Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:07:29.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New States, Regionalism and International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

L. C. Green
L. C. Green*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Alberta
Get access

Extract

Traditionally, international law has come to be regarded as consensual in nature, depending for its authority upon the recognition and acceptance of those entities which it seeks to bind. This view was accepted by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the S.S. Lotus: “The rules of law binding upon States emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims.” Article 38 of the Statute of the World Court, when listing the “sources” of international law, also acknowledges its consensual basis. In its substantive portion the article refers to conventions “establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States.” It then refers to custom “as evidence of a general practice accepted as law,” which has been explained by the International Court of Justice in the Asylum Case: “The Party which relies on a custom … must prove that this custom is established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other Party. [It] must prove that the rule invoked by it is in accordance with a constant and uniform usage practised by the States in question, and that this usage is the expression of a right appertaining to the [one] State … and a duty incumbent on the [other] State.”

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 5 , 1967 , pp. 118 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1967

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 [1927] P.C.I.J., ser. A, No. 10, at 18; 2 Hudson, , World Court Reports 23, 35.Google Scholar

2 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266, 276.

3 Schwarzenberger, , Frontiers of International Law c.4 (1962)Google Scholar; Green, , “General Principles of Law and Human Rights”, 8 Current Legal Problems 162 (1955).Google Scholar

4 Feb. 13, 1946, I.C.J. Yearbook 217 (1946-47).

5 Jan. 27, 1947, ibid., 219.

6 H.M.S.O. Cmd. 6964 (1946), at 38 et seq., esp. at 40 re Geneva Protocol; 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172, 216 et seq., esp. 219 (1947).

7 [1923] P.C.I.J., ser. B, No. 5, at 27-28; 1 Hudson, , World Court Reports 191, 204.Google Scholar

8 [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174, 185.

9 [1954] I.C.J. Rep. 19, 33.

10 International Law Chiefly as Applied and Interpreted by the United States (1947).

11 Digest of International Law (1940–44).

12 Digest of International Law (1963–).

13 Great Britain and the Law of Nations (1932–35).

14 International Law Opinions (1956).

15 British Digest of International Law (1965–); British International Law Cases ( 1964–).

16 Traité de Droit International Public (1953–54).

17 Répertoire Français de Droit International Public ( 1962–).

18 International Law Chiefly as Applied and Interpreted in Canada (1965).

19 International Law in Australia (1966).

20 International Law — Indian Courts and Legislature (1965).

21 Growth of International Law and Pakistan (1965).

22 The Islamic Law of Nations (1966).

23 International Law (1961).

24 United States Information Service (London, U.K.), Daily Wireless Bulletin, No. 298, January 25, 1947.

25 Journal of the Security Council, First Year, No. 9, at 145.

26 Green, , “South West Africa and the World Court,” 22 International Journal 39, 66 (1966/67).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Dickinson, , The International Anarchy (1926).Google Scholar

28 Lauterpacht, , Recognition in International Law, s.107 (1947)Google Scholar; Chen, , The International Law of Recognition, c.17 (1951) (“Conditional Recognition”).Google Scholar

29 See, for example, Asylum Case, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266.

30 Lauterpacht, , “The So-called Anglo-American and Continental Schools of Thought in International Law,” 12 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 31 (1931)Google Scholar

31 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2279 et seq.

32 Supra note 29, at 290, 293–94.

33 A Study of the Philosophy of International Law as seen in Works of Latin American Writers 122 (1954).

34 Ibid., 124 (El derecho internacional hispano americano, vol. 1, at 511).

35 Art. 24 (2) (Cmnd. 584, 1958; 52 Am. J. Int’l L. 840 (1958).

36 “Territorial Waters and the Onassis Case,” II The World Today 1 (1955).

37 The Times (London), Dec. 4, 1954.

38 Ibid., Dec. 14, 1954.

39 Uruguayan Blue Book, 1940; 7 Hackworth, , Digest of International Law 450 509.Google Scholar

40 Supra note 29, at 316.

41 Ibid., 294.

42 See Reports of Asian African Consultative Legal Committee.

43 See text to supra note 33.

44 2 Int’l Legal Materials 766 (1963); Boutros-Ghali, , “The Addis Ababa Charter,” International Conciliation, No. 564, Jan. 1964.Google Scholar

45 Documentation Française, Notes et Documentaires, Textes Diplomatiques CV, June 5, 1951, No. 1489.

46 Boutros-Ghali, op. cit. supra note 44, at 5.

47 The Times, Aug. 18, 1962 (self-determination means “internal self-determination, self-determination among ourselves; not external self-determination, which we reject”).

48 See, however, UN Committee of 24 re Gibralter, ibid., Oct. 2, 6, 17, 1964, Apr. 11, 1965; Sp. Committee, Doc.A/AC.i09/SR284, A/AC.109/PV284.

49 Boutros-Ghali, op. cit. supra note 44, at 39.

50 Ibid., 32.

51 Africa Must Unite 204 (1963).

52 Oct. 11, 1964, Press Release, Consulate General of UAR, Italics added.

53 Res. 95 (I), Dec. 11, 1946.

54 London Treaty of July 3, 1933, with Estonia, Latvia, Persia, Poland, Rou-mania and Turkey, (6 Hudson, International Legislation 410).

55 May 24, 1933 (LN Doc. 1935 IX 4, at 683 ( Sohn, , Cases on World Law 798 (1950)Google Scholar.

56 Op. cit. supra note 23, at 404 (italics added).

57 Yearbook of ILC, 1951, Vol. 2, at 133, as amended 1954, vol. 2, at 149, Art. 2(4).

58 Op. cit. supra note 23, at 16.

59 GA, Official Records, 17th Session 1962, Agenda Item 75, Annexes; 18th Session 1963, Agenda Item 71 Annexes; Docs. A/5746, Nov. 16, 1964; A/6165, Dec. 18, 1965; A/AC. 125/L.38 and Add. 1–6, Apr. 20, 1966; A/6547, Dec. 7, 1966.

60 Res. 181 (XXI), Dec. 13, 1966.

61 Res. 1815 (1962).

62 [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6.

63 See Green, , “South West Africa and the World Court,” 22 International Journal 39, 66 (1966–67).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 26 International Organization 563–64 (1966).

65 Chinese Note, Jan. 23, 1959 (Indian White Paper, vol. 1, at 53).

66 The Times, Sep. 16, 1964.

67 Schwarzenberger, , International Law, vol. 1, at 176 et seq. (1957).Google Scholar

68 O’Connell, , The Law of State Succession 49–50 (1956)Google Scholar; International Law, vol. I, 427 et seq. (1965).

69 At 655. See also, I.L.A., The Effect of Succession on Treaties (1965), esp. c. 11.

70 See, for example, the arrangements concerning Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia. 4 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 21–22, 41–42 (1966).

71 I. L. A. Helsinki Conference 1966, IIIA (letter from Prime Minister of Guyana dated July 1966).

72 See Asamoah, , The Legal Significance of the Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations (1966).Google Scholar

73 Doc.A/6547, Dec. 7, 1966.

74 At 21, 23–24.

75 Ibid., 26.

76 Res. 2131 (XX) Dec. 21, 1965 (5 Int’l Legal Materials 374 (1966)).

77 Dec. A/AG.125/L.38/Add.3, Apr. at, 1966, at 13.

78 Op. cit. supra note 73, at 31.

79 Doc. 14 C/DR.207, Nov. 24, 1966 (6 Int’I Legal Materials 188 (1967)).

80 Op. cit. supra note 73, at 33.

81 Ibid.

82 “10. Recognize the legitimacy of the struggle by the peoples under colonial rule to exercise the right to self-determination and independence and invites all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories.”

83 “4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territorry shall be respected.”

84 Declaration on Sovereignty over Natural Resources, Res. 626 (VII).

85 See the Hamburg, 1960, and Brussels, 1962, Conference Reports.

86 The Times, Apr. 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 28, and May 3, 5, 1967. See also Times Literary Supplement (London), June 29, 1967, vol. 66, at 579.

87 Doc.A/AC.125/L.38/Add.2, Apr. 21, 1966, at 28, 37–38. (Italics added).