Abstract
Territorial integrity is, as we have seen earlier, the institutionalization of territoriality, which means the control by the state of a given space and its population, after having succeeded to neutralize internal and external competitors, and its use for political, social, and economic ends to the benefit of the whole population. Translated in juridical terms, territoriality reflects the supreme authority or jurisdiction of the state to control all persons or property within its territorial domain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Fenwick (1965, p. 296).
- 2.
Jennings and Watts (1992, p. 382).
- 3.
See Beale (1923, p. 241).
- 4.
Quoted in Shearer (1994, p. 184)
- 5.
UNRIAA, 1928, vol. II, p. 829.
- 6.
Idem.
- 7.
Thus it is recalled in Oppenheim’s International Law that “Like independence, territorial supremacy does not give an unlimited liberty of action. Thus, every state has a right to demand that its merchant may pass through the territorial sea of other states. Foreign Heads of State and envoys, foreign warships, and foreign armed forces must be granted a certain degree of inviolability and exemption from local jurisdiction. Through the right of protection over citizens abroad, which is held by every state according to customary law, a state cannot treat foreign citizens passing through or residing on its territory arbitrarily according to discretion as it might treat its own nationals. A state, in spite of its territorial authority, may not alter the natural conditions of its own territory to the disadvantage of the natural conditions of the territory of a neighbouring state- for instance, to stop or divert or pollute the flow of a river which runs from its own into neighbouring territory…”, Jennings and Watts (1992, p. 391).
- 8.
Idem, p. 384.
- 9.
The move towards increased expansion of International Law domain at the detriment of national jurisdiction has been rightly recalled by Charles G. Fenwick when stating that domestic questions “are, in respect to their objects, the sum total of national interests minus the interests governed by International Law. In one sense, therefore, the scope of domestic questions is in inverse ratio to the scope of international law; the wider the latter the narrower the former, and vice versa. As international law has gradually brought one set of conflicting interests after another within its jurisdiction, it has to a corresponding degree restricted the control of the individual state over those interests and thus converted questions relating to them from national or domestic questions into international questions”, Fenwick (1925, pp. 144–145).
- 10.
Higgins (1994, p. 73).
- 11.
See Ott (1987, p. 137).
- 12.
See O’Connell (1965, p. 656).
- 13.
de Lupis (1974, p. 21).
- 14.
Lotus case, Judgment No 9, 1927, P.C.I.J., Ser A, No 10, 18–19.
- 15.
Idem, p. 19.
- 16.
Higgins (1994, p. 73).
- 17.
American Law Institute (1987, §432 (2)).
- 18.
Quoted by Dugard (2006, p. 233).
- 19.
- 20.
ILM, 1992, 31, 900.
- 21.
Idem, pp. 917–918.
- 22.
ILR 1961, 36, 18.
- 23.
- 24.
See Akehurst (1972–1973, p. 152).
- 25.
Idem, pp. 156–157.
- 26.
Article 4 the 1931 Resolution of the Institute of International Law.
- 27.
See the critical analysis made by Sahovic and Bishop (1968, pp. 368–372).
- 28.
US v. Aluminum Co. of America case, 148F.443, 1945.
- 29.
Magnarella (1995a, p. 164).
- 30.
- 31.
Raustiala (2004, p. 27).
- 32.
See Halleck and Baker (1893, pp. 387–388).
- 33.
See Filder (2000, p. 387).
- 34.
See Franck (2009, p. 443).
- 35.
Raustiala (2004).
- 36.
US v. Aluminum Co. of America case, 148F.443, 1945.
- 37.
See, e.g., Maier (1983, p. 31).
- 38.
See Putmam (2009, p. 484).
- 39.
I.L.M., 1996, 35, 1329, Inter-American Juridical Committee Examining the US Helms-Burton Act, 27 August 1996.
- 40.
I.L.M, 1991, 30, 1487.
- 41.
See Raustiala (2004, p. 36 and seq).
- 42.
- 43.
See Magnarella (1995b, p. 160).
- 44.
- 45.
See O’Keefe (2009, pp. 811–812).
- 46.
See Carnegie (1963, p. 405).
- 47.
See Jescheck (1985, pp. 332–333).
- 48.
- 49.
See Princeton Project (2001, p. 29). See also American Law Institute (1987) §404, which refers to “certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks on or hijacking of aircraft, genocide, war crimes, and perhaps certain acts of terrorism”.
- 50.
See Randall (1988, p. 831).
- 51.
Scheffer (2001, p. 233).
- 52.
See Biguma (1998).
- 53.
This was due in particular, notes M. Inazumi, to “the shortcoming of relying on territorial jurisdiction and on the extradition system based on the principle of reciprocity”, Inazumi (2005, p. 81).
- 54.
On the increasing number of national legislations that have provided for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, see Butler (2004, pp. 67–76).
- 55.
See Slaughter (2004, pp. 168–190).
- 56.
Idem, pp. 87–98; Bottini (2004, p. 504).
- 57.
Reydmans (2003, p. 1).
- 58.
Broomhall (2003, p. 112).
- 59.
Introduction of Macedo (2004, p. 4).
- 60.
See Cryer et al. (2010, pp. 61–62).
- 61.
- 62.
Reydmans (2003, p. 1).
- 63.
- 64.
See Frydman (2009, p. 75).
- 65.
Idem, p. 88.
- 66.
See Florini (2000).
- 67.
See Keck Sikkink (1998).
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
Jones (1951, p. 222 et seq).
- 71.
Williams (1929, p. 477).
- 72.
James L. Brierly has written at that time that the incorporation in the Covenant of the domestic jurisdiction clause “ as a new catchword …capable of proving as great hindrance to the orderly development of (International Law) as the somewhat idols of sovereignty, state equality, and the like have been in the past”, Brierly (1925, p. 8).
- 73.
See on this Wilson (1929, pp. 68–93); Ulimubenshi (2003, pp. 27–34). Jackson H. Ralston has noted about the reservation related to what has been called “domestic questions” that “without e definition at least, the exclusion (of domestic questions) seems superfluous. By the very conditions of its existence, an international court (or arbiter) deals with international questions and not those which are domestic”, Ralston (1919, p. 44).
- 74.
See Fincham (1948, p. 20 et seq).
- 75.
PCIJ, Series B, No 4, (7 February 1927), pp. 23–24.
- 76.
Idem, p. 24. It consequently reached the conclusion that in the present state of international law, questions of nationality are in principle within this reserved domain.
- 77.
Conforti (2005, p. 134).
- 78.
U.N.C.I.O., Supplement to Report of Rapporteur, Committee I/1, to Commission I, Doc.1070, I/1/34 (I) (d) (Documents, VI, 486).
- 79.
See Goodrich and Hambro (1946, p. 190).
- 80.
Gilmour (1967a, p. 331).
- 81.
See on Art. 2 (7) Berthoud (1948); Vallindas (1948); Goodrich (1949); Howell (1954, p. 48); See Preuss (1949-I); Rajan (1958); Bindschedler (1963-I, p. 108); Ross (1964); Verdross (1965); Gilmour (1967b, c); Ermacora (1968-II, p. 124); Trindade (1976, p. 25); Watson (1977, p. 71); Jones (1979); Nolte (2002); Conforti (2005); Kawser (2006, pp. 175–197).
- 82.
See Preuss (1949-I, pp. 597–604).
- 83.
Idem, p. 604.
- 84.
Nolte (2002, p. 150).
- 85.
Conforti (2005, p. 141).
- 86.
See, for instance, Nolte (2002, p. 171).
- 87.
See White (2005, p. 91).
- 88.
McClean (2011, p. 28).
- 89.
Idem, pp. 28–29.
- 90.
See Chesterman (2001, pp. 546–548).
- 91.
Secretary-General Report on Aspects of Establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia, U.N. SCOR. U.N. Doc.S/25704 (1993), para 20.
- 92.
See, e.g. with regard to the ICTY, Rubin (1994, pp. 7–17).
- 93.
Tadic ICTY A.Ch.2 October 1995, paras 44–45.
- 94.
A similar view has been expressed by Blakesley (1994, pp. 84–85).
- 95.
See Baroni (2000, p. 235).
- 96.
See Sharga and Zalick (1994, p. 361).
- 97.
See Birdsall (2006, p. 10).
- 98.
See Hoffman (2008, pp. 546–548).
- 99.
Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakat v. Council of the European Union, 3.C.M.L.R.41, para 370.
- 100.
Idem, p. 546.
- 101.
See Schepple (2006).
- 102.
See Marschik (2005, p. 460).
- 103.
Harper (1994, p. 14).
- 104.
See Nolte (2000, pp. 320–321).
- 105.
- 106.
See Arangio-Ruiz (2000, pp. 660–682).
- 107.
See Marschik (2005, pp. 463–464).
- 108.
UN-Doc.S/2004/329, 28 April 2004.
- 109.
Cohen (2011, p. 34).
- 110.
Akram and Shah (2005, p. 455).
- 111.
The two Governments used in fact the term “surrender” which does not exist in International Law instead of “extradite” as they were aware that a request for “extradition” was not appropriate due to the circumstances of the case. Alfred P.Rubin has noted in this respect that “The demand for surrender by the United States and Great Britain presupposed a Libyan legal obligation to surrender the accused. It appears that by changing the word from extradition to surrender the United States and the United Kingdom thought that the complications of extradition law could be avoided. It is very hard to understand their logic in this. There is no known basis for asserting that general international law contains a ‘surrender’ obligation distinct from ‘extradition’ or the expulsion of undesirable aliens”, Rubin (1993, p. 7).
- 112.
For more details on the position taken by the Libya and the US and the UK prior to the submission of the Lockerbie case to the Security Council, see Plachta (2001, pp. 125–129).
- 113.
See on this principle Wise (1998, pp. 15–29).
- 114.
Resolution 883 of 11November 1993.
- 115.
See, e.g., Saint-Aubin (1913, pp. 296–297).
- 116.
M. Bourquin writes in this regard that “According to a generally admitted rule, a state does not extradite its nationals. Formally prohibited by the national law of many countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Netherlands, etc.), the extradition of nationals is equally not observed by those many states, such as France, who do not possess national rules prohibiting it. There is only two great powers (United States and United Kingdom) which do admit it. However, their doctrine on this issue has no practical consequence as these two states do accept the extradition only to the governments with whom they are contractually committed and that, with the idea of reciprocity, nationals are in fact prevented from extradition due to the fact that one of the contracting parties does not want to handover its nationals”, Bourquin (1927-I, pp. 192–193). See also Chauvy (1981, pp. 44–45). With regard to recent US policy, M. Cherif Bassiouni has underlined that “The official policy of the United States in treaty negotiations has been, until lately, to prevent when possible the surrender of nationals, but this is no longer the case. The Secretary of State can always refuse to surrender a citizen of the United States unless there is an explicit treaty provision providing for reciprocity”, Bassiouni (2002, p. 684).
- 117.
Bassiouni (2002, p. 108).
- 118.
Marcella (1999, p. 94). D.Marcella writes in this regard that “The Montreal Convention applies to the facts of this case (i.e., Lockerbie case)…Libya is a party to the Montreal Convention and is the state where the ‘alleged offenders’ are present. Consistent with the attendant obligations, Libya is not required to extradite the suspects, since extradition would be inconsistent with Libyan national law. However, because extradition is unavailable under Libyan law, Libya is obliged by the Convention to undertake the necessary steps to establish jurisdiction over the suspects, and to prosecute them in the Libyan national courts”, Idem, p. 99.
- 119.
See Lowe et al. (2008, p. 35).
- 120.
Kelsen (1951, p. 294).
- 121.
Idem, p. 37.
- 122.
Dulles (1950, p. 194).
- 123.
Art.24 (2) of the UN Charter.
- 124.
Rubin (1993, op.cit.,11).
- 125.
Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident of Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United States), Provisional Measures, ICJ Rep.1992, Dissenting Opinion, 153.
- 126.
Reflecting a largely shared feeling, Alfred P. Rubin wrote in this respect “that It is certainly within the legal authority of the Security Council to act irrationally and make ‘decisions’ that reflect its political balance in disregard of the substantive law, morality and facts. But the effect of acting without apparent reason was felt throughout the world in ways apparently not considered seriously by the Security Council members”, Rubin (1993, p. 10).
- 127.
See Hurd (2007, pp. 137–170).
- 128.
The Court has on 27 February 1998 recognized its jurisdiction in the Lockerbie case. However, on 10 September 2003, the Lockerbie case will be removed from the role of the Court at the request of the three parties. This came as a result of the agreement reached between these parties on August 1998 that the two suspected Libyan nationals will be sued in Netherlands under Scottish law by Scottish judges and after the Security Council had on April 1999 suspended the application of sanctions against Libya.
- 129.
Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, ICJ Rep., 1992; Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States), Provisional Measures, ICJ Rep., 1992.
- 130.
See the Dissenting Opinions of Judges Bedjaoui, Weeramantry, Ajibola, El-Kosheri and Ranjeva.
- 131.
See McWhinney (1992); Franck (1992, p. 86); Reisman (1993, p. 87); Macdonald (1931); Bedjaoui (1993, 1994); Gowland-Debbas (1994, p. 88); Brownlie (1994); Gill (1995); Alvarez (1996, p. 90); Bowett (1996); Akande (1997, p. 46); Dupuy (1997); Dochring (1997); Malanczuk (1999); Martenczuk (1999, p. 10); Quigley (2000, p. 35); De Wet (2004); Manusama (2006).
- 132.
See El Ouali (1984, pp. 132–137).
- 133.
Idem, pp. 182–190.
- 134.
D. W. Bowett has rightly recalled in this respect that “It must be conceded that there are few signs that, at present, the members of the Security Council are not prepared to contemplate judicial review by the Court: the Western powers would see this s a hindrance and neither Russia or China display any great confidence in the Court”, Bowett (1996, p. 191).
- 135.
Nigel and White (2002, p. 124).
- 136.
See Holzgrefe (2003, p. 18). However J. L. Holzgrefe adds the “threat of using force”, which is not accurate, as we cannot talk of intervention, and humanitarian intervention is a kind of intervention, without the use of force. See, for a classical definition which excludes the “threat of the use of force”, Badescu (2011, p. 9).
- 137.
See Marchal (1931, p. 79).
- 138.
Hornung (1885, 1886).
- 139.
Pillet (1898, p. 70).
- 140.
Delos (1939, p. 252).
- 141.
These cases of humanitarian intervention have been analyzed by Rougier (1910, p. 472 cont.).
- 142.
Fenwick (1945, p. 645).
- 143.
- 144.
Finnemore (2003, pp. 65–66).
- 145.
Levene (2005, p. 225).
- 146.
In Rolin-Jacquemyns (1876, p. 673).
- 147.
Idem.
- 148.
Mill (1867, pp. 153–178).
- 149.
Hall (1909, p. 284).
- 150.
Oppenheim (1928, p. 271).
- 151.
Despagnet (1905, pp. 215–216).
- 152.
Rougier (1910, p. 526).
- 153.
See Franck and Rodley (1973a, p. 290).
- 154.
Chesterman (2001, p. 43).
- 155.
See Padirac (1953, p. 161 cont.).
- 156.
See El Ouali (1993).
- 157.
Kirsch (2005, p. 371). N. Krisch clarifies in this regard that “Despite the positive use great powers have always made of International law, and despite their successes in flexibilizing and shaping it, the standard structure of international legal rules has always posed obstacles to great power politics. The central obstacle…is the relatively egalitarian character of international law: the right of all to participate in law-making, and their equal subjection to universal norms”, Krisch (2004, p. 27).
- 158.
Krasner (2004, p. 86). Similar views are expressed by Ignatieff (2003) pp. 306–314; Keohane (2003, p. 286 cont). The latter after having declared that “We have to accept that states are differentiated both in their capacities and in legal status (Italics added) : despite the legal fiction of sovereignty, states are not all equal. One person’s double standard is another’s recognition of reality” (p. 277) has concluded with regard to humanitarian intervention and its desired impact on the future legal status of those states that have been subjected to that intervention that “ the political consolidation of gains from humanitarian intervention will depend on institutions that limit and unbundled sovereignty (italics added), permitting troubled societies to exercise some, but not all, aspects of classic sovereignty” (italics added), p. 278.
- 159.
Idem, p. 108.
- 160.
Idem, p. 109.
- 161.
Brownlie (1995, p. 49).
- 162.
Byers and Chesterman (2003, p. 193).
- 163.
Farer (2003, p. 59).
- 164.
Gray (2000, p. 8).
- 165.
See Kirsch (2005, p. 394).
- 166.
Babic (2003, pp. 46–47).
- 167.
12 UNCIO, Commission II, Committee 2, Doc.207, III/2/A/3, 10 May 1945, 179 at 191.
- 168.
- 169.
See, for instance, Giovanni da Legnano (1447).
- 170.
de Vitoria (1557).
- 171.
de Las Casas (1552).
- 172.
- 173.
See Fitzpatrick (2003, p. 448).
- 174.
Grotius (1646), para 40(4).
- 175.
See Tuck (1999, p. 103), n. 35.
- 176.
Wolff (1748), para 169.
- 177.
Idem, para 636.
- 178.
de Vattel (1758, para 7).
- 179.
There are some authors who believe that the idea of humanitarian intervention goes back to Thucydides. See, for instance, Bass (2008, p. 4).
- 180.
Nardin (2000).
- 181.
See Kochler (2001, p. 19). He has also written that “Whatever may be the idealistic rhetoric by which military actions are justified, the system of norms ensuring the peaceful co-existence among nations-what has been known essentially as ‘the international rule of law’- will not only be gradually undermined but will finally collapse if an equivalent to the old jus ad bellum is introduced in international relations” (p. 25).He adds that “The revival of the just war concept in the new imperial environment rehabilitates war as a means of foreign policy. The taboo placed on the non-use of force has quickly vanished under the pressures of “humanitarian realpolitik” (i.e. realpolitik in humanitarian clothes), p. 28.
- 182.
Idem, p. 19.
- 183.
See Suzuki (1974, pp. 36–37).
- 184.
See Reisman (2000, p. 15).
- 185.
- 186.
See Farer (1991, p. 186).
- 187.
Farer (2003, p. 63).
- 188.
See El Ouali (1984, p. 116 cont). in which we have carried out a critical analysis of the legal realism as applied by Reisman (1971 to international judgments and awards in his book “Nullity and Revision. The Review and Enforcement of International Judgments and Awards”, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1971, p. 900).
- 189.
Reisman and McDougal (1973, p. 167, 177).
- 190.
Reisman (1990, p. 866, 875).
- 191.
Reisman (2000, p. 15).
- 192.
See Farer (2003, pp. 62–68).
- 193.
Wheaton (1929, p. 150).
- 194.
Nys (1912, p. 229).
- 195.
Pradier-Fodere (1883, p. 547).
- 196.
Finnemore (2003, pp. 7–8).
- 197.
Idem, p. 19.
- 198.
See Thomas (1985).
- 199.
See Borchard (1951).
- 200.
Olivares Marcos (2005, p. 95).
- 201.
- 202.
C. Calvo has written in this respect that “en Droit International strict, le recouvrement de créances et la poursuite de réclamations privées ne justifient pas ‘de plano’ l’intervention armée des gouvernements, et que, comme les Etats européens suivent invariablement cette règle dans leurs relations réciproques, il n’y a nul motif qu’ils ne se l’imposent pas aussi dans leurs rapports avec les nations du Nouveau Monde”, Calvo (1886, pp. 350–351).
- 203.
- 204.
Olivares Marcos (2005, p. 101).
- 205.
Finnemore (2003, pp. 46–47).
- 206.
Kelsen (1951, p. 770).
- 207.
Idem, pp. 8–9.
- 208.
ICJ (1986, para 205).
- 209.
See Ch. Rousseau (1980, p. 35).
- 210.
ICJ (1949).
- 211.
Idem, p. 38.
- 212.
General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX). See also General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) and resolution 36/103.
- 213.
- 214.
See Schweisfurth (1980, p. 159 cont).
- 215.
General Assembly resolution 36/103.
- 216.
- 217.
A. Rougier has confessed in this regard that “Si l’Europe a mis la Turquie en tutelle (par le biais de l’intervention d’humanité), c’est moins dans l’intérêt des sujets ottomans que pour parer aux conflits d’intérêts de l’Angleterre, de l’Autriche, de la France et de la Russie autour de la mer Noire”, Rougier (1910, p. 525). H. Scott Fairley has also shown in this regard that “The case for humanitarian intervention is essentially misdirected. A history of black intentions clothed in white has tainted most possible applications of the doctrine”, Fairley (1980, p. 63). See also for a comprehensive and critical analysis, see Sean D. Murphy who has shown that the purposes of most of the humanitarian interventions were political and economic ones, Murphy (1996, pp. 33–64).
- 218.
Brownlie (1963b, p. 340).
- 219.
A proponent of humanitarian intervention such as J. L. Holzgrefe has recognized that “such right (of humanitarian intervention) was not invoked, let alone exercised, in the face of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes of the pre-Charter era, including the massacre of 1 million Armenians by the Turks (1914–1919); the forced starvation of 4 million Ukrainians by the Soviets (1930s); the massacre of thousands of Chinese by the Japanese (1931–1945); and the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis (1939–1945)”, Holzgrefe (2003, p. 45).
- 220.
Idem.
- 221.
- 222.
Reisman and McDougal (1958, p. 95).
- 223.
Reisman and McDougal (1973, p. 177). See also D’Amato (1987, pp. 57–73); Teson (1997, p. 151). A similar restrictive interpretation has been initially given by the United Kingdon in the Corfu Channel case when it argued that the minesweeping operation it conducted in Albanian waters “threatened neither the territorial integrity nor the political independence of Albania”, 1948 ICJ Pleadings, Corfu Channel case, vol 3, 296.
- 224.
6 UNCIO 335, Summary Report of Eleventh Meeting of Committee I/1,4 June 1945.
- 225.
P. Malanczuk does recall in this respect “that unilateral humanitarian intervention is illegal due to the prohibition of the use of force as the prevalent principle in the present international legal system in the interest on international peace and security”, Malanczuk (1993, p. 30).
- 226.
“It is highly questionable, writes S. Chesterman, that the drafters regarded human rights as of equal importance to peace”, Chesterman (2001, p. 52).
- 227.
The ICJ has, in reply to UK’s claim that its forcible intervention in Albanian waters was only meant to recover evidence of the causes of the destruction of two British warships, stated that “it can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force such as has in the past given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot find a place in international law. It is still less admissible in the particular form it would take here-it would be reserved for the most powerful states”, ICJ Reports, 1949, 4 at 34.
- 228.
Among many other UN General Assembly’s resolution, the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations has clarified that “No State or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state” and that “Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another state”.
- 229.
- 230.
- 231.
See Newman (2009, pp. 28–37).
- 232.
Idem.
- 233.
J. L. Holzgrefe has once again noted that in that period of time “No state or regional organization, for example, intervened to prevent or end the massacre of several hundred thousand ethnic Chinese in Indonesia (mid-1960s); the killing and forced starvation of almost half a million Ibos in Nigeria (1966–1970); the slaughter and forced starvation of over a million black Christians by the Sudanese government (since late 1970s); the murder of tens of thousands of Hutus in Burundi (1972); the slaying of 100,000 East Timorese by the Indonesian government (1975–1999); the forced starvation of up to 1 million Ethiopians by their government (mid-1980s); the murder of 100,000 Kurds in Iraq (1988–1989); and the killings of tens of thousands Hutus in Burundi (since 1993), Holzgrefe (2003, pp. 46–47). From his part, Mohammed Ayoob has noted that what make humanitarian interventions suspect is the fact that they “are undertaken on a selective basis and the same criteria are not applied uniformly in every case, such interventions lose legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of many, if not most members of the international system”, Holzgrefe (2002, p. 86). See also Pattison (2010, pp. 169–173).
- 234.
S. Chesterman has rightly concluded in this respect that “it seems clear that writers who claim that state practice provides evidence of a customary international law right of humanitarian intervention grossly overstate their case…State practice disclosed at most three ‘best cases’ of humanitarian intervention, but even these lack the necessary opinio juris that might transform the exception into the rule”, Chesterman (2001, pp. 86–87).
- 235.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Paper “Is Intervention Ever Justified?” (internal document dated 1984 and released in 1986, Foreign Policy Document No.148), B.Y.B.I.L., 1986, 619.
- 236.
Idem.
- 237.
Franck (2003, p. 223).
- 238.
Murphy (2001, p. 6).
- 239.
Franck (2003, p. 220).
- 240.
Danish Institute of International Affairs (DUPI) (1999, p. 65).
- 241.
Anthony Aust, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Legal Counsel has recognized in this respect that “Resolution 688, which applies not only to northern Iraq but to the whole of Iraq, was not made under Chapter VII. Resolution 688 recognized that there was a severe humanitarian situation in Iraq and, in particular, northern Iraq; but the intervention in northern Iraq “Provide Comfort” was in fact, not especially mandated by the United nations, but the states taking action in northern Iraq did so in exercise of the customary international law principle of humanitarian principle”, 63 B.Y.B.I.L.(1992), 827.
- 242.
The preamble of Resolution 688 does clearly refer to Security Council concern with regard to “the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region”.
- 243.
See Gray (2000, pp. 218–224).
- 244.
Idem, p. 219.
- 245.
See Chesterman (2001, p. 135).
- 246.
Gray (2000, p. 220).
- 247.
NATO Press Release 1999 (040).
- 248.
Pellet (2000, p. 42).
- 249.
Franck (2003, p. 225).
- 250.
See Charney (1999) law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/32-05/32.5.1 html.
- 251.
See Chesterman (2001, pp. 215–216).
- 252.
Simma (1999) has reflected a general view when he wrote that “The legal issues presented by the Kosovo crisis are particularly impressive proof that hard cases make bad law” in “NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects”.
- 253.
Charney (1999).
- 254.
See Domagala (2004, pp. 24–31).
- 255.
Idem, p. 16.
- 256.
In a resolution adopted in 1999, the General Assembly has declared that “The General Assembly… Reaffirming…that no state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights…Deeply concerned that, despite the recommendations adopted on this question by the General Assembly…(unauthorized) coercive measures continue to be promulgated and implemented with all their extraterritorial effects…Rejects (unauthorized) coercive measures with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country”. GA Res.54/172, UNGAOR, 54th sess., UN Doc.A/RES/54/172 (1999). Stronger condemnation has been made by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Group of 77 in a Declaration adopted in 24 September 1999 and in which it has been inter alia said that “The Ministers…rejected the so-called right of humanitarian intervention, which has no basis in the UN Charter or in International Law”. See also the Declaration of the Group of 77 Summit (133 states), Havana, Cuba, 10-14 April 2000.
- 257.
See Hehir (2008, p. 55).
- 258.
Idem.
- 259.
- 260.
See Pattison (2010, p. 177).
- 261.
Though being of the opinion that states’ practice since 1990 may be seen as evidence of a greater acceptance that humanitarian intervention may be morally justifiable in extreme cases, the Danish Institute of International Affairs has recognized that “In conclusion, state practice after the end of the Cold War(1990-1999) concerning humanitarian intervention is neither sufficiently substantial nor has there been sufficient acceptance in the international community to support the view that a right of humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorization has become part of customary international law”, Dupi (1999, p. 93).
- 262.
- 263.
Thomas G. Weiss and Ramesh Thakur (2010 have noted about Canada’s role in favour of R2P that “Within the First United Nations, the norm champion of R2P from start to finish was Canada, a country that is strongly committed to multilateralism and has a history of close engagement with the United Nations, political credibility in both North and South, and a proud tradition of successful initiatives” in “Global Governance and the UN. An Unfinished Journey”, p. 319).
- 264.
Evans (2006, p. 708).
- 265.
The Economist,18 September 1999.
- 266.
ICISS (2001, p. 11).
- 267.
Idem.
- 268.
Idem, p. viii.
- 269.
Charney (1999, p. 1232).
- 270.
Annan (2000, p. 48).
- 271.
- 272.
Alkopher (2007, pp. 1–27).
- 273.
Wilkins (2003, p. 37).
- 274.
See Newman (2009, p. 138 and seq).
- 275.
See ICISS (2001, p. vii).
- 276.
Zajadlo (2005, p. 657).
- 277.
ICISS (2001, p. 11).
- 278.
Idem, p. 49.
- 279.
Idem, p. 48.
- 280.
ICIIS admitted in this regard that “An issue which we cannot avoid addressing, however, is that of the veto power enjoyed by the present Permanent Five. Many of our interlocutors regarded capricious use of the veto, or threat of its use, as likely to be the principal obstacle to effective international action in cases where quick and decisive action is needed to stop or avert a significant humanitarian crisis. As has been said, it is unconscionable that one veto can override the rest of humanity on matters of grave humanitarian concern. Of particular concern is the possibility that needed action will be held hostage to unrelated concerns of one or more of the permanent members – a situation that has too frequently occurred in the past”, idem, p. 51.
- 281.
Idem, pp. 52–54.
- 282.
On the basis of Art. 10, which gives a general responsibility to the UN General Assembly with regard to any matter within the scope of UN authority, and Art. 11, which gives the General Assembly a fallback responsibility with regard specifically to the maintenance of international peace and security – albeit only to make recommendations, not binding decisions, as well as General Assembly Resolution “Uniting for Peace”.
- 283.
On the basis of Art. 52 of the UN Charter.
- 284.
Idem, p. 32.
- 285.
See Hehir (2008, p. 71).
- 286.
ICISS (2001, pp. 32–37).
- 287.
The Responsibility to Protect, as stated in the Outcome Document, has been further softened when it was endorsed by the Security Council through its Resolution 1674. See Strauss (2009, pp. 291–323).
- 288.
- 289.
See Bellamy (2011, pp. 51–92).
- 290.
See de Vaal (2007, p. 1039).
- 291.
- 292.
- 293.
Anonymous (2007).
- 294.
de Vaal (2007, p. 1043).
- 295.
Evans (2006, p. 716).
- 296.
See Bellamy (2010, p. 153).
- 297.
See Evans (2008, pp. 288–289).
- 298.
Bellamy (2010, p. 166).
- 299.
See Bellamy (2010, p. 153).
- 300.
S/RES/1973 (2011), 17 March 2011.
- 301.
See Reuters, 12 April 2011.
- 302.
Strauss (2009, p. 321).
References
Aceves WJ (2000) Liberalism and international legal scholarship: the Pinochet case and the move towards a universal transnational law litigation. Harvard Int Law J
Akande D (1997) The international court of justice and the security council: is there room for judicial control of decisions of the political organs of the United nations? ICLQ
Akehurst M (1972–1973) Jurisdiction in international law. BYIL:46
Akram M, Shah SH (2005) The legislative powers of the United security council. In: Ronald St. John Macdonald and Douglas M Johnston (eds.) Towards World Constitutionalism. Issues in Legal Ordering of the World Community. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Alkopher TD (2007) The role of rights in rights in the social construction of wars: from the crusades to humanitarian interventions. Millennium J Int Stud 36
Alvarez JE (1996) Judging the security council. AJIL
American Law Institute (1987) Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. American Law Institute Publishers, Philadelphia
Anghie A (1999) Fransisco de Vitoria and the Colonial origins of International law. In: Darian-Smith E, Fitzpatrick P (eds) Laws of the Postcolonial. Michigan University Press, Ann Arbor
Anghie A (2005) Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Annan K (2000) We the Peoples. Millennium Report. United Nations, New York
Anonymous (2007) Ensuring a responsibility to protect: lessons from Darfur. http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/14/2anonymous.pdf
Arangio-Ruiz G (2000) On the council law making. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 83
Babic J (2003) Foreign armed intervention: between justified aid and illegal violence. In: Jokic A, Wilkins B (eds) Humanitarian Intervention. Moral and Philosophical Issues. Broadview Press, Toronto
Badescu CG (2011) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. Security and Human Rights. Routledge, London
Badescu CG (June 2009) The responsibility to protect and the conflict in darfur: the big let-down. Security Dialogue 40(3)
Balthazar LG (1998) Governments sanctions and private initiatives: striking a new balance for U.S. enforcement of internationally recognized workers rights. Columbia Human Rights Law Rev 29
Baroni F (2000) The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its mission to restore peace. Pace Int Law Rev 12
Bass GJ (2008) Freedom’s Battle. The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
Bassiouni C (2002) International Extradition: United States Law and Practice. Oceana Publications, New York
Bassiouni C (2004) The history of universal jurisdiction and its place in international law. In: Macedo S (ed) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Bazyler MJ (1987) Re-examing the doctrine of humanitarian intervention in light of the atrocities in Kampuchea and Ethiopia. Stanford J Int Law 23
Beale JH (1923) The jurisdiction of a sovereign state. Harvard Law Rev 36
Bedjaoui M (1993) Du contrôle de la légalité des actes du Conseil de Sécurité. In Recueil d’études en l’honneur du Professeur François Rigaux, Brussels
Bedjaoui M (1994) The New World Order and the Security Council. Testing the Legality of Its Acts. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
Bellamy A (2006) Whither the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics Int Affair 20(2)
Bellamy AJ (2009) The responsibility to protect or Trojan horse? The crisis in darfur and humanitarian intervention after Iraq. Ethics Int Affairs 19(2)
Bellamy AJ (2010) The responsibility to protect-five years on. Ethics Int Affairs 24(2)
Bellamy AJ (2011) Global Politics and the Responsibility to Protect. From Words to Deeds. Routledge, London
Bennouna M (1974) Le consentement a lingerence militaire dans les conflits internes. LGDJ, Paris
Berthoud P (1948) La compétence nationale des Etats. L’Article 2, paragraphe 7 de la Charte de San Francisco. Thesis, Neuchâtel, Brougg
Beyerlin U (1982) Humanitarian intervention. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol 3. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam
Biguma NF (1998) La reconnaissance conventionnelle de la compétence universelle des tribunaux internes à l’égard de certains crimes et délits. Thesis, Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris II
Bindschedler L (1963-I) La délimitation des compétences des Nations Unies. RCADI
Birdsall A (2006) The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.- Towards a more just order? Peace Conflict Dev 8
Blakesley CL (1994) Obstacles to the creation of a permanent war crimes tribunal. Fletcher Forum World Affairs 18(2)
Borchard EM (1951) State Insolvency and Foreign Bondholders, vol 269. Yale University Press, New Haven
Bottini G (2004) Universal jurisdiction after the creation of the international criminal court. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 36(2–3)
Bourquin M (1927-I) Crimes et delits contre la surete des Etats etrangers. RCADI
Bowett DW (1996) The court role in relation to international organizations. In: Vaughan L, Fitzmaurice M (ed) Fifty Years of International Court of Justice. Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bowett DW (1997) Judicial and political functions of the security council and the international court of justice. In: Changing the Constitution of the United Nations. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London
Brierly JL (1925) Matters of domestic jurisdiction. BYBIL
Broomhall B (2003) International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Brownlie I (1963a) International Law and the Use of Force by States. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Brownlie I (1963b) International Law and the Use of Force. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Brownlie I (1973) Humanitarian intervention. In: John Norton Moore (ed.) Law and Civil War in the Modern World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Brownlie I (1994) The decisions of political organs of the United Nations and the rule of law. In: Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
Brownlie I (1995) International law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations. 255 RCADI, I
Butler AH (2004) The growing support for universal jurisdiction in national legislation. In: Macedo S (ed) Universal jurisdiction: national courts and the prosecution of serious crimes under international law. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Byers M, Chesterman S (2003) Changing the rules about rules? Unilateral humanitarian intervention and the future of international law. In: Holzgrefe JL, Keohane RO (eds) Humanitarian intervention. Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Calvo C (1886) Le Droit International Public theorique et pratique, vol 1. Guillaumin/Pedone, Paris
Carnegie R (1963) Jurisdiction over violations of the laws and customs of war. BYIL 39
Charney JI (1999) Commentary: anticipatory humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 32(5)
Charpentier J (1961) Les effets du consentement sur l’intervention, Melanges Seferiades, vol 2
Chauvy Y (1981) L’extradition, Paris, Q.S.J. No. 1920
Chesterman S (2001) Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law, vol. 140. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cohen JL (2011) Security council activism in the age of the war on terror. Implications for human rights, democracy and constitutionalism. In: Peled Y, Lewin-Epstein N, Mundlak G, Cohen JL (eds) Democratic Citizenship and War. Routledge, London
Conforti B (2005) The Law and Practice of the United Nations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Cottey A (2008) Beyond humanitarian intervention: the new politics of peacekeeping and intervention. Contemporary Politics 14(4)
Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
D’Amato A (1987) International Law: Process and Prospect. Dobbs Ferry, New York
Dachy E, Wajs M (2003) Compétence universelle. Une loi contre la justice. Filipson édition, Bruxelles
Danish Institute of International Affairs (DUPI) (1999) Humanitarian intervention. Legal and political aspects. DUPI, Copenhagen
de la Pradelle G (2000) La compétence universelle. In: Asenco H, Décaux E, Pellet A (eds) Droit International Pénal. Pédone, Paris
de Las Casas B (1552) In Defense of the Indians. Transl. Stafford Poole. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, 1992
de Lupis ID (1974) International Law and the Independent State. Gower, Aldershot
de Vaal A (2007) Darfur and the responsibility to protect. Int Affairs 83(6)
de Vattel E (1758) Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliquée a la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains. Classics of International Law, trans. Fenwick. Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1916, II
de Vitoria F (1557) De Indis et jure belli relectiones. Classics of International Law. Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1917
Delos JT (1939) L'expansion coloniale dans la doctrine de Vitoria et les principes du droit moderne. In: Scott JB (ed) Vitoria et Suarez. Contribution des theÇologiens au Droit International moderne. A. Pedone, Paris
Despagnet F (1905) Cours de Droit International Public, 3rd edn. Librairie de la Societe du Recueil General des Lois et des Arrets, Paris
Dochring K (1997) Unlawful resolutions of the security council and their legal consequences. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations, 1
Domagala A (2004) Humanitarian intervention: the Utopia of just war? The NATO intervention in Kosovo and the restraints of Humanitarian Intervention. Sussex European Institute. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/seid/documents/wp76.pdf
Drago L (1907) States loans in their relation to international policy. AJIL
Dugard J (2006) International law: a South African Perspective, 3rd edn. Juta & Co, Cap Town
Dulles JF (1950) War or peace. MacMillan, New York
Dupuy PM (1997) The constitutional dimensions of the charter of the United Nations revisited. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations, 1
De Wet E (2004) The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Council. HART Publishing, Oxford
El Ouali A (1984) Effets juridiques de la sentence internationale. Contribution à l’étude de l’exécution des normes internationales. LGDJ, Paris
El Ouali A (1993) Nouvel ordre international ou retour à l’inégalité des Etats ? Approche globale de la nouvelle configuration stratégique, économique et juridique mondiale. Les Editions Maghrébines, Casablanca
Ermacora F (1968-II) Human rights and domestic jurisdiction (Article 2 (7) of the charter. RCADI
Evans G (2006) From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect. Wisconsin Int Law J 24(3)
Evans G (2008) The responsibility to protect: an idea whose time has come…and gone? Int Affairs 22(3)
Fairley HS (1980) State actors, Humanitarian Intervention and International Law: reopening Pandora’s box. Georgian J Int Comparative Law 10
Farer TJ (1991) An inquiry into the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. In: Damrosch LF, Scheffer DJ (eds) Law and Force in the New International Order. Westview Press, Boulder
Farer TJ (2003) Humanitarian intervention before and after 9/11:legality and legitimacy. In: Holzgrefe JL, Keohane RO (eds) Humanitarian intervention. Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Feinstein L (2007) Darfur and beyond. Council on Foreign Relations, New York
Fenwick CG (1925) The scope of domestic questions in international law. AJIL 19
Fenwick CG (1945) Intervention: individual and collective. AJIL 39
Fenwick CG (1965) International Law, 4th edn. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York
Filder DP (2000) A Kinder, gentler system of Capitulations? International law, structural adjustment policies, and the standard of liberal, globalized civilization. Texas Int Law J 35(3)
Fincham CBH (1948) Domestic Jurisdiction: Exception to Domestic Jurisdiction as a Bar to Action by the League of Nations and the United Nations. A.W.Sijthoff, Leiden
Finnemore M (2003) The Purpose of Intervention. Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force. Cornell University Press, London
Fitzpatrick P (2003) ‘Gods would be needed…’: American Empire and the Rule of (international) Law. Leiden J Int Law 16
Fixdal M, Smith D (1998) Humanitarian intervention and just war. Mershon Int Studies Rev 42
Florini AM (ed) (2000) The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington
Fonteyne JPL (1974) The customary international law doctrine of humanitarian intervention: its current validity under the UN charter. California Int Law J 4
Franck TM (1992) The powers of appreciation: who is the ultimate guardian of UN legality? AJIL
Franck TM (2003) Interpretation and change in the law of humanitarian intervention. In: Holzgrefe JL, Keohane R (eds) Humanitarian intervention. Ethical, legal, and political dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Franck SD (2009) Development and outcomes of investment treaty arbitration. Harvard Int Law J 50(2)
Franck T, Rodley N (1973a) After Bangladesh: The law of humanitarian intervention by military force. AJIL 67
Franck TM, Rodley NN (1973b) After Bangladesh: the law of humanitarian intervention by military force. AJIL 67
Frydman B (2009) Le contentieux transnational des droits de l’homme: Une analyse stratégique. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen: 77
George RP (1998) Natural law and international order. In: Mapel DR, Nardin T (eds) International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Gill TD (1995) Legal and some political limitations on the power of the UN security council to exercise its enforcement powers under chapter VII of the charter. Netherland Yearbook of International Law, vol. 26
Gilmour DR (1967a) The meaning of ‘Intervene’ within Article 2 (7) of the United Nations charter. An historical perspective. ICLQ 16
Gilmour DR (1967b) Article 2 (7) of the United Nations charter and the practice of the permanent members of the security council. Australian YIL: 3
Gilmour DR (1967c) The meaning of ‘Intervene’ within Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter. An historical perspective. ICLQ: 16
Giovanni da Legnano (1447) Tractatos de bello, de represaliis et de duello. Classics of International law, transl Brierly. Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1917
Glennon MJ (1992) State-sponsored abduction: a comment on United States v. Alvarez-Machain. AJIL 4
Goodrich LM (1949) The United Nations and domestic jurisdiction. Int Org: 1
Goodrich LM, Hambro E (1946) The Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 1st edn. World Peace Foundation, Boston
Gowland-Debbas V (1994) The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the security council in the light of the Lockerbie Case. AJIL
Gray C (2000) International Law and the Use of Force. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Grotius H (1646) De jure belli ac pacis. Classics of International Law, trans. Kelsey, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1927, II, xx
Guillaume G (1992) La compétence universelle, formes anciennes et nouvelles. In: Mélanges offerts à, G.Levasseur. Paris, Litec
Hall WE (1909) A Treatise on International Law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hall SM (2002) Multinational corporations’ post-unocal liabilities for violations of international laws. George Washington Int Law Rev:41
Halleck HW, Baker GS (1893) Halleck’s International Law, or, Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War, vol 1, 3rd edn. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, London
Harper K (1994) Does the United Nations security council have the competence to act as court of Legislature. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 27(1)
Hehir A (2008) Humanitarian Intervention After Kosovo: Iraq, Darfur and the Record of Global Society. McMillan, Palgrave
Higgins R (1963) The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Higgins R (1994) Problems and Process. International Law and How We Use It. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Hoffman J (2008) Terrorism blacklisting: putting european human guarantees to the test. Constellations 15(4)
Holzgrefe JL (2002) Humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty. Int J Human Rights 6(1)
Holzgrefe JL (2003) The Humanitarian Intervention Debate. In: Holzgrefe JL, Keohane R (eds) Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hornung J (1885, 1886) Civilisés et barbares. RDILC
Howell JM (1954) Domestic Jurisdiction in International Law. Proc Am Soc Int Law
Hurd I (2007) After Anarchy. Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton University Press, Princeton
ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to Protect. The International Development Research Centre, Ottawa
ICJ (1949) Corfu channel case. ICJ Reports, 4
ICJ (1986) Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits). ICJ Reports
Ignatieff M (2003) State failure and nation-building. In: Holzgrefe JL, Keohane RO (eds) Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Inazumi M (2005) Universal Jurisdiction in Modern International Law: Expansion of National Jurisdiction for Prosecuting Serious Crimes under International Law. Intersentia, Antwerp
Jennings R, Watts A (eds) (1992) Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edn. Longman, Harlow
Jescheck H (1985) International crimes. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol 8. North-Holland, Amsterdam
Jones HH (1951) Domestic jurisdiction: from the covenant to the charter. Illinois Law Rev 46
Jones GJ (1979) The United Nations and the Domestic Jurisdiction of States: Interpretations and Applications of the Non-intervention Principle. University of Wales Press, Cardiff
Kawser A (2006) The Domestic Jurisdiction Clause in the United Nations Charter. A historical view. Singapore Yearbook of International Law 10
Keck Sikkink ME (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Relations. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Kelsen H (1951) The Law of the United Nations. Stevens and Sons, London
Keohane RO (2003) Political authority after intervention: gradations in sovereignty. In: Holzgrefe JL, Keohane RO (eds) Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Krisch N (2004) Imperial International Law, Global Law and Justice, Global Law Working Paper 01/04, NYU School of Law
Kirsch N (2005) International law in times of Hegemony :unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order. Eur J Int Law 16(3)
Kissinger H (2001) The pitfalls of universal jurisdiction: risking judicial tyranny. Foreign Affairs 80(4)
Kochler H (2001) Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics. International Progress Organization, Vienna, Stud Int Relat XXV
Koh HH (1994) The ‘Haïti Paradigm’ in United States Human Rights Policy. Yale Law J
Kontorovitch E (2007) “The inefficiency of universal jurisdiction”, Public international law and economics: the power of rational choice methodology in guiding the analysis and the design of public international law institutions (Symposium). Working Paper, University of St. Gallen Law School
Krasner S (2004) Sharing sovereignty. New institutions for collapsed and failing states. Int Security 29(2)
Kraytman YS (1985) Universal jurisdiction. Historical roots and modern implications. BSIS J Int Studies
Krieg A (2009) The responsibility to protect- how history could repeat itself in Darfur’. PICA, A Global Research Organization
Laswell HD, McDougal MS (1992) Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science and Policy, vol 1. Martinus/Nijhoff/Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham
Lauterpacht H (1955) in L. Oppenheim “Oppenheim’s International Law”, 8th edn. Longman, London
Lepard BD (2003) Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention: a fresh approach based on fundamental ethical principles in international law and world religions. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Levene M (2005) Genocide in the age of the nation-state. the rise of the West and the coming of genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Lillich RB (1967) Forcible self-help by states to protect human rights. Iowa Law Rev 53
Lowe V et al (eds) (2008) Introduction of “The United Nations Security Council and War. The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Macdonald R (1931) Changing relations between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council of the United nations. The Canadian Yearbook of International Law
Macedo S (ed) (2004) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious crimes under International Law. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Magnarella PG (1995a) Universal Jurisdiction and Universal Human Rights: A Global Progression. J Third World Studies 12(2)
Magnarella PG (1995b) Universal jurisdiction and universal human rights: a global progression. J Third World Studies 7(2)
Maier H (1983) Interests balancing and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Am J Comparative Law
Malanczuk P (1993) Humanitarian Intervention and the Legitimacy of the Use of Force. Het Spinhuis, Amsterdam
Malanczuk P (1999) Reconsidering the relationship between the ICJ and the security council. In: Heere WP (ed) International Law and the Hague’s 750th Anniversary. TMC Asser, The Hague
Mann A (1964) The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law. RCADI 1
Manusama K (2006) The United Nations Security Council in the Post-cold era. Applying the Principle of Legality. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Marcella D (1999) Passport to justice: internationalising the political question doctrine for application in the world court. Harvard Int Law J 40
Marchal A (1931) La conception de l’économie nationale et des rapports internationaux chez les mercantilistes français et leurs contemporains. Sirey, Paris
Marschik A (2005) Legislative powers of the security council. In: Ronald St. John Macdonald and Douglas M. Johnston (eds) Towards World Constitutionalism. Issues in Legal Ordering of the World Community. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Martenczuk B (1999) The security council, the international court of justice and judicial review: what lessons from Lockerbie? Eur J Int Law
McClean E (2011) The dilemma of intervention: human rights and the UN security council. In Odello M, Canvadoli S (eds) Emerging Areas of Human Rights in the 21st Century. Routledge, London
McDougal MS (1953) International law, power and policy: a contemporary conception. RCADI, vol 82
McDougal MS, Laswell HD, Reisman M (1968) Theories about international law: prologue to a configurative jurisprudence. Virginia J Int Law 8
McWhinney E (1992) The international court as emerging constitutional court and the co-ordinate UN institutions. Especially the security council: implications of the aerial incident at Lockerbie. The Canadian Yearbook of International Law
Mepham D (2006) Darfur: The Responsibility to Protect. Institute for Public Policy Research, London
Mill JS (1867) A Few Words on Non-intervention. Dissertations and Discussions, vol 3, 2nd edn. Longmans, London
Moulin HA (1907) La doctrine de Drago, RGDIP
Mrazek J (1989) Prohibition on the use and threat of force: self-defence and self-help in international law. Canadian Yearbook of International Law 27
Murphy SD (1996) Humanitarian intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Murphy SD (2001) Calibrating global expectations regarding humanitarian intervention. Harvard University Conference on “After Kosovo: humanitarian intervention at the crossroads, January 2001, 6
Nardin T (2000) The moral basis of humanitarian intervention. Symposium on the norms and ethics of humanitarian intervention, Center for Global Peace and Conflict Studies, University of California, Irvine, May 26, 2000
Newman M (2009) Humanitarian Intervention; Confronting the Contradictions. Columbia University Press, New York
Newton MA (2001) Comparative complementarity: domestic jurisdiction consistent with the Rome statute of the international criminal court. Military Law Rev 167
Nigel AR, White D (2002) The United Nations System: Towards International Justice. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Nolte G (2000) The limits of the security council’s powers and its functions in the international legal system: some reflections. In: Byers M (ed) The Role of Law in International Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Nolte G (2002) Article 2 (7). In: Simma B et al (eds) The Charter of the United Nations. A Commentary, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Nys E (1912) Le Droit International Public. Les principes, les théories, les faits, vol 2. M. Weissenbrush, Bruxelles, New edit.
O’Connell DP (1965) International Law, vol. 1. Stevens, London
O’Keefe R (2004) Universal jurisdiction. Clarifying the basic concept. J Int Criminal Justice 2(3)
O’Keefe R (2009) The grave breaches regime and universal jurisdiction. J Int Criminal Justice 7(4)
Olivares Marcos GA (2005) The legal practice of the recovery of states external debts, Thesis, these. Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationalse, Geneva
Oliver CT et al (1994) The International Legal System. Foundation Press, New York
Oppenheim L (1928) International law. A treatise, vol 1, Peace, 4th edn. Longmans, London
Orford A (2009) Jurisdiction without jurisdiction: from the Holly Roman empire to the responsibility to protect. Michigan J Int Law 30
Orford A (2011) International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ott DH (1987) Public International Law and the Modern World. Pitman Publishing, London
Padirac R (1953) Légalité juridique des Etats et l’organisation internationale. L.G.D.J., Paris
Pattison J (2010) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. Who Should Intervene? Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pellet A (2000) State sovereignty and the protection of fundamental human rights: an international law perspective. Pugwash Occasional Papers 1
Pillet A (1898) Recherches sur les droits fondamentaux des Etats dans l'ordre des rapports internationaux et sur la solution des conflits quils font naıtre. RGDIP
Plachta M (2001) The Lockerbie case: the role of the security council in enforcing the principle Aut Dedere Aut judicare. Eur J Int Law 12(1)
Pradier-Fodere P (1883) Traite de Droit International Public europeen et americain suivant le progres de la science et de la pratique internationale, vol 1. G. Pédone-Lauriol, Paris
Preuss L (1949-I) Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and matters of domestic jurisdiction. RCADI:74
Princeton Project (2001) Principles on Universal Jurisdiction. Princeton, New Jersey
Putmam TL (2009) Courts without borders: domestic sources of U.S. extraterritoriality in the regulatory sphere. Int Org 63
Quigley J (2000) The United Nations security council: Promethean protector or helpless Hostage? Texas Int Law J
Rajan MS (1958) United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction. Orient Longmans, Bombay
Ralston JH (1919) International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno. Stanford University Press, California
Ramsbotham O, Woodhouse T (1996) Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict. Polity, Cambridge
Randall K (1988) Universal jurisdiction under international law. Texas Law Rev 66
Randelzhofer A (1994) Article 2(4). In: Simma B (ed) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ratner SR, Abrams JS (2001) Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy. Oxford University Press, New York
Raustiala K (2004) The evolution of territoriality: international relations and American law. In: Kahler M, Walter B (eds) Globalization, Territoriality and Conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rayfuse R (1993) International abduction and the united states supreme court: the law of the jungle reigns. ICLQ 42
Reisman M (1971) Nullity and Revision. The Review and Enforcement of International Judgments and Awards. Yale University Press, London
Reisman M (1990) Sovereignty and human rights in contemporary international law. 84 AJIL
Reisman WM (1993) The constitutional crisis in the United Nations. AJIL
Reisman M (2000) Unilateral action and the transformation of the world constitutive process: the special problem of humanitarian intervention. Eur J Int Law 11
Reisman M, McDougal MS (1958) Aggression and World Order: A Critique of United Nations’ Theories of Aggression. Stevens, London
Reisman M, McDougal MS (1973) Humanitarian intervention to protect the Ibos. In: Lillich RB (ed) Humanitarian Intervention and the United Nations. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville
Reydmans L (2003) Universal Jurisdiction. International and Municipal Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rolin-Jacquemyns G (1876) Note sur la théorie du droit d’intervention, à propos d’une lettre de M. Le Professeur Arntz. RDILC VIII
Rosental B (1970) Etude de l'oeuvre de Myres Smith McDougal en matiére de Droit International. LGDIP, Paris
Ross A (1964) La notion de compétence nationale dans la pratique des Nations Unies. In: Mélanges offerts à Henri Rolin. Pédone, Paris
Roth K (2004) War in Iraq: not a humanitarian intervention. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/402ba99f4.pdf
Rougier A (1910) La théorie del’intervention d’humanite. RGDIP
Rousseau Ch (1980) Droit International Public. Paris, Sirey 4
Rubin AP (1993) Libya, Lockerbie and the law. Diplomacy Statecraft 4(1)
Rubin AD (1994) An international criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia? Pace Int Law Rev 6(1)
Sahovic M, Bishop WW (1968) The authority of the state: its range with respect to persons and places. In: Sorensen M (ed) Manual of Public International Law. Macmillan, London
Saint-Aubin J (1913) L’extradition et le droit extraditionnel théorique et pratique. A.Pédone, Paris
Schachter O (1995) Law-making in the United Nations. In: Nandasiri Jasentuliyana (ed) Perspectives on International Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Scheffer DJ (2001) Symposium: universal jurisdiction. myths, realities and prospects: opening address. New Engl Law Rev 35
Schepple KL (2006) International State of Emergency: Challenges to Constitutionalism after September 11, paper was originally prepared for the Yale Legal Theory Workshop, 21 September 2006, Princeton University, 1, digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/schmooze. . ./49/ - United States
Schweisfurth T (1980) Operations to rescue nationals in third states involving the use of force in relation to the protection of human rights. GYIL
Scott JB (1934) The Spanish Origin of International Law: Fransisco de Vitoria and His Law of Nations. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Sharga D, Zalick R (1994) The international criminal tribunal for former Yugoslavia. EJIL 5
Shearer IA (1994) Starke’s International Law, 11th edn. Butterworths, London
Simma B (1999) NATO, the UN and the use of force: legal aspects. Eur J Int Law. http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/abl.html
Slaughter A-M (2004) Defining the limits: universal jurisdiction and national courts. In: Macedo S (ed) Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law. University of Pensylvania Press, Philadelphia
Sornarajah M (1981) Internal colonialism and humanitarian intervention. Ga J Int Comp L
Stern B (1994) Vers la mondialisation juridiques. Les lois Helmes-Burton et d’Amato-Kennedy. RGDIP 4:979–1003
Stern B (1999) A propos de la compétence universelle. In: Yakpo E, Boumédra T (eds) Liber Amicorum Mohammed Bedjaoui. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Strauss E (2009) A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush – on the assumed legal nature of the responsibility to protect. Global Respons Protect 1(3)
Suzuki E (1974) The New Haven school of international law: an invitation to a policy-oriented jurisprudence. Yale Stud in World Pub Order 1
Swords C (2002) Canadian practice in international law at the department of foreign affairs in 2001-2002: jurisdiction and territorial sovereignty, extraterritorial evidence gathering. Canadian Yearbook of International Law
Teson FR (1997) Humanitarian Intervention : An Inquiry into Law and Morality, 2nd edn. Transnational Publishers, Irvington-on-Hudson
Thomas C (1985) New States, Sovereignty and Intervention. Gover, VII cont
Trindade AAC (1976) The domestic jurisdiction of states in the practice of the United Nations and regional organizations. ICLQ
Tuck R (1999) The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ulimubenshi PC (2003) L’exception du domaine réservé dans la procedure de la Cour Internationale. Thesis, University of Geneva
Vallindas P (1948) The concept ‘matters which are essentially within domestic jurisdiction’ in Art.2 section 7 of the United Nations Charter. RHDI: 1
Verdross A (1965) La ‘compétence nationale’ dans le cadre de l’Organisation des Nations Unies et l’indépendance des Etats. RGDIP
Vervey VD (1985) Humanitarian intervention under international law. Netherlands ILR 32
Vervey WD (1998) Humanitarian intervention in the 1990s and beyond: an international law perspective. In: Pieterse JN (ed) World Orders in the Making: Humanitarian Intervention and Beyond. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Watson JS (1977) Autointerpretation, competence, and the continuing validity of Article 2 (7) of the UN charter. AJIL
Weiss TG, Thakur R (2010) Global Governance and the UN. An Unfinished Journey. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
Welsh JM (2008) The security council and humanitarian intervention. In: Lowe V, Roberts A, Welsh J, Zaun D (eds) The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wheaton H (1929) Wheatons's Elements of International Law, vol I, 6th edn. Stevens and Sons, London
White ND (2005) The Law of International Organizations. Lynne Rienner, Boulder
Wilkins B (2003) Humanitarian Intervention: some doubts. In: Jokic A (ed) Humanitarian Intervention. Moral and Philosophical Issues. Broadview Press, Toronto
Williams JF (1924) International Law and International Financial Obligations Arising from Contract, vol 4. Bibliotheca Visseriana, Leyden
Williams JF (1929) Chapters on Current International Law and the League of Nations. Longmans, Green, New York
Wilson RR (1929) Reservations clauses in treaties of obligatory arbitration. AJIL 23
Wise EM (1998) Aut Dedere Aut judicare: the duty to prosecute or extradite. In: Cherif Bassiouni M (ed) International Criminal Law. Procedural and Enforcement Mechanisms, vol II, 2nd edn. Transnational Publishers, Irvington
Wolff C (1748) Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractatum. Classics of International Law, Trans. Drake. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1934
Zajadlo J (2005) Legality and legitimization of humanitarian intervention. New challenges in the age of the war on terrorism. Am Behav Sci 48(6)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ouali, A.E. (2012). The Weakening of States’ Territorial Sovereignty. In: Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22869-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22869-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22868-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22869-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)