| Foreword |
|
xiii | |
| Preface |
|
xv | |
| Notes on citation |
|
xvii | |
|
|
|
xviii | |
|
|
|
xxviii | |
| Introduction |
|
1 | (16) |
|
Part I Background to the erga omnes concept |
|
|
17 | (80) |
|
|
|
19 | (29) |
|
Countermeasures and ICJ proceedings |
|
|
19 | (6) |
|
|
|
25 | (15) |
|
Standing as a normative concept |
|
|
28 | (4) |
|
Standing as a flexible concept |
|
|
32 | (4) |
|
The diversity of rules governing standing |
|
|
36 | (4) |
|
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
Standing to enforce individual legal positions |
|
|
40 | (6) |
|
The basis of the distinction |
|
|
41 | (1) |
|
Categories of individual legal positions |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
Bilateral legal rules and similar situations |
|
|
42 | (2) |
|
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
Traditional approaches to standing |
|
|
48 | (49) |
|
|
|
52 | (17) |
|
A structural analysis of multilateral obligations |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
Three categories of obligations |
|
|
54 | (4) |
|
|
|
58 | (5) |
|
A restrictive interpretation of treaty provisions: the South West Africa case |
|
|
63 | (6) |
|
|
|
69 | (25) |
|
Treaty-based rules of standing |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
Unequivocal treaty clauses |
|
|
71 | (5) |
|
Equivocal clauses broadly interpreted: the Wimbledon case |
|
|
76 | (4) |
|
The position in the absence of special treaty regulations |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
Interdependent obligations |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
|
81 | (2) |
|
Standing to react against breaches |
|
|
83 | (4) |
|
The duty to comply with judgments of the International Court of Justice |
|
|
87 | (2) |
|
Basic humanitarian standards |
|
|
89 | (5) |
|
|
|
94 | (3) |
|
Part II Legal issues raised by the erga omnes concept |
|
|
97 | (209) |
|
Distinguishing types of erga omnes effects |
|
|
99 | (18) |
|
Terminological imprecision |
|
|
101 | (2) |
|
The traditional meaning of the term |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
`Other' erga omnes effects in the ICJ's jurisprudence |
|
|
106 | (9) |
|
|
|
107 | (3) |
|
The territorial restriction of obligations |
|
|
110 | (2) |
|
|
|
112 | (3) |
|
|
|
115 | (2) |
|
Identifying obligations erga omnes |
|
|
117 | (41) |
|
|
|
120 | (8) |
|
The Court's jurisprudence |
|
|
121 | (2) |
|
|
|
123 | (5) |
|
Distinguishing obligations erga omnes from other customary obligations |
|
|
128 | (28) |
|
|
|
130 | (1) |
|
|
|
131 | (2) |
|
|
|
133 | (2) |
|
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
|
|
136 | (2) |
|
The required threshold of importance |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
Obligations erga omnes and norms of jus cogens |
|
|
139 | (2) |
|
The merits of a comparative approach |
|
|
141 | (5) |
|
Implications for the erga omnes concept |
|
|
146 | (5) |
|
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
Beyond jus cogens: obligation erga omnes not deriving from peremptory norms |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
Dispositive obligations erga omnes? |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
|
|
153 | (3) |
|
|
|
156 | (2) |
|
Standing to institute ICJ proceedings |
|
|
158 | (40) |
|
The Barcelona Traction dictum |
|
|
162 | (3) |
|
Possible counter-arguments |
|
|
165 | (31) |
|
|
|
165 | (2) |
|
An obiter dictum lacking legal relevance? |
|
|
167 | (6) |
|
The international community as the exclusive beneficiary? |
|
|
173 | (3) |
|
Contradictions within the judgment? |
|
|
176 | (3) |
|
Inconclusive jurisprudence since 1970? |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
|
|
180 | (2) |
|
|
|
182 | (1) |
|
Obligations erga omnes and the indispensable third-party rule |
|
|
183 | (2) |
|
|
|
185 | (2) |
|
|
|
187 | (1) |
|
|
|
187 | (3) |
|
|
|
190 | (2) |
|
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
A restrictive, contextual interpretation? |
|
|
193 | (3) |
|
|
|
196 | (2) |
|
Standing to take countermeasures |
|
|
198 | (54) |
|
The Court's jurisprudence |
|
|
201 | (6) |
|
The Barcelona Traction case |
|
|
202 | (2) |
|
The Namibia and Hostages cases |
|
|
204 | (1) |
|
|
|
205 | (2) |
|
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
|
|
207 | (42) |
|
Specific instances of state practice |
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
|
|
209 | (1) |
|
Western countries -- Uganda (1971-1978) |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
European countries -- Liberia (1980) |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
G77 and socialist countries - colonial regimes (1970s-1990s) |
|
|
211 | (2) |
|
Western countries -- Poland (1981) |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
United States -- Soviet Union (1981) |
|
|
214 | (1) |
|
Western countries -- Argentina (1982) |
|
|
215 | (2) |
|
Western countries -- Soviet Union (1983) |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
Western countries -- South Africa (1985-1986) |
|
|
217 | (2) |
|
Various countries -- Iraq (1990) |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
European and Commonwealth countries -- Nigeria (1995) |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
African States -- Burundi (1996) |
|
|
221 | (2) |
|
European countries -- Yugoslavia (1998) |
|
|
223 | (1) |
|
Various countries - Zimbabwe (2002-2003) |
|
|
224 | (1) |
|
Statements implying a right to take countermeasures |
|
|
225 | (1) |
|
G7 declarations on aircraft hijacking (1978/1981) |
|
|
225 | (1) |
|
Western countries - Iran (1979-1980) |
|
|
226 | (1) |
|
Actual non-compliance justified differently |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
Netherlands-Surinam (1982) |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
European countries-Yugoslavia (1991) |
|
|
228 | (1) |
|
|
|
228 | (2) |
|
|
|
230 | (1) |
|
Counter-arguments examined |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
The relevance of the erga omnes concept |
|
|
232 | (2) |
|
The selectivity of practice |
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
The dominance of western practice |
|
|
235 | (2) |
|
|
|
237 | (3) |
|
The requirement of collective action |
|
|
240 | (1) |
|
|
|
241 | (1) |
|
Governments' comments on the ILC's work on State responsibility |
|
|
241 | (1) |
|
Comments made during the first reading |
|
|
242 | (3) |
|
Comments made during the second reading |
|
|
245 | (3) |
|
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
|
|
249 | (3) |
|
Erga omnes enforcement rights and competing enforcement mechanisms |
|
|
252 | (54) |
|
Identifying areas of conflict |
|
|
256 | (7) |
|
|
|
256 | (2) |
|
Different enforcement rights |
|
|
258 | (1) |
|
Treaty-based systems of enforcement: a survey |
|
|
259 | (2) |
|
Specific types of conflict |
|
|
261 | (2) |
|
|
|
263 | (41) |
|
Contracting out of decentralised enforcement by States |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
Direct recourse by individuals |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
Institutional enforcement |
|
|
264 | (4) |
|
|
|
268 | (1) |
|
Contracting out of specific forms of decentralised enforcement |
|
|
268 | (1) |
|
|
|
268 | (1) |
|
|
|
269 | (1) |
|
Alleged support in international jurisprudence |
|
|
269 | (2) |
|
|
|
271 | (5) |
|
Guidelines for the analysis of specific conflicts |
|
|
276 | (1) |
|
|
|
276 | (1) |
|
|
|
277 | (1) |
|
Formal indications of effectivity |
|
|
278 | (1) |
|
The character of the breach |
|
|
278 | (1) |
|
|
|
279 | (1) |
|
Contracting out of ICJ proceedings |
|
|
279 | (1) |
|
|
|
280 | (2) |
|
|
|
282 | (1) |
|
Flexible exclusivity clauses |
|
|
283 | (3) |
|
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
Contracting out of countermeasures |
|
|
286 | (2) |
|
No inter-State procedures available |
|
|
288 | (1) |
|
Inter-State procedures available |
|
|
289 | (1) |
|
|
|
289 | (2) |
|
|
|
291 | (8) |
|
|
|
299 | (1) |
|
Special factors restricting treaty enforcement |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
|
|
300 | (2) |
|
The effects of reservations |
|
|
302 | (2) |
|
|
|
304 | (2) |
| Conclusion |
|
306 | (6) |
| Bibliography |
|
312 | (39) |
| Index |
|
351 | |