Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:47:12.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Notion of “Reasonable” in International Law: Legal Discourse, Reason and Contradictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Olivier Corten
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Far from being confined to its most obvious manifestations, such as in the right to be tried within a “reasonable time” guaranteed by Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, references to the notion of “reasonable” are found in a large variety of primary rules pronounced in both legal instruments and the case law.1

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 1999 , pp. 613 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

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. Corten, , L'utilisalion du “raisonnable” par le juge international Discours juridique, raison et contradictions (1997), Bruylant, (ed.), chap.II.Google Scholar

2. The term “reasonable”—as opposed to reasonableness, for instance—is used to reflect the terms actually used by international courts.

3. Lenoble, , Droit et communication. La transformation du droit contemporain (1994), pp.72 et seq.Google Scholar; Ost, “Quelle jurisprudence pour quelle société?” (1985) XXX Archives de philosophie du droit 26.Google Scholar

4. A significant number of decisions by international arbitration tribunals have also been considered. However, the decisions of the ECJ have not been examined.

5. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) I.C.J. Rep. 1982, 18, para.60.Google Scholar

6. See Trechsel, , “La durée raisonnable de la détention préventive (Article 5 paragraphe 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme)” (1971) Revue des droits de l'homme 119–152Google Scholar; Ergec, and Velu, , “La notion de délai raisonnable dans les articles 5 et 6 de la convention européenne des droits de l'homme” (1991) Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme 137–160.Google Scholar

7. Perelman, , “Les notions à contenu variable. Essai de synthèse”, in Perelman, and vander, Elst (Eds), Les notions à contenu variable en droit (1984), p.365Google Scholar; Jovanovic, La Restriction des compétences discrétionnaires en droit international (1988), p.147.Google Scholar

8. Our translation: Salmon, “Les notions à contenu variable en droit international public”, in Perelman and vander Elst, idem, p.265.

9. Salmon, , “Le fait dans l'application du droit international” (1982) 175 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 306: what is reasonable “implique une évaluation qui échappe à vrai dire au droit”.Google Scholar

10. Perelman, , “La motivation des décisions de justice. Essai de synthèse”, in Perelman, and Foriers, (Eds), La motivation des décisions de justice (1978), p.421.Google Scholar

11. Cf. Ost and van de Kerchove, Jalons pour une théorie critique du droit (1987).Google Scholar

12. See Arnaud, (Ed.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de théorie et de sociologie du droit (1988), p.412.Google Scholar

13. See the analysis and the references in the present author's book, op. cit. supra n.1, at p.142, No.133 and p.308, No.273.Google Scholar

14. Art. 14 reads: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour …”

15. Certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, Ser.A, No.6, 23 07 1968, p.34, para.10.Google Scholar

16. Our translation: Levy-Bruhl, Sociologie du droit (1990), p.69Google Scholar; Similar observations are found in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (English trans, by Rackman, , 1962), V, 14 at para.1137b.Google Scholar

17. Our translation; Levy-Bruhl, idem, pp.76–77.

18. Our translation: Perelman, Le raisonnable et le déraisonnable en droit (1984), p.134.Google ScholarSee Salmon, , “Le concept de raisonnable en droit international public”, in Mélanges Renter (1982), pp.449–450Google Scholar and Hart, , The Concept of Law (1961), p.128.Google Scholar

19. Corfu Channel I.C J. Rep. 1949, 18Google Scholar and Eur.Ct.H.R, Ireland v. The United Kingdom, Ser.A, No.25 (18 01 1978) para.161Google Scholar; see Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) I.C.J. Rep. 1992, 351, para.228.Google Scholar

20. Subjectivist approaches seek to ascertain the will of the parties, and thus insist particularly on preparatory documents. Objectivist approaches aim at ascertaining meaning by interpreting the text itself and its relationship with the legal system as a whole. See Corten, op. cit. supra n.1, at p.268, nn.16 and 17.Google Scholar

21. Claims arising out of decisions of the mixed Greek-German Tribunal set up under Article 304 in Part X of the Treaty of Versailles (between Greece and Germany) (6 01 1972), Part II, XIX R.I.A.A. 27, 61, para.71Google Scholar; see the Societa Mineria et Metallurgica di Pertulosa decision No.95 (8 03 1951) XII R.I.A.A. 174, 186Google Scholar; diss. op. of Judge Hackworth in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case, I.C.J. Rep. 1952, 93, 140Google Scholar; sep. op. of Judge Armand-Ugon in the case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27th 1955 I.C.J. Rep. 1959, 127, 154Google Scholar; see also Polish Postal Service in Dantzig, P.C.I.J. Rep. Ser.B, No.ll (16 05 1925), p.39Google Scholar and Peter Pazmany University v. The State of Czechoslovakia, Ser.AB, No. 61 (15 12 1933), p.248.Google Scholar

22. Naomi Russel case, 24 04 1931, IV R.I.A.A. 805, 820.Google Scholar

23. See notion in Polish Postal Service in Dantzig, loc. cit. supra n.21; Exchange of Greek and Turkish populations case, P.C.I.J. Rep. Ser.B, No.10 (30 01 1925), p.24Google Scholar; Admission to the United Nations, I.C.J. Rep. 1950, 4, 8Google Scholar; Temple of Preah Vihéar (Cambodia v. Thailand), preliminary objections, I.C.J. Rep. 1961, 17, 32Google Scholar; Arbitration Award of 1 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) I.C.J. Rep. 1991, 5, para.48Google Scholar; see also the decision in the Fubini case, No.201 (12 12 1959) XIV R.I.A.A. 420, 423Google Scholar; Delimitation of the Maritime boundary between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (14 02 1985), XIV R.I.A.A. 149, 176, para.68.Google Scholar

24. See the jurisprudence cited in Corten, op. cit. supra n.1, at chap.I, sect.4.

25. Apory, : “Cognitive perplexity posed by a group of individually plausible but collectively inconsistent propositions”: Honderich, (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (1995).Google Scholar

26. See Combacau, , “Le droit international, bric-à-brac ou système?”; (1986) XXXI Archives de philosophic du droit 86Google Scholar; van de Kerchove and Ost, Le système juridique entre ordre et désordre (1988), pp.24–25 and 67 et seq.Google Scholar; Braillard, , Théorie des systèmes et relations internationales (1977), pp.51 et seq.Google Scholar

27. Sociologie du droit (1986), p.41.Google Scholar

28. North Sea Continental Shelf I.C.J. Rep. 1969, 3, para.98Google Scholar, and D(3) of the conclusions, p.54Google Scholar; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) I.C.J. Rep. 1982, 18, 93, para.133Google Scholar; diss. op. Oda, idem p.273, para.188; in Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) I.C.J. Rep. 1985, 13, see paras.55, 66 and 74Google Scholar; see also the separate opinion of Judge Sette-Camara at pp.72–73Google Scholar, the joint separate opinion at paras.28, 31 and 32, the separate opinion of Judge Valticos at para. 18 and the dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel at p. 184; see also Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine I.C.J. Rep. 1984, 246, para.185.Google Scholar

29. Eur.Ct.H.R., Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, Ser.A, No.252 (16 12 1992), para.47Google Scholar; Eur.Ct.H.R., Chorherr v. Austria, Ser.A, No.266-B (25 08 1993), para.33.Google Scholar

30. See Perelman, Justice et raison (1963), p.432.Google Scholar

31. Cf. Salmon, , “L'autorité des prononcés de la Cour internationale de Justice de La Haye”, in Haarscher, , Ingber, and vander, Elst (Eds), Arguments d'autorité el arguments de raison en droit (1988), p.47.Google Scholar

32. Salmon, op. cit supra n.8, at p.303.Google Scholar

33. Cf. Wroblewski, , “Motivation de la décision Judiciaire”, in Perelman, and Foriers, (eds), op. cit. supra n.10, at p.119.Google Scholar

34. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (1989).Google Scholar

35. Filleting within the Gulf of St Laurence between Canada and France (17 07 1986), Part VI, XIX R.I.A.A. 225, 259et seq.Google Scholar, Barcelona Traction I.C.J. Rep. 1970, 2, 48, para.92.Google Scholar

36. Convention on the High Seas, Geneva (29 04 1958) 450 U.N.T.S. 1963, No. 6465, Art. 2: “Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by these Articles… These freedoms… shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in the exercise of the freedom of the high seas.”Google Scholar

37. See Salmon, , op. cit. supra n.9, at p.351.Google Scholar

38. This conception is not recent: it is found, for instance, in the works of authors such as Jhering, , La lutte pour le droit (1890), pp.1 et seq.Google Scholar and Gumplowicz, , Outlines of Sociology (1980), pp.308 et seq.Google Scholar

39. Chaumont, “Rapport sur l'institution fondamentale de l'accord entre Etats” (1974) Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de Reims 249–250.Google Scholar

40. Chaumont, “Cours généal de droit international public” (1970) 249 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 366Google Scholar; Chemillier-Gendreau, , “Quelles méthode pour l'analyse des développements récents du droit international?”, in Ben, Achour and Laghmani, (Eds), Les nouveaux aspects du droit international (1994), p.17.Google Scholar

41. Chaumont, , “A la recherche du fondement du caractère obligatoire du droit international” (1978) Réalités du droit international contemporain 4–5Google Scholar; Salmon, , “Accords internationaux et contradictions interétatiques”, in Haarscher, and Ingber, (Eds), Justice et argumentation (1986), pp.67–77Google Scholar; Chemillier-Gendreau, “Rapport sur la fonction idéologique du droit international” (1974) Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de Reims 225–226Google Scholar; Chemillier-Gendreau, Humanité et souverainetés. Essai sur la fonction du droit international (1995), pp. 197–198.Google Scholar

42. Salmon, op. cit. supra n.18.

43. See e.g. the abundant case law from the European Court of Human Rights in Corten, op. cit. supra n.1, at chap.V, section 1. See also Corten, , “L'interprétation du raisonnable par les juridictions Internationales: au-delà du positivisme juridique?” (1998–1) 103 R.G.D.I.P. 5.Google Scholar

44. Art.6 reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time…“

45. Separate opinion of Judge Terje Wold in the Wemhoffjudgment, Eur.Ct.H.R., Ser.A No.7 (27 06 1968) IIIGoogle Scholar; see the separate opinion of Judge Bustamante in North Sea Continental Shelf supra n.28, at para.6, p.63.Google Scholar

46. See Corten, op. cit. supra n.1, at paras.321–322.

47. Uda, “Formation des normes Internationales dans un monde en mutation. Critique de la notion de soft law”, in Mélanges Virally (1991), pp.335 et seq.Google Scholar

48. See Mcdonald, , “The Margin of Appreciation in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”, in International Law at the Time of its Codification. Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago (1987), pp.187–190.Google Scholar

49. See the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Letellier v. France, Ser.A, No.207 (26 06 1991), para.35 and the opinion of the Commission, para.38Google Scholar; see also the Neumeister case, Ser.A, No.8 (27 06 1968), paras.4 et seq.Google Scholar; cases of Yagci and Sargin/Mansur v. Turkey, Ser.A, No.319-A and B (8 06 1995) resp. at para.50 and para.52Google Scholar; Van der Tag v. Spain, Ser.A, No.321 (13 07 1995). para.55Google Scholar; Eckle case, Ser.A, No.51 (15 07 1982), para.80Google Scholar; see also mutatis mutandis the opinion of the Commission in the following cases of the European Court of Human Rights: Brigandi, Ser.A, No.194–B (19 02 1991), para.47Google Scholar; Angelucci v. Italy, Ser.A, No.196–C (19 02 1991), para.33Google Scholar; Maj v. Italy, Ser.A, NO.196-D (1 02 1991), para.26Google Scholar; Pugliese (II) v. Italy, Ser.A, No.206–A (24 05 1991), para.27Google Scholar; Vocaturoa v. Italy. Ser.A, No.206–C (24 05 1991), para.28.Google Scholar

50. Eur.Ct.H.R., Lechner and Hess, Ser.A, No.118 (23 04 1987), paras.54 and 59Google Scholar; see also Eur.Ct.H.R., Moreira de Azevedo, Ser.A, No.189 (23 10 1990), para.74Google Scholar; Eur.Ct.H.R., Beaumartin v. France, Ser.A, No.296–B (24 11 1994), para.33.Google Scholar

51. Lalande, , Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie (1993), p.887.Google Scholar

52. See Heidegger, , Le principe de raison (1962).Google Scholar

53. Haba, , “Rationalité et méthode dans le droit” (1978) XXIII A.P.D. 273.Google Scholar

54. See Eur.Ct.H.R., H. v. United Kingdom, Ser.A, No.120(8 07 1987), para.80Google Scholar; see also another expression in Scopelliti v. Italy, Ser.A, No.278 (23 11 1993), para.23Google Scholar, Schouten and Meldrum v. The Netherlands, Ser.A, No.304 (9 12 1994), para.66.Google Scholar

55. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traité de l'argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique (1992), pp.262 et seq.Google Scholar

56. See Temple of Preah Vihear, loc cit. supra n.23Google Scholar; see also the sep. op. of Judge Bustamante in the South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa, Liberia v. South Africa) I.C.J. Rep. 1962, 319, 365–366Google Scholar; Free zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, P.C.I.J. Rep. Ser.AB, No.46, p.138.Google Scholar

57. Wiesinger v. Austria, Ser.A, No.213 (30 10 1991), para.60.Google Scholar

58. See e.g. Habermas, , Between Facts and Norms (1996).Google Scholar

59. Cf. Ferry, J. M., Philosophie de la communication, Vol.11 (1994), p.39.Google Scholar

60. See , Chemillier-Gendreau (1995), op. cit supra n.41, at pp.343–346.Google Scholar

61. See Ferry, , op. cit. supra n.59, Vol.I (1994), at pp.65 et seq.Google Scholar

62. Elettronica Sicula I.C.J. Rep. 1989, 76.Google Scholar

63. See e.g. Eur.Ct.H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, Ser.A, No.4 (28 05 1985), para.72.Google Scholar

64. This hypothetical example is used here only for didactic purposes.

65. Eur.Ct.H.R., Raimondo v. Italy, Ser.A, No.281–A (22 02 1994), para.30.Google Scholar

66. See Corten, op. cit. supra n.1, at chap.VI, section 1.

67. Abdulaziz, supra n.63, at paras.77 et seq.

68. Dissenting opinion of Judge Jessup in South West Africa cases {Ethiopia v. South Africa, Liberia v. South Africa) second phase, I.C.J. Rep. 1966, 4, 434–436.Google Scholar

69. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987).Google Scholar