Suchergebnisse

The ratification of international human rights treaties is considered an ordinary act of each State's international relations. However, the denunciation of an international human rights treaty is an act of particular gravity, and therefore limited by both international law and domestic law. This essay analyzes such limits and reviews the few cases of denunciation of international human rights treaties in an effort to demonstrate that it is not a sovereign power that States can exercise without restrictions. The case of Ecuador is examined in light of the constant threats from its government to withdraw from the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System. ; La ratificación de un tratado internacional de derechos humanos es considerada un acto ordinario de las relaciones internacionales de cada Estado. No obstante, la denuncia de un tratado internacional de derechos humanos es un acto de especial gravedad, y en consecuencia se encuentra revestido de límites derivados tanto del derecho internacional como del derecho interno de cada Estado. Este ensayo analiza tales límites y realiza un recuento de los contados casos de denuncia de tratados internacionales de derechos humanos con el afán de demostrar que no se trata de una facultad soberana que los Estados puedan ejercer sin restricciones. De manera particular se menciona el caso de Ecuador a raíz de las constantes amenazas de su gobierno de retirarse del Sistema Interamericano de Protección de Derechos Humanos.

For decades, following the views of the Argentine legal scholar Carlos Calvo, Latin American countries avoided adopting international investment treaties. The Calvo doctrine established that disputes between foreign investors and the state should only be settled by national courts, to the exclusion of international jurisdictions. This position eroded as numerous bilateral investment treaties (BITs) were signed during the 1980s and 1990s, exposing the countries of the region to investment lawsuits. Recently, a crisis of the investment treaty regime has been noticed in the region, with the denunciation of both BITs and the ICSID Convention, the non-recognition of arbitral awards, and the negotiation of a new model of investment treaties. The analysis of the historical process of rise and crisis of the investment regime in the region, through the review of documents and data on its effects, demonstrate that countries have taken measures to restrict the possibility of investor-State arbitration. In this sense, the region seems to be experiencing a return to Calvo's doctrine on the need to guarantee countries' decision-making autonomy in strategic policies. ; Por décadas, os países da América Latina evitaram adotar tratados de investimento seguindo os pensamentos do jurista argentino Carlos Calvo. A doutrina Calvo estabelecia que as disputas entre investidores estrangeiros e o Estado deveriam ser resolvidas pelos tribunais nacionais, à exclusão de jurisdições internacionais. Essa posição se erodiu à medida que um número crescente de tratados bilaterais de investimento (BITs) foi assinado nas décadas de 1980 e 1990, expondo os países da região a ações arbitrais de investimento. Recentemente, percebe-se uma crise do regime de investimentos na região, com a denúncia de BITs e da Convenção ICSID, o não reconhecimento de sentenças arbitrais e a negociação de um novo modelo de tratados de investimentos. Da análise do processo histórico de ascensão e crise do regime de investimento, através da análise de documentos e dados sobre os efeitos dos acordos de investimento, pode-se dizer que os países da região têm tomado medidas para restringir a possibilidade de arbitragens Investidor-Estado. Nesse sentido, estaríamos experimentando um retorno à doutrina de Calvo sobre a necessidade de garantir autonomia decisória sobre políticas públicas estratégicas na região.

International law in general — Subjects of international law International organizations — Status in international law — Limited capacities — Power to make and denounce treaties — Reasons for actingState territory — In general — Nature of territorial sovereignty — Office of international organization situated in territory of State — Relationship between organization and territorial sovereignJurisdiction — In general — Territorial — Exemptions from and restrictions upon territorial jurisdiction — International organizations — Agreements between organizations and host States regarding privileges and immunitiesDiplomatic and consular intercourse and privileges — Right of other persons to privileges and Immurriries — Officials of international organizations — Agreements between international organizations and host States regulating privileges and immunities of organization and its officialsTreaties — In general — Forms of international agreements — Informal agreements — Whether series of acts by parties evincing intention to create legal regime can give rise to legal obligationsTreaties — Conclusion and operation of treaties — Parties to treaties — Right to conclude treaties — International organizations — Treaties between international organizations and States — Host agreementsTreaties — Termination — By act of party — In general — Right of denunciation — Circumstances in which right of denunciation may be implied in treaty — Whether right subject to conditions concerning consultation and notice — Agreement between international organization and State concerning regional office of organization on territory of contracting State — Right of organization to transfer office — Mutual obligations of partiesTreaties — Termination — By act of party — Mutual consent — Revision of treaties — Agreement between international organization and State concerning regional office of organization — Whether provision for revision of agreement applicable in case where one party wishes to transfer office or terminate agreementTreaties — Termination — By act of party — Unilateral denunciation — Whether right of unilateral denunciation may be implied in treaty — Provisions of treaty — General international law — Agreement between international organization and State concerning regional office of organization — Right of unilateral denunciation — Whether subject to conditions regarding consultation and noticeTreaties — Interpretation — Consideration of preparatory work — Provision of treaty based upon similar provision in earlier treaty between different parties — Examination of preparatory work of earlier treaty — Agreements between international organizations and host StatesTreaties — Special kinds of treaties — Agreements between international organizations and host States — Legal status — Interpretation — DenunciationInternational organization and administration — International organization in general — Status of an international organization as a subject of international law — Limited nature of its capacities — Treaties between international organizations and States — Host agreements — Relationship between international organization and host State — Rights and duties of each party — Power of international organization to determine location of its regional offices Decision to transfer office to another State — Whether duty to consult — Whether notice to be given — Applicable legal principlesInternational organization and administration — The United Nations — Other organs of the United Nations — International Court of — Justice — Function of the advisory jurisdiction of the Court as part of the United Nations system — Duty of Court to assist other organs and agencies of the United NationsDisputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction Competence — Request for advisory opinion allegedly made for political reasons — Argument not advanced before Court — Whether Court should take cognizance of argument — Relevance of motives for making request — Whether Court should decline to give advisory opinion on questions forming part of wider political dispute — Distinction between political character of problem giving rise to request and legal character of subject-matter of request — Formulation of questions to examine wider legal issues relevant to the case — Whether Court entitled to re-phrase questionsDisputes — The International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Opinion — Reasons for opinion — Opinion as lowest common denominator of the views of the concurring judges — Role of separate opinionsInternational organization and administration — Specialized agencies of the United Nations — World Health Organization — Arrangements between WHO and host State concerning regional office of WHO — Legal nature of arrangements — Legal relationship between international organization and host State — Whether subject to a contractual regime — Whether agreement between WHO and host State regulating privileges, immunities and facilities a "host agreement" — Right of WH0 to transfer regional office to another State — Whether involving denunciation of agreement — Whether provisions regulating revision of agreement applicable to transfer of office Legal principles governing transfer of office — Duty of consultation — Reasonable period of notice — Concept of 'establishment' of regional office — Legal concept — Establishment resulting from series of acts based on mutual understanding and from formal agreementTreaties — In general — Conception and function — Agreement between international organization and host State — Legal status and function — Forms of international agreements — Whether series of acts by parties evincing intention to create legal regime capable of giving rise to legal obligations — Right to conclude treaties International organizationsTreaties — Termination — By act of party — In general — Right of denunciation — Circumstances in which right of denunciation may be implied in treaty — Whether right subject to conditions concerning consultation and notice — Agreement between international organization and host State — Right of organization to transfer office — Whether involving denunciation of agreement — Whether governed by provision concerning revision of agreement — Interpretation — Consideration of preparatory work — Provision based upon similar clause in earlier treaty — Examination of preparatory work of earlier treatyDisputes — International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Competence — Request for advisory opinion allegedly made for political reasons — Argument not advanced before Court — Whether Court should take cognizance of argument — Relevance of motives for making request — Whether Court should decline to give advisory opinion on questions forming part of wider political dispute Distinction between political character of problem giving rise to request and legal character of subject — matter of request — Formulation 451of questions in request — Whether Court entitled to go behind formulation of questions to examine wider legal issues relevant to the case — Whether Court entitled to re — phrase questions — Advisory opinion — Reasons for opinion — Opinion as lowest common denominator of the views of the concurringjudges — Role of separate opinionsInternational law in general — Subjects of international law — International organizations — Status in international law — Limited international legal capacity — Power to make and denounce treaties — Whether obliged to act only to further objectives laid down in constitution of organizationState territory — In general — Nature of territorial sovereignty — Office of international organization situated in territory of State — Relationship between organization and territorial sovereign — Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Privileges and immunities of international organizations

On April 3, 2015, the ICSID tribunal in Venoklim Holding B. V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela issued the first public decision to consider the effect of a state's denunciation of the ICSID Convention (Convention). The tribunal decided that Venezuela's denunciation on January 24, 2012, did not preclude jurisdiction over a claim submitted in the period after notification of the denunciation but before its effective date. Yet the tribunal also held that Venezuela's domestic statute was insufficient as an autonomous offer of consent to ICSID arbitration, and that the conjunction of the statute with an investment treaty did not confer such consent where the conditions in the statute were not fulfilled. The award was notable too because of the majority's holding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction owing to the Venezuelan nationality of the underlying beneficial owners of the Dutch corporation that was the claimant in the ICSID arbitration. The Tribunal held that, because the claimant was effectively owned by Venezuelan nationals, the requirement of foreign ownership or control was not satisfied for the purposes of the applicable Venezuelan investment statute and the ICSID Convention.

В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы и правовые последствия референдума о членстве Великобритании в Европейском союзе, который состоялся 23 июня 2016 г. Автор использует различные методы лингвистического и юридического анализа статей Лиссабонского договора о внесении изменений в Договор о Европейском союзе и Договор об учреждении Европейского сообщества и Акта о европейских сообществах 1972 г., обосновывает необходимость законодательного закрепления процессуального порядка сецессии из Европейского союза. ; This article reviews the current problems and the legal consequences arising from the European Union Membership Referendum, which took place in the UK and Gibraltar on June 23, 2016. The author uses different methods of linguistic and legal analysis of the articles of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and the European Communities Act of 1972. The author proves the necessity of legislative regulation of a procedural order of secession from the European Union.

Treaties — Termination of — By act of party — Mutual consent — Tacit — Subsequent treaty dealing with similar subject-matter — Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, 1905 — Provision exempting nationals of signatory States from giving security for costs before courts of other signatory States — France and Russia both signatory States — Agreement between France and Soviet Union suspending operation of Franco — Russian agreements — Subsequent agreements providing for freedom of access to courts by restricted categories of nationals — Whether implied denunciation of Hague Convention — The law of France.The individual in international law — Aliens — Position of — Treatment by and responsibilities of receiving State — Access to courts on same terms as nationals — Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, 1905 — Security for costs — France and Russia both signatory States — Agreement between France and Soviet Union suspending operation of Franco-Russian Agreements — Subsequent agreements providing for freedom of access to courts of restricted categories of nationals — Whether implied denunciation of Hague Convention — Reciprocity — Exemption of foreign nationals in U.S.S.R. from giving security for costs — Whether Soviet national exempt from giving security for costs — The law of France.

When the German government announced on March 16 of this year that it no longer deemed itself bound by the disarmament provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, a great step was taken toward the realization of the demand forGleichberechtigungwhich has been the main objective of National Socialist foreign policy. In view of the forthcoming conversations which had been scheduled to take place at Berlin, the time chosen for this decision was unexpected. The act of denunciation itself had been foreshadowed, however, by the withdrawal of Germany from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations, and by her actual rearming in defiance of the limitations of the Treaty. It involved no sudden innovation in policy, but was merely a public acknowledgment of thefait accompli; it marked the final stroke in one stage of a long and bitter campaign against the "Diktat" of Versailles.

The moral reason of our war, by G. del Vecchio.--The national ideal and the duty of Italy; by P. Fedozzi.--The political reasons of our war, by P. Bonfante.--The rights of Italy over the Alps and the Adriatic, by C. Errere.--The unredeemed provinces in the history of Italy, by P. S. Leicht.--The national struggle in the unreddemed provinces, by L. Bianchi.--Denunciation of the treaty of the Triple alliance, by P. Fedozzi.--Italy's war and Italy's wealth, by G. Arias.--Necessity and reason for the present war with Turkey, by A. Solmi.--Artes et arma, by G. Albini. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Das Demokratieprinzip ist im Völkerrecht verankert. Seine normativen Grundlagen sind zum einen das Vertragsrecht, insbesondere der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, sowie die regionalen Verankerungen in Europa und in Amerika durch die Satzungen der jeweiligen internationaler Organisationen und ihrer Menschenrechtsinstrumente. Substantielle vertragliche Verpflichtungen ergeben sich auch aus den bilateralen Verträgen der EG. Zum anderen fußt es auf der Staatenpraxis, insbesondere im Rahmen der UNO. So ist die internationale Gemeinschaft auf die Errichtung demokratischer Strukturen verpflichtet, wenn sie staatliche Funktionen in failed states übernimmt oder den Wiederaufbau eines Staatswesens begleitet. Die Demokratieresolutionen der UNO lassen erkennen, daß alle Staaten verpflichtet sind, das Ziel der Demokratie anzustreben und erreichte demokratische Errungenschaften zu gewährleisten. Das Demokratieprinzip beinhaltet normativ die Legitimation staatlichen Handelns durch freie Wahlen und die Absicherung durch Menschenrechte, Gewaltenteilung und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Staatliche Entscheidungen bedürfen daher einer legitimierenden Rückbindung an den frei geäußerten Willen des konstituierenden Staatsvolkes, wobei die Freiheit dieser Willensäußerung in dynamischer Perspektive die Freiheit der Willensänderung garantiert. Sowohl der Vertragsschluß als Akt staatlichen Handelns als auch der Inhalt des Vertrages bedürfen der Legitimation, und zwar über die Zeit hinweg. Das geltende Völkervertragsrecht berücksichtigt das Demokratieprinzip jedoch nur unzureichend. Die Verletzung innerstaatlichen Rechts beim Vertragsschluß kann nur eingeschränkt geltend gemacht werden. Es existiert auch kein Verfahren, mit dem die fortdauernde Legitimation eines Vertrages überprüft werden könnte. Angesichts der Zunahme von Verträgen, die innere Angelegenheiten der Gesellschaften regeln, bedarf das Spannungsverhältnis einer Lösung. Das Problem wird illustriert durch Frankreichs Ausstieg aus der NATO, Senegals Kündigung der Seerechtskonventionen, den Streit um den deutschen Atomausstieg, das Verfahren um den Donaustaudamm Gabcíkovo Nagymaros, die Frage der Vereinbarkeit von Drogenkonsumräumen mit den UN-Anti-Drogenkonventionen, das Schiedsverfahren zwischen Aminoil und Kuwait sowie der Kündigung des ABM-Vertrages durch die USA. Ein erster Ansatz zur Lösung kann in einer Neuinterpretation der völkervertragsrechtlichen Regeln liegen. So bietet sich der Grundsatz der "demokratiefreundlichen Interpretation" an. Internes Recht, das der Kontrolle der Exekutive dient, muß beim Vertragsschluß Berücksichtigung finden. Und Verträgen, die "innere Angelegenheiten" betreffen, kann ein implizites Kündigungsrecht zugebilligt werden. Der wesentliche Ansatz ist aber kautelarjuristischer Natur. Revisions-, Experimentier- und Kündigungsklauseln können bei der Abfassung von Verträgen die Vertragsbeziehung so ausgestalten, daß zukünftige Meinungsänderungen berücksichtigt werden können. Schließlich ist de lege ferenda ein Recht auf Revision, kombiniert mit einem subsidiären Kündigungsrecht, wünschenswert. Mit einem solchen Mechanismus könnten neue normative Lösungen eingeführt werden und die Legitimation bestehender Normen auf den Prüfstand gestellt werden. ; International law provides for a democratic principle. It is based both on treaty law and customary law. The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights as well as the regional treaties in Europe and the Americas - the statutes of the respective regional organisations and their human rights instruments - form a substantial body of treaty obligations toward democracy, which is complemented by bilateral treaties of the EC safeguarding democracy. State practice, especially within the framework of the UN, indicates an obligation to establish democratic structures whenever the international community takes upon itself the task of nation building in failed states. The democracy resolutions of the UN point out that all member states are obliged to strive for democracy and uphold democratic achievements so far. The normative democratic principle includes the legitimation of public affairs through free and fair elections and the guarantee of human rights, separation of powers and the rule of law. Acts of states therefore must be legitimised through the freely expressed will of the people. Under a dynamic perspective, the free will includes the possibility for changes of policy. The conclusion of treaties as an act of state as well as the content of the treaty as a rule of law need to be legitimised through the times. The current law of treaties does not acknowledge the democratic principle, however. Violations of internal law at the conclusion of a treaty can only be claimed to a limited extent. Nor does international law provide for a formal procedure to validate the on-going support for the content of the treaty. Facing an ever-growing expansion of the number of treaties dealing with the internal affairs of societies, solutions must be found. The problem is being illustrated by France's withdrawal from NATO, Senegal's withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, the dispute related to the question of the use of nuclear energy in Germany, the judgement of the ICJ in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros case, the question of the compatibility of drug consumption rooms with UN anti-drug conventions, the dispute settlement award in the Aminoil case and last not least the denunciation of the ABM treaty by the US. Realigning the interpretation of the law of treaties to the democratic principle is one way to deal with the problem. Interpretation of treaties should take into account the democratic principle. Internal law controlling the executive has to be complied with where conclusion of treaties is concerned. And treaties dealing with "internal affairs" can be considered to contain an implicit right of withdrawal or denunciation. The proper solution lies in respecting the democratic principle when drafting treaties, though. Clauses of revision, clauses allowing for experiments and clauses of denunciation or withdrawal help shaping a contractual relationship that can take into account changes of the political will. Last not least, a right of revision is recommended de lege ferenda, combined with a subsidiary right of denunciation or withdrawal. Such a mechanism allows for introducing new normative solutions and for validating the on-going legitimation of existing treaty rules. (See also the English summary at the end of the thesis.)

En: Arbitraje: revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones. eISSN. 2603-9281. vol. 3, n. 2, 2010, pp 411-432 ; Como en cualquier tipo de arbitraje, el arbitraje de inversiones se fundamenta en el acuerdo de las partes. El consentimiento al arbitraje tanto por parte del Estado receptor de la inversión como por parte del inversor es un requisito indispensable para la competencia del tribunal arbitral. De forma tradicional el consentimiento se otorgaba a través de un acuerdo directo entre el inversor y el Estado receptor de la inversión. Pero en los últimos años, el consentimiento resulta de una oferta unilateral realizada por el Estado receptor de la inversión, que se contempla en su legislacion o en un Tratado internacional, que posteriormente es aceptada por el inversor. Este trabajo analiza cuando este tipo de disposiciones constituyen una oferta inequívoca de arbitraje y cuando, por el contrario, constituyen promesas futuras e incluso una simple consideración general favorable hacia este método de solución de controversias. Una interpretación correcta de estas cláusulas tiene una decisiva importancia si observamos que algunos países, especialmente de Latinoamérica, están empezando a diseñar estrategias para limitar su exposición al arbitraje, comenzando por la denuncia de la Convención CIADI. ; Like any form of arbitration, investment arbitration is always based on an agreement. Consent to arbitration by the host State and by the investor is an indispensable requirement for a tribunal's jurisdiction. Traditionally this would take place by a direct agreement between the host State and the investor. But in the last years, consent result from a unilateral offer by the host State, expressed in its legislation or in a treaty, which is subsequently accepted by the investor. This article analyzes when these provisions constitute an unequivocal offer to arbitrate and when contain simple promises of future consent or hold out a general prospect of sympathetic consideration. A correct interpretation of these clauses has today great importance, if we observe that some countries, especially in Latin America, have started to design strategies to limit their exposure to investment arbitration, beginning by the denunciation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (The ICSID Convention).

En: Arbitraje: revista de arbitraje comercial y de inversiones. eISSN. 2603-9281. vol. 3, n. 2, 2010, pp 411-432 ; Como en cualquier tipo de arbitraje, el arbitraje de inversiones se fundamenta en el acuerdo de las partes. El consentimiento al arbitraje tanto por parte del Estado receptor de la inversión como por parte del inversor es un requisito indispensable para la competencia del tribunal arbitral. De forma tradicional el consentimiento se otorgaba a través de un acuerdo directo entre el inversor y el Estado receptor de la inversión. Pero en los últimos años, el consentimiento resulta de una oferta unilateral realizada por el Estado receptor de la inversión, que se contempla en su legislacion o en un Tratado internacional, que posteriormente es aceptada por el inversor. Este trabajo analiza cuando este tipo de disposiciones constituyen una oferta inequívoca de arbitraje y cuando, por el contrario, constituyen promesas futuras e incluso una simple consideración general favorable hacia este método de solución de controversias. Una interpretación correcta de estas cláusulas tiene una decisiva importancia si observamos que algunos países, especialmente de Latinoamérica, están empezando a diseñar estrategias para limitar su exposición al arbitraje, comenzando por la denuncia de la Convención CIADI. ; Like any form of arbitration, investment arbitration is always based on an agreement. Consent to arbitration by the host State and by the investor is an indispensable requirement for a tribunal's jurisdiction. Traditionally this would take place by a direct agreement between the host State and the investor. But in the last years, consent result from a unilateral offer by the host State, expressed in its legislation or in a treaty, which is subsequently accepted by the investor. This article analyzes when these provisions constitute an unequivocal offer to arbitrate and when contain simple promises of future consent or hold out a general prospect of sympathetic consideration. A correct interpretation of these clauses has today great importance, if we observe that some countries, especially in Latin America, have started to design strategies to limit their exposure to investment arbitration, beginning by the denunciation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (The ICSID Convention).

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Treaty — Pact of Bogotá — Effect of denunciation — Whether termination of Pact by Colombia precluding the Court from having jurisdiction over claim filed before expiry of one year from denunciation — Articles XXXI and LVI of Pact — Requirement of dispute — Whether there existed a dispute on subject-matter of claim brought by Nicaragua — Dispute over alleged violation by Colombia of sovereign rights — Dispute over alleged violation by Colombia of prohibition of use of force — Whether precondition under Article II of Pact satisfied — Prospect of negotiated settlement — Inherent jurisdiction of the Court — Whether Nicaragua's claim was an attempt to enforce 2012 judgmentInternational Court of Justice — Counterclaims — Jurisdiction in respect of counterclaims — Requirement of connection between counterclaim and main claim — Article 80 of Rules of Court — Admissibility of counterclaims — Direct connection — Direct connection in fact — Direct connection in law — Whether Colombia's counterclaims directly connected with Nicaragua's original claim — Jurisdiction — Whether lapse of a title of jurisdiction affecting Court's jurisdiction over Colombia's counterclaims — Whether there existed a dispute concerning subject-matter of Colombia's third and fourth counterclaims — Whether precondition under Article II of Pact was met in relation to the third and fourth counterclaims

International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 ("Pact of Bogotá"), Article XXXI — Nicaragua instituting proceedings against Colombia — Nicaragua's First Request concerning delimitation of continental shelf between Parties in area beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaraguan coast — Nicaragua's Second Request requesting Court to determine principles and rules of international law governing right and duties of two States in relevant area pending delimitation — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain application — Colombia raising preliminary objections — Whether Court lacking jurisdiction ratione temporis — Pact of Bogotá — Denunciation by Colombia — Interpretation of Pact of Bogotá — Whether Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá remaining in force on date of application — Effect of second paragraph of Article LVI — Whether effet utile principle applicable — Travaux préparatoires — Whether Court having "continuing jurisdiction" — Whether Court having already fully dealt with Nicaragua's claims regarding delimitation of continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles of Nicaraguan coast — 2012 Judgment — Whether Nicaragua's claim barred by way of res judicata — Issue concerning Article 76(8) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Whether application attempt to revise 2012 Judgment — Admissibility of applicationTreaties — Denunciation — Effect — Interpretation — American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, 1948 ("Pact of Bogotá") — Whether Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá remaining in force on date of application — Effect of second paragraph of Article LVI — Transmission of notification — One-year period between denunciation and termination of Pact — Institution of proceedings during one-year period — Object and purpose of Pact — A contrario interpretation — Effet utile principle — Whether applicable — Travaux préparatoires — Whether Court having jurisdiction by means of Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá — Whether necessary for Court to consider other bases of jurisdictionGeneral principles of international law — Res judicata — Identity between parties, object and legal ground — Final and definitive determination of Nicaragua's extended continental shelf claim — Scope of 2012 Judgment — Meaning of operative clause established by reference to reasoning of Judgment — Nicaragua's obligation to submit information on limits of extended continental 2shelf to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf ("CLCS") — Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ("UNCLOS") — Whether Nicaragua's claim to a continental shelf barred by res judicataSea — Maritime delimitation — Delimitation of continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — Role and function of Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf ("CLCS") — Delineation not delimitation — Article 76 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 ("UNCLOS") — Delimitation of continental shelf governed by Article 83 of UNCLOS — Whether obligation to obtain recommendation by CLCS before International Court of Justice could delimit continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles

This research aims to analyze normatively about the nature of the act of the ratification of international treaties and outlines the act of constitutional review to the ratification of international treaties. The results of research shows: 1) the standing of international treaties is dependent on the scores of international law who espoused a country. Ratification of a treaty embodied through the two phases namely: the phases of the national law and of international law; 2) the meaning of "DPR approval" must be viewed in the context of internal procedures meanwhile ratification must be vied of external procedure. 3) Constitutional review may results in wide and problematic decision. If it is declared void then execution of the decision will face obstacles. If there is a denunciation, Government is in the difficult position and even can trigger dispute to the international Court of Justice.Keywords: ratification, international agreement, legislation