Basic Principles Of International Law Research Articles

“Test the West”: Reimagining Sovereignties in the Post-Soviet Space

With the incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula into Russian territory, the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine and the temporary formation of the confederation of Novorossiia (New Russia), the international community of states has been witness to complex processes of reimagining territories, boundaries, citizenship, and fragmented sovereignties in the post-Soviet space. In its foreign policy agenda, Russia conceptualizes all former Soviet republics as the ‘Near Abroad’, a special sphere of its interests and influence. This paper explores Russia’s use of the vocabulary of international law to legitimize its interventions in the Near Abroad, which is connected to the ‘Russkii Mir’ (Russian World), another foreign policy concept that resonates with ideas of Neo-Eurasianism and the Fourth Political Theory and with the creation of a Eurasian space as a counter-concept to the West. Russia and its conceptualized antagonist, the West, take positions on public international (legal) front lines, evoking counter-narratives concerning their understandings of the meaning of the vocabulary of international law and politics, the regulation of international relations, and the foundations of world order. These clashes leave observers wondering: Russia may instrumentalize and manipulate the vocabulary of geopolitics, international law, and politics, but what if these clashes are also rooted in different imaginaries of international law and politics? Against this background, this article aims to develop conceptual approaches to further investigate and gain a better understanding of the complex dimensions of the clashes between Russian and Western counter-narratives and discourses concerning the meanings and functions of basic principles of international law and politics as powerful societal regulative imaginaries.

Unipolarizam i međunarodno pravo

With the end of the Cold War, the world power of the great powers is emerging and the United States assumes the role of a world order hegemon. Existing international legal order, despite attempts to reform, does not follow the changes in contemporary international relations. Unilateral imposition of global solutions is often deteriorated by the complex system of formal legal decision making, and the bearers of the new world order are 'forced' to interpret international acts in accordance with their national interests. In order to achieve their geopolitical and economic interests, the instrumentalisation of international institutions and their organs is carried out. If ideological marketing opponents of the new world order do not believe the moral correctness of the decision of the globalists towards them, the means of economic coercion, sanctions, threats, and also the direct armed force are applied to them. Limited military interventions at the time of bipolarism are justified by ideological reasons, and today's liberal expansionist, which are most often carried out under the leadership of the NATO alliance led by the United States, 'the right to humanitarian intervention,' 'the care of human rights' and the 'responsibility for protection'. The significance of the basic principles prescribed by the Charter of the United Nations, such as sovereign equality, non-interference, territorial integrity, peaceful resolution of disputes and non-interference in internal matters, is relativized and disagreed, and 'promotion of democracy' and 'protection of human rights' puts it to the fore. The NATO military alliance's aggression against FR Yugoslavia in 1999 is an ancestral example of violating of all the basic principles of international law. The crisis in Kosovo was supposed to be presented in media and legal-political way through the vision of Euro-Atlantic states and in that way to ensure international legitimacy. The unilateral humanitarian armed intervention of the NATO alliance in FR Yugoslavia, without the consent of the Security Council, resulted in a violation of the territorial integrity and independence of the country, and the already inconsistent international legal order made it even more insecure. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice was in line with the political position of unilateral hegemony and its satellites, not in the spirit of the fundamental principles of international law.

Uloga i značaj međunarodnih ugovora u regulisanju međunarodnih odnosa u savremenim uslovima

All international subjects acting on the international scene are obliged to respect generally accepted norms and basic principles of international law. The basic acts containing these norms on which the international legal system primarily relies are international agreements, whether contracts concluded between states and / or international organizations, bilateral or multilateral. In that respect, starting from the position of international agreements in the generally accepted hierarchy of international law sources, this paper analyses the role of international agreements and the importance that they, as the basic instruments of regulating international relations and cooperation among contemporary subjects of international law, have in the international legal system. The aim of this paper is to highlight the manner and consequences of the influence on the legal process in this field, given the legal nature of the international agreements impact in the context of varying international relations, under the influence of a omnipresent globalisation.

Theoretical aspects of state borders formation

In the article theoretical problems of state borders formation and functioning are deepened. Essence of the concept «state border» is generalized. The basic principles of international law, which influence the establishment of the state border are studied. Consistent stages of the state border establishment: allocation, delimitation and demarcation are analyzed. It is noted that at all stages of the border formation its contractual and legal registration happens. The influence of external and internal factors on the formation of state borders are investigated. The question of the state border and borderline regime is analyzed. The process of institutionalization of the border is studied.
 Keywords: State border, principles, factors, government institutions, border formation

HAK ASASI MANUSIA SEBAGAI JUS COGENS DAN KAITANNYA DENGAN HAK ATAS PENDIDIKAN

Jus cogens as a norm of general international law accepted and recognized by the community as a whole interasional with the main characteristics are non-derogable nature. The right to education is a fundamental human rights, so that its presence can not be reduced under any circumstances based on the benefits and importance of education for children. The national education policy is not fully aligned with the international human rights instruments led to the development of the education sector is not entirely based on human rights. Government is obliged to fulfill the right to education, especially with regard to the budget for building and repairing school buildings and improve the quality of education in Indonesia. The importance of the right to education as the main vehicle for elevating and empowering children from poverty, as a means to actively participate in the construction and total social community and as a powerful path towards human civilization itself. So it can be understood that a peremptory norm, also called jus cogens is a basic principle of international law that is considered to have been accepted in the international community of the country as a whole. Unlike general treaty law that traditionally requires treaties and allows for changes in obligations between countries through treaties, peremptory norms can not be violated by any country.

No cosmopolitan morality without state sovereignty

This article takes issue with the common view that cosmopolitan normative commitments are incompatible with recognition of state sovereignty as a basic principle of international law. Against influential cosmopolitans, who at best ascribe a derivative significance to the sovereignty of states, the article argues that state sovereignty is not only compatible with, but also essential to the recognition of individuals as units of ultimate concern. The argument challenges a problematic distributive conception of justice underlying many cosmopolitans’ support for reforms of the international legal order towards a system where respect for basic human rights is the only criterion for political legitimacy. An alternative relational conception of justice makes it possible to see why there is an internal connection between the rights of individuals and the rights of states. The argument adds up to a novel defence of the so-called domestic analogy, which regards the territorial integrity of states as an international parallel to the bodily integrity of individuals.

Strategijski i legalni aspekti borbene upotrebe dronova u protiv terorističkim operacijama SAD

The rapid increase in the use of armed drones in the first decade of the 21st century in launching air strikes against Al Qaeda and its related terrorist groups has enabled the US counterterrorist operations to have an unprecedented advantage over highly decentralized and fragmented terrorist networks. Terrorist organizations are not burdened with the rules and regulations of a sovereign state and its members can freely move across state borders, operate in different parts of the world, enabling them to plan, organize and execute objectives and tasks. A freedom of movement gives terrorist networks a significant advantage over sovereign states. Intensive technical and technological improvement of drones will enable a wider range of options in the US counterterrorist operations as a direct response to security threats by terrorist groups and they will diminish the strategic advantage of terrorist networks. The combat use of drones enables the US military and intelligence community the ability to quickly and resolutely oppose terrorist networks globally, to effectively weaken and/or neutralize their development in key regions of the world, reduce their operational capabilities and prevent their free movement. The advancement of technology and tactics in the use of armed drones acts as a 'multiplier of power' for the US military and intelligence community, enabling them to project significant military force in inhospitable parts of the world. The dedication of Bush and Obama administration to the combat use of drones against leaders and operational members of international terrorist groups has put their use in the forefront of counterterrorist operations, both tactically and strategically. The US program on the use of drones raises very important questions in relation to international law and the US legal system. Discussions about its legitimacy have been obstructed by Obama administration constant refusal to answer even the basic questions concerning the combat use of drones. The lack of transparency and inconsistency with the main principles of international law have made it impossible to evaluate effectiveness of the combat use of drones in neutralizing terrorist groups and their networks, as well as legal justification of the program. Unclear statements by the US officials on this program, with the absence of a clear state policy, lead to weakening of the basic principles of international law and fundamental human rights.

Transnational Anti-Corruption as a Discourse of Power

International treaties and domestic legislation regulating corrupt practices by public officials have appeared in a myriad of jurisdictions and legislations. However the reach and teeth of some legislation calls into question basic principles of international law and the limits that enforcing them must adhere to. The following essay will suggest that the current international system guiding the sanctioning of corrupt practices is tilted towards the interests of hegemonic world players such as the United States. Furthermore, it will highlight that as it stands, anti-corruption legislation places unwarranted and unauthorized prerogatives in the hands of a world elite that sanctions and prosecutes according to its geo-political interests.

Принципы регулирования как источник толкования нормы права (на примере двусторонних соглашений о защите капиталовложений)

Protection of a foreign investor is usually based on the national Law of the State — participant of the investment dispute. This is envisaged by Article 42 of the Washington Convention on Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965. The same article allows applying in certain cases the principles and the rules of international law to settle the conflict. It is an ordinary ICSID practice to judge on the jurisdiction of the ICSID arbitration basing on the rule of bilateral investment agreements between the governments of States, which are the international agreements fixing mutually favourable investment regime between the States — Parties to the Agreement. The incorrect interpretation of the Articles of the Agreement leads to expansion of the sphere of jurisdiction of ICSID arbitration and the infringement of the basic principle of international law on respect of sovereignty of a State. Such interpretation also makes it difficult to apply the European Law as an applicable law in the settlement of investment disputes against the States – members of the European Union.

Legal immunities of «color revolutions»

In the XX century developed recognized with mandatory nature of international legal principles designed to protect the state and the people from external threats. The effect of these principles related to the problem of human rights that are guaranteed by several international conventions. Proclaimed in international instruments of human rights are based on the understanding of universal humanism. European understanding of human rights could claim leadership, but the events of recent decades suggest that the West European approach does not become a model for the rest of the world. The peoples will inevitably put in this concept the content of which reflects the peculiarities of national traditions, as well as more general civilizational identity. The practice indicates that the thesis of human rights violations is often used as a pretext for interference in the affairs of sovereign states, the method of intervention are the «color revolutions». Declarative support for democracy becomes a violation of the basic principles of international law of noninterference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, the principle of sovereign equality of States, etc. The autonomous status of Russia objectively gives rise to the problem of building its relations with other states. It is necessary to strengthen the national legal system as the guarantor of national sovereignty, ensure its interaction with international law and foreign legal systems. It seems appropriate to highlight those areas of national regulation, which are able to enhance the immunity of the state to export a «color revolution».

Principle of the peaceful use of outer space

Principle of the peace full uses of outer space is one of the basic principle of international law. It is currently the only legal obstacle for placement and use of the weapons in outer space. Today the international community is faced with the shift from the currently passive use of outer space to active military use of outer space of a destructive nature. Therefore, the principle of peaceful uses of outer space should be examined from the standpoint of contemporary international law. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies is considered to be the most significant instrument which establish the principle of peaceful uses of outer space. Beside this Treaty, there are other significant multilateral and bilateral instruments which supplement and develop the principle of peaceful uses in various ways. In this paper, the historical development of the principle of the peaceful uses of outer space will be introduced, and various multilateral and bilateral treaties from this area will be examined. Since the outer space law is the part of the international law, application of the UN Charter should also be examined. Finally, current state of the development of the principle of peaceful uses of outer space and future courses of the principle will be considered.

Accession Protocols: Legal Status in the WTO Legal System

Accession protocols are unique legal instruments in the World Trade Organization (WTO) legal system. With the increasing numbers of new Members joining the WTO, the number of accession protocols is also on the rise. However, due to the ambiguous legal status of the accession protocols in the WTO legal system, the disputes relating to the understanding and application of the provisions in accession protocols are frequently taking place. Because accession protocols concern the fundamental trade interests of new Members, their status in the WTO legal system is of great importance. The WTO Ministerial Conference and General Council should therefore fulfil their statutory duties in such a way as to mitigate potential challenges posed by the possible legal uncertainty of accession protocols in pursuing the aims of the multilateral trading system, in adhering to and promoting WTO principles and rules as well as the basic principles of international law and in particular situating accession protocols appropriately within the overall WTO legal framework. Specifically, this article proposes that the WTO Ministerial Conference and General Council should properly address the relationship between accession protocols and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and its annexes. Such action will help to safeguard the legal rights and interests of the new WTO Members.

Суверенное равенство государств в системе основных принципов международного права

In the article have defined of the role of the principle of the sovereign equality of the states in the system of the principles of international law. The contemporary of the signs of the sovereign equality became aparent the grand total of the development of the international law. Its substance development was under the influence of the different history formations. The Charter of the United Nations there is the basic document of the contemporaneity in which has sealed the principle of the sovereign equality of the states as the part of the system of the principals the modern international law. The legal signs of the sovereignty appears on the supreme sovereignty within the limits of the state, and they must be independence of the state in the international relations. The basic principles of international law there are interdependence. They must be conform to the context each other.

Международно-правовое обязательство уважать права человека: основные элементы содержания и пределы

Analysis of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which is one of the basic principles of international law, definitely, has not only theoretical but also practical importance. Key provisions of the principle must be taken into account while implementing of any specific international obligations in the field of human rights. The purpose of this article is to identify the main elements of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms at the present stage of development of international law, analysis of trends of development of its content. In the line of the specified objectives of the study the following new elements and tendencies of development of the maintenance of the principle are of particular relevance: first, the development trends of types of commitments included in the content of the principle, in particular, development and consolidation of such types of obligations as obligations to prevent, to respond to, to rebuilt and to punish; second, the strengthening and expansion of practice of recognition of state’s responsibility for human rights violations on the part of so-called non-state actors; third, the evolution of the content of the principles of the responsibility to protect and responsibility while protecting; fourth, the concept of state’ margin of appreciation as well as the principle of cultural relativism which are well established in the International Human Rights Law, are faced with new challenges in modern international law. Thus, the content and limits of the principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is undergoing significant changes at present and all new trends and challenges require a careful study.

Indian Courts and International Law

AbstractThe approach of Indian courts towards international law has been consistently evolving. Initially, the Indian constitutional framework provided a flexible basis for the application and use of international law, the reasons for which could be seen in the socio-political context of India as a developing country. India, for its part, continued to argue that it remained essentially at the periphery of the mainstream international law, as it had no role in formulating some of the basic principles of international law. For the Indian courts the first substantive encounter with international law emerges in the context of several territorial-related issues. The socio-political context forms the next phase, for the Indian courts to have recourse to diverse international legal norms relating to the environment and human rights and applying them as a persuasive tool. Later, the development context brings a complex array of commercial, environmental, and other related international legal norms into the Indian legal system. For Indian courts, in the present context, the correct sourcing and identification of international legal norms and their application remain a huge challenge. The majority of the legal systems of developing countries for varied historical reasons continue to treat international law as an exotic legal tool to be used sparingly, perhaps only to broaden the interpretation of or sustain a comparable domestic legal norm.

Poachers with PCs: The United States' Potential Obligations and Ability to Enforce Endangered Wildlife Trading Prohibitions against Federal Traders Who Advertise on eBay

ABSTRACT The Internet has become a dangerous tool in the illegal trading of wildlife; a recent one-week survey found over 9,000 wildlife products for sale. As the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the United States' implementing legislation, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), address the movement of wildlife across national boundaries, the use of the Internet in such trade poses significant new legal questions, implicating basic principles of international law and jurisdiction. This paper explores applicable law when a foreigner, in a foreign country, places an illegal wildlife item for sale on a U.S.-based Internet auction service, such as eBay. While U.S. law authorizes the government to prosecute the hypothetical foreigner, it is unlikely that the United States could successfully assert jurisdiction to prescribe without the agreement of the foreign country. First, the Internet posting comprises an offer for sale prohibited by the ESA. Second, while the ESA has ambiguities as to extraterritorial application, interpretive methods on balance suggest that it is so intended. Third, evolving jurisprudence in the Internet context provides support for personal jurisdiction (e.g., if something more is present, likely with a repeat seller). While the hypothetical is untested on some aspect of each of these issues, sources of law have been identified that support the claim. Jurisdiction to prescribe over the hypothetical, however, is not supported in the law. The hypothetical does not convincingly fit the effects principle, and universality would likely fail on state sovereignty concerns. Thus, the United States cannot assert jurisdiction. I. CITES AND THE PROBLEM OF INTERNET TRADING IN ENDANGERED SPECIES II. UNITED STATES' OBLIGATIONS UNDER CITES III. POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF THE USA TO FOREIGN POSTED INTERNET ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES A. The Endangered Species Act and Its Prohibitions 1. Violation of Prohibition on Offer for Sale. 2. Whether the Offer for Sale Is Extraterritorial B. Extraterritorial Application of USA Section 9(a)(1)(F) 1. Language and Structure of the USA a. Persons Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States b. Language and Structure of Section 9 2. Congressional Intent as to Section 3. Purpose of the Whole Statute 4. Interpretation of Similar Statutes 5. Conclusion C. Jurisdiction to Prescribe D. Personal Jurisdiction 1. Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Cases 2. Minimum Contacts 3. Fair Play 4. Venue, Notice, and Service 5. Conclusion IV. CONCLUSIONS A. U.S. Laws Are Adequate to Implement CITES Obligations B. U.S. Laws May Reach an Offer for Sale by a Foreign Trader Using eBay, but the U.S. Still Lacks Jurisdiction to Prescribe C. Any Law Enforcement Response to the Problem of International Internet Auctions in Global Wildlife Trade Must Originate in the International Community Enforcement efforts ... are only in their infancy, enabling illegal Internet traders to remain several steps ahead.... [T]ime is running out for those highly endangered species threatened by continued illegal trade.... Th[e] body of law will have to adapt quickly to new technologies if it is to be effective in saving species. (1) I. CITES AND THE PROBLEM OF INTERNET TRADING IN ENDANGERED SPECIES The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (2) entered into force in 1975 and now boasts 169 parties, (3) making it one of the largest environmental treaties and the most important wildlife treaty. (4) CITES establishes a system to regulate the international trade of listed species of flora and fauna, formed around three appendices. …

The Principle of Self-Determination and National Minorities

The principle of self-determination is one of the basic principles of international law but as a right, it is only granted to peoples, defined as whole populations of internationally recognized territories. Thus, the claims to self-determination voiced by national minorities are not seen as legitimate by international legal standards. This article examines the underlying assumptions of the principle of self-determination and by combining legal and moral arguments, tries to show that withholding this right from national minorities is unjustified. If one of the reasons why minorities are not granted the right is that they are entitled to collective rights, one would have to maintain that peoples have the relevant characteristics for the possessing group rights while minorities do not, and this view cannot be sustained. The right to self-determination should be understood as abroad notion and the restrictive view according to which the right only applies to colonial peoples and its implementation amounts to independent statehood, should be rejected. Furthermore, it should be noted that although the internal dimension of self-determination can ground a right to freedom from external interference, this freedom is a matter of degree; therefore, minorities can exercise the right to self-determination without this leading to secession or break-up of the state.

Regulation of Mass Information by International Law

The intensification of the ideological struggle in the international arena makes the question of regulating by law the use of the means of mass information in international relations a pressing one. Normal, good-neighborly relations among states are based on such fundamental principles of international law as respect for sovereignty and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other countries. States are required to adhere to these principles in any activity in which they engage, including the utilization of the mass media at the international level. Adherence to the basic principles of international law in this area is particularly important since the mass media are being actively employed for purposes of ideological struggle. A feature of this struggle is its inevitability and naturalness; no compromises and understandings are possible in it. But the irreconcilability of ideological struggle does not mean that it is permissible to employ therein such means as are incompatible with peaceful coexistence of states with different sociopolitical systems.