Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:18:02.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Law in a Changing International System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1999

D.B.E. Rosalyn Higgins
D.B.E. Rosalyn Higgins*
Affiliation:
Judge of the International Court of Justice
Get access

Abstract

To see what international law can offer in an apparently chaotic and fast changing world is far from easy. But it is only by examining and trying to understand the evolving international system that some answers may be found, because international law and international relations are in a symbiotic relationship.

The characterising features of the contemporary international system are globalisation on the one hand and a unipolar power structure on the other. The former is having a significant impact on international law as by its very nature actors are engaged in transactions across State boundaries in alliances that are not bounded by nationality. Modern technology facilitates these alliances of interest and gives an unprecedented voice to non-State actors, whether in human rights, in environmental matters or in international markets.

The concentration of military power in the United States had led to various incremental changes in authorisations of force by the United Nations, whether for peacekeeping or for enforcement actions. The evolving relationship between the United Nations and NATO has negative as well as positive factors and needs careful monitoring.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 78 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © The Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors, 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.)

Footnotes

This article reproduces, with small stylistic changes, the text of the Rede Lecture, delivered in the University of Cambridge on 22 October 1998.

References

1 T.J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (London 1898).

2 E.g. General Assembly Resolutions 1514 (XV); 1541 (XV); 2625 (XXV); 2229 (XXI).

3 The Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 31; Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), I.C.J. Reports 1975 at p. 68.

4 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.

5 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

6 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

7 Geneva Protocol I Additional to Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1977; Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict.

8 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1966.

9 For a résumé of these developments, see Higgins, R., “Peace and Security: Achievements and Failures” (1995) 6 E.J.I.L. pp. 445–460Google Scholar.

10 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada).

11 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain).

12 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom).

13 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America).

14 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia).

15 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria).

16 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia).

17 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America).

18 Difference relating to immunity from legal process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (Request for Advisory Opinion).

19 Art. 96 (1) of the Charter of the United Nations.

20 Fukuyama, , “The End of History”, The National Interest (1989), No. 16, 3–18; The End of History and the Last Man (London, Hamish Hamilton 1992)Google Scholar.

21 See, e.g. Owen, J.M., Liberal Peace, Liberal War, American Politics and International Security (Cornell University Press 1997)Google Scholar, reviewed by Adam Roberts in the Times Literary Supplement, 6 November 1998). See also T.G. Ash, “Europe's Endangered Liberal Order”, Foreign Affairs (March–April 1998).

22 Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford University Press 1990), p. 64Google Scholar.

23 The literature is too vast for any meaningful selection.

24 E.g. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, concluded at New York, 9 May 1992; Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted at Kyoto (Japan) on 11 December 1997; Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992.

25 Lecture 5 of six lectures delivered at the Université de Paris II (March 1997) on “Institutionalizing Doubt: Modernity and the Challenge to International Legal Traditions”.

26 For a recent acknowledgment of the importance that could be made by hearing legal submissions from non-governmental organisations, notwithstanding the absence of any relevant rule of practice to authorise such intervention, see the legal pleadings on behalf of Amnesty International and certain other NGOs in the Pinochet case in the appeal in the House of Lords (November 1998).

27 E.g. during the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

28 These observations are made by Sands, op. cit., n. 25 above.

29 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.

30 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997.

31 Slaughter, A.M., “The Real New World Order”, Foreign Affairs (Sept.–Oct. 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Palmeter, D. and Navroidis, P., “The WTO Legal System: Sources of Law”, 92 A.J.I.L. (1998) 398–414Google Scholar.

33 UN Doc. AConf.1839 (17 July 1998).

34 “Global Markets Need Global Institutions”, article in the International Herald Tribune (9 October 1998).

35 Gold, J., “The Fund Agreement in the Courts: XVII: The SDR in the Courts” (Staff Papers, vol. 29) (1982), 647–681Google Scholar; “Development of the SDR as Reserve Asset, Unit of Account, and Denominator: A Survey” (George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, vol. 16 (1981) 1–64.

36 Shihata, I.F.I., “The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) and the Legal Treatment of Foreign Investment”, Recueil des cours de l'Académie de droit international, vol. 203 (1987), 95–320Google Scholar.

37 Higgins, R., Problems and Process (Oxford University Press 1994), pp. 176–180Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., Chap. 15.

39 UN Doc. A47277, 17 June 1992.

40 Oslo Communiqué N-NAC-1(92) 51, NATO, Brussels, June 1992, p. 4.

41 See S/1994/131 and S/RES981 (1995).

42 See S/1997/81 (27 Jan. 1997); S/1997/193 (5 March 1997); S/1997/257 (27 March 1997); S/1997/ 369 (14 May 1997); [the Fifth Report was not published as an official document]; S/1997/602 (31 July 1997); S/1997/636 (13 Aug. 1997); S/1997/18 (18 Sept. 1997); S/1997/794 (14 Oct. 1997); S/1997/893 (14 Nov. 1997); S/1997/975 (13 Dec. 1997); S/1998/39 (16 Jan. 1998); S/1998/105 (5 Feb. 1998).

43 Since the delivery of this lecture matters at Rambouillet have developed further, raising a further deeply problematic question: does the refusal of a state which has apparently violated human rights to allow international peacekeeping forces on its territory, give legality to NATO bombing raids?

44 See Simma, B., ed., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994), p. 587Google Scholar.

45 Ibid., pp. 48–49.