Abstract
Among the many phenomena that characterize contemporary law, three stand out: the multiplication of normative sources, the emergence of private regimes, and the proliferation of conflict resolution mechanisms. The first influences one of the fundamental elements of international law since the eighteenth century. The second calls into question the notion of hierarchy and the bases of validation of the legal framework. The third evidences the emergence of a disjointed international system. The three phenomena are remarkable because together they may betray a fragmentation of international law.
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.
The multiplication of sources of international law is accompanied by the multiplication of its subjects. First is a multiplication of the number of states, with the decolonization process and dissolution of socialist states such as the USSR and Yugoslavia; a multiplication of international organizations, not just executive but rather judicial; and above all, new international courts or similar institutions with jurisdictional or quasijurisdictional functions. The power to create law through international organizations is multiplied by means of unilateral acts. There has been an intensification of proceedings at the UN Security Council, the ILO, the WTO, and a number of similar organizations. These new private sources of international law have stirred debate about whether there may be new subjects of international law—such as individuals or companies—capable of producing legal norms. As in the second to the last point, I am considering a phenomenon that is difficult to prove but that cannot be abandoned in virtue of the logical consequences of an incidental consideration of new sources of international law.
- 2.
Delmas-Marty (2005).
- 3.
Here, I refer to “formal grounds of validity” as those grounded in a law; material grounds of validity are de facto.
- 4.
Ross, for example, indicates that the sources are related less to systemic properties of law and more to psychological elements. Thus, all these sources are accepted as such. In this context, sources would be those that the subjects of international law, if we consider only classical subjects, or international organizations accept as binding. The idea of defining what a source is does not help much. Ross (1947), p. 195 and Koskenniemi (2005), pp. 304–305, 307–308.
- 5.
- 6.
Koskenniemi (2005), pp. 309–310. The author discusses various theorists who built this school of thought throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
- 7.
I address this issue more specifically in Varella (2006), pp. 251–274.
- 8.
See Duguit (1927), pp. 276–280 and ff. and pp. 316 and ff. The author makes a critical analysis of the positions of Windscheid and Jhering. Available at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5401497z/f342.texte.r=duguit.langEN, accessed on 01.03.2012.
- 9.
Among the specific sources in traditional theory, customs stand out. In general, according to classic authors such as Suarez, all important relationships among states are founded on customs. Modern authors place importance on customs in different social processes of interaction among subjects of international law. The grounds of validity for customs also vary between jusnaturalist and positivist arguments, depending on the author. Koskenniemi (2005), p. 313 and pp. 389–392.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Bobbio (1995), pp. 161 and ff.
- 13.
Van de Kerchove and Ost (1994), p. 98.
- 14.
Koskenniemi (2005), pp. 333, 337, 344, 385.
- 15.
A talk between Koskenniemi in videoconference and doctoral students at the Brasilia University Center, 2011. The terms bottom up and top down as used in this text regard the internationalization of law. The first refers to the construction of norms coming from the national level and going to the international level (bottom up), and vice versa for top down. The latter refers to the type of argument used to justify the legitimacy of legal discourse, being bottom up when part of a specific fact for a universal value and top down when the opposite is true.
- 16.
Teubner (2012), p. 153.
- 17.
ECHR. Appeals Chamber. Leyla Sahin v. Turkey. Decision from 10.11.2005, p. 136. Different cases of jurisprudence where this problem occurred are analyzed in Teubner (2012), pp. 317 and ff.
- 18.
- 19.
The reasons for the creation of the norm are not important according to the positivist understanding of contemporary law. Only the formal grounds of validity matter. Common material elements are of little relevance.
- 20.
DSB/WTO, Brazil—Measures affecting the importation of tires (WT/DS332), Decision from 03.12.2007.
- 21.
This is examined in more detail in Varella and Platiau (2000).
- 22.
ICTY. Prosecution v. Drazen Erdemovic (Pilica Farm). (IT-26-92). Decision from 29.11.1996.
- 23.
ICTY. Prosecution v. Kupreskic and others. (Lasva Valey) (IT-95-16). Decision from 14.01.2000.
- 24.
ICTY. Prosecution v. Blaskic (Lasva Valey) (IT-95-14). Decision from 29.07.2004.
- 25.
Talk with Hélène Ruiz, in New York, on 27 March 2012.
- 26.
It is worth recalling the difference between actors and subjects of international law. According to prevailing theory, subjects are only states and international organizations. They create rights and obligations internationally. Some authors, such as Cançado Trinidade, reinforce classical theories that suppose that individuals are subjects of international law but are a minority. “Actor” is a concept from political science and refers to anyone who influences international regimes. In addition to states and international organizations, the concept encompasses individuals, companies, scientists, and others.
- 27.
E-mail exchange with Teubner, on 20.03.2012.
- 28.
Discussion with Delmas-Marty and Onuma at the American Association of International Law, on 30.03.2012.
- 29.
- 30.
Here, in a way we are reminded of the Kantian classifications of law among domestic law, international law, and cosmopolitan law in the eighteenth century. The first would be the civil law of each state, constructed in a republican fashion. The second, the law of nations, from the relationships among states in their relations of war and peace, would build common rules. Besides these two branches, Kant proposes a cosmopolitan law (returning to Victoria’s ideas), from communications between human societies. It is a right that is not in its origin interstatal or established in a community originating from individuals but from a universal human community, independent of states. The purpose of and the condition for the Kantian perpetual peace is the existence of a cosmopolitan law, based on an universal hospitality. Kant does not abandon the need for states because he believes that it is in this context that ‘man’ becomes more deeply fulfilled, that cultural specificities would be better respected and developed. A single global state would annul individual freedom and lead to despotism. I do not intend to use the Kantian categories or conduct a study on the overall work of the author. However, it is useful to show that the idea here is not new and has roots in older ideas. See Kant (2006); Jouannet (2003), pp. 25–27.
- 31.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), pp. 74–76.
- 32.
E-mails with Barzoto, March 2012.
- 33.
Ost and Van de Kerchove (2002), pp. 74–46.
- 34.
- 35.
Teubner (2009), pp. 408–410.
- 36.
Teubner (1997), p. 157.
- 37.
Koskenniemi (2005).
- 38.
Teubner (1997), p. 768.
- 39.
Teubner (1997), p. 770.
- 40.
Barzotto (2007), p. 232.
- 41.
- 42.
In this regard, see the reference work by Casella (2008).
- 43.
An interesting example comes from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), created in 1973 to enable international banking transactions. This private institution established common normative standards for international banking transactions and concentrated a significant amount of international remittances between public and private banks. In 2012, it was used in 210 countries, with nearly four billion operations per year, among thousands of banking organizations. See http://www.swift.com/about_swift/company_information/swift_in_figures/archive/2012/SIF_2012_01.pdf, accessed on 03.02.2012. Cf. Hagel (2009).
- 44.
The level of uncertainty generated by various actors in the contract is difficult to overcome, with direct action by actors involved in search of a form of oversight such as that of traditional public law. Teubner, for example, points out that here the law depends not on predictable oversight but on the positive effects of exposition of each group on the others (mutual irritation, in the words of the author) and with the teleological aspect of the system (results-driven management). See Teubner (2009), p. 135.
- 45.
Teubner (2009), pp. 134–136.
- 46.
Faria (2004).
- 47.
Black (2009).
- 48.
See http://oneworldtrust.org/, Accessed on: 02.03.2012.
- 49.
See http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmlz.htm, Accessed on: 02.03.2012.
- 50.
http://www.bond.org.uk/pages/anti-bribery-principles-and-guidelines-for-ngos.html, Accessed on: 02.03.2012.
- 51.
Black (2009), p. 247.
- 52.
An international court is considered here to be a permanent institution comprising independent judges who judge disputes among two or more entities with predetermined rules and whose decisions are binding. Cf. Alter (2007), p. 2. The expressions “dispute settlement bodies” or “conflict resolution bodies” can include not only international courts but also provisional systems, which do not necessarily have their own law as a basis for exercising their functions.
- 53.
Guzman (2008), pp. 183–185.
- 54.
Charney (1999), p. 698.
- 55.
Guzman (2008), p. 190.
- 56.
Shany (2009), p. 76.
- 57.
Authors such as Bievenisty classify this law created by international courts as “international administrative law,” a concept different from that used here. They defend the existence of international judicial activism because the courts would be creating law by going beyond established international norms. The concept is fragile, given that it is based on the fact that the norms created do not come from a legislature. Nonetheless, the division of powers, characteristic of modern states, finds no direct parallel in international law. Treaties are not created by a global legislative power or by the union of international legislatures. It would be difficult to find a parallel for this law, created by international courts, in an “administrative law” like that created by national or international bureaucratic institutions acting together or alone but with similar procedures or results. Cf. Benvenisti (2005).
- 58.
Delmas-Marty (2003), pp. 172 and ff.
- 59.
Alter (2007), p. 8.
- 60.
Romano (1999), p. 714.
- 61.
ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, between Hungary and Slovakia.
- 62.
Although the ECHR and CJEU were created in the 1950s, I consider them part of this changed context because of the acceleration of changes in these institutions after the 1990s and because of their proximity.
- 63.
Shany (2009), pp. 79–80.
- 64.
Alter (2007), p. 24.
- 65.
Guzman (2008), p. 210.
- 66.
Delmas-Marty (2003), pp. 173 and ff.
- 67.
The decision in the La Grand case will be discussed in more detail.
- 68.
UN General Assembly, Doc. A/RES/50/54, de 29/01/1996.
- 69.
Romano (1999), p. 730.
- 70.
In her doctoral dissertation, Silva takes an interesting position defending the complementarity of regional and multilateral bodies managing trade. She argues that compensation demonstrates respect for the regional court, a position that may be inverted depending on states’ interests and the case at hand. Talk during doctoral dissertation defense in Aix-en-Provence, on 30.01.2012.
- 71.
At the end of 2011, more than 500 regional suits had been filed in the DSB.
- 72.
See article 2006, § 5.
- 73.
- 74.
See, for example, article 31 of the Rules of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
- 75.
Amaral Júnior (1999), pp. 197–218. The author cites difficulties of interaction (pp. 202 and ff.) but highlights points of contact between the different systems.
- 76.
Delmas-Marty (2003), p. 175.
- 77.
Especially in NAFTA, see Chap. 19.
- 78.
IACHR. Barrios Altos v. Peru. Decision from 14.03.2001.
- 79.
IACHR. Velazquez Rodrigues v. Honduras. Decision from 29.07.1998.
- 80.
IACHR. El Amparo v. Venezuela. Decision from 14.12.1996.
- 81.
Decision Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany (Berlin Wall case), 37201/97, from 22 March 2001 and Delmas-Marty (2003), p. 176. Decision: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=4&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Streletz%2C%20%7C%20Kessler%20%7C%20e%20%7C%20Krenz&sessionid=91033026&skin=hudoc-fr.
- 82.
Virally (1964), pp. 488–503.
- 83.
Delmas-Marty (2003), pp. 179–181.
- 84.
Sands et al. (1999).
- 85.
Also known as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
- 86.
Charney (1999), p. 122. The author also mentions the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the efforts for the establishment of a dispute settlement body of the World Organization of Intellectual Property.
- 87.
Wolfrum (1998).
- 88.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Dusko Tadic case (IT-94-1-AR72), 35, Decision from 02.11.1995, Fischer-Lescano and Teubner (2003–2004), p. 1037.
- 89.
In the words of the ICJ President Gilbert Guillaume to the UN General Assembly on 26.10.2000: “The proliferation of international courts gives rise to a serious risk of conflicting jurisprudence, as the same rule of law might be given different interpretations in different cases. … A dialogue among judicial bodies is crucial. The International Court of Justice, the princial judicial organ of the United Nations, stands ready to apply itself to this end if it receives the necessary sources”, In: ICJ Press Comunique 99/46, of 26 October 1999.
- 90.
Menezes (2011).
- 91.
Ramos (2005), p. 101.
- 92.
- 93.
ICJ. Case between UK and Albania over the Strait of Corfu. Decision from 09.04.1949.
- 94.
ICJ. Case between United States and Nicaragua regarding paramilitary activities. Decision from 27.06.1986.
- 95.
ICJ. Case between Liberia and South Africa, about South West Africa. Decision from 18.07.1966.
- 96.
ICJ. Case between Norway and the UK, about fishing. Decision from 18.12.1951.
- 97.
ICJ. Case between Tunisia and Libya, about the Continental Shelf. Decision from 10.12.1985.
- 98.
Koskenniemi (2005), p. 61.
- 99.
ECHR. Bancovic and others v. Belgium. Decision from 19.12.2001.
- 100.
ECHR. Cyprus v. Turkey. Judgment of 10.05.2001.
- 101.
ECHR. Loizidou v. Turkey. Judgment of 28.11.1996.
- 102.
ECHR. Cyprus v. Turkey. Judgment of 10.05.2001, para.77.
- 103.
“[H]aving effective overall control over northern Cyprus, [Turkey’s] responsibility cannot be confined to the acts of its own soldiers or officials in northern Cyprus but must also be engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration which survives by virtue of Turkish military and other support” or “Extraterritorial acts would thus only exceptionally qualify as an exercise of ‘jurisdiction’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, said the Strasbourg Court in Bankovic, if the state, ‘through effective control of the relevant territory and its inhabitants… as a consequence of military occupation’… exercises all or some of the public powers normally to be exercised by that Government.” (Bankovic, ECtHR, Loizidou v. Turkey, App. n. 15318/89, Judgment of 18 dec. 1996, at § 52, ECtHR, Cyprus v. Turkey, App, n. 25781/94, Judgment of 10 may 2001, at § 77), Simma (2009), pp. 280–282.
- 104.
There are several other interesting, relevant cases, such as those between ITLOS and DSB/WTO over swordfish fishing in Pacific waters and between NAFTA and the DSB over processed wood, among others. Still, in none of these cases did the courts take conflicting decisions. See the text by Menezes (2011), pp. 283–433.
- 105.
Mixed oxide fuel or MOX. The fuel is produced through the recovery of nuclear waste, in particular plutonium.
- 106.
Varella and Oliveira (2009).
- 107.
Ferreira (2009).
- 108.
Case Summary. Available at http://www.biicl.org/files/3934_1992_spp_v_egypt.pdf. Accessed on 26.10.2009.
- 109.
Charney (1988), p. 699.
- 110.
It is important to note that courts’ ability to create law violates the classical idea of the judge as an interpreter of law. Although I recognize all the problems of lack of legitimacy of the judge to create law, I must acknowledge that vague language and imprecise treaties enable a more dynamic range of action for international judges, which was to be expected. The possibility of using different sources, national and international standards, and the profusion of antagonistic norms significantly contribute to judges’ margin of discretion.
- 111.
Oellers-Frahm (2001), pp. 67–104.
- 112.
Charney (1988), p. 706.
- 113.
Turgis (2012), p. 536.
- 114.
Some authors even argue that competition among courts should be intensified so that the most competent courts can rise above the others. See Cogan (2008), p. 449.
- 115.
Alter (2007), p. 16.
- 116.
Cogan (2008), pp. 411 and ff.
- 117.
S.C. Res. 1512, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1512 (Oct. 27, 2003) (ICTR); S.C. Res. 1503, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1503 (Aug. 28, 2003) (ICTR); S.C. Res. 1431, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1431 (Aug.14, 2002) (ICTR and ICTY). Cf. Cogan (2008), pp. 420–421.
- 118.
Cogan (2008), pp. 424–425.
- 119.
Helfer and Slaughter (2005), p. 39.
References
Alter K (2007) Delegating to international courts: self-binding v. Other-binding delegation. The Roberta Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies, Northwestern University, Working paper n. 07-004, July 2007
Amaral Júnior AA (1999) Direitos humanos e comércio internacional. Reflexões sobre a cláusula social. In: Amaral Júnior AA, Perrone-Moisés C (eds) O cinqüentenário da Declaração Universal dos Direitos do Homem. EdUSP, São Paulo, pp 197–218
Barzotto LF (2007) Razão de lei. Contribuição a uma teoria do princípio da legalidade. Rev Direito GV 3(2):219–260
Benvenisti E (2005) The interplay between actor as a determinant of the evolution of administrative law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=653681
Black J (2009) Legitimacy, accountability and polycentric regulation: dilemmas, trilemmas and organisational response. In: Peters A, Koechlin L, Zingernagel GF (eds) Non-state actors as standard setters. Framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion. CUP, Cambridge, pp 241–269
Bobbio N (1995) Positivismo jurídico. Lições de filosofia do direito. Ícone, São Paulo
Casella PB (2008) Fundamentos do direito internacional público pós-moderno. Quartier Latin, São Paulo
Charney JI (1999) International law threatened by multiple international tribunals? Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int 271
Charney JI (1988) The impact on the international legal system of the growth of international courts and tribunals. Int Law Polit 31:698–708
Cogan JK (2008) Competition and control in international adjudication. Va J Int Law 48(2):412–449
Costa JAF (2011) Comparing WTO painelists and ICSID aribtrators. The creation of international legal fields. Oñati Legal Series 1(4). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1832382. Accessed 27 Apr 2012
Delmas-Marty M (2003) Les forces imaginantes du droit, v. I: Le relatif et l’universel. Seuil, Paris
Delmas-Marty M (2005) Les forces imaginantes du droit, vol. II: Le pluralisme ordonnéc. Seuil, Paris
Duguit L (1927) Traité de droit constitutionnel. LGDJ, Paris
Faria JE (2004) O direito na economia globalizada. Malheiros, São Paulo
Ferreira IGM (2009) Fragmentação do Direito Internacional: Caso Southern Pacific Properties (Midlle East) Limited v. República Árabe do Egito, Monografia apresentada para a conclusão do curso de Direito no Centro Universitário de Brasília, sob orientação de Marcelo D. Varella, Brasília
Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G (2003–2004) Regime collisions: the vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 25:999–1023
Guzman AT (2008) International tribunals: a rational choice analysis. Univ Penn Law Rev 157(1):171–235
Habermas J (1997) Direito e democracia: entre facticidade e validade, vol. II. Trad. Flávio Beno Siebeneichler. Tempo Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro
Hagel P (2009) Standard setting for capital movements: reasserting sovereignty over transnational actors. In: Peters A, Koechlin L, Zingernagel GF (eds) Non-state actors as standard setters. Framing the issue in an interdisciplinary fashion. CUP, Cambridge, pp 351–378
Hart H (1994) O conceito de direito, 3ath edn. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa
Helfer LR, Slaughter A-M (2005) Why States create international tribunals: a response to professors Posner and Yoo. Calif Law Rev 93:3–30
Jouannet E (2003) L’idée de communauté humaine à la croisée de la communauté des Etats et de la communauté mondiale. In: La mondialisation entre illusion et l’utopie. Achives des philosophie du droit, Paris, t 47, pp 191–232
Kant I (2006) Para a paz perpétua. Tradução de Barbara Kristensen. Instituto Galego de Estudos de Segurança Internacional e Paz, Rianxo
Kelsen H (1926) Le rapports de système entre le droit interne et le droit international public. Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int 11
Van de Kerchove M, Ost F (1994) The legal order between order and disorder. Clarendon University Press, Clarendon
Koskenniemi M (2005) From apology to utopia. The structure of international legal argument, reissue with a new epilogue. Cambridge University, Cambridge
Krish N (2010) Beyond constitutionalism. The pluralist structure of postnational law. OUP, Oxford
Menezes W (2010) A jurisdicionalização do direito internacional: conflitos de competência entre tribunais internacionais, sua prevenção e resolução. Thesis, University of São Paulo
Menezes W (2011) A jurisdicionalização do direito internacional: conflitos de competência entre tribunais internacionais, sua prevenção e resolução, Tese apresentada à Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, como exigência parcial à obtenção do título de Livre-Docência, São Paulo
Oellers-Frahm K (2001) Multiplication of international courts and tribunals and conflict jurisdiction – problems and possible solutions. In: Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 67–104
Onuma Y (2010) A transcivilizational perspective on international law, Questioning prevalent cognitive frameworks in the emerging multi-polar and multi-civilization world of the twenty-firsty century. Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int 342
Ost F, Van de Kerchove M (2002) De la pyramide au reseau. Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Públications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Boulevard du Jardin Botanique, Bruxelles
Ramos AC (2005) Teoria geral dos direitos humanos na ordem internacional. Renovar, Rio de Janeiro
Romano CPR (1999) The proliferation of international judicial bodies: the pieces of the puzzle. Int Law Polit 31:709–751
Ross A (1947) Text-book of international law, General part. Longmans, Green and Co, London
Sands P, Mackenzie R, Shany Y (eds) (1999) Manual on international courts and tribunals. Butterworths, London
Shany Y (2009) No longer a weak department of power? Reflections on the emergence of a new international judiciary. Eur J Int Law 20(1):73–91
Silva AR (2013) La complexe articulation entre les accords commerciaux regionaux et le droit de L’OMC. Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da UFC, vol 33.1, Nomos, jan./jun. 2013
Simma B (2009) Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner. Eur J Int Law 20(2):265–297
Teubner G (2009) And if I by Beelzebub cast out Devils: An Essay on the Diabolics of Network Failure. Ger Law J 10(4):395–416
Teubner G (2012) Constitutional fragments. OUP, Oxford
Teubner G (1997) The King's many bodies: the self-descontruction of law’s hierarchy. Law Soc Rev 31(4):763–787
Triepel H (1923) Les rapports entre le droit interne et le droit international. Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int
Turgis S (2012) Les intéractions entre les normes internationales relatives aux droits de la personne. Pedone, Paris
Varella MD, Oliveira VET (2009) Da unidade à fragmentação do direito internacional: o caso MOX Plant. Rev Fac Direito UFMG 54
Varella MD, Platiau AFB (2000) Biotecnologias e biossegurança: fatores agravantes da desigualdade internacional? Rev Inf Legislativa Brasilia 37(145)
Varella MD (2006) La construction du concept de développement durable dans le droit international, face aux inégatlités Nord-Sud. Éditions Universitaire Européenne, Sarrebruck
Verdross A (1927) Le fondement du droit international. Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int
Virally P (1964) Sur un pont aux ânes: les rapports entre droit international et droits internes. In: Mélanges R (ed) Problèmes de droit des gens. Pedone, Paris, pp 488–503
Wolfrum R (1998) Means of ensuring compliance with and enforcement of international environmental law. Recueil Cours l’Acad Droit Int 272
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Varella, M.D. (2014). Challenges with Complexity: New Sources, Private Regimes, and the Proliferation of Conflict Resolution Mechanisms. In: Internationalization of Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54163-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54163-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54162-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54163-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)