The Role of International Organizations in Shaping Customary International Law: An Analytical Study of the 2018 ILC’s Draft Conclusions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajsl.v3i1.2478Keywords:
Customary International Law, 2018 Draft Conclusions, International Law CommissionAbstract
This research explores the influence and impact of international organisations on the development and formation of customary international law. It specifically examines the 2018 Draft Conclusions issued by the International Law Commission (ILC). This paper has observed the implications of these findings on the evolution of peremptory norms, also known as jus cogens, and clarifies the scientific approaches used in their identification and legal consequences. Moreover, it emphasises alternative methodologies within the realm of humanitarian action in influencing customary international law. Research offers a thorough comprehension of which international organisations contribute to the development of customary international law. The (ILC)’s 2018 Draft Conclusions shape customary international law by defining peremptory norms (jus cogens). State practice and opinio juris produce conventional rules, as these findings show. They also help evaluate governmental announcements, official publications, legal opinions, and diplomatic exchanges. These results must be assessed for compliance with customary law, state practice, and state behaviour. Alternative analyses like humanitarian intervention and R2P also shape customary international law.
Downloads
References
Abello Galvis, R. (2019). Introduction to the International Court of Justice-ICJ. Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
Anil, A. K., Panicker, A. B., Pillai, G. S., & KP, A. H. (2021). The Evaluation of Principles Involved in the’Lotus Case’. Legal Lock J., 1, 85.
Arévalo, L. B. (2005). The work of the International Law Commission in the field of international environmental law. BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 32, 493.
Article17. Article17 Statute of the International Law Commission 1947
Bae, Y. J. (2023). Analyzing the Connection between Customary Land Rights and Land Grabbing: A Case Study of Zambia. Land, 12(1), 200.
Bashfield, S. M. (2021). Military security obstacles to decolonizing the Chagos: A reply to Harris. Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 17(2), 230-234.
Bílková, V. (2020). The International Law Commission perspective on non-State actors and customary international law. In International organisations, non-State actors, and the formation of customary international law (pp. 200-226). Manchester University Press.
Boucher, D. (2011). The recognition theory of rights, customary international law and human rights. Political Studies, 59(3), 753-771.
Bourne, C. B. (1992). The international law commission’s draft articles on the law of international watercourses: principles and planned measures. Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, 3, 65.
Bowett, D. W. (1998). Crimes of state and the 1996 report of the international law commission on state responsibility. European Journal of International Law, 9(1), 163-173.
Cano, G. J. (1989). The development of the law of international water resources and the work of the international law commission. Water international, 14(4), 167-171.
Cernic, J. L. (2007). Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, General List No. 91-Catching the Conscience of Judges. Austl. Int’l LJ, 14, 255.
Charney, J. I. (1986). International Agreements and the Development of Customary International Law. Wash. L. Rev., 61, 971.
Chasapis Tassinis, O. (2020). Customary international law: Interpretation from beginning to end. European Journal of International Law, 31(1), 235-267.
Codification of international law article (24).
Commission, U. N. I. L. (1971). Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1971. Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1971, 1-446.
Coombes, R. J., & Stokes, D. J. (1985). Standard-setters’ responsiveness to submissions on exposure drafts: Australian evidence. Australian journal of management, 10(2), 31-45.
Crawford, J. (1995). The ILC adopts a statute for an International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 89(2), 404-416.
Deplano, R. (2017). Assessing the Role of Resolutions in the ILC Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law: Substantive and Methodological Issues. international organizations law review, 14(2), 227-253.
Draft conclusions, on identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) 2022Conclusion 16 Obligations created by resolutions, decisions or other acts of international organizations conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens).
Evangelidis, E., & O’Donnell, T. (2019). NGOs and the International Law Commission draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters: a relationship of mutual or grudging respect? Yearbook of International Disaster Law Online, 1(1), 116-147.
Flemming, B. (1965). Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (New Application, 1962; Belgium v. Spain). Preliminary Objections. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 3, 306-314.
Fon, V., & Parisi, F. (2009). Stability and change in international customary law. Supreme Court Economic Review, 17(1), 279-309.
Forteau, M. (2015). Comparative International Law Within, Not Against, International Law: Lessons from the International Law Commission. American Journal of International Law, 109(3), 498-513.
Franck, T. M., & ElBaradei, M. (1982). The Codification and Progressive Development of International Law: A UNITAR Study of the Role and Use of the International Law Commission. American Journal of International Law, 76(3), 630-639.
Gaja, G. (2010). The position of individuals in international law: an ILC perspective. European Journal of International Law, 21(1), 11-14.
Garwood-Gowers, A. (2004). Case concerning oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America): did the ICJ miss the boat on the use of force? Melbourne Journal of International Law, 5(1), 241-255.
Gaver, C. D. (2021). Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives). American Journal of International Law, 115(3), 519-526.
Gazzini, T. (2022). The changing rules on the use of force in international law. In The changing rules on the use of force in international law. Manchester University Press.
Giza, C. C., Kutcher, J. S., Ashwal, S., Barth, J., Getchius, T. S., Gioia, G. A., Gronseth, G. S., Guskiewicz, K., Mandel, S., & Manley, G. (2013). Summary of evidence-based guideline update: evaluation and management of concussion in sports: report of the Guideline Development Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 80(24), 2250-2257.
Gosrisirikul, K., & Srisorn, W. (2019). Preah Vihear Temple Border Dispute between Thailand and Cambodia. BESM-30, 256.
Grabarsky, T. (2021). Germany v. Philipp: Closing the Door on Victims of Their Own Countries. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 83, 359.
Gray, C. (2018). The 2017 judicial activity of the international court of justice. American Journal of International Law, 112(2), 254-273.
Gutner, T., & Thompson, A. (2012). The performance of international organisations. In Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions (pp. 55-70). Routledge.
Guzzini, S. (2007). Theorising international relations: Lessons from Europe’s periphery.
Hakimi, M. (2019). Making sense of customary international law. Mich. L. Rev., 118, 1487.
Hari, A., & Nagpal, S. (2022). The National Register of Citizens (NRC) in India and the potential for statelessness in situ: a cautionary tale from Assam. Contemporary South Asia, 30(2), 194-201.
Harrison, J. (2013). The International Law Commission and the development of international investment law. Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev., 45, 413.
Helmersen, S. T. (2019). Finding ‘the most highly qualified publicists’: Lessons from the International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law, 30(2), 509-535.
Hickman, K. E., & Hahn, R. D. (2020). Categorizing Chevron. Ohio St. LJ, 81, 611.
Hunter, D. B. (2022). International environmental law: Sources, principles and innovations. In Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics (pp. 132-146). Routledge.
ICJadvisory. on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the opt - ICJ document - question of Palestine (no date) United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-204033/#:~:text=Settlements%20established%20by%20Israel%20in,Construction%20of%20the%20wall%20severely (Accessed: 23 October 2023.
Immanuel, A. M. P. (2023). The customary obligation to avoid, reduce, or prevent statelessness in South Asia. Asian Journal of International Law, 13(2), 244-272.
Jalloh, C. C. (2020). Identification of Customary International Law, Statement of the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee. Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper(20-27).
Jovanović, M. A. (2019). The Nature of International Law. Cambridge University Press.
Klabbers, J. (2020). International law. Cambridge University Press.
Klabbers, J. (2023). International law. Cambridge University Press.
Kristina and Daugirdas, K. (2020). International Organizations as creators of International Law: A good thing? A reply to Jan Klabbers, EJIL. Retrieved from https://www.ejiltalk.org/international-organizations-as-creators-of-international-law-a-good-thing-a-reply-to-jan-klabbers/ Retrieved on 19 October 2023
Laina, E. (2018). 2018 ILC Report. The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals. Although we intend to cover the appeals court’s decision and any further appeal to the US Supreme Court, we have been contacting colleagues in the hope that attorneys or policy experts participating in either side of the case might be persuaded to share their perspectives on it, in the meantime. If you are or know of such a person, please contact EPL to help bring us up to date on the matter., 48, 362.
law, I. (2023). codification, legal affairs, commission, ILC, instruments and reports, Yearbook (no date) United Nations. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/1_14.shtml on 19 October 2023
Leigh, M. (1984). Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). 1984 ICJ Reports 169. American Journal of International Law, 78(4), 894-897.
Li, X., Liu, H., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Binding force of extended continental shelf limits: investigating whether Article 76 (8) of UNCLOS constitutes customary international law. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10, 1266802.
Maas, M. M. (2019). International law does not compute: Artificial intelligence and the development, displacement or destruction of the global legal order. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 20(1), 29-57.
McCaffrey, S. C. (2009). The International Law Commission adopts draft articles on transboundary aquifers. American Journal of International Law, 103(2), 272-293.
McDougal, M. S. (1967). The international law commission’s draft articles upon interpretation: Textuality redivivus. American Journal of International Law, 61(4), 992-1000.
McIntyre, O. (2010). The proceduralisation and growing maturity of international water law: Case concerning pulp mills on the river Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), International Court of Justice, 20 April 2010. Journal of Environmental Law, 22(3), 475-497.
McRae, D. (2012). The Work of the International Law Commission, 2007–2011: Progress and Prospects. American Journal of International Law, 106(2), 322-340.
Moulin, T. (2023). Opinio juris. In Cyber-espionage in international law (pp. 269-281). Manchester University Press.
Murphy, S. D. (2015). Identification of customary international law and other topics: The sixty-seventh session of the International Law Commission. American Journal of International Law, 109(4), 822-844.
Murphy, S. D. (2019). Anniversary Commemoration and Work of the International Law Commission’s Seventieth Session. American Journal of International Law, 113(1), 90-108.
Murphy, S. D. (2020). Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens) and other Topics: The seventy-first session of the international law commission. American Journal of International Law, 114(1), 68-86.
Negishi, Y. (2017). Opinio Juris as (the Ultimate) International Secondary Rule of Recognition: Reconciling State Consent and Public Conscience. European Society of International Law (ESIL) 2016 Research Forum (Istanbul),
Nolte, G. (2019). 2018 aiib Law Lecture: International Organizations in the Recent Work of the International Law Commission. In International Organizations and the Promotion of Effective Dispute Resolution (pp. 225-242). Brill Nijhoff.
Onate-Madrazo, A. (2022). The World Court and the Iran-Contra Scandal: Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice, Public Opinion, and the Origins of Iran-Contra. Histories, 2(4), 504-515.
Palmeter, D., Mavroidis, P. C., & Meagher, N. (2022). Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press.
Pershing, A. D. (2019). Interpreting the outer space treaty’s non-appropriation principle: Customary international law from 1967 to today. Yale J. Int’l L., 44, 149.
Ramcharan, B. G. (1977). The International Law Commission: Its Approach to the Codification and Progressive Development of Interenational Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Roberts, A. E. (2001). Traditional and modern approaches to customary international law: a reconciliation. American Journal of International Law, 95(4), 757-791.
Rosenberg, J. (1994). The empire of civil society: a critique of the realist theory of international relations. Verso.
Rowhani, M. (2022). Rights-Based Boundaries of Unilateral Sanctions. Wash. Int’l LJ, 32, 127.
Rrecaj, B. T. (2020). Legal Consequences of The Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019, General List No. 169). Utrecht J. Int’l & Eur. L., 35, 50.
Scharf, M. P. (2013). Customary international law in times of fundamental change: recognizing Grotian moments. Cambridge University Press.
Scott, G. L., & Carr, C. L. (1996). Multilateral Treaties and the Formation of Customary International Law. Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y, 25, 71.
Sender, O., & Wood, M. (2017). A mystery no longer? Opinio Juris and other theoretical controversies associated with customary international law. Israel Law Review, 50(3), 299-330.
Silva, L. M. d., Bitencourt, C. C., Faccin, K., & Iakovleva, T. (2019). The role of stakeholders in the context of responsible innovation: A meta-synthesis. Sustainability, 11(6), 1766.
Simpson, A. (2021). Coups, conflicts, and COVID-19 in Myanmar: Humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect in intractable crises. Brown J. World Aff., 28, 201.
Slagter, T. H., & Van Doorn, J. D. (2022). Fundamental perspectives on international law. Cambridge University Press.
Sybesma-Knol, N. (1985). The New Law of Treaties: The Codification of the Law of Treaties Concluded Between States and International Organizations or Between Two or More International Organizations. Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L., 15, 425.
Tladi, D. (2021). Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens): Disquisitions and Disputations (Vol. 75). Brill.
Tomka, P. (2019). Judge Geza Herczegh-The First Hungarian at the International Court of Justice. Hungarian YB Int’l L. & Eur. L., 141.
Tomuschat, C. (2006). The International Law Commission-An Outdated Institution. German YB Int’l L., 49, 77.
Van Den Herik, L. (2015). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia)(ICJ). International Legal Materials, 54(5), 787-889.
Villiger, M. E. (1997). Customary international law and treaties: a manual on the theory and practice of the interrelation of sources (Vol. 28). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Voulgaris, N. (2022). The International Law Commission and Politics: Taking the Science Out of International Law’s Progressive Development. European Journal of International Law, 33(3), 761-788.
Wan, M. (2022). International Humanitarian Law and the US-China Rivalry: National Interests and Human Rights Linkage. Asian Perspective, 46(4), 605-625.
Watson, A. (1984). An approach to customary law. U. Ill. L. Rev., 561.
Watts, A. (1999). The International Law Commission 1949-1998: Volume Three: Final Draft Articles of the Material (Vol. 3). Clarendon Press.
Weisburd, A. M. (2005). Consistency, universality, and the customary law of interstate force. In Customary International Law on the use of force (pp. 31-77). Brill Nijhoff.
Weiss, T. G. (2016). Humanitarian intervention. John Wiley & Sons.
Wood, M. (2019). Customary International Law and the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations. International Community Law Review, 21(3-4), 307-324.
Wood, M., & Sthoeger, E. (2022). The UN Security Council and International Law. Cambridge University Press.
Wood, S. M. (2015). International Organizations and Customary International Law. Vanderbilt journal of transnational law, 48(3), 609.
Yejoon, R. (2020). Reflections on the role of the international law commission in consideration of the final form of its work. Asian Journal of International Law, 10(1), 23-37.
Zarneshan, S., & Rastgoo Afkham, A. (2020). Modern Considerations in the Identification of Customary International Law: Reflections on the ILC’Reports (2013-2018) & Some International Judicial Decisions. Iranian Review for UN Studies, 3(1), 83-109.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Zeyad Jaffal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
