Customary Law, General Principles, Unilateral Acts

Fitzmaurice, Malgosia

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_10

Malgosia Fitzmaurice³

808 Accesses

Abstract

This contribution deals in particular with an undisputed and fundamental contribution of Nicaragua cases to the development of customary international law. The question of customary international law in the Nicaragua cases has become a central issue in the whole debate on this source of international law. The approach of the Court to the two-element structure of customary international law, has been a source of an invigorating scholarly discussion and speculation. To some extent the author of this contribution also engages into the debate how customary international law has developed further through judicial practice, in particular that of the International Court of Justice, not lacking in controversy. This contribution deals with general principles of law, focusing on the principle of res judicata. Finally, it deals with unilateral acts, focusing on the legal character of optional declaration within the system of compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, reliance on which in the Nicaragua v. United States case was met with a very robust debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. United States (Jurisdiction)’); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. United States (Merits)’).
2.
North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3 (hereinafter ‘North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgment)’).
3.
Therefore, such questions as the much-debated requirement of the belief by States that a rule is law before it becomes a law and the difficulties of evidencing the existence of opinio juris (as stated e.g. by Judge Tanaka in his Dissenting Opinion in North Sea Continental Shelf cases) will not be discussed.
4.
See contribution by Tzanakopoulos A and Ventouratou A above.
5.
E.g., Charlesworth (1984–1987) and (1998), D’Amato (1985), Charney (1988), Czaplinski (1989), Mendelson (1989), Lang (1990), Tasioulas (1996), Lepard (2010) and Schlütter (2010).
6.
Wood M, Special Rapporteur, First report on formation and evidence of customary international law, 17 May 2013, UN Doc. A/CN.4/663 (hereinafter ‘Wood, First report’); Second report on formation and evidence of customary international law, 23 May 2014, UN Doc. A/CN.4/672 (hereinafter ‘Wood, Second report’); Third report on formation and evidence of customary international law, 27 March 2015, UN Doc. A/CN.4/682 (hereinafter ‘Wood, Third report’) and Fourth report on formation and evidence of customary international law, 8 March 2016, UN Doc. A/CN.4/695.
7.
Wood, Third report, supra n. 6, pp. 4–5, para 13, referring to Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 109.
8.
Wood, Third report, supra n. 6, pp. 15–16, para 29, referring to Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, pp. 97–98, para 184.
9.
See Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-eight session (2016), UN Doc. A/71/10, pp. 79–117, para 63 (hereinafter ‘2016 ILC Report’).
10.
Charlesworth (1984–1987), p. 4.
11.
499 UNTS 311.
12.
North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgment), supra n. 2, p. 43, para 74.
13.
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 131 (hereinafter ‘Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (Judgment)’).
14.
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries (Judgment), supra n. 13, p. 138.
15.
North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgment), supra n. 2, p. 44, para 77.
16.
North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgment), supra n. 2, pp. 43–44, para 76.
17.
Skubiszewski (1971), p. 843.
18.
Charlesworth (1984–1987), p. 10.
19.
However, it is worth noting that certain findings of the ICJ in the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) have also proved influential. The ILC took support on the Court’s 2009 Judgement (ICJ Reports 2009, pp. 265–266, para 141) to affirm that ‘the acts of private individuals may also sometimes be relevant, but only to the extent that States have endorsed or reacted to them’ (ILC Reports 2016, supra n. 9, p. 90).
20.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 97, para 183.
21.
See e.g. paras 193, 204 and 205.
22.
Charlesworth (1984–1987), p. 18. The example of a Declaration of Friendly Relations is of that couched in a legislative language.
23.
Tomka (2013), p. 197; see also Bordin (2014), p. 535.
24.
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 34.
25.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 98, para 185.
26.
Ibid., pp. 102–103, para 193.
27.
Ibid., p. 106, para 202.
28.
Ibid., p. 108, para 206.
29.
Ibid., pp. 108–109, para 207.
30.
Ibid., p. 109, paras 207–208.
31.
Ibid., p. 97, para 183.
32.
Ibid.
33.
Ibid., pp. 97–98, para 184. The ILC expressly referred to this passage in support of its draft Conclusion 2 (2016 ILC Report, supra n. 9, p. 82, note 253).
34.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 98, para 186.
35.
STL, Appeals Chamber, Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, 16 February 2011, para 100.
36.
Ibid.
37.
High Court of Australia, Polyukhovich v. Commonwealth (‘War Crimes Act case’), 14 August 1991, 172 CLR 501, para 28.
38.
Draft Conclusion 8, 2016 ILC Report, supra n. 9, p. 94.
39.
Paragraph 7 of the commentary to draft Conclusion 8, ibid., p. 96.
40.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 98, para 186.
41.
Charlesworth (1984–1987), p. 22.
42.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, pp. 100–101, para 190.
43.
The Court ascertained opinio juris from the resolutions of the General Assembly (in particular the Declaration on Friendly Relations’), taking into account the attitudes of States towards such resolutions ‘with all due caution’ (ibid., pp. 99–100, para 188). The Court also e.g. relied on the United States’ support for a resolution condemning aggression at the Sixth International Conference of the American States in 1928, arguing that it contributes to opinio juris for the prohibition of the sur of force (ibid., p. 100, para 188).
44.
See Crawford (2012), p. 178.
45.
Ibid., p. 100, para 188.
46.
Ibid.
47.
See Wood, Second report, supra n. 6, para 76(g) and notes 270–271 and 276.
48.
2016 ILC Reports, supra n. 9, para 63, respectively pp. 91 and 99.
49.
ECCC, Co-Investigating Judges, Decision on meas muth’s request for clarification concerning crimes against humanity and the nexus with armed conflict, 5 April 2016, paras 62 and 73.
50.
Charney (1988), p. 23.
51.
Ibid., p. 29.
52.
Meron (1998), p. 157; Charney (1988), p. 18.
53.
Charney (1988), p. 22.
54.
See e.g. Roberts (2001), Kolb (2003), Tomuschat (1999) and Talmon (2015a).
55.
Roberts (2001), p. 758.
56.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 98, paras 186 and 188.
57.
Schlütter (2010), p. 154.
58.
Ibid.
59.
See e.g. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense et al., US Supreme Court Case No. 05-184, Judgment, 29 June 2006, note 63 and Hungary Constitutional Court, 13 October 1993, No. 53/1993, para V(4)(b) (cited in Korberly v. Hungary, ECHR Application No. 9174/02, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 19 September 2008, para 18).
60.
See e.g. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1, Decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, paras 93, 98 and 102; ICT-R, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, ICTR Case No. 6051/Abis, Appeals Chambers, Judgment, 1 June 2001, para 438, note 805 and Prosecutor v. Moinina Fofana, SCSL Case No. SCSL-2004-14-AR-72(E), Appeals Chambers, Judgment, 25 May 2004, para 22.
61.
Talmon (2015a), p. 431.
62.
Talmon (2015a), pp. 431–432.
63.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 22
64.
The evidential value of UN General Assembly resolutions is still much debated. In one of the most recent cases before the ICJ (concerning nuclear disarmament), Judge Cançado Trindade asked the parties to the dispute; what is the role of these resolutions in relation the evidence concerning opinio juris; what is their relevance to the formation of a customary international law obligation to pursue negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament; and what is their incidence upon the question of the existence of a dispute between the Parties. Judge Cançado Trindade in particular referred to resolutions condemning nuclear weapons, extending from 1982 to date, and those adopted as a follow-up to the 1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, extending so far from 1997 to 2015 (Public Sitting, 16 March 2016, at the Peace Palace, in the case regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18966.pdf). In its 5 October 2016 Judgment, the ICJ found that it has no jurisdiction and that ‘it cannot proceed with the merits of this case’ (para 56).
65.
Talmon (2015a), p. 432.
66.
See the reply to Professor Talmon’s article (2015) by Sender and Wood (2015). See also the rejoinder of Professor Talmon (2015b), EJIL: Talk !.
67.
See Sender and Wood (2015).
68.
Paragraph 5 of the commentary to the draft Conclusion 2, 2016 ILC Report, supra n. 9, p. 84—footnotes omitted.
69.
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 674, para 139 (hereinafter ‘Nicaragua v. Colombia (Merits)’).
70.
The four treaties were the United Nations Charter; the Charter of the Organisation of American States; the Montevideo Convention the Rights and Duties of States and the Havana Convention on Rights and Duties of States.
71.
See on this: Pax (1985), p. 471.
72.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 96, para 179. Referring to this paragraph, the Court recently confirmed this independence in the Croatia v. Serbia case (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, par 88). See also paragraph 2 of the commentary to Conclusion 1 of the ILC on identification of customary international law, 2016 ILC Report, supra n. 9, p. 79, para 63, note 246.
73.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 113, para 218.
74.
Ibid.
75.
Ibid.
76.
Ibid.
77.
Ibid., p. 95, para 178.
78.
Ibid. See Lang (1990), pp. 124–125.
79.
Ibid.
80.
Roberts (2001), p. 758.
81.
Ibid., pp. 758–759.
82.
D’Amato (1987).
83.
See Kirgis (1987), Tasioulas (1996), Roberts (2001) and Benivisti (2004).
84.
Jennings (1982), pp. 2–5.
85.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016 (hereinafter ‘Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction)’).
86.
Ibid., para 47.
87.
Ibid., para 55.
88.
As Judges Donoghue and Greenwood pointed out in their respective separate opinion appended to the 17 March 2016 Judgment, Nicaragua’s request in Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm is wider in scope than its request in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (see paras 2–3 of Judge Donoghue’s Opinion and para 10 in Judge Greenwood’s Opinion). In the Territorial and Maritime Dispute, Nicaragua’s request only concerns the delimitation of the continental shelf between the mainland coast of the Parties (supra n. 69, p. 636, para 17). In Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm, Nicaragua’s request also covers the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua’s mainland coast and Colombian Islands in the Caribbean Sea (supra n. 85, para 10).
89.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction), supra n. 85, para 59.
90.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction), supra n. 85, Separate Opinion of Judge Greenwood, para 4.
91.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction), supra n. 85, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Yusuf, Judges Cançado Trindade, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson and Judge ad hoc Brower, para 18 (hereinafter ‘Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction) (Joint Dissenting Opinion)’).
92.
supra n. 69, p. 719, para 251. See also Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction) (Joint Dissenting Opinion), supra n. 91, para 16.
93.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction), supra n. 85, para 75, citing Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2013, p. 306, para 68.
94.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction), supra n. 85, para 75.
95.
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 nm (Jurisdiction) (Joint Dissenting Opinion), supra n. 91, para 60.
96.
Nicaragua v. United States (Jurisdiction), supra n. 1, p. 413, para 48.
97.
Paragraph 3 of the commentary to Guiding Principle 10, YbILC 2006, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 166.
98.
The resolution reads as follows: ‘Moreover, the Junta made it plain in one of these documents that its invitation to the Organization of American States to supervise Nicaragua’s political life should not be allowed to obscure the fact that it was the Nicaraguans themselves who were to decide upon and conduct the country’s domestic policy. The resolution of 23 June 1979 also declares that the solution of their problems is a matter ‘exclusively’ for the Nicaraguan people, while stating that that solution was to be based (in Spanish, deberia inspirarse) on certain foundations which were put forward merely as recommendations to the future government. This part of the resolution is a mere statement which does not comprise any formal offer which if accepted would constitute a promise in law, and hence a legal obligation. Nor can the Court take the view that Nicaragua actually undertook a commitment to organize free elections, and that this commitment was of a legal nature. The Nicaraguan Junta of National Reconstruction planned the holding of free elections as part of its political programme of government, following the recommendation of the XVIIth Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of American States. This was an essentially political pledge, made not only to the Organization, but also to the people of Nicaragua, intended to be its first beneficiaries. But the Court cannot find an instrument with legal force, whether unilateral or synallagmatic, whereby Nicaragua has committed itself in respect of the principle or methods of holding elections’ (see Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 110, para 231).
99.
Nicaragua v. United States (Merits), supra n. 1, p. 132, para 261.
100.
For recent studies on unilateral acts of States: Kassoti (2015) and Saganek (2015).
101.
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), Judgments, ICJ Reports 1974, respectively pp. 267–270, paras 43–52 and pp. 472, paras 46–55.
102.
Ibid., p. 268, para 43 and p. 472, para 46.
103.
Ibid., p. 269, para 50.
104.
Ibid., p. 270, para 51.
105.
See e.g. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 573–4, paras 39–40; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 28, para 49 and Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993, ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 16–18.
106.
YbILC 2006, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 162.
107.
Paragraph 1 of the commentary to Guiding Principle 3, ibid.

References

Benivisti E (2004) Customary international law as a judicial tool for promoting efficiency. In: Kirsch M (ed) The impact of international law international cooperation. CUP, Cambridge, pp 85–116
Chapter Google Scholar
Bordin FL (2014) Reflections of customary international law: the authority of codification conventions and ILC draft articles on international law. ICLQ 63:535–567
Article Google Scholar
Charlesworth H (1984–1987) Customary international law and the Nicaragua case. AYbIL 11:2–32
Google Scholar
Charlesworth H (1998) The unbearable lightness of customary international law. ASIL Proc 92:44–47
Google Scholar
Charney JL (1988) Customary international law in the Nicaragua case. Judgment on merits. Hague YbIL 18:16–29
Google Scholar
Crawford JR (2012) Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua case (Nicaragua v United States of America). In: Woflrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, vol VII. OUP, Oxford, pp 173–183
Google Scholar
Czaplinski W (1989) Sources of international law in the Nicaragua case. ICLQ 38:151–166
Article Google Scholar
D’Amato A (1985) Nicaragua and international law: the “Academic” and the “Real”. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=facultyworkingpapers. Accessed 7 Nov 2016
D’Amato A (1987) Trashing customary international law. AJIL 81:101–105
Article Google Scholar
Jennings R (1982) The identification of international law. In: Cheng B (ed) International law: teaching and practice. Stevens, London, pp 3–9
Google Scholar
Kassoti E (2015) The juridical nature of unlateral acts of states in international law. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston
Book Google Scholar
Kirgis F (1987) Custom on a sliding scale. AJIL 81:146–151
Article Google Scholar
Kolb R (2003) Selected problems in the theory of customary international law. NILR 50:119–150
Article Google Scholar
Lang C (1990) L’affaire Nicaragua/États-Unis devant la Cour internationale de Justice. LGDJ, Paris
Google Scholar
Lepard B (2010) Customary international law: a new theory with practical applications. CUP, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Mendelson M (1989) The Nicaragua case and customary international law. Coexistence 26:85–99
Google Scholar
Meron T (1998) War crimes law comes of age. Clarendon, Oxford
Google Scholar
Pax TJ (1985) Nicaragua v. United States in the International Court of Justice: compulsory jurisdiction of just compulsion? Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 8:471–515
Google Scholar
Roberts A (2001) Traditional and modern approaches to customary international law: a reconciliation. AJIL 95:757–791
Article Google Scholar
Saganek P (2015) Unilateral acts of states in public international law. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston
Book Google Scholar
Schlütter B (2010) Developments in customary international law. Theory and practice of the International Court of Justice and the International ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Martinus Njihoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Sender O, Wood M (2015) The international court of justice and customary international law: a reply to Stefan Talmon. EJIL: Talk!. http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-court-of-justice-and-customary-international-law-a-reply-to-stefan-talmon/. Accessed 7 Nov 2016
Skubiszewski K (1971) Elements of custom and the Hague Court. ZaöRV 31:810–854
Google Scholar
Talmon S (2015a) Determining customary international law: the ICJ’s methodology between induction, deduction and assertion. EJIL 26:417–443
Article Google Scholar
Talmon S (2015b) Determining customary international law: the ICJ’s methodology and the idyllic world of the ILC. EJIL: Talk!. http://www.ejiltalk.org/determining-customary-international-law-the-icjs-methodology-and-the-idyllic-world-of-the-ilc/#more-13882. Accessed 7 Nov 2016
Tasioulas J (1996) In defence of relative normativity: communitarian values and the Nicaragua case. Oxf J Leg Stud 16:1–44
Article Google Scholar
Tomka P (2013) The judge and international custom. LPICT 12:195–216
Google Scholar
Tomuschat C (1999) International law: ensuring the survival of mankind on the eve of the new century: general course of international law. Collect Course Hague Acad Int Law 281:9–438
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
Malgosia Fitzmaurice

Authors

Malgosia Fitzmaurice
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malgosia Fitzmaurice .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Embassy of Nicaragua in The Hague, Den Haag, The Netherlands
Edgardo Sobenes Obregon
University Paris Nanterre, Paris, France
Benjamin Samson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fitzmaurice, M. (2018). Customary Law, General Principles, Unilateral Acts. In: Sobenes Obregon, E., Samson, B. (eds) Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_10

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62962-9_10
Published: 22 November 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62961-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62962-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics