Advertisement

Conventional Commitment

  • Katrin Fenrich
Chapter

Abstract

The following chapter will shed light on the conventional commitment of States to the three selected international enforcement mechanisms. First, it will analyze the modalities of accession to the constitutive instrument (Sect. 2.1), second, the right to submit reservations (Sect. 2.2) and third, the right to withdraw from the constitutive treaty (Sect. 2.3).

References

  1. Alter, K. J. (2008). Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ando, N. (2019). General comments/recommendations. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  3. Aust, A. (2013). Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aust, A. (2019). Treaty, termination. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  5. Baratta, R. (2000). Should invalid reservations to human rights treaties be disregarded? European Journal of International Law, 11, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossuyt, M. J. (1987). Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Dordrecht/Boston/Hingham: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Coccia, M. (1985). Reservations to multilateral treaties on human rights. California Western International Law Journal, 15, 1.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, R. (1990). Reservations to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women’. Virginia Journal of International Law, 30, 643.Google Scholar
  9. Corten, O., & Klein, P. (2011). The Vienna conventions on the law of treaties, a commentary (Vol. II). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cryer, R. (2015). The ICC and its relationship to non-state parties. In C. Stahn (Ed.), Law and practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D., & Wilmshurst, E. (2014). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Del Mar, K. (2014). Integrity versus flexibility in the application of treaties. In C. J. Tams, A. Tzanakopoulos, & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of treaties. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Vienna convention on the law of treaties. A commentary. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Ebobrah, T. S. (2014). International human rights courts. In C. Romano, K. J. Alter, & Y. Shany (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international adjudication. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fitzmaurice, G. G. (1953). Reservations to multilateral conventions. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. France, ‘Notification of Termination of the Declaration of 20 May 1966’ (10 January 1974) 907 UNTS 129.Google Scholar
  17. Galbraith, J. (2013). Treaty options: Towards a behavioral understanding of treaty design. Virginia Journal of International Law, 53, 309.Google Scholar
  18. Gamble, J. K. (1980). Reservations to multilateral treaties: A macroscopic view of state practice. American Journal of International Law, 74, 372–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gambrell, E. S. (1961). The United Nations, the World Court and the Connally reservation. American Bar Association Journal, 47, 57.Google Scholar
  20. Goldie, L. F. E. (1962). The Connally reservation: A shield for an adversary. UCLA Law Review, 9, 277.Google Scholar
  21. Goodman, R. (2002). Human rights treaties, invalid reservations and state consent. American Journal of International Law, 96, 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graefrath, B. (1988). Menschenrechte und internationale Kooperation. 10 Jahre Praxis des Internationalen Menschenrechtskomitees. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Hathaway, O. A. (2003). The cost of commitment. Paper 273 John M. Olin Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Public Policy Working Papers.Google Scholar
  24. Hathaway, O. A. (2005). Between power and principle: An integrated theory of international law. University of Chicago Law Review, 72, 469.Google Scholar
  25. Helfer, L. R. (2012). Terminating treaties. In D. B. Hollis (Ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Helfer, L. R. (2013). Flexibility in international agreements. In J. L. Dunoff & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations. The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Helfer, L. R. (2005). Exiting treaties. Virginia Law Review, 91, 1579.Google Scholar
  28. Helfer, L. R. (2006). Not fully committed? Reservations, risk and treaty design. Yale Journal of International Law, 31, 367.Google Scholar
  29. Helfer, L. R., & Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henkin, L. (1971). The Connally reservation revisited and, hopefully, contained. American Journal of International Law, 65, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor. (2011). Report on Preliminary Examination Activities.Google Scholar
  32. International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor. (2015). Report on Preliminary Examination Activities.Google Scholar
  33. International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor. (2016). Report on Preliminary Examination Activities.Google Scholar
  34. International Law Commission. (1993). Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II, 12.Google Scholar
  35. International Law Commission. (1994). Draft statute for an International Criminal Court with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II.Google Scholar
  36. Jenks, C. W. (1969). A new world of law? A study of the creative imagination in international law. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  37. Koremenos, B. (2016). The continent of international law. Explaining agreement design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kunig, P. (2019). The prohibition of intervention. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  39. Labuda, P. I. (2016, November 23). Africa and the ICC: Shattered Taboos, and the Status Quo. http://www.ejiltalk.org/africa-and-the-icc-shattered-taboos-andthe-status-quo/
  40. Labuda, P. I. (2017, February 15). The African Union’s collective withdrawal from the ICC: does bad law make for good politics? EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-african-unions-collective-withdrawal-from-the-icc-does-bad-law-make-for-good-politics/
  41. McCall-Smith, K. L. (2014). Severing reservations. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 63, 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGoldrick, D. (1994). The human rights committee. Its role in the development of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Meernik, J., & Aloisi, R. (2009). I do declare: Politics, declarations and the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Law Review, 9, 253.Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, T. (2000). Power, exit costs, and renegotiation in international law. Harvard International Law Journal, 51, 379.Google Scholar
  45. Neumayer, E. (2007). Qualified ratification: Explaining reservations to international human rights treaties. Journal of Legal Studies, 36, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newman, D. G. (2005). The Rome Statute, some reservations concerning amnesties, and a distributive problem. American University International Law Review, 20, 293.Google Scholar
  47. Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. covenant on civil and political rights. CCPR commentary. Kehl/Arlington: N. P. Engel.Google Scholar
  48. Nowak, M., McArthur, E., & Buchinger, K. (2008). The United Nations convention against torture. A commentary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Oda, S. (2000). Compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: A myth - A statistical analysis of contentious cases. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Office of the Prosecutor. (2003). Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutore.Google Scholar
  51. Office of the Prosecutor. (2013). Policy paper on preliminary examinations.Google Scholar
  52. Office of the Prosecutor, Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, Regarding her decision to request judicial authorisation to commence an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=171103_OTP_Statement
  53. Olásolo, H. (2005). The triggering procedure of the International Criminal Court. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  54. Opsahl, T. (1992). The human rights committee. In F. Megret & P. Alston (Eds.), United Nations and human rights. A critical appraisal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Owada, H. (2010, October 26). Introductory remarks at the seminar on the contentious jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: speech by Judge Hisashi Owada.Google Scholar
  56. Paust, J. S. (2000). The reach of ICC jurisdiction over non-signatory nationals. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 33, 1.Google Scholar
  57. Piper, C. L. (1985). Reservations to multilateral treaties: The goal of universality. Iowa Law Review, 71, 295.Google Scholar
  58. Posner, E. A., & Yoo, J. C. (2004). A theory of international adjudication. John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper 206.Google Scholar
  59. Pouliot, V. (2008). Forum prorogatum before the International Court of Justice: The Djibouti v. France Case. Hague Justice Journal, 3, 28.Google Scholar
  60. Raustiala, K. (2005). Form and substance in international agreements. The American Journal of International Law, 99, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenne, S. (2006). The law and practice of the international court 1920–2005 (Vol. II). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  62. Safferling, C. J. M., & Büngener, L. (2012). International criminal procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sayapin, S. (2016, November 16). Russia’s withdrawal of signature from the Rome Statute would not shield its nationals from Potential Prosecution at the ICC. EJIL: Talk! http://www.ejiltalk.org/russias-withdrawal-of-signature-from-the-rome-statute-would-not-shield-its-nationals-from-potential-prosecution-at-the-icc/
  64. Schabas, W. (2016). The International Criminal Court. A commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schabas, W. (1994). Reservations to human rights treaties: Time for innovation and reform. Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 32, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schabas, W. (1996). Reservations to the convention on the rights of the child. Human Rights Quarterly, 18, 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scheffer, D. (2005). Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute: America’s original intent. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of international courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Simma, B., & Hernández, G. I. (2011). Legal consequences of an impermissible reservation to a human rights treaty: Where do we stand? In E. Cannizzaro (Ed.), The law of treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Essays in Honour of Professor Giorgio Gaja. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Slade, T. N., & Clark, R. S. (2002). Preamble and final clauses. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The International Criminal Court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  71. Ssenyonjo, M. (2009). Economic, social and cultural rights in international law. Oxford: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  72. Stahn, C. (2019). Connally reservation. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  73. Swaine, E. T. (2006). Reserving. Yale Journal of International Law, 31, 307.Google Scholar
  74. Swart, B., & Sluiter, G. (1999). The International Criminal Court and international criminal co-operation. In H. A. M. von Hebel, J. Lammers, & J. Schukking (Eds.), Reflections on the International Criminal Court. Essays in honour of Adriaan Bos. The Hague: Asser Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sykes, A. O. (1991). Protectionism as a “Safeguard”: A positive analysis of the GATT “Escape Clause” with normative speculations. University of Chicago Law Review, 58, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tabak, S. (2009). Article 124, war crimes and the development of the Rome Statute. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 40, 1069.Google Scholar
  77. Thirlway, H. (2019). Compromis. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  78. Tomka, P. (2002). The special agreement. In N. Andō, E. McWhinney, & R. Wolfrum (Eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. The Hague/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Triffterer, O. (2016). Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Observers’ notes, article by article. München/Portland/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  80. United Nations Committee of Jurists, Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization San Francisco 1945. Volume XIV (London, New York, 1945)Google Scholar
  81. Waldock, H. (1948). Forum prorogatum or acceptance of a unilateral summons to appear before the international court. The International Law Quarterly, 2, 377.Google Scholar
  82. Wedgwood, R. (2001). The irresolution of Rome. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wilmshurst, E. (2002). Jurisdiction of the Court. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The International Criminal Court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Yee, S. (2003). Forum prorogatum returns to the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 16, 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., & Oellers-Frahm, K. (Eds.). (2012). The statute of the International Court of Justice. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrin Fenrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed ConflictRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations