Legally binding unilateral declarations of States: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
(adding a separator) |
(→Definition: activated icon) |
||
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> |
||
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. |
Latest revision as of 15:48, 15 October 2022
Definition[edit | edit source]
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:
|
Appendixes[edit | edit source]
See also[edit | edit source]
Notes and references[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [46]; Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v France) (n 43) [49].
- ↑ K Ziolkowski, ‘Confidence Building Measures for Cyberspace – Legal Implications’ (2013) 23–24 .
- ↑ PC Anderson, ‘Cyber Attack Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’ (2017) 102(4) Cornell Law Review 1087, 1109 .
- ↑ See for an overview of available position papers the section National positions .
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [43]; VR Cedeño and MIT Cazorla, ‘Unilateral Acts of States in International Law’ in A Peters (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law (OUP) para 19.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 5.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 6.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [43].
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 3.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 4.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 4.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 7; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [43, 51]; Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v France) (n 43) [46, 53]; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 168, [50, 52].
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 7.
- ↑ ILC Guiding Principles principle 7; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [44, 47]; Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (United Kingdom v Iran) (Preliminary Objection) [1952] ICJ Rep 93, [106–108].