Search results
International organisations are a central component of modern international society. This book provides a concise account of the principles and norms of international law applicable to the intergovernmental organisation (IGO). It defines and explains inter-governmentalism and the role of law in its regulation. The book presents case studies that show how the law works within an institutional order dominated by politics. After a note on the key relationship between the IGO and its member states, it examines the basic relationship between the UN and states in terms of membership through admissions, withdrawal, expulsion, suspension, and representation. The debate about the extent of the doctrine of legal powers is addressed through case studies. Institutional lawmaking in the modern era is discussed with particular focus on at the impact of General Assembly Resolutions on outer space and the Health Regulations of the World Health Organization. Non-forcible measures adopted by the UN and similar IGOs in terms of their legality (constitutionality and conformity to international law), legitimacy and effectiveness, is covered next. The different military responses undertaken by IGOs, ranging from observation and peacekeeping, to peace enforcement and war-fighting, are discussed in terms of legality and practice. The book also considers the idea of a Responsibility to Protect and the development of secondary rules of international law to cover the wrongful acts and omissions of IGOs. It ends with a note on how the primary and secondary rules of international law are upheld in different forms and mechanisms of accountability, including courts.
international law produced by states and, in fact, are compatible with the list of sources in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice of 1945, either as treaty obligations, customs or general principles of law. It is true to say that many resolutions have passed into customary international law, but such an analysis disregards the potential normative value of the resolutions themselves, a value that reflects the autonomy of IGOs. This chapter explores institutional lawmaking in the modern era, with particular focus on General Assembly Resolutions on
elsewhere. Recognizing the importance of the Soviet Union in its foreign policy calculus, India acted accordingly. While it strongly condemned the Anglo-French 52 Indian foreign policy intervention in Egypt, its response to Soviet intervention in Hungary was weak, to say the least. It even joined the communist bloc to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution calling for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary though Nehru was later forced to criticize the Soviet policy toward Hungary. The Soviet Union also adopted a neutral position in Indian disputes with
.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48103#.VAkEUY10zmQ . 34 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1761 (November 6, 1962): A/RES/1761. 35 See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3201, “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order” (May 1, 1974): A/RES/S-6/3201. The right to development was formally recognized by United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/41128 (December 4, 1986). 36 David P. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 66. 37 “At the Opening of the
shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter’. 46 The strength of support for the idea of non-interference is undoubtedly very strong within the international community. Further proof can be seen in two UN General Assembly Resolutions on the ‘Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States’, passed in December 1965 and in an updated version in
principles of law. Indeed, many resolutions have passed into customary international law, but such an analysis disregards the normative value of the resolutions themselves, a value that more accurately reflects the autonomy of IGOs. This chapter explores institutional lawmaking in the modern era, looking in detail at the impact of General Assembly Resolutions on outer space and the Health Regulations of the World Health Organization (WHO). Both of these are shown to be international laws in their own right and that, in fact, they are paradigmatic of UN lawmaking more
the rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) (and its two optional protocols), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966). 1 The UDHR is a nonbinding UN General Assembly resolution that represents the existing international consensus regarding the definition and importance of human rights in the post-World War II order. This is not to say that other human rights do not exist, only that those rights have
adds to this argument. This principle was established in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, which – while not legally binding qua General Assembly Resolution – is generally cited as the basis for independence claims for erstwhile colonial territories. 45 Moreover, it is the established view in international jurisprudence that states that have been denied a
Basis of Humanitarian Intervention’, p. 69; and Tyagi, ‘The Concept of Humanitarian Intervention Revisited’, pp. 889–890. 13 UN General Assembly Resolution, ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’, Downloaded December 2009 at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN021752.pdf 14 Cf. Halberstam, ‘The Legality of Humanitarian Intervention’, p. 6: ‘The legality of humanitarian intervention should not be subject to the veto power of any one state.’ 15 John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government , chapter 2. 16 Fonteyne, ‘The Customary
intervention must devolve to the constituent nations of the UN.14 The right to intervene on humanitarian grounds, although it should ideally go through the UN Security Council, the preferred avenue wherever possible, cannot be so constrained without exception. It cannot for the simple reason that a situation may arise in which, under the law of nations by which that body is bound, an intervention is justified and urgent, but will not be authorized by the Security Council even so, this for political 13 14 UN General Assembly Resolution, ‘2005 World Summit Outcome