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. Search

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
×

21 results

Page 1 of 2

  • Why I Stopped Believing in Customary International Law

  • Daniel H. JOYNER
  • Journal:
    Asian Journal of International Law / Volume 9 / Issue 1 / January 2019
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    31 October 2018, pp. 31-45
    Print publication:
    January 2019
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • There has been a recent proliferation of scholarship on the development, identification, and determination of customary international law [CIL]. Much of this has focused on explication of the theoretical and practical problems inherent in the modern use of CIL as a source of international law. However, there are influential voices who argue that CIL nevertheless continues to play a necessary role in the international legal system, and that many of the problems that have been identified are exaggerated. This paper maintains that the problems which have been identified in the processes of identification and determination of CIL are of such a serious and institutionalized nature as to produce a presumptive distrust of any statement about what is or is not CIL. It argues that the process of identifying and authoritatively determining CIL must evolve to more objectively evidence the positive assent of states to the making of customary rules.

Non-Proliferation Law as a Special Regime
  • A Contribution to Fragmentation Theory in International Law
  • Edited by Daniel H. Joyner, Marco Roscini
  • Published online:
    05 October 2012
    Print publication:
    20 September 2012
  • The fragmentation of international law is an undeniable phenomenon and one that has met with increasing academic interest. This fragmentation is the result of the progressive expansion of both international legal activity and the subject-matter of international law. This expansion brings with it the risk of conflicting rules, principles and institutions. Non-Proliferation Law as a Special Regime focuses on weapons of mass destruction and aims to identify whether there are specific rules applying to this field that depart from the general rules of international law and the rules of other special regimes, in particular with regard to the law of treaties and the law of state responsibility. In providing a systematic analysis of a substantive area of international law and applying the theory of fragmentation and special regimes, the book contributes to the ongoing debate concerning one of the most topical issues in international law.

  • I. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

  • Daniel H Joyner
  • Journal:
    International & Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 60 / Issue 1 / January 2011
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 January 2011, pp. 209-224
    Print publication:
    January 2011

  • This article examines a number of major developments in international law and State policy regarding nuclear weapons which have occurred over the past two years.

    However, in order to understand the context and significance of these developments, I must first very briefly address what has gone on previously in this area of international relations.

    I have argued elsewhere that over the course of the decade ending in 2008 the original balance of principles underlying the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which comprises the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation legal regime, has been distorted, particularly by nuclear-weapon-possessing governments, led by the United States, in favor of a disproportionate prioritization of non-proliferation principles, and an unwarranted under-prioritization of peaceful use and disarmament principles.1 I also argue that this distortion of principled balance by nuclear weapon states has resulted in a number of erroneous legal interpretations of the NPT's provisions.

Page 1 of 2