No description available.

No description available.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

Depuis la création de l'Union soviétique jusqu'à sa dissolution, la mer Caspienne appartenait à l'Iran et à l'URSS, qui constituaient ses deux seuls États riverains. Ces derniers avaient convenu de gérer la Caspienne «en commun », selon un régime de condominium, dans deux accords bilatéraux signés en 1921 et 1940. Cependant, après le démembrement de l'Union soviétique en 1991, trois nouveaux États indépendants et riverains de la Caspienne (1'Azerbaïdjan, le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan) se sont ajoutés à l'équation, et ont exigé une révision du régime juridique conventionnel en vigueur. Ainsi, des négociations multilatérales ont été entamées, lesquelles ont mis en relief plusieurs questions juridiques faisant l'objet d'interprétation divergente: Le régime juridique conventionnel de 1921 et de 1940 (établissant une gestion en commun) est-il toujours valable dans la nouvelle conjoncture? Les nouveaux États riverains successeurs de l'Union soviétique sont-ils tenus de respecter les engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran quant à la Caspienne? Quel est l'ordre juridique applicable à la mer Caspienne? Serait-ce le droit de la mer (UNCLOS) ou le droit des traités? La notion de rebus sic stantibus - soit le « changement fondamental de circonstances» - aurait-elle pour effet l'annulation des traités de 1921 et de 1940? Les divisions administratives internes effectuées en 1970 par l'URSS pour délimiter la mer sont-elles valides aujourd'hui, en tant que frontières maritimes? Dans la présente recherche, nous prendrons position en faveur de la validité du régime juridique établi par les traités de 1921 et de 1940 et nous soutiendrons la position des États qui revendiquent la transmission des engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran aux nouveaux États riverains. Pour cela nous effectuerons une étude complète de la situation juridique de la mer Caspienne en droit international et traiterons chacune des questions mentionnées ci-dessus. Le droit des traités, le droit de la succession d'États, la Convention des Nations Unies du droit de la mer de 1982, la doctrine, la jurisprudence de la C.I.J et les positions des États riverains de la Caspienne à l'ONU constituent nos sources pour l'analyse détaillée de cette situation. / From the creation of the Soviet Union to its dissolution, the Caspian Sea belonged to Iran and the USSR, which were its only two littoral States. The Caspian was, during this period, governed by two bilateral agreements signed in 1921 and 1940, in which the two States had agreed to “jointly” manage the Sea. However, after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 gave birth to three newly independent States (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) with coast lines along the Caspian Sea, these three new actors demanded with insistence that the existing treaty-based regime be revised. During the course of the ensuing negotiations, several legal questions have been raised: Is the treaty-based legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties still valid in the new regional configuration? Are the newly independent States, successors to the USSR, obliged to respect the former Union's legal obligations towards Iran? If not, what is the appropriate legal regime applicable to the Caspian? Is it the law of the Sea (as defined mostly in the UNCLOS) or the law of treaties? Considering the new regional configuration, does the concept of rebus sic stantibus - or the fundamental change of circumstances - invalidate the 1921 and 1940 treaties? Will the internal administrative divisions established in 1970 by the former Soviet Union with regards to the Caspian become - de jure - the new international maritime frontiers? In this thesis, we argue in favour of the validity of the legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties and we support the position of those States which assert the transmissibility of the obligations of the former Union to the newly independent littoral States. In doing so, we will provide a complete analysis of the legal dilemma at hand and suggest appropriate analytical answers to the aforementioned questions. The law of treaties, the law of the succession of States, the 1982 United Nations' Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), doctrinal commentaries, case law of the I.C.J, and official U.N documents revealing the positions of each littoral States will be thoroughly conversed in this regard.

Depuis la création de l'Union soviétique jusqu'à sa dissolution, la mer Caspienne appartenait à l'Iran et à l'URSS, qui constituaient ses deux seuls États riverains. Ces derniers avaient convenu de gérer la Caspienne «en commun », selon un régime de condominium, dans deux accords bilatéraux signés en 1921 et 1940. Cependant, après le démembrement de l'Union soviétique en 1991, trois nouveaux États indépendants et riverains de la Caspienne (1'Azerbaïdjan, le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan) se sont ajoutés à l'équation, et ont exigé une révision du régime juridique conventionnel en vigueur. Ainsi, des négociations multilatérales ont été entamées, lesquelles ont mis en relief plusieurs questions juridiques faisant l'objet d'interprétation divergente: Le régime juridique conventionnel de 1921 et de 1940 (établissant une gestion en commun) est-il toujours valable dans la nouvelle conjoncture? Les nouveaux États riverains successeurs de l'Union soviétique sont-ils tenus de respecter les engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran quant à la Caspienne? Quel est l'ordre juridique applicable à la mer Caspienne? Serait-ce le droit de la mer (UNCLOS) ou le droit des traités? La notion de rebus sic stantibus - soit le « changement fondamental de circonstances» - aurait-elle pour effet l'annulation des traités de 1921 et de 1940? Les divisions administratives internes effectuées en 1970 par l'URSS pour délimiter la mer sont-elles valides aujourd'hui, en tant que frontières maritimes? Dans la présente recherche, nous prendrons position en faveur de la validité du régime juridique établi par les traités de 1921 et de 1940 et nous soutiendrons la position des États qui revendiquent la transmission des engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran aux nouveaux États riverains. Pour cela nous effectuerons une étude complète de la situation juridique de la mer Caspienne en droit international et traiterons chacune des questions mentionnées ci-dessus. Le droit des traités, le droit de la succession d'États, la Convention des Nations Unies du droit de la mer de 1982, la doctrine, la jurisprudence de la C.I.J et les positions des États riverains de la Caspienne à l'ONU constituent nos sources pour l'analyse détaillée de cette situation. / From the creation of the Soviet Union to its dissolution, the Caspian Sea belonged to Iran and the USSR, which were its only two littoral States. The Caspian was, during this period, governed by two bilateral agreements signed in 1921 and 1940, in which the two States had agreed to “jointly” manage the Sea. However, after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 gave birth to three newly independent States (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) with coast lines along the Caspian Sea, these three new actors demanded with insistence that the existing treaty-based regime be revised. During the course of the ensuing negotiations, several legal questions have been raised: Is the treaty-based legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties still valid in the new regional configuration? Are the newly independent States, successors to the USSR, obliged to respect the former Union's legal obligations towards Iran? If not, what is the appropriate legal regime applicable to the Caspian? Is it the law of the Sea (as defined mostly in the UNCLOS) or the law of treaties? Considering the new regional configuration, does the concept of rebus sic stantibus - or the fundamental change of circumstances - invalidate the 1921 and 1940 treaties? Will the internal administrative divisions established in 1970 by the former Soviet Union with regards to the Caspian become - de jure - the new international maritime frontiers? In this thesis, we argue in favour of the validity of the legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties and we support the position of those States which assert the transmissibility of the obligations of the former Union to the newly independent littoral States. In doing so, we will provide a complete analysis of the legal dilemma at hand and suggest appropriate analytical answers to the aforementioned questions. The law of treaties, the law of the succession of States, the 1982 United Nations' Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), doctrinal commentaries, case law of the I.C.J, and official U.N documents revealing the positions of each littoral States will be thoroughly conversed in this regard.

No description available.

This study involves a critical appraisal of the legal implications of South Africa’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the context of its international and regional human rights obligations. The dissertation also investigates the history and formation of the ICC, South Africa’s involvement and its role as a guardian of international and regional human rights obligations in Africa. The study reviews the circumstances leading to South Africa’s notice of withdrawal from the ICC, including the legal implications and international human rights obligations. This inquiry considers South Africa’s proposed withdrawal from the ICC which is supported by points of departure and a comprehensive literature review. The decision to withdraw from the ICC is considered to be a political one. However, this study raises questions about the executive’s withdrawal in regard to its domestic, regional and international human rights obligations, irrespective of whether it is a member of the ICC. The study surveys the background to South Africa’s participation in the ICC, its membership of the African Union and the implications of ICC membership including the obligations imposed on member states. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. M.

The title of the dissertation: Law of Treaties - subsequent agreements and subsequent practice The topic of the dissertation is the codification of the rules of interpretation of international treaties, with special focus on the phenomenon of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice of the state parties. In its general introductory section, the thesis defines international treaties as a source of international law and presents a comprehensive analysis of methods of interpretation and their codification. The fundamental part is devoted to the subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, their definition, including the difference from other similar methods, and the use of them for the interpretation of treaties before international courts and in international organizations. This thesis also focuses on the issue of evolutionary interpretation. The practical part of the thesis is based on the interpretation of treaties in three branches of international law (investments, cultural cooperation, taxes), with emphasis on the use of subsequent agreements and subsequent practice and on the current developments in the negotiation of new treaties and in the activities of international organizations.

Performance requirements act as policy instruments for achieving broadly-defined economic and developmental objectives of States, especially industrial and technological development objectives. Many States consider that performance requirements distort trade and investment flows, negatively impact global and national welfare and disrupt investment decisions compared to business-as-usual scenarios. As a result, a number of States have committed to prohibiting performance requirements in international investment agreements (“IIAs.”). Performance requirement prohibitions (“PRPs”) are meant to eliminate trade-distorting performance requirements and performance requirements which replace investor decision-making by State decision-making. This thesis focuses on providing answers to two research questions: first, how do States prohibit performance requirements in IIAs? And second, how should PRPs in IIAs be interpreted and applied? For the first time, this thesis: proposes a comprehensive understanding of PRPs in IIAs by drawing notably on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) Uruguay Round of negotiations and on the United States Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Programme; develops a detailed typology and analysis of PRPs in IIAs through the identification of systematically reproduced drafting patterns; conducts the first critical and in-depth analysis of all arbitral awards which have decided claims based on PRPs in IIAs; analyses interpretation and application issues related to provisions that exempt government procurement from PRPs and to reservations that shield sensitive non-conforming measures or strategically important sectors from PRPs; and anticipates the application of most-favoured nation (“MFN”) treatment clauses to PRPs in the future. Finally, this thesis formulates proposals that can help interpret and apply existing PRPs and draft future PRPs in a more deliberate and informed way.

Das Demokratieprinzip ist im Völkerrecht verankert. Seine normativen Grundlagen sind zum einen das Vertragsrecht, insbesondere der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, sowie die regionalen Verankerungen in Europa und in Amerika durch die Satzungen der jeweiligen internationaler Organisationen und ihrer Menschenrechtsinstrumente. Substantielle vertragliche Verpflichtungen ergeben sich auch aus den bilateralen Verträgen der EG. Zum anderen fußt es auf der Staatenpraxis, insbesondere im Rahmen der UNO. So ist die internationale Gemeinschaft auf die Errichtung demokratischer Strukturen verpflichtet, wenn sie staatliche Funktionen in failed states übernimmt oder den Wiederaufbau eines Staatswesens begleitet. Die Demokratieresolutionen der UNO lassen erkennen, daß alle Staaten verpflichtet sind, das Ziel der Demokratie anzustreben und erreichte demokratische Errungenschaften zu gewährleisten. Das Demokratieprinzip beinhaltet normativ die Legitimation staatlichen Handelns durch freie Wahlen und die Absicherung durch Menschenrechte, Gewaltenteilung und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Staatliche Entscheidungen bedürfen daher einer legitimierenden Rückbindung an den frei geäußerten Willen des konstituierenden Staatsvolkes, wobei die Freiheit dieser Willensäußerung in dynamischer Perspektive die Freiheit der Willensänderung garantiert. Sowohl der Vertragsschluß als Akt staatlichen Handelns als auch der Inhalt des Vertrages bedürfen der Legitimation, und zwar über die Zeit hinweg. Das geltende Völkervertragsrecht berücksichtigt das Demokratieprinzip jedoch nur unzureichend. Die Verletzung innerstaatlichen Rechts beim Vertragsschluß kann nur eingeschränkt geltend gemacht werden. Es existiert auch kein Verfahren, mit dem die fortdauernde Legitimation eines Vertrages überprüft werden könnte. Angesichts der Zunahme von Verträgen, die innere Angelegenheiten der Gesellschaften regeln, bedarf das Spannungsverhältnis einer Lösung. Das Problem wird illustriert durch Frankreichs Ausstieg aus der NATO, Senegals Kündigung der Seerechtskonventionen, den Streit um den deutschen Atomausstieg, das Verfahren um den Donaustaudamm Gabcíkovo Nagymaros, die Frage der Vereinbarkeit von Drogenkonsumräumen mit den UN-Anti-Drogenkonventionen, das Schiedsverfahren zwischen Aminoil und Kuwait sowie der Kündigung des ABM-Vertrages durch die USA. Ein erster Ansatz zur Lösung kann in einer Neuinterpretation der völkervertragsrechtlichen Regeln liegen. So bietet sich der Grundsatz der "demokratiefreundlichen Interpretation" an. Internes Recht, das der Kontrolle der Exekutive dient, muß beim Vertragsschluß Berücksichtigung finden. Und Verträgen, die "innere Angelegenheiten" betreffen, kann ein implizites Kündigungsrecht zugebilligt werden. Der wesentliche Ansatz ist aber kautelarjuristischer Natur. Revisions-, Experimentier- und Kündigungsklauseln können bei der Abfassung von Verträgen die Vertragsbeziehung so ausgestalten, daß zukünftige Meinungsänderungen berücksichtigt werden können. Schließlich ist de lege ferenda ein Recht auf Revision, kombiniert mit einem subsidiären Kündigungsrecht, wünschenswert. Mit einem solchen Mechanismus könnten neue normative Lösungen eingeführt werden und die Legitimation bestehender Normen auf den Prüfstand gestellt werden. / International law provides for a democratic principle. It is based both on treaty law and customary law. The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights as well as the regional treaties in Europe and the Americas - the statutes of the respective regional organisations and their human rights instruments - form a substantial body of treaty obligations toward democracy, which is complemented by bilateral treaties of the EC safeguarding democracy. State practice, especially within the framework of the UN, indicates an obligation to establish democratic structures whenever the international community takes upon itself the task of nation building in failed states. The democracy resolutions of the UN point out that all member states are obliged to strive for democracy and uphold democratic achievements so far. The normative democratic principle includes the legitimation of public affairs through free and fair elections and the guarantee of human rights, separation of powers and the rule of law. Acts of states therefore must be legitimised through the freely expressed will of the people. Under a dynamic perspective, the free will includes the possibility for changes of policy. The conclusion of treaties as an act of state as well as the content of the treaty as a rule of law need to be legitimised through the times. The current law of treaties does not acknowledge the democratic principle, however. Violations of internal law at the conclusion of a treaty can only be claimed to a limited extent. Nor does international law provide for a formal procedure to validate the on-going support for the content of the treaty. Facing an ever-growing expansion of the number of treaties dealing with the internal affairs of societies, solutions must be found. The problem is being illustrated by France's withdrawal from NATO, Senegal's withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, the dispute related to the question of the use of nuclear energy in Germany, the judgement of the ICJ in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros case, the question of the compatibility of drug consumption rooms with UN anti-drug conventions, the dispute settlement award in the Aminoil case and last not least the denunciation of the ABM treaty by the US. Realigning the interpretation of the law of treaties to the democratic principle is one way to deal with the problem. Interpretation of treaties should take into account the democratic principle. Internal law controlling the executive has to be complied with where conclusion of treaties is concerned. And treaties dealing with "internal affairs" can be considered to contain an implicit right of withdrawal or denunciation. The proper solution lies in respecting the democratic principle when drafting treaties, though. Clauses of revision, clauses allowing for experiments and clauses of denunciation or withdrawal help shaping a contractual relationship that can take into account changes of the political will. Last not least, a right of revision is recommended de lege ferenda, combined with a subsidiary right of denunciation or withdrawal. Such a mechanism allows for introducing new normative solutions and for validating the on-going legitimation of existing treaty rules. (See also the English summary at the end of the thesis.)