Some reflections on the relationship of treaties and soft law

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 901-913

  Boyle, A E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924206401     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300063739     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. See generally Baxter, “International Law in Her Infinite Variety” (1980) 29 I.C.L.Q. 549
2. Chinkin, “The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law” (1989) 38 I.C.L.Q. 850
3. Dupuy, “Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment” (1991) 12 Michigan J.I.L. 420
4. Sztucki, “Reflections on International Soft Law”, in de Lege (1992), 365
5. Elias and Lim, “General Principles of Law, Soft Law and the Identification of International Law” (1997) 28 Neths. Ybk. IL 3.
6. See Schachter, “The Twilight Existence of Non-Binding International Agreements” (1997) 71 A.J.I.L. 296.
7. (1994) I.C.J. Rep. 112.
8. For example an agreement between a state and a multinational company: see Anglo-Iranian Oil Case (1952) I.C.J. Rep. 93.
9. Infra, n.36.
10. Infra, n.40.
11. See Gardiner, “Revising the Law of Carriage by Air Mechanisms in Treaties and Contract” (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 278.
12. The Commission considered the eventual form of its draft articles at its 50th Session in 1998 but deferred a decision on whether to propose a convention or a declaration. It was noted that the dispute settlement provisions in part three of the draft could not be included in a declaration: see Rept. of the I.L.C (1998), Ch.7, para.224.
13. (1986) I.C.J. Rep. 14.
14. (1996) I.C.J. Rep. 241.
15. (1997) L.C.J. Rep. 7.
16. See A. E. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Prospects (Oxford, 1999), Ch.1
17. Sands (ed.), Greening International Law (London, 1993), Chs.1 and 3.
18. See Western Sahara Advisory Opinion (1975) I.C.J. Rep. 12
19. Nicaragua Case (1986) I.C.J. Rep. 14.
20. I.C.J. Rep.
21. See P. Contini and P. H. Sand, “Methods to Expedite Environmental Protection: International Ecostandards”, (1972) 66 A.J.I.L. 37.
22. IAEA Safety Series No.110: The Safety of Nuclear Installations (Vienna, 1993)
23. IAEA Safety Series No.lll-F: The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management (Vienna, 1995)
24. IAEA Safety Series No.120: Radiation Protection and the Safely of Radiation Sources (Vienna), 1996)
25. IAEA GC (XXXIV)/939: Code of Practice on the Transboundary Movement of Nuclear Waste (1990).
26. E.g. the NUSS codes, IAEA GC (XXXII)/489 (1988).
27. 1982 UN Convention on the Law of Sea, Articles 207–212.
28. (1980) 29 I.C.L.Q. 549.
29. (1969) I.C.J. Rep. 3.
30. R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Oxford, 1977).
31. This argument is developed by Sands, in, W. Lang (ed.) Sustainable Development and International Law (London, 1995), Ch.5.
32. See e.g. the International Court's reliance on the principle of sustainable development in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case, on which see Lowe, in, A. E. Boyle and D. Freestone (eds) International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford, 1999), Ch.2
33. Boyle, “Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case: New Wine in Old Bottles” (1997) 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 13.
34. See the debate between Sands and Mann in W. Lang (ed.) Sustainable Development and International Law (London, 1995), 53–74.
35. The so-called “Berlin mandate”: Decision 1/CP.l, in Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 1st Session, UN Doc.FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.l.
36. See Part XV, on which see Boyle, “Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction” (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 37
37. R. Churchill, “Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea and Alternatives to it”, in, M. Evans (ed.) Remedies in International Law: The Institutional Dilemma (Oxford, 1998), 85
38. J. Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (3rd ed. Cambridge, 1999), Ch.8
39. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (3rd ed., Manchester, 1999), Ch.19
40. L. Sohn, Settlement of Law of the Sea Disputes (1995) 10 Int. J. of Marine and Coastal Law 205
41. A. Adede, the System for Settlement of Disputes Under the UNCLOS (Dordrecht, 1987)
42. E. D. Brown, “Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea; The UN Convention Regime” (1997) 21 Marine Policy 17.
43. See Adede, in, W. Lang, (ed.) Sustainable Development and International Law (London, 1995), Ch.8
44. Birnie, “Legal Techniques of Settling Disputes: The Soft Settlement Approach”, in, W. E. Butler (ed.) Perestroika and International Law (Dordrecht, 1990), 177
45. Gehring, “International Environmental Regimes: Dynamic Sectoral Legal Systems” (1990) 1 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 35
46. Hand), “Controlling Implementation of and Compliance with International Environmental Commitments: The RocKy Road From Rio”, (1994) 5 Colorado JIELP 327
47. Kiss, “Compliance with International and European Environmental Obligations” (1996) Hague Yearbook of International Law 45
48. Lang, “Compliance Control in International Environmental Law” (1996) 56 ZaöRV 685.
49. Article 8, and Annex IV, as adopted at Copenhagen in 1992. The process is described in UNEP, Report of the Implementation Committee for the Montreal Protocol, 20th Meeting, UNEP/OzL.Pro/Irnp/Com/20/4, paras.24–33
50. Yoshida, “Soft Enforcement of Treaties: The Montreal Non-Compliance Procedure and the Functions of the Internal International Institutions” (1999) 10 Colorado JIELP 95.
51. See Decision 1997/2, in, UNECE, Report of the 15th Session of the Executive Body (1997)
52. Annex III and Szell, “The Development of Multilateral Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance”, in, W. Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (London, 1995), 97.
53. See UNEP, Report of the 7th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, Decisions VTI/15–19 (Poland, Bulgaria, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) UNEP/OzL.Pro.7/12 (1995)
54. idem. Report of the 8th Meeting, Decisions V1II/22–25 (Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Russia) UNEP/OzL.Pro.8/12 (1996)
55. idem. Report of the 9th Meeting, Decision IX/29–32 (Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Czech Republic) UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/12 (1997).
56. For the most recent position see Report of the Implementation Committee for the Montreal Protocol, 20th Meeting, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/20/4 (1998).
57. See generally Werksman, “Compliance and Transition: Russia's Non-Compliance Tests the Ozone Regime” (1996) 36 ZaoRV 750
58. Victor, The Early Operation and Effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol's Non-compliance Procedure (Vienna, 1996)
59. R. Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy (London, 1998 edition), Ch.17
60. O. Yoshida, “Soft Enforcement of Treaties: The Montreal Protocol's Noncompliance Procedures” (1999) 10 Colorado HELP 95.
61. The problems are discussed in Werksman, Responding to Non-Compliance Under the Climate Change Regime (OECD, 1998)
62. idem, in, Cameron, Werksman, Roderick (eds), Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law, 85ff.
63. 1992 UNFCC Article 13
64. 1997 Kyoto Protocol Article 16.
65. For details of the process see 6th Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Article 13 (1998) UN Doc.FCCC/AG13/l 998/2.
66. Koskenniemi, “Breach of Treaty or Non-Compliance?” (1992) 3 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 123.
67. See for example the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) I.CJ. Rep. 241, in which some 40 states made written or oral submissions to the court. In contentious cases involving the construction of a multilateral convention all parties to the convention have a right to intervene in the proceedings, and the construction so given will be equally binding on such states: Statute of the I.CJ., Article 66. It should be noted, however, that an allegation of non-compliance is not necessarily a question of construction.