Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:40:20.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of the U.N. Structure, Including that of the Specialized Agencies, on the Law of International Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

D. W. Bowett
D. W. Bowett*
Affiliation:
Cambridge University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Panel: The United Nations and Lawmaking
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 64 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its Sixty-Fourth Annual Meeting held at New York, N.Y. April 24-26, 1970 , September 1970 , pp. 48 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Skubiszewski, , “Enactment of Law by International Organisations,” 41 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law 198 at 229 (1965-66)Google Scholar.

2 See Gold, , “Interpretation by the I.M.F. of Its Articles of Agreement,” 16 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 289 at 292 (1967)10.1093/iclqaj/16.2.289CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Seyersted, , Objective International Personality of Intergovernmental Organisations (Copenhagen, 1963)Google Scholar.

4 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174.

5 See Voting Procedure Case, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 77; and Hearings of Petitioners Case, [1956] ibid. 29.

6 [1962] ibid. 151 at 167-168.

7 This seems implicit in the two opinions of the P.C.I.J. on the Competence of the I.L.O. (Ser. B, Nos. 2, 3 and 12) and the current practice regarding abstention as an implied concurrence.

8 Only in the IMCO (Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee) Case, [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 150, has the I.C.J. held a practice unconstitutional.

9 Or is in the category of “permissive” as opposed to “mandatory” functions, if Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice is right in making this distinction in his Separate Opinion in the Expenses Case, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 213. The author finds great difficulty in locating the basis for this distinction anywhere in the Charter, at least as regards the obligation to finance an activity.