Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The idea that jurists have a vocational duty to progressively develop the law finds its way in international law chiefly via the mission statement of the United Nations' International Law Commission (ILC). Mandated by states to codify and progressively develop international law, the ILC's modern practice has merged these two distinct exercises. The Commission utilizes a common working procedure for the elaboration of both and appears to perceive progressive development as an appurtenance of codification. What is more, progressive development has often been equated by the ILC with lex ferenda propositions and policy considerations. It is little wonder then that the ILC has never attempted to meaningfully analyse this aspect of its mandate. This article examines progressive development from a methodological standpoint and maintains that it is an exercise with self-standing importance. It argues that there are two ways to understand the ILC's mandate to progressively develop the law: either as 'progressive development stricto sensu' or as 'legislation'. The difference between the two is methodological; 'progressive development stricto sensu' is elaborated via an inductive methodology and principally justified by legal considerations. On the other side, in the case of 'legislation', provisions are principally justified by policy considerations and, hence, imbued with uncertainty regarding their methodological foundations. The article suggests that 'progressive development stricto sensu' falls squarely within the ILC's legal mandate, while this will be the case with respect to 'legislation' only when the ILC is conscious of the question it sets out to answer and the requisite methodology that it employs to do so. To this end, the article lays down some basic methodological principles that the ILC should adhere to when engaging with topics of work where political considerations play a significant role in the development of the law. Finally, it calls for a revival of the forgotten discussion regarding the ILC's capacity to develop international law.

The ever-growing interaction between member States and international organisations results, all too often, in situations of non-conformity with international law (eg peacekeeping operations, international economic adjustment programmes, counter-terrorism sanctions). Seven years after the finalisation of the International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations (ARIO), international law on the allocation of international responsibility between these actors still remains unsettled. The confusion around the nature and normative calibre of the relevant rules, the paucity of relevant international practice supporting them and the lack of a clear and principled framework for their elaboration impairs their application and restricts their ability to act as effective regulatory formulas. This study aims to offer doctrinal clarity in this area of law and purports to serve as a point of reference for all those with a vested interest in the topic. For the first time since the publication of the ARIO, all international responsibility issues dealing with interactions between member States and international organisations are put together in one book under a common approach. Structured around a systematisation of the interactions between these actors, the study provides an analytical framework for the regulation of indirect responsibility scenarios. Based on the ideas of the intellectual fathers of international law, such as Scelle's 'dédoublement fonctionnel' theory and Ago's 'derivative responsibility' model, the book employs old ideas to add original argumentation to a topic that has been dealt with extensively by recent commentators.

"The ever-growing interaction between member States and international organisations results, all too often, in situations of non-conformity with international law (eg peacekeeping operations, international economic adjustment programmes, counter-terrorism sanctions). Seven years after the finalisation of the International Law Commission's Articles on the Responsibility of International Organisations (ARIO), international law on the allocation of international responsibility between these actors still remains unsettled. The confusion around the nature and normative calibre of the relevant rules, the paucity of relevant international practice supporting them and the lack of a clear and principled framework for their elaboration impairs their application and restricts their ability to act as effective regulatory formulas. This study aims to offer doctrinal clarity in this area of law and purports to serve as a point of reference for all those with a vested interest in the topic. For the first time since the publication of the ARIO, all international responsibility issues dealing with interactions between member States and international organisations are put together in one book under a common approach. Structured around a systematisation of the interactions between these actors, the study provides an analytical framework for the regulation of indirect responsibility scenarios. Based on the ideas of the intellectual fathers of international law, such as Scelle's 'dédoublement fonctionnel' theory and Ago's 'derivative responsibility' model, the book employs old ideas to add original argumentation to a topic that has been dealt with extensively by recent commentators."--Bloomsbury Publishing