Basic Conditions for the Application of Force Majeure in the Practice of International Courts and Arbitrations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2023.23.283051Keywords:
force majeure, international legal responsibility, irresistible force, unforeseen eventAbstract
The article examines force majeure as a circumstance that precludes bringing to international legal responsibility. The relevance of the article is due, on the one hand, to the growing crises in modern international relations, and on the other hand, the lack of comprehensive studies of force majeure in the Ukrainian science of international law. The purpose of the article is to generalize
modern criteria for establishing the presence of force majeure circumstances in the practice of settling disputes between subjects of public international law. The article uses general philosophical, general scientific, special scientific and legal methods of research, in particular: dialectical, formal-logical, analysis and synthesis, system-structural, formal-logical, comparative-legal, interpretation of legal norms, prognostic and logical-legal. The article analyzes Art. 23 of the draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts prepared by the UN International Law Commission and submitted to the UN General Assembly in 2001 (UNGA resolution 56/83 (A/RES/56/83) of December 12, 2001). The relevant practice of a number of international courts and arbitrations was analyzed, in particular: the Permanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of Justice, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, the Arbitration Tribunal in the Rainbow Warrior case (1990), the Arbitration Court in the dispute between the Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO) and the Republic of Burundi (1991). The main conditions for the lawful use of force majeure are identified, and a forecast of the areas of its further application is given.
References
Paddeu, F.I. (2011). Genealogy of Force Majeure in International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, 82(1), 381-394.
Resolution of the UN General Assembly No. 56/83 (A/RES/56/83) «State responsibility for internationally illegal acts». (December 12, 2001). Retrieved from https://undocs.org/ru/A/RES/56/83.
Resolution of the UN General Assembly No. 66/100 «Responsibility of international organizations». (December 9, 2011). Retrieved from https://undocs.org/ru/A/RES/66/100.
Mytsyk, V.V. (2020). Circumstances excluding the responsibility of states. In V.V. Mytsyk, M.V. Buromenskyi, O.V. Butkevych et al. International public law. V.V. Mytsyk (Ed.). (2nd ed.; Vols. 1-2); Vol. 1: Basics of the theory. V.V. Mytsyk (Ed.) (рр. 340-343). Kharkiv: Pravo.
Shemshuchenko, Yu.S., Denisov, V.N. et al. (2019). Encyclopedia of international law. (Vols. 1-3), Vol. 3: M-Y. Kyiv: Akademperiodika.
Lukashuk, I.I. (2004). The right of international responsibility. Moscow: Wolters Kluver.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001. (2007). Vol. II, part 2: Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its fifty-third session. UN, New York, Geneva.
Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two States and which related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, Decision of 30 April 1990. (2006). Reports of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. XX. (pp. 215-284). United Nations.
Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela C. A. V Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5. Award of 23 September 2003. Retrieved from https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw6354.pdf 100 (
Enron de Ponderosa Assets L. P. v Argentine Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award of 22 May 2007. Retrieved from https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0293.pdf.
Convention of the Organization of the United Nations for the Law of the Sea. (1982). Retrieved from http://consultant.parus.ua/?doc=00O5WDC64C.
Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997. I.C.J. Reports, 63.
Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France. Ser. A No. 20, Judgment No. 14, 12 of July 1929.
Case Concerning the Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Contracted in France. Ser. A No. 21, Judgment No. 15, 12 of July 1929.
Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company (LAFICO) v the Republic of Burundi. Arb. Award of 04 March 1991. (1994). International Law Reports, 96.
Dellinger, M. (2017). Rethinking Force Majeure in Public International Law. Pace Law Review, 37(2), 455-506.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Юрій Щокін
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
