What Do “Cross-Currents” Mean in International Law: From Albert Venn Dicey to Ludwik Ehrlich. Some Remarks on Fragmentation

Zgłoś artykuł

PDF (English)

Słowa kluczowe

Albert Venn Dicey
cross-currents in international law
differences of public opinion
fragmented international law
Ludwik Ehrlich

Jak cytować

Hachkevych, A. . (2021). What Do “Cross-Currents” Mean in International Law: From Albert Venn Dicey to Ludwik Ehrlich. Some Remarks on Fragmentation. Polish Yearbook of International Law, 40, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2021.138433

Abstrakt

This article examines the idea of cross-currents in international law, which was proposed almost a century ago by Ludwik Ehrlich. First the theoretical background of this idea is provided, with the focus on Albert Venn Dicey’s assumption that there are fundamental differences in public opinion influencing the legislative process. The development of the crosscurrents concept is given through the prism of the evolution of Ehrlich’s ideas. The article illustrates some aspects of his legal philosophy, which describe the scholar as broad-minded, innovative, and deep-thinking. Four dimensions of cross-currents in international law are discussed: (1) the existence of norms originating from different periods; (2) variations between states in their recognition and interpretation of them; (3) fulfillment of abstract norms; and (4) inconsistencies of theory and practice. They contribute to approximating a fully coherent international law serving as the ideal in comparison to a heterogeneous, contradictory, fragmented one, as is frequently observed at the present time. The idea of cross-currents might be helpful in accepting the view that some of the incompatibilities between the rules and principles of international law are inevitable and do not cause harm to international legality.

https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2021.138433
PDF (English)

Bibliografia

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com.

Ajevski M., Fragmentation in International Human Rights Law. Beyond Conflict of Laws, Routledge, London 2017.

Broude T., Shany Y. (red.), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2011.

Cogan J., The Idea of Fragmentation, „Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law)” 2011, t. 105, s. 123-125.

Conroy E., American Interpretation of the Most Favored Nation Clause, „Cornell Law Review” 1927, t. 12, s. 327.

Dicey A., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Macmillan and Co, London 1915.

Dicey A.V., Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis 2008.

Ehrlich L., Chwila obecna w ewolucji prawa narodów, „Przegląd Prawa i Administracji” 1924, t. 1, s. 105- 124.

Ehrlich L., Comparative Public Law and the Fundamentals of Its Study, „Columbia Law Review” 1921, t. 21, s. 623-646.

Ehrlich L., Gdańsk. Zagadnienia prawno-publiczne, K.S. Jakubowski, Lwów 1926.

Ehrlich L., J. Langrod, Zarys historii prawa narodow, prawa politycznego i administracyjnego w Polsce, Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Kraków 1949.

Ehrlich L., Le développment du droit des gens et le probléme de la sécurité collective; Le respect des engagements internationaux – la révision des traités et des situations internationales; Le probléme des litiges juridiques et des conflicts d’intérêts, Un-te Jean-Casimir, Lviv 1935.

Ehrlich L., Metoda porównawcza w nauce prawa publicznego, Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego, Poznań 1938.

Ehrlich L., Międzynarodowe prawo, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warszawa 1958.

Ehrlich L., Prawo narodów, K.S. Jakubowski, Lwów 1927.

Ehrlich L., Prawo narodów, K.S. Jakubowski, Lwów 1932.

Ehrlich L., Prawo narodów, Wydawnictwo Księgarni Stefana Kamińskiego, Kraków 1948.

Ehrlich L., Renard G.: Abstraction et réalités dans l’èlaboration du droit public, „Przegląd Prawa i Administracji” 1923, t. 1, s. 269-285.

Ehrlich L., The New Positivism in International Law, Institute of Constitutional and International Law John Casimir University, Lviv 1938.

Ehrlich L., Wstęp do nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych, Wydawnictwo księgarni Stefana Kamińskiego, Kraków 1947.

Fauchald O., Nollkaemper A. (reds.), The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-) Fragmentation of International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2014.

Garner J., Le développement et les tendances récentes du droit international, „Recueil des cours de l’Academie de droit international” 1931, t. 35, s. 605-720.

Grzebyk P., Tarnogórski R. (red.), Siła prawa zamiast prawa siły. Ludwik Ehrlich i jego wkład w rozwój nauki prawa międzynarodowego oraz nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych, Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, Warszawa 2020.

Hachkevych A., The Method of New Positivism as Elaborated by Ludwik Ehrlich, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 2018, t. XXXVIII, s. 99-113.

Hodge C., Nolan C., U.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy: From 1789 to the Present, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara 2007.

Jakubowski A., Wierczyńska K. (red.), Fragmentation vs the Constitutionalisation of International Law, Routledge, Oxon, New York 2016.

Jellinek G., Der Kampf des alten mit dem neuen Recht, Winter, Heidelberg 1907.

Jenks W., The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties, „British Yearbook of International Law” 1953, t. 30, s. 401-456.

Jessup P., Transnational Law, Yale University Press, New Haven 1956.

Jeutner V., Irresolvable Norm Conflicts in International Law: The Concept of a Legal Dilemma, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017.

Judgment of Permanent Court of International Justice, S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, no. 10, ICGJ 248, 7 September 1927.

Kałduński M., Klauzula największego uprzywilejowania, Dom Organizatora, Toruń 2006.

Klafkowski A., Prawo publiczne międzynarodowe, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1969.

Klučka J., Elbert L., Regionalism and Its Contribution to General International Law, UPJŠ in Košice, Košice 2015.

Klučka J., Regionalism in International Law, Routledge, Abingdon 2018.

Knauth A., Prize Law Reconsidered, „Columbia Law Review” 1946, t. 46, s. 69-93.

Kuokkanen T., Water Security and International Law, „Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal” 2017, t. 20, s. 1-22.

Maginnis V., Limiting Diplomatic Immunity: Lessons Learned from the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, „Brooklyn Journal of International Law” 2003, t. 28, s. 989-1023.

Mccaffrey S., The Harmon Doctrine One Hundred Years Later: Burried, Not Praised, „Natural Resources Journal” 1996, t. 36, nr 4, s. 965-1007, https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1774&context=nrj.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com.

Pauwelyn J., Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009.

Politis N., Les nouvelles tendances du droit international, Librairie Hachette, Paris 1927.

Raleigh T., Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. By A. V. Dicey, K.C., Macmillan & Co. Ltd, London 1905.

Renard G., Abstraction et réalités dans l’élaboration du Droit Public, „La Nouvelle Journée” 1922, t. 32-33, s. 3.

Report of the study group on the fragmentation of international law, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi (Geneva, 1 May – 9 June and 3 July – 11 August 2006), A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006.

Roberts A. et al. (red.), Comparative International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2018.

Schönberger C., Ein Liberaler zwischen Staatswille und Volkswille. Georg Jellinek und die Krise des staatsrechtlichen Positivismus um die Jahrhundertwende, [w:] S. Paulson, M. Schulte (red.), Georg Jellinek. Beiträge zu Leben und Werk, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000.

Shemchushenko Y., Kresin O. (red.), Ідея порівняльного міжнародного права: pro et contra: Збірник наукових праць на честь іноземного члена НАН України та НАПрН України Уїльяма Елліотта Батлера [The idea of comparative international law: pro et contra: Collection of scientific works in honor of William Elliott Butler, a foreign member of the NAS of Ukraine and the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine], Ліга-прес, Київ-Львів 2015.

Vissher C., Théories et réalités en droit international public, Editions A. Pedone, Paris 1953.

Саміло Г., Актуальні проблеми теорії права: Навчальний посібник [Actual problems of the theory of law: Textbook], Просвіта, Запоріжжя 2014.