U ODBRANU NEIZVESNOSTI: DOBRE STRANE NEODREĐENIH PRAVILA MEĐUNARODNOG PRAVA
Abstract
The paper discusses uncertainty in international law from the perspective of its indeterminate rules against an often held view that such rules are bad news for international law. First, it shows that indeterminate rules are not a pathology, but inevitable in international law due to the diversity of states, their different interests, as well as complexities of some of the issues those norms attempt to regulate. Second, the paper claims that there is an upside in indeterminate rules if international law is conceptualized through its argumentative side. These values are explained through concrete examples of indeterminate provisions from the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the UNSC Resolution 2249, a classical example of “constructively ambiguous” text. Relying on the works of Waldron and Hakimi, the paper explains how indeterminate rules accommodate disagreements, and consequently provide at least minimal regulation of certain contested issues, sustain international community, and, moreover, demonstrate how international law operates.
References
Abbott, K. et al., 2000, The Concept of Legalization, International Organizations, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 401–419.
Arai-Takahashi, Y., The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: A Theoretical Analysis of Strasbourg’s Variable Geometry, in: Føllesdal, A., Peters, B., Ulfstein, G., (eds.), 2013, Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 62–105.
Besson, S., 2005, The Morality of Conflict: Reasonable Disagreement and the Law, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, Hart Publishing.
Bilder, R., 1962, The Office of the Legal Adviser: The State Department Lawyer and Foreign Affairs, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 633–684.
Brownlie, I., 2003, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Brunnée, J., Troope, S., 2011, Interactional International Law: An Introduction, International Theory, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 307–318.
Byers, M., 2004, Agreeing to Disagree: Security Council Resolution 1441 and Intentional Ambiguity, Global Governance, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 165–186.
Byers, M., 2020, Still Agreeing to Disagree: International Security and Constructive Ambiguity, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, pp. 1–24 (https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656, 15.05.2020).
Çali, B., 2009, On Interpretivism and International Law, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 805–822.
Cohen, H., 2012, Finding International Law, Part II: Our Fragmenting Legal Community, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 44, pp. 1049–1107.
Dolzer, R., 2013, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Today’s Contours, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 7–33.
Donoho, D. L., 2011, Autonomy, Self-Government, and the Margin of Appreciation: Developing a Jurisprudence of Diversity within Universal Human Rights, Emory International Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 391–466.
Dörr, O., Article 31. General Rule of Interpretation, in: Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K., (eds.), 2012, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 521–570.
Dworkin, R., 2004, Hart’s Postscript and the Character of Political Philosophy, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1–37.
Evans, M., Okowa, 1998, Ph, Recent Cases: Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 688–697.
Franck, T., 1988, Legitimacy in the International System, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 88–106.
Franck, T., 1990, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Gerards, J., 2013, How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 466–490.
Goldsmith, J., Posner, E., 2005, The Limits of International Law, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 170–184.
Guzman, A., 2005, Saving Customary International Law, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 115–176.
Hakimi, M., 2017, Constructing an International Community, American Journal of International Law, 111, No. 2, pp. 317–356.
Hakimi, M., 2017, The Work of International Law, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol 58, No. 1, pp. 1–46.
Hakimi, M., 2018, The Jus Ad Bellum’s Regulatory Form, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 112, 2, pp. 151–190.
Hakimi, M., 2020, Why Should We Care About International Law?, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 118, No. 6, pp. 1283–1306.
Hurd, I., 2017, How to Do Things with International Law, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Jovanović, M., 2019, The Nature of International Law, Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Kammerhofer, J., 2011, Uncertainty in International Law – A Kelsenian Perspective, London, Routledge.
Kennedy, D., 1994, A New World Order: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 329–375.
Koskenniemi, M., 2001, Solidarity Measures: State Responsibility as a New International Order?, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 72, No. 1. pp. 337–356.
Koskenniemi, M., 2006, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Llamzon, A., 2007, Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 815–852.
MacCormick, N., 2005, Rhetoric and The Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Milanovic, M., 2009, State Responsibility for Acts of Non-State Actors: A Comment on Griebel and Plücken, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 307–324.
Ogilvie-White, T., 2007, International Responses to Iranian Nuclear Defiance: The Non-Aligned Movement and the Issue of Non-Compliance, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 453–476.
Papić, T., 2021, De-recognition of States: The Case of Kosovo, Cornell Journal of International Law, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 101–
Papić, T., The Political Aftermath of ICJ’s Kosovo Opinion, in: Milanović, M., Wood, M., (eds.), 2015, The Law and Politics of Kosovo Advisory Opinion, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 240–267.
Poscher, R., 2010, Ambiguity and Vagueness in Legal Interpretation, in: Solan, L., Tiersma, P., (eds.), 2011, Oxford Handbook on Language and Law, Oxford University Press (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1651465, 03.11.2021)
Ratner, S., 2002, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello after September 11, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 905–921.
Ratner, S., Slaughter, A-M., 1999, The Method Is the Message, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 410–423.
Scott, S., 2018, The Decline of International Law as a Normative Ideal, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 627–643.
Shany, Y., 2006, Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 907–940.
State Diplomatic and Consular Relations, 2019, United States Recognizes Israeli Sovereignty Over the Golan Heights, American Journal of International Law, 113, No. 3, pp. 613–619.
Tams, C., 2009, The Use of Force against Terrorists, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 359–397.
Trapp, K., 2007, Back to Basics: Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right of Self-Defence Against Non-State Terrorist Actors, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 141–156.
Verdirame, G., 2007, The Divided West: International Lawyers in Europe and America, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 553–580.
Waldron, J., 1994, Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues, California Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 509–540.
Waldron, J., 2008, The Concept and the Rule of Law, Georgia Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 1–61.
Yannaca-Small, K., “Fair and Equitable Treatment: Have Its Contours Fully Evolved?” in: Yannaca-Small, K., (ed.), 2018, Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 501–531.
Yasuaki, O., 2003, International Law in and with International Politics: The Functions of International Law in International Society, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 105–139.
Treaties and UN documents
Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (adopted on 14 September 1963, entry into force 4 December 1969, United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS), Vol. 704, p. 219.
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted on 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, European Treaty Series, No. 5.
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, adopted on 12 August 1949, entry into force 21 October1950, UNTS, Vol. 75, p. 135.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, UNTS, Vol. 999, p. 171.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, adopted on 16 September 1987, entry into force 1 January 1989, 26369.
Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, adopted on 12 June 1968, entered into force 5 March 1970, UNTS, Vol. 726, p. 161.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted on 10 December 1982, entry into force 16 November 1994, UNTS, Vol. 1833, p.
Universal Copyright Convention (revised version), adopted on 24 July 1971, entered into force 10 July 1974, UNTS, Vol. 943, p. 178.
UNSC Resolution 1441, UN Doc. S/RES/1441 (8 December 2002).
UNSC Resolution 2249, UN Doc. S/RES/2249 (20 November 2015).
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, adopted on 24 April 1963, entered into force 19 March 1967, UNTS, Vol. 596, p. 261.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted on 18 April 1961, entered into force on 24 April 1964, UNTS, Vol. 500, p. 212.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted on 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, UNTS, Vol. 1155, p. 331.
Case Law
ECtHR, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, no. 6538/74, Judgment of 29 March 1979.
ICJ, Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), Judgment of 12 November 1991, ICJ Reports, p. 53.
ICJ, Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arabjamahiriya/Malta), Judgement of 3 June1985, ICJ Reports 1985, p. 13.
ICJ, Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arabjamahiriya), Judgment of 24 February 1982, ICJ Reports 1982, p. 18.
ICJ, Case Concerning the North Sea Continental Shelf (FR Germany/Denmark; FR Germany/The Netherlands), Judgement of 20 February1969, ICJ Reports, p. 3.
ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1977, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7.
ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.
ICSID, Electrabel v. Hungary, ARB/07/19, Award of 25 November 2015.
ICSID, Lemire v. Ukraine, no. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010.
ICSID, Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States, no. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003.
Internet Sources
Akande, D., Milanovic, M., 2015, The Constructive Ambiguity of the Security Council’s ISIS Resolution, EJIL: Talk! (https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/, 21.05.2020).
House of Commons, oral answers of the Attorney General “Syria: Legality of Airstrikes”, 26 November 2015, 1468-1469 (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151126/debtext/151126-0001.htm, 21.05.2021).
Milanovic, M, 2010, Self-Defense and Non-State Actors: Indeterminacy and the Jus Ad Bellum, EJIL: Talk! (https://www.ejiltalk.org/self-defense-and-non-state-actors-indeterminacy-and-the-jus-ad-bellum/, 25.05.2021).
OECD, 2004, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, No. 2004/03, OECD Publishing (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/675702255435, 05.2021).