jus2111 (folkerett) forelesning 5 · statement by the director of the general legal division, un...
TRANSCRIPT
JUS2111 (Folkerett)
Forelesning 5 Folkeretts kilde + Litt prosedyre
Malcolm LangfordProfessor, Det juridiske fakultet, Universitet i Oslo
Co-Director, Centre for Law and Social Transformation, Universitet i Bergen og CMI
Rettskilde oversikt
Kategorier
• ‘Formelle’ kilder (eller metoder):
• ‘that from which a source of law derives its force
or validity’ (Salmond, 1924)
• Art. 38(1)(a)-(c): sedvane, traktater, prinsipper
• ’Materielle’ kilder
• ‘material providing the substantive content of that
rule’ (Salmond, 1924)
• Alt fra FN-pakten til diplomatisk protest og en
ikke-ratifisert traktat – bevis av en regel
• Inkluderer Art. 38(1)(d) - juridiske avgjørelser og
teori
Interaksjon
• Viktigste er interaksjon mellom kilder
• Så en kilde med lav rang kan bli viktig i
utformingen av regelen.
– F.eks. en ILC utkast kan bli bevis av sedvanerett
eller en tolkning av tidligere traktater
• Sammen som i norsk rett – man må se på
interaksjon mellom kildene
– Se Ekhoff
Hierarki?
• Traktatett og sedvanerett viktigste
– Handler om samtykke
• Men generelle juridiske prinsipper er klart
viktigere enn juridiske avgjørelser og teori
• Men det er ikke en klar hierarki. Sedvanerett
kan gå foran hvis:
– Det handler om en jus cogens norm
– Det er ny sedvanerett som er anerkjent eksplisitt
eller implisitt av partene til en traktat (se Art. 31(3)
Wien konvensjon).
Wien konvensjonen om traktatretten, 1969Article 31, GENERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the
terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text,
including its preamble and annexes:
(a) Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the
conclusion of the treaty;
(b) Any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the
treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) Any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or
the application of its provisions;
(b) Any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of
the parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) Any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.
Article 32. SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS OF INTERPRETATION
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the
treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) Leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
Sedvanerett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
Sedvanerett i Norske statsrett)
• Domstolenes rett til å prøve om en lov er i
overensstemmelse med grunnloven (1822/1865-2015)?
• Parliamentarisme (1884-2007)
• Overgangen fra personlig kongemakt til en hovedsakelig
seremoniell rolle for kongen (1905-)
• I alle tre saker (og mange andre) var avstand mellom
Grunnlovens ord og det faktiske styringssystemet skapt.
• Anerkjent av nesten alle at:
• Grunnleggende prinsipp for statsmaktenes kompetanse og
organisering utviklet gjennom langvarig praksis skulle regnes
som konstitusjonell sedvanerett.
ICJ Statuttene, Art. 38
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.
Folkerett
• Sedvanerett var veldig viktig tidligere
• Men fortsatt relevant i mange område der
traktatutvikling er treg
• Men staten som påberope sedvanerett må
bevise at det eksisterer.
Oversikt
• Objektivt: statspraksis (”General practice”)
• Subjektivt: opinio juris (”Accepted as law”)
• Unntak: ”the persistent objector”
• Men mange variasjoner...
1. Objektivt: statspraksis
• Hva er praksis?
• Alle uttrykk for statens rettsoppfatning er relevante
• Statens lovgivning og håndhevelse
• Avgjørelse av nasjonal domstoler eller
forvaltningsorganer
• Uttalelser fra stater
• Uttalelser fra statens representanter
• Protester mot andre staters handlinger
• Passivitet (Tempelsaken 1962)
• Konvensjoner
• Stemmegivning i IOs
Tyskland mot Italia (2012) - ICJ
• 55. ... In the present context, State practice of
particular significance is to be found in the
judgments of national courts faced with the question
whether a foreign State is immune, the legislation of
those States which have enacted statutes dealing
with immunity, the claims to immunity advanced by
States before foreign courts and the statements
made by States, first in the course of the extensive
study of the subject by the International Law
Commission and then in the context of the adoption
of the United Nations Convention.
Christina gaph
• Hva slags praksis?
1. ”Widespread acceptance” – Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, ICJ 1974
– Trenger ikke alle stater
– Men representative stater eller stater med interesser
2. ”Consistent and uniform usage” – Aslysaken (1950)
– Ikke et absolutt krav – små deviasjoner er OK
– Men substantiv ”inconsistency” må bli vurdert av stater
som et brudd, ikke en ny eller andre regel
3. ”Sufficient duration”– Paquete Habana saken (analyserte 400år av praksis!)
– North Sea Continental Shelf
• ”Passage of only a short period of time is not necessarily, or of itself,
a bar to the formation of a new rule of customary international law if
the practice is both extensive and uniform”
2. Subjektivt: opinio juris
• Praksisen må ha grunnlag i en
rettsoverbevisning
Tyskland mot Italia (2012) - ICJ
• 55... Opinio juris in this context is reflected in
particular in the assertion by States claiming
immunity that international law accords them
a right to such immunity from the jurisdiction
of other States; in the acknowledgment, by
States granting immunity, that international
law imposes upon them an obligation to do
so; and, conversely, in the assertion by
States in other cases of a right to exercise
jurisdiction over foreign States.
’Psykologisk’ dimensjon
”‘Not only must the acts concerned be a settled
practice, but they must also be such, or be
carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of
a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory
by the existence of a rule requiring it. ... The
States concerned must feel that they are
conforming to what amounts to a legal
obligation.” Nordsjøsaken 1969, 44.
Rollen av resolusjoner
• Atomvåpen saken (1996), s. 254-5:
– ”The Court notes that General Assembly Resolution
resolutions, even if they are not binding, may sometimes
have normative value. They can, in some circumstances,
provide evidence important for establishing the existence
of a rule or the emergence of an opinio juris. To
establish whether this is true of a given General
Assembly resolution, it is necessary to look at its content
and the conditions of its adoption; it is also necessary to
see whether an opinio juris exists as to its normative
character. Or a series of resolutions may show the
gradual evolution of the opinio juris required for the
establishment of a new rule.”
3. Unntak: ”the persistent objector”
• Fiskerisaken (1951)”the ten-mile rule would appear to be inapplicable as against
Norway inasmuch as she has always opposed any attempt to
apply it to the Norwegian coast.”
• Asylsaken (1950)• “But even if it could be supposed that such a custom existed between certain
Latin-American States only, it could not be invoked against Peru which, far from
having by its attitude adhered to it, has, on the contrary, repudiated it by
refraining from ratifying the Montevideo Conventions of 1933 and 1939, which
were the first to include a rule concerning the qualification of the offence in
matters of diplomatic asylum.”
• Men bare disse to saker fra ICJ.
• Ikke klar om det er alltid relevant nå – f.eks.
hvis det er nok stater.
• ’Subsequent objector’?
– Norge følgte ikke regelen og ingen protestert (se
Fiskerisaken (1951) og diskusjon i Crawford, s.
29).
4. Variasjoner..
a. Nivå
• Globalt (jus cogens)
• Globalt (vanlig)
• Regionalt
• Lokalt
+ Erga omnes: Plikten er til alle stater
Barcelona Traction saken (1970)
”33... an essential distinction should be drawn between the
obligations of a State towards the international community as a
whole, and those arising vis-a-vis another State in the field of
diplomatic protection. By their very nature, the former are the
concern of all States. In view of the importance of the rights
involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their
protection; they are obligations erga omnes.
34. Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary
international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of
genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the
basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery
and racial discrimination. Some of the corresponding rights of
protection have entered into the body of general international law .
. . others are conferred by international instruments of a universal
or quasi- universal character.“
b. Umiddelbar sedvanerett
• ”Sufficient duration” kan bli irrelevant
• Av og til snakk om ”instant customary law”
• Særlig etter Tunisia/Libya saken (1982)
– Anerkjenelse av 200mils økonomisk soner kom
rask og før havrettskonvensjon var ratifersert
– Men den var basert på kompromisset i
forhandling på midten av 1970-tallet.
• En traktat kan:
– utkrystallisere en sedvanerettsregel som er under
utvikling
– danne grunnlaget for en ny sedvanerettsregel
• Men det ikke selvsagt (Nordsjø-saken 1969, s. 41):
– Bestemmelse må være av en ”norm creating character”
– Det må bli representativ og bred deltagelse av stater,
spesiell de statene som er berørt av regelen.
c. Utkrystallisering av sedvanerett
d. Praksis nødvendig for MR?
• Spm: Hvordan kan menneskerettigheter
forpliktelser blir sedvanerett siden MR er ikke
ofte respektert?
• Men man kan spør om:
– Hvor viktig er statspraksis for sedvanerett om
menneskerettigheter i forhold til opinio juris?
– Eller hvilke praksis er mer relevant for MR?
Uttalelser kan bli viktigere enn adferd.
• Hovedpoeng:
– Se hvordan snakke om MR – er det snakk om
fakta eller regel?
Rettskilder: Oppsummering
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ViSYjt-wGw
Kritikk
• Interne/Rettsdogmatisk:
– Vektlegging av praksis og opinio juris
• Eksterne kritikk
Traktater
Typer traktater
• Kontraktstraktater og rettssettende traktater –
• Rammetraktater og protokoller
• Traktater som oppretter internasjonale
institusjoner (domstoler, IGOs,
traktatorganer)
Wien konvensjon
• Signert i 1969, ikrafttredelse 1980
• Norge ikke tilsluttet
• Generelt akseptert som et uttrykk for folkerettslig sedvanerett (Donau-saken, 1997)– – land som ikke har ratifisert avtalen (f. eks. Norge) vil
også være bundet av dens bestemmelser
• Regulerer inngåelse, tolkning og opphør av traktater
• Gjelder (skriftlige) avtaler mellom stater
• Konvensjon om traktater hvor internasjonale organisasjoner er parter, 1986, inneholder stort sett samme regler
Inngaelse av traktater
1. Myndighet til å inngå avtaler (Art. 7 VCLT)
• Fullmakt («full powers»)
• Statenes praksis eller andre omstendigheter,
eller • «by virtue of their functions»
Inngaelse av traktater
2. Hvordan blir teksten vedtatt? (Art. 9 VCLT)
• Vedtak etter art. 9 VCLT krever samtykke
eller 2/3 flertall (internasjonale konferanser)
• Vedtak av internasjonale organisasjoner
• Konsensus (for å unnga «a blocking third»)
Hva er konsensus?
UN Office of Legal Affairs: UNFCCC COP,
Doha (2012)
• “a practice under which every effort is made
to achieve unanimous agreement; but if that
could not be done, those dissenting from the
general trend were prepared simply to make
their position or reservations known and
placed on record”. Statement by the Director of the General Legal Division, UN Office of Legal Affairs,
Official Records of ECOSOC, 56th session, Supp. No.3A, UN Doc. E.5462 (6
March 1974), para.64 summarised in Use of the term ‘consensus’ in UN practice,
UN Juridical Yearbook 1974, Chap. VI A.12., pp.163-164.
Hvordan blir en traktat bindende?
• Samtykke Arts. 9-17
• Ikrafttredelse Arts. 24, 25
Inngaelse av traktater
3. Samtykke (art. 11 VCLT)
• Undertegning (art. 12)
– De deler av traktaten som fastsetter hvordan den blir
bindende gjelder ved vedtak (art. 24(4) VCLT)
• Hvis det trenges etterfølgende ratifikasjon (art.
14):
– Staten forplikter seg til ikke å handle i strid med
traktatens formål (Art. 18 VCLT)
• Innebærer i praksis ofte behov for samtykke fra
Stortinget (demokratisk element)
Inngåelse av traktater
4. Ikrafttredelse:
• Art. 24 VCLT; ofte regulert i traktaten
• Eksempler:
• Art. 23 UNFCCC
• Art. 308(1) UNCLOS
• Art. 25 KP
• Art. 21 Parisavtalen
• Rettslige konsekvenser: Arts. 26, 27 VCLT
• Reservasjoner
– Det absolutte system
– Det relative system (Art. 19-23 VCLT)
– Stemmeerklæringer (e.g. FN’s
Urfolkserklæring)
• Ugyldige traktater
– Inkompetanse
– Tilblivelsesmangler
– Innholdsmangler
Case Study: CEDAW Reservations and Objections
• The United Arab Emirates makes reservations to articles 2 (f), 9, 15 (2), 16 and 29 (1) of the Convention, as follows:
• Article 2 (f): The United Arab Emirates , being of the opinion that this paragraph violates the rules of inheritance established in accordance with the precepts of the Shariah, makes a reservation thereto and does not consider itself bound by the provisions thereof….
With regard to reservations made by Saudi Arabia upon ratification: The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted in New York on 18 December 1979. By stating that in case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of Islamic law, it is not under obligation to observe the terms of the Convention, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia formulates a reservation of general, indeterminate scope that gives the other States parties absolutely no idea which provisions of the Convention are affected or might be affected in future. The Government of the French Republic believes that the reservation could make the provisions of the Convention completely ineffective and therefore objects to it. The second reservation, concerning article 9, paragraph 2, rules out equality of rights between men and women with respect to the nationality of their children and the Government of the French Republic therefore objects to it.
These objections do not preclude the Convention's entry into force between Saudi Arabia and France.
CEDAW Committee Statement on Reservations (1998)
7. Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention adopts the impermissibility
principle contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It
states that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the
present Convention shall not be permitted.
8. Although the Convention does not prohibit the entering of reservations,
those which challenge the central principles of the Convention are contrary
to the provisions of the Convention and to general international law. As
such they may be challenged by other States parties.
16. The Committee holds the view that article 2 is central to the objects and
purpose of the Convention. States parties which ratify the Convention do so
because they agree that discrimination against women in all its forms
should be condemned and that the strategies set out in article 2,
subparagraphs (a) to (g), should be implemented by States parties to
eliminate it.
17. Neither traditional, religious or cultural practice nor incompatible domestic
laws and policies can justify violations of the Convention. The Committee
also remains convinced that reservations to article 16, whether lodged for
national, traditional, religious or cultural reasons, are incompatible with the
Convention and therefore impermissible and should be reviewed and
modified or withdrawn.
• "The Government of Australia advises that
it is not at present in a position to take the
measures required by article 11 (2) to
introduce maternity leave with pay or with
comparable social benefits throughout
Australia .
Wien konvensjonen om traktatretten, 1969Article 31, GENERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the
terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text,
including its preamble and annexes:
(a) Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the
conclusion of the treaty;
(b) Any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the
treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) Any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the
application of its provisions;
(b) Any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the
parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) Any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.
Article 32. SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS OF INTERPRETATION
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the
treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) Leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
Fortolkningsmetoder
A.Objektiv
B.Teleologiske
C.Subjektiv
A. Objektiv fortolkning
1. God tro: Art 31(1)
• En fornuftig tilnærming til fortolkning.
• “It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that a treaty
should be interpreted in good faith and not lead to a
result that would be manifestly absurd or
unreasonable” McTaggert Sinclair, 1984, s. 120.
• Formålet og partenes (objektive) intensjoner «should
prevail over its literal application» : Donau-saken,
1997, avsnitt 142.
2. Ordlyden: Art 31(1)
• Begynner med «vanlige ordlyden» i «den
konkrete traktaten»
• Øst-Grønland-saken (1933), PCIJ: “The
geographical meaning of the word ’Greenland’ i.e.
The name which is habitually used in the maps to
denominate the whole island, must be regarded
as the ordinary of the meaning of the word”.
Et eksempel: Hva er Australia?
Men for i den 2005 Innvandringslov, er
Australia mye mindre...
Den vanlige
Kanskje i forhold til
flytningskonvensjonen –
men veldig kontroversielt
B. Teleologiske tolkning
1. Formål: art. 31(1)
• Dersom ordlyden ikke gir noen klar løsning, er det vanlig å legge stor
vekt på formålet.
• Man bruker det effektivitetsprinsippet.
• Prinsippet har sin grense – kan ikke bidra til en konflikt med ordlyden
og god tro (ICJ Rep. 1950. s. 220).
• Men i dag er det prinsippet viktigere enn bevarelse av statenes
suverenitet (et annet prinsipp som bidrar til mer restriktiv tolkning)
2. Konteksten: art 31(1) og definert i art 31(2)
• Defineres som fortalen, andre bestemmelser i traktaten, og andre
avtaler mellom de partene i forbindelse med traktaten.
3. Må ta hensyn til...: (art. 31(3))
• Senere avtaler, praksis
• Relevante regler
C. Subjektiv tolkning
• Dersom fortolkningsmomentene i art. 31 fører til
uklar løsninger eller absurde resultater kan man
bruke supplerende tolkningsmomenter:
– Traktatens forarbeider
– Traktatens forhistorie
• Konflikt mellom og harmonisering av traktater
– Lex specialis derogat lege generali
– Lex posterior derogat lege priori (Art. 30(3) og (4))
– Lex superior derogat lege inferiori
Subjektiv mot Teleologiske
Eksempel: Art. 11(1) ØSK
«Konvensjonspartene anerkjenner retten for
enhver til å ha en tilfredsstillende levestandard for
seg selv og sin familie, herunder tilfredsstillende
mat, klær og bolig, samt til fortløpende å få sin
levemåte forbedret.»
Spørsmål:
Gir art. 11(1) også et rett til vann?
ØSK Kommittee:
Generelle tolkningsuttalelser nr. 15
Avsnitt 3. “The use of the word ‘including’ indicates
that this catalogue of rights was not intended to be
exhaustive.”
• Hvilken metoden? Ordlyden
• Men det er ikke nok. Art. 11 er åpen til
forskjellige fortolkninger så man må bruker andre
metoder…:
Avsnitt 3: “The right to water clearly falls within the category
of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard
of living, particularly since it is one of the most fundamental
conditions for survival” Avsnitt. 3.
Hvilken metoden? Formålet
Avsnitt 3: “The right to water is also inextricably related to
the right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 12,
para. 1) and the rights to adequate housing and adequate
food (art. 11, para. 1). The right should also be seen in
conjunction with other rights enshrined in the International
Bill of Human Rights, foremost amongst them the right to life
and human dignity.”
Hvilken metoden? Konteksten
Teleogiske:
Og hensyn til...
• ”3...The right to water has been recognized in a wide range of international documents, including treaties, declarations and other standards.”
• ”5....The right to water has been consistently addressed by the Committee during its consideration of States parties’ reports”
• “3…Moreover, the Committee has previously recognized that water is a human right contained in article 11, paragraph 1, (see general comment No. 6 (1995)).“
Men, var det nok?
• Ikke alle andre traktene og resolusjonene var
klar at det var en selvstendig rett til vann.
• Se Stephen Tully i Netherlands Quarterly of
Human Rights (2005), ss. 35-63:
– man må også bruker art. 32 Wien
– manglende subjektive intensjoner av statene.
• Men se svaret fra Langford i Netherlands
Quarterly of Human Rights (2006), ss. 433-459.
På slutt...• På slutt bestemte FNs generalforsamling selv i 2010:
– “1. Recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as
a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human
rights”. FN Res. A/RES/64/292.
• FNS Menneskerettigheter råd i 2010:
• “2. Recalls General Assembly resolution 64/292 of 28 July 2010, in
which the Assembly recognized the right to safe and clean drinking
water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full
enjoyment of life and all human rights;
• 3. Affirms that the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation is
derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and
inextricably related to the right to the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human
dignity;”
Opphør av traktater
• Formål oppfylt eller tidsbegrensning
• Ny traktat (som ikke er konsistent med den
gamle): Art. 59
• Jus cogens: Arts. 54, 64
• Bristende forutsetninger: Art. 62
• Umulighet: Art. 61
• Brudd («material breach»): Art. 60
• Rett til å si opp: Art. 56
• Nødvendighet? (-)
Alminnelige rettsgrunnsetninger
• ”General principles of law recognized by civilized
nations”
• Prinsipper som er alminnelig utbredt i ulike nasjoners
nasjonale rett
• Krever anerkjennelse av statene, men hvor mange er
ikke klart
• Må være egnet til overføring fra internasjonal rett til
nasjonal rett
• Anvendes sjelden som selvstendig rettskilde, – men ser delvis Barcelona Traction og Diallo i forhold til ’limited liability’
av selskaper
– Mest brukt i spm om juridiksjon, bevis og prosedyre
• Brukt ofte av permanente voldgiftsdomstolen (PCA))
Corfu Channel-saken (1949)
”[T[he fact of this exclusive territorial control exercised by a
State within its frontiers has a bearing upon the methods of
proof available to establish the knowledge of that State as to
such events. By reason of this exclusive control, the other
State, the victim of a breach of international law, is often
unable to furnish direct proof of facts giving rise to
responsibility. Such a State should be allowed a more liberal
recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence.
This indirect evidence is admitted in all systems of law, and
its use is recognized by international decisions. It must be
regarded as of special weight when it is based on a series of
facts linked together and leading logically to a single
conclusion.”
Andre prinsipper?
• Equity
• Humanity
• Legitimate interests
Rettspraksis og rettsteori
• Rettspraksis (artikkel 38(1)(d))
– Ingen formell stare decisis/bindende prejudikater
men stor praktisk betydning
– Internasjonale domstoler vektlegger ofte egen
praksis
– Internasjonale domstoler vektlegger mer og mer
andre domstolers praksis
• Se f. eks. Diallo-saken (2010) og Mur-saken (2004).
• Rettslig teori (artikkel 38(1)(d))
– Utvidet bruk i prosesskriv, men som regel ikke
sitert i majoritetsavgjørelser
Andre materielle kilder
• FN resolusjoner
– Rettskapende
– Autoritativ fortolkning
• International Law Commission
– Autoritativ fortolkning
– Men ILC også har rollen med ‘progressiv utvikling’
av folkerett- Må derfor se når ICJ vurdere at en
regel er sedvanerett
• ILC Commentaries
Prosedyre
Article 34
1. Only states may be parties in cases before
the Court.
2. The Court, subject to and in conformity with
its Rules, may request of public international
organizations information relevant to cases
before it, and shall receive such information
presented by such organizations on their own
initiative.
Prosedyre
1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all
cases which the parties refer to it and all
matters specially provided for in the Charter of
the United Nations or in treaties and
conventions in force.
2. The states parties to the present Statute may
at any time declare that they recognize as
compulsory ipso facto and without special
agreement, in relation to any other state
accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction
of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: a. the interpretation of a treaty;
b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute
a breach of an international obligation ;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the
breach of an international obligation.
3. The declarations referred to above may be
made unconditionally or on condition of
reciprocity on the part of several or certain
states, or for a certain time.
Example: Georgia v Russia (2011)
’IRAC Method’
• Issue (Problemstilling)
• Rule (Regel inkl. rettspraksis)
• Analysis (Analyse, drøftelse)
• Conclusion (Konklusjon)
Veiledning:
• Du må være trygg på at du har
klart å identifisere (”finne”)
problemstillingen før du
starter drøftelsen.
Fra: VEILEDNING: LØSNING AV PRAKTIKUM OG TEORETISKE
OPPGAVER
Krav til gode oppgavesvar
• Når du har identifisert
problemstillingene, bør du finne
frem til det krav Peder As
fremmer. Hva er kravet?
Hevning? Erstatning? Begge
deler?
Fra: VEILEDNING: LØSNING AV PRAKTIKUM OG TEORETISKE
OPPGAVER
• Deretter må du identifisere det rettslige
grunnlaget som Peder bygger sitt krav på
• En identifisering av rettsgrunnlag er
nødvendig for å kunne gjennomføre en
drøftelse pro/contra, se nedenfor om
drøftelsen....
Fra: VEILEDNING: LØSNING AV PRAKTIKUM OG TEORETISKE
OPPGAVER
Et neste trinnet er drøftelsen.
• En juridisk drøftelse er en argumentasjon
pro/contra.
• Du må bestrebe deg på å få frem alle de
saklige argumentene pro/contra.
• Tenk deg gjerne at du er advokat for begge
partene, først den ene og så den andre.
Fra: VEILEDNING: LØSNING AV PRAKTIKUM OG TEORETISKE
OPPGAVER
• Det er full anledning a gi uttrykk for tvil
før du inntar konklusjonen.
• Men… av og til er rettsspørsmålet lite
tvilsomt og konklusjonen derfor klar. Da tar
det seg dårlig ut hvis du har sagt at
konklusjonen er tvilsom.
Fra: VEILEDNING: LØSNING AV PRAKTIKUM OG TEORETISKE
OPPGAVER
• Ikke legg ut i bredden om teoretiske juridiske
spørsmål i en praktikum (Som det heter: Ikke
”teoretiser”).
• Men du skal likevel ikke være redd for a
vise at du har gode kunnskaper i den
konkrete drøftelsen du foretar.
Fra: VEILEDNING: LØSNING AV PRAKTIKUM OG TEORETISKE
OPPGAVER
Key Cases
Kjerne ICJ dommer man burde lese:
Fra JSUs domsamling
1.Barcelona Traction-saken
(1970)
2.Nicaragua-saken (1984)
3.Jan Mayen-saken (1993)
4.Den Israelske mur saken
(2004)
5.Avena-saken (2004)
6.Congo v Uganda (2005)
Fra ICJ websiden
7. Kosovo-saken (2010)
8. Pulp Mills saken
(2010)
9. Diallo-saken (2010)
10.Tyskland v. Italia
(2012)
11.Marshall Islands-
saken (2016)