Multilateral Treaties Research Articles

A Review of Modern International Law on the Expansion of Colonies

The study begins with questions about Japan s colonization of the Korean Peninsula under international law. Currently, the international community is actively debating the establishment of comfort facilities for Asian women, including the peoples of the Korean Peninsula, who were colonized by Japan during the Sino-Japanese War, and were put into forced labor following the national recruitment order. In South Korea, the research focuses on the treaties signed between Japan and South Korea from the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War in 1914 through 1910, as well as comfort women, and forced labor. However, Japan continues to argue that while its annexation of Korea was unjustified, it was not a violation of international law due to the absence of multilateral treaties on colonial expansion and few judicial bodies or international conferences. In order to elucidate the Japanese annexation of the Korean Peninsula, which is closely linked to Korea s identity, international law research on colonial expansion in the 19th and early 20 centuries is needed. Furthermore, given the fact that international law evolved in the process of the expansion of European colonies, such research is crucial for the correct understanding of contemporary international law. This study analyzes the “European International Law” of colonial expansion by examining 19th and early 20th-century bilateral treaties, state practice, and the views of international jurists. The definition of colonies as defined in international law at the time is explored, and the concept of territorial acquisition and trust to colonial peoples of European countries are also discussed. Additionally, it reviews a non-annexation declaration agreed upon at the Paris Peace Conference. In addition, it examines the human rights norms applied to the mandate system, a territorial management system operated by the League of Nations. Furthermore, this study applies the international law on colonial expansion discussed in Chapter 2 to cases involving Japanese colonial expansion. Japan began colonial expansion at the end of the 19th century when it joined the “Family of Nations”, comprising “European Christian countries.” The international community criticized Japan s ambition to expand its colonies against European international law for its colonization of the Korean peninsula, the Manchurian Incident, the Sino-Japanese War, and the mandate of the South Sea Islands.

Bilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Bilateral agreements signed or that entered into force between 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021 and; Multilateral agreements signed/acceded/ratified or that entered into force between 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021.
 Please note: The information contained in this document reflects the records in the South African Treaty Register as at the date of search, or the date of this document, whichever is applicable. While every reasonable effort is made to ensure the correctness of the information contained herein, parties relying thereon are advised to verify important facts independently in the event that the information is required for critical purposes.

Economic Migration, the Last Frontier

Moving goods and services is much easier than moving labor and obstacles to migration represent the biggest difference between the wave of globalization we are experiencing and that which occurred more than a hundred years ago. Universally, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is the only multilateral treaty that specifically deals with the admission of migrants for labor purposes. Relevantly, according to some estimates, elimination of immigration controls would more than double the world’s real income. Despite the prospect of such significant welfare gains, migration is the most sensitive of all aspects of globalization, one of the most virulent political issues in international law and the unexplored frontier of globalization. Political realities largely explain the resistance, especially in wealthy countries, to liberalizing the flow of workers.

Human Trafficking on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Cases as Transnational Crime on Indonesia Coastal Boundary

Indonesian strategic archipelago allows rapid migration of goods and services to its neighbor countries. Along with goods and services, the wide coastal area also facilitates migrant worker to enter and exit Indonesia through several ports. First and foremost interference on the borderless coastal boundary is Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. The IUU foreign fishing vessels frequently transporting illegal migrant worker obtained through human trafficking, people smuggling, forced labor, child exploitation, torture, and discrimination. This practices can then be categorized as one of the transnational organized crime at sea. This paper focuses on the studies of notorious cases of human trafficking on IUU Fishing. This journal will also observe the lack of prevention measure of transnational crime on UNCLOS and utilization of bilateral and multilateral treaties on IUU Fishing.

Asylum-Seekers are Not Bananas Either: Limitations on Transferring Asylum-Seekers to Third Countries

Despite the similarities between the movement of people and the movement of goods, many developed nations have maintained high barriers to migration even as barriers to trade have fallen sharply. However, as Jennifer Gordon points out, both bilateral and multilateral treaties governing migration have proliferated within this weaker global patchwork of regulation. For example, the ability of developed states to gain concessions on other matters such as trade or investment has led to the proliferation multilateral agreements, while bilateral agreements have arisen due to a desire to refrain from integrating migrant workers in destination states. This paper focuses on a particular subset of migrants—asylum-seekers— and aims to explain why they should not be treated like bananas, so to speak. Their rights, status, and protection, as well as their transfer from destination countries to third countries, are regulated by multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements that simultaneously highlight the differences between goods and asylum-seekers while also treating them, in some ways, like objects or commodities. The “banananization” of persons through third-country agreements is a result of these agreements’ strong focus on the sovereign interests of destination and third countries instead of on the effects of the transfer on asylum-seekers and refugees. This paper argues that transfer agreements should require an individualized assessment of the connections between asylum-seekers and the destination country and refrain from removing individuals from places where they have relationships and connections to countries where they have significantly fewer networks or none at all. The legal validity of third country agreements should, therefore, be examined through two questions: First, the extent to which the transfer agreement supports (or impedes) the asylum-seeker’s autonomy in choosing a state that would grant them surrogate protection; and second, the degree to which relational considerations are given adequate weight prior to the transfer by taking into account global movements and by placing the asylum-seeker in a place where her meaningful relationships would be preserved. This article undertakes this task and concludes with recommendations for the implementation of future third-country transfer agreements.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE IN INTERNATIONAL GLOBALIZATION AND INTEGRATION PROCESSES

The purpose of the article is to define the essence of globalization and international economic integration, to identify their influence on the development of national economies and markets, identify of Ukraine’s place in international globalization and integration processes. In this scientific research general scientific and special research methods are used, in particular, the method of theoretical generalization to clarify certain concepts such as ‘globalization’; the method of statistical analysis to assess the dynamics of the global index of globalization and the dynamics of globalization indexes of the leading countries of the world according to KOF; the method of comparative analysis for carrying out a rating assessment of the scale of Ukraine’s integration into the world in terms of the economic, social and political components of globalization. Researches of the survey showed existing approaches to the interpretation of the categories ‘globalization’. It is underlined the ambiguous attitude to globalization in the scientific sphere. The rating of Ukraine according to the index of globalization of KOF, and the dynamics of the index change in 2012-2020 years are presented. Positive aspects and threats caused by the entry of Ukraine into the global space are considered. In order to increase the rating’s assessment of the scale of Ukraine’s integration into the world, it is necessary to increase the volume of international trade, to rise the level of international business activity, trade flows, flows of international investments, etc., to intensify the level of cultural integration, the level of international tourism, cross-border money transfers, information flows, etc., to ensure membership in leading international organizations, participation in international missions, processes for the ratification of international multilateral treaties, etc.

Pakistan and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime

The arrival of nuclear weapons was detrimental in changing the nature of warfare; duringWWII, we used nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities. The catastrophic effect of nuclear weapons made the pioneers apprehensive about the spread of nuclear technology across the globe. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime (NNPR) is a set of international rules, norms, initiatives, agreements, arrangements, bilateral and multilateral treaties to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and technology. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the backbone of NNPR. This paper discusses the significance of NNPR and will focus on how Pakistan fits into the bigger picture of the NNPR as a nuclear state. This research study will further analyze the prospects and challenges for Pakistan viz a viz the NNPR. It will specifically focus on Pakistan's official position on joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), and the two relevant Export Control Regimes (Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime). Moreover, the challenges Pakistan faces viz-a-viz these treaties and arrangements will be highlighted. Recommendations will be provided based on the prospects of how Pakistan can overcome these challenges.

UN Membership and the State Requirement

The UN Charter provides that membership is open to all peace- loving States. How should one understand the State requirement for UN membership, and is it linked to the law of statehood? This article analyses the practice of UN admission procedures and contextualizes it broadly with the State requirement in international treaties. It argues that some non- States have been Member States as well as non- member observer States of the UN. Such practice should not be labelled as being anomalous or sui generis. Rather, it should be taken as evidence of separation between international treaty procedures on the one hand and the substantive law of statehood on the other. Certain voting procedures regulated by international treaties should not be mistaken for state- creation procedures or collective recognition. Membership of the UN or its specialized agencies can have far- reaching effects, however. Such membership effectively creates an entity’s treaty- making capacity where treaties are generically open to all States. The member then procedurally becomes a State for the purposes of participation in such international treaty regimes. This should not be conflated with State creation. The term ‘State’ for the purposes of participation in international treaties open to ‘any State’ or ‘all States’ is functionally defined by the so- called ‘Vienna formula’: it is not a matter of the Montevideo criteria or any other requirements under the law of statehood. This article thus argues that for the sake of doctrinal clarity, such procedural definitions of the ‘State’ for the purposes of participation in multilateral treaties need to be consistently separated from the substantive issues of the law of statehood. Palestine’s appearance before international judicial bodies proves that such a separation is in principle upheld in international practice, but the line is sometimes unclear.

МІЖНАРОДНЕ МУНІЦИПАЛЬНЕ ПРАВО ЯК ГАЛУЗЬ МІЖНАРОДНОГО ПУБЛІЧНОГО ПРАВА: ДО ПИТАННЯ ПРО ФОРМУВАННЯ ГАЛУЗІ

The article is devoted to the scientific and theoretical substantiation of the position on the formation of international municipal law as a field of modern international public law. In domestic jurisprudence, the topic is being studied for the first time. The authors connect the emergence of international municipal law with the processes of constitutionalization of international public law and the internationalization of the constitutional legal order of states. These processes were accompanied by the growth of international recognition of the institution of local self-government. First of all, through its international legal regulation and contextualization of topical aspects of the activities of local governments, taking into account their international activities. In particular, through the development and adoption of a number of international multilateral treaties and the preparation at the United Nations level of the draft World Charter of Local Self-Government. In the context of the internationalization of the constitutional legal order of countries in the field of urban law, significant processes of borrowing international legal standards of local selfgovernment by state constitutional law are indicated. Based on the analysis of international practice, a conclusion is made about the compliance of Ukrainian legislation with international standards. At the same time, recommendations are given for its improvement, in particular, for financing local governments, budgetary decentralization, limiting the competence of local state administrations, etc. The formation and development of the architecture of modern public international law, its institutional and structural system is usually associated with its sectoral construction, which is based on the definition of the subject of legal regulation and method of legal regulation. The emergence of a new subject of legal regulation in public international law, as an independent and autonomous legal system, is based on the actualization, emergence, activation, contextualization of cooperation in a new field of interstate cooperation, which in practice is determined by the emergence of a new object of international law. In this case, the methods of international legal regulation in public international law remain constant – either imperative or dispositive. However, today in the formation of new branches of public international law plays an important role trend that emerged during the formation of a new form of globalization – legal, which has such a nomenclature – the constitutionalization of public international law and the internationalization of constitutional order. In general, the national legislation of Ukraine meets world standards, but some legislative norms should be improved. First of all, this concerns the financing of the local state administrations, limiting the competence of local state administrations to the level of control functions and mediation between the local governments, the executive branch and the President. In addition, it makes sense to provide a mechanism for the implementation of the international legal standards for the subjects of Ukrainian local self-government.

Unilateral declarations excluding bilateral relations under a multilateral treaty

AbstractBilateral relations between states which are parties to a multilateral treaty may not be governed by that treaty. This may depend on an agreement between the two states concerned, which could subject their bilateral relations to a different regime that is considered to suit their specific needs better. The exclusion of bilateral relations under the multilateral treaty may also be the consequence of a unilateral expression of the will of one of these states, for instance in view of its non-recognition of the other state. The present article seeks to examine the conditions under which bilateral relations may be excluded on the basis of the unilateral determination of one of the states concerned.

Joined Cases C-682/18 and C-683/18 Peterson v. Google & Youtube And Elsevier v. Cyando (C.J.E.U.)

Since its inception, the internet has challenged many basic principles of international copyright law. While some key “digital copyright” issues have been addressed in multilateral treaties, one of the most vexing issues with the global digital network remains—the question of the responsibility of third-party intermediaries for copyright infringements by internet users.

LEGAL REGULATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION OF RUSSIA AND KAZAKHSTAN

The article deals with the development of international scientific and technical cooperation betweenRussia and Kazakhstan and its main actors. International scientific and technical relations are describedthrough the prism of bilateral and multilateral cooperation between the two states through regionalinterstate associations, in particular the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The author pays specialattention to the issue of legal regulation of international scientific and technical regulation, the mainmechanism of which is bilateral and multilateral treaties and agreements. At the same time, one of the important forms of cooperation is the development of coordinated measures to harmonize the regulatoryframework of Russia and Kazakhstan in the field of science and technology.

Treaties in Motion: The Evolution of Treaties from Formation to Termination. By Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Panos Merkouris

To scholars and practitioners of international law, the ‘life-cycle’ of a treaty refers to a familiar notion. This term, loosely speaking, typically describes a treaty’s evolution from formation to possible termination, via its interpretation, application, amendment or modification, and anything else in between. Those adept at navigating the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and its preparatory documentation, including the International Law Commission’s commentaries to its 1966 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties and the Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, among many others, may find these waters navigable. To others, they can appear daunting. At times, though, both expert and newcomer alike find themselves reaching for practice-oriented specialist works such as the Treaty Handbook or the Summary of Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, published by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, for a handy overview of the treaty-making process.1 The value of schematic guides lies precisely in their representation of a treaty’s life-cycle, which can be of assistance—or indeed essential—in diplomatic relations and international legal practice, not least when certain states’ withdrawal from multilateral treaties appears to be on the rise.

Multilateral Principles in a Bilateral World

Abstract Multilateralism in international investment law is a multifaceted concept with a complex and eventful history. Multilateralism is a paradigm for international investment relations and is also present in the caselaw of investment arbitral tribunals, regardless of whether they consider bilateral or multilateral investment treaties. Indeed, in most cases, they interpret treaty provisions as part of a multilateral system. Further, multilateralism is present every time States act in concert with other States or consider other States’ investors’ legitimate interests. It also emerges that, in some instances, multilateralism has become mandatory. For example, this is the case concerning sustainable development or climate change. In these areas, international law requires multilateralism. States are under an obligation to co-operate for purposes of achieving or promoting multilateral solutions. However, concerning the international investment law context, such a concept is not present. The general assumption is that States’ participation in multilateral practises is left to their discretion: it is voluntary or consensual. In this article, we question that assumption. In this article, we offer a brief review of multilateral experiences in international investment law in the 20th century and provide an analysis of multilateralism in a historical context. Then we turn our attention to the current state of affairs to appreciate it in light of the past. Further, we discuss the future, and in particular, mandatory multilateralism in international law with respect to sustainable development. Here we identify the principles, which might justify mandatory multilateral approaches. Finally, we consider whether the principles justifying mandatory multilateralism in international law are applicable in the context of international investment law as well. We attempt to answer this question in the affirmative and point out further areas of research.

The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking

States negotiate over the specific terms of multilateral treaties because those terms determine states’ willingness to ratify the treaty. In some cases, a state might decline to ratify a treaty it otherwise supports because specific terms are too far from those it prefers. States and inter-governmental organizations negotiating treaties would like to uncover the minimal terms needed to secure the ratification of key states, but under what circumstances will those states candidly reveal those terms? Using a spatial representation of the issues in a treaty negotiation, we use mechanism design to determine what information states will reveal in a treaty negotiation. We find that states are willing to reveal how they would like tradeoffs between different issues to be resolved but not the minimal terms they require for ratification. Further, negotiations cannot always separate types that need concessions to ratify from other types that would like concessions but would ratify the treaty even if they do not receive them. These findings provide insight into how treaty negotiations can succeed or fail, and they lay the theoretical groundwork for a new line of empirical research on how multilateral treaties are negotiated.

An analysis of stagnation in multilateral law-making – and why the law of the sea has transcended the stagnation trend

AbstractThe article explores the current stagnation in multilateral law-making based on an analysis of recent treaty attempts across various subfields of international law. It further examines why the law of the sea has continued to evolve despite this trend. The article demonstrates that states still regularly seek multilateral treaties to address new challenges. While there is some evidence of general treaty saturation, it is the current inability of traditional great powers to negotiate new binding norms which is the most constraining factor on multilateral law-making. This in turn is related to deeper geopolitical shifts by which traditional great powers, notably the United States and its allies, have seen their relative influence decline. Until the current great power competition ends or settles into a new mode of international co-operation, new multilateral treaties with actual regulatory effect will rarely emerge. The law of the sea has avoided the current trend of stagnation for primarily three reasons (i) a global commitment to the basic tenets of the law of the sea; (ii) a legal framework that affords rights and obligations somewhat evenly disbursed, allowing less powerful states to use their collective leverage to advance multilateral negotiations, despite intermittent great power opposition; and (iii) the avoidance of entrenched multilateral forums where decisions are reached by consensus only.

Law on Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: Historical Development and Its Prospects

The application of rules on reservations under the Vienna Convention on Laws of Treaties (VCLT) has generated a debate to revisit the Vienna regime. The rules on reservations under the VCLT have helped attain the universality of human rights treaties but at the price of integrity. The beneficial aspect of reservations is the promotion of universal recognition of human rights treaties. However, they have shattered the uniform and practical application of the provisions of these treaties. The disappointment of the treaty monitoring bodies over the VCLT’s rules on reservations to human rights treaties has resulted in the demand for a separate set of rules on reservations drawn to them. The universality and integrity of these treaties have been at the forefront of the treaty bodies and scholars. In the current debate on rules on reservations, this research tracks down the historical development of the law on reservations to multilateral treaties. It highlights the unique features of the human rights treaties and examines the application of rules to determine the compatibility of reservations. The research suggests treaty bodies adopt a novel approach to maintain the balance between universality and their integrity. Received: 9 April 2021 / Accepted: 3 June 2021 / Published: 5 September 2021

Is It Possible to Use State-Owned Enterprises to Promote Industrial and Technological Development Under Article 17.4 of the CPTPP?

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) establishes, in its Chapter 17, the most extensive ‘behind the border’ regulation of stateowned enterprises (SOEs) among the bilateral and multilateral treaties. Prima facie, its rationality can be explained by the original purpose of the United States (former drafter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)) to discipline the state capitalism policies employed by some Asian signatories. Considering this context, this article examines the meaning of the key normative concepts contained in Article 17.4 of the treaty (i.e., ‘commercial activities’, ‘non-discrimination’ and especially ‘commercial considerations’) and discusses to what extent such concepts recognize or restrict the freedom of the Parties to create and manage SOEs committed to promote national industrial and technological development, using as benchmark for this assessment Article XVII of the GATT and the interpretations made by the WTO adjudicators. It concludes that the wording of Article 17.4 is compatible both with an interpretation that allows the existence of such types of entities and with an interpretation that does not. State-owned enterprises, non-discrimination, commercial considerations, differential treatment, industrial development, competition, trade, mission

Regional patterns of multilateral treaty cooperation: Is there a Latin American ‘commitment gap’?

Latin American states have long been active participants in multilateral treaty making. However, the rich history of Latin American legal activism contrasts with debates about the degree to which these states commit to international agreements. We probe the existence of this purported ‘commitment gap’ by analyzing the signing and ratification of multilateral treaties. Are Latin American states less likely to ratify agreements they have signed than states from other world regions? Using survival analysis of an original dataset on multilateral treaties deposited with the UN Secretary-General, we find no difference between Latin America and North America/Europe in terms of ratification. If a commitment gap exists, it appears to be more evident in other regions, particularly East Asia, Africa, and the Anglo-Caribbean. To the extent that there is a ‘commitment gap’ at the regional level in Latin America, it is unlikely to be due to country-level factors such as domestic institutions.

A conservation roadmap for the subterranean biome

AbstractThe 15th UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (COP15) will be held in Kunming, China in October 2021. Historically, CBDs and other multilateral treaties have either alluded to or entirely overlooked the subterranean biome. A multilateral effort to robustly examine, monitor, and incorporate the subterranean biome into future conservation targets will enable the CBD to further improve the ecological effectiveness of protected areas by including groundwater resources, subterranean ecosystem services, and the profoundly endemic subsurface biodiversity. To this end, we proffer a conservation roadmap that embodies five conceptual areas: (1) science gaps and data management needs; (2) anthropogenic stressors; (3) socioeconomic analysis and conflict resolution; (4) environmental education; and (5) national policies and multilateral agreements.