THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE CRITERIA OF STATE PARTIES COMMON INTEREST FOR IDENTIFYING OF OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES PARTES
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Obligations erga omnes partes are owed to all State parties, meaning that based on the inherent reciprocity principle in State parties, obligation is established to protect the collective interest of State parties, and obligation per se do not create self-interest for any State party. Fulfilling treaty objectives and purposes requires common practice, without assigning rights to a single State parties. When violations occur, all State parties are obliged to respond insofar as their legal interests are affected, whether direct injury results or not. States are entitled to institute proceedings against a state responsible for breaching obligations erga omnes partes. Obligations erga omnes partes are essential for inter-state cooperation in certain areas that do not emerge in the context of Unwritten Law. Also, the development of international law as a source of legal rights is applied when no applicable law is cited to resolve disputes. The Judgment in the case concerning Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal) the court stated that obligations pursuant to articles 5 and 7 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 were obligations erga omnes partes. The court referred to Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, considering that, in such conventions, State parties have shared, rather than individual interests, to accomplish high purposes which are the purpose of the convention. This article examines how while that treaty is based upon the principle of reciprocity creating binding obligations for State parties, apparently obligations cannot be separated into specific State party or non-bilateral, non-bilateralisable obligations, taking into consideration the conceptual bases of common interest of State parties. Application of the basis of State parties common interest is analyzed to find appropriate identification of obligations erga omnes partes.
Article Details
บทความหรือข้อความคิดเห็นใด ๆ ที่ปรากฏในวารสารบัณฑิตศึกษานิติศาสตร์เป็นวรรณกรรมของผู้เขียนโดยเฉพาะคณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ และบรรณาธิการไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย
References
Aaron Xavier Fellmeth. Maurice Horwitz. Guide to Latin in international law. Oxford: OUP, 2009.
Alexander Orakhelashvili. Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford: OUP, 2012.
Alexidze, Levan. "Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law (Volume 172)." In Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law: Brill.
Bruno Simma. "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law (Volume 250)." In Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. The Hague Academy of International Law: Brill.
Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed., St. Paul: West, 2009.
C G Weeramantry. Universalising International Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004.
Christian J. Tams. Enforcing Obligations Erga omnes in International Law. Cambridge: CUP, 2005.
Herman Mosler, “The International Society as a Legal Community (Volume 140)”, In Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. The Hague Academy of International Law: Brill.
Hornby, Albert Sydney, Sally Wehmeier, and Michael Ashby, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Oxford: OUP, 2006.
James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Simon Olleson, and Kate Parlett. The Law of International Responsibility. Oxford: OUP, 2010.
James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 9th ed., OUP: Oxford University Press, 2019.
James Crawford. Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (9th Edition). New York: OUP, 2019.
Jan Klabbers. “The Community Interest in the Law of Treaties: Ambivalent Conceptions.” In From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma, eds. Ulrich Fastenrath, Rudolf Geiger, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Andreas Paulus, Sabine von Schorlemer, and Christoph Vedder. New York: OUP, 2011.
Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law, Cambridge: CUP, 2003.
Joost Pauwelyn, The Nature of WTO Obligations, New York: New York University School of Law, 2003.
Malgosia Fitzmaurice. Whaling and International Law. Cambridge: CUP, 2015.
Maurizio Ragazzi, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes, OUP: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law, Cambridge: CUP, 1999.
Rüdiger Wolfrum, “Enforcing Community Interests Through International Dispute Settlement: Reality or Utopia?,” In From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma, eds. Ulrich Fastenrath, Rudolf Geiger, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Andreas Paulus, Sabine von Schorlemer, and Christoph Vedder. New York: OUP, 2011.
Shahrad Nasrolahi Fard, Reciprocity in International Law: Its Impact and Function, London: Routledge, 2018).
Theodor Meron. Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations: A Critique of Instruments and Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
Thomas Weatherall. Jus Cogens: International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge: CUP, 2015.
Jean-Marc Thouvenin and Christian Tomuschat. The Fundamental Rules of The International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006.
........... .Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2006, Vol. II, United Nations publication, Sales No. 12.V.13 (Part 2).
........... .Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001. Vol.II. United Nations publication, Sales No. E.04.V.17 (Part 2).
ARTICLES
Gennady M. Danilenko. “International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law-Making”, European Journal of International Law, Volume 2, Issue 1, (1991): 42, 44.
Kamrul Hossain. “The Concept of Jus Cogens and the Obligation under the U.N. Charter”, Santa Clara Journal of International Law 3, No. 1, (2005): 72-98.
Linos-Alexander Sicilianos, “The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility”, European Journal of International Law Vol.13 No.5, (2002): 1127–1145.
Yoshifumi Tanaka. “Reflections on Locus Standi in Response to a Breach of Obligations Erga Omnes Partes: A Comparative Analysis of the Whaling in the Antarctic and South China Sea Cases.” The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 17(3) (2018): 527-554.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGEMENTS
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970.
Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v Chile, del Rosario Gómez Olivares and ors (on behalf of Almonacid Arellano) v Chile, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, IACHR Series C No 154, IHRL 1538 (IACHR 2006), 26th September 2006.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), I.C.J Judgment 1986.
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, 2012.
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports, 1951.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980.
ELECTRONIC MEDIAS
Isabel Feichtner. “Community Interest.” https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1677, 25 August 2018.
Andreas Paulu. “International Community.” http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1422, 25 June 2018.
André Nollkaemper. “Universality.” https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1497, 25 August 2018.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.
Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights. Signed at Tehran 1955.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.