The Need to Amend Article 12 of the ICC Statute: Remedying the Effects of Multilateral Treaties upon Third Parties

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-497
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Peacekeeping Missions ◽  
Multilateral Treaties

The rule in the ICC Statute whereby a third party national may be validly surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court by a member state offends a most fundamental rule of international law, which is moreover of a customary nature. In addition, it causes more conflicts as compared to its purported benefits, given that it constitutes a major stumbling block for the United States and has upset the U.N.'s peacekeeping missions. The rule should therefore be abandoned in order to alleviate these concerns.

scholarly journals Custom and Treaties as Interchangeable Instruments of National Policy

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 41-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart M. J. Szewczyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Rules And Standards ◽  
Multilateral Treaties

As treaties decline, customary international law can be an important mechanism of international cooperation over the medium term. There are increasingly fewer treaties ratified by the United States, with a record-low number of five in 2009–2012, and fewer multilateral treaties adopted worldwide. Yet, the demand for global rules and standards has not abated. Thus, for many international questions where treaties are not available as a source of new rules, customary international law may serve as an interchangeable instrument of national policy.

scholarly journals Frontiers of International Law: Counteracting the Exercise of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Lefeber
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

On 22 November 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted a framework regulation and agreed to joint action to ‘protect’ the interests of the European Union and its citizens against the extraterritorial application of legislation by non-member states. These measures were adopted in response to the extraterritorial application of certain measures by the United States, concerning trade with and investment in Cuba, as well as investment in Iran and Libya. These United States measures apply to all natural and legal persons irrespective of their nationality, residency, or place of activity. Thus, even nationals of a member state of the European Union residing and active in the European Union must comply with the United States measures. The enactment of this legislation marks a new episode in the on-going battle between the United States and the European Union over the frontiers of a state's (or an international organization's) jurisdiction to prescribe. This time, however, the European Union counteracted by the adoption of measures which can partly be characterized as retorsion measures and partly as countermeasures. The adoption of these measures by the European Union raises questions with respect to the legitimacy of the retorsion measures and the legality of the countermeasures.

Brokered Bargaining

2018 ◽  
pp. 198-214
Author(s):  
Moeed Yusuf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Sociological Literature ◽  
Practical Implications

This chapter reflects on the theoretical and practical implications of the book. It highlights the work’s contribution to the otherwise undertheorized role of third parties in preventing war, its fresh perspectives on the optimism-pessimism debate on nuclear deterrence, and its attention to scholarship on nonnuclear subjects, primarily mediation, unipolarity theory, and sociological literature on “evaluation” by external audiences. The discussion highlights policy recommendations for decision makers in the United States, other third-party states, India, Pakistan, and other potential regional nuclear rivals. It stresses the need for a holistic U.S. policy approach to crises between regional nuclear powers.

The End of Empire and the Search for Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Linarelli ◽  
Margot E Salomon ◽  
Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Economic ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Order ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Neoliberal Ideology ◽  
First Time

This chapter is a study of the themes of the New International Economic Order (NIEO). It begins with the notion of justice that had been constructed in imperial law to justify empire and colonialism. The NIEO was the first time a prescription was made for justice in a global context not based on domination of one people over another. In its consideration of the emergence of a new notion of justice in international law, the chapter discusses the reasons for the origins of the NIEO, and goes on to describe the principles of the NIEO and the extent to which they came into conflict with dominant international law as accepted by the United States and European states. Next the chapter deals with the rise of the neoliberal ideology that led to the displacement of the NIEO and examines the issue of whether the NIEO and its ideals have passed or whether they continue to be or should be influential in international law. Finally, the chapter turns to the ideas of the NIEO alongside new efforts at promoting a fuller account of justice by which to justify and evaluate international law.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document