Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Law
  4. Public International Law
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

24650 results in Public International Law

Page 421 of 1233

  • 3 - Inquiry and Conciliation

  • from PART I - FOUNDATION OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
  • Yoshifumi Tanaka, University of Copenhagen
  • Book:
    The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes
    Published online:
    21 June 2018
    Print publication:
    11 January 2018, pp 52-72

  • Summary

    Main Issues

    Both inquiry and conciliation constitute a diplomatic means of international dispute settlement. Inquiry aims to elucidate the issues of facts underlying an international dispute by an inquiry commission, while conciliation seeks to investigate matters of fact and relevant issues and present specific solutions to the dispute by a conciliation commission. Inquiry and conciliation are carried out by impartial and independent individuals. The outcome is not binding upon the parties in dispute. This chapter will review procedures of inquiry and conciliation focusing particularly on the following issues:

  • (i) What are the principal features of inquiry and conciliation?

  • (ii) What is the role of inquiry in peaceful settlement of international disputes and what are its limitations?

  • (iii) What are the functions of conciliation in peaceful settlement of international disputes?

  • (iv) While conciliation procedures have been enshrined in many treaties, the actual use of conciliation is very limited. Why is the practice of conciliation so limited?

    • INTRODUCTION

    International disputes often arise from disagreements with regard to some issues of fact. Where the root causes of an international dispute rest on disagreements concerning a matter of fact, an objective assessment of points of fact by a third party can significantly contribute to reducing the risks of stalemate or the escalation of the dispute. The arrangement for fact-finding is called ‘inquiry’ or ‘fact-finding’. Inquiry can be defined as a specific institutional arrangement to elucidate the issues of fact underlying international disputes by an independent and impartial commission. Like other diplomatic means of international dispute settlement, the outcome of inquiry is not binding upon the parties in dispute.

    According to the Regulations on the Procedure of International Conciliation, adopted by the Institute de droit international in 1961, conciliation is defined as:

    A method for the settlement of international disputes of any nature according to which a Commission set up by the Parties, either on a permanent or an ad hoc basis to deal with a dispute proceeds to the impartial examination of the dispute and attempts to define the terms of a settlement susceptible of being accepted by them, or of affording the Parties with a view to its settlement, such aid as they may have requested.

  • Preface

  • Yoshifumi Tanaka, University of Copenhagen
  • Book:
    The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes
    Published online:
    21 June 2018
    Print publication:
    11 January 2018, pp xv-xvi

  • Summary

    Our time is characterised by various international disputes. Without the establishment of effective mechanisms for peacefully settling these disputes, it would be difficult to achieve sustainable peace in the international community. Hence peaceful settlement of international disputes should be a crucial subject in international relations.

    The peaceful settlement of international disputes is interdisciplinary by nature and it can be approached from multiple disciplines. International law is one of the disciplines that provide an important insight into this subject. Indeed, the peaceful settlement of international disputes is one of the essential functions of international law. This book seeks to provide readers with a systematic overview of multiple means of international dispute settlement in international law. In so doing, this book attempts to consider the question regarding whether and to what extent international law can contribute to peacefully settling international disputes and achieving sustainable peace. In this regard, it must be stressed that development of procedures for the peaceful settlement of international disputes is a prerequisite to the achievement of sustainable peace in the international community.

    This book is divided into two parts. Part I, which consists of Chapters 1 to 7, examines traditional means of the settlement of inter-State disputes. This Part examines both diplomatic and legal means of international dispute settlement: negotiation, good office, mediation, inquiry, conciliation, dispute settlement through the United Nations, inter- State arbitration and the International Court of Justice.

    Part II, which consists of Chapters 8 to 12, deals with international dispute settlement systems in particular fields. This part addresses the dispute settlement system under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the WTO dispute settlement system, the peaceful settlement of international environmental disputes and disputes involving non-State actors. Finally, the role of the peaceful settlement of international disputes is examined in a broad context focusing on the interaction between international dispute settlement, the principle of the non-use of force secured by the collective security system, and disarmament.

  • 4 - International Dispute Settlement through the United Nations

  • from PART I - FOUNDATION OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
  • Yoshifumi Tanaka, University of Copenhagen
  • Book:
    The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes
    Published online:
    21 June 2018
    Print publication:
    11 January 2018, pp 73-104

  • Summary

    Main Issues

    The role of international institutions is increasingly important in various fields of international relations and this is equally true in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. In particular, the role of the United Nations is crucial owing to its universal membership and its political authority. Here consideration must be given to the role of the Security Council, General Assembly and the Secretary-General in international dispute settlement. The interrelationship between the United Nations and regional international institutions also merits discussion. This chapter will seek to examine the principal issues of international dispute settlement through the United Nations, focusing particularly on the following issues:

  • (i) What is the procedure for international dispute settlement in the UN Security Council?

  • (ii) What are the role of and limitation with the UN Security Council in peaceful settlement of international disputes?

  • (iii) What is the role of the UN General Assembly in international dispute settlement?

  • (iv) What are the conditions for enhancing the role of the UN Secretary-General in international dispute settlement?

  • (v) What is the interrelationship between the United Nations and regional international institutions?

    • INTRODUCTION

    The United Nations is a global international organisation established in 1945. It is characterised by three principal features: universal membership, independence and permanent nature. As a universal institution, the United Nations can provide a global forum for discussing the settlement of specific disputes. As an independent organisation, the United Nations can address international disputes as a third party. As a permanent international institution, the United Nations can continuously and consistently address international disputes. Since the United Nations is a political institution, however, its politics – in particular, politics of the permanent members of the Security Council – inevitably affect the commitments of the Organisation in international dispute settlement.

    This chapter examines the role of the three organs of the United Nations in peaceful settlement of international disputes: the Security Council (section 2), the General Assembly (section 3) and the UN Secretary-General (section 4). This chapter also discusses the relationship between the United Nations and regional organisations in section 5. Finally conclusions are presented in section 6.

Justification and Excuse in International Law
  • Concept and Theory of General Defences
  • Federica Paddeu
  • Published online:
    09 January 2018
    Print publication:
    11 January 2018
  • The defences available to an agent accused of wrongdoing can be considered as justifications (which render acts lawful) or excuses (which shield the agent from the legal consequences of the wrongful act). This distinction is familiar to many domestic legal systems, and tracks analogous notions in moral philosophy and ordinary language. Nevertheless, it remains contested in some domestic jurisdictions where it is often argued that the distinction is purely theoretical and has no consequences in practice. In international law too the distinction has been fraught with controversy, though there are increasing calls for its recognition. This book is the first to comprehensively and thoroughly examine the distinction and its relevance to the international legal order. Combining an analysis of state practice, and historical, doctrinal and theoretical developments, the book shows that the distinction is not only possible in international law but that it is also one that would have important practical implications.

  • 6 - A ppropriating Tet

  • from PART II - WAR AND WAR CRIMES
  • Edited by Stefan Andersson, Lunds Universitet, Sweden
  • Book:
    Revisiting the Vietnam War and International Law
    Published online:
    28 December 2017
    Print publication:
    28 December 2017, pp 179-206

  • Summary

    I guess information ricochet is getting more rapid.

    Tom Wolfe

    In Vietnam there was a war inside a country in which one side, not the other, was entirely paid, recruited, etc.

    Daniel Ellsberg

    The Tet Offensive more than twenty years ago was, most agree, a decisive moment in the American involvement in the Vietnam War. But the interpretation of that decisiveness remains murky, obscure, contested. In this essay, my attempt is to explore Tet as a symbolic event, to describe varying interpretations of its military and political impact upon the Vietnam War, and to suggest its legacy for United States Government policy and practice with regard to armed intervention in the Third World.

    POINTS OF DEPARTURE

    No one has yet addressed the life history of international symbolic events that resonate in the public mind: Munich, Pearl Harbor, Yalta, Auschwitz, Hiroshima. Each name conjures up its own images. The appropriation of the name to impart a particular lesson of history can sometimes shape, even deform, public debate, as well as help establish the societal boundaries of acceptable belief. Relying on symbolic utterance to form policy in place of argument and analysis is a way of closing off the mind to the complexity of reality, including the exclusion of possibly more constructive alternative courses of action.

    The Tet Offensive – or simply Tet – is one such symbolic and paradoxical event. But, unlike most of the others, its meaning remains as obscure and controverted as the war of which it was a part. Revealingly, Norman Podhoretz and Noam Chomsky, in the course of comments on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the fall of Saigon, invoked Tet for their own contradictory reconstructions of what the Vietnam War signified. For Podhoretz, Tet was the moment when the public, Congress, and the media gave up on the war (“Only after the 1968 Tet offensive did that support begin to ebb as people felt the war was being lost, or simply not winnable”). For Chomsky, Tet is invoked not for the event itself, but as a disclosure of American reliance on unrestrained violence in the aftermath of the surprise attack upon US positions (“After the murderous post-Tet pacification campaigns and other atrocities in Laos and Cambodia”). And so it goes, to recall Vonnegut's world-weary refrain in Slaughterhouse Five.

Page 421 of 1233