Suchergebnisse

According to the textbooks of publicists, and according to the formal rules of international law, Ethiopia possessed certain well defined rights, and as a state was legally equal to all other states. Her position in the world, legally considered,was secure, buttressed as it was by a formidable array of rights such as "existence" and "self-defense." Yet when it came to discussing the fate of Ethiopia, students of international affairs did not run to their law books, but focussed their attention upon happenings in Rome, Paris, London, and possibly Geneva. China, too, is a state, endowed with a legal right to exist on equal terms in what is euphemistically called the "family of nations." But Far Eastern events are determined and shaped but little by legal rules; rather it is the policies of Japan and the other Great Powers which actually condition the flow of events and govern the future of China. Situations such as these are by no means exceptional, and lead many to the conclusion that they make for "a world without an effective system of public international law, in which force is the determining factor between nations [and in which] only Great Powers, by reason of their disproportionate strength, can invest their national policies with real international importance."

This article analyzes the undermined importance of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) case law in interpreting international humanitarian law (IHL) and its relationship with public international law. It examines how the ICJ has elevated IHL to customary law, declaring it "intransgressible" and equating it with jus cogens, and identified particular obligations for the parties in conflict. The article studies how the Court has clarified the relationships between customary IHL with the law of treaties and has declared which elements of IHL constitute the most basic principles of humanity, applicable whether it is an international or non-international armed conflict. Finally, the text analyzes how the Court, has discouraged counterproductive separations between the application of IHL and international human rights law.

World Trade Organisation (WTO) trade remedies (antidumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard agreements) are instruments used by WTO members to counter the economic injury caused by dumping, subsidies and the sudden and unforeseen increased imports. They are exceptions to the WTO principle of free trade and to the prohibition for States to react unilaterally to protect their own rights and interests, and as a result they have been accused by some as being the new tools of protectionism. This book analyses of the role and principles of WTO trade remedies in international law. In particular, it focuses on their aims, their structure, and their position within the WTO and more in general, the international legal system. The book considers trade remedies in light of fragmentation theories of international law and addresses the question how, and to what extent WTO law reflects and influences public international law.