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)