Wprowadzenie dyktatury wojskowej w wyniku zamachu stanu a kwestia międzynarodowego uznania rządu na przykładzie przewrotu wojskowego w Mjanmie z 1 lutego 2021 roku

The article reflects on the question of recognizing a government in international law in relation to the coup that took place in Myanmar on 1 February 2021. First, the author defines the recognition of a government, emphasizing that the institution of recognition applies exclusively to unconstitutional changes of governments. The circumstances of the coup in Myanmar are recounted, exhibiting that the authoritarian regime of the junta has been established in a manifest violation of provisions established in the Constitution adopted in 2008. Second, the competing criteria for recognition of a government in international law are discussed with reference to Tobar (favoring legitimacy) and Estrada doctrines (according to which effectiveness shall prevail). The author presents the evolution of opinions in scholarship and in the practice of states that occurred over the course of decades and led to the dominance of the latter concept. It is demonstrated that upon the application of the criterium of effectiveness with regard to the junta in Myanmar, it should be recognized as a body entitled to represent the state. Finally, acknowledging the tendency that originated in the 1990s to take into account the democratic norm as an alternative basis for recognition of a government or its denial, the author claims that in the lack of coherent and uniform state practice in that field, such a norm cannot create a normative obligation as a norm of customary international law, and therefore does not justify nonrecognition of junta.

Jurisdictional Immunity of States in the Evolving Practice of the Finnish Courts

International codification efforts have not yet yielded functioning treaty regimes relating to jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. In practice, however, many states have embraced a restrictive approach to state immunity, either in special legislation enacted to that effect, or in their judicial practice. There is no special legislation on state immunity in Finland, but the courts have been faced with state immunity questions on a few occasions. The courts have made an effort to apply the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property as a matter of customary international law binding on Finland. By so doing they have steered the Finnish practice towards restrictive understanding of state immunity.

State Immunity in Danish Law

With a primary focus on civil law, the article provides a general overview of the most important legislation, court decisions and other state practice in explaining how international law on state immunity applies in Denmark today. Although Danish court practice has been quite sparse, there have been a number of important decisions effectively implementing international state immunity law into Danish law. The article also reflects on the application and development of customary international law in Danish law outside Danish courts with a particular focus on the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and Their Property, which Denmark has signed, but not ratified. Other examples of Danish practice are briefly highligthed, underscoring the conclusion that Denmark has broadly embraced the restrictive approach to international law on state immunity.

The International Court of Justice as a “Shortcut” to Identifying Custom

A frequently used shortcut to identifying rules of customary international law is to rely on statements by the International Court of Justice instead of conducting a more cumbersome investigation of state practice and opinio iuris. The purpose of this article is to consider when the Court’s statements align or may come to align with customary rules and, consequently, to what extent this shortcut is justified. Its value is in systematically exploring ideas that international lawyers may already have internalised; it may also help students of the subject to understand why reliance is placed on judicial decisions. Often, the Court simply elucidates pre-existing customary rules. But examples such as Factory at Chorzów, Fisheries, and Reservations to the Genocide Convention suggest that an additional or alternative justification for the shortcut may be stronger. This is the tendency of states to endorse or “ratify” statements by the Court through subsequent practice and opinio iuris.

City Hall v. The World – Seeking New Paradigms for Foreign Missions Municipal Taxation

Studies of international law and cities have been attracting the attention of scholars and policy makers alike in attempts to understand the complex nature of the central versus municipal government relationship in respect of international legally binding frameworks. One example of such an intricate relationship is the implementation of treaty and customary international law in respect of taxation of foreign missions. Alongside the importance of the issue to the day to day life and functioning of international relations it can present challenges to policy and decision makers of various layers of government. The paper offers an analysis of the foreign missions’ taxation case study in the context of the theme of law and international law and the city. Discussion focuses on the basics of the applicable regimes and their history and rationales, as well as on the dilemmas associated with more contemporary forms of municipal taxes. Aiming for developing means to address the challenges presented, a new paradigm is offered, focusing on new methodologies to bring cities to the table to discuss together with state actors how to optimize the balance between the need to facilitate bilateral cross-border relationships and the needs of cities and residents. In the final stage of the debate, the paper offers potential lessons which can learned from the analysis of the foreign missions’ taxation case study for engagement of cities and states in international policy and law making for central and municipal government. The modality offered can hopefully facilitate the development of processes conducive to enhanced cooperation between cities and states in making and implementing better and more balanced international law.

Grotian Moments: The Concept

During times of fundamental change, customary international law can form quite abruptly. Scholars have begun to call the paradigm shifts and tipping points that lead to rapid formation of new rules of customary international law ‘Grotian Moments.’ This chapter introduces the concept, explains its appellation, provides historic examples of its application since World War ii, examines its usefulness, and addresses some of the critiques that have been leveled at the notion of accelerated formation of customary international law.

Between ‘Time Immemorial’ and ‘Instant Custom’: The Time Element in Customary International Law

Article 38.1(b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which refers to customary international law as ‘a general practice accepted as law’, makes no mention of duration. Yet the ‘time element’, as the Court itself called it, has not infrequently been relevant—if not central—to determining whether a rule of customary international law has come into being. The present article seeks to describe how far the passage of time is necessary for the creation of rules of customary international law, and the possible significance of time to the customary process more generally. While noting that no particular duration is required for the formation of customary international law, it suggests that some time must always elapse, and that assertions of a rapid development in customary international law are to be treated with a degree of caution. Light is thrown on particular ways in which time may indeed be of significance for the formation and identification of a rules of customary international law, and on further ways in which time (and timing) may impact the life cycle of such rules, including their possible change and demise.

Introduction

This Chapter outlines the context, objective, and scope of the book, and examines two foundational issues that anchor its law of the sea enquiry firmly within the doctrinal and methodological context of general international law. First, it considers the international law concept of ‘jurisdiction’ and examines its role and application under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in general, and in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in particular. It explores the idea of jurisdiction as a ‘continuum’ of prohibitions, rights, and obligations pursuant to which a State may be obliged, authorized but not required, or prohibited from exercising authority in relation to a person or activity, and considers the balance of interests in the sui generis regime that underpins the jurisdictional continuum of the EEZ. Second, it examines the potential legal effects of subsequent State practice in the law of the sea. It describes the conceptual framework that underlies the book’s widespread examination of State practice and explains how the relevant rules of international law apply to evaluate the legal effect of State practice under treaty law and customary international law in the unique context of the law of the sea. The Chapter outlines the parameters used to determine and analyse the State practice examined in the book, and concludes with an overview of the structure and chapter content.

The Arbitral Award in the Enrica Lexie Case and its Questionable Recognition of Functional Immunity to the Italian Marines Under Customary International Law

The dispute between Italy and India on the Enrica Lexie incident has finally been decided by the Award handed down on 21 May 2020 by the Arbitral Tribunal to which the Parties had referred the case. After having concluded that it had jurisdiction on the issue of the immunity of the two Italian marines involved in the case at hand, the majority judgment (by three votes to two) affirmed that under customary international law the latter enjoyed functional immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of India. This article will argue that the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusions are unconvincing, first and foremost, considering that, based on State practice, it is not possible to affirm without reservations that a settled customary rule exists under international law conferring immunity to all State officials, and regardless of the type of functions they perform. In fact, immunity has often been recognized as applying only to certain categories of State officials, and on the basis of the governmental nature of the functions they perform on behalf of the State. Given the doubtful existence under customary international law of a clear rule establishing the functional immunity of all State officials, for all the acts performed in the exercise of their functions, this article argues that the Arbitral Tribunal should have firstly ascertained the existence of a specific customary rule on the immunity of the military abroad, together with the exact content of such rule and, secondly, whether this was applicable in the case of the Enrica Lexie. As current practice stands, military forces abroad are entitled to immunity only under specific circumstances, which do not seem to occur in the present case. In particular, this article maintains that the Italian marines were not entitled to functional immunity. While the acts they performed did indeed fall within their typical functions, they were exercised on behalf of a private subject and not on behalf of the Italian State.