Fragmentation Of International Law Research Articles

General Recommendations of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies - The Guidelines for States or a Contribution to Further Fragmentation of International Law? Retrospective Overview of the Judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Qatar v. United Arab Emirates Case

U veljači 2021. Međunarodni je sud donio presudu u sporu između Katara i Ujedinjenih Arapskih Emirata o tumačenju Konvencije o ukidanju svih oblika rasne diskriminacije, koja je svojevrsni sudski epilog dugotrajnoga političkog sukoba zaljevskih država. Presuda Međunarodnog suda državljanstvu je odrekla značaj diskriminatorne osnove, što je u suprotnosti sa stavovima Odbora za ukidanje svih oblika rasne diskriminacije izraženima u takozvanim općim preporukama na Konvenciju. Takvo razilaženje u stavovima između Međunarodnog suda i Odbora otvara nekoliko širih pitanja. Prvo je od njih o pravnoj snazi i naravi općih preporuka konvencijskih tijela. Drugo je još šire pitanje o fragmentaciji međunarodnog prava kao procesu u kojem razilaženja u tumačenju konvencijskih tijela, međunarodnih i regionalnih sudova mogu imati važnu ulogu kao indikatori. Ovaj rad, s pomoću kontekstualizacije konkretnih pitanja postavljenih u postupku pred Međunarodnim sudom u sporu Katara i Ujedinjenih Arapskih Emirata razmatra navedena pitanja koja bitno određuju odnos suvremenoga međunarodnog prava i zaštite ljudskih prava kao njegovog dijela.

Prilog raspravi o pravu Evropske unije kao samostalnom pravnom režimu

As the process of fragmentation of international public law has enabled the formation of numerous legal regimes, the question of the qualification of the legal order of the European Union (EU) arises. For a long time, it was not percieved as an self-contained regime. The classification contained in the International Law Commission's Report "Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from Diversification and Dissemination of International Law" indirectly contributed to such qualification. This Report classifies the EU legal order within the section on regionalization, thus relativizing it by reducing it to the cooperation of states determined only by geographical criteria. Although indisputable, the geographical criterion is of secondary value to a number of other arguments that take into account its qualitative dimension. Thus, the paper raises the key question of whether the EU legal order has reached such a level of development and quality that it can be considered a self-contained legal regime. Searching for answers to the research question, the paper analyzes arguments pro et contra. Arguments against the notion of the EU legal order as a self-contained legal regime relate to the omnipresence of general international public law, which necessarily implies the connection of the specialized EU law with general international law. In addition, the arguments on the origin, subjects and the manner of creating EU law are emphasized because they are inseparable from international law, for which reason it is denied the characteristic of independence. The emphasis on these arguments supports the thesis that EU law is and remains only a subsystem of international law, which would be especially visible in case of inadequate regulation of state responsibility in EU law. In such situations, it would be necessary to resort to the provisions of international public law (so-called fall-back). In contrast, arguments in favor of the independence of the EU legal order are analyzed and emphasized. Without denying the fact that the EU legal order evolved from international public law, that it represented a nasciturus within it, that it was based on an international treaty, and that the EU itself represents an international organization, we must also accept the facts pertaining to its decades-long evolutionary development and a constantly increasing degree of autonomy from general international public law, which has been confirmed and supported by case law and attitudes from the legal doctrine. In addition, the specific way of filling legal gaps with solutions from EU law itself, rather than by applying the logic of the fall-back system, speaks in favor of the autonomy of the EU legal order. All of this points to the exceptional and unique nature of the EU legal order, and its comprehensive framework. Therefore, even if there were arguments in favor of imperfection and incompleteness of the EU legal order, its dynamic development leads us to the conclusion that nowadays it is at such a developmental and qualitative stage that it should be recognized as a self-contained legal regime.

The only true fragmentation in international law: Jus ad bellum and jus in bello

This article supports a very simple hypothesis, namely that the international law regulating recourse to armed force (jus ad bellum) is necessarily fragmented from the body of law regulating the conduct of hostilities (laws of war or jus in bello). This hypothesis is tested through a series of steps and deductions, all of which aptly justify the original hypothesis as a matter of reason, fundamental notions of justice and downright practicality. Ultimately, if international humanitarian law (IHL) is not uniformly applied to all sides of the conflict and its enforcement is dependent on which party is considered the aggressor, this body of law is effectively of no use, and we are drawn back to very dark times that this author would like to think have long been overcome. If these two bodies of law were not fragmented by the very conduct of states or by reference to the respective treaties, we would be forced to spell it out loud in order for both fields of regulation to be meaningful and mutually reinforcing.

The EU Commission and the Fragmentation of International Law: Speaking European in a Foreign Land

The EU Commission and the Fragmentation of International Law: Speaking European in a Foreign Land

Farewell to the F-word? Fragmentation of international law in times of the COVID-19 pandemic

The proliferation of international legal regimes, norms, and institutions in the post-Cold War era, known as the ‘fragmentation’ of international law, has sparked extensive debate among jurists. This debate has evolved as a dialectical process, seeing legal scholarship shifting from grave concern about fragmentation’s potentially negative impacts on the international legal order to a more optimistic view of the phenomenon, with recent literature suggesting that the tools needed to contain fragmentation’s ill-effects are today all at hand, thus arguing that the time has come ‘to bid farewell to the f-word.’ Drawing on the COVID-19 crisis as a test case and considering the unresolved problems in existing fragmentation literature that this crisis brings to the fore, this article asks whether such calls have perhaps been premature. Existing works on fragmentation, the article submits, including those bidding farewell to the f-word, have mainly focused on the problems of conflicts between international norms or international institutions, especially conflicts between international courts over competing jurisdictions and interpretations of law. But, as the COVID-19 case – and, particularly, the deficient cooperation marked between the numerous international organizations reacting to the crisis – shows, the fragmentation of the international legal order does not only give rise to the potential consequences of conflicts of norms and clashes between international courts. Fragmentation also gives rise to pressing challenges of coordination when a proactive and cohesive international response is required to address global problems like COVID-19, which cut across multiple international organizations playing critical roles in the creation, administration, and application of international law. By foregrounding cooperation between international organizations as a vital-yet-deficient form of governance under conditions of fragmentation, the article argues, the COVID-19 crisis not only denotes that the time is not yet ripe to bid farewell to the f-word. It further points to the need to expand the fragmentation debate, going beyond its conflict- and court-centred focus, while probing new tools for tackling unsettled problems that arise from the segmentation of international law along sectoral lines.

���������ֲ� ̲���������� ����� �� ������ ����������� ��������� ̲���������� ��������� �������

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the formation of the international legal order in the process of evolution of international law. The development of international law is directly determined by the specifics of civilizational development and changes that occur in the international environment under the influence of globalization and regionalization. Globalization and regionalization are manifested respectively in the processes of unification and fragmentation of international law, becoming the content of the specifics of the processes in international legal relations at the current stage. The analysis of modern international legal relations, formed as a result of the principles and norms of international law in the context of globalization and regionalization, gives grounds to identify the manifestations of localization in international legal relations as a model of fragmentation of international law. The concept of fragmentation enters the science of international law at the beginning of the XXI century. Thanks to the discourse initiated by the UN Commission on International Law and is gradually gaining paradigmatic significance. Paradigmatic transformations of the science of international law are inevitable in the conditions of intensive development of international legal relations and provide further progress of science. The starting point of this process was the rejection of the unequivocally negativism interpretation of fragmentation as the opposite of integration and unification, which contradicts globalization. Therefore, today, in addition to the widely developed general international treaty and legal unification of domestic law, its regional unification is becoming more and more developed. Regional unification is also international, but it has a regional aspect, primarily related to the level of regional interstate integration. Integration practices are reflected in the relevant international treaties, especially those governing the establishment and operation of regional international associations. These associations are the organizational and legal shell for the development of regional international legal unification processes. Regionalization of international law, as well as its fragmentation in treatyformed international regions, is associated with the level and depth of relevant regional integration, which is a priority for states, and international law provides integration processes as a necessary tool for their regulation. Fragmentation is a natural process in the evolution of international law and is seen as a factor in the creation of modern international law. The international legal order has a contractual nature and a complex multicomponent structure. The process of forming the structure of the international legal order on the basis of a complex intertwining of uneven processes of regionalization and fragmentation is not yet complete. In the doctrine of international law, the complexity of the international legal order is determined from the standpoint of the number of elements and components, as well as their number and the relationship between them and the environment in which the legal order exists. It is obvious that the current stage of civilizational development is characterized by complexity and multidimensionality, which are reflected in the practices of creating a new international legal order based on the changes taking place in international legal relations. Therefore, fragmentation as a factor in the development of international legal relations becomes a factor in the formation of modern international legal order and determines its features.

Regional Approaches to International Law (RAIL): Rise or Decline of International Law?

The fragmentation of international law is both a renewed fear and a driving force in international legal thinking. The discourse of international law has thus always been careful to denounce anything that could undermine the universality and unity of international law, and in so doing, has developed new ideas and mechanisms that can help to curb any risk of fragmentation, supposed or real. In parallel with this movement, there are increasingly pressing calls, both from actors in international society and within international law, for greater consideration of multiculturalism and pluralism in society in the development and application of international legal rules. The present reflection focuses on the articulation of these two movements by asking whether regional approaches to international law (RAIL) pose a real threat to the coherence and integrity of international law. The article concludes that RAIL can be a source of enrichment and consolidation of international law if these approaches are conducted with a view to developing a truly universal international law and not to calling into question its foundations. To reach this conclusion, the paper invites international lawyers to revisit the dogmas of universality and unity in order to question the true meaning of these notions and to think about the future of their discipline.

Treaty Interpretation in the China Rare Earths Case: A Criticism of Textualism

Today, as fragmentation of international law has become a reality, the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO, being one the most essential adjudicatory bodies, has often been criticized for its overly-textualist approach to interpretation and use of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). This commentary analyses the decision rendered by the Dispute Settlement Body in the China-Rare Earths Case. It explains how the textualist reading given by the Appellate Body could not look into the corresponding GATT regulation, while interpreting the Accession Protocol of China. It argues that this erroneous decision is a result of the DSB’s reliance on textualism through the use of Article 31 of the VCLT. It looks into the travaux preparatoires of Article 31 of the VCLT to argue that the concerns raised during the Vienna Conference are still relevant and get reflected even today in the decisionmaking in the China-Rare Earths case.

Farewell to the F-Word? Fragmentation of International Law in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The proliferation of international legal regimes, norms, and institutions in the post-Cold War era, known as the ‘fragmentation’ of international law, has sparked extensive debate among jurists. This debate has evolved as a dialectical process, seeing legal scholarship shifting from grave concern about fragmentation’s potentially negative impacts on the international legal order to a more optimistic view of the phenomenon, with recent literature suggesting that the tools needed to contain fragmentation’s ill-effects are today all at hand, thus arguing that the time has come ‘to bid farewell to the f-word.’ Drawing on the COVID-19 crisis as a testcase and considering the unresolved problems in existing fragmentation literature this crisis brings to the fore, this article asks whether such calls have perhaps been premature. Existing works on fragmentation, the article submits, including those bidding farewell to the f-word, have mainly focused on the problems of conflicts between international norms or international institutions, especially conflicts between international courts over competing jurisdictions and interpretations of law. But as the COVID-19 case—and, particularly, the deficient cooperation marked between the numerous international organizations reacting to the crisis—shows, the fragmentation of the international legal order does not only give rise to the potential consequences of conflicts of norms and clashes between international courts. Fragmentation also gives rise to pressing challenges of coordination when a proactive and cohesive international response is required to global problems like COVID-19, which cut across multiple international organizations playing critical roles in the creation, administration, and application of international law. By foregrounding cooperation between international organizations as a vital-yet-deficient form of governance under conditions of fragmentation, the article argues, the COVID-19 crisis not only denotes that time is not yet ripe to bid farewell to the f-word. It further points to the need to expand the fragmentation debate, going beyond its conflict- and court-centered focus, while probing new tools for tackling unsettled problems that arise from the segmentation of international law along sectoral lines.

Russland und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker im postsowjetischen Raum

As a concept of international law, the right to self-determination is widely renowned for its unclarity. Broadly speaking, one can differentiate between a liberal and a nationalist tradition. In modern international law, the balance between these two opposing traditions is sought in an attempt to contain or ‘domesticate’ the nationalist conception by limiting it to ‘abnormal’ situations, i.e. to colonialism in the sense of ‘alien subjugation, domination and exploitation’. Essentially, this distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ situations has since been the heart of the matter in the legal discourse on the right to self-determination, with the important qualification regarding the need to preserve existing borders. This study situates Russia’s approach to the right to self- determination in that discourse by way of a regional comparison vis-à-vis a ‘western’ or European perspective, and a temporal comparison with the former Soviet doctrine of international law. Against the background of the Soviet Union’s role in the evolution of the right to self-determination, the bulk of the study analyses Russia’s relevant state practice in the post-Soviet space through the prisms of sovereignty, secession, and annexation. Complemented by a review of the Russian scholarship on the topic, it is suggested that Russia’s approach to the right to self-determination may be best understood not only in terms of power politics disguised as legal rhetoric, but can be seen as evidence of traits of a regional (re-)fragmentation of international law.

AI, Governance Displacement, and the (De)Fragmentation of International Law

The emergence, proliferation, and use of new general-purpose technologies can often produce significant political, redistributive, normative and legal effects on the world. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been identified as one such transformative technology. Many of its impacts may require global governance responses. However, what are the direct and indirect effects of AI technologies on the viability, form, or functioning of the international legal order itself? What, if any, are the prospects, peril or promise of AI-driven legal automation at the international level? This paper draws on an ‘AI Governance Disruption’ framework to understanding AI’s impacts on the global governance architecture. Focusing particularly on the potential for legal automation at the international law level, it explores three potential pathways of such ‘legal displacement’: (1) the automation of rule creation and arbitration; (2) the automation of monitoring & enforcement; or (3) the ‘replacement’ of international law with new architectural modes of (international) behaviour control. It then focuses on the effects of these trends on the architecture of international law. It distinguishes 10 different roles that AI applications could play, with distinct effects on the international legal order. That is, AI systems can serve as (1) legal ‘canary in the coal mine’, highlighting the need for greater cross-regime harmonization. However, it can also serve as (2) tough knot or (3) generator of regime fault lines. Under even modest scenarios of legal automation, AI systems may serve variably as a (4) shield, (5) patch, (6) cure, or (7) accelerator of international legal fragmentation. Finally, AI tools may serve as (8) differential enabler; (9) driver of value shifts, or (10) asymmetric weapon, potentially contributing to trends of contestation or erosion in the international legal order. The paper concludes with a brief review of the ways in which international lawyers or regime scholars might approach the risks and opportunities of increasing automation in international law, in order to leverage these trends and tools towards improved efficacy, resilience, and legitimacy of global governance.

The Fragmentation of International Law: Contemporary Debates and Responses

Abstract The fragmentation of international law is an undeniable issue in contemporary international law, which has received some considerable critical attention this past decade. Regardless of the fact that this is an age-old problem, its recent manifestations have sparked a debate in which two groups of international scholars (positivists and realists) have expressed contesting views on whether fragmentation is a real problem to be solved, or simply a pure academic anxiety about the future of international law. This paper describes why and how fragmentation is a problem of international law, through case law examples of substantive and procedural aspects of fragmentation. The paper then analyses the value of international law mechanisms of dealing with normative conflicts, as well as the shortcomings of those tools. The paper reviews the ongoing debate as to whether fragmentation is a negative or a positive force in the international legal order. The paper contributes to the academic debate by arguing that because of the structural make-up of the international legal system, fragmentation is inevitable, but at the same time, it is a manageable phenomenon. It is argued that fragmentation is a permanent feature of the international legal system, and as such, its relevance to the future of international law must not be undermined. The paper also argues and recommends that the ever-important goal of ensuring unity and coherence of the international legal system should never be lost, and this argument is advanced in view of contemporary academic scholarship that seeks to put the matter of fragmentation to rest.

A Harmonized Interpretation of Freedom of Transit in the Fragmented International Legal System: Applying Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to the Russia – Traffic in Transit Dispute

The article applies Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to examining the relevance of accords that bear on freedom of transit. Taking the WTO dispute of Russia – Traffic In Transit as an example, the article experiments with a harmonized interpretation, in quest of consistent meanings, of norms on freedom of transit in the fragmented international legal system. freedom of transit, fragmentation of international law, harmonized interpretation of norms, Russia, Ukraine, WTO dispute, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)

Keeping international law international, a reflection on Anthea Roberts’ “is international law international?”

INTRODUCTION. Occasionally a book appears which has a significant impact on the scholarly community. A fine example of this is the work considered here by the Australian international lawyer, Anthea Roberts. Until very recently, comparative studies on international law were rare. However, as international law further develops and widens, so special attention will need to be paid to ensure that international law students are, to a greater extent, taught the same material and in the same way. As municipal systems of law became more mature, so doctrine and jurisprudence began to diverge. International law has now entered such a phase in its development and, in this excellent book, Dr. Roberts asks a series of very important questions: exactly what is taking place, what are the factors that are driving these processes, is such to be welcomed, is it unstoppable and where do we go from here?MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article reflects on Anthea Roberts’ book “Is International Law International?” (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017). The authors of the article consider the contribution of the monograph to legal science, particularly with its interest in a revived Comparative International Law.RESEARCH RESULTS. The view of the authors of the article is that Anthea Roberts’ book is a work of profound significance, which will, hopefully, inspire additional research in the field of Comparative International Law in years to come.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Comparative International Law is a relatively neglected field in International Law. Without question, the international legal academy (from the elite law schools of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) emphasises different things both in its scholarly writings and pedagogy. This needs to be given greater attention, even if, at least for now, it cannot be entirely arrested; so that the much-feared fragmentation of international law into not only separate fields and standards, but also in terms of agreeing on its content and application, is minimised.

Способы преодоления фрагментации международного права в деятельности римского Сената и народного собрания в V–III веках до н. э.

The article deals with the problem of fragmentation of international law on the example of the collision of jurisdictions of two main courts that operated in the field of international disputes in Rome of V–III centuries BC: the court of the Senate and the court of the people. Starting from the characteristics of the judicial functions of the Senate and the people of Polybius, the author distinguishes three periods of confrontation between the courts of the Senate and people in V–III centuries BC. The first period, from the beginning to the middle of V century BC, characterized by the fact that the patrician Senate did not recognize the authority of the court of the people. However, the case 446– 442 BC showed that the Senate court finally recognized the supremacy of the people's court. The second period, from the middle of the V to the beginning of the III centuries BC, represented by the cases of 446 and 391 BC, is characterized by the dominance of the people's court, which, however, in comparison with the senatorial court showed its low professional qualities: ignorance of international law and arbitration and making decisions based on their own interests, ignoring the legitimate interests of other peoples, neglect of the professional knowledge of the fathers-senators. The third period, from the middle of the III century BC to the last quarter of the II century BC, represented by the case of 204 BC, shows that the court of the people finally recognized the authority and professionalism of the senatorial jurisdiction in international law, which allowed Polybius to speak about the non-interference of the people in the judicial affairs of the Senate. However, the Senate case of 204 BC is one of the first examples of the prosecution of Roman magistrates brought to trial on charges of Roman-allied city-States. In conclusion, the author considers Cicero's recommendations for overcoming fragmentation in the activities of the two courts. As regards Senators, he advised them to maintain high moral and professional level, and the people's suffrage in tribunal he advises to rely on the opinion of optimaton, the most authoritative from the point of view of morals and professional qualities.

O fragmentaciji međunarodnog prava i sukobu autoriteta međunarodnih sudova na primeru Suda pravde Evropske unije

Fragmentation of international law can be studied from a variety of perspectives and the one chosen for this research is whether and how the conflict of jurisdictions (or other types of conflicts, in terms of interpretation or enforcement) of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies affect the unity of international law. While the answer might seem to be too obvious to justify the question, it is still not to be too easily assumed. The second issue discussed in this paper is whether and to what extent the external authority of an international court affects the resolution of a conflict. Both issues are too grand for a single paper so the research will be focused solely on three case studies involving the European Court of Justice: Mox Plant, Kadi and Achmea cases. In all three of them the EU Court of Justice clashed with another adjudicative authority and prevailed in the first two but seems to have lost a battle in the third. The article explores the reasons for these outcomes relying inter alia on the concept of external authority of a judicial institution. These findings are coupled with discussion on how these outcomes can be assessed from the perspective of (de)fragmentation of international law.

Evolution of discourse on fragmentation of international law

In this article the authors examine the development of modern international law in terms of the discourse on fragmentation, and set the following goals: 1) determine the phenomenon of “fragmentation” and systematize the reasons for the emergence of discourse on fragmentation; 2) trace the evolution of scientific views upon fragmentation as a phenomenon; 3) considering the currently prevalent views upon the mechanism of development of international law, as well as prevention and settlement of conflicts of norms within international law, repeatedly assess some traditional examples of “fragmentation” as the logical processes or processes posing a threat to the integrity of international law. As the examples, the article analyzes such classical disputes as the Decision of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the. Former Yugoslavia in the case of Dusko Tadic, as well as decision of the UN International Court on Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), series of cases regarding MOX plant, CME and Lauder v. Czech Republic, and others. It took almost a quarter of century for the science of international law – since the beginning of discussion of fragmentation until the “farewell” with fragmentation – to accept itself as an integral, but flexible legal system over again. The conclusion is made that the discourse on fragmentation and utilization of the term “fragmentation” had a so-called therapeutic effect for the theory of international law, allowing it to shift the focus, reassess and reconsider itself as a system that existed in all diversity and multiplicity of actors engaged in the process of its creation and application.

Sustainability as an integrative principle: The role of international law in Arctic resource development

Abstract This article addresses the normative potential of the principle of sustainability to integrate the rules, principles, and procedures of international law applicable in the Arctic, so that Arctic international law can be posited more holistically and systematically. The holistic and integrative approach towards international law is particularly called for in the context of the Arctic, as the inextricable interconnectedness between its changing natural environments, its societal particularities, and its economic and industrial potential is the fundamental characteristic of the Arctic. In line with the purpose of the special issue, this article takes up a harder case of sustainability, in addressing Arctic mineral resource development. This article posits the principle of sustainability as a principle with an integrative function operating behind the primary norms relating to resource development at the international law level. In response to the claim of fragmented nature of the law at issue, this article calls for an academic examination into the normative function of the sustainability principle to forge the relevant and evolving norms applicable in the specific context of the Arctic mineral resource development towards an integral, coherent whole. This aim will be pursued using the analytical methodology employed by the International Law Commission’s (ILC) work on the “fragmentation of international law” (2006) and the “principle of integration” as identified by the International Law Association’s (ILA) work on the international law relating to sustainable development (2002–12). Finally, as an initial attempt to articulate the legal reasoning for such integration, this article examines the legal institution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a tool to present a holistic view of the international law on Arctic mineral resource development.

Protección de los derechos humanos en la solución de controversias inversor-Estado: ¿confluencia o bifurcación de caminos?

The purpose of this article is to determine the correspondence of the princSixty years after the signing of the first bilateral investment treaty, investor-State dispute resolution regime is under a process of change and strong criticism, particularly the disputes in which investors question State measures that protect human rights (access to drinking water, public health, and environment among others). In this context, this paper aims to analyse if there is a confluence or bifurcation of roads in investor-State disputes involving human rights. The answer to that question will be given through the selection and analysis of the two cases, Eco Oro versus Colombia and Bear Creek versus Peru, clear examples of fragmentation of International Law.

Public International Law and Human Health: Bridging Conceptual Gaps Through Governance

The lack of a consolidated set of norms, principles, and procedures in international health law reflect the haphazard manner in which the protection of human health has been addressed at the international level. But this does not mean that public international law does not play a role in promoting the improvement of human health. Rather, international health law can also contribute to shaping claims in other legal regimes. This can be ascertained by looking into developments in fields, such as international economic law, where human health has been directly at stake. On that account, this contribution lists some of the legal instruments that constitute norms of public international law with the core objective of the protection of human health. Then, a brief review of recent rulings from adjudicators in international investment and trade law is undertaken for assessing the way in which this crosscutting interpretation has taken place. Furthermore, the proliferation of non-binding documents dealing with issues of human health requires a broader approach than source-based legal positivism. Thus, the usefulness of the concept of governance for tackling the limited and fragmented array of binding instruments of international health law, as well as the challenges the concept poses for legal doctrine, are discussed. Keywords: International Health Law, International Investment Law, International Trade Law, Fragmentation of International Law, Tobacco Regulation