Legally binding unilateral declarations of States: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
(Created page with "== Definition == <references /><section begin=Definition /> {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="background-color:#ffffcc;" |- ! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| Legally binding unilateral declarations of States |- |alt=|left|frameless|200x200pxUnder certain circumstances, a unilateral declaration of a State may give rise to legally binding obligations onto the declaring State.<ref> U...") |
m (hiding the icon link) |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Legally binding unilateral declarations of States]] |
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| [[Legally binding unilateral declarations of States]] |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|[[File:Legally binding unilateral declarations of States.svg|alt=|left|frameless|200x200px]]Under certain circumstances, a unilateral declaration of a State may give rise to legally binding obligations onto the declaring State.<ref> UN International Law Commission, Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with Commentaries thereto (adopted at its Fifty-eighth session, in 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A2006/Add.1 (Part 2) (ILC Guiding Principles), principle 2; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v. France) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, [43]. Examples are the public statements of the French President and Foreign and Defence Ministers to cease nuclear tests in the South Pacific, see Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v. France) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, [43–50]; Egypt’s 1957 Declaration on the Suez Canal; Jordan’s 1988 waiver of claims to the West Bank; U.S. representations before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the 1974 Trade Act case; and (at least potentially) US and Soviet 1977 declarations in relation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; and Cuba’s 2002 declarations about the supply of vaccines to Uruguay.</ref> The binding character of such a declaration is based on the principle of good faith.<ref>ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [46]; Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v France) (n 43) [49].</ref> |
|<!--[[File:Legally binding unilateral declarations of States.svg|alt=|left|frameless|200x200px]]-->Under certain circumstances, a unilateral declaration of a State may give rise to legally binding obligations onto the declaring State.<ref> UN International Law Commission, Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with Commentaries thereto (adopted at its Fifty-eighth session, in 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A2006/Add.1 (Part 2) (ILC Guiding Principles), principle 2; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v. France) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, [43]. Examples are the public statements of the French President and Foreign and Defence Ministers to cease nuclear tests in the South Pacific, see Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v. France) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, [43–50]; Egypt’s 1957 Declaration on the Suez Canal; Jordan’s 1988 waiver of claims to the West Bank; U.S. representations before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the 1974 Trade Act case; and (at least potentially) US and Soviet 1977 declarations in relation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; and Cuba’s 2002 declarations about the supply of vaccines to Uruguay.</ref> The binding character of such a declaration is based on the principle of good faith.<ref>ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [46]; Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v France) (n 43) [49].</ref> |
||
States regularly resort to unilateral declarations in the cyber context, including declarations on the possible content of confidence-building measures for cyber space,<ref>K Ziolkowski, [https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/CBMs.pdf ‘Confidence Building Measures for Cyberspace – Legal Implications’] (2013) 23–24 .</ref> declarations of disapproval regarding specific cyber behaviour by other States,<ref>PC Anderson, [https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4729&context=clr ‘Cyber Attack Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’] (2017) 102(4) Cornell Law Review 1087, 1109 .</ref> declarations regarding the attribution of specific cyber attacks, and national position papers on cyber space. <ref>See for an overview of available position papers the section [[Attribution| National positions]] .</ref> It is, however, doubtful that these declarations fulfil the criteria for binding unilateral declarations. |
States regularly resort to unilateral declarations in the cyber context, including declarations on the possible content of confidence-building measures for cyber space,<ref>K Ziolkowski, [https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/CBMs.pdf ‘Confidence Building Measures for Cyberspace – Legal Implications’] (2013) 23–24 .</ref> declarations of disapproval regarding specific cyber behaviour by other States,<ref>PC Anderson, [https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4729&context=clr ‘Cyber Attack Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’] (2017) 102(4) Cornell Law Review 1087, 1109 .</ref> declarations regarding the attribution of specific cyber attacks, and national position papers on cyber space. <ref>See for an overview of available position papers the section [[Attribution| National positions]] .</ref> It is, however, doubtful that these declarations fulfil the criteria for binding unilateral declarations. |
Revision as of 10:45, 23 August 2022
Definition
Legally binding unilateral declarations of States |
---|
Under certain circumstances, a unilateral declaration of a State may give rise to legally binding obligations onto the declaring State.[1] The binding character of such a declaration is based on the principle of good faith.[2]
States regularly resort to unilateral declarations in the cyber context, including declarations on the possible content of confidence-building measures for cyber space,[3] declarations of disapproval regarding specific cyber behaviour by other States,[4] declarations regarding the attribution of specific cyber attacks, and national position papers on cyber space. [5] It is, however, doubtful that these declarations fulfil the criteria for binding unilateral declarations. For a unilateral declaration to be legally binding, the following criteria must be met:
AppendixesSee alsoNotes and references
Bibliography and further reading |