Talk:Public international law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Law.
This article is part of the International law WikiProject, which aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of international law. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Law
 Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since August 2006.

Contents

[edit] Old discussion

The information has been very useful for me indeed. Thank you very much.


Weak on international criminal law. Expand. Mention ICC, Nuremburg, &c., &c.? --Daniel C. Boyer

Someone's uploaded a lot of historical information at International Law -- needs integrating in here and other relevant places. -- Sam

(Jerzy(t) notes: edits of 09:36, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam)

From Talk:International Law (Jerzy(t) notes: the two following two 'graphs came to this page in edit of 22:21, 2003 Sep 17 . . Ap (merging with Talk:International law) ):

This needs to be integrated into international law, and perhaps other places. Also, where's it from? -- Sam

I AM THE ONE WHO WROTE THIS MATERIAL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE RETURNED TO THIS SITE IN OVER A YEAR. THE MATERIAL IS MY OWN, BUT BASED ON LECTURES. IF IT IS THE STYLE THAT IS UNWANTED, THEN DELETE THEM, BUT IF IT IS ONLY FEAR OVER INFRINGEMENTE, THEN DO NOT WORRY, KEEP THEM. User:12.223.87.232

per history of Talk:International Law (now a redirect),

the first of the two 'graphs above is from the edit there of 09:37, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam and
the second is from the edit there whose history entry is "13:20, 2003 Sep 12 . . MyRedDice (from VfD/copyvio)"

--Jerzy(t) 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

I only scanned, but i know at least that the string "forbear..." is missing from the article; IIRC, an important aspect of IL is that its force over states does not arise from sovereignty over them (as sovereignty rests only in the various states) but in large part from the precedents implicitly set by the practices and "forbearances" of states. This may be important to bring in.

(Logically -- which may of course be irrelevant -- this extends even to treaty obligations: who gets to says that treaties are binding, rather than being merely rhetorical devices that sovereigns and sovereign states use to reassure 3rd parties about the immediate future? They can do that; they are sovereign, after all! Oops, is that original research?) --Jerzy(t) 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, but the article is a) poorly structured, in that it leaps from the general (basis for international law) to the specific (grievances brought to the General Assembly, which has no authority to deal with international law); commingling great specificity in history with generalities elsewhere; etc. Somebody needs to rewrite the article to show the background for, structure of, practical workings of, and issues related to international law. --Leifern 02:56, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as they are not correct. You confuse "non-binding" with "irrelevant" with regards to GA resolutions, highly relevant to this specific issue is the "Uniting for Peace"-resolutions. While the legal value of GA resolutions might be contested, saying they are irrelevant is wrong, especially when there are no consensus on such a matter. Im not sure if this link will work for you, but it is from an article commenting the Uniting for Peace resolution [1]
That argument illustrates perfectly my point: GA resolutions are absolutely irrelevant legally; the are highly relevant politically, but that is precisely the thing - the need to differentiate between politics and law - something you obviously are incapable of doing. --Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
As for Chapter VI resolutions, this is also a contentious issue. I did check this up; it is not an established fact that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding.
Well, all you have to do is read the UN Charter. It's not that hard and not the least bit contentious. --Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
Your edits on the ICJ and advisory opinions are also wrong; its right to give advisory opinions is not controversial; arguments against specific cases should be kept outside this article. --Cybbe 19:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
The relevant statute gives the court the right to issue an advisory opinion on any matter referred to it by a party that is authorized to do so. But the court itself has refused to hear cases under certain circumstances; and it's by no means clear what the purpose of such opinions should be, unless it is to provide guidance for decisions reached by the referring party. I'm assuming that you're referring to the referral by the GA to the ICJ on "legal consequences of contstruction of the wall [sic] in the occupied [sic] Palestinian [sic] territories," though I didn't. The EU, US, and other states issued briefs to the court questioning its jurisdiction. If that doesn't question the premise of "any legal question," I don't know what does. --Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Leifern's edits are all correct. I'm restoring his version. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
All his edits are original research without a single reference given. He clearly has no idea what international law is about when he claims that GA resolutions are _irrelevant_. That is his opinion, not what international law is.. They are not binding, thats another issue. Im reverting back, and will continue to do so untill any proof of his claims are given (none so far). I could agree to a rephrasing where SC decisions outside of Chapter VII are also included as binding. On the ICJ issue, you are using _one_ case to question the entire basis for the Courts right to take on advisory opinions, but generalising out of one example is wrong. Read some ICJ-cases, the parties nearly always contend that the Court doesnt have jurisdiction for different reasons. Of course I knew which case you had in mind, but thats irrelevant, you're still using arguments against one single case to question the entire basis of advisory opinions. Article 65(1) is quite clear on this issue. Here are a few sources on GA resolutions and SC resolutions outside of Chapter VII.
"Second, in relation to the rules of international law which govern the conduct of Member States outside the United Nations, it has been pointed out that decisions of the General Assembly which settle legal disputes have legal significance independent of any formal lawmaking power given by the Charter." (The Legal Significance of Re-Citation of General Assembly Resolutions, Samuel A. Bleicher The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul., 1969), pp. 444-478.)
On decisions outside chapter VII:
" Although I maintain that the Council can make binding decisions outside Chapter VII, this essay does not enter the debate over the precise legal effect of various Security Council actions.3 " (Image and Reality in the UN’s Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Steven R. Ratner)
" UN practice has shown that the Security Council can adopt binding decisions outside Chapter VII, and which are not Chapter VI (non/binding) resolutions. " (Vera Gowlland-Debbas Professor of Public International Law) --Cybbe 11:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Cybbe, aside from the ad hominem attacks, I have to thank you for doing the research for me. The quotes you mention make a disputable argument - for example, Gowlland-Debbas's quote pretty much confirms what I said, though you don't include what non-Chapter VI and VII basis they have for establishing international law. Ratner (in this article) begs off on the issue. If you had used this in a paper written for a college class, you would have flunked.
You will not that my wording in this article about the ICJ does not examine what the various grounds are for disputing the validity of ICJ advisory opinions; merely that it's "controversial." In fact, the ICJ bases its entire existence on voluntary, binding arbitration; it is not the "judicial" arm of the UN, as some moron has written somewhere (the UN is not a government and doesn't have checks, balances, etc.)
The most egregious misunderstanding about international law is that it can a) be determined by professors, scholars, etc., and b) that it somehow supersedes national sovereignty. The UN charter and every other treaty, etc., starts with the premise that national sovereignty trumps anything else, and the law of treaties that you think is the magna carta of international law starts with the basis that all treaties are entered into voluntarily.
We can either keep reverting edits or try to improve upon what is written. Every time you revert to the parisology that preceded my edits, I will simply revert back. Feel free to make the statements more precise, but the previous version simply obfuscated the matter of international law, which I think is your purpose. --Leifern 12:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
As you should have seen, i contested the Chapter VI passage on the grounds that not only Chapter VII resolutions are binding, this is in conformity with my sources, I stated this explictly earlier. I did a few changes, and before you revert them, examine them and try to find a compromise. I wont accept a sgolution where GA resolutions are "irrelevant", they are not binding which i have made clear in this version, but claiming they are irrelevant is wrong. I have also never stated that professors "create" international law, but legal scholars are the best sources we have for _interpretation_ of treaties and soruces of international law. On advisory opinions, I've changed it so it doenst create confusion about the right of the Court to give these opinions. My purpose is not to obfuscate, but where there are different interpretation, I dont think we should choose one of them and discard the other(s). International law is not that clear cut, and your view on it is not the only one existing. --Cybbe 13:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad that, as seems to be your practice, when pushed you grudgingly admit International law is not as clear-cut as you initially pretend it to be. Why not start from that premise in the future? Oh, and here's an idea Cybbe; why not use the Talk: page to propose new wordings, rather than arguing the case? Jayjg (talk) 15:40, 28 Mar ,2005 (UTC)
Why don't you argue against the arguments put forward, and why dont you use the same norms on Leiferns edits? If you'd like everything to be bashed out in talk, you should've reverted back to the first version, not Leiferns. I've given sources for my edits, that's a lot more than you or Leifern have. If there is anyone here with Originial Research, there has to be the two of you, as you fail to bring any sources whenever asked for. All my edits are based on sources given here, all your edits are based on nothing but you own thoughts (or so it seems). So please, use argument and show where they're from, and use to same norm of labeling something original research on arguments you happen to like. The double standard is obvious. On the GA resolutions, Ive made clear that the legal significance is unclear, although saying its irrelevant is going too far. On SC decisions outside chapter VII I've given sources for this. And its funny to see you find a direct cite of the ICJ-statutes original research. Where are your sources Jayjg? --Cybbe 16:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Cleanup

I am interested in cleaning up this article signficantly.

Particularly on issues that are relatively uncontroversial such as the Sources of International Law - specifically jus cogens, treaties, customary law, state practice, etc... and propose to detail the signficance of each in detailed fashion under bullets.

This would probably involve the deletion of the existing structure and I was wondering if that is acceptable under existing Wikipedia norms?

What is often done in these cases if you believe the changes might be seen as controversial, or if they will leave the page in a messed up state for some while, is to create a subpage of the article (e.g. International law/New version), do the work there, get input and agreement on putting it in place of this article, and then make the move. Jayjg (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
O.K., I see you started editing in the middle of the existing article. Wikipedia is, ideally, an encyclopedia, so it's probably best not to have work-in-progress drafts in the middle of articles. I've moved everything to International law/New version, where you can work on it until it's in encyclopedic form. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I see what's going on now. International law/New version redirects to Sources of international law. There may be better ways to do a re-write. I'm going to nominate this article at WP:1.0 and try to enlist some help and try to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject International law or something. CQ 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Just a note to say that I moved this page (from International law to Public international law) to avoid confusion with Private international law. I realise that it has created quite a few 'double redirects' however I intend to fix these tonight using AWB. Cynical 12:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the hyperlink on "law of nations", which brings one to a Law of Nation page which just redirects back to this article. This is pointless because "law of nations" is another name for this article, therefore it is unnecessary. Lucky 23 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branches of international law

What are the sources of the "Branches of international law" section? I added Laws of war to the "See also" section. I had a look at WikiProject International law but I don't see much recent activity (since May). Is anyone watching this article? What has been decided about the moves mentioned above? My focus is on the International community article, which depends heavily on this one. • CQ 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC) • WP:CBTF


Why can't the guy who wrote this start off simple. All you have to say that THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (TRADE AND COMMERCE, TREATY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CRIMINAL). IS IT THAT HARD?

The comment immediately above is misconceived. How can "TREATY" be a seperate branch or type of international law when the other three branches/types all have treaty law as one of their main sources? Equally there is also a lot of overlap between criminal and human rights in the form of international humanitarian law.--Lucifer(sc) 11:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westphalian sovereignty and Contingent sovereignty needs attention

  • These articles were apparently created as part of a cover history for User:Liliana Dioguardi, who has been suspected to be in the employ of a Kremlin propaganda effort - specifically in her creation and maintenance of the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty article in support of the public legitimacy of that organization. The prominent international news and business magazine The Economist magazine has reported that this organization is likely a front for a Kremlin-sponsored disinformation effort, and has specifically identified the ICDISS article and User:Liliana Dioguardi as part of this effort. See these articles[2][3] and the ICDISS article talk page[4].
  • While these articles seem to be legitimate subjects, Dioguardi is responsible for all, or almost all their content - this makes these articles suspect for NPOV reasons.. I urge Wikipedians with a political theory/history/international relations/international law background to help build these articles beyond their sad "cover story" beginnings. Bwithh 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melian Dialogue

Why isn't the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides mentioned in this article? It is one of the earliest conecepts of the international law arguement and one of the most important. Also this article seems to take the position that international law exists when an arguement can be made that it doesn't. --Firebird 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Melian Dialogue: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue


I agree. One of the dominant strains of international political theory (realism) poses that international law is mere "superstructure" and largely irrelevant to how states interact. In addition, the sections on enforcement need serious work. They do not even mention that, in an anarchic legal environment (i.e., one with no overarching sovereign), enforcement by its very nature is self-help. Epstein's Mother 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law of nations

Cleanup required: International law versus the above!!!

Also: We can disregard the PRIVATE part - if we use as Article title Law of nations!!!

Yours truly,

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Higgins quote

I suggest deleting the following quote from the introduction:

According to the President of the International Court of Justice, Rosalyn Higgins, public international law is a normative system "harnessed to the achievement of common values —values that speak to us all, whether we are rich or poor, black or white, of any religion or none, or come from countries that are industrialized or developing".[1]

First, it's POV. Arguably, public international law is not normative at all, but contractual ("you do X, and I will do Y"). Second, it's meaningless. I mean that seriously. Parse the sentence, and it doesn't make any sense. What is a normative system harnessed to the achievement of common values? How can a normative system be harnessed? If you have common values, why would you need a normative system? It's just post-modern jargon without any substance. Epstein's Mother 04:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Law

I'm not sure I agree with the comment that the UN provides a constitution for public international law. Public International Law existed long before the UN did in its own form, and as the world has changed (explosion in the number of states, scarcity of resources, post-colonialism/self-determination, globalisation etc) has undergone its own transformation to make it fit for purpose. The UN is a complex organisation in and of itself, and the only way it could be considered as being of grave importance is thanks to its court, the ICJ which is the only court at the moment with a general jurisdiction, as opposed to a special subject matter jurisdiction. Granted, art 38 of the statute of the ICJ does outline some of the sources of PIL, but that itself is hardly a contentious matter - again, states have long recognised themselves subject to treaties they enter into and other customary laws. Sephui 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Sephui 23:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EAC

The difference in approach of the present EAC is the involment of the peoples of the region through sensitization of all sectors of the stakeholders, the mistake made by the defunct EAC which is, according to our opinion, is being ignored by the European Union. In most cases where the peoples of Europe are consulted, a good percentage have opted against the trends taken by the institutional leaders. However, the strength of the new approach of the EAC is still to be proved by time.

  • Have removed this because I didn't understand what it meant - the person who wrote it appeared to be a student in Italy. Does anyone get what 'sensitization of all sectors of the stakeholders' means? If yes, please add the block back in & reword it a little bit better. Thanks. Sephui 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/b/Talk%7EPublic_international_law_bcb6.html"