Search

The article examines unilateral acts of states in the international legal system based on a complex systemic analysis. The methodological basis was the dialectical method, which made it possible to understand the essence of international legal obligations of states in inseparable unity and general connection. The relevance of the study is determined by the trends inherent in modern international law. First, with the development of information technologies, and especially with the development of forms of information transmission, the sphere of activity of states is transformed. An increasing number of interested persons knows their positions on a wide range of international legal issues. On the one hand, it simplifies the process of identifying the state's position when its analysis is necessary for international legal qualification. On the other hand, in such a situation, the possibilities for interpreting the behavior of a specific state from the point of view of its agreement or disagreement with a certain legal situation expand. In the practice of international relations, there is an expansion of the system of sources of international law. The study of these sources is necessary for understanding the foundations of international law, solving specific international problems and increasing the effectiveness of international cooperation. As the practice of international jurisdictional bodies accumulated, the subject of study of which was unilateral acts of states, the research emphasis shifted from establishing the essence of unilateral acts to assessing their relationship with the sources of international law. It is noted that unilateral acts play an important independent role in the modern international system, which is characterized by both fragmentation and growing globalization. Modern means of communication have made it possible to make unilateral acts one of the most frequently used tools of state interaction. The appropriateness and necessity of the development of the legal regime of unilateral acts is emphasized and substantiated. Unilateral acts of states are recognized as independent additional sources of international law capable of generating international legal norms, and they can be found in the «sources» section of many leading international legal documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study is to analyse the specifics of the liability for damages caused to the administrative-territorial unit by unilateral acts of the mayor in his capacity as an executive authority of the local public administration, in contrast to the administrative-patrimonial liability regulated by the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004 for the reparation of damages caused to private individuals by these acts. In this regard, we have referred to the legal nature and some particularities, including procedural ones, which characterise the different legal regime of these hypotheses of patrimonial liability for damages caused by the acts of the mayor, insisting on his liability towards the administrative-territorial unit he represents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the question of interpretation of unilateral acts in international law both from the perspective of ascertaining their binding force (law determination) and from the perspective of ascertaining their content (content determination). It argues that the objective intention of the author to be bound is what distinguishes binding commitments of unilateral origin from non-binding ones. In turn, this involves the interpretation of a unilateral act in accordance with its content and the circumstances surrounding its making. In practice, the use of clear and specific wording in conjunction with a set of contextual indicators are indicia of the intention to create a binding unilateral commitment. Against this backdrop, the article continues by addressing the question of interpretation of unilateral acts from the standpoint of ascertaining their content. It shows that the text of the act is the primary consideration in determining its content—and that its context as well as the circumstances surrounding its making are also interpretative elements that need to be taken into account. Due to the unilateral origin of these acts the interpretative rule applicable to international agreements can only be used as a point of reference when it comes to interpreting the content of these acts. In this light, the article concludes that more practice is needed in order to elucidate the exact role and weight that should be ascribed to non-textual elements in the context of interpreting unilateral acts. At the same time, the article argues in favour of adopting a broader approach to the concept of 'interpretation' in international law. Viewing interpretation not merely as content determination but also as law ascertainment allows us to better assess the persuasive value of arguments in favour or against certain interpretative rules when practice is scant—as is the case with unilateral acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the evolution of the notion of peremptory norms (Jus Cogens) in international law through the work of the International Law Commission on unilateral acts. Design/methodology/approach – The study depended on analyzing the work of the International Law Commission on two topics: Unilateral Acts 2006 and Reservations to treaties 2011 to reveal the relation between jus cogens and unilateral acts. Findings – Jus cogens restrict unilateral acts like treaties due to the recognition of the importance and necessity of the concept of Jus cogens in protecting the fundamental interests of the international community. Practical implications – States must be compatible with jus cogens when making any reservation on a treaty and also when taking any unilateral act. Originality/value – This paper reveals the importance of jus cogens in promoting the values of the international community and the need of such notion to protect the common interest of that community.

1. Raspad Jugoslavije. 2. Izbijanje spora o granicama između Hrvatske i Slovenije. 3. Sporazum o arbitraži od 4. studenoga 2009. 4. Tijek postupka i jednostrano odustajanje Hrvatske od arbitraže. 5. Konačna presuda izrečena 29. lipnja 2017. godine: Kopnena granica; Piranski zaljev / Savudrijska vala; Pojam ‘’vitalnih interesa’’; Razgraničenje teritorijalnoga mora izvan Piranskoga zaljeva; Pitanje “veze Slovenije s otvorenim morem” (“junction”); Ostale odluke i zaključci Tribunala. 6. Kratak zaključak.

Copyright of Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of GALATASARAY UNIVERSITESI HUKUK FAKULTESI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Traditionally, in most of the legal systems including Iranian one, it has been attempted to codify the “general rules of contract” that govern the institution of contract regardless of its type. However, the legislator, at least in Iran, has not tried to codify the “general rules of unilateral act”. On the other hand, although unilateral act has a highly determinative and essential role and is the most significant tool and method which the public authorities and organizations apply to perform their legal duties in public law and particularly in administrative law, “general rules of public unilateral act”, and specifically “general rules of administrative act”, have not been arranged and codified up to the present. Meanwhile, one of the areas which requires the arrangement of general rules governing the administrative act is the general rules regulating the conditions and quality of the dissolution of the administrative act. Accordingly, similar to being constituted and having legal effects, the administrative act may be terminated through certain causes too. In the present article, primarily, the concept and the necessity of recognizing the general theory of the causes of the dissolution of the administrative act as one part of the general theory of the administrative act will be discusses. Thereafter, emphasizing and paying attention to the types of administrative acts, the causes of terminating the administrative act would be explained.

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The judgment of the International Court of Justice of 1 October 2018 in the case concerning the obligation to negotiate access to the Pacific Ocean refers to a territorial dispute between Bolivia and Chile, resulting from the loss of the access to the sea by Bolivia as a consequence of an armed conflict with Chile in 1880s. Filing a complaint in 2013, Bolivia demanded that the Court rule that Chile is obliged to enter into negotiations therewith as regards obtaining an agreement guaranteeing its full, sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean Bolivia derived this duty from agreements it concluded with Chile, Chile's unilateral acts, general principles of law, particularly estoppel, acquiescence and justified expectations, as well as resolutions of the Organisation of American States. Chile interpreted the bilateral relations in this scope differently and claimed that the duty of this kind had not arisen. This year, with the panel's 12:3 decision, the Court decided that Chile does not have an obligation to negotiate with Bolivia its sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. To the judgment there are attached: the declaration by judge A. Yusuf and dissenting opinions of judge P. Robinson, judge N. Salam and judge ad hoc Y. Daudet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The territorial dispute between the two States emerged on 7 April 1993, when Slovenian Parliament adopted the "Memorandum on the Bay of Piran". By this act, Slovenia claimed the right to all the waters of this small Bay as its internal waters, as well as its exit to the "high seas" at the expense of the parts of Croatian territorial sea. Later on, by enacting a Law in 2005, it alleged to possess the continental shelf, and proclaimed over it a protected ecological zone with fishing rights. Croatia repudiated all these claims as being opposite to the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both States are parties. All these rules belong to the general customary international law too. Besides that, these claims and allegations go against the principle that "the Land dominates the Sea" as formulated and applied in the case law of international courts and tribunals on this subject matter. Slovenia abused its position as member of the European Union before Croatia by blocking the procedure of its entry into the EU membership. As condition for changing its negative attitude, it imposed Croatia's acceptance of all its territorial requirements. Further on, it qualified these claims as being in its "vital interests". The solution to this controversy was found in the Arbitration Agreement between the two Governments. It was signed on 4 November 2009 in Stockholm thanks to the facilities offered by the European Commission. The Agreement entered into force on 29 November 2010, and subsequently Slovenia lifted its reservations. During the arbitration procedure that followed, it was revealed that the Agent of Slovenia had unlawful contacts with other members of the Tribunal and its staff through Slovenian member of the Tribunal. However, with the exception of the Slovenian Arbitrator, who soon after this incident resigned, Croatia did not offer any proof of other members of the Tribunal having been compromised by the affair. Nevertheless, this event was the motive for Croatia to abandon the procedure. Since then, it has been considering that all decisions of the Tribunal, as well as its very existence, are nonexistent for it. After its formal excuse, Slovenia insisted on the continuation of the procedure. By its Partial Award of 30 June 2016, the Tribunal found that Slovenia violated the provisions of the Arbitration Agreement, but that the Agreement remained in force and the arbitral procedure should continue. The Tribunal rendered its Final Award on 29 June 2017 in the absence of Croatia. Hence, a new dispute aroused on the validity of the Final Award, but the territorial divergence between the parties is still waiting for a solution. In this paper, the author carefully analysed the subject dispute in all its phases, and especially the text of the Tribunal's Final Award. His assessments can be summarised in a triangle of the relations between Slovenia's claims, Croatia's defence of its rights, and the legal foundation of the Tribunal's verdict. There was some disrespect of rules and standards of international law by all its actors. By its insistence on territorial claims over a long period of time, Slovenia harmed Croatia's legal interests. Either Slovenia's decision makers believed that international law consisted only of the rules that are in favour of its national interests or they simply disregarded this set of legal norms. Consequently, the Final Judgment repudiated almost all of its claims. It did not recognise Slovenia's access to the "high seas" in the Adriatic Sea in the territorial sense at the expense of parts of Croatian territorial sea. It refused Slovenia's claim for the possession of the continental shelf, and it did not recognise Slovenia's rights on all the waters of the Bay of Piran up to Croatia's shore. Finally, the Tribunal confirmed the sovereignty of Croatia over Sveta Gera/Trdinov Vrh, which had been under the sway of Slovenia since its proclamation of independence in 1991. As regards the rest, the Tribunal's tracing of land boundaries and the delimitation of the territorial sea outside the Piran Bay may hardly be contested. Hence, with an important exception of the delimitation of the waters within the Piran Bay, Croatia might be considered the winner of this arbitral procedure. However, the Award only confirmed Croatia's rights it had before the subject dispute emerged on the basis of relevant rules of international law. In this light, it is somewhat unusual that exactly Croatia repudiates this Tribunal and its decisions. By such conduct, it disregards the procedural principle of compétence de la compétence, and underestimates the pacta sunt servanda rule in respect to the existence of the 2009 Arbitration Agreement. Most parts of the Arbitral Award itself belong to the peak of the case law relating to the land and sea delimitations. Unfortunately, the same may not be said for its part concerning the waters inside the Bay of Piran. In order to elude the principle of "equidistance/ special circumstances", which was successfully applied to the territorial sea beyond the subject Bay, the Tribunal made some stunts. It proclaimed the waters within the Bay to be internal waters even after the proclamation of independence of its two coastal States, with a fiction of their assimilation to the land territory. Thereby, it assimilated the Piran Bay to the lakes deprived of the connection with other seas. For the sake of its delimitation, it explicitly equalised the Bay with land territory. No precedent can justify this. On the other hand, it regulated in detail the freedoms of communications in the "Junction Area" outside of the Bay. The Tribunal produced all this in order to avoid applying the said principle of "equidistance/ special circumstances". Instead of respecting Croatia's entitlement proceeding from its coast, it delimited the Piran Bay waters on the basis of effectivités. Thereby, the Tribunal possibly aimed at reaching a balanced solution and justice in favour of Slovenia. However, this solution may not be justified by a few quotations from the judgments in the Gulf of Fonseca case. If the Tribunal had given importance to some special circumstances and allotted to Slovenia a little more waters than to Croatia, it would have been difficult to criticise this Award. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the international legal concept of unilateral acts of States. It addresses issues of legal nature of unilateral acts of States, the place of unilateral acts among the sources of international law, criteria to distinguish unilateral acts of States that generate for the State-author international legal consequences from other unilateral acts, bearing a political character, an analysis of judicial practice and doctrines of international law devoted to this subject.

It is with increasing frequency that States undertake unilateralacts. For that reason this article undertakes to demonstrate thedevelopment of unilateral acts of States in the heart of theInternational Law Commission of the United Nations - ILC. It analyzesunilateral and autonomous acts which can by themselves have juridicaleffects. In this sense, silence acquiescence and acceptance may havean influence in these acts.The ILC has studied this issue for ten years, analyzing itsinterpretation, the specific rules which are applicable, theirmodification, termination and the revocation of unilateral acts.

The author analyze in this paper unilateral acts of States in the law of the sea with particular emphasis on the Slovenian Law on the proclamation of the protected ecological zone and of the continental shelf of 2005, as well as its Decree on the determination of fishing areas of 2006. With these acts is in breach not only with its obligations from the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention, but also with the basic legal principle that the land dominates the sea. According to this principle many times confirmed in the practice of international courts and tribunals, it is the land which confers upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coast. Hence, in the absence of coastal entitlement, ther is no valid legal title to adjacent maritime areas. As a consequence, Slovenia's unilateralacts have no basis in international law. They could be interpreted as Slovenia's position that its internal acts and claims have primacy over Croatian legal rights and interests in the disputed areas. These Croatia's rights and interests are fully based on general international law, especially such as codified in the 1982 Convention. Slovenia's stubborn claims would be a reflex of the long time obsolete doctrine on primacy of municipal law over international law, at least when the relations between Slovenia and Croatia are at stake.

While recognition of jus cogens norms is nowadays largely undisputed it remains a question surrounded by ambiguities and uncertainties. Nonetheless, one can assert that it is part of customary law. In fact, its customary status pre-dates its incorporation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties with respect to both jus cogens and jus cogens superveniens. Its customary nature fosters the applicability of jus cogens beyond the purview of treaty law. While the notion has gradually permeated international case law, its rhetorical force has not yet translated into solving a legal dispute at the inter-state international responsibility system. Developments in the fields of human rights and international criminal law suggest that the time is ripe to move onto such a stage: jus cogens inherent force may serve as means for compelling respect for the commands and prohibitions of international law beyond the traditional state-centred system. Dispelling some unfounded assumptions about potential disrupting effects in international relations that would ensue from developing the legal effects of jus cogens and jus cogens superveniens, in tandem with judicial interpretation of crucial questions that may arise (e.g. intertemporality and separability of treaty provisions) may advance such an endeavour. It is further argued that jus cogens and jus cogens superveniens can have a sound impact beyond the realm of treaty law, where its contours and effects still require further development in international case law. Reparations for breaches of jus cogens or for violations of international obligations involving underlying compliance with jus cogens may contribute to further the notion's practical value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most controversial issues discussed in the process of progressive development and codification of Unilateral Acts of States by the International Law Commission was the definition of unilateral act. This paper identifies the key elements of this definition and analyzes the different proposals until the adoption of the definition and their Guiding Principles in 2006. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]