Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T01:19:40.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The methodological debate and the quest for custom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Tom Ruys
Tom Ruys
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Get access

Summary

Legal rules are not static, but are capable of evolving over time. This holds all the more true for a multilateral convention such as the UN Charter, which spells out a broad array of open-textured principles intended to regulate the relations between States for an indefinite period of time. The Charter regime indeed constitutes ‘a living, growing, and above all discursive system for applying the rules on a reasoned, principled, case-by-case basis’.

In the present chapter, we intend to shed further light on how this process of change operates in relation to the legal regime on the use of force. It may be noted at the outset that several excellent monographs attempt to identify the substance of the present-day Ius ad Bellum by analysing relevant state practice and opinio iuris, albeit without explaining at much length why or how (changing) custom influences the law on the use of force. Nonetheless, both issues are of crucial importance. The methodological approach one adopts to a large degree determines the outcome of any inquiry into the substantive content of the law on the use of force. A different approach may lead one author to acknowledge the legality of pre-emptive self-defence or humanitarian intervention, while leading another to reject it. Hence, for the sake of intellectual honesty and academic accuracy, the issue of methodology should not lightly be passed over.

Type
Chapter
Information
'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter
Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice
 , pp. 6 - 52
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Franck, T. M., Fairness in international law and institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p. 260.Google Scholar
Corten, O., ‘The controversies over the customary prohibition on the use of force: a methodological debate’, (2006) 16 European Journal of International Law803–22, at 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowett, D. W., Self-defence in international law (Manchester University Press, 1958), pp. 187Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. E. S., ‘Intervention in international law: a study of some recent cases’, (1961-II) 103 Recueil des Cours343–423, at 360Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S., ‘The Soviet–Cuban quarantine and self-defense’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law597–604, at 599–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. N., ‘The secret war in Central America and the future world order’, (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law43–127, at 82–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwebel, S. M., ‘Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law’, (1972-II) 136 Recueil des Cours411–97, at 479–83Google Scholar
Waldock, C. H. M., ‘The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law’, (1952-II) 81 Recueil des Cours451–517, at 496–9.Google Scholar
Ago, R., ‘Addendum to the 8th Report on State Responsibility’, (1980-II) 32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Part One, 63Google Scholar
Brownlie, I., ‘The principle of non-use of force in contemporary international law’, in Butler, W. E. (ed.), The non-use of force in international law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 17–27Google Scholar
Brownlie, I., ‘The use of force in self-defence’, (1961) 37 British Yearbook of International Law183–268Google Scholar
Constantinou, A., The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter (Brussels: Bruylant, 2000), p. 204Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 4th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzini, T., The changing rules on the use of force in international law (Manchester University Press, 2005), pp. 121–2Google Scholar
Gray, C., International law and the use of force, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 98–9Google Scholar
Randelzhofer, A., ‘Article 51’, in Simma, B., in collabaration with Mosler, H., Randelzhofer, A., Tomuschat, C. and Wolfrüm, R. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. Vol. I (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 788–806Google Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘Article 51’, in Cot, J.-P. and Pellet, A. (eds.), La Charte des Nations Unies, 3rd edn (Paris: Economica, 2005), pp. 1329–61Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, ‘Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly’, (1966-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission247.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H., The law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems (London: Stevens, 1950), pp. 108, 110Google Scholar
Briggs, H. W., The law of nations, 2nd edn (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts) 1952), p. 976.Google Scholar
Brownlie, I., International law and the use of force by States (Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontou, N., The termination and revision of treaties in the light of new customary international law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 20Google Scholar
Bos, M., ‘The hierarchy among the recognized manifestations (“sources”) of international law’, (1978) 25 Netherlands International Law Review334–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlie, I., Principles of public international law, 6th edn (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 5Google Scholar
Czaplinski, W. and Danilenko, G., ‘Conflicts of norms in international law’, (1990) 21 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czaplinski, W., ‘Sources of international law in the Nicaragua case’, (1989) 38 International and Comparative Law Quarterly151–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinh, N. Q., Daillier, P. and Pellet, A., Droit international public, 7th edn (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et jurisprudence, 2002), p. 114Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M., Droit international public, 3rd edn (Paris: Dalloz, 1992), pp. 14–16Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, G., ‘Some problems regarding the formal sources of international law’, in Verzijl, J. H. W., Symbolae Verzijl (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1958), pp. 153–76Google Scholar
Schweisfurth, T., Völkerrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), p. 83Google Scholar
Thirlway, H., ‘The sources of international law’, in Evans, M. D. (ed.), International law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 115–40Google Scholar
Verhoeven, J., Droit international public (Brussels: Larcier, 2000), p. 337Google Scholar
Wolfke, K., Custom in present international law, 2nd edn (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) pp. 110Google Scholar
Harris, D., Cases and materials on international law, 5th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), p. 23Google Scholar
Shaw, M. N., International law (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis, 3rd edn (Berlin: Dunker Humblot, 1984), p. 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akehurst, M., ‘The hierarchy of the sources of international law’, (1974–5) 47 British Yearbook of International Law273–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, , ‘The progressive development of international law and its codification’, (1947) 24 British Yearbook of International Law301–29Google Scholar
Bernhardt, R., ‘Custom and treaty in the law of the sea’, (1987-V) 205 Recueil des Cours251–330Google Scholar
Combacau, J. and Sur, S., Droit international public, 6th edn (Paris: Montchrestien, 2004), p. 72Google Scholar
Wolfke, K., ‘Some persistent controversies regarding customary international law’, (1993) 24 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abi-Saab, G., ‘Cours général de droit international public’, (1987-III) 207 Recueil des Cours9–463Google Scholar
Christakis, T., ‘Vers une reconnaissance de la notion de guerre préventive?’, in Bannelier, K., Christakis, T., Corten, O. and Klein, P. (eds.), L'intervention en Irak et le droit international (Paris: Pedone, 2004), pp. 9–45Google Scholar
Corten, O., Le droit contre la guerre; l'interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain (Paris: Pedone, 2008), p. 623.Google Scholar
Bravo, L. Ferrari, ‘Méthodes de recherche de la coutume internationale dans la pratique des Etats’, (1985-III) 192 Recueil des Cours233–330Google Scholar
Villiger, M. E., Customary international law and treaties: a manual on the theory and practice of the interrelation of sources, 2nd edn (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), p. 160, §§ 243–5.Google Scholar
Brownlie, I., The rule of law in international affairs: international law at the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1998), p. 28Google Scholar
,International Law Association, Final Report of the Committee. Statement of principles applicable to the formation of general customary international law, Report of the 69th Conference London (London: ILA, 2000), pp. 712–77, at 757.Google Scholar
D'Amato, A., The concept of custom in international law (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971), p. 110.Google Scholar
Baxter, R. R., ‘Treaties and customs’, (1970-I) 129 Recueil des Cours27–105Google Scholar
Danilenko, G. M., Law-making in the international community (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), pp. 154Google Scholar
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L., Customary international humanitarian law. Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. xlivCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, O., ‘Entangled treaty and custom’, in Dinstein, Y. (ed.), International law at a time of perplexity: essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 717–38, at 718, 725.Google Scholar
Whiteman, M. M., Digest of international law. Vol. 12 (Washington DC: US Department of State Publications, 1968), p. 122.Google Scholar
Cassese, A., International law in a divided world (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 137–8.Google Scholar
Thirlway, H., International customary law and codification: an examination of the continuing role of custom in the present period of codification of international law (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1972), pp. 90–1Google Scholar
,American Law Institute, Restatement of the law – Third. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers, 1990), p. 382Google Scholar
Bossuyt, M. and Wouters, J., Grondlijnen van internationaal recht (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), p. 517Google Scholar
Malanczuk, P. and Akehurst, M., Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, 7th edn (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 309Google Scholar
Shaw, M. N., International law, 4th edn (Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 781.Google Scholar
French, D., ‘Treaty interpretation and the incorporation of extraneous legal rules’, (2006) 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly281–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, C., ‘The principle of systematic integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’, (2005) 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly279–320, at 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, I., The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn (Manchester University Press, 1984), p. 258.Google Scholar
Waldock, H., ‘Third Report on the Law of Treaties’, (1964-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission5–65, at 52Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries’, (1966-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission222.Google Scholar
Thirlway, H., ‘The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989’, (1990) 61 British Yearbook of International Law1–133, 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Law of Treaties’ (1964-I) Yearbook of the International Law Commission34, § 10
,International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries’, 236. See also: Scelle, G., Théorie juridique de la revision des traits (Paris: Sirey, 1936), p. 11.Google Scholar
Sur, S., L'interprétation en droit international public (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1974), p. 202Google Scholar
Yasseen, M. K., ‘L'interprétation des traités d'après la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des Traités’, (1976-III) 151 Recueil des Cours1–114, at 47, 52.Google Scholar
Capotorti, F., ‘L'extinction et la suspension des traités’, (1971-III) 134 Recueil des Cours417–587, at 517Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties’, (1964-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission198Google Scholar
Seiderman, I. D., Hierarchy in international law: the human rights dimension (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2001), p. 61.Google Scholar
,United Nations, Conférence sur le droit des traités. Deuxième session. Vienne, 9 avril–22 mai 1969 (New York: United Nations) (1970), 96Google Scholar
Hannikainen, L., Peremptory norms (jus cogens) in international law. Historical development, criteria, present status (Helsinki: Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, 1988), p. 324Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, ‘Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’, (2001-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission114Google Scholar
Kooijmans, P. H., Internationaal publiekrecht in vogelvlucht (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1996), p. 29Google Scholar
‘Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of states for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (2001-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission283.
Aust, A., Modern treaty law and practice (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 257Google Scholar
Bothe, M., ‘Das Gewaltverbot imm allgemeinen’, in Schaumann, W. and Bothe, M. (eds.), Völkerrechtliches Gewaltverbod und Friendenssicherung (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1971), pp. 11–30Google Scholar
Cassese, A., International law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 202Google Scholar
Schindler, D. and Hailbronner, K., Die Grenzen des völkerrechtlichen Gewaltverbots (Heidelberg: Müller Juristischer Verlag, 1986), p. 14Google Scholar
Kahgan, C., ‘Jus cogens and the inherent right to self-defense’, (1996–7) 3 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law767–827Google Scholar
Orakelashivili, A., Peremptory norms in international law (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 51Google Scholar
Rozakis, C. L., The concept of jus cogens in the law of treaties (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976), p. 79.Google Scholar
Hoof, G. J. H., Rethinking the sources of international law (Deuentes: Kluwer, 1983), p. 167.Google Scholar
Haggenmacher, P., ‘La doctrine des deux éléments du droit coutumier dans la pratique de la Cour internationale’, (1986) 90 Revue Générale de Droit International Public5–125Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., From apology to Utopia: the structure of international legal argument (Helsinki: Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, 1989), p. 363, 388–9.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, H. C. M., ‘Customary international law and the Nicaragua case’, (1984–7) 11 Australian YBIL1–31, at 28–9Google Scholar
Cassesse, A. and Weiler, J. H. H. (eds.), Change and stability in international law-making (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988), p. 24.CrossRef
Akehurst, M., ‘Custom as a source of international law’, (1977) 47 British Yearbook of International Law1–53, at 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, R. R., ‘Multilateral treaties as evidence of customary international law’, (1965–66) 41 British Yearbook of International Law275–300, at 300.Google Scholar
Mendelson, M. H., ‘The formation of customary international law’, (1998) 272 Recueil des Cours155–410, 205.Google Scholar
Degan, V. D., Sources of international law (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff', 1997), p. 160.Google Scholar
Danilenko, G. M., ‘The theory of international customary law’, (1988) 31 German Yearbook of International Law9–47, at 24.Google Scholar
Kritsiotis, D., ‘Arguments of mass confusion’, (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law233–78, at 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, R., ‘Selected problems in the theory of customary international law’, (2003) 50 Netherlands International Law Review119–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meron, T., Human rights and humanitarian norms as customary law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 61.Google Scholar
Buzzini, G. P., ‘Les comportements passifs des Etats et leur incidence sur la réglémentation de l'emploi de la force en droit international général’, in Cannizzaro, E. and Palchetti, P. (eds.), Customary international law on the use of force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), pp. 79–117, at 83.Google Scholar
Skubiszewski, K., ‘Elements of custom and the Hague Court’, (1971) 31 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht810–54, at 824Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S., ‘The hydrogen bomb tests and international law of the sea’, (1955) 49 American Journal of International Law356–61, at 357–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, W. M., ‘The incident as a decisional unit in international law’, (1954–85) 10 Yale Journal of International Law1–20, at 13.Google Scholar
Kohen, M. G., ‘The use of force by the United States after the end of the Cold War, and its impact on international law’, in Byers, M. and Nolte, G. (eds.), United States hegemony and the foundations of international law (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 197–231, at 221–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruys, T., ‘Crossing the Thin Blue Line: an inquiry into Israel's recourse to self-defense against Hezbollah’, (2007) 43 Stanford Journal of International Law265–94, at 270–1Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., ‘Of gnats and camels: is there a double standard at the United Nations?’, (1984) 78 American Journal of International Law811–33, at 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Secrétariat Général de la Défense Nationale, La France face au terrorisme: Livre Blanc du Gouvernement sur la sécurité intérieure face au terrorisme (Paris: La Documentation française, 2006), p. 62.Google Scholar
Wouters, J. and Ruys, T., ‘The legality of anticipatory military action after 9/11: the slippery slope of self-defense’, (2006) 59 Studia Diplomatica45–67.Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, ‘Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly’, (1950-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission368Google Scholar
Sørensen, M., ‘Principes de droit international public’, (1960-III) 101 Recueil des Cours1–254Google Scholar
Byers, M., Custom, power and the power of rules: international relations and customary international law (Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 19, 36–40, 152–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langille, B., ‘It's “instant custom”: how the Bush doctrine became law after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001’, (2003) 26 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review145–56.Google Scholar
Arangio-Ruiz, G., ‘The normative role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the development of Principles of Friendly Relations’, (1972-III) Recueil des Cours419–72Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×