Basic Conditions for Application of Necessity as a Circumstance that Precludes Bringing to International Legal Responsibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2225-6555.2023.2.293068Keywords:
necessity, international legal responsibility, an essential interest, circumstance precluding wrongfulnessAbstract
The article examines a situation of necessity 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 necessity in the Ukrainian science of international law. The purpose of the article is to determine the specifics of the international legal grounds for states and international intergovernmental organizations to apply to the state of necessity, as circumstance that precludes bringing to international legal responsibility. The article uses general philosophical, general scientific, special scientific and legal methods of research, in particular: dialectical, formal-logical, analysis and synthesis, comparative-legal, and logical-legal. The article analyzes Art. 25 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 International Court of Justice, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The main conditions for the lawful use of necessity are identified, and a forecast of the areas of its further application is given.
References
Russian Claim for Interest on Indemnities (Russia v. Turkey), Award of Tribunal, 11 November 1912. (November 11, 1912). Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Hague. Retrieved from https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-russian-claim-for-interest-on-indemnities-russia-turkey-award-monday-11th-november-1912.
Societe Commerciale De Belgique (Belgium v. Greece), P.C.I.J., Ser A./B., No. 78, Judgment of 15 June 1939. (June 15, 1939). Retrieved from https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-societe-commerciale-de-belgique-judgment-thursday-15th-june-1939.
Hayashi, N. (2010). Requirement of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. Boston University International Law Journal, 28(1), 39-140. Retrieved from https://www.prio.org/publications/4447.
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.
Reinisch, A. (2006). Editorial: How Necessary is Necessity for International Organizations. International Organizations Law Review, 3, 177-183. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/journals/iolr/3/2/article-p177_1.xml?ebody=previewpdf-89782.
Sloan, R.D. (2012). On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility. The American Journal of International Law, 106(3), 452-453. https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.3.0447.
Thjoernelund, M.Ch.H. (2009). State of Necessity as an Exemption from State Responsibility for Investments. Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law, 13, 423-480. Retrieved from https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/mpunyb_11_llm_thesis.pdf.
Vasiljević, M., & Jovanović, M. (2016). Necessity as a Ground for Precluding Wrongfulness in International Investment Law. Belgrade Law Review. Year LXIV, 3, 5-24. https://doi.org/10.5937/AnaliPFB1603005V
Case Concerning the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997. (September 25, 1997). International Court of Justice. Reports. Retrieved from https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Case-Concerning-the-Gabc%C3%ADkovo-Nagymaros-Project-Hungary-v.-Slovakia.pdf.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission. 2001. Vol. II, part 2: Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its fifty-third session. (2007). United Nations, New York, Geneva. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_2001_v2_p2.pdf.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 February 1970. (February 5, 1970). International Court of Justice. Reports, 3. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/50/050-19700205-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980. (May 24, 1980). International Court of Justice. Reports, 3. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/64/064-19800524-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002. (February 14, 2002). International Court of Justice. Reports, 3. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/121/121-20020214-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Judgment of 10 December 1998 (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T). (December 10, 1998). United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/tjug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf.
Case of Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 35763/97), Judgment of 21 November 2001. (November 21, 2001). Council of Europe. European Court of Human Rights. Strasbourg. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/001-59885.pdf.
Shchokin, Yu.V. (2007). Features of the Formation of Bilateral International Legal Customs. Problems of Legality, 87, 147-156.
Shchokin, Yu.V. (2012). International Legal Custom: Problems of Theory and Practice. Kharkov: Pravo.
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/08), Award of 12 of May 2005. (May 12, 2005). Transnational Dispute Management, 3. Retrieved from https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=513.
Legal consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. General List No. 131 of 9 July 2004. (July 9, 2004). International Court of Justice. Reports 2004. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131.
In the Proceedings Between LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v. Argentina Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/01), Decision on Liability of 3 October 2006. (October 3, 2006). International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Retrieved from https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0460.pdf.
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 28 May 1998. (May 28, 1998). International Court of Justice. Reports 1998. Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/96/096-19980528-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf.
The MIV "SAIGA" (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment of l July 1999. List of cases No. 2. (July 1, 1999). International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Reports 1999, 10. Retrieved from https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_2/published/C2-J-1_Jul_99.pdf.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011. Vol. II, part 2: Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its sixty-third session (26 April-3 June and the 4 July-12 August 2011). (2011). United Nations, New York. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_66_10.pdf.
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.
