Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:37:18.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commanding the commons: Constitutional enforcement and the law of the sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2012

ANDREW JILLIONS
ANDREW JILLIONS*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What role does enforcement play in protecting the constitutional authority of international law? Can enforcement be understood as a specifically constitutional practice? I argue here that international law has a greater capacity for constitutional enforcement than sceptical accounts have tended to acknowledge. This argument is anchored in the institutional account of the authority of law offered by Hart and developed by MacCormick. This focuses on the official or administrative perceptions as the determinant of constitutional legitimacy, which offers a way to offset the scepticisms caused by gaps in the constitutional order. This establishes constitutional enforcement as a practice centred on and legitimated by the attribution of role responsibilities, rather than on the direct application or policing of the rules. I illustrate these arguments using the law of the sea, a domain where the functional difficulties of enforcement have always presented a challenge to international law’s claim to authority.

Keywords

constitutional authorityenforcementinternational institutionslaw of the searesponsibility
Type
Articles
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 429 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

References

1 Scott, SV, ‘The LOS Convention as a Constitutional Regime for the Oceans’ in Oude Elferink, AG (ed), Stability and Change in the Law of the Sea: The Role of the LOS Convention (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2005) 12Google Scholar; UNCLOS was the product of nine years of negotiation, concluded in 1982, with the treaty taking effect in November 1994 (once the required 60 ratifications were reached). It is worth noting that the US has not yet ratified it, but does recognize a majority of the obligations as part of customary international law.

2 See especially Vogler, J, ‘Global Commons Revisited’ (2012) 3 Global Policy 1, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See especially Posner, E, The Perils of Global Legalism (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 These issues have also been explored in relation to a number of other legal regimes; see especially Dunoff, JL and Trachtmann, JP (eds), Ruling the World? Constitutionalization, International Law and Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).Google Scholar

5 See E Posner (n 3); also Glennon, MJ, The Fog of Law: Pragmatism, Security and International Law (Woodrow Wilson Centre Press, Washington, DC and Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2010)Google Scholar; for a detailed overview of sceptical arguments, see O’Connell, ME, The Power and Purpose of International Law: Insights from the theory and practice of enforcement (Oxford University Press, New York, 2008).Google Scholar

6 Jowell, J and Oliver, D, The Changing Constitution (5th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004).Google Scholar

7 Franck, T, ‘Legitimacy in the International System’ (1988) 82 American Journal of International Law 705Google Scholar; for a different starting point see Goldsmith, J and Levinson, D, ‘Law for States: International Law, Constitutional Law, Public Law’ (2009) 122 Harvard Law Review 1791.Google Scholar

8 On the link between international authority and the claims to ‘ownership’ of international law, see especially Anderson, K, ‘The Rise of International Criminal Law: Intended and Unintended Consequences’ (2011) 20 European Journal of International Law 331–58.Google Scholar

9 Art, S and Kontorovich, E, ‘Agora: Piracy Prosecutions: An Empirical Examination of Universal Jurisdiction for Piracy’ (July 2010) 104 American Journal of International Law 436.Google Scholar

10 Simpson, G, Law, War and Crime: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (Polity, London, 2007)Google Scholar; Ainley, K, ‘The International Criminal Court on trial’ (2011) 24 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 309–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Lang, AF Jr, Punishment, Justice and International Relations: Ethics and Order after the Cold War (Routledge, London, 2008).Google Scholar

12 Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997).Google Scholar

13 Ibid 81.

14 Ibid 94.

15 Ibid 99.

16 Dworkin, R, ‘Hart and the concept of law’ (2006) 119 Harvard Law Review Forum 98.Google Scholar

17 MacCormick, N, Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 45–60.

18 Ibid 46; see also HLA Hart (n 12) 113: ‘The rules of recognition specifying the criteria of legal validity and its rules of change and adjudication must be effectively accepted as common public standards of official behaviour by its officials.’

19 Fuller, L, The Morality of Law (2nd edn, Yale University, New Haven, 1964) 39–41Google Scholar; see also Brunnée, J and Toope, S, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law: An Interactional Account, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 See especially HLA Hart (n 12) 20–25; N MacCormick (n 17) 51–52; critiquing the scholarly preoccupation with compliance with international law, see Howse, R and Teitel, R, ‘Beyond Compliance: Rethinking Why International Law Really Matters’ (May 2010) 1 Global Policy 127–36.Google Scholar

21 Hart talks about this in the context of the ‘internal aspect’ of legal conduct, (n 12) 56–7.

22 See (n 7).

23 See e.g. Peters, Anne, ‘Supremacy Lost: International Law meets domestic Constitutional Law’ (2009) 3 Vienna Online Journal on International Constitutional Law 170–98.Google Scholar

24 See ME O’Connell (n 5).

25 Ibid 16.

26 Scott, RE and Stephan, PB, The Limits of Leviathan: Contract Theory and the Enforcement of International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).Google Scholar

27 Ibid 3.

28 Tams, CJ, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005).Google Scholar

29 Boyle, A and Chinkin, C, The Making of International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).Google Scholar

30 See Global Governance Monitor: Oceans, Council on Foreign Relations, 9 December 2010, available at <http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/global-governance-monitor/p18985#/Oceans/Issue%20Brief/> accessed 10 January 2012.

31 See <www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/keyfacts> accessed 10 January 2012.

32 In this regard, see Keohane, R and Nye, J, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (3rd edn, Longman, New York, 2001)Google Scholar; [they argue that the essential freedoms on which law of the sea is built provide a close analogy to the anarchical structure of international society, in which the essential freedoms of sovereign statehood drive all other efforts at global governance].

33 Namely, these special rights do not grant a general legal claim to command and control of this zone. Where this difference becomes particularly pertinent is in determining the responsibilities operative within this zone. A state’s claim to economic jurisdiction over the EEZ has no direct relevance to limiting the jurisdiction other states are able to exert in protecting maritime peace and security; for example, the rights and responsibilities states and other actors have to combat piracy on the high seas are also held within the EEZ; this has been important for establishing rights of third party interdiction within a state’s EEZ, but its most far-reaching effect has been in establishing the scope of international environmental law.

34 TTB Koh, ‘A Constitution for the Oceans’, Remarks by Tommy TB Koh, of Singapore, President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (see <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/koh_english.pdf> accessed 25 January 2012), xxxvii.

35 See Oxman, BH, ‘The Rule of Law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ (1996) 7 European Journal of International Law 353–71.Google Scholar

36 See e.g. von Bogdandy, A, Wolfrum, R, von Bernstorff, J, Dann, P and Goldmann, M (eds), The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions: Advancing International Institutional Law (Springer, Heidelberg, 2010).Google Scholar

37 See SV Scott (n 1).

38 Bodansky, D, ‘Is there an international environmental constitution?’ (Summer 2009) 16 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 571.Google Scholar

39 Dunoff, J, ‘Constitutional Conceits: The WTO’s Constitution and the Discipline of International Law’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 647–75.Google Scholar

40 Langewische, W, The Outlaw Sea: A World of Freedom, Chaos and Crime (Granta Books, London, 2004).Google Scholar

41 See UNCLOS Article 94.

42 Elferink, AGO, ‘The Genuine Link Concept: Time for a post-mortem?’ in Dekker, IF and Post, HHG (eds), On the Foundations and Sources of International Law (TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2003) 41.Google Scholar

43 ‘Structure and ownership of the world fleet’, Review of Maritime Transport 2009, Report by the UNCTAD Secretariat (New York and Geneva, 2009) 36 available at <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2009_en.pdf>.

44 See <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/liberia/registry.htm> accessed 12 January 2012.

45 Guilfoyle, D, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).Google Scholar

46 Langewische (n 37) notes how port-state officials mirror national stereotypes in their strategies for avoiding the full extent of their oversight responsibilities. On a more serious note, he recounts a story of a ship’s captain begging the port official to find his ship in violation of international safety standards, pointing out the many violations himself, in order to force the owner to pay for necessary repairs, all to no avail.

47 For a good analysis of the range of problems here, see the discussion surrounding the Proliferation Security Initiative in Douglas Guilfoyle (n 45) and Byers, Michael, ‘Policing the High Seas: The Proliferation Security Initiative’ (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 526–41.Google Scholar

48 See D Guilfoyle (n 45); M Byers ibid; BR Posen, ‘Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony’ (2003) 28 International Security 5–46.

49 See UNCLOS art 110.

50 See especially S Art and E Kontorovich (n 9).

51 For a detailed account see <http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-malcolm-knox-cruising-life-and-death-high-seas-281> accessed 17 January 2012.

52 Kneebone, S, ‘The Pacific Plan: the promise of “effective protection”?’ (2006) 18 International Journal of Refugee Law 696–721.Google Scholar

53 See Goodwin-Gill, G, ‘The Right to Seek Asylum: Interception at Sea and the Principle of Non-Refoulement’ (2011) 23 International Journal of Refugee Law 443–57Google Scholar; Trevisanut, S, ‘The Principle of Non-Refoulement at Sea and the Effectiveness of Asylum Protection’ (2008) 12 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 205–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 See Amnesty International, ‘Seeking safety, finding fear: Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants in Libya and Malta’, 14 December 2010, available at <http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/libya-and-malta-failing-refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants-2010-12-14> accessed 15 December 2011; see also G Noll and M Giuffré, ‘EU Immigration Control made by Gaddafi?’, February 2011, available at <http://www.opendemocracy.net/gregor-noll-mariagiulia-giuffr%C3%A9/eu-migration-control-made-by-gaddafi> accessed 15 December 2011.

55 Gammeltoft-Hansen, T and Aalberts, T, ‘Sovereignty at Sea: The law and politics of saving lives in the Mare Liberum’ (2010) DIIS Working Paper 18, 8.Google Scholar

56 Buck, SJ, The Global Commons: An Introduction (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1998)Google Scholar; Denmark, AM, ‘Managing the Global Commons’ (2010) 33 The Washington Quarterly 165–82.Google Scholar

57 Vogler, J, The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance (2nd edn, J Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2000) 1.Google Scholar

58 S Buck (n 56) 5–6.

59 Murphy, T, ‘Security Challenges in the 21st Century Global Commons’ (2010) 5 Yale Journal of International Affairs 28–43Google Scholar; J Vogler (n 2) 61–71.

60 Hardin, G, ‘Extensions of “The Tragedy of the Commons”’ (1998) 280 Science 682–83.Google Scholar

61 Buck (n 56) 5.

62 See similarly Strange, S, ‘The Westfailure system’ (1999) 25 Review of International Studies 345–54.Google Scholar

63 BH Oxman (n 35).

64 Ibid especially at 360.

65 See Sands, P, Principles of International Environmental Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Sand, PH, ‘Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources?’ (2004) 4 Global Environmental Politics 47–71.Google Scholar

67 ITLOS Case 17, ‘Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber)’, judgment issued 1 February 2011, available at <http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=109> accessed 15 January 2012.

68 Cassese, S, Carotti, B, Casini, L and Macchia, M (eds), Global Administrative Law: Cases and Materials, (University of Rome, Rome, 2006)Google Scholar available at <http://www.iilj.org/GAL/GALcasebook.asp>) 124–8; for a more expansive analysis of the Juno Trader case, see Tuerk, H, ‘Contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to International Law’ (2007) 26 Penn State International Law Review 289–316.Google Scholar

69 See <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/biodiversityworkinggroup/biodiversityworkinggroup.htm>, accessed 1 May 2012.

70 de La Fayette, L, ‘The Marine Environmental Protection Committee: the Conjunction of the Law of the Sea and International Environmental Law’ (2001) 16 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 155–238.Google Scholar

71 Mahan, AT, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660–1783 (Courier Dover Publications, Mineola, 1987) 25.Google Scholar

72 J Vogler (n 2) 65; see also BR Posen (n 48).

73 T Murphy (n 59) 28.

74 This is captured in the UN report, ‘A more secure world: our shared responsibility’, Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (December 2004, A/59/565, see <http://www.un.org/secureworld/>); for the more general point, see Orford, A, International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011).Google Scholar

75 See (n 34).