1. GATT: Fundamental principles
The predecessor of WTO, GATT, aims at the reduction of tariffs and the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce (Preamble GATT 1994). Note that parties to the WTO have given their consent to be bound by the treaty; therefore, it is only logical that GATT imposes obligations on these state parties.
Among the fundamental legal principles of GATT are the most-favoured nation clause (MFN, Article I GATT), the National Treatment clause (NT, Article III GATT), the General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions (Art. XI (1) GATT) and Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties (Art. VI GATT).
1.1. Non-discrimination
Taken together, the MFN (Art. I GATT) and NT (Art. III GATT) underlie the non-discrimination principle.
Art. I (1) GATT provides that any advantage granted by any contracting party to any product originating or destined for any other country, shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties.
Art. III (2) GATT provides that the products of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied to like domestic products; moreover, the products imported into the territory of another contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin (only differential charges may be applied, based on the means of transport and not nationality of the product).
1.2. Market liberalization
Aiming at the liberalization of the global trade, tariffs need to be reduced and consolidated, Article II GATT (Schedules of Concessions). For the conditions of liberalization to be satisfied, Article III GATT is as necessary as it is for realizing the non-discrimination principle. Without the provisions of Art. III GATT, Article II GATT would be rendered of its practical value.
An example to explain this. State Q. confines itself to the reduction and consolidation of the tariff on imported cigarettes- the tariff is 10%. State R. imports cigarettes into the territory of State Q.
State Q. lower the tariff on domestic cigarettes (which would be considered like products by the Dispute Body) to 5%.
Should Article III GATT not be applicable, then it would be possible for State Q. to ultimately render the Schedules of Consessions from their effect; it could simply do so by favouring its internal market. From this example, it should be clear that provisions on market liberalization cannot do without the principle of non-discrimination (not without reason, MFN and NT are fundamental principles).
1.3. Exceptions
A state member to the WTO, restricting the import of products by another state member, could invoke exeptions to justify the application of restrictive measures. General exceptions are found in Article XX GATT; important exceptions are, for example, the protection of human, animal and plant life or health (b) and the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.
Is the restrictive measure jusitified, the measure needs to meet the requirements under the "Chapeau", the Introductory Clause to Article XX GATT. Measures shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade.
Thus, assuming that a measure is related to one of the purposes of the general or specific exceptions, any discriminating application of the measure is a violation of the exceptions provided.
2. WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO-DSU)
Before bringing a dispute before the Panel, Members should utilize diplomatic means, the first of these being consultations (Article 4 DSU). If the consultations fail to settle a dispute within sixty days after the date of receipt of the request for consultations, the establishment of an ad hoc panel may be requested (Art. 4(7) DSU). The Procedures before the Panel are set out in Article 12 DSU.
The Appellate Body hears appeals from panel cases (Appellate review, Art. 17 DSU). Only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report, but third parties which have notified the DSB of a substantial interest in the matter, pursuant to Article 10(2) DSU, may make submissions to and be given an opportunity to be heard by the AB (Art. 17(4) DSU). The appeal shall be limited to issues of law, covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel (Art. 17(6) DSU).
Both the panel procedure and appellate review work on a system of negative consensus: the DSB panel report will be adopted, unless all member decide by consensus not to adopt the report (Article 17 DSU). Following the appellate review, an AB report shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body, consisting of all WTO Members. Again, the report shall be adopted by negative consensus (Art. 14 DSU). This mechanism is often referred to as "quasi-automatic", as a decision by one or more, but not all Members, cannot affect the adoption of the report.
Posts tonen met het label Public International Law. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Public International Law. Alle posts tonen
vrijdag 10 maart 2017
zaterdag 4 maart 2017
On the jurisdiction of ICC, Tribunals and domestic courts
1. International Criminal Courts
1.1. Why is the prosecution of individuals for crimes against humanity, deemed controversial?
The prosecution of war criminals by the Nuremberg Tribunal (IMT) made clear that the category of "crimes against humanity" (the category of "violation of peace" alike) would interfere with a state's sovereignty with respect to domestic jurisdiction and governmental activities, such as the waging of war. Also, the category of "crimes against humanity" would be contary to the universal principle "nullum crimen sine lege" (Art. 22 Rome), as no such category of crimes was recognized before the IMT was set up.
The first international case to give rise to a wide recognition of individual responsibility for war crimes, whether they were committed on an international scale or within the boundaries of a state, was the Tadic case of the ICTY.
1.2. How is the jurisdiction of the ICC defined?
The jurisdiction ratione personae of the ICC is limited to individuals. The Court has jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to the Statute, according to Article 25 of the Rome Statute. The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute. The jurisdiction of the ICC is based on the principle of complementarity, as Article 1 of the Rome Statute reads. The primacy of domestic courts with respect to exercising jurisdiction over crimes, implies that the ICC only has jurisdiction when a State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution, as Art. 17 ( Issues of admissibility) of the Rome Statute makes clear.
1.2.1. material jurisdiction
The substantive component of international criminal law, making up the material jurisdiction, consists of four core crimes, as Article 5 of Rome puts it: "The jurisdiction shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction with respect to: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression".
1.2.2. core crimes
Conviction of the individual for committing core crimes, requires the fulfilment of actus reus and mens rea. With respect to actus reus, the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are covered by articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute, the category of war crimes being the most elaborate. For an individual to be prosectuted and ultimately convicted for the crime of genocide, the decisive criterion is to be found in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention: the requirement of an intent to destroy has to be met.
The ICTY in the Krstić (pronunciation: kerr-steech) case has set out that the term "in part", as meant in Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, contains a substantiality requirement. The Trial Chamber determined that Krstic had the intent to kill, thus, the requirements of Art. 4(2)(a) of the Rome Statute have been met (para 598 case IT-98-33-T, Prosecutor v. Krstić). Although the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Judgment of 19 April 2004 acknowledges that the Trial Chamber should have exressed its reasoning more carefully (para 22), the remark is made that the Trials Chamber was correct when determining that the part of the group that has been killed, was "substantial" as with respect to the crime of genocide.
In concluding that some members of the VRS Main Staff had intented to destroy this substantial part of a group, the Trial Chamber did not depart from the legal requirements for genocide (para 38).
For an individual to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, a "specific intent" exists when there is "knowledge of the attack". This is a less strict criterion than is the "intent to destroy" requirement for prosecuting one for the crime of genocide.
How does one determine, however, when the individual has had the "intent to kill"? The mental element as such, mens rea, is described in Article 30(2) of the Rome Statute of the ICC: a person has intent where (a) in relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) in relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of the events.
The grounds for excluding criminal responsibility are to be found in Articles 31 and 32 of the Rome Statute. Article 33 provides possible grounds for the exclusion of criminal responsibility; paragraph 1 gives a negative formula: "..shall not relieve that person of responsibility, unless..." one of the three options in (a)(b)(c) applies.
1.2.3. temporal jurisdiction
The first of the general principles of criminal law, as laid down in part 3 of the Rome Statute, define the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC: from "nullum crime sin lege", "nulla poena sine lege" and the non-retroactivity ratione personae, follows that the Court has no jurisdiction with respect to criminal activities committed prior to the entry into force of the Rome Statute, see Art. 11 along with 24 of the Rome Statute.
1.2.4. territorial and personal jurisdiction
The Court can exercise its jurisdiction if a state within the territory of which the conduct has taken place, is a party to the Rome Statute or has accepted the ICC's jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 3 (Art. 12 Rome Statute). From this follows that the ICC can exercise jurisdiction if the state of which an accused individual is a national, is a party to the Rome Statute or has accepted its jurisdiction as set out.
Note that the limitation of territorial and personal jurisdiction does not apply to the situations as provided for in Articles 13(b) and 15 ter of the Rome Statute.
1.2.5. no universal jurisdiction
No universal jurisdiction of the ICC is recognized; with respect to its complementary role, Article 12(2) of the Rome Statute provides that State consent is a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC.
1.3. What are the conditions for action by the ICC?
There are three ways to enable the ICC's jurisdiction, Article 13 of the Rome Statute:
1. A State Party may refer a situation to the Prosecutor, in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute (Art. 13(a) Rome);
2. The Security Council of the UN, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, may refer a situation to the Prosecutor (Art. 13(b) Rome);
3. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu (Article 13(c) in conjunction with Article 15 Rome).
Note that referral by a State Party and investigation proprio motu by the Prosecutor, Article 13(a) and (c) Rome, are subject to the conditions in Article 12(2)(a)(b) of the Rome Statute.
2. How do the jurisdiction of the ICC and the Tribunals differ in relation to domestic courts?
As said before, the nature of the jurisdiction of the ICC is complementary; the Court has no primacy, as states have first responsibility, unless they are unwilling or genuinely unable to carry out investigation or prosecution, which is an issue of admissibility. Once a case is genuinely being investigated or prosecuted by a domestic court, the case will no longer be admissible before the ICC: look up relevant Articles 1 and 17-19 of Part 2 of the Rome Statute.
No such conditions are imposed on the Criminal Tribunals; the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia shall have primacy over national courts, in accordance with Art. 9(2) of the ICTY. The same holds good for the Rwanda Criminal Tribunal, as Article 8(2) of the ICTR (UNICTR) was a mere predecessor of the concurrent jurisdiction provisions in the ICTY.
The International Tribunals have another main advantage over the ICC in common: the permanent status of the ICC demands from the Court that individuals only be prosecuted for or convicted of crimes that meet the condition of nullum crime sini lege in accordance with Article 22 of the Rome Statute. No such provisions are to be found in the ICTY and ICTR: the International Criminal Tribunals are able to respond to recent activities, regardless of a strict ex ante codification of crimes that the individual could be convicted of.
3. How is the responsibility of the individual addressed?
3.1. Individually or jointly committed crimes and contribution to the commission of crimes
An individual should be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC, if that person:
1. Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person
(art. 25(3)(a) Rome Statute);
2. For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists
(art. 25(3)(c) Rome Statute);
3. In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime
(art. 25(3)(d)(i)(ii) Rome Statute).
3.2. Responsibility of commanders
A person shall be held criminally responsible if that person:
1. Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime (art. 25(3)(b) Rome Statute);
2. A commander shall be held responsible for crimes committed by forces under his effective command and control, where that military commander either knew or should have known that the forces were committing such crimes and that military commander failed to take necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission [..] (Art. 28 Rome Statute).
3.3. Persons pursuant to superior orders
The fact that a crime is committed by a person, pursuant to an order of a Government or a superior, shall not relieve that person of responsibility, unless that person was under a legal obligation to obey, the person did not know that the order was unlawful and the order was not manifestly unlawful (Article 33(1)(a)(b)(c) Rome Statute). However, the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful; thus, a person cannot be relieved from responsibility with respect to such crimes (Art. 33(2) Rome Statute).
3.4. State responsibility
Article 25(4) provides that no provision in the Rome Statute relating to individual responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.
4. How can a state exercise domestic jurisdiction over international crimes?
The principles from which state jurisdiction is derived, are territoriality, protection, nationality and universality.
4.1. Territoriality principle
Regarding the territoriality principle, a distinction can be drawn between the subjective territoriality (initiation of a crime) and the objective territoriality/ effects doctrine (fulfilment of a criminal offence). If two states are concerned, both the state in which the crime was initiated and the state in which the crime was executed, are entitled to exercise their jurisdiction.
4.2. Nationality principle
The active nationality principle implies that a state may exercise its jurisdiction over its own nationals, regardless of the territory on which a crime was committed.
The passive nationality principle aims to protect a state's own nationals against offences, even if they are committed by another national in another state. Exercising passive nationality would interfere with the right of another state to exercise its territorial jurisdiction.
4.3. Protective principle
The protective principle implies that a state can exercise jurisdiction over non-nationals in the territory of another state. The requirement is that an offender commits a crime that affects the vital interests of a state.
4.4. Universality principle
Certain crimes are so grave in nature, that a universal protection against the commission of such crimes is required, regardless of territoriality and nationality issues. From this follows that states need to exercise universal jurisidiction with respect to the prosecution of offenders.
Note that treaty law imposes on states, party to a treaty, the obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction regarding the repression of universally recognized, grave crimes. The crimes of genocide and torture are crimes of such gravity. Article 6 of the Genocide Convention stipulates that an offender shall be tried by a competent tribunal, which may exercise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Party State in which the crime of genocide was committed. The preamble to the Torture Convention reads that "the desire is to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel treatment throughout the world". Article 7 of the Torture Convention stipulates that the State Party submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, assumed that the requirements from Art. 4-6 have been met (territory issues).
5. The jurisdiction of the ICTY and ICTR
While the ICC and Neuremberg Tribunal were established by a treaty, the ICTY and ICTR were established by binding Resolutions of the UN Security Council, acting under the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Recall that Articles 7 and 8 of the ICTY and ICTR Statutes provide the Tribunals with both territorial and temporal jurisdiction.
5.1. The Appeals Chamber in the Tadić case of 2 October 1995: Kompetenz-Kompetenz
Concerning its jurisdiction, the Appeals Chamber in the Tadić Interlocutory Appeal of 2 October 1995 remarks that, according to the principle of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" or "la compétence de compétence", the Tribunal has the incidental or inherent competence jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction (para 18). It is a necessary component of in the exercise of the judicial function of the tribunals and as such, this practice was accepted by general international law.
With respect to the questioning of the power of the UNSC to set up ICTY by means of a resolution, the Appeals Chamber determines that the legal basis is to be found in the authority of the Security Council, as was decided by the (paras 32-38 and 40).
5.2. Questioning the primacy of International Tribunals
Although the Tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction with domestic courts, the Tribunals have primacy with respect to the prosecution of international crimes, as laid down in Articles 8 of the ICTR Statute and 9 of the ICTY Statute.
The second ground of appeal in the 1995 Tadić Decision on the Defence Motion by the ICTY Appeals Chamber attacks the primacy of the International Tribunal over domestic courts (para 49).
However, the plea of State sovereignty must be dismissed. The Appeals Chamber provides us with several important considerations.
The public revulsion against similar offences [crimes against humanity] brought about the establishment of an international judicial body by an organ of an organization representing the community of nations: the Security Council. This organ is empowered and mandated, by definition, to deal with trans-boundary matters which may affect "international peace and security". It would be a travesty of law, should the concept of State sovereignty be allowed to be raised succesfully against human rights. When an international tribunal such as the present one is created, it must be endowed with primacy over national courts. Otherwise, there would be a danger of international crimes being characterised as "ordinary crimes" (para 58).
6. Do HRSO enjoy immunity before the ICC and Tribunals?
One final remark on the immunity of HRSO from foreign jurisdiction. It should be clear that an incumbent HRSO or a former HRSO with respect to crimes committed in acting out official capacities, cannot enjoy immunity before the ICC and the International Tribunals. Article 27 of the Rome Statute stresses that HRSO do not enjoy immunity before the ICC; Articles 7(2) of the ICTY and 6(2) of the ICTR read that the "official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State of Government, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment".
1.1. Why is the prosecution of individuals for crimes against humanity, deemed controversial?
The prosecution of war criminals by the Nuremberg Tribunal (IMT) made clear that the category of "crimes against humanity" (the category of "violation of peace" alike) would interfere with a state's sovereignty with respect to domestic jurisdiction and governmental activities, such as the waging of war. Also, the category of "crimes against humanity" would be contary to the universal principle "nullum crimen sine lege" (Art. 22 Rome), as no such category of crimes was recognized before the IMT was set up.
The first international case to give rise to a wide recognition of individual responsibility for war crimes, whether they were committed on an international scale or within the boundaries of a state, was the Tadic case of the ICTY.
1.2. How is the jurisdiction of the ICC defined?
The jurisdiction ratione personae of the ICC is limited to individuals. The Court has jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to the Statute, according to Article 25 of the Rome Statute. The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute. The jurisdiction of the ICC is based on the principle of complementarity, as Article 1 of the Rome Statute reads. The primacy of domestic courts with respect to exercising jurisdiction over crimes, implies that the ICC only has jurisdiction when a State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution, as Art. 17 ( Issues of admissibility) of the Rome Statute makes clear.
1.2.1. material jurisdiction
The substantive component of international criminal law, making up the material jurisdiction, consists of four core crimes, as Article 5 of Rome puts it: "The jurisdiction shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction with respect to: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression".
1.2.2. core crimes
Conviction of the individual for committing core crimes, requires the fulfilment of actus reus and mens rea. With respect to actus reus, the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are covered by articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute, the category of war crimes being the most elaborate. For an individual to be prosectuted and ultimately convicted for the crime of genocide, the decisive criterion is to be found in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention: the requirement of an intent to destroy has to be met.
The ICTY in the Krstić (pronunciation: kerr-steech) case has set out that the term "in part", as meant in Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, contains a substantiality requirement. The Trial Chamber determined that Krstic had the intent to kill, thus, the requirements of Art. 4(2)(a) of the Rome Statute have been met (para 598 case IT-98-33-T, Prosecutor v. Krstić). Although the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Judgment of 19 April 2004 acknowledges that the Trial Chamber should have exressed its reasoning more carefully (para 22), the remark is made that the Trials Chamber was correct when determining that the part of the group that has been killed, was "substantial" as with respect to the crime of genocide.
In concluding that some members of the VRS Main Staff had intented to destroy this substantial part of a group, the Trial Chamber did not depart from the legal requirements for genocide (para 38).
For an individual to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, a "specific intent" exists when there is "knowledge of the attack". This is a less strict criterion than is the "intent to destroy" requirement for prosecuting one for the crime of genocide.
How does one determine, however, when the individual has had the "intent to kill"? The mental element as such, mens rea, is described in Article 30(2) of the Rome Statute of the ICC: a person has intent where (a) in relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) in relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of the events.
The grounds for excluding criminal responsibility are to be found in Articles 31 and 32 of the Rome Statute. Article 33 provides possible grounds for the exclusion of criminal responsibility; paragraph 1 gives a negative formula: "..shall not relieve that person of responsibility, unless..." one of the three options in (a)(b)(c) applies.
1.2.3. temporal jurisdiction
The first of the general principles of criminal law, as laid down in part 3 of the Rome Statute, define the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC: from "nullum crime sin lege", "nulla poena sine lege" and the non-retroactivity ratione personae, follows that the Court has no jurisdiction with respect to criminal activities committed prior to the entry into force of the Rome Statute, see Art. 11 along with 24 of the Rome Statute.
1.2.4. territorial and personal jurisdiction
The Court can exercise its jurisdiction if a state within the territory of which the conduct has taken place, is a party to the Rome Statute or has accepted the ICC's jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 3 (Art. 12 Rome Statute). From this follows that the ICC can exercise jurisdiction if the state of which an accused individual is a national, is a party to the Rome Statute or has accepted its jurisdiction as set out.
Note that the limitation of territorial and personal jurisdiction does not apply to the situations as provided for in Articles 13(b) and 15 ter of the Rome Statute.
1.2.5. no universal jurisdiction
No universal jurisdiction of the ICC is recognized; with respect to its complementary role, Article 12(2) of the Rome Statute provides that State consent is a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC.
1.3. What are the conditions for action by the ICC?
There are three ways to enable the ICC's jurisdiction, Article 13 of the Rome Statute:
1. A State Party may refer a situation to the Prosecutor, in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute (Art. 13(a) Rome);
2. The Security Council of the UN, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, may refer a situation to the Prosecutor (Art. 13(b) Rome);
3. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu (Article 13(c) in conjunction with Article 15 Rome).
Note that referral by a State Party and investigation proprio motu by the Prosecutor, Article 13(a) and (c) Rome, are subject to the conditions in Article 12(2)(a)(b) of the Rome Statute.
2. How do the jurisdiction of the ICC and the Tribunals differ in relation to domestic courts?
As said before, the nature of the jurisdiction of the ICC is complementary; the Court has no primacy, as states have first responsibility, unless they are unwilling or genuinely unable to carry out investigation or prosecution, which is an issue of admissibility. Once a case is genuinely being investigated or prosecuted by a domestic court, the case will no longer be admissible before the ICC: look up relevant Articles 1 and 17-19 of Part 2 of the Rome Statute.
No such conditions are imposed on the Criminal Tribunals; the International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia shall have primacy over national courts, in accordance with Art. 9(2) of the ICTY. The same holds good for the Rwanda Criminal Tribunal, as Article 8(2) of the ICTR (UNICTR) was a mere predecessor of the concurrent jurisdiction provisions in the ICTY.
The International Tribunals have another main advantage over the ICC in common: the permanent status of the ICC demands from the Court that individuals only be prosecuted for or convicted of crimes that meet the condition of nullum crime sini lege in accordance with Article 22 of the Rome Statute. No such provisions are to be found in the ICTY and ICTR: the International Criminal Tribunals are able to respond to recent activities, regardless of a strict ex ante codification of crimes that the individual could be convicted of.
3. How is the responsibility of the individual addressed?
3.1. Individually or jointly committed crimes and contribution to the commission of crimes
An individual should be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC, if that person:
1. Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person
(art. 25(3)(a) Rome Statute);
2. For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists
(art. 25(3)(c) Rome Statute);
3. In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime
(art. 25(3)(d)(i)(ii) Rome Statute).
3.2. Responsibility of commanders
A person shall be held criminally responsible if that person:
1. Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime (art. 25(3)(b) Rome Statute);
2. A commander shall be held responsible for crimes committed by forces under his effective command and control, where that military commander either knew or should have known that the forces were committing such crimes and that military commander failed to take necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission [..] (Art. 28 Rome Statute).
3.3. Persons pursuant to superior orders
The fact that a crime is committed by a person, pursuant to an order of a Government or a superior, shall not relieve that person of responsibility, unless that person was under a legal obligation to obey, the person did not know that the order was unlawful and the order was not manifestly unlawful (Article 33(1)(a)(b)(c) Rome Statute). However, the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful; thus, a person cannot be relieved from responsibility with respect to such crimes (Art. 33(2) Rome Statute).
3.4. State responsibility
Article 25(4) provides that no provision in the Rome Statute relating to individual responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.
4. How can a state exercise domestic jurisdiction over international crimes?
The principles from which state jurisdiction is derived, are territoriality, protection, nationality and universality.
4.1. Territoriality principle
Regarding the territoriality principle, a distinction can be drawn between the subjective territoriality (initiation of a crime) and the objective territoriality/ effects doctrine (fulfilment of a criminal offence). If two states are concerned, both the state in which the crime was initiated and the state in which the crime was executed, are entitled to exercise their jurisdiction.
4.2. Nationality principle
The active nationality principle implies that a state may exercise its jurisdiction over its own nationals, regardless of the territory on which a crime was committed.
The passive nationality principle aims to protect a state's own nationals against offences, even if they are committed by another national in another state. Exercising passive nationality would interfere with the right of another state to exercise its territorial jurisdiction.
4.3. Protective principle
The protective principle implies that a state can exercise jurisdiction over non-nationals in the territory of another state. The requirement is that an offender commits a crime that affects the vital interests of a state.
4.4. Universality principle
Certain crimes are so grave in nature, that a universal protection against the commission of such crimes is required, regardless of territoriality and nationality issues. From this follows that states need to exercise universal jurisidiction with respect to the prosecution of offenders.
Note that treaty law imposes on states, party to a treaty, the obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction regarding the repression of universally recognized, grave crimes. The crimes of genocide and torture are crimes of such gravity. Article 6 of the Genocide Convention stipulates that an offender shall be tried by a competent tribunal, which may exercise its jurisdiction over the territory of the Party State in which the crime of genocide was committed. The preamble to the Torture Convention reads that "the desire is to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel treatment throughout the world". Article 7 of the Torture Convention stipulates that the State Party submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, assumed that the requirements from Art. 4-6 have been met (territory issues).
5. The jurisdiction of the ICTY and ICTR
While the ICC and Neuremberg Tribunal were established by a treaty, the ICTY and ICTR were established by binding Resolutions of the UN Security Council, acting under the provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Recall that Articles 7 and 8 of the ICTY and ICTR Statutes provide the Tribunals with both territorial and temporal jurisdiction.
5.1. The Appeals Chamber in the Tadić case of 2 October 1995: Kompetenz-Kompetenz
Concerning its jurisdiction, the Appeals Chamber in the Tadić Interlocutory Appeal of 2 October 1995 remarks that, according to the principle of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" or "la compétence de compétence", the Tribunal has the incidental or inherent competence jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction (para 18). It is a necessary component of in the exercise of the judicial function of the tribunals and as such, this practice was accepted by general international law.
With respect to the questioning of the power of the UNSC to set up ICTY by means of a resolution, the Appeals Chamber determines that the legal basis is to be found in the authority of the Security Council, as was decided by the (paras 32-38 and 40).
5.2. Questioning the primacy of International Tribunals
Although the Tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction with domestic courts, the Tribunals have primacy with respect to the prosecution of international crimes, as laid down in Articles 8 of the ICTR Statute and 9 of the ICTY Statute.
The second ground of appeal in the 1995 Tadić Decision on the Defence Motion by the ICTY Appeals Chamber attacks the primacy of the International Tribunal over domestic courts (para 49).
However, the plea of State sovereignty must be dismissed. The Appeals Chamber provides us with several important considerations.
The public revulsion against similar offences [crimes against humanity] brought about the establishment of an international judicial body by an organ of an organization representing the community of nations: the Security Council. This organ is empowered and mandated, by definition, to deal with trans-boundary matters which may affect "international peace and security". It would be a travesty of law, should the concept of State sovereignty be allowed to be raised succesfully against human rights. When an international tribunal such as the present one is created, it must be endowed with primacy over national courts. Otherwise, there would be a danger of international crimes being characterised as "ordinary crimes" (para 58).
6. Do HRSO enjoy immunity before the ICC and Tribunals?
One final remark on the immunity of HRSO from foreign jurisdiction. It should be clear that an incumbent HRSO or a former HRSO with respect to crimes committed in acting out official capacities, cannot enjoy immunity before the ICC and the International Tribunals. Article 27 of the Rome Statute stresses that HRSO do not enjoy immunity before the ICC; Articles 7(2) of the ICTY and 6(2) of the ICTR read that the "official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State of Government, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment".
zaterdag 25 februari 2017
A brief description of the use of force in self-defence
Before considering whether the right to exercise self-defence justifies
any measures taken by a State, let's take at look at the general rule of
international law regarding the use of force. The general prohibition
of the use of force is provided by Article 2 para 4 of the UN Charter.
Two exceptions to this prohibition are (1) authorization by the UN
Security Council (Article 42 UN Charter) and (2) self-defence (Article
51 of the UN Charter).
As can be learned from the Advisory Opinion on the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons from 8 July 1996, paragraph 41, the submission of exercise of the right of self-defence to conditions of necessity and proportionality, is a rule of customary international law. Referring to the Nicaragua case, the ICJ states that "there is a specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law", see also paragraph 51 and paras 73-77 of the Oil Platforms case. The Oil Platforms case also makes clear that the principle of necessity is a strict and objective condition that leaves States no discretion.
Thus, the three requirements to invoke self-defence, (known as the "Caroline test") as can be derived from the 1842 letter from Webster to Ashburton, are: the other state must have performed an armed attack (1), self-defence was necessary to respond to it (2) and the self-defence was proportionate (3) (see also, paras 229-237 Nicaragua). Moreover, Art. 51 of the UN Charter requires that measures taken shall be reported to the Security Council immediately.
Different regimes for the UN Charter and customary international law (Caroline test)?
While measures taken in either reactive or anticipatory self-defence would have to comply with the requirements of necessity and proportionality, Art. 51 of the UN Charter stipulates that self-defence can only be invoked after the occurrence of an armed attack.
The Caroline test, formulating the requirements of customary international law, leaves the possibility that one invokes a state of necessity if an imminent threat has been established, the necessity of the self-defence is instant and a state has no other means left to it than a use of force. Both the necessity and proportionality principle imply that states have to confine themselves to repelling the attack(er)- self-defence cannot be invoked in order to pursue or impose punishment on the attacker.
Note that time is another condition of importance, as in the Nicaragua case, the measures taken several months after the major offense, could not be said to "correspond to a necessity justifying the action" (para 237).
Asssuming that any measures taken have not yet failed the necessity test, the next question is, if the proportionality principle has been met. The Court states in the Oil Platforms case that "the scale of the whole operation has to be judged in order to assess, whether the response ["self-defence"] was proportionate" (para 77).
A problem arises when an attack was performed by a non-state actor [rebel groups, for instance]. Is their conduct attributable to a state? A strict, traditionalist approach was applied in Nicaragua (demanding "effective control", paras 115-116), subsequently in Armed Activities on the Territory of The Congo (paras 146, 147) and the Genocide case of 2007 (Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia and Montenegro, para 406).
Provided that a state has delivered arms to a rebel group (Nicaragua) and although providing training and military support to a rebel group might violate customary international law (Armed Activities Congo/ Uganda), the conclusion that follows from these cases is that State could not be held responsible and that the self-defence plea had to be rejected for these reasons.
Not everything has been said yet. A lot of controversy still surrounds the question, whether the right to self-defence could be invoked against non-state actors, assuming that their conduct cannot be attributable to a state. It is rather unsure whether or not the traditionalist approach still applies. Hence, in practice, the right to invoke self-defence against non-state actors is no longer categorically rejected.
As can be learned from the Advisory Opinion on the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons from 8 July 1996, paragraph 41, the submission of exercise of the right of self-defence to conditions of necessity and proportionality, is a rule of customary international law. Referring to the Nicaragua case, the ICJ states that "there is a specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law", see also paragraph 51 and paras 73-77 of the Oil Platforms case. The Oil Platforms case also makes clear that the principle of necessity is a strict and objective condition that leaves States no discretion.
Thus, the three requirements to invoke self-defence, (known as the "Caroline test") as can be derived from the 1842 letter from Webster to Ashburton, are: the other state must have performed an armed attack (1), self-defence was necessary to respond to it (2) and the self-defence was proportionate (3) (see also, paras 229-237 Nicaragua). Moreover, Art. 51 of the UN Charter requires that measures taken shall be reported to the Security Council immediately.
Different regimes for the UN Charter and customary international law (Caroline test)?
While measures taken in either reactive or anticipatory self-defence would have to comply with the requirements of necessity and proportionality, Art. 51 of the UN Charter stipulates that self-defence can only be invoked after the occurrence of an armed attack.
The Caroline test, formulating the requirements of customary international law, leaves the possibility that one invokes a state of necessity if an imminent threat has been established, the necessity of the self-defence is instant and a state has no other means left to it than a use of force. Both the necessity and proportionality principle imply that states have to confine themselves to repelling the attack(er)- self-defence cannot be invoked in order to pursue or impose punishment on the attacker.
Note that time is another condition of importance, as in the Nicaragua case, the measures taken several months after the major offense, could not be said to "correspond to a necessity justifying the action" (para 237).
Asssuming that any measures taken have not yet failed the necessity test, the next question is, if the proportionality principle has been met. The Court states in the Oil Platforms case that "the scale of the whole operation has to be judged in order to assess, whether the response ["self-defence"] was proportionate" (para 77).
A problem arises when an attack was performed by a non-state actor [rebel groups, for instance]. Is their conduct attributable to a state? A strict, traditionalist approach was applied in Nicaragua (demanding "effective control", paras 115-116), subsequently in Armed Activities on the Territory of The Congo (paras 146, 147) and the Genocide case of 2007 (Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia and Montenegro, para 406).
Provided that a state has delivered arms to a rebel group (Nicaragua) and although providing training and military support to a rebel group might violate customary international law (Armed Activities Congo/ Uganda), the conclusion that follows from these cases is that State could not be held responsible and that the self-defence plea had to be rejected for these reasons.
Not everything has been said yet. A lot of controversy still surrounds the question, whether the right to self-defence could be invoked against non-state actors, assuming that their conduct cannot be attributable to a state. It is rather unsure whether or not the traditionalist approach still applies. Hence, in practice, the right to invoke self-defence against non-state actors is no longer categorically rejected.
An extensive reading of the lawful termination of treaties and the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case
The Vienna Convention contains general provisions on suspension and
termination of treaties, in particular Articles 54 to 62 VCLT.
Before I am going to discuss the infamous Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (pronunciation: Gab-chi-co-vah/ Nagee-marosh) case, I will first make a disctinction between formal and substantive grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty.
1.1. Formal grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty
The formal grounds for termination of treaties is provided by articles 54 to 59 VCLT. These include termination in conformity with the provisions of the treaty and termination by consent of all the parties after consultation (art. 54) and termination or suspension of the operation of the treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty (art. 59).
1.2. Material grounds for termination
Articles 60 to 62 VCLT provide the substantive or material grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty. The ICJ affirms that the rules laid down by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning termination of a treaty relationship on account of breach, may in many respects be considered as a codification of existing customary law on the subject (see the Namibia Advisory Opinion of 1971, p. 47).
Note that articles 60-62 VCLT provide three options to justify unilateral termination of a treaty:
1. inadimplenti non est adimplendum;
2. force majeure;
3. rebus sic stantibus;
The first one being the actual "material breach" by the other contracting party.
2. Material grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Does Hungary's termination of the 1977 Treaty between Hungary and Czechoslovakia, meet the requirements under Article 60 to 62 VCLT? This is the main question in the G-N case, for Hungary invokes no less than five grounds in an attempt to justify its unilateral termination of the Treaty.
These grounds are, in no particular order: a state of necessity, material breach of the treaty by Czechoslovakia, impossibility of performance of the treaty, a fundamental change of circumstances and the development of new norms of international environmental law. Before I am going to discuss the state of necessity, I will highlight the three material grounds that are covered by art. 60-62 VCLT.
2.1. Inadimplenti non est adimplendum (art. 60 VCLT)
A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating or suspending the treaty, art. 60 (1). A material breach is, as follows from
art. 60(3)(a)(b):
a. a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention;
b. the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.
In the Gabĉikovo-Nagymaros case, the Court has to decide on whether Hungary's invocation of material breach by Czechoslovakia is justified:
It is up to the Court to decide, whether there has been a material breach, rather than just a grave breach:
The Court is of the view that it is only a material breach of the treaty itself, by a State party to the treaty, which entitles the other party to rely on it as a ground for terminating the treaty. The violation of other treaty rules of general international law may justify the taking of certain [counter]measures by the injured State, but it does not constitute a ground for termination under the law of treaties (para 106);
Hungary, by its own conduct, had prejudiced its right to terminate the Treaty; this would still have been the case even if Czechoslovakia, by the time of the purported termination, had violated a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object and purpose of the Treaty (para 110).
The material breach must have taken place in order to justly invoke such breach:
Hungary's main argument for invoking a material breach of the Treaty was the construction and putting into operation of Variant C [by Czechoslovakia]. As the Court has found, Czechoslovakia violated the Treaty only when it diverted the waters [...]. Czechoslovakia did not act unlawfully in constructing the works that would lead to the putting into operation of Variant C.
In the Court's view, the notification of termination by Hungary was premature. No breach of the Treaty had yet taken place and Hungary was, therefore, not entitled to invoke such breach as a ground for termination (para 108).
Czechoslovakia has breached its treaty obligations, but only when putting Variant C into operation (para 78 and 82). The preparations on the territory of Czechoslovakia had not yet led to a material breach, therefore, Hungary's invocation of a material breach by Czech. was premature. Thus, the Court rejects the invocation of material breach/ inadimplenti by Hungary.
2.2 Supervening impossibility of performance (art. 61 VCLT) (force majeure/ Act of God)
As described by Article 61 VCLT, a party may invoke the impossibility of performance as a ground for termination of a treaty, if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object, indispensable for the execution of the treaty. A temporary impossibility is not sufficient for termination of the treaty. If the impossibility of performance results from that party's own breach, the ground of supervening impossibility may not be invoked (art. 61 (2) VCLT). Judging the G-N case, this means that Hungary was not entitled to invoke Article 61 para 1 VCLT, for the impossibility of performance stems from Hungary's own "omission" (para 102-103). In other words, this ground implies a mere "Act of God".
2.3. Rebus sic stantibus: fundamental change of circumstances (art. 62 VCLT)
A fundamental change of circumstances with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of the treaty, which was completely unforeseen by the parties, may not be invoked, para 1, unless:
a. the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty;
b. the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed.
You'll have noticed the essential grounds for invoking a fundamental change of circumstances: the circumstances have to be fundamentally different, compared to the original circumstances at the time of the conclusion, and the change itself has to be completely unforeseen by either of the parties. Minor changes that do not relate to the consent to be bound or to the obligations to be performed, cannot justify the invocation of a fundamental change. A de facto material breach may be invoked.
In G-N, the Court recalls the Fisheries Jurisdiction case on Article 62 of the VCLT. As Hungary argued, the events which would have constituted a fundamental change, were specified as profound changes of a political nature, the Project's diminishing economic viability, the progress of environmental knowledge and new norms of environmental law.
In the Court's view, the prevalent political conditions were thus not so closely linked to the object and purpose of the Treaty, that they constituted an essential basis for the consent of parties and, in changing, radically altered the extent of obligations still to be performed. The profitablity of the Project was not bound to such an extent that the obligations of the parties would have radically transformed as a result. The development of environmental knowlegde and law cannot be said to have been completely unforeseen. The changed circumstances advanced by Hungary are not of such a nature, that their effect would radically transform the extent of the obligations to accompish Project G-N. Article 62 of the VCLT is a clear indication that the plea can only apply in exceptional cases (para 104).
3. State of necessity (art. 33 (now: 25) of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility)
Not under the scope of the VCLT, but under the scope of the International Responsibility of States, the Court will consider the question of whether there was a state of necessity which would have permitted Hungary to suspend and abandon works that it was commited to perform in accordance with the Treaty.
A state of necessity may be invoked if:
a. the act was the only means of safeguarding an essential interest of the State against a grave and imminent peril;
b. the act did not seriously impair an essential interest of the State towards which the obligation existed.
In the G-N case, the Court considers, first of all, that the state of necessity is a ground, recognized by customary internationa law for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation. Such ground can only be accepted on an exceptional basis. The state of necessity can only be invoked under certain strictly defined conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied. The State concerned is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met (para 51-52).
The Commission indicated that one should not, in [..] context, reduce an "essential interest" to a matter only of the "existence" of the State and that the whole case has to be judged in the light of the particular case (para 53) (i.o. words: the existence has to be objective) .
However serious the uncertainties might have been, they could not, alone, establish the objective existence of a "peril" in the sense of a component element of a state of necessity. The mere apprehension of a possible peril could not suffice. The extremely grave and imminent peril must have been a threat to the interest at the actual time (para 54).
Considering the situation at Nagymaros (Hungary), the Court notes that the dangers were mostly of a long-term nature and, above all, that they remained uncertain. The peril invoked by Hungary had already materialized to a large extent for a number of years, so that it could not, in 1989, represent a peril arising entirely out of the G-N Project. Even if the construction of the G-N Project would have created serious risks, Hungary had means available to it, other than suspension and abandonment of the works, of responding to that situation (para 55).
However grave it might have been, it would accordingly have been difficult to see the alleged peril as sufficiently certain and therefore "imminent" in 1989 . Hungary should have resorted to other means in order to respond to the dangers that it apprehended. In particular, within the framework of the original Project, Hungary seemed to be in position to control (para 56).
At the time of concluding the Treaty, Hungary was presumably aware of the situation as then known, when it assumed its original obligations. The Court cannot fail to note the positions taken by Hungary after the entry into force of the 1977 Treaty. Hungary asked that the works should go forward more slowly, then asked for the works to be speeded up, only to suspend and abandon them three months later.
The conclusion is that Hungary would not have been permitted to rely upon the state of necessity in order to justify its failure to comply with its treaty obligations, as it had helped, by act or omission, to bring it about (para 57).
Before I am going to discuss the infamous Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (pronunciation: Gab-chi-co-vah/ Nagee-marosh) case, I will first make a disctinction between formal and substantive grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty.
1.1. Formal grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty
The formal grounds for termination of treaties is provided by articles 54 to 59 VCLT. These include termination in conformity with the provisions of the treaty and termination by consent of all the parties after consultation (art. 54) and termination or suspension of the operation of the treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty (art. 59).
1.2. Material grounds for termination
Articles 60 to 62 VCLT provide the substantive or material grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty. The ICJ affirms that the rules laid down by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning termination of a treaty relationship on account of breach, may in many respects be considered as a codification of existing customary law on the subject (see the Namibia Advisory Opinion of 1971, p. 47).
Note that articles 60-62 VCLT provide three options to justify unilateral termination of a treaty:
1. inadimplenti non est adimplendum;
2. force majeure;
3. rebus sic stantibus;
The first one being the actual "material breach" by the other contracting party.
2. Material grounds for termination or suspension of a treaty and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Does Hungary's termination of the 1977 Treaty between Hungary and Czechoslovakia, meet the requirements under Article 60 to 62 VCLT? This is the main question in the G-N case, for Hungary invokes no less than five grounds in an attempt to justify its unilateral termination of the Treaty.
These grounds are, in no particular order: a state of necessity, material breach of the treaty by Czechoslovakia, impossibility of performance of the treaty, a fundamental change of circumstances and the development of new norms of international environmental law. Before I am going to discuss the state of necessity, I will highlight the three material grounds that are covered by art. 60-62 VCLT.
2.1. Inadimplenti non est adimplendum (art. 60 VCLT)
A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating or suspending the treaty, art. 60 (1). A material breach is, as follows from
art. 60(3)(a)(b):
a. a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention;
b. the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.
In the Gabĉikovo-Nagymaros case, the Court has to decide on whether Hungary's invocation of material breach by Czechoslovakia is justified:
It is up to the Court to decide, whether there has been a material breach, rather than just a grave breach:
The Court is of the view that it is only a material breach of the treaty itself, by a State party to the treaty, which entitles the other party to rely on it as a ground for terminating the treaty. The violation of other treaty rules of general international law may justify the taking of certain [counter]measures by the injured State, but it does not constitute a ground for termination under the law of treaties (para 106);
Hungary, by its own conduct, had prejudiced its right to terminate the Treaty; this would still have been the case even if Czechoslovakia, by the time of the purported termination, had violated a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object and purpose of the Treaty (para 110).
The material breach must have taken place in order to justly invoke such breach:
Hungary's main argument for invoking a material breach of the Treaty was the construction and putting into operation of Variant C [by Czechoslovakia]. As the Court has found, Czechoslovakia violated the Treaty only when it diverted the waters [...]. Czechoslovakia did not act unlawfully in constructing the works that would lead to the putting into operation of Variant C.
In the Court's view, the notification of termination by Hungary was premature. No breach of the Treaty had yet taken place and Hungary was, therefore, not entitled to invoke such breach as a ground for termination (para 108).
Czechoslovakia has breached its treaty obligations, but only when putting Variant C into operation (para 78 and 82). The preparations on the territory of Czechoslovakia had not yet led to a material breach, therefore, Hungary's invocation of a material breach by Czech. was premature. Thus, the Court rejects the invocation of material breach/ inadimplenti by Hungary.
2.2 Supervening impossibility of performance (art. 61 VCLT) (force majeure/ Act of God)
As described by Article 61 VCLT, a party may invoke the impossibility of performance as a ground for termination of a treaty, if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object, indispensable for the execution of the treaty. A temporary impossibility is not sufficient for termination of the treaty. If the impossibility of performance results from that party's own breach, the ground of supervening impossibility may not be invoked (art. 61 (2) VCLT). Judging the G-N case, this means that Hungary was not entitled to invoke Article 61 para 1 VCLT, for the impossibility of performance stems from Hungary's own "omission" (para 102-103). In other words, this ground implies a mere "Act of God".
2.3. Rebus sic stantibus: fundamental change of circumstances (art. 62 VCLT)
A fundamental change of circumstances with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of the treaty, which was completely unforeseen by the parties, may not be invoked, para 1, unless:
a. the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty;
b. the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed.
You'll have noticed the essential grounds for invoking a fundamental change of circumstances: the circumstances have to be fundamentally different, compared to the original circumstances at the time of the conclusion, and the change itself has to be completely unforeseen by either of the parties. Minor changes that do not relate to the consent to be bound or to the obligations to be performed, cannot justify the invocation of a fundamental change. A de facto material breach may be invoked.
In G-N, the Court recalls the Fisheries Jurisdiction case on Article 62 of the VCLT. As Hungary argued, the events which would have constituted a fundamental change, were specified as profound changes of a political nature, the Project's diminishing economic viability, the progress of environmental knowledge and new norms of environmental law.
In the Court's view, the prevalent political conditions were thus not so closely linked to the object and purpose of the Treaty, that they constituted an essential basis for the consent of parties and, in changing, radically altered the extent of obligations still to be performed. The profitablity of the Project was not bound to such an extent that the obligations of the parties would have radically transformed as a result. The development of environmental knowlegde and law cannot be said to have been completely unforeseen. The changed circumstances advanced by Hungary are not of such a nature, that their effect would radically transform the extent of the obligations to accompish Project G-N. Article 62 of the VCLT is a clear indication that the plea can only apply in exceptional cases (para 104).
3. State of necessity (art. 33 (now: 25) of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility)
Not under the scope of the VCLT, but under the scope of the International Responsibility of States, the Court will consider the question of whether there was a state of necessity which would have permitted Hungary to suspend and abandon works that it was commited to perform in accordance with the Treaty.
A state of necessity may be invoked if:
a. the act was the only means of safeguarding an essential interest of the State against a grave and imminent peril;
b. the act did not seriously impair an essential interest of the State towards which the obligation existed.
In the G-N case, the Court considers, first of all, that the state of necessity is a ground, recognized by customary internationa law for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation. Such ground can only be accepted on an exceptional basis. The state of necessity can only be invoked under certain strictly defined conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied. The State concerned is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met (para 51-52).
The Commission indicated that one should not, in [..] context, reduce an "essential interest" to a matter only of the "existence" of the State and that the whole case has to be judged in the light of the particular case (para 53) (i.o. words: the existence has to be objective) .
However serious the uncertainties might have been, they could not, alone, establish the objective existence of a "peril" in the sense of a component element of a state of necessity. The mere apprehension of a possible peril could not suffice. The extremely grave and imminent peril must have been a threat to the interest at the actual time (para 54).
Considering the situation at Nagymaros (Hungary), the Court notes that the dangers were mostly of a long-term nature and, above all, that they remained uncertain. The peril invoked by Hungary had already materialized to a large extent for a number of years, so that it could not, in 1989, represent a peril arising entirely out of the G-N Project. Even if the construction of the G-N Project would have created serious risks, Hungary had means available to it, other than suspension and abandonment of the works, of responding to that situation (para 55).
However grave it might have been, it would accordingly have been difficult to see the alleged peril as sufficiently certain and therefore "imminent" in 1989 . Hungary should have resorted to other means in order to respond to the dangers that it apprehended. In particular, within the framework of the original Project, Hungary seemed to be in position to control (para 56).
At the time of concluding the Treaty, Hungary was presumably aware of the situation as then known, when it assumed its original obligations. The Court cannot fail to note the positions taken by Hungary after the entry into force of the 1977 Treaty. Hungary asked that the works should go forward more slowly, then asked for the works to be speeded up, only to suspend and abandon them three months later.
The conclusion is that Hungary would not have been permitted to rely upon the state of necessity in order to justify its failure to comply with its treaty obligations, as it had helped, by act or omission, to bring it about (para 57).
Reservations to treaties: Advisory Opinion on the Genocide Convention
3. The Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951 on the Genocide Convention
Let's take a closer look at the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, on Reservations to the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The concerned actors are States to a multilateral treaty. The Court of Justice gives the impression that a multilateral treaty can be divided into multiple bilateral treaties, as it is up to States to decide whether they wish to enforce the treaty between certain other States.
The General Assembly raises the following questions:
I. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention, while still maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected by one or more parties to the Convention, but not by others?
II. If the answer to question I is the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and:
a. the parties which object to the reservations?
b. those which accept it?
III. What would be the legal effects as regards the answer to question I if an objection to a reservation is made:
a. by a signatory which has not yet ratified?
b. by a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so?
3.1. Answers
On Question I:
A State which has made and maintained a reservation which has been objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention, but not by others, can be regarded as being a party to the Convention, if the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; otherwise, that State cannot be regarded as being a party to the Convention.
On Question II:
a. If a party to the Convention objects to a reservation which it considers to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can in fact consider that the reserving State is not a party to the Convention;
b. If, on the other hand, a party accepts the reservation as being compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can in fact consider that the reserving State is a party to the Convention.
On Question III:
a. An objection to a reservation made by a signatory State which has not yet ratified the Convention can have the legal effect indicated in the reply to Question I, only upon ratification. Until that moment, it merely serves as a notice to the other State of the eventual attitude of the signatory State;
b. An objection to a reservation made by a State which is entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so, is without legal effect.
3.2. Conclusion
The Advisory Opinion seems somewhat dissatisfying. It is pretty much up to contracting States whether a reservation is deemed tolerable or not, regarding the object and purpose of the Convention- given that certain reservations are not excluded in the Convention itself. However, take a closer look at the Advisory Opinion and you will find the raison d'être of the convention, extensively described at page 22 to 25.
As page 24 reads:
" The object and purpose of the Genocide Convention imply that it was the intention of the General Assembly and of States which adopted it, that as many States as possible should participate. The complete exclusion from the Convention of one or more States would not only restrict the scope of its application, but would detract from the authority of the moral and humanitarian principles which are its basis".
4. Is a reservation to article IX of the Genocide Convention compatible with its object and purpose?
4.1. Armed Activities on the Territory of the DR of the Congo, Judgment, Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, 3 February 2006
Abstract. The Republic of Rwanda requests the Court to declare that (1): the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against the Republic of Rwanda by the DR of the Congo. The Court is required to address only the questions of whether it is competent to hear the dispute [...] (para 13, 14). I am going to highlight the considerations of the utmost importance (regarding a reservation to art. IX of the Genocide Convention, sidelining the jurisdiction of the Court).
4.1.1. DR of the Congo vs. Rwanda: arguments on the jurisdiction of the Court
In the DRC's view, the finding of an "absence of a manifest lack of jurisdiction" could be interpreted as an acknowledgement by the Court that is has jurisdiction (para 23).
Rwanda argued in its Memorial that the jurisdiction of the Court under the Genocide Convention was excluded by its reservation to the entirity of Article IX (para 29).
4.1.2. The Court's considerations
The Court will begin by reaffirming that "the principles underlying the Genocide Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation" and that a consequence of that conception is "the universal character both of the condemnation of genocide and of the co-operation required in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge". Thus, the Convention enshrines rights and obligations "erga omnes". The mere fact that rights and obligations erga omnes may be at issue in a dispute, would not give the Court jurisdiction to entertain that dispute. The fact that a dispute relates to compliance with a norm of ius cogens character (peremptory norms of general international law) cannot of itself provide a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain that dispute. Under the Court's Statute, that jurisdiction is always based on the consent of the parties (para 64).
The Court notes that is has already found that reservations are not prohibited under the Genocide Convention [refers to the 1951 Advisory Opinion on Reservations]. This legal situation is not affected by the fact that the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in its Article 120, does not permit reservations to that Statute, including provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the crime of genocide. Thus, in the view of the Court, a reservation under the Genocide Convention would be permissible to the extent that such reservation is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (para 66).
Rwanda's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention bears on the jurisdiction of the Court, and does not affect substantive obligations relating to acts of genocide themselves under that Convention. The reservation of Rwanda in question, meant to exclude a particular method of settling a dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, is not to be regarded as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (para 67).
As a matter to the law of treaties, when Rwanda acceded to the Genocide Convention and made the reservation in question, the DRC made no objection to it (para 68).
The Court concludes that, having regard to Rwanda's reservations to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, this Article cannot constitute the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case (para 70).
4.2. Joint Separate Opinion on "Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo"
The judges voted in favour of paragraph 128 of the Judgment on Congo vs. Rwanda. However, their joint separate opinion stresses that some issues do require further consideration.
With regards to paragraph 67 and 72, the judges consider that "..much will depend upon the particular convention concerned and the particular reservation. In some treaties, not all reservations to specific substantive clauses will necessarily be contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty. Some such reservations to particular substantive clauses may be of this character (ICCPR is mentioned). Conversely, a reservation to a specific "procedural" provision in a certain convention, could be contrary to the treaty's object and purpose. For example, the treaty bodies set up under certain United Nations conventions may well be central to the whole efficacy of those instruments ("at the heart of the convenant system")" (para 21).
It is, thus, not self-evident that a reservation to Article IX could not be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (para 29).
Let's take a closer look at the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, on Reservations to the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The concerned actors are States to a multilateral treaty. The Court of Justice gives the impression that a multilateral treaty can be divided into multiple bilateral treaties, as it is up to States to decide whether they wish to enforce the treaty between certain other States.
The General Assembly raises the following questions:
I. Can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention, while still maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected by one or more parties to the Convention, but not by others?
II. If the answer to question I is the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and:
a. the parties which object to the reservations?
b. those which accept it?
III. What would be the legal effects as regards the answer to question I if an objection to a reservation is made:
a. by a signatory which has not yet ratified?
b. by a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so?
3.1. Answers
On Question I:
A State which has made and maintained a reservation which has been objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention, but not by others, can be regarded as being a party to the Convention, if the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; otherwise, that State cannot be regarded as being a party to the Convention.
On Question II:
a. If a party to the Convention objects to a reservation which it considers to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can in fact consider that the reserving State is not a party to the Convention;
b. If, on the other hand, a party accepts the reservation as being compatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, it can in fact consider that the reserving State is a party to the Convention.
On Question III:
a. An objection to a reservation made by a signatory State which has not yet ratified the Convention can have the legal effect indicated in the reply to Question I, only upon ratification. Until that moment, it merely serves as a notice to the other State of the eventual attitude of the signatory State;
b. An objection to a reservation made by a State which is entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so, is without legal effect.
3.2. Conclusion
The Advisory Opinion seems somewhat dissatisfying. It is pretty much up to contracting States whether a reservation is deemed tolerable or not, regarding the object and purpose of the Convention- given that certain reservations are not excluded in the Convention itself. However, take a closer look at the Advisory Opinion and you will find the raison d'être of the convention, extensively described at page 22 to 25.
As page 24 reads:
" The object and purpose of the Genocide Convention imply that it was the intention of the General Assembly and of States which adopted it, that as many States as possible should participate. The complete exclusion from the Convention of one or more States would not only restrict the scope of its application, but would detract from the authority of the moral and humanitarian principles which are its basis".
4. Is a reservation to article IX of the Genocide Convention compatible with its object and purpose?
4.1. Armed Activities on the Territory of the DR of the Congo, Judgment, Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, 3 February 2006
Abstract. The Republic of Rwanda requests the Court to declare that (1): the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against the Republic of Rwanda by the DR of the Congo. The Court is required to address only the questions of whether it is competent to hear the dispute [...] (para 13, 14). I am going to highlight the considerations of the utmost importance (regarding a reservation to art. IX of the Genocide Convention, sidelining the jurisdiction of the Court).
4.1.1. DR of the Congo vs. Rwanda: arguments on the jurisdiction of the Court
In the DRC's view, the finding of an "absence of a manifest lack of jurisdiction" could be interpreted as an acknowledgement by the Court that is has jurisdiction (para 23).
Rwanda argued in its Memorial that the jurisdiction of the Court under the Genocide Convention was excluded by its reservation to the entirity of Article IX (para 29).
4.1.2. The Court's considerations
The Court will begin by reaffirming that "the principles underlying the Genocide Convention are principles which are recognized by civilized nations as binding on States, even without any conventional obligation" and that a consequence of that conception is "the universal character both of the condemnation of genocide and of the co-operation required in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge". Thus, the Convention enshrines rights and obligations "erga omnes". The mere fact that rights and obligations erga omnes may be at issue in a dispute, would not give the Court jurisdiction to entertain that dispute. The fact that a dispute relates to compliance with a norm of ius cogens character (peremptory norms of general international law) cannot of itself provide a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain that dispute. Under the Court's Statute, that jurisdiction is always based on the consent of the parties (para 64).
The Court notes that is has already found that reservations are not prohibited under the Genocide Convention [refers to the 1951 Advisory Opinion on Reservations]. This legal situation is not affected by the fact that the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in its Article 120, does not permit reservations to that Statute, including provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on the crime of genocide. Thus, in the view of the Court, a reservation under the Genocide Convention would be permissible to the extent that such reservation is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (para 66).
Rwanda's reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention bears on the jurisdiction of the Court, and does not affect substantive obligations relating to acts of genocide themselves under that Convention. The reservation of Rwanda in question, meant to exclude a particular method of settling a dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, is not to be regarded as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (para 67).
As a matter to the law of treaties, when Rwanda acceded to the Genocide Convention and made the reservation in question, the DRC made no objection to it (para 68).
The Court concludes that, having regard to Rwanda's reservations to Article IX of the Genocide Convention, this Article cannot constitute the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case (para 70).
4.2. Joint Separate Opinion on "Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo"
The judges voted in favour of paragraph 128 of the Judgment on Congo vs. Rwanda. However, their joint separate opinion stresses that some issues do require further consideration.
With regards to paragraph 67 and 72, the judges consider that "..much will depend upon the particular convention concerned and the particular reservation. In some treaties, not all reservations to specific substantive clauses will necessarily be contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty. Some such reservations to particular substantive clauses may be of this character (ICCPR is mentioned). Conversely, a reservation to a specific "procedural" provision in a certain convention, could be contrary to the treaty's object and purpose. For example, the treaty bodies set up under certain United Nations conventions may well be central to the whole efficacy of those instruments ("at the heart of the convenant system")" (para 21).
It is, thus, not self-evident that a reservation to Article IX could not be regarded as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (para 29).
Reservations to treaties and the legal effects of either acceptance or objection by other States (part II)
2.3. Article 19 of the VCLT: different scenarios
Subparagraph a. Reservations prohibited by the treaty
The purpose of, for example, multilateral anti-pollution treaties, sometimes requires the prohibition of reservations. Another means of establishing consensus is, in that case, the CBDR: Common But Differentiated Responsibility Principle. Differentiation between states' obligations is deemed tolerable.
Subparagraph b. Only specified reservations may be made or certain reservations are prohibited by the treaty
With reference to human rights treaties, the ECHR of 1950 concludes that reservations are allowed, unless the reservation is incompatible with a particular provision and the reservation is of a general character (art. 57 ECHR relating to art. 19 VCLT). This is pretty much the same criterion as would be applied to the 1951 case.
Subparagraph c. The treaty remains silent on reservations
Read the more extensive "Reservations to the Convention of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports of 1951, page 15". As I've mentioned before, the conclusion reads that "..reservations are allowed in principle, unless sub-para a or b applies, or unless the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty in question (art. 19 (c) VCLT)".
Remark that these provisions on reservations apply to multilateral treaties. If a reservation refers to a bilateral treaty, a revision of the treaty in question or its components may be required.
2.4. Acceptance of and objection to reservations (art. 20 VCLT)
1. the first way to "permit" a reservation could not be any more clear: as article 20, para 1 of the VCLT reads, a reservation expressly authorized by a treaty does not require any subsequent acceptance by other contracting States, unless the treaty so provides. This must be the ideal scenario;
2. according to the 2nd paragraph, a reservation requires acceptance by all parties, when it appears from the limited number of negotiating States and the object and purpose of a treaty, that the application of the treaty in its entirety between all the parties is an essential condition of the consent of each one to be bound by the treaty;
3. when a treaty is a constituent instrument of an international organization and unless it otherwise provides, a reservation requires the acceptance of the competent organ of that organization.
2.4.1. Scenarios involving the acceptance of or objection to reservations
Problems arise when the treaty does not provide any means of acceptance or when none of paragraphs 1 to 3 are applicable. To determine whether a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, each treaty partner has to decide on the acceptance of and objection to reservations.
From art. 20 para 4 and 5 VCLT follows that:
a. Another contracting State can expressly accept the reservation, which constitutes the reserving State a party to the treaty in relation to that other State when the treaty is in force for those States.
b. An objection made by another contracting States, does not preclude the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States, unless a contrary intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State.
Thus, despite the objection, the reservation will enter into force between the reserving and objecting States, as long as the objecting State does not expressly discard treaty relations with the reserving State.
c. An act expressing a State's consent to be bound by the treaty and containing a reservation is effective as soon as at least one other contracting State has accepted the reservation.
d. A contracting State remains silent. According to paragraph 5, a reservation is considered to have been accepted by a State if it shall have raised no objection to the reservation by the end of a period of twelve months after it was notified of the reservation, or by the date on which it expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, whichever is later.
2.5. Acceptance of or objection to reservations in relation to its legal effects
A summary of the legal effects of acceptance of or objection to reservations:
1. Whether the Accepting State expressly or silently accepts the reservation (implicit acceptance = art. 20(5) VCLT), art. 20(4)(a) and art. 21(1) VCLT do apply. The legal effect is that a treaty has been established between the Reserving and Accepting State and that either of the parties to the treaty can invoke the reservation;
2. If a contracting State does object to a reservation, but does not wish to discard treaty relations with the Reserving State (art. 20(4)(b)), the provision to which the reservation relates, does not apply between parties to the extent of the reservation, as art. 21(3) VCLT prescribes the legal effect of the objection;
3. The fourth scenario is that a State objects to a reservation and discards treaty relations with the Reserving State, art. 20(4)(b). The treaty does not enter into force between the Reserving and Objecting State, the latter ultimately not being a "contracting" party to the treaty.
Subparagraph a. Reservations prohibited by the treaty
The purpose of, for example, multilateral anti-pollution treaties, sometimes requires the prohibition of reservations. Another means of establishing consensus is, in that case, the CBDR: Common But Differentiated Responsibility Principle. Differentiation between states' obligations is deemed tolerable.
Subparagraph b. Only specified reservations may be made or certain reservations are prohibited by the treaty
With reference to human rights treaties, the ECHR of 1950 concludes that reservations are allowed, unless the reservation is incompatible with a particular provision and the reservation is of a general character (art. 57 ECHR relating to art. 19 VCLT). This is pretty much the same criterion as would be applied to the 1951 case.
Subparagraph c. The treaty remains silent on reservations
Read the more extensive "Reservations to the Convention of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports of 1951, page 15". As I've mentioned before, the conclusion reads that "..reservations are allowed in principle, unless sub-para a or b applies, or unless the reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty in question (art. 19 (c) VCLT)".
Remark that these provisions on reservations apply to multilateral treaties. If a reservation refers to a bilateral treaty, a revision of the treaty in question or its components may be required.
2.4. Acceptance of and objection to reservations (art. 20 VCLT)
1. the first way to "permit" a reservation could not be any more clear: as article 20, para 1 of the VCLT reads, a reservation expressly authorized by a treaty does not require any subsequent acceptance by other contracting States, unless the treaty so provides. This must be the ideal scenario;
2. according to the 2nd paragraph, a reservation requires acceptance by all parties, when it appears from the limited number of negotiating States and the object and purpose of a treaty, that the application of the treaty in its entirety between all the parties is an essential condition of the consent of each one to be bound by the treaty;
3. when a treaty is a constituent instrument of an international organization and unless it otherwise provides, a reservation requires the acceptance of the competent organ of that organization.
2.4.1. Scenarios involving the acceptance of or objection to reservations
Problems arise when the treaty does not provide any means of acceptance or when none of paragraphs 1 to 3 are applicable. To determine whether a reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, each treaty partner has to decide on the acceptance of and objection to reservations.
From art. 20 para 4 and 5 VCLT follows that:
a. Another contracting State can expressly accept the reservation, which constitutes the reserving State a party to the treaty in relation to that other State when the treaty is in force for those States.
b. An objection made by another contracting States, does not preclude the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States, unless a contrary intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State.
Thus, despite the objection, the reservation will enter into force between the reserving and objecting States, as long as the objecting State does not expressly discard treaty relations with the reserving State.
c. An act expressing a State's consent to be bound by the treaty and containing a reservation is effective as soon as at least one other contracting State has accepted the reservation.
d. A contracting State remains silent. According to paragraph 5, a reservation is considered to have been accepted by a State if it shall have raised no objection to the reservation by the end of a period of twelve months after it was notified of the reservation, or by the date on which it expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, whichever is later.
2.5. Acceptance of or objection to reservations in relation to its legal effects
A summary of the legal effects of acceptance of or objection to reservations:
1. Whether the Accepting State expressly or silently accepts the reservation (implicit acceptance = art. 20(5) VCLT), art. 20(4)(a) and art. 21(1) VCLT do apply. The legal effect is that a treaty has been established between the Reserving and Accepting State and that either of the parties to the treaty can invoke the reservation;
2. If a contracting State does object to a reservation, but does not wish to discard treaty relations with the Reserving State (art. 20(4)(b)), the provision to which the reservation relates, does not apply between parties to the extent of the reservation, as art. 21(3) VCLT prescribes the legal effect of the objection;
3. The fourth scenario is that a State objects to a reservation and discards treaty relations with the Reserving State, art. 20(4)(b). The treaty does not enter into force between the Reserving and Objecting State, the latter ultimately not being a "contracting" party to the treaty.
The conditions for making lawful reservations to treaties
Do reservations diminish the object and purpose of a Treaty?
This question could well be posed by a naturalist. From a naturalist point of view, one could state that reservations do undermine the purpose of a Treaty, for, what is the use of a Treaty, if states are- de facto- allowed to exclude the (ICJ) jurisdiction, especially when it comes to treaties concerning human rights, as is one of the main topical issues, the multilateral Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, Art. IX?
1.1. Positivist approach: efficiency and efficacy
From a positivist approach, however, to some extent, compromises are inevitable in the treaty-making process; the treaty-making process requires efficiency. Efficiency could not be reached if every party to a treaty has to vote unanimously on a large number of matters- which was, in fact, the case before 1940. It goes to show that negotiations often take decades before a "final" decision is issued.
Another positivist argument on the permissibility of reservations can be found in the efficacy of international rules. States are more likely to adhere to certain rules if they are able to shape the rules, more or less, to their own discretion.
1.2. The USSR case and the ICJ Opinion on Reservations
The conclusion that reservations to treaties are permissible, stems from the 1948 Genocide Convention. Not having recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the USSR proposed reservations to article IX of the Genocide Convention, discarding the jurisdiction of the ICJ to enforce article IX. The advisory opinion holds that reservations to a treaty are permissible, as long as these reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. As you'll notice, this conclusion has found its way into the VCLT, particularly into article 19. Although the ICJ aims at creating a balance between interests of states and the purpose of - in case- the Convention- one could say that the advisory opinion works in favour of the party proposing reservations to a treaty. In the end, state sovereignty prevails.
Thus, the question is no longer if reservations to a treaty are permissible, for allowing a state to attach a reservation is a means of imposing obligations on this state, being or expressing its will to become a party to the treaty. The question is hence, to what extent reservations to treaties are permissible.
Whether it concerns the decision-making process or judging an international (internationally wrong acts, for example) case, there will, by nature, always be ambiguity. There are no "hard and fast rules" in global politics.
Before I am going to discuss what conditions make reservations to treaties permissible, let's explore the subject, "law of treaties", according to the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (abbreviation: VCLT).
Note that the VCLT just entered into force on 27 January 1980; therefore, it should be clear that the VCLT is not applicable to cases prior to 1980- if you would like to know which treaties and conventions could be applied to previous cases, look up the International Court of Justice database.
2.1. Law of Treaties
The Law of Treaties is said to be governed by the VCLT and international customary law. Since the Vienna Convention is a mere codification of customary international law, can these two "sources" of law actually be separated? H.L.A. Hart has drawn a distinction between primary and secondary rules of international law, the first type of rules concerning (substantive) obligations (such as the prohibition of genocide), the second type governing the application and interpretation of primary rules (often mentioned examples of secondary rules include the regimes of state responsibility and the law of treaties). The ILC emphasizes state responsibility for the sake of efficacy.
The scope of the Vienna Convention is presented in article 1, which states that
"The VCLT applies to treaties between states". Art. 2, para 1 (a) defines "treaties" as:
"International agreements concluded between States, in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation".
In two cases, the SS Lotus case (1927) and the SS Wimbledon case (1923), the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) has given rise to the idea that two principles underlie the law of treaties. One is that states are sovereign, therefore no valid treaty can do without the free consent of states entering into the treaty, i.o. words consensualism is an essential feature; the other principle is that commiting to a treaty imposes obligations on states: the efficacy of a treaty requires that states perform these treaties in good faith. However, the old Roman brocard "pacta sunt servanda" originally applies to civil law.
2.1.2. Ius cogens
Note that peremptory norms are regarded certain overriding principles of international law, which, speaking with I. Brownlie (Principles of International Law), form a "body of ius cogens". No State may derogate from these principles by way of a treaty. Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law are void, art. 53 VCLT. The VCLT makes clear that a peremptory norm of international law is "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole, from which no derogation is permitted and which can only be modified by a subsequent norm of general internation law, having the same character".
2.2. Reservations
According to article 2 (1)(d) a "reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State".
One main rule conducts the formulation of reservations. As article 19 makes clear, a State may formulate a reservation, unless:
a. the formulation is prohibited by the treaty itself;
b. the treaty provides that only specified reservations, not including the reservation in question, may be made;
c. in cases not falling under sub-paragraphs a and b, the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Highly inspired by the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, the last sub-paragraph has led to an enduring discussion on the "compatibility" with the "object and purpose of a treaty", for there is no general rule to define these concepts of a treaty.
As Scheinin puts it: "..one might think that the VCLT cannot provide solutions to reservations problems in relation to human rights treaties because many of its provisions are written to reflect the operation of multilateral treaty between States in issues where States act in their own interest in respect of other States [...] where the treaty does not establish an independent international mechanism for its application and interpretation" (read "Reservations by States under the ICCPR and its optional protocols", in I. Ziemele, "Reservations to human rights treaties and the Vienna Convention Regime").IUs
This question could well be posed by a naturalist. From a naturalist point of view, one could state that reservations do undermine the purpose of a Treaty, for, what is the use of a Treaty, if states are- de facto- allowed to exclude the (ICJ) jurisdiction, especially when it comes to treaties concerning human rights, as is one of the main topical issues, the multilateral Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, Art. IX?
1.1. Positivist approach: efficiency and efficacy
From a positivist approach, however, to some extent, compromises are inevitable in the treaty-making process; the treaty-making process requires efficiency. Efficiency could not be reached if every party to a treaty has to vote unanimously on a large number of matters- which was, in fact, the case before 1940. It goes to show that negotiations often take decades before a "final" decision is issued.
Another positivist argument on the permissibility of reservations can be found in the efficacy of international rules. States are more likely to adhere to certain rules if they are able to shape the rules, more or less, to their own discretion.
1.2. The USSR case and the ICJ Opinion on Reservations
The conclusion that reservations to treaties are permissible, stems from the 1948 Genocide Convention. Not having recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the USSR proposed reservations to article IX of the Genocide Convention, discarding the jurisdiction of the ICJ to enforce article IX. The advisory opinion holds that reservations to a treaty are permissible, as long as these reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. As you'll notice, this conclusion has found its way into the VCLT, particularly into article 19. Although the ICJ aims at creating a balance between interests of states and the purpose of - in case- the Convention- one could say that the advisory opinion works in favour of the party proposing reservations to a treaty. In the end, state sovereignty prevails.
Thus, the question is no longer if reservations to a treaty are permissible, for allowing a state to attach a reservation is a means of imposing obligations on this state, being or expressing its will to become a party to the treaty. The question is hence, to what extent reservations to treaties are permissible.
Whether it concerns the decision-making process or judging an international (internationally wrong acts, for example) case, there will, by nature, always be ambiguity. There are no "hard and fast rules" in global politics.
Before I am going to discuss what conditions make reservations to treaties permissible, let's explore the subject, "law of treaties", according to the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (abbreviation: VCLT).
Note that the VCLT just entered into force on 27 January 1980; therefore, it should be clear that the VCLT is not applicable to cases prior to 1980- if you would like to know which treaties and conventions could be applied to previous cases, look up the International Court of Justice database.
2.1. Law of Treaties
The Law of Treaties is said to be governed by the VCLT and international customary law. Since the Vienna Convention is a mere codification of customary international law, can these two "sources" of law actually be separated? H.L.A. Hart has drawn a distinction between primary and secondary rules of international law, the first type of rules concerning (substantive) obligations (such as the prohibition of genocide), the second type governing the application and interpretation of primary rules (often mentioned examples of secondary rules include the regimes of state responsibility and the law of treaties). The ILC emphasizes state responsibility for the sake of efficacy.
The scope of the Vienna Convention is presented in article 1, which states that
"The VCLT applies to treaties between states". Art. 2, para 1 (a) defines "treaties" as:
"International agreements concluded between States, in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation".
In two cases, the SS Lotus case (1927) and the SS Wimbledon case (1923), the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) has given rise to the idea that two principles underlie the law of treaties. One is that states are sovereign, therefore no valid treaty can do without the free consent of states entering into the treaty, i.o. words consensualism is an essential feature; the other principle is that commiting to a treaty imposes obligations on states: the efficacy of a treaty requires that states perform these treaties in good faith. However, the old Roman brocard "pacta sunt servanda" originally applies to civil law.
2.1.2. Ius cogens
Note that peremptory norms are regarded certain overriding principles of international law, which, speaking with I. Brownlie (Principles of International Law), form a "body of ius cogens". No State may derogate from these principles by way of a treaty. Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law are void, art. 53 VCLT. The VCLT makes clear that a peremptory norm of international law is "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole, from which no derogation is permitted and which can only be modified by a subsequent norm of general internation law, having the same character".
2.2. Reservations
According to article 2 (1)(d) a "reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State".
One main rule conducts the formulation of reservations. As article 19 makes clear, a State may formulate a reservation, unless:
a. the formulation is prohibited by the treaty itself;
b. the treaty provides that only specified reservations, not including the reservation in question, may be made;
c. in cases not falling under sub-paragraphs a and b, the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Highly inspired by the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, the last sub-paragraph has led to an enduring discussion on the "compatibility" with the "object and purpose of a treaty", for there is no general rule to define these concepts of a treaty.
As Scheinin puts it: "..one might think that the VCLT cannot provide solutions to reservations problems in relation to human rights treaties because many of its provisions are written to reflect the operation of multilateral treaty between States in issues where States act in their own interest in respect of other States [...] where the treaty does not establish an independent international mechanism for its application and interpretation" (read "Reservations by States under the ICCPR and its optional protocols", in I. Ziemele, "Reservations to human rights treaties and the Vienna Convention Regime").IUs
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)