¹ There are, however, exceptions. See, notably, Wayne Sandholtz & Alec Stone Sweet, Law, Politics, and International Governance, in: The Politics of International Law, 238 (Christian Reus-Smit ed., 2004).Google Scholar

² Bogdandy, Armin von & Venzke, Ingo, Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers, in this issue, 979, 985.Google Scholar

³ See Hart, Herbert L. A., The Concept of Law 86-88 (1961).Google Scholar

⁴ See id.; Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (1967).Google Scholar

⁵ Some scholars even limit their analysis of lawmaking by international courts to an analysis of court judgments, see Alan Boyle & Christine Chinkin, The Making of International Law 272-311 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶ On the issue of selection effects, see Gary King, Robert O. Keohane & Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research 128-139 (1994).Google Scholar

⁷ See Anthony D'Amato, The Concept of Custom in International Law 74-102 (1971); Lepard, Brian D., Customary International Law. A New Theory With Practical Applications 171-228 (2010).Google Scholar

⁸ See Franck, Thomas M., The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (1990); Chayes, Abram & Chayes, Antonia Handler, The New Sovereignty: Compliance With International Regulatory Agreements (1995); Koh, Harold Hongju, Why Do Nations Obey International Law?, 106 Yale Law Journal 2599 (1997); Goldsmith, Jack L. & Posner, Eric A., The Limits of International Law (2005); Aaken, Anne van, To Do Away with International Law? Some Limits to ‘The Limits of International Law', 17 EJIL 289 (2006); Guzman, Andrew T., How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory (2008). The traditional view of the mainstream legal doctrine is probably best represented by Louis Henkin, according to whom “almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time” (Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy 47 (1979).Google Scholar

⁹ For a study on compliance of states with judgments of the ICJ, see Constanze Schulte, Compliance With Decisions of the International Court of Justice (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sandholtz, Wayne, Dynamics of International Norm Change: Rules against Wartime Plunder, 14 European Journal of International Relations 101 (2008).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Ellickson, Robert C., Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes (1991).Google Scholar

¹² Byers, Michael, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules (1999).Google Scholar

¹³ See also Ginsburg, Tom & McAdams, Richard H., Adjudicating in Anarchy: An Expressive Theory of International Dispute Resolution, 45 William & Mary Law Review 1229, 1269 (2004), according to whom judgments of the ICJ provide focal points when resolving ambiguity in the interpretation of international treaties.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Franck (note 8); Martha Finnemore & Sikkink, Kathryn, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, 52 International Organization 887 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁵ The position of Franck (note 8), can be qualified as a substantive one.Google Scholar

¹⁶ An equilibrium is a stable point of coordination, in which no participant has an individual incentive to deviate from this point if the other participants do not change their conduct. One the concept of equilibrium, see David M. Kreps, Game Theory and Economic Modeling 28-36 (1990).Google Scholar

¹⁷ On games with multiple equilibria, see Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, Game Theory 18-23 (1991).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Seminally McAdams, Richard H., A Focal Point Theory of Expressive Law, 86 Virginia Law Review 1649 (2000). For an application of this theory to customary international law, see Edward T. Swaine, Rational Custom, 52 Duke Law Journal 559 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Seminally Hardin, Garrett, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Science 1243 (1968).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Magen, Stefan, Gerechtigkeit als Proprium des Rechts 114-117 (2009) (habilitation thesis, Universität Bonn) (on file with author).Google Scholar

²¹ Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (1984); Guzman, , (note 8).Google Scholar

²² Norman, George & Trachtman, Joel P., The Customary International Law Game, 99 AJIL 541, 560 (2005).Google Scholar

²³ Goodman, Ryan & Jinks, Derek, Incomplete Internalization and Compliance with Human Rights Law, 19 EJIL 725, 728 (2008).Google Scholar

²⁴ Keck, Margaret E. & Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in International Politics (1998); Risse, Thomas, International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Area, 27 Politics & Society 529 (1999); Risse, Thomas, “Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics, 54 International Organization 1 (2000); Goodman & Jinks (note 23), 738.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Besson, Samantha, The Morality of Conflict. Reasonable Disagreement and the Law (2005).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Petersen, Niels, International Law, Cultural Diversity and Democratic Rule - Beyond the Divide between Universalism and Relativism, 1 Asian Journal of International Law 149, 152-154 (2011).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Lijphart, Arend, The Comparable-Cases Strategy in Comparative Research, 8 Comparative Political Studies 158 (1975); King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane & Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research 83 (1994).Google Scholar

²⁸ On the within-case comparison, see Alexander L. George & Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (2005).Google Scholar

²⁹ Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ Reports 1970, 3.Google Scholar

³⁰ Id., para. 33.Google Scholar

³¹ Id. (italics in the original).Google Scholar

³² See Boyle & Chinkin (note 5), 271.Google Scholar

³³ Ragazzi, Maurizio, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes 18-42 (1997); Tams, Christian J., Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law 69-96 (2005).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Lauterpacht, Hersch, Oppenheim's International Law 347-348 (1955); Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law 386-390 (1966).Google Scholar

³⁵ South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, ICJ Reports 1966, 6.Google Scholar

³⁶ South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), First Phase, Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup of 21 December 1962, ICJ Reports 1962, 387, 425.Google Scholar

³⁷ Lauterpacht (note 34), 348.Google Scholar

³⁸ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, UNTS, Vol. 78, 277.Google Scholar

³⁹ On this debate, see Lauterpacht (note 34), 312-323; Richard B. Lillich, Forcible Self-Help by States to Protect Human Rights, 53 Iowa Law Review 325 (1967); McDougal, Myres & Reisman, William Michael, Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern, 62 AJIL 1 (1968).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Tams (note 33), 90-91.Google Scholar

⁴¹ There is a controversial discussion on whether there the GATT regime leaves room for general countermeasures that do not fall under Art. XX, XXI GATT. See, e.g., Joel P. Trachtman, The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution, 40 Harvard International Law Journal 333 (1999); Marceau, Gabrielle, WTO Dispute Settlement and Human Rights, 13 EJIL 753 (2002); Pauwelyn, Joost, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law. How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (2003); Koskenniemi, Martti, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 4 April 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar

⁴² See Kappeler, Dietrich, La récente décision de la Cour internationale de Justice dans les affaires du Sud-Ouest africain, 85 Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 335 (1966); Flemming, Brian, South West Africa Cases, 5 The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 241 (1967).Google Scholar

⁴³ Wengler, Wilhelm, 1 Völkerrecht 580-581 (1964); Akehurst, Michael, Reprisals by Third States, 44 British Yearbook of International Law 1 (1970).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Barcelona Traction (note 29), para. 34.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, 90, para. 29.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, paras 155-156.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Id., para. 159.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1976, 253 (then article 18).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Fifth Report on State Responsibility by Mr. Roberto Ago, Special Rapporteur - the Internationally Wrongful act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (continued), UN Doc. A/CN.4/291, 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1976, Pt. 1, 3, 24.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Graefrath, Bernhard, International Crimes - A Specific Regime of International Responsibility of States and its Legal Consequences, in: International Crimes of State - A Critical Analysis of the ILC's Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility, 161, 161 (Joseph H. H. Weiler, Antonio Cassese & Marina Spinedi eds, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Gaja, Giorgio, Obligations Erga Omnes, International Crimes and Jus Cogens: A Tentative Analysis of Three Related Concepts, in: International Crimes of State - A Critical Analysis of the ILC's Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility, 151, 156 (Joseph H. H. Weiler, Antonio Cassese & Marina Spinedi eds, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵² Fifth Report on State Responsibility (note 49), 28-29.Google Scholar

⁵³ Fifth Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of International Responsibility (part two of the draft articles), by Mr. Willem Riphagen, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/380, 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1984, Pt. 1, 1, 3.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Spinedi, Marina, International Crimes of State: The Legislative History, in: International Crimes of State, - A Critical Analysis of the ILC's Draft Article 19 on State Responsibility, 7, 72 (Joseph H. H. Weiler, Antonio Cassese & Marina Spinedi eds, 1989), with further references.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ UN Doc. A/CN.4/342 and Add. 1-4, 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1981, Pt. 1, 71, 75.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Id. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ UN Doc. A/C.6/31/SR.26, para. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ UN Doc. A/C.6/37/SR.38, para. 13.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), U.N. Doc. A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Crawford, James, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility 276 (2002).Google Scholar

⁶¹ There was implicit or explicit support by Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, South Korea, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the United States, see UN Doc. A/CN.4/515, 62-64, 69-71 (2001).Google Scholar

⁶² Id., 69-70.Google Scholar

⁶³ See GA Res. 62/61, U.N. Doc. A/RES/62/61 (2007).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Tams (note 33), 207-251. See also Jochen Abr. Frowein, Reactions by not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law, 248 Recueil des Cours 345, 416 (1994).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Tams (note 33), 250.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Frowein (note 64), 408.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See, e.g., Brigitte Bollecker-Stern, Le préjudice dans la théorie de la responsabilité internationale 83-90 (1973); Weil, Prosper, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?, 77 AJIL 413 (1983).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Schachter, Oscar, International Law in Theory and Practice, 178 Recueil des Cours 9, 182 (1982); Jochen Abr. Frowein, Die Verpflichtungen erga omnes im Völkerrecht und ihre Durchsetzung, in: Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung - Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit - Menschenrechte. Festschrift für Hermann Mosler, 241 (Rudolf Bernhardt, Wilhlem Karl Geck, Günther Jaenicke & Helmut Steinberger eds, 1983); Verdross, Alfred & Simma, Bruno, Universelles Völkerrecht 907 (1984).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Id.; Karin Oellers-Frahm, Comment: The Erga Omnes Applicability of Human Rights, 30 Archiv des Völkerrechts 28 (1992); Pegna, Olivia Lopes, Counter-claims and Obligations Erga Omnes before the International Court of Justice, 9 EJIL 724 (1998); Paulus, Andreas, Die Internationale Gemeinschaft Im Völkerrecht 381-382 (2001); Tams (note 33); Santiago Villalpando, L'Émergence De La Communauté Internationale Dans La Responsabilité Des États (2005).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ South West Africa Cases (note 35).Google Scholar

⁷¹ The examples given by the ICJ for obligations erga omnes all originate in the field of human rights law. See Barcelona Traction, (note 29), para. 34.Google Scholar

⁷² Kadelbach, Stefan, Folgen von Rechtsverletzungen gewohnheitsrechtlicher Menschenrechtsverpflichtungen, in: Menschenrechtsschutz durch Gewohnheitsrecht, 198, 218 (Eckart Klein ed., 2003); Villalpando (note 69), 371.Google Scholar

⁷³ Certainly, there is some disagreement with regard to the scope of the reactions that are possible if an obligation erga omnes has been violated. See on this discussion, e.g., Akehurst (note 43), 15; Oellers-Frahm (note 69), 35; Paolo Picone, Interventi delle nazioni unite e obblighi erga omnes, in: Interventi delle nazioni unite e diritto internazionale, 517 (Paolo Picone ed., 1995); Cannizzaro, Enzo, The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, 12 EJIL 889 (2001); Villalpando (note 69); Tams (note 33), 209-250.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See, e.g., Ragazzi (note 33), 1; Tams (note 33), 1-4.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Fifth Report on State Responsibility (note 49).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Preliminary Report on the Content, Forms and Degrees of International Responsibility (Part 2 of the draft articles on State responsibility), by Mr. Willem Riphagen, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/330, 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980, Pt. 1, 107, 119; Fourth Report on State Responsibility, by Mr. James Crawford, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/517, para. 49 (2001).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Judgment of 25 July 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, 3; Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Judgment of 25 July 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, 175.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland) (note 77), para. 52.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Churchill, Robin Rolf, The Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases: The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Debate on Coastal States’ Fisheries Rights, 24 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 87 (1975).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland) (note 77), para. 52.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Id., paras 67-68.Google Scholar

⁸² Id., paras 55-58.Google Scholar

⁸³ Id., para. 60.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Id., paras 72-73, 78.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Alexander Proelß, Ausschließliche Wirtschaftszone, in: Handbuch des Seerechts, 222, 224 (Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum ed., 2006).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Gündling, Lothar, Die 200 Seemeilen-Wirtschaftszone 22 (1983).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ FAO, Limits and Status of the Territorial Sea, Exclusive Fishing Zones, Fishery Conservation Zones and the Continental Shelf, 8 International Legal Materials 516 (1969). These states are Argentina, Ceylon, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ghana, Korea, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama and Peru.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Montevideo Declaration on the Law of the Sea, 8 May 1970, 64 AJIL 1021 (1970).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Declaration of Latin American States on the Law of the Sea, 8 August 1970, in: 1 New Directions in the Law of the Sea, 237 (S. Houston Lay, Robin R. Churchill & Myron H. Nordquist eds, 1973).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Declaration of Santo Domingo, 9 June 1972, in: 1 New Directions in the Law of the Sea, 247 (S. Houston Lay, Robin R. Churchill & Myron H. Nordquist eds, 1973).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Declaration of the Organization of African Unity on the Issues of the Law of the Sea, 19 July 1974, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/33.Google Scholar

⁹² Signed on 18 December 1973, in: 4 New Directions in the Law of the Sea, 171 (Robin Rolf Churchill & Myron H. Nordquist eds, 1975).Google Scholar

⁹³ Signed on 15 March 1974, United Kingdom Treaty Series No. 35 (1974).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Churchill (note 79), 94 -95.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Anderson, David H., The Icelandic Fisheries Case, in: Liber Amicorum Günther Jaenicke, 445, 452 (Volkmar Götz, Peter Selmer & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds, 1998).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Schulte (note 9), 151.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ European Communities, Council Resolution on Certain External Aspects of the Creation of a 200-Mile Fishing Zone in the Community with Effect from 1 January 1977, 3 November 1976, 15 ILM 1425 (1976).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art. 57, 10 December 1982, UNTS, Vol. 1833, 3.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Carl August Fleischer, Fisheries and Biological Resources, in: A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, 1030 (René-Jean Dupuy & David Vignes eds, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Robin Rolf Churchill & Alan Vaughan Lowe, The Law of the Sea (1988).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Churchill (note 79), 101-103, who voiced this suspicion already shortly after the judgment.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Bogdandy & Venzke (note 2), section C.II.Google Scholar