The communication by States of International Law to their direct stakeholders

• Autores: Ilias Bantekas
• Localización: ACDI - Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional, ISSN 2027-1131, ISSN-e 2145-4493, Vol. 3, 2010, págs. 123-160
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen
  • español

    El derecho internacional fue concebido como un derecho interestatal. Sin embargo, como consecuencia del desarrollo progresivo del derecho, nuevos actores y nuevos sujetos han ido surgiendo. El individuo es uno de ellos bajo diferentes perspectivas, bajo la perspectiva penal al asumir la responsabilidad de sus actos frente a los diferentes tribunales ad hoc y, ahora ante la Corte Penal Internacional. También se ha desarrollado la figura bajo la perspectiva de los derechos humanos. Este artículo analiza las formas como las políticas estatales relativas al derecho internacional se presentan a los individuos, a las personas jurídicas y a los demás actores.

  • English

    From the beginning International law has been conceived as being between states. However, as a result of the progressive development of the law, new actors and new subjects have taken root. The individual is one of these and this has occurred in respect of different perspectives; under the criminal concept the individual may be held responsible before different ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court. Also from the perspective of human rights. This article analyzes the means by which the state’s positions on matters of international law are conveyed to individuals, corporate entities and other actors.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 36 ILM 1507...
  • Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 37 ILM 22 (1997).
  • Al-Qaeda training manual, UK/BM-176 to UK/BM-180, Lesson eighteen: Prisons and detention centres, available at: .
  • Anghie, A. Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of International Law (Cambridge UP, 2005).
  • Bello, E. G. Reflections on succession of States in the Light of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1978,...
  • Bentham, J. On the promulgation of the laws. Chap. I. In: Bowring, J. Bentham: the complete works (William Tait, 1843).
  • Carlson, J. & Yeomans, N. Whither goeth the Law: humanity or barbarity. In: Smith, M. & Crossley, D. (eds.). The way out: radical...
  • Chrysolaras, N. Why orthodoxy? Religion and nationalism in Greek political culture, 4 Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 40 (2008).
  • Cohen, J. E. The polls: can presidential rhetoric affect the public’s economic perceptions? 33 Presidential Studies Quarterly 408 (2005).
  • Cotterrel, R. Law, culture and society: legal ideas in the mirror of social theory (Ashgate, 2006).
  • Council of Ministers Resolution Nº 58 of 03/02/1383 H (25/06/1963).
  • Cowgill, A. Letter: Major against the Brussels Bureaucrats, The Independent (26 March 1994), available at: .
  • D’Amato, A. Peace vs. accountability in Bosnia, 88 AJIL 500 (1994).
  • Department of the Defence. The National Defence Strategy of the USA (2005), available at: .
  • Donnelly, J. Cultural relativism and universal human rights, 6 HRQ 400 (1984).
  • Dunlap, C. J. Law and military interventions; preserving humanitarian values in 21st Century Conflicts, available at: .
  • Final report of the Kahan Commission [Kahan Report], 22 ILM 473 (1983).
  • Fisher, I. When governments give in to kidnappers, International Herald Tribune (25 March 2007), available at: .
  • Fisman, R. & Miguel, E. Cultures of corruption: evidence from diplomatic parking tickets, available at: .
  • Franck, T. M. Fairness in International Law and institutions (Oxford UP, 1998).
  • Friedman, A. L. & Miles, S. Stakeholders: theory and practice (Oxford UP, 2006).
  • Gallant, K. S. The Principle of Legality and International and Comparative Law (Cambridge UP, 2008).
  • Habermas, J. The theory of communicative action: reason and rationalisation of society (trans. T. McCarthy, MIT Press, 1984).
  • Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and event: a study of the sources and significance of origen’s interpretation of scripture (Westminster/John Knox...
  • Herzberg, A. NGO lawfare: exploitation of courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict (NGO Monitor Monograph Series, 2008).
  • Higgins, R. The abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities: recent United Kingdom practice, 79 AJIL 641 (1985).
  • ICRC, Third expert meeting on the notion of direct participation in hostilities: summary report (October 2005), available at: .
  • Jackson, B. S. Semiotics and legal theory (Routledge, 1987).
  • Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Reform of the UN Security Council: Why Japan should become a permanent member (March 2005), available...
  • Keefer, E. C. The Nixon Administration and the United Nations: It’s a damned debating society, available at: .
  • Kleffner, J. K. From belligerents to fighters and civilians directly participating in hostilities: on the Principle of Distinction in non-international...
  • Krasner, S. Sovereignty: organised hypocrisy (Princeton UP, 1999).
  • Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, ICJ Rep 136 (2004).
  • Luban, D. Lawfare and legal ethics in Guantanamo, 60 Stan L Rev 1981 (2008).
  • Luhmann, N. Social systems (trans. J. Bednarz, Stanford UP, 1995).
  • McDonald, M. D. & Budge, I. Elections, parties, democracy: conferring the median mandate (Oxford UP, 2005).
  • Melzer, N. Targeted killings in International Law (Oxford UP, 2008).
  • Norton-Taylor, R. & White, M. Intelligence chiefs tell Blair: no more spin, no more stunts, The Guardian 5 (June 2003).
  • Papastavridis, E. Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII in the Aftermath of the Iraqi Crisis, 56 ICLQ (2007), 83.
  • Phillips, R. Stakeholder theory and organisational ethics (Berrett-Koehler, 2003).
  • Reiss, H. (ed.). Kant: political writings (Cambridge UP, 1991).
  • Richburg, K. B. Spain campaigned to pin blame on ETA: despite evidence to Contrary Basque Group was Focus in Blasts, The Washington Post (16...
  • Roscini, M. Threats of Armed Force and contemporary International Law, 54 NILR 229 (2007).
  • Saad, L. Americans remain critical of the United Nations, Gallup (13 March 2009), available at: .
  • Sandage, J. B. The Wood Pulp Decision and its implications for the Scope of EC Competition Law, 26 CML Rev 137 (1989).
  • Segev, R. Justification, rationality and mistake: mistake of law is no excuse? It might be a justification, 25 Law and Philosophy 31 (2006).
  • Sengupta, K. Outrage as Israel Bombs UN, The Independent (16 Jan 2009), available at: .
  • Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. A mathematical model of communication (Illinois UP, 1949).
  • Simpson, G. J. Great powers and outlaw States: unequal sovereigns in the international legal order (2004).
  • Sornarajah, M. The Uncitral model law: a third world viewpoint, 6 Journal of International Arbitration 7 (1989).
  • Stoll-Kleemann, S. & Welp, M. (eds.). Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management: theory and practice (Springer, 2006).
  • Taylor, T. J. & Cameron, D. Analysing conversation: rules and units in the structure (Pergamon Press, 1987).
  • US Reservations, Declarations and Understandings, ICCPR, 138 Cong. Rec. S4781 (2 April 1992).
  • Van Hoecke, M. Law as communication (Hart, 2002).
  • Von Clausewitz, C. On war (1832), trans. A. Rapoport (Penguin, 1968).
  • Voyakis, E. Access to Court v State immunity, 52 ICLQ 279 (2003).
  • Watson, R. Bush deploys hawk as new UN envoy, The Times (8 March 2005), available at: .
  • Weizman, E. Lawfare in Gaza: legislative attack (1 March 2009), available at: .
  • Wiener, N. Cybernetics: control and communication in the animal and the machine (Wiley & Sons, 1948).
  • Wurst, J. Closing in on a landmine ban: the Ottawa Process and US Interests, Arms Control Association (June/July 1997), available at: .
  • Yin, T. Boumediene and lawfare, 43 Univ Richmond LR 865 (2009), pp. 879ff.
  • Cases
  • Al-Adsani v UK, Judgment of 21 November 2001, 34 EHRR (2002), 11. Belhas v Ya’alon, 466 F Supp 2d 127 (DDC 2006).
  • Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation or application of two agreements, concluded on...
  • Congo v Belgium (Belgian Arrest Warrant case), Judgment of 14 February 2002.
  • Corrie v Caterpillar, 403 F Supp 2d 1019 (W D Wash 2005).
  • FYROM v Greece, .
  • ICC Prosecutor v Al-Bashir, ICC Doc ICC-02/05-01/09 (4 March 2009).
  • Kingdom of Saudi Arabia v ARAMCO, 27 ILR 117 (1963).
  • Lambert v California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957)
  • Matar v Dichter, 500 F Supp 2d 284 (SDNY 2007).
  • Petroleum Development (Trucial Coasts) Ltd v Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, 18 ILR 144 (1951).
  • Ratlaf v USA, 510 U.S. 135 (1994)
  • Ruler of Qatar v Intl Marine Oil Co Ltd, 20 ILR 534 (1953).
  • Saleh Hasan v Secretary of State and Industry, [2007] EWHC 2630.
  • Sosa v Alvarez-Machain et al. (Judgment of 29 June 2004).
  • USA v Alvarez-Machain, 112 S Ct 2188 (1992).