Arresten
Cases Public International Law
Uitgebreide samenvatting van alle arresten van Public International law
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 40 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 40 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
2 beoordelingen
Door: botersteege • 3 jaar geleden
Door: Stranger • 3 jaar geleden
Super, echt alle arresten goed en uitgebreid beschreven.
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Cases Public International LawLaw of treaties...................................................................................................................................3
Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros(Pacta sunt servanda, treaty termination).....................................................3
Tyrer v. The United Kingdom(Interpretation 31 VCLT).......................................................................5
LaGrand(Interpretation 32 VCLT)........................................................................................................5
Armed Activities DRC v. Rwanda(Reservations 19 sub c VCTL, jus cogens )........................................5
Reservations the Genocide Convention(Reservations 19 sub c VCTL)................................................6
Joint Separate Opinion(Comment about Armed Activities DRC v. Rwanda).......................................7
Customary Law..................................................................................................................................8
North Sea Continental Shelf(Forming of customary law)...................................................................8
Nicaragua(State practice uniformity)..................................................................................................9
State Responsibility.........................................................................................................................10
Tehran Hostages(Private acts 11 ASR)..............................................................................................10
Nicaragua(Art. 8 ASR effective control)............................................................................................10
Tadic 1999(Art. 8 ASR Nicaragua).....................................................................................................11
Bosnia v. Serbia Genocide 2007(Art. 8 Nicaragua & Tadic 1999)......................................................12
Rainbow Warrior(Precluding wrongfulness).....................................................................................12
Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros(Art. 25 ASR necessity, countermeasures, VCLT & ASR )..............................15
International Organizations.............................................................................................................16
Reparation for injuries(International organizations)........................................................................16
Legality of the use by a state of nuclear weapons(International organizations. ).............................17
Advisory Opinion Namibia(Voting Security Council 27(3) UN Charter).............................................18
Kadi(Lack of review Security Council resolutions).............................................................................18
Dispute Settlement..........................................................................................................................19
Armed Activities DRC v. Rwanda( Forum Prorogatum).....................................................................19
Tadic 1995(41 UN Charter Measures)...............................................................................................20
LaGrand(40 UN Charter Provisional Measures)................................................................................20
Use of Force.....................................................................................................................................21
Legality of the Use or Threat of Nuclear Weapons(Prohibition use of force)...................................21
Corfu Channel(Right of intervention)...............................................................................................22
Nicaragua(Treaty law vs Customary law, self-defence)....................................................................22
Oil Platforms(Necessity & Proportionality).......................................................................................24
Immunities......................................................................................................................................25
Jurisdictional Immunities(Serious violations, jus cogens).................................................................25
1
, Mothers of Srebrenica(Immunity UN)..............................................................................................26
Warrant(High-ranking state officials)................................................................................................28
Human Rights..................................................................................................................................29
Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands(ECtHR Exhaustion of local remedies)...........................................29
Karpenko. v Russia(ECtHR Manifestly ill-founded article 6 ECHR)....................................................29
Tyrer v. United Kingdom(ECHR Living Instrument)...........................................................................30
Opuz v. Turkey(Refrain positive obligations)....................................................................................30
Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy(Jurisdiction ECHR)..............................................................................................32
International Economic Law............................................................................................................36
Phillip Morris(BIT Police powers ).....................................................................................................36
Urbaser S.A. v. The Argentine Republic(BIT Human Rights)..............................................................37
Shrimp-Turtle(Exceptions to market integration GATT/WTO)..........................................................38
International Criminal Law..............................................................................................................39
Tadic 1995(Kompetenz, primacy).....................................................................................................39
Radislav Krstic(Genocide).................................................................................................................40
2
,Law of treaties
Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros(Pacta sunt servanda, treaty termination)
Facts:
In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia signed a Treaty for the construction of dams and other
projects along the Danube River that bordered both nations. Czechoslovakia began work on
damming the river in its territory when Hungary stopped working on the project and
negotiation could not resolve the matter which led Hungary to terminate the Treaty. Hungary
based its action on the fact that the damming of the river had been agreed to only on the
ground of a joint operation and sharing of benefits associated with the project, to which
Czechoslovakia had unlawfully unilaterally assumed control of a shared resource.
Legal question:
Was Hungary allowed to suspend and later on, abandon its works on the Nagymaors project
and the Gabčíkovo parts of the projects for which it was responsible under the 1977 Treaty.
Rule of law:
Pacta sunt servanda:
o The Court would set a precedent with disturbing implications for treaty relations and
the integrity of the rule pacta sunt servanda if it were to conclude that a treaty in
force between States, which the parties have implemented in considerable measure
and at great cost over a period of years, might be unilaterally set aside on grounds of
reciprocal non-compliance. It would be otherwise, of course, if the parties decided to
terminate the Treaty by mutual consent(114).
The Court has no need to dwell upon the question of the applicability in the present case of
the Vienna Convention of 1969 on the Law of Treaties. It needs only to be mindful of the fact
that it has several times had occasion to hold that some of the rules laid down in that
Convention might be considered as a codification of existing customary law. The Court takes
the view that in many respects this applies to the provisions of the Vienna Convention
concerning the termination and the suspension of the operation of treaties, set forth in
Articles 60 to 62(46).
During the proceedings, Hungary presented five arguments in support of the lawfulness, and
thus the effectiveness, of its notification of termination. These were the(92):
Existence of a state of necessity: The Court will now turn to the first ground
advanced by Hungary, that of the state of necessity. In this respect, the Court will
merely observe that, even if a state of necessity is found to exist, it is not a ground
for the termination of a treaty. It may only be invoked to exonerate from its
responsibility a State which has failed to implement a treaty. Even if found
justified, it does not terminate a Treaty; the Treaty may be ineffective as long as the
condition of necessity continues to exist; it may in fact be dormant, but unless the
parties by mutual agreement terminate the Treaty it continues to exist. As soon as
the state of necessity ceases to exist, the duty to comply with treaty obligations
revives(104).
Impossibility of performance of the Treaty :
o Hungary contended that the essential object of the Treaty (an economic
joint investment which was consistent with environmental protection and
which was operated by the two contracting parties jointly) had permanently
3
, disappeared and that the Treaty had thus become impossible to
perform(103).
o The Court would add that, if the joint exploitation of the investment was no
longer possible, this was originally because Hungary did not carry out most
of the works for which it was responsible under the 1977 Treaty. By
suspending the obligations, Hungary rendered the constructions impossible
to accomplish.
o Article 61, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention expressly provides that
impossibility of performance may not be invoked for the termination of a
treaty by a party to that treaty when it results from that party's own
breach of an obligation flowing from that treaty(103).
Occurrence of a fundamental change of circumstances :
o 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 of the consent of the parties and, in changing, radically
altered the extent of the obligations still to be performed. The same holds
good for the economic system in force at the time of the conclusion of the
1977 Treaty(104). → The circumstance for termination must be so closely
linked to the object and purpose of the treaty as to have formed an
essential basis for the parties.
o The Court does not consider that new developments in the state of
environmental knowledge and of environmental law can be said to have
been completely unforeseen(104).
o The negative and conditional wording of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties is a clear indication moreover that the stability of
treaty relations requires that the plea of fundamental change of
circumstances be applied only in exceptional cases(104).
Material breach of the Treaty by Czechoslovakia :
o As to that part of Hungary's argument which was based on other treaties
and general rules of international law, the Court is of the view that it is only
a material breach of the treaty itself, by a State party to that treaty, which
entitles the other party to rely on it as a ground for terminating the treaty.
The violation of other treaty rules or of rules of general international law
may justify the taking of certain measures, including countermeasures, by
the injured State, but it does not constitute a ground for termination under
the law of treaties (106).
o In the Court's view, therefore, the notification of termination by Hungary
on 19 May 1992 was premature. No breach of the Treaty by Czechoslovakia
had yet taken place and consequently Hungary was not entitled to invoke
any such breach of the Treaty as a ground for terminating it when it
did(108).
Development of new norms of international environmental law. Slovakia contested
each of these grounds:
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rechtsgeleerde99. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 72042 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen