Finals Flashcards
Res nullius
An area legally susceptible to acquisition by states but is not yet placed under territorial sovereignty
Res communis
not capable of being placed under sovereignty
Sovereignty vs. jurisdiction
S - legal competence that a state enjoys over their territory
J - an accumulation of rights that a state enjoys
Loss of territory but no loss of sovereignty
- Belligerent occupation of enemy territory
- Inundation of a low-lying island
- Relinquishment of effective control to non-state actors
- Denationalization of its inhabitants
- Loss of maritime zone or extraterritorial assets
Territorial sovereignty
Sovereignty in relation to a portion of the surface of the globe.
Belongs always to one or exceptionally, to several states to the exclusion of others (Palmas)
How to resolve a territorial dispute?
Examine which of the States possesses a title superior to that which the other State may have (Palmas)
Rule on title vs possession
Title prevails over possession
QLF: If title is equal, possession under claim of right matters
Critical date
When it must be shown that territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did exist.
Look at actual display of State activities (Palmas)
Modes of acquisition
Occupation
Accretion
Prescription
Cession
Conquest
Rule on original and historic title
It’s recognized but it requires appropriate evidence in support
Rule on discovery
Gives inchoate title; but that cannot prevail over definite title (Palmas). Must be completed within a reasonable period by effective occupation.
Occupation
Condition: That the territory be res nullius
Effective occupation
- In Private law, equivalent to possession.
- Important is state activity and acts of administration.
- Effective and continuous display of state authority
- Offers certain guarantees to other states and their nationals
Continued display of authority
1) Intention and will to act as sovereign
2) Some actual exercise or display of such authority
Also take into account: the extent to which sovereignty is also claimed by some other power (Eastern Greenland)
Cession
Right to territory conferred by treaty
Renunciation (form of cession)
Recognition that another state has title
Prescription
The removal of defects in a putative title arising from usurpation of another’s sovereignty via the acquiescence of the former sovereign
Requirements for prescription
1) Possession must be exercised a titre de souverain
2) Possession is public, peaceful and uninterrupted
3) Possession must be persistent, not ephemeral
4) Tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the usurping party can interpret as consent
Principle of contiguity
Consider contiguity and geographical unity when the disputed territory was at times, barren, uninhabited, or uncharted.
Uti possidetis
“As you possess, so shall you possess”
Accretion
Gradual increase of territory through new geographical formations
Jurisdiction
A state’s competence under int’l law to regulate the conduct of natural and juridical persons (legislative, executive, and judicial)
Territorial Principle
Courts of the place where the crime was committed
Nationality Principle
Nationality of the person who committed the crime
- Sometimes limited to serious offenses due to overlapping jurisdiction with territorial base
Passive Personality Principle
Aliens may be punished for acts abroad harmful to nationals of the forum
- Helpful for int’l terrorism
Protective/Security Principle
Depends on the national interest injured by the offense
- When vital issues are threatened
- Affects internal/external security/other key interest
Effects Doctrine
Extraterritorial offence causes some harmful effect in the prescribing
state, without actually meeting the criteria of territorial jurisdiction or
representing an interest sufficiently vital to the internal or external
security of the state in question to justify invoking the protective
principle
Universal jurisdiction
Assertion of criminal jurisdiction by a state in the absence of any other generally recognized head of
prescriptive jurisdiction
- For crimes that are so heinous that every state has a legal interest in their repression
Effect of immunity
Stops the courts of the forum state from exercising adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction in certain classes of cases in which a foreign state is a party
Rationals for state immunity
1) Immunity Rationae Materia
2) Immunity Rationae Personae
State immunity
Facilitates the performance of public functions by the state and
its representatives by preventing them from being sued or prosecuted in foreign courts.
Immunity Rationae Materia
Attaches to the official acts of State officials
(narrow range of acts, wider range of actors)
Restrictive theory of immunity
Immunity is only required with respect to transactions involving the exercise of governmental authority (acta jure imeprii) as distinct from commercial or other transactions which are not unique to the state (acta jure gestionis)
Immunity Rationae Personae
Immunities enjoyed by certain categories of State officials by virtue of their office.
(wide enough to cover official and private acts) (Arrest Warrant)
How to waive jurisdiction
1) Submitting to jurisdiction after the dispute has arisen
2) Prior written agreement
3) Institution of proceedings
4) Intervening or taking a step in the proceedings
Arrest Warrant
Through the duration of a Minister for Foreign Affairs’ office, they enjoy abroad full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability. So that the performance of their duties will not be hindered by any act of authority of another State.
Jurisdictional Immunities case
State practice (Judicial decisions) tells us that state immunity for acta jure imperii extends to civil proceedings for acts occasioning death, personal injury or damage to property committed by armed forces and other State organs in the conduct of armed conflict.
Affirmed by opinio juris found in national jurisprudence that says immunity is quired by CIL>
International responsibility
Covers the new legal relations which arise under IL by reason of the internationally wrongful act of a State
Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State (Art. 2, ARSIWA)
Action or omission:
(a) is attributable to the State under IL; and
(b) it constitutes a breach of an int’l obligation of the State
Corfu channel
Mere fact of control exercised by a State over its territory does not equate to the fact that the State knew or ought to have known of any unlawful act perpetrated therein.
When is an act characterized as internationally wrongful? (Art. 3, ARSIWA)
Check international law
Conduct of a State organ (Art. 4, ARSIWA)
- The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial
unit of the State. - An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of theState.
Indirect participation
State agents do not need to be direct perpetrators of the unlawful act to be responsible
Persons or entities exercising elements of governmental authority (Art. 5, ARSIWA)
The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the State under article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance.
“Governmental authority”
Check:
- content of the powers
- way the power was conferred on the entity
- purpose for which they are to be exercised
- extent to which the entity is accountable to government for their exercise
Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State (Art. 6, ARSIWA)
The conduct of an organ placed at the disposal of a State by another State shall be considered an act of the former State under international law if the organ is acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority of the State at whose disposal it is placed.
Excess of authority or contravention of instructions (Art. 7, ARSIWA)
The conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions.
Conduct directed or controlled by a State (Art. 8, ARSIWA)
The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct.
Conduct in the absence of authorities (Art. 9, ARSIWA)
The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities and in circumstances such as to call for the exercise of those elements of
authority.
Conduct of an insurrectional (Art. 10, ARSIWA)
- The conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new Government of a State shall be considered an act of that State under international law.
- The conduct of a movement, insurrectional or other, which succeeds in establishing a new State in part of the territory of a pre-existing State or in a territory under its administration shall be considered an act of the new State under international law.
- This article is without prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related to that of the movement concerned, which is to be considered an act of that State by virtue of articles 4 to 9.
Conduct adopted by a state (Art. 11, ARSIWA)
Conduct which is not attributable to a State under the preceding articles shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own.
Existence of a breach of an international obligation (Art. 12, ARSIWA)
There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in conformity withwhat is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.
International obligation in force for a State (Art. 13, ARSIWA)
An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.
Extension in time of the breach of an int’l obligation (Art. 14)
- The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue.
- The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the
international obligation. - The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in conformity with that obligation.
Breach consisting of a composite act (Art. 15)
- The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of actions or omissions defined in aggregate as wrongful occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the other actions or omissions, is sufficient to constitute the wrongful act.
- In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with the first of the actions or omissions of the series and lasts for as long as these actions or omissions are repeated and remain
not in conformity with the international obligation.
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
CONSENT (Art. 20, ARSIWA)
Valid consent by a State to the commission of a given act by another State precludes the wrongfulness of that act in relation to the former State to the extent that the act remains within the
limits of that consent.
Valid consent
- freely given
- clearly established
- actually expressed; not merely presumed
- person who consents must be authorized to so on the state’s behalf
When can you given consent to the otherwise wrongful conduct?
In advance or at the time it is occurring
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
SELF-DEFENSE (Art. 21)
The wrongfulness of an act of a State is precluded if the act constitutes a lawful measure of self-defence taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
- Does NOT apply to IHL and non-derogable HR provisions
“Lawful”
Within the bounds applicable in international armed conflict, the principle of proportionality and necessity
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
COUNTERMEASURES IN RESPECT OF AN INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT (Art. 22)
The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation towards another State is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken
against the latter State in accordance with chapter II of Part Three.
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
FORCE MAJEURE (Art. 23)
- The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act is due to force majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or
of an unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the circumstances to perform the obligation. - Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) the situation of force majeure is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it; or
(b) the State has assumed the risk of that situation occurring.
“Irresistible”
A constraint which the State is unable to avoid or oppose by its own means
“Unforeseen”
Neither foreseen nor of an easily foreseeable kind
Material impossibility
- Due to a natural or physical event, or human intervention, or some combo; or
- Certain situations of duress/coercion involving force on the State
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
Distress (Art. 24)
- The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the author of the act in question has no other reasonable way, in a situation of
distress, of saving the author’s life or the lives of other persons entrusted to the author’s care. - Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) the situation of distress is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it; or
(b) the act in question is likely to create a comparable or greater peril.
When to apply distress rule (Art. 24)
- Author is in a situation of peril (either personally or in relation to persons under his care)
- Agent has no other reasonable way of saving life
- Still acting voluntarily
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
Necessity (Art. 25)
- Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
(a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and
(b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole. - In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
(a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or
(b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
Necessity according to Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
A peril may be imminent as soon as it is established at the relevant point in time
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
Compliance with jus cogens (Art. 26)
Nothing in this chapter precludes the wrongfulness of any act of a State which is not in conformity with an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.
Circumstances precluding wrongfulness
Consequence of invoking a circumstance (Art. 27)
The invocation of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness in accordance with this chapter is without prejudice to:
(a) compliance with the obligation in question, if and to the extent that the circumstance precluding wrongfulness no longer exists;
(b) the question of compensation for any material loss caused by the act in question.
Countermeasures
Conduct taken in derogation from a subsisting treaty obligation but justified as a necessary and proportionate response to an internationally wrongful act of the opposing State
- an ultimate remedy that an injured state may take after
cessation and reparation have failed.
Reprisal vs. countermeasure
Reprisal – Covers unlawful action, taken by way of self-help, in response to a breach. Limited to times of IAC; punitive
Countermeasure – Reprisals not associated with IAC; instrumental
Retorsion
Unfriendly but lawful acts by an aggrieved party against the wrongdoer
Sanctions
Used for measures taken in accordance with the constituent instrument of some IOs
Cessation
Basic obligation of compliance with international law that remains due in spite of anybreaches.
Reparation
All measures that may be expected from the responsible state over and above cessation (inc restitution, compensation and satisfaction)
Object and limits of countermeasures (Art. 49)
- An injured State may only take countermeasures against a State which is responsible for an internationally wrongful act in order to induce that State to comply with its obligations under Part Two.
- Countermeasures are limited to the non-performance for the time being of international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State.
- Countermeasures shall, as far as possible, be taken in such a way as to permit the resumption of performance of the obligations in question.
Obligations not affected by countermeasures
- Countermeasures shall not affect:
(a) the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force as embodied in the Charter of the UN;
(b) obligations for the protection of fundamental human rights;
(c) obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals;
(d) other obligations under peremptory norms of general international law. - A State taking countermeasures is not relieved from fulfilling its obligations:
(a) under any dispute settlement procedure applicable between it and the responsible State;
(b) to respect the inviolability of diplomatic or consular agents, premises, archives and documents.
Proportionality (Art. 51)
Countermeasures must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking into account
- the gravity of the internationally wrongful act and
- the rights in question
(also importance of the interest protected and seriousness of the breach)
Conditions relating to resort to countermeasures (Art. 52)
- Before taking countermeasures, an injured State shall:
(a) call upon the responsible State, in accordance with article 43, to fulfill its obligations under Part Two;
(b) notify the responsible State of any decision to take countermeasures and offer to negotiate with that State. - Notwithstanding paragraph 1 (b), the injured State may take such urgent countermeasures as are necessary to preserve its rights.
- Countermeasures may not be taken, and if already taken must be suspended without undue delay if:
(a) the internationally wrongful act has ceased; and
(b) the dispute is pending before a court or tribunal which has the authority to make decisions binding on the parties. - Paragraph 3 does not apply if the responsible State fails to implement the dispute settlement procedures in good faith.
Measures taken by States other than an injured State (Art. 54)
This chapter does not prejudice the right of any State, entitled under article 48, paragraph 1, to invoke the responsibility of another State, to take lawful measures against that State to ensure cessation of the breach and reparation in the interest of the injured State or of the beneficiaries of the
obligation breached.
Legal consequences of IWA
- Continued duty of the responsible State to perform the obligation breached (29)
- Cease it (if continuing), to offer appropriate assurances of non-repetition if circumstances so require (30)
- Full reparation for injury caused by the IWA (31)
- Including damage, whether material or moral, caused by the IWA (31)
Forms of reparation (Art. 34)
Restitution, compensation and satisfaction
Restitution (Art. 35)
To re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution:
- not materially impossible
- doesn’t involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation