Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members. Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

X X

Cited page

Display options
Reset

Beyond Confrontation: International Law for the Post-Cold War Era

By: Lori Fisler Damrosch; Gennady M. Danilenko et al. | Book details

Contents
Look up
Saved work (0)

matching results for page

Page 53
Why can't I print more than one page at a time?
While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

In sum, traditional doctrine maintains that a state must accept or consent to a norm before being bound. However, the numerous legal and practical limitations and exceptions lend support to the view that the international community can develop solutions to grave universal problems which will lead to compliance by all states. Whether this compulsion is based upon law or pragmatism remains unsettled.


Notes
1
Statute of the International Courts of Justice, art. 38(b), 59 U.S. Stat. 1055.
2
North Sea Continental Shelf ( F.R.G. v. Den); ( F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 29.
3
S.S. Lotus ( Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (Ser. A) No. 10, at 18.
4
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Merits) ( Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 135.
5
It is important to note that both the USSR and the U.S. adhered to the consensualist view of the formation of international law. The USSR expressed this approach on many occasions, in particular during the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties, where the Soviet representative stated, among other things, that in the view of the Soviet Union norms of customary international law could "not become binding on a State which did not recognize those norms as having become binding on it." ( U.N. Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records, First Session at 201.) The U.S. stated during the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea that "the United States could not accept the suggestion that, without its consent, other States would be able, by resolutions or statements, to deny or alter its rights under international law." 9 UNCLOS III, Official Records at 104.
6
TUNKIN, TEORIYA MEZHDUNARODNOGO PRAVA (Theory of International Law) ( 1970); Tunkin, Co-Existence and International Law, 95 RECUEIL DES COURS DE L'ACADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL [R.C.A.D.I.] 1, 19 ( 1958).
7
See Tunkin, Remarks on the Juridical Nature of Customary Norms of International Law, 49 CAL. L. REV. 419, 422, 423, 429 ( 1961); Tunkin, Co-Existence and International Law, supra note 6, at 12-14; LUKIN, ISTOCHNIKI MEZHDUNARODNOGO PRAVA (Sources of International Law) 58 ( 1960). See generally LUKASHUK, MEKHANISM MEZHDUNARODNO-PRAVOVOGO REGULIROVANIYA (The Mechanism of International Legal Regulation) ( 1980).
8
See Lukashuk, Customary Norms in Contemporary International Law, 1978 SOVIET Y.B. INT'L L. 86-100; DANILENKO, OBYCHAY V SOVREMENNOM MEZHDUNARODNOM PRAVE (Custom in Modern International Law) ( 1988). See also Danilenko, The Theory of Custom in International Law, 30 GERMAN Y.B. INT'L L. 9 ( 1989) [hereinafter Theory of Custom].
9
Alexidze, Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law, 172 R.C. A.D.I. 21 9-70 ( 1981) [hereinafter Legal Nature].
10
Perhaps the strongest contemporary United States writer supporting the consent requirement is Louis Henkin, who bases his views on the interests of state autonomy. Louis Henkin, International Law: Politics, Values and Functions, 216 R.C. A.D. I. 1 ( 1989).

-53-

Select text to:

Select text to:

  • Highlight
  • Cite a passage
  • Look up a word
Learn more Close
Loading One moment ...
of 345
Highlight
Select color
Change color
Delete highlight
Cite this passage
Cite this highlight
View citation

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?