Volkenrecht tentamen samenvatting
Kennis
Na afloop van de cursus hebben studenten een goed inzicht in:
- De beginselen waarop het volkenrecht is gebouwd, zoals soevereiniteit en
rechtsmacht;
- De bijzondere decentrale structuur waarin verschillende rechtssubjecten bewegen;
- Hoe het volkenrecht werkt als gevolg van die beginselen en bijzondere structuur,
inclusief aansprakelijkheid onder het volkenrecht;
- De belangrijkste rechtsbronnen van het volkenrecht, zoals het verdragenrecht;
- Het VN-systeem inzake collectieve veiligheid;
- De belangrijkste ontwikkelingen en problemen in het volkenrecht.
1
,Week 1 – Bronnen en Verdragenrecht
Literatuur: Klabbers - H. 1, 2, 3 en pp. 162-169
Verdrag van Wenen inzake het verdragenrecht (1969) (“Weens
Regelgeving:
Verdragenverdrag”) (wettenbundel)
Lotus Case (1927) (reader)
Jurisprudentie: Reservations to Genocide Convention (1951) (reader)
Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago (1999) (reader)
In deze week staan de bronnen van het internationaal recht centraal. Na afloop van deze week
dien je:
- De bronnen van het internationaal recht te kennen;
- Uiteen te kunnen zetten hoe de decentrale structuur van het internationaal recht is
weerspiegeld in de bronnen van het internationaal recht;
- De verschillende opvattingen over de toelaatbaarheid van voorbehouden bij verdragen
te begrijpen en toe te kunnen passen op een concrete casus;
- Te begrijpen welke elementen aanwezig dienen te zijn in een volkenrechtelijk betoog.
Literatuur
Hoofdstuk 1
The international legal system
The absence of single overarching authority is perhaps the most noteworthy characteristic of
international law. ‘International law can be seen as positive morality: it is more or less
binding on states, but as a matter of morality, not as a matter of law.’
How does international law function if it has no sovereign authority? ‘Almost all nations
observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost
all of the time’. Various explanations can be offered for this state of affairs. One is that since
states themselves make international law, they have little incentive to break it. Another is that
unless something dramatic happens, states will continue to do what they are used to doing and
this typically helps to strengthen international law. In addition, lawyers play a prominent role
at foreign ministries and other government departments; it has been suggested that their legal
training instils in them a respect for the law and the professional reflex to accept its authority.
An important role is also played in international law by considerations of reciprocity
(wederkerigheid). ‘If you hurt my citizens, Ill hurt you too.’ Another suggested explanation
focuses on the role of legitimacy. States need not be reminded that they should adhere to such
a rule, instead, they would want to adhere to it; it would be the right thing to do. Other
considerations which may help to explain why international law is reasonably well complied
with that states have to interact with each other, and when doing so, it helps to have a good
reputation; no one wants to do business with a state that routinely violates its commitments. In
addition, international law does have some mechanism to deal with violations, even if not all
of these can properly be called sanctions.
2
,Ethics and international law
It is sometimes claimed that international law is not very ethical, but that is a debatable claim.
Perhaps the main problem nowadays is not so much that international law and ethics have
nothing to do with each other, but that different conceptions of the ethics of international law
compete with each other. While one can interpret the Arrest Warrant case of the ICJ as a
defeat for human rights, the Court held that a Congolese government minister was immune
from prosecution despite his possible involvement in human rights violations. One can also
interpret is as a vindication for deliberative politics. Rules on immunity make it impossible to
harass government members, thereby allowing international communication to take place
without disturbance. And that too has an ethical quality in and of itself.
In short, it is not so much the case that international law is devoid of ethics, but rather that
ethics itself is far from uniform: different ethics follow different traditions and present
different conclusions to what exactly constitutes proper ethical behavior, or whose behavior
counts, ethically speaking.
Hoofdstuk 2
Introduction
International law is predominantly made by states, and this still holds true in large measure.
Since states are considered to be sovereign, it follows that there is no authority above them;
and if there is no authority above them, it follows that law can be made with their consent.
International law does not have a specific document specifying how it is made; there is no
treaty on the correct ways and processes for making international law. Instead, the Statute of
the ICJ (statuut van het International Gerechtshof) contains a listing of instruments that the
Court may apply in deciding cases, and it is this listing that is often used as a starting point for
a discussion of the sources of law. This already suggests that the list is not exhaustive, it is
possible that there are sources of law not mentioned in article 38 ICJ Statute.
Ship Lotus case
On 2 August 1926, the steamships Boz-Kourtt (flying the Turkish flag) and Lotus (French)
collided on the high seas, off the Turkish coast. The Turkish ship was cut in two and people
died. The Turkish authorities started criminal proceedings against de first officer of the lotus,
as well as the captain of Boz Kourtt. Both were found guilty by the Criminal Court of
Istanbul. The fact that a French citizen was being prosecuted in Turkey did not go down well
with the French authorities, who claimed that Turkey lacked the required jurisdiction to
prosecute a foreigner for acts committed outside Turkish territory. Turkey and France agreed
to take the matter to the PCIJ, which rendered its classic decision. The question here was not
whether Turkey had permission to start proceedings, but rather whether starting proceedings
was prohibited. The Court discussed the nature of international law as follows (par. 44):
‘International law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law binding
upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by
usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate
the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the
achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore
be presumed.’ So since no prohibition could be found in international law, the Court
eventually decided that Turkey had not violated international law. The Court here laid down
the idea of international law as a permissive system (tolerant); behavior must be considered
permitted unless and until it is prohibited.
3
,Article 38 ICJ Statute (statuut van het International Gerechtshof)
Het Hof, dat tot taak heeft de aan hem voorgelegde geschillen te beslechten overeenkomstig
het internationaal recht, doet dit met toepassing van:
a. internationale verdragen, zowel van algemene als van bijzondere aard, waarin regels
worden vastgelegd die uitdrukkelijk door de bij het geschil betrokken staten worden erkend;
b. internationale gewoonte, als blijk van een als recht aanvaarde algemene praktijk;
c. de door beschaafde naties erkende algemene rechtsbeginselen;
d. onder voorbehoud van de bepalingen van artikel 59, rechterlijke beslissingen, alsmede de
opvattingen van de meest bevoegde schrijvers der verschillende naties, als hulpmiddelen voor
het bepalen van rechtsregels.
It is generally agreed that article 38 does not establish a rigid hierarchy of sources, in
particular when it comes to the relationship between customary law and treaties; these can
supersede each other and also exist alongside each other. Hierarchy primary and subsidiary
sources, primary sources kunnen naast elkaar worden ingezet en gelden boven subsidiary
sources.
First, judicial decisions and the writings of the most highly qualified publicists are listed as
subsidiary means only, not having precedent effect in international law further stated in article
59 ICJ Statute. Second, there is also general agreement among international lawyers that
general principles of law have as their main function the filling of gaps. In other words,
general principles will normally only be resorted to if there is a situation where there is
neither an applicable treaty nor an applicable rule of customary law.
Treaties
Treaties have been concluded and have operated since time immemorial, and it stands to
reason that over the century’s rules have developed, in customary international law, on the
conclusion of treaties, the effects and application of treaties, their validity, and their
termination. There rules have been codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (verdrag van Wenen), which applies to treaties concluded between states only. A
later Vienna Convention was concluded to address treaties concluded with or between
international organizations.
Customary law
The definition of customary law provides two main requirements, there must be a general
practice (staatspraktijk), and this general practice must be accepted as law (opinio juris, is the
belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation). The requirement of opinio juris
therewith plays the useful role of separating law from other normative control systems, such
as etiquette or morality. Zie hier het voorbeeld van de rode loper neerleggen. The ICJ found in
1969 that ‘even without the passage of any considerable period of time, a very widespread
and representative practice might suffice of itself.
As a matter of theory, since international law is supposed to be about sovereign states,
customary international law too is said to rest on the consent of states. If a state notices that a
new rule of customary law is in the process of being created, and it feels unable to accept it, it
should make its opposition known. By objecting persistently (maken van bezwaar), the state
can ensure that is does not become bound, what is more, if many states object persistently,
together they can prevent the rule from coming into being.
4
,General principles of law
If treaties and custom are traceable to a state’s express consent to be bound, this is less
obvious with general principles. These are often viewed authoritatively as general notions
(algemene begrippen) that form part of the legal system and can be applied in a variety of
settings, and it is this characteristic that distinguishes them from rules. By contrast, principles
are far more open ended, and can be applied in a variety of settings. Generally, principles do
not immediately specify a particular outcome to a case but may help to point out the way.
Since these principles are not adopted or legislated, they cannot be traced back to expressions
of consent by states, and it is probably for that reason that the ICJ has never decided a case
solely and expressly on the basis of a general principle of law.
Hoofdstuk 3
Two basic principles
The law of treaties is based on two foundational principles. The first of these is a logical
corollary to the concept of state sovereignty; treaties need to be based on the free consent of
states as discussed in the previous chapter. This much was recognized by the decisions of the
PCIJ, in particular perhaps the Lotus case. The second foundational principle specifies,
however the freedom of states is not unlimited; once consent to be bound has been expressed
and the treaty has entered into force, the treaty shall be kept by the parties in good faith. Pacta
sunt servanda, codified in article 26 VCLT (verdrag van Wenen), once in force, treaties are
supposed to be performed.
The concept of treaty
The Vienna Convention defines treaties as agreements in written form, concluded between
states and governed by international law, whatever the number of instruments involved and
whatever their particular designation. The latter point makes it clear that treaties can come
under all sorts of names, ranging from very solemn, via the average to the downright
pedestrian. The designation makes no legal difference, although the choice of a solemn label
may indicate that such an agreement is deemed to be of great political significance.
The only really relevant requirement, then, is that treaties are only treaties if governed by
international law. Traditionally, this was useful for delimiting treaties from instruments
between states governed by one or the other domestic legal system. One can imagine, for
instance, that the lease of a building by the United Kingdom in Germany for the purpose of
housing the UK embassy takes the form not of a treaty, but of a contract governed by German
law. Hence, such an agreement, despite being concluded between states, would falls outside.
The conclusion of treaties
Confusingly, the two main ways of expressing consent to be bound by treaties are signature
and ratification. It used to be the case that signature involved a promise to ratify. If a treaty
remains silent, mere signature probably suffices. If and when a treaty provides for ratification,
then this is of vital importance, to cite the ICJ; but if no such provision is made, then the
default rule would seem to be that signature suffices. This does not mean that the state which
signs can do as it pleases in the time before ratification or between ratification and entry into
force of a treaty, article 18 VCLT also known as interim obligation. Verplichting voorwerp en
doel van een verdrag niet ongedaan te maken alvorens zijn inwerkingsstelling na tekening. If
states wish to apply their agreement immediately, even before domestic procedures have
finished, they can do so: article 25 VCLT allows for the provisional application of treaties
(voorlopige toepassing).
5
,Reservations
Arguably the most important provisions of the Vienna Convention are those dealing with
reservations to treaties (voorbehouden), that is unilateral acts by which individual states wish
to modify or exclude part of a treaty. This is relevant because it allows them to join regimes
without having to make dramatic domestic policy changes if they do not want to, and if thus a
tool for flexibility. In light of the state sovereignty, no state can be demanded to follow the
treaty, it’s up to themselves to decide.
It remains, to a large extent, up to the parties to a treaty to decide how to handle reservations.
If reservations are deemed intolerable (object and purpose), then the states concerned can
simply agree that no reservation is permitted (art. 18 en 19 VCLT).
The Vienna Convention, in effect, sketches four different sorts of response in article 20. The
first of these is simply acceptance. More common is the second position: a state remains
silent. Perhaps it feels that it agrees with the reservation but sees no need to spell it out. If a
state remains silent, then article 20, paragraph 5 VCLT ascribes consent to its position. Things
get decidedly more problematic with the third position: states may object to a reservation but
without wishing to jeopardize their treaty relations with the reserving state. In other words,
the reserving state gets what it wants, despite the objections of its counterpart (minder
vergaand bezwaar). Only under the fourth position are things different, for here the reserving
state does not get what it wants. If the treaty partner specifies that is does not accept a
proposed reservation and does not wish to have treaty relations with the reserving state, only
then does the reservation have no effect (vergaand bezwaar wanneer in strijd met voorwerp en
doel art. 18 en 19 VCLT).
Belangrijk hier zijn de zaken Reservations to the Genocide Convention en Rawle Kennedy v
Trinidad en Tobago.
Decentrale structuur van het internationale recht
Het idee van de internationale gemeenschap van soevereine staten is een van de
uitgangspunten van het VN-Handvest en zichtbaar in de structuur van het recht, namelijk de
decentrale structuur, ookwel horizontale structuur. Dit is duidelijk zichtbaar wanneer je kijkt
naar de drie functie die in een rechtssysteem moeten vervuld worden:
- De wetgevende functie: het internationaal recht heeft geen centrale wetgever die
algemeen verbindende regels mag maken. Het grootste gedeelte regels bestaat dan ook
uit verdragen en gewoonte.
- De rechtsprekende functie: het internationaal recht heeft geen algemeen systeem van
verplichte rechtsmacht waar staten zich aan moeten houden. Het internationaal
Gerechtshof mag pas uitspraken doen over geschillen tussen staten als zij het Hof
hebben erkend.
- De uitvoerende of handhavende functie: uitspraken of schendingen van het
internationaal recht kunnen niet worden afgedwongen. De staten zelf spelen een grote
rol bij handhaving en afdwinging van regels van internationaal recht.
Reservations to the Genocide
Convention; Rawle Kennedy v
Trinidad en Tobago
6
, Op het hoorcollege is ook
ingegaan op een andere
uitdaging voor de decentrale
structuur van het
internationaal
recht: de opkomst van
mensenrechten. Sinds 1945
zijn er verschillende
mensenrechtenverdragen
gesloten. Soms
is daarbij ook een
toezichtsorgaan ingesteld,
zoals het Europees Hof voor
de Rechten van de Mens of
het
Mensenrechtencomité.
Uitdaging voor de decentrale structuur van het internationaal recht: de opkomst van
mensenrechten. Sinds 1945 zijn er verschillende mensenrechtenverdragen gesloten. Soms is
daarbij ook een toezichtsorgaan ingesteld, zoals het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de
Mens of het Mensenrechtencomité. Bijvoorbeeld in Rawle Kennedy v Trinidad and Tobago
(1999), verschuiving in het internationale recht, hier staat een mensenrechtenorganisatie met
zijn besluit boven een staat door verdragsrelatie geldig te verklaren bij vergaand voorbehoud.
Jurisprudentie
Lotus Case (1927)
7
