Pub Date : 2020-10-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004434271_004
{"title":"Presentation by François Alabrune","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004434271_004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004434271_004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":219261,"journal":{"name":"Seventy Years of the International Law Commission","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124044292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-22DOI: 10.1163/9789004434271_020
D. Azaria
The working methods of the Commission are an area of old concern. From 1986, the General Assembly repeatedly emphasized that the Commission should reexamine the way it selects the topics it wishes to deal with, as well as the methods and procedures it uses to conduct its work.1 On the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary, in 1998, the Commission organized a major colloquium in New York around the general theme “Making Better International Law: The International Law Commission at 50” (hereinafter the “1998 colloquium”), an important part of which dealt with the choice of topics and the working methods of the Commission.2 The issues at the heart of the matter have not changed since then. The question is whether the Commission has been able to take advantage of the comments and suggestions made by the participants in the 1998 colloquium, most of whom have become members of this august institution. To answer this question, I will endeavour to review the various questions on the part of the programme of this colloquium devoted to the working methods of the Commission, notably: Should the Commission adapt its working methods to the outcomes of its work? How has the communication with other bodies and persons changed and how could it be improved? The role of Special Rapporteurs; the role of the Drafting Committee; the role of commentaries; the role of the Codification Division; and other support. I will not engage in a theoretical appraisal of these different points. I will examine the issues raised in the light of my almost two decades of practical experience in the Commission, as a member, Special Rapporteur and Chair of the
{"title":"The Working Methods of the International Law Commission","authors":"D. Azaria","doi":"10.1163/9789004434271_020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004434271_020","url":null,"abstract":"The working methods of the Commission are an area of old concern. From 1986, the General Assembly repeatedly emphasized that the Commission should reexamine the way it selects the topics it wishes to deal with, as well as the methods and procedures it uses to conduct its work.1 On the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary, in 1998, the Commission organized a major colloquium in New York around the general theme “Making Better International Law: The International Law Commission at 50” (hereinafter the “1998 colloquium”), an important part of which dealt with the choice of topics and the working methods of the Commission.2 The issues at the heart of the matter have not changed since then. The question is whether the Commission has been able to take advantage of the comments and suggestions made by the participants in the 1998 colloquium, most of whom have become members of this august institution. To answer this question, I will endeavour to review the various questions on the part of the programme of this colloquium devoted to the working methods of the Commission, notably: Should the Commission adapt its working methods to the outcomes of its work? How has the communication with other bodies and persons changed and how could it be improved? The role of Special Rapporteurs; the role of the Drafting Committee; the role of commentaries; the role of the Codification Division; and other support. I will not engage in a theoretical appraisal of these different points. I will examine the issues raised in the light of my almost two decades of practical experience in the Commission, as a member, Special Rapporteur and Chair of the","PeriodicalId":219261,"journal":{"name":"Seventy Years of the International Law Commission","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128905975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-01DOI: 10.1163/9789004434271_016
L. B. D. Chazournes
In its 70 years of existence, the International Law Commission has accomplished sterling work in many respects. Much of its output is considered to be the cornerstone of the contemporary international legal order.However, this positive note should not distract attention from the challenges facing the Commission. Among these, the end of the “golden era” of codification, and the phenomenon of treaty fatigue call into question the relatively comfortable position of the International Law Commission. Questions arise: Is the progressive reduction in the number of conventions adopted as a result of the Commission’s work a sign of its decline? Is the increasing diversity of instruments used by the Commission a problem in terms of impact?To answer these questions, this contribution first deals with the diversity of forms of the final products and the questions this diversity raises in terms of legal effects (II.) Once this framework for analyzing the Commission’s work has been established, its impacts are examined (III.). The contribution then focuses on the users of the Commission’s work (IV.), and also shed light on its authority (V.).
{"title":"The International Law Commission in a Mirror—Forms, Impact and Authority","authors":"L. B. D. Chazournes","doi":"10.1163/9789004434271_016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004434271_016","url":null,"abstract":"In its 70 years of existence, the International Law Commission has accomplished sterling work in many respects. Much of its output is considered to be the cornerstone of the contemporary international legal order.However, this positive note should not distract attention from the challenges facing the Commission. Among these, the end of the “golden era” of codification, and the phenomenon of treaty fatigue call into question the relatively comfortable position of the International Law Commission. Questions arise: Is the progressive reduction in the number of conventions adopted as a result of the Commission’s work a sign of its decline? Is the increasing diversity of instruments used by the Commission a problem in terms of impact?To answer these questions, this contribution first deals with the diversity of forms of the final products and the questions this diversity raises in terms of legal effects (II.) Once this framework for analyzing the Commission’s work has been established, its impacts are examined (III.). The contribution then focuses on the users of the Commission’s work (IV.), and also shed light on its authority (V.).","PeriodicalId":219261,"journal":{"name":"Seventy Years of the International Law Commission","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128950605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：