Make a Submission
Vol. 37 (2017)
Polish Practice

Some Remarks on the Role of General Principles in the Interpretation and Application of International Customary and Treaty Law

PDF
  • Izabela Skomerska-Muchowska
Izabela Skomerska-Muchowska
University of Łódź
okładka

Published 2017-12-31

Keywords

  • general international law,
  • general principles of law,
  • interpretation of international law,
  • sources of international law

Copyright (c) 2021 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Some Remarks on the Role of General Principles in the Interpretation and Application of International Customary and Treaty Law. (2017). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 37, 255-272. https://doi.org/10.7420/pyil2017m

Abstract

This article is devoted to current practices concerning the application of general principles of law in the light of their function in the international legal system. As a means of the application and interpretation of both treaty and customary law, general principles of law perform a crucial function in the system of international law, which is understood as set of interrelated rules and principles – norms. The role played by general principles of law in the international legal order has been discussed by academia for years now. Initially they were used to ensure the completeness of the system of international law. However, at the current stage of development of international law, when many of them have been codifed, they are usually invoked by international courts for the interpretation of treaties and customary law and/or the determination of their scope. This means that despite their ongoing codifcation they do not lose their character as general principles and are still applied by international courts in the process of judicial argumentation and the interpretation of other norms to which they are pertinent. References by international courts to general principles of law perform the allimportant function of maintaining the coherence of the international legal order, which is faced with the twin challenges of fragmentation and the proliferation of international courts.

PDF

References

  1. Advisory Opinion of International Court of Justice in the case of Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004.
  2. Advisory Opinion of International Court of Justice in the case of Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, 11 April 1949.
  3. Advisory Opinion of International Court of Justice in the case of Legality of the Treat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996.
  4. Appellate Body Report, United States – AntiDumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 24 July 2001.
  5. Appellate Body report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 12 October 1998.
  6. Appellate Body report, United States - Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/rR, adopted 8 October 2001.
  7. Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), 5 December 2011.
  8. c Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),11 July 1996.
  9. Elias O., Lin Ch., “General Principles of Law”, “Soft Law” and the Identifcation of International Law, „Netherlands Yearbook of International Law” 1997, vol. 23, pp. 3-49.
  10. Fitzmaurice G., The General Principles of International Law Considered from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law, Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 92, Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston 1975.
  11. Fragmentation of International Law: Difculties Arising from the Diversifcation and Expansion of International Law, report of the Study Group of The International Law Commission, A/Cn.4/L.702, 18 July 2006.
  12. International Court of Justice: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
  13. Judgment of International Court of Justice in the case of Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), 21 June 2000.
  14. Judgment of International Court of Justice in the case of Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 25 September 1997.
  15. Judgment of International Court of Justice in the case of Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), 20 December 1974.
  16. Judgment of International Court of Justice in the case of Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 20 April 2010.
  17. Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2010, Firma Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen. Case C-386/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:91.
  18. Judgment of the Court of 10 September 1996, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.Case C-61/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:313.
  19. Judgment of the Court of 16 June 1998, A. Racke GmbH & Co. v Hauptzollamt Mainz. Case C-162/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:293.
  20. Judgment of the Court of 2 March 1999, Nour Eddline El-Yassini v Secretary of State for Home Department. Case C-416/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:107.
  21. Judgment of the Court of 20 November 2001, Aldona Malgorzata Jany and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie. Case C-268/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:616.
  22. Judgment of The European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Cyprus v. Turkey, Application no. 25781/94, 12 May 2014.
  23. Judgment, of International Court of Justice in case of Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People’s Republic of Albania), 9 April 1949.
  24. Judgment, of International Court of Justice in case of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece Intervening), 3 February 2013.
  25. Judgment, of International Court of Justice in case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 26 November 1984.
  26. Judgment, of International Court of Justice in case of Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951.
  27. Judgment, of International Court of Justice in case of Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), 26 November 1957.
  28. Klatt M., Making the Law Explicit: The Normativity of Legal Argumentation, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
  29. Krajewski M., Singer Ch., Should Judges be Front¬Runners? The ICJ, State Immunity and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights, „Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law” 2012, vol. 16, pp. 1-34, https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf3/mpunyb_01_krajewski_neu.pdf [accessed 06.06.2021].
  30. Mosler H., The International Society as a Legal Community, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen 1980.
  31. Orakhelashvili A., Restrictive Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, „European Journal of International Law” 2003, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 529–568.
  32. Schachter O., International Law in Theory and International Practice, Springer, DordrechtBoston-London 1991.
  33. Simma B., Universality of International Law from the Perspective of a Practitioner, „European Journal of International Law” 2009, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 265–297.
  34. The Auditing of Accounts between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic Pursuant to the Additional Protocol of 25 September 1991 to the Convention on the Protection of the Rhine Against Pollution by Chlorides of 3 December 1976 (The Netherlands v. France).

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.