Pub Date : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1017/9781108766074.015
Ronald C. Slye, Beth van Schaack
{"title":"International Criminal Law","authors":"Ronald C. Slye, Beth van Schaack","doi":"10.1017/9781108766074.015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766074.015","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87823876","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 : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1017/9781108766074.016
{"title":"The Seas, the Air, and Outer Space","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108766074.016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766074.016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80171516","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 : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1017/9781108766074.008
{"title":"Jurisdiction, Powers, and Immunities","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108766074.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766074.008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75965011","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 : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1017/9781108766074.009
{"title":"The Individual in International Law, Including Human Rights","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108766074.009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766074.009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"2012 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72734850","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 : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1017/9781108766074.021
{"title":"By Way of Conclusion","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108766074.021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766074.021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"178 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72974339","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 : 2020-12-10DOI: 10.1017/9781108766074.012
{"title":"Sanctions, Countermeasures, and Collective Security","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108766074.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766074.012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"109 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76711873","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}
As a standard bridging law and other spheres of normativity, due diligence is pervasive across numerous areas of international law. This paper defines the features and functions of due diligence, illustrating how the concept's development reflects structural changes in the international legal order. Concerning their content, due diligence obligations can be separated into two overlapping types: procedural obligations and obligations relating to States' institutional capacity. Thus, due diligence serves to manage risks, compensate for States' freedoms being circumscribed through legalisation, expand State accountability and possibly stabilise the international order through ‘proceduralisation’. However, it is argued that due diligence cannot be characterised as a general principle of international law due to its diverse content in different fields of international law and its dependence on accompanying primary rules. Finally, it is contended that due diligence introduces certain risks, particularly by diluting States' substantive obligations and contributing to the rise of ‘informal’ international law.
{"title":"Due diligence: the risky risk management tool in international law","authors":"Anne Peters, H. Krieger, L. Kreuzer","doi":"10.4337/cilj.2020.02.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2020.02.01","url":null,"abstract":"As a standard bridging law and other spheres of normativity, due diligence is pervasive across numerous areas of international law. This paper defines the features and functions of due diligence, illustrating how the concept's development reflects structural changes in the international legal order. Concerning their content, due diligence obligations can be separated into two overlapping types: procedural obligations and obligations relating to States' institutional capacity. Thus, due diligence serves to manage risks, compensate for States' freedoms being circumscribed through legalisation, expand State accountability and possibly stabilise the international order through ‘proceduralisation’. However, it is argued that due diligence cannot be characterised as a general principle of international law due to its diverse content in different fields of international law and its dependence on accompanying primary rules. Finally, it is contended that due diligence introduces certain risks, particularly by diluting States' substantive obligations and contributing to the rise of ‘informal’ international law.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47329499","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}
It has been 50 years since the adoption of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which established the obligation upon all States Parties to work towards nuclear disarmament under Article VI. Yet, despite extensive reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War peaks, nuclear arms control and disarmament efforts are currently in disarray. After the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was terminated in 2019, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty remains as the only bilateral limitation on United States (US) and Russian nuclear forces in operation and is due to expire in February 2021. The US has justified its limited nuclear disarmament progress on the premise that the current international security environment is not conducive to further nuclear disarmament. Instead, the US has recently promoted a new initiative called Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament (CEND). The initiative aims to provide a platform for all States to engage in constructive dialogue to identify ways to improve the international security environment, which make nuclear deterrence necessary while addressing the hurdles that currently impede progress towards nuclear disarmament. Significantly, the US regards CEND as an ‘effective measure’ and an illustration of its commitment towards disarmament under Article VI. This article seeks to address the US claim that CEND represents a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament pursuant to Article VI. This will revisit existing doctrinal interpretative debates concerning the obligation under Article VI, particularly the requirements that negotiations and measures be adopted in good faith, and what constitutes an effective measure towards nuclear disarmament. The discussion will then determine whether the CEND initiative itself can be considered a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament, by considering its purpose, origins and implementation, and actions of the US.
{"title":"Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament (CEND): a good faith, effective measure pursuant to Article VI NPT or empty gesturing?","authors":"Christopher P. Evans","doi":"10.4337/cilj.2020.02.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2020.02.05","url":null,"abstract":"It has been 50 years since the adoption of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which established the obligation upon all States Parties to work towards nuclear disarmament under Article VI. Yet, despite extensive reductions in nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War peaks, nuclear arms control and disarmament efforts are currently in disarray. After the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was terminated in 2019, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty remains as the only bilateral limitation on United States (US) and Russian nuclear forces in operation and is due to expire in February 2021. The US has justified its limited nuclear disarmament progress on the premise that the current international security environment is not conducive to further nuclear disarmament. Instead, the US has recently promoted a new initiative called Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament (CEND). The initiative aims to provide a platform for all States to engage in constructive dialogue to identify ways to improve the international security environment, which make nuclear deterrence necessary while addressing the hurdles that currently impede progress towards nuclear disarmament. Significantly, the US regards CEND as an ‘effective measure’ and an illustration of its commitment towards disarmament under Article VI. This article seeks to address the US claim that CEND represents a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament pursuant to Article VI. This will revisit existing doctrinal interpretative debates concerning the obligation under Article VI, particularly the requirements that negotiations and measures be adopted in good faith, and what constitutes an effective measure towards nuclear disarmament. The discussion will then determine whether the CEND initiative itself can be considered a good faith, effective measure towards nuclear disarmament, by considering its purpose, origins and implementation, and actions of the US.","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44764961","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}
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"","doi":"10.4337/cilj.2020.02.00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2020.02.00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46497206","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 : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0213
M. Bothe
The means to ensure compliance with international law differ considerably from those applying in internal law. The latter rely primarily on enforcement by the authority of the state which imposes obedience. Such superior authority does not exist in international relations; international law rather relies on voluntary compliance. But means and methods to ensure such voluntary compliance exist, and over the centuries, they have undergone considerable changes and refinements. As there is a certain strand of opinion denying the character of international law as law because of the (alleged) lack of effective enforcement, a first area of discussion relates to this question, namely whether or why international law, in the light of the compliance problem, is really law. There are classical texts on this issue, which have triggered, and are the basis of, a profound theoretical discussion where the theory of international relations meets with legal theory, including a historical dimension. This leads to an empirical look on circumstances favoring compliance (compliance pulls) of different types: norm internalization, concern for a state’s reputation, sanctions (organized and regulated value deprivation), and withholding certain benefits from a state unless the states complies with certain norms (conditionality). To address the question of compliance only for international law as a whole would be an oversimplification. There are various types of internationally relevant acts to be complied with (standards of compliance) involving particular problems (treaties, customary law, judgments, decisions of international organizations, “soft law”). Various subjects of compliance, i.e., actors or entities whose compliance is at stake, namely states, international organizations, non-state actors, have to be distinguished. All this is the basis for a closer look at means to ensure compliance which have indeed undergone a notable development. Traditional means were, and still are, bilateral in character: bilateral dispute settlement and value deprivation in the relation between a state acting unlawfully and another state trying to make the former state respect the law, traditionally called “reprisal” (or, as the case may be, “retortion”), in the modern terminology “countermeasures.” This traditional tool is still practiced, but it is to a large extent replaced or supplemented by a wide array of other means designed to ensure compliance: individual remedies at the national or international level, international criminal law, special compliance procedures. In connection with all these means, ascertaining facts plays a major role. An important method for this purpose is the so-called reporting system, used in various contexts. In these different procedures, different actors play a role. These are not only the genuine parties to the procedures, but also third parties. Guardians of the public interest, in particular intergovernmental organizations, guide or perform these proc
{"title":"Compliance in International Law","authors":"M. Bothe","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199796953-0213","url":null,"abstract":"The means to ensure compliance with international law differ considerably from those applying in internal law. The latter rely primarily on enforcement by the authority of the state which imposes obedience. Such superior authority does not exist in international relations; international law rather relies on voluntary compliance. But means and methods to ensure such voluntary compliance exist, and over the centuries, they have undergone considerable changes and refinements. As there is a certain strand of opinion denying the character of international law as law because of the (alleged) lack of effective enforcement, a first area of discussion relates to this question, namely whether or why international law, in the light of the compliance problem, is really law. There are classical texts on this issue, which have triggered, and are the basis of, a profound theoretical discussion where the theory of international relations meets with legal theory, including a historical dimension. This leads to an empirical look on circumstances favoring compliance (compliance pulls) of different types: norm internalization, concern for a state’s reputation, sanctions (organized and regulated value deprivation), and withholding certain benefits from a state unless the states complies with certain norms (conditionality). To address the question of compliance only for international law as a whole would be an oversimplification. There are various types of internationally relevant acts to be complied with (standards of compliance) involving particular problems (treaties, customary law, judgments, decisions of international organizations, “soft law”). Various subjects of compliance, i.e., actors or entities whose compliance is at stake, namely states, international organizations, non-state actors, have to be distinguished. All this is the basis for a closer look at means to ensure compliance which have indeed undergone a notable development. Traditional means were, and still are, bilateral in character: bilateral dispute settlement and value deprivation in the relation between a state acting unlawfully and another state trying to make the former state respect the law, traditionally called “reprisal” (or, as the case may be, “retortion”), in the modern terminology “countermeasures.” This traditional tool is still practiced, but it is to a large extent replaced or supplemented by a wide array of other means designed to ensure compliance: individual remedies at the national or international level, international criminal law, special compliance procedures. In connection with all these means, ascertaining facts plays a major role. An important method for this purpose is the so-called reporting system, used in various contexts. In these different procedures, different actors play a role. These are not only the genuine parties to the procedures, but also third parties. Guardians of the public interest, in particular intergovernmental organizations, guide or perform these proc","PeriodicalId":42994,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge International Law Journal","volume":"233 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73484887","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：