Ulf Linderfalk (Lund University Faculty of Law) has posted One for all: The admissibility of claims of breaches of obligations erga omnes (partes) and the further implications of the new ICJ practice on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The introduction of the concept of obligations erga omnes (partes) have prompted international lawyers and scholars to rethink many orthodox positions of international law. This background must be born in mind when considering the further implications of a series of recent decision taken by the International Court of Justice. While, previously, the Court was always reluctant to take a clear stance on this matter, it now recognizes the admissibility of claims of violation of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. This new admissibility standard brings the practice of the Court into harmony with state responsibility law, which provides for the right of single states to invoke the responsibility of other states in the case of an alleged breach of obligations erga omnes or erga omnes partes. Bringing claims before the ICJ is as much to invoke the responsibility of a state as communicating them in a bilateral context, outside of court proceedings. As this chapter argues, the new standard can also be used to strengthen the case in favour of a right of collective countermeasures. The gist of the argument is that countermeasures is as much a mechanism for the enforcement of international obligations as the initiation of ICJ proceedings. The right to take countermeasures should then not be less restrictive than the right to bring claims before the ICJ.
Recommended!
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum