Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Declarations as Evidence of Custom or General Principles of International Law

  • Chapter
The Legal Significance of the Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations

  • 219 Accesses

Abstract

It will be contended here that the practices of the General Assembly of the United Nations as a whole affect the development of customary international law. The resolutions of the Assembly constitute the practice of states or originate practice; they corroborate customary rules of international law, and, in appropriate cases, supply the opinio juris sive necessitatis of existing practice. In other words, resolutions of the Assembly, apart from creating precedents which may in the course of time become the accepted practice of states, in appropriate circumstances, constitute formal or material sources of international law. The latter two aspects are closely interrelated.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See G.A. resolution 174 (II), 21 Nov. 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jennings, “The Progressive Development of International Law and its Codification,” 24 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 315–6 (1947).

    Google Scholar 

  3. G.A. resolution 375(IV), 6th December 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  4. For a list of what in the view of the ILC constitutes evidence of custom, see U.N. Gen. Ass. Off. Rec. 5th Sess. Suppl. No. 12, at 4-8 (A/1316) (1950). On evidence of customary international law relied upon by quasi-international tribunals see Schechter, “Towards a World Rule of Law-Customary International Law in American Courts,” 29 Fordham L. Rev. 313 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  5. (1955) I.C.J. Rep. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Dissenting Opinion of Read in Fisheries Case (1951) I.C.J. Rep. 191. Fitzmaurice, “Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,” 30 Brit. Tb. Int’l L. 67-8 (1953). But see infra, at 52-58.

    Google Scholar 

  7. (1951) I.C.J. Rep. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. (1951) I.C.J. Rep. 31

    Google Scholar 

  9. (1955) Int’lL. Rep. 40-41.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Trial of Major War Criminals, Judgment, CMD. No. 6964, at 40-41 (1946).

    Google Scholar 

  11. P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 10 (1927).

    Google Scholar 

  12. (1951) I.C.J. Rep. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  13. (1951) I.C.J. Rep. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  14. (1952) I.C.J. Rep. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  15. (1950) I.C.J. Rep. 125.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jenks, The Prospects of International Adjudication 238–40 (1964); Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Courts 368-393 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lauterpacht, op. cit. supra note 16, at 368.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lauterpacht, “Sovereignty over Submarine Areas,” 27 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 393 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  19. See U.N. Doc. A/5746, 16th Nov. 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Lauterpacht, op. cit. supra note 16, at 21.

    Google Scholar 

  21. (1951) I.C.J.Rep. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  22. For a good discussion of this question, see Fitzmaurice, “The General Principles of International Law Considered from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law,” 92 Recueil des Cours 5, at 99-101 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  23. U.N. Gen. Ass. 0ff. Rec. 5th Sess., Supp. No. 12, at 8 (A/1316) (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  24. See. e.g., Hyde, “Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Wealth and Resources,” 50 Am. J. Int’l L. 864(1958).

    Google Scholar 

  25. For a more succint discussion of this issue see Parry, “The Practice of States,” 44 Transact. Grot. Soc’y. 145, at 167-172 (1958-59).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Infra at 158.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schwarzenberger, The Legality of Nuclear Weapons 44–5 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  28. See Bowett, “Estoppel Before International Tribunals and Its Relation to Acquiescence,” 33 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 195–7 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  29. UM. Gen. Ass. Off. Rec. 18th Sess., 6th Comm. 174-175 (A/C.6/SR.813) (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  30. UM. Gen. Ass. Off. Rec. 18th Sess., 6th Gomm. 174-175 (A/C.6/SR.813) (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Supra at 24.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See, e.g., Sloan, “The Binding Force of a’ Recommendation’ of the General Assembly of the United Nations,” 25 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 18–21 (1948).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Australia, U.N. Gen. Ass. Off. Rec. 17th Sess., 6th Comm. 120 (A/C.6/SR.758) (1962); Czechoslovakia, Id., 6th Comm. 181 (A/C.6/SR.767) (1962); Hungary, Id., 18th Sess., 6th Comm. 131 (A/C.6/SR. 806) (1963); New Zealand, Id. 17th Sess., 6th Comm. 171-172 (A/C.6/SR.766) (1962); Ukraine, Id., 6th Comm. 117 (A/C.6/SR.752) (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Fitzmaurice, “Hersch Lauterpacht — The Scholar as Judge,” 38 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 8–9 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Per Judge Klaestad in South-West Africa (Voting Procedure) Case, (1955) I.C.J. Rep. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fitzmaurice, “Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice,” Brit. Yb. Int’lL. 12–13 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community 288–306 (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fitzmaurice, op. cit. supra note 36, at 12.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fitzmaurice, op. cit. supra note 34, at 9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fitzmaurice, op. cit. supra note 34, at 9 and 12. He admits there are other possibilities.

    Google Scholar 

  41. “Issues Before the Nineteenth General Assembly,” 550 Int’l Cone. 103 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sloan, op. cit. supra note 32 at 26-27. Lauterpacht, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” 25 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 368–9 (1948); Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations 459 (1951).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See 550 Int’lCone. 102-114 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  44. South West-Africa (Voting Procedure) Case, (1955) I.C.J. Rep. 122.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fitzmaurice, op. cit. supra note 34, at 11.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sloan, op. cit. supra note 32, at 25.

    Google Scholar 

  47. (1951) I.C.J. Rep. 23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Obed Y. Asamoah LL.B.Hons. (Lond.), LL.M. (Columbia)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1966 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Asamoah, O.Y. (1966). Declarations as Evidence of Custom or General Principles of International Law. In: The Legal Significance of the Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9495-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9495-2_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8685-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9495-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation