Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:55:31.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Public International Law? The Need for Clarity about Sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2011

Michael WOOD
Michael WOOD*
Affiliation:
20 Essex Street, United Kingdom
*
mwood@20essexst.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses the need for clarity as regards the sources of public international law, or at least as much clarity as possible. Questions relating to sources lie at the heart of international law. Of particular concern is the lack of rigour shown by some domestic judges when it comes to determining the rules of customary international law.

Type
Invited Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , 14 June 2011 , pp. 205 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Senior Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge; Barrister, 20 Essex Street; Member, UN International Law Commission. This is a slightly revised version of a lecture that was given at the Supreme Court of Singapore on 11 November 2010, under the auspices of the Attorney-General's Chambers’ International Law Speakers’ Series. I wish to thank Davinia Aziz and Eran Sthoeger for their invaluable assistance.

References

1. Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor [2010] 3 S.L.R. 489 [Yong].

2. Ibid., paras. 87–92.

3. Ibid., paras. 93–9.

4. Ibid., para. 96.

5. Ibid.

6. Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta), [1985] I.C.J. Rep. 13 at 29–30, cited in Yong, supra note 1 at para. 98.

7. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 43, cited in Yong, supra note 1 at para. 98.

8. AZIZ, Davinia, “Republic of the Philippines v. Maler Foundation and Others: State Immunity and Intangible Property” (2007) 13 Asian Yearbook of International Law 295 at 301Google Scholar.

9. See generally LIM, C.L., “Public International Law before the Singapore and Malaysian Courts” (2004) 8 Singapore Yearbook of International Law 243Google Scholar.

10. Republic of the Philippines v. Maler Foundation and Others [2008] 2 S.L.R. 857.

11. Ibid., para. 33.

12. Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar Tunku Aris Bendahara [1952] AC 318, see ibid.

13. Of the international human rights instruments listed on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, online: 〈www2.ohchr.org/english/law〉, Singapore is party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, GA Res. 34/180, UN Doc. A/34/46 (entered into force 3 September 1981) [CEDAW]; the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, GA Res. 44/25, UN Doc. A/44/49 (entered into force 2 September 1990) [CRC]; and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 25 May 2000, GA Res. 54/263, UN Doc. A/54/49 (entered into force 12 February 2002) [OP-CRC-AC].

14. R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International Intervening) [2000] 1 AC 61; R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) (Amnesty International Intervening) [2000] 1 AC 147.

15. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), online: ICJ 〈www.icj-cij.org〉. In July 2010, the Court found Italy's counter-claim against Germany inadmissible: see Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Order of 6 July 2010, online: ICJ 〈www.icj-cij.org〉. The ICJ proceedings arise, inter alia, out of the 2004 Italian Supreme Court decision in Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany, (2006) 128 I.L.R. 658 [Ferrini].

16. Iraq Inquiry, online: 〈www.iraqinquiry.org.uk〉.

17. ROBERTSON QC, Geoffrey, The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuses (London: Penguin Special, 2010)Google Scholar, Preface.

18. The Court of Justice and General Court of the European Union should be regarded as domestic courts for these purposes.

19. SANDS, Philippe, Lawless World (London: Allen Lane, 2005)Google Scholar.

20. AUST, Anthony, Handbook of International Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. MURPHY, John Francis, The United States and the Rule of Law in International Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Yong, supra note 1 at paras. 89, 98.

23. SHAW, Malcolm, International Law, 6th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. EVANS, Malcolm, ed., International Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. WOOD, Michael, “The Law on the Use of Force: Current Challenges” (2007) 11 Singapore Yearbook of International Law 1 at 2Google Scholar.

26. Ibid., at 3.

27. Iraq Inquiry, “Declassified Documents”, online: 〈www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/declassified-documents.aspx〉.

28. Jones v. Ministry of Interior of Saudi Arabia (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Intervening) [2006] UKHL 26; [2007] 1 AC 270 [Jones]. This was an appeal from the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Jones v. Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and another (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and another Intervening) [2004] EWCA Civ. 1394.

29. Ibid., at para. 27. For the English courts’ attitude to international law, see “International Relations Law” in Halsbury's Laws of England, 5th ed., Vol. 61 (London: LexisNexis UK, 2010) at 10–25, paras. 12–25.

30. Jones, supra note 28, para. 63. See also DE SENA, Pasquale and DE VITTOR, Francesca, “State Immunity and Human Rights: The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case” (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Jones, supra note 28, para. 63. For a critique of this view, see ROBERTS, Anthea, “Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in International Law”, (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031 [ICJ Statute]. See generally PELLET, Alain, “Article 38” in Andreas ZIMMERMANN, Christian TOMUSCHAT, Karin OELLERS-FRAHM, Christian TAMS, and Tobias THIENEL, eds., The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 677Google Scholar.

33. The 1920 text was repeated in 1945 in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. On the provenance of Article 38, see Pellet, ibid., at 680–9.

34. Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI [UN Charter], Arts. 25, 48, and 103.

35. See generally GARDINER, Richard, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

36. UN Charter, supra note 34, art. 102.

37. AUST, Anthony, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) at 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 51–2.

38. Ibid., at 306–7.

39. Ibid., at 367–92.

40. Ibid., at 308. On the work of the International Law Commission, see “Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties”, online: ILC 〈http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/guide/1_10.htm〉.

41. Ibid., at 200–14.

42. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987) [CAT].

43. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) [Vienna Convention].

44. Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 226 (30 November 2009), online: Energy Charter Secretariat 〈www.encharter.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/Hulley_interim_award.pdf〉; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227 (30 November 2009), online: Energy Charter Secretariat 〈www.encharter.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/Yukos_interim_award.pdf〉; Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228 (30 November 2009), online: Energy Charter Secretariat 〈www.encharter.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/Veteran_interim_award.pdf〉.

45. International Law Commission, “Reservations to Treaties, (Draft) Guide to Practice”, [2010] Yearbook of the International Law Commission at para. 105Google Scholar.

46. The London Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law, with commentary: Resolution 16/2000 (Formation of General Customary International Law) (29 July 2000), online: ILA 〈www.ila-hq.org〉.

47. BYERS, Michael, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. On the International Law Commission's methods for the selection of topics, and the Long-term Programme of Work, see “Introduction”, online: ILC 〈www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm〉; Arnold PRONTO and Michael WOOD, The International Law Commission 1999–2009 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 6–7.

49. See International Law Commission, “Analytical Guide to the Work of the ILC”, online: ILC 〈http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/guide/gfra.htm〉Google Scholar.

50. See, for example, Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru) [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266 at 276–7.

51. Asian Journal of International Law, online: AsianJIL 〈www.asianjil.org〉.

52. European Society of International Law, online: ESIL 〈www.esil-sedi.eu〉.

53. African Union, “Statute of the African Union Commission on International Law”, online: AU 〈http://au.int/?q=node/2534〉Google Scholar.

54. WOOD, Michael, “A European Vision of International Law: For What Purpose?” in Hélène RUIZ FABRI, Emmanuelle JOUANNET, and Vincent TOMKIEWICZ, eds., Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law, Vol. 1 (2006) (Oxford; Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008), 152Google Scholar; RUIZ FABRI, Hélène, “Reflections on the Necessity of Regional Approaches to International Law Through the Prism of the European Example: Neither Yes nor No, Neither Black nor White” (2011) 1 Asian Journal of International Law 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. GAJA, Giorgio, “General Principles of Law”, online: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law Online 〈www.mpepil.com/home〉Google Scholar.

56. WOOD, Michael, “Teachings of the Most Highly Qualified Publicists”, online: MPEPIL 〈www.mpepil.com/home〉Google Scholar.

57. ICJ Statute, supra note 32, art. 38(1)(d).

58. JENNINGS, Robert and WATTS, Arthur, eds., Oppenheim's International Law, 9th ed., reprint. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 43Google Scholar.

59. Yong, supra note 1 at para. 97.

60. Ibid., at para. 98, citing Libya v. Malta, supra note 6.

61. Ibid., citing the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, supra note 7.

62. See, e.g., the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission [2008] E.C.R I-6351 (ECJ Grand Chamber), on appeal against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-315/01 Kadi v. Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649; and, on 30 September 2010, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-85/09 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. European Commission.

63. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion (22 July 2010), online: ICJ 〈www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987.pdf〉, paras. 115–19 [Kosovo Advisory Opinion]. See also WOOD, Michael C., “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions” (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 73Google Scholar.

64. Kosovo Advisory Opinion, ibid., para. 94:

While the rules on treaty interpretation embodied in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties may provide guidance, differences between Security Council resolutions and treaties mean that the interpretation of Security Council resolutions also require[s] that other factors be taken into account. Security Council resolutions are issued by a single, collective body and are drafted through a very different process than that used for the conclusion of a treaty. Security Council resolutions are the product of a voting process as provided for in Article 27 of the Charter, and the final text of such resolutions represents the view of the Security Council as a body. Moreover, Security Council resolutions can be binding on all Member States … irrespective of whether they played any part in their formulation. The interpretation of Security Council resolutions may require the Court to analyse statements by representatives of members of the Security Council made at the time of their adoption, other resolutions of the Security Council on the same issue, as well as the subsequent practice of relevant United Nations organs and of States affected by those given resolutions.

65. BEDERMAN, David J. with BORGEN, Christopher J. and MARTIN, David A., International Law: A Handbook for Judges (Washington, DC: American Society of International Law, 2003)Google Scholar. A Benchbook on International Law for Federal Trial Judges is now being developed by the American Society of International Law.

66. Volume 61 of Halsbury's Laws of England, supra note 29, covers “International Relations Law”.