Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (85)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (47)
- Part of a Book (35)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (85)
Keywords
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (85) (remove)
State sucession in treaties
(2012)
Back in 1949, and thus only one year after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the four Geneva Conventions were adopted, providing a strong signal for a new world order created after 1945 with the United Nations at their centre and combining as their goals both the maintenance of peace and security and the protection of human rights, but also recognising, realistically, that succeeding generations had so far not yet been saved from the scourge of war. Hence, the continued need for rules governing, and limiting, the means and methods of warfare once an armed conflict has erupted. At the same time, the international community has unfortunately not been able so far to fully safeguard individual human rights, its efforts to that effect and the continuous development of international human rights law over the years notwithstanding.
As part of the current overall process of de-formalization in international law States increasingly chose informal, non-legally binding agreements or ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ (‘MOUs') to organize their international affairs. The increasing conclusion of such legally non-binding instruments in addition to their flexibility, however, also leads to uncertainties in international relations. Against this background, this article deals with possible indirect legal consequences produced by MOUs. It discusses the different legal mechanisms and avenues that may give rise to secondary legal effects of MOUs through a process of interaction with and interpretation in line with other (formal) sources of international law. The article further considers various strategies how to avoid such eventual possible unintended or unexpected indirect legal effects of MOUs when drafting such instruments and when dealing with them subsequent to their respective ‘adoption’.
In 2009, 'Palestine' lodged a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICC under Article 12(3). However, in April 2012, the OTP determined that this declaration had not brought about the result, of providing for the ICC's jurisdiction, pending clarification from the political organs of the UN concerning the legal status of Palestine within the organization. On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly granted Palestine the status of a non-member observer state within the UN framework, thereby fulfilling the condition mentioned by the OTP in April 2012. It is against this background that the article considers the current legal effects of the 2009 Palestinian declaration. In particular, it addresses the issue of whether the declaration, when read in conjunction with the 29 November 2012 decision, possesses retroactive effect, i.e. whether it provides, as claimed, for the Court's temporal jurisdiction from 1 July 2002 onwards or rather starting only from 29 November 2012.
... the current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of 'observer', not as a 'Non-member State'. ... [T]his... informs the current legal status of Palestine for the interpretation and application of article 12 [Rome Statute]. ... The Office could in the future consider allegations of crimes committed in Palestine, should competent organs of the United Nations... resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment of article 12. ... International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, 'Situation in Palestine', 3 April 2012