 1.67, On the prohibition of apartheid and UN sanctions against South AStic, see below, p. 1011. Forefront views ago whelher Soulh Africa was“ peristentobjector”, see Charney, ioe. i. u67, above, p.538, 048, 7 See below, 103 Wha, for example, was the legal position of Iceland in the late 1950s when it insisted ‘upon'a Izanile exclusive fishing zane afF i coaste—somnathing hat wae questionable ‘hen but clearly lawful now (pally because of Iceland's efforts)? What wos leland’s position in the 1970s when it claimed, again to the tune of protest by other states, an {Exclusive fishing zone of 50 miles (also now clearly fsfall? On Une US claim toa right of preemptive self defence, see below, p45. 2 See below, p86, % See Friedmann, p.21.n.34, above, pp.121-123, (1954)31 BLYLL. 143, See also MacGibbon (1957) 33 BY.LL.115and Sinclair, in Lowe and Fiemaurice, eda, Fiiy Yers ofthe International Court af justice (1996), p. 104. And see the definition in the Gif of Maine ease, LC]. Rep. 1984, p.246 at 305. Gn the meaning of -, Protest se below, p22. 4% See below, p375, 77 (1952) 1 LCLQ. 145 at 168.8, Some rules of customary international law are often broken. For example, it {snot uncommon for stats illegally to resort to armed force orto intervene inthe affairs of other states” and more than one government has tortured its oppo- nents In such cases, the question must be whether the delinquent and other states continue to recognise the breaches as illegal. In this connection, note that in the Nicargua (Merits) ease, para.186, below, p-597, the LC. acknowledged that a practice does not always heve to be followed for it to indicate a custom: itis sufficient that any departure from the practice is recognised as illegal. 9. The above materials conceming custom are based upon the voluntatist or consensual theory of the nakure of intemational law, by which states are bound conly by that to whieh they consent. Although this is a theory that presents certain theoretical problems,” it remains the one to which the LC], adheres and one from which, not surpesingly, states do not appear to dissont in their practice. If the theary may involve an element of fiction, itis not easy to find a substitute that is both more intellectually defensible and as serviceable as a working hypothesis. CASSESE, INTERNATIONAL LAW (2001), pp.124-125. Footnote omitted 62.6 THE PRESENT ROLE OF CUSTOM After the Second World War custom increasingly lost ground in two respects: existing customary rules were eroded more and more by fresh practice, and resort to custom to regulate new matters became relatively rare, These developments were largely due to the growing assertiveness of socialist countries and the massive presence of Third World States in the international arena. Both groups insisted on the need radically to revise old customary rules, which appeared to them to be the distillation of traditional Western values. Indeed, custom came to represent the quintessence of the outlook they opposed. They demanded legal change. The insecurity inherent in its unwritten character and its protracted process of development rendered it disadvantageous to the Third World, ... The majority of States accordingly turned to the codification and progressive development of international law through treaties. Another general reason for the demotion of custom is that the mem- bership of the world community is far larger than in the heyday of international customary law (in the space of one hundred years the number of States has risen from about 40 to nearly 200). Even more important, members of the world community are deeply divided eco- nomically and politically. Ithas, therefore, become extremely difficult for general rules to receive the support of the bulk of such a large number of very diverse Slates. By the same token, it is nowadays exceedingly B See below, Ch > See below, p778. See, eg. Chamey (1998) 87 A,.1L. 529; and Labo de Souza (1995) 44 LCLQ. 821. Po- lems eo inte to concer () the feason why new states are bound by existing, ‘customary la; (i} the question of = us cogens exception tothe "persistent objector" rule; ‘and (ii) the “mysterious phenomenon” identibed by Laulerpscht, above, p38. Note that the voluntarst theory has far fewer problems with treaties as sources than ‘wth custom,~ ime auunrceo up ier vimeninie sie difficult to ascertain whether a new rule has emerged, for itis not always possible to get hold of the huge body of evidence required. Nevertheless, the existence today of so many international organiza- tions to a great extent facilitates and speeds up the custom-creating ‘process, at least in those areas where States are prepared to bring general rules into being. In particular, the UN makes a major contribution as it offers a forum, where States are able to exchange and, where possible, harmonize their views to arrive at some form of compromise with other groups. Within UN representative bodies, chiefly the GA, as well as in other international fora general consent on the least common denomni- nator often evolves: the majority of States eventually succeed in over- coming opposition by individual States, and in achieving general standards of behaviour. The latter come to constitute the normative core ‘of subsequent practice and the basis for the drafting of treaties (or the evolution of customary rules). In other words, those general standards of behaviour represent a sort of bridge between the previous normative vacuum and the future detailed regulation afforded by treaty making or customary law. They provide basic guidelines; the treaty provisions (or customary rules) which usually follow in time provide the nuts and bolis, as. it were—the technicalities calculated to bind international standards together and make them more detailed—besides, in the case of treaties, setting up the necessary techniques of supervision, Tt follows that custom is by no means on the wane eveywhere.... 3. Trearrest* FITZMAURICE, SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING THE FORMAL SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1958) Symbolae Verzil, p.153. Some footnotes omitted Considered in themselves, and particularly in their inception, treaties are, formally, a source of obligation rather than a source of law. In their contractual aspect,® they are no more @ source of law than an ordinary private law contract; which simply creates rights and obligations.... In this connexion, the attempts which have been made to ascribe a law- making character to alf treaties irrespective of the character of their content or the number of the parties to them, by postulating that some gee Janks, The Prospect of teruatioua!Adjucnion (1864 Jennings, tm Wier, Jus et Sores Eseys in Tribe fo Wolfgang Fritnen (1979), pplSe-168; MeN, Tat ‘Appl Stake (1946) 29 BYLL. 3A * anay be recalled tha in the Reser Jo tie Gonede Convention cast, the ntly dissenting judges (Cucrare, McNair Read and Hist Mo), speabing ofthe socalled lave snaking” genetal mallatral convention, pointcd out tht the exeumstance “tht is cavity is often desenbed a5 Teglatve” oF quaslegflotive must not cbscure the fact, {atthe legal basa of ene conventions, and the exenal thing thet brings them ito force, isthe common convent ofthe parties” LCT Rep. 1951, p32)treaties create “particular” intemational law and others “general”, is of extremely dubious validity. There is really no such thing as “particular” international treaty law, though there are particular international treaty rights and obligations. The only “law” that enters into these is derived, not from the treaty creating them—or from any treaty—but from the principle pacta sunt seroanda—an antecedent general principle of law. The Jaw is that the obligation must be carried out, but the obligation js not, in itself, law.... A statute is always, from its inception, law: a treaty may reflect, or lead to, law but, particularly in its inception, is not, a5 such, “law'".... True, where it reflects (eg. codifies) existing law, non-parties ‘may conform to the same rules, but they do so by virtue of the rules of general law thus reflected in the treaty, not by virtue of the treaty itself. In that sense, the treaty may be an instrument in which the law is con- veniently stated, and evidence of what it is, but it is still not itself the law—it is still formally not a source of law but only evidence of it. Where a treaty is, or rather becomes, a material source of law, because the rules it contains come to be generally regarded as representing rules of universal applicability, it will nevertheless be the case that when non-parties apply or conform to these rules, this will be because the rules are or have become rules of general law... This position is equally true, strictly speaking, of parties to the treaty also. If the treaty refiects (codifies) existing law, then, in applying it, the parties merely conform to general law obligations already valid for them.... ‘The position is the same, even as regards parties to a treaty, in those cases where the treaty does not reflect existing law but leads to the emergence of a new general rule of law. Before that occurs, the patties apply the treaty, not a8 law, butas an obligation inter se which antecedent general Jaw respecting treaties compels them to carry out because they have undertaken to do so. If the treaty rule does eventually pass into general law, its formal source as Inv ... is clearly custom or practice—ie. its adoption into general customary law. The parties, in applying it, are no doubt also (or still) applying the treaty: but, as they would now be bound to apply it even if there were no treaty (or if the treaty, quit instrument, “had lapsed or the party concerned had formally “denounced,” or given notice of withdrawal from it), its legal basis as Inw Js clearly not the treaty, although it retains a treaty basis of obligation so far as the parties inter se are concerned... Notes 1. There are now many multilateral treaties to which a large number of states ate parties which lay down general rules of conduct for the parties to them. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961° is a good example, They are " Below, p54. The 1949 Red Cross (Geneva) Conventions (190 parte), sae below p55, and the UN! Charter (in respect of its law-making provisions, eg. Att 23), see Below, °p.809), are other examples. So are some UN' human rights treaes: eg. the 1989 Con’ Yention on the Rights of the Child has 191 perties,somelimes refered to as “law-making, treaties” of “international lyilation ” Suck tenms are probably sulfcenty useful to esti Ui retention even though they ae tly Inaccurate. Note slo that, n the pas at less, the Grest Powers haven elle eglated for other states by treaty on a numberof occasions. Ths the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna 1815, slr la, made Switeriand & ‘utr state and provided for fre navigation on certain international riers ‘itcaccely nos adding that whatever dignity treaties may lose by notbeing a formal source of aw", in pracuce they are a very nd Increasingly, Important source ofa state's rights and duties "imagine tat Sate A agrees with Stale B by teat that wil hand over to B certain war criminals, including X, if they should enter A. X, a national of State C, enters Aas the ambassador of €to A. A pends him over 8. C claims that A hag thereby volted a customary infealional lav rule concerning the teatment of diplomatic representatives. Assuring that theres a enstomaty tule conceming the treatment of diplomatic ropresertatives that C can rely on, would A beable te rely on its treaty obligation towards Bas «defence to any csi by C? FA had not Fanded X over cou Bhave claimed sucresflly agaist A forthe breech of Treaty obligation? Should a treaty be intexpreted as being consistent with Cus Tomar international law inthe absence of clear wording fo the contrary? 4, Genera Princes oF Law WALDOCK, GENERAL COURSE ON PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (1962-1) 106 Hague Recueil 54. Some footnotes omitted (On one side there are jurists like Verdross,* who say that Article 38 has the effect of incorporating “natural law’ in international law and even claim that positive rules of international law are invalid if they conflict with natural law. At the other extreme are jurists like Guggenheim,” and ‘Funkin,® who maintain that paragraph (¢) adds nothing to what is already covered by treaties and custom; for these authorities hold that ‘general principles of national law are pact of international law only to the extent that they have been adopted by States in treaties or recognised in State practice. In between stand the majority of jurists... They take the line that general principles cecognised in national law constitute a reservoir of principles which an intemational judge is authorised by Article 38 to apply in an international dispute, if their application appears relevant and appropriate in the different context of inter-State relations. * on the juries asture of such testes, and of eates such asthe 1959 Antaree Treaty and also of boundary teatos, soo below. p.8i7 See Cheng, General Principles of tra as pi by Tntervaionl Courts and Trib (1953) Bitamaucce (1983) 30 BYEL. 1; Friedmann, of cit, pl, n34, above, Ch.t2; H.C. Gutteridge (1953) 38 Trans. Grot So. 125; Jenks, op. cit, p42, n81, Cho 1 See Rew. Acad. 1855, IL pp 208-206, and RGGD.LP, 1938, ppt 5 Trt edt email pu hp. * Rec, Acad. 1958, Il, pp.25-25.