Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:09:37.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unilateral Law and Non-State Actors: Exploring a New Paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Artem Sergeev

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Throughout the last decades, various non-state actors have been actively engaged in different aspects of international governance. More recently, a number of academic contributions explored the extent to which international law governs non-state actors. This Article advances the argument and explores whether non-state actors have developed law making capacities. Initially grounding itself in the Nuclear Tests and Kosovo cases of the International Court of Justice, the Article contends that non-state actors can create international rights and obligations through unilateral law-making processes. After a robust study, the Article concludes that unilateral non-state actions must meet three criteria to have legal effect as international law. First, producing such actions requires non-state actors of significant gravity. Second, other international entities must at least partly recognize these actions. Third, unilateral actions must justify their legal character with legitimate grounds. In meeting these three conditions, such unilateral actions of non-state actors produce international legal effects. As to its broader implications, the Article argues that the scope of international law has expanded to ensure that the voices of major international non-state actors are heard and reflected within the international legal order.

Type
International Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2018 , pp. 65 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by German Law Journal, Inc. 

References

1 See generally Woodward, Barbara K., Global Civil Society in International Lawmaking and Global Governance: Theory and Practice (Martinus Nijhoff 2010); Cecilia Bailliet, Non-State Actors, Soft Law, and Protective Regimes: From the Margins (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012).Google Scholar

2 See Woodward, supra note 1; Bailliet, supra note 1; see also d'Aspremont, Jean, Participants in the International Legal System: Multiple Perspectives on Non-State Actors in International Law (Routledge Paperback ed. 2013).Google Scholar

3 See International Law Commission, Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with Commentaries Thereto, U.N. Doc. A/61/10, at 370 (2006) (providing a working definition of “unilateral action”); Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 253, para. 43 (Dec. 20) [hereinafter Nuclear Tests].Google Scholar

4 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 2, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT].Google Scholar

5 See Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, Olufemi Elias & Panos Merkouris, Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties: 30 Years On 65 (Martinus Nijhoff 2010).Google Scholar

6 Anthony Aust, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Oxford: Public International Law (June 2006), http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1498 (last visited Jan. 14, 2018).Google Scholar

7 See Nuclear Tests, supra note 3.Google Scholar

8 Id. para. 41.Google Scholar

9 Id. para. 1.Google Scholar

10 Id. para. 46.Google Scholar

11 Id. para. 43.Google Scholar

12 Id. paras. 43–5.Google Scholar

13 See Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), Judgement, 1961 I.C.J. 17, 31 (May 26) [hereinafter Temple of Preah Vihear].Google Scholar

14 See Nuclear Tests, supra note 3, para. 46.Google Scholar

15 Id. para. 50.Google Scholar

16 Id. Google Scholar

17 VCLT, supra note 4, art. 34.Google Scholar

18 See Tests, Nuclear, supra note 3, para. 50; see also Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010 I.C.J. 403, para. 84 (July 22) [hereinafter Kosovo].Google Scholar

19 See Blutman, László, Consent and Customary International Law, EJIL: Talk! (Aug. 4, 2014), http://www.ejiltalk.org/consent-and-customary-international-law/.Google Scholar

20 Nuclear Tests, supra note 3, para. 49.Google Scholar

21 Id. Google Scholar

22 VCLT, supra note 4, art. 7.Google Scholar

23 See Tests, Nuclear, supra note 2, para. 49.Google Scholar

24 See generally Summers, James, Kosovo: A Precedent?: The Declaration of Independence, the Advisory Opinion and Implications for Statehood, Self-Determination and Minority Rights (Martinus Nijhoff 2011); Marc Weller, Contested Statehood: Kosovo's Struggle for Independence (Oxford Univ. Press 2009).Google Scholar

25 See Kosovo, supra note 18.Google Scholar

26 See Vickers, Miranda, The Status of Kosovo in Socialist Yugoslavia (U. of Bradford 1994).Google Scholar

27 See Radan, Peter, The Break-up of Yugoslavia and International Law 231–40 (Routledge 2004).Google Scholar

28 See Frantzen, Henning, NATO and Peace Support Operations, 1991–1999: Policies and Doctrines 36–50 (Routledge 2005).Google Scholar

29 See S.C. Res. 1244, para. 10 (June 10, 1999).Google Scholar

30 See Kosovo, supra note 18, para. 78.Google Scholar

31 See Crawford, J.R., The Creation of States in International Law 407–8 (Oxford Univ. Press 2006); Milena Sterio, The Case of Kosovo: Self-determination, Secession, and Statehood Under International Law, 104 Proceedings of the Annual ASIL Meeting 361 (2010).Google Scholar

32 See Kosovo, supra note 18, para. 1.Google Scholar

33 Id. paras. 18–28.Google Scholar

34 Id. para. 26.Google Scholar

35 Id. para. 27.Google Scholar

36 Id. paras. 29–48.Google Scholar

37 Id. Google Scholar

38 Id. para. 49.Google Scholar

39 Id. Google Scholar

40 Id. para. 50.Google Scholar

41 Id. Google Scholar

42 Id. para. 56.Google Scholar

43 Id. Google Scholar

44 Id. paras. 82–3.Google Scholar

45 Id. para. 83.Google Scholar

46 Id. paras. 79–100.Google Scholar

47 Id. para 80.Google Scholar

48 Id. Google Scholar

49 Id. para. 100.Google Scholar

50 Id. para. 119.Google Scholar

51 Id. para. 118Google Scholar

52 Id. para. 119Google Scholar

53 Id. para. 121.Google Scholar

54 See Milanovic, Marko & Wood, Michael, The Law and Politics of The Kosovo Advisory Opinion 187–219 (Oxford Univ. Press 2015); see also Declaration of Judge Simma, Declaration, 2010 I.C.J. 478 (July 22).Google Scholar

55 See, e.g., O'Donoghue, Aoife, Constitutionalism in Global Constitutionalisation (Cambridge Univ. Press 2014); Mattias Goldmann, We Need To Cut Off The Head Of The King: Past, Present, and Future Approaches to International Soft Law, 25 Leiden J. Int'l L. 335 (2012); Jeremy Waldron, Are Sovereigns Entitled to the Benefit of the International Rule of Law?, 22 Eur. J. Int'l L. 315 (2011).Google Scholar

56 See supra note 55; Bailliet, supra note 1; Woodward, supra note 1.Google Scholar

57 Bailliet, supra note 1; Woodward, supra note 1; see also Ryngaert, Cedric, Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law: From Law-Takers to Law-Makers 172–190 (Routledge 2016).Google Scholar

58 See supra notes 55–57.Google Scholar

59 See Högger, Daniel, The Recognition of States: A Study on the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice with a Special Focus on the Requirements 71–77 (Lit Verlag 2015) (describing how Kosovo presently remains a partly recognized State).Google Scholar

60 See Summers, supra note 24, at 176–80.Google Scholar

61 Convention on Rights and Duties of States Adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States art. 3, Dec. 26, 1934, 165 L.N.T.S. 19 [hereinafter Montevideo Convention].Google Scholar

62 See Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609.Google Scholar

63 Id. The primary example is individual criminal responsibility under the International Criminal Court (ICC) Statue. Furthermore, International Humanitarian Law recognizes declarations by armed groups as unilateral acceptances of obligations. See Armed Non-State Actors and the Protection of Civilians, Geneva Academy, https://www.geneva-academy.ch/our-projects/our-projects/armed-conflict/detail/17-armed-non-state-actors-and-the-protection-of-civilians (last visited Jan. 16, 2018).Google Scholar

64 See Herr, Stefanie, Binding Non-State Armed Groups to International Humanitarian Law: Geneva Call and the Ban of Anti-personnel mines: Lessons from Sudan 5 (PRIF 2010).Google Scholar

65 See supra notes 55–56.Google Scholar

66 See supra note 65.Google Scholar

67 See International Convention on Civil and Political Rights art. 27, Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 172 [hereinafter ICCPR]; see also Ward, Tara, The Right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: Indigenous Peoples' Participation Rights within International Law, 10 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 54 (2011).Google Scholar

68 See, e.g., Human Rights Committee Comm. No. 167/1984, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40), at 1 (Mar. 26, 1990) [hereinafter Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada].Google Scholar

69 See id.; Off. High Comm'r Human Rts., Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations Human Rights System (2013), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/fs9Rev.2.pdf.Google Scholar

70 See Declaration of Judge Simma, supra note 54; S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7).Google Scholar

71 See Declaration of Judge Simma, supra note 54.Google Scholar

72 See Kosovo, supra note 18, paras. 26–7.Google Scholar

73 See Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949 I.C.J. 172, at 174 (Apr. 11) [hereinafter Reparations]. Following the logic of the Court, if an international entity performs functions that can be explained only by the presence of international legal personality, such an entity is to be considered as an international legal person.Google Scholar

74 See VCLT, supra note 4, art. 34.Google Scholar

75 See Vickers, supra note 26; Radan, supra note 27.Google Scholar

76 See supra note 59.Google Scholar

77 See supra note 28.Google Scholar

78 See Kosovo, supra note 18; see also Summers, supra note 24, at 391.Google Scholar

79 See Reparations, supra note 73, at 174.Google Scholar

80 Id. at 185.Google Scholar

81 Id. at 178, 185.Google Scholar

82 See id.; see also supra, notes 56–7; Ryngaert, supra note 57, at 195–203.Google Scholar

83 See supra notes 56–7, 82.Google Scholar

84 See Alston, Philip & Macdonald, Euan, Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force 179–215 (Oxford Univ. Press 2008).Google Scholar

85 See id.; see also Hehir, Aidan, Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction 112–118 (Palgrave Macmillan 2013).Google Scholar

86 See supra notes 80, 85.Google Scholar

87 See Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, para. 126, 130 (Can.) [hereinafter Quebec].Google Scholar

88 Id. Google Scholar

89 See Wheatley, Steven, The Democratic Legitimacy of International Law (Hart Pub. 2010); O'Donoghue, supra note 55, at 15–44; John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Awnsham Churchill 1689); John Milton, The Collected Prose Works of John Milton (Jazzybee Verlag 2013) (eBook).Google Scholar

90 See supra note 89; see also Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action 107 (Polity Press 1987).Google Scholar

91 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) art. 96.3, June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter AP I].Google Scholar

92 Churchill Ewumbue-Monono, Respect for International Humanitarian Law by Armed Non-State Actors in Africa, 88 Int'l Rev. of the Red Cross 905, 907–8 (2006).Google Scholar

93 Id. Google Scholar

94 See Chen, Lung-chu, An Introduction to Contemporary International Law: A Policy-Oriented Perspective (Oxford Univ. Press 2015), A chapter on the statehood of Taiwan.Google Scholar

95 See Crawford, supra note 31, at 198–219.Google Scholar

96 See Zeldin, Wendy, Taiwan: Two International Human Rights Covenants Ratified, Libr. of Congress (Apr. 15, 2009), http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/taiwan-two-international-human-rights-covenants-ratified/.Google Scholar

97 See G.A. Res. 2758 (XXVI), Restoration of the Lawful Rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations (Oct. 25, 1971); Schabas, William A., Taiwan and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, PhD Stud. in Hum. Rts. (Mar. 15, 2010), http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.hk/2010/03/taiwan-and-international-covenant-on.html.Google Scholar

98 See G.A. Res. 2758 (XXVI), supra note 97.Google Scholar

99 See Schabas, supra note 97; see also Ewumbue-Monono, supra note 92; ICCPR, supra note 67, art. 48.Google Scholar

100 See Ewumbue-Monono, supra note 92; Shope, Mark L., The Adoption and Function of International Instruments: Thoughts on Taiwan's Enactment of the Act to Implement the ICCPR And the ICESCR, 22 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 159 (2012).Google Scholar

101 The sense of gravity can be derived from the fact that Taiwan was able to contest seats from the PRC in the UN.Google Scholar

102 See U.S. Dep't of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: Taiwan (2013), http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220444.pdf; Annual Report: Taiwan 2013, Amnesty Int'l (May 29, 2013), http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/annual-report-taiwan-2013 (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar

103 See supra note 102.Google Scholar

104 See Lister, Matthew J., The Legitimating Role of Consent in International Law, 11 Chi. J. Int'l L. 663 (2011).Google Scholar

105 See Tests, Nuclear, supra note 3, para. 46.Google Scholar

106 See generally Barbour, Stephanie A. & Salzman, Zoe A., “The Tangled Web”: The Right of Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors in the Armed Activities Case, 40 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 53; S.C. Res. 1373, On Threats to International Peace And Security Caused By Terrorist Acts (Sept. 28, 2001).Google Scholar