III. 4. Judicial decisions - Natália dvornyicsenkó
III. 4. Judicial decisions
Judicial decisions are considered to be auxiliary means of interpretation of international
law in continental law, in comparison with treaties, custom and general principles. The courts
fall into the category of primary sources of diplomatic law in common law. (It should be added
here that the speedy transformations of both our life and the systems and institutions that form
us are “game changers for the grammar of modern law”.)
The International Court of Justice in The Hague
is responsible for many relevant
In addition, the European Court of Justice of the European Union can
be considered as a major source of European law. Mann finds that although from the legal point
of view foreign affairs are „mere facts”, they may bring certain legal rules into operation, for
example declaration of war means that trading rules with the enemy become applicable, the
recognition of a person as a diplomat will confer immunity from legal process upon him, or the
termination of an extradition treaty may result in an accused person avoiding prosecution
abroad. Furthermore, as noted by Merrills, the difficulty of bringing cases before international
Bowring op. cit. 208.
Attila Badó–Mátyás Bence: Reforming the Hungarian Lay Justice System. In: Péter Cserne–István H. Szilágyi–
Miklós Könczöl–Máté Paksy–Péter Takács-Szilárd Tattay (eds.): Theatrvm legale mvndi. Symbola Cs. Varga
oblata. Szent István Társulat. Budapest, 2007, 12.
According to the negative opinions about globalization, “We can now posit a fourth generation of rights: rights
that justify military intervention in the name of humanity.” Adam Gearey: Globalization and Law: Trade, Rights,
War. Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanham, 2005, 14.
Sharp–Wiseman op. cit. 277.
Dame Hazel Genn–Martin Partington–Sally Wheeler: Law in the real world: improving our understanding of
how law works. The Nuffield Foundation. London, 2006, iii.
Lauterpacht notes that the traditional doctrine of separation of powers is no longer an axiomatic principle: courts
perform administrative functions and by judicial law-making intrude ont he domain of the legislative power. At
the same time, administrative organs are being entrusted with judicial functions, having assumed in practice
legislative powers. H. Lauterpacht: The Function of Law in the International Community. Archon Books. Hamden,
Mireille Hilderbrandt: Law as Information in the Era of Data-Driven Agency. The Modern Law Review. Vol.
79, No. 1. January 2016, 2.
The tradition of The Hague as „judicial capital” goes back to the peace conferences.
The judicial machinery could be used for settling any international dispute without force, but states can not be
brought before a court against their will, nor made to abide by its judgement. Karl W. Deutsch (co-author): From
Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton University Press. Princeton, 1957, 5.
“throws into prominence” the role of municipal courts, played in application of
international law. Municipal courts lack the authority and prestige of international courts, yet,
they decide questions of international law much more frequently, than is generally realized. For
example, questions of diplomatic immunity are decided almost exclusively by municipal courts,
especially in Great Britain. (The related contribution, municipal courts can make, has certain
limitations – in the absence of any doctrine of international stare decisis, municipal courts often
differ on the interpretation of international law.)
On the other hand, the conduct of foreign affairs can not generally serve as the
foundation of a legal rule or contribute to the formation of public policy. In the twentieth
century there were very few cases of recognition of states, since many of decisions related to
recognition of governments. A large number of cases of that era, decided by the courts, involved
the question whether a particular body of persons constituted the government of a recognized
state. Furthermore, all the numerous decisions in the Western world, related to the Russian
revolution, were concerned with this question.
The case of Bakhmeteff in 1917, is a historical
example, which illustrates how a revolutionary change in the form of government that results
in the termination or suspension of a diplomatic mission, turns to be a perplexing situation,
relating to a diplomat’s status in the receiving state. The presented case was addressed
according to standards of customary international law. Boris Bakhmeteff was an Ambassador,
representing the Russian government in Washington, namely the Kerensky régime, which
existed for a few months only, until it was overthrown in October 1917. This revolutionary
event was followed by a period of uncertainty in Washington. The United States had found
themselves in an awkward position regarding Bakhmeteff’s status. Nevertheless, the American
authorities did not suspend the official intercourse with the Ambassador. The situation cleared
with the establishment of the Russian Soviet Republic in November 1917. By Hershey, who
found this case “strange”,
as long as the American Government continued to recognize the
Ambassador, he was entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities, at least by custom and
Sometime later, the perplexing situation over the change in the Russian government
and recognition of the successor of the Provisional Government of Russia, resulted in a suit at
In conflict resolution, there is no general obligation to exhaust negotiations or any other diplomatic means
before instituting proceedings. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes–Marcelo G. Kohen–Jorge E. Viñuales (eds.):
Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Leiden, 2013, 23.
Merrills op. cit. 24-25.
Mann op. cit. 8-42.
Amos S. Hershey: The Status of Mr. Bakhmeteff, The Russian Ambassador in Washington. The American
Journal of International Law. Vol. 16, No 3, 1922, 426.
Hershey op. cit. 426-428.
law, where the main question was over recovery of the private deposit of the Russian
Government with the New York bank, due to the occurrence of the new assignment, made by
the Russian Soviet Government to the United States of the right of the new Russian Government
to the bank account. The bank account in question was opened in 1916 by the Imperial Russian
Government and despite of the fact that the Soviet Government dismissed Bakhmeteff as
Ambassador in 1917, the United States continued to recognize him as Ambassador until 1922.
After the retirement of Bakhmeteff as Ambassador, the United States continued to recognize
him as custodian of Russian property in the United States. From 1917 to 1933, the United States
declined to recognize the Soviet Government or to receive its accredited representative and so
certified in litigations pending in the federal courts. In 1933, the United States recognized the
Soviet Government and took from it an assignment of all amounts admitted to be due that may
be found to be due, as the successor of prior Governments of Russia, or otherwise, from
American nationals, including corporations. The Court found that “What government is to be
regarded here as representative of a foreign sovereign state is a political rather than a judicial
question, and is to be determined by the political department of the government.”, having
concluded that “… the recognition of the Soviet Government left unaffected those legal
consequences of the previous recognition of the Provisional Government and its
representatives, which attached to action taken here prior to the later recognition.” In this
situation, the case was reminded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
In Fenton Textile Association v. Krassin
in 1921, the Court of Appeal held that Leonid
the official agent of the Soviet Union, under the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement of
16 March 1921, was not entitled to immunity from civil process. Lord Curzon, the Foreign
Secretary of Great Britain certified in this case that under the common law, Krassin was not a
diplomat. Due to the fact that the Soviet Government had not been recognized de jure as a state
at that time, no representative of the Soviet Government would be received by His Majesty’s
In De Fallois v. Piatakoff, et al., and Commercial Delegation of the U.S.S.R. in
in 1935, the French Court of Appeal (Cour de Cassation) declared itself incompetent
to recognize of a proceeding for swindling, in connection to the defendants – Piatakoff, Breslau
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States. 304 U.S. 126 (58 S.Ct. 785, 82 L.Ed. 1224).
Fenton Textile Association v. Krassin. 38 T. L. R. 259. (1921).
Krassin served at the Government of the Soviet Union as People's Commisar for Trade and Indistry from
November 1918 until June 1920, then as People's Commisar for Foreign Trade from 6 July, 1923 until 18
De Fallois v. Piatakoff, et al., and Commercial Delegation of the U.S.S.R. in France, French Court of Cassation,
26 February, 1935, Paris.
and Lamosky, respectively chief and chief assistants at the Soviet Commercial Delegation in
France. The Commercial Delegation existed first as a commercial institution (not being able to
share the sovereignty of the Soviet State), but after the Franco-Soviet agreement as of 11
January, 1934, these three persons became members of the Soviet Embassy in France, enjoying
diplomatic immunity from that point.
A similar case of correlation of state succession and diplomatic immunity occured in
1994, in the case of Former Syrian Ambassador to the German Democratic Republic,
S., the former Ambassador of Syria to the German Democratic Republic was charged of having
assisted in the commission of murder and the bringing about a bomb explosion in West Berlin,
the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1983. The German Federal Constitutional
Court found that S. rightfully had been denied diplomatic immunity by the Berlin courts – only
the German Democratic Republic, as the receiving state, and not the Federal Republic of
Germany, as a “third state”, was obliged to respect the existing immunity of a diplomat,
regarding to acts, performed in the exercise of his official functions. (When the German
Democratic Republic joined the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990, it ceased to exist as a
sovereign state, consequently, its diplomatic relations ended, too.) The Vienna Convention
prescribes that diplomatic immunity for official acts continues to exist after the termination of
the diplomat’s assignment. Consequently, the official acts of diplomats are attributable to the
sending state. Thus, the judicial proceedings against diplomats or former diplomats come, in
their effects, close to proceeding against the sending state – continuing diplomatic immunity
for official acts serves to protect the sending state itself, as concluded by O’Keefe. In a sum,
the complainant acted in the exercise of his official functions as a member of the diplomatic
mission, within the scope of the Vienna Convention,
because he was charged with an
omission that was within the scope of his responsibility as Ambassador, and which is to that
extent was attributable to the sending state.
In 1980, two Iraqi diplomats, accredited to the Government of German Democratic
Republic in East Berlin, were arrested by the police of West Berlin for delivery of explosives
to a person who planned a bomb attack in West Berlin. The case was decided by the Senate of
Former Syrian Ambassador to the German Democratic Republic, 115 ILR 595, 605, 1997.
Roger O’Keefe: “Immunity Ratione Materiae from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction and the Concept of ‘Acts
Performed in an Official Capacity’.” Report, given at “Immunity ratione materiae of state officials from foreign
criminal jurisdiction.” Material of the seminar, held on 21 March, 2014 in Strasbourg, 6.
West Berlin, as a result of which the two diplomats were expelled.
The deportation of the
Iraqi diplomats in September 1980 was attributed to reasons of security and foreign policy.
On the topic of controversies, related to purchase or rent of property to foreign embassies, in
Agbor v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
the Metropolitan Police acted, following the
norms of diplomatic privileges, regarding the provisions of the Vienna Convention, relying on
which proved to be a mistake in this case. Mrs. Agbor, together with her family moved into the
flat, previously occupied by a diplomatic attaché of the Nigerian Federal Government in
London. The Nigerian High Commissioner refused to test in the courts the right of Mrs. Agbor
to occupy the flat and invoked the assistance of H. M. Government, referring to the provisions
of the Vienna Convention,
resulted in the eviction of Mrs. Agbor and her family. Eventually,
the Court of Appeal finally ordered the defendant to restore Mrs. Agbor’s possession of the flat,
on the ground that the High Commissioner was not entitled to invoke the Vienna Convention
in that case. The flat in question was not the“private residence of a diplomatic agent”, since
the attaché had finally left the premises. Consequently, neither the High Commissioner, nor the
Metropolitan Police had the right to cite the Vienna Convention.
In 1997, the Israeli president held that a rental agreement was a contract subject to
application of private law, so not only a state, but a person might engage in such a contract,
considering that there was no difference between a contract for a purchase of property for use
by an embassy and a contract for purchase of food for use by an ambassador.
statement referred to the case, heard by the Israeli courts in Her Majesty the Queen in Right of
Canada v. Sheldon Edelson, when the Canadian Ambassador refused to free his rented home,
stating that he had an option to extend his lease. When the Ambassador was sued, he claimed
diplomatic and sovereign immunity. The Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme
Court disagreed with the claim and ordered the Ambassador’s eviction. The courts found that
real estate transactions were of commercial character, therefore could not enjoy sovereign
immunity. Besides, the building was used for the Ambassador’s home and not as premises of
the Canadian Embassy, so the diplomatic immunity could not be raised, in this regard, too.
By 2010 the “legal battle” between the Embassy of Austria and the legal heirs of Agha
Charles Rousseau: Chronique des faits internationaux. Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 83/351.
Friedo Sachser: Federal Republic of Germany. Domestic Affairs. American Jewish Yearbook. 1982, 205-206.
Agbor v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner  2 All E. R. 707.
Vienna Convention. Article 22(2) and Article 30(1).
Ruth Levush: Israel: Compensation for Victims of Terrorism. Report for Congress. November 2007. Directorate
of Legal Research for Foreign, Comparative, and International Law. 2007-00084, 6.
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Sheldon Edelson et al., 51 PD 625 (1997).
Shahi over property issues had been ongoing for some years already. Legal experts claimed,
the Government of Austria was in illegal custody of a house – property of a Pakistani national,
while the Embassy’s lease, started on 25 May, 2006 ended on 4 August, 2009. (The lawyers
referred to the precedent regarding tenancy laws in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 1981
in the Qureshi case, when A. M. Qureshi, a Pakistan citizen, after entering into a contract with
the U. S. S. R. and its Trade Representation, for supply of goods to Pakistan Government,
claimed breach of the contract on the part of the Soviet Union, and claimed damages.)
Pakistani side found the Austrian Embassy’s conduct unheard of, speaking of the violation of
the European Human Rights Convention by the Austrians, by denying an EU citizen, which
two of the heirs were, of the right to live in his own home, actually illegally occupying the
premises without paying rent since July 2008. The Pakistani court ordered Austria to vacate the
premises. The Austrian Ambassador claimed diplomatic immunity and there were voices to
declare him persona non grata, according to press. Warrants of eviction had been issued twice
and after bailiffs visited to the premises, the Austrian side accused the civil judge of bias.
Finally, the Pakistani court denied the Embassy’s immunity on 17 March, 2010, adhering to the
fact that the Embassy of Austria became illegal occupant of the demised premises.
Particular statements or actions of diplomats could be followed by certain consequences,
when they are, for example, of a political character.
In this way, in 2014 the conduct of André
Goodfriend, the chargé d’affaires of the American Embassy in Budapest, caused serious tension
in Hungarian-American diplomatic relations. The United States did not withdraw diplomatic
immunity of Goodfriend, initiated by Péter Polt, Attorney General and requested by Péter
Szijjártó, Hungary's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade from John Kerry, the United States
Secretary of State, after a public criminal case was launched in Hungary due to “libel, causing
great injury of interest, committed before the general public” that Goodfriend had been
Goodfriend in his statements on state of affairs in Hungary, made statements on
Ildikó Vida`s, Tax Authority Chairman, implication on corruption.
The investigation of this
case had been initiated by Civil Unity Forum (CÖF), the rather governmental NGO that filed a
report „against an unknown perpetrator”, because in opinion of CÖF, under Hungarian law
Qureshi v. USSR. PLD 1981 SC 377.
Mariana Baabar: Do tenancy laws apply to Austrian embassy? Pakistan Defence. 16 June, 2010. (Accessed on
14 January, 2016.) http://defence.pk/threads/austrian-embassy-in-a-tenancy-lawsuit.62002/
Rózsa claims that information has to some extent an ideological aspect. Görgy Rózsa: Information: from claims
to needs. Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences-Kultúra Hungarian Foreign Trading Company. Budapest,
Marad Goodfriend mentessége... és Vida is. (Goodfriend’s immunity stays… and Vida, too.) Népszava. 21
January, 2015. (Accessed on 20 January, 2016.) http://nepszava.hu/cikk/1045910-marad-goodfriend-mentessege-
corruption was a crime, along with the situation when someone possessed data on corruption
and failed to report that, and the Americans missed to make this report. With escalation of the
incident, the Hungarian Government also required concrete proofs of corruption that
Goodfriend could not present, due to his diplomatic immunity, which the United States denied
to waive. By leaving the premises of the American Embassy in Budapest, Goodfriend entered
the territory of Hungary, thus having obligations, arising under Hungarian law, which in this
case – the obligation of giving the alleged evidence of the fact of corruption to the Hungarian
authorities that would also explain why entry of six Hungarian was denied to the United
(In October 2014, András Simonyi, Hungary's former Ambassador in Washington,
called this incident in a TV programme a „nuclear diplomatic bomb”.)
to this situation on Twitter by “History of diplomacy & int'l relations & rationale for the Vienna
always makes good reading.”
replaced by Coleen Bell, the new U. S. Ambassador to Hungary, left the country in 2015,
referring to family reasons,
and the investigation was terminated.
Ádány notes regarding
the case that the current regulatory environment is not suitable to consider similar cases in the
future, due to lack of practical consequences of other distinctions, related to exemptions, under
diplomatic and international law.
States have always had to take into account the requirements of membership of the
international society. The principles of sovereignty, inviolability and non-interference in the
domestic affairs of other countries are the foundations upon which the international state system
is built. In this course, the wider duties of states include cooperation with other states, whenever
Feljelentést tesznek a békemenetesek az USA ügyvivője miatt. (The organizers of peace march file a report
because of the U. S. chargé d’affairs.) HVG. 13 November, 2014.
(Accessed on 20 January,
András Simonyi: Nukleáris diplomáciai bomba a kitiltási ügy. (András Simonyi: the expulsion case is a nuclear
The entry, made on 13 November, 2014, contained reference to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
of 1961: “http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf”.
Visszavágott az USA ügyvivője a feljelentéssel fenyegetőző CÖF-nek. (The U. S. charge d'affaires has hit back
to COF, which is threatening of denunciation.) HVG. 13 November 2014. (Accessed on 20 January, 2016.)
Goodfriend és a hazai belpolitika. (Goodfriend and the domestic internal affairs.) Magyar Nemzet. 8 December,
2014. (Accessed on 20 January, 2016.) http://mno.hu/magyar_nemzet_belfoldi_hirei/goodfriend-es-a-hazai-
Távozik André Goodfriend. (André Goodfriend is leaving.) Magyar Nemzet. 11 February, 2015. (Accessed on
20 January, 2016.) http://mno.hu/magyar_nemzet_belfoldi_hirei/lezarult-a-nav-vizsgalat-1275685
Tamás Vince Ádány: Megjegyzések a diplomaták személyes mentességeiről a Goodfriend ügy margójára.
(Notes on personal immunities of diplomats on the subject of the Goodfriend case.) Pázmány Law Working Papers.
it is possible, obedience to international law
– particularly the principle of pacta sunt
servanda, and abstention from (forcible) intervention in the affairs of others.
There are instances when an ambassador, who finds himself aggrieved over a promotion
or other matters, takes remedy to judicial appeal, in consonance with the procedures of the
related state. For example, most of such cases in India go at first to a Civil Administrative
Tribunal. Subsequent appeal is possible to high courts and the Supreme Court. The foreign
ministries are customarily exert their utmost to keep personnel cases out of the public domain,
habitually pursuing a compromise to avoid legal disputes.
In most of the peaceful states, where there is rule of law, privileges and immunities,
granted to diplomats, might be viewed as senseless and unnecessary to the extent that they can
cause resentment of the citizens of the host country. Under exceptional circumstances and in
some countries, only official recognition of mutually applicable privileges and immunities
provides an opportunity to maintain diplomatic relations.
Watts notes that the most of the law is customary international law, based on general
practice of states, which is a phenomenon, being imprecise, as source of law, in addition, slow
in alteration, therefore the processes of transformation in international law are imperfect.
Judicial decisions can barely serve as a proper way for ensuring the methodical change, despite
of the fact that when applying the law, courts are able occasionally change it. The judicial
involvement in this respect is unstable, completely depending on the matters states choose to
put forward for judicial settlement. (Even treaties, as part of the growth of new customary law
are only able to generate changes slowly.) Accordingly, the international legal system has no
process that would be able to produce instant and general change in the law. Notwithstanding,
international law does change, the problem is in the timeliness and in securing of the right
direction for the change.
In addition, a process or symptomatology, called globalization,
named so for lack of a better name, significantly reshapes the legal development.
The International Court of Justice held that a diplomatic agent, caught in the act of
committing an assault or other offence might, on occasion, could be briefly arrested by the
The growing necessity of peaceful cooperation between all nations nowadays has pushed to some extend to the
backgrpund the endless doctrinal disputes concerning the basis of international law. Karol Wolfke: Custom in
Present International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Dordrecht, 1993, 172-173.
Smith–Light op. cit. 3-6.
Rana: The 21st Century Ambassador… 185.
Popov op. cit. 4.
Arthur Watts KCMG QC: The Importance of International law. In: Byers, Michael (ed.): The role of law in
international politics. Oxford University Press. New York, 2000, 15-16.
Martonyi op. cit. 79.
police of the receiving state, to prevent the commission of the particular crime.
sanction, in opinion of the Court would be a “radical remedy” that every receiving state has at
its own discretion – interruption of diplomatic relations with the sending state and calling for
the immediate closure of the offending mission.
Thus, the Court considered that severance
of diplomatic relations and cancelling of advantages of diplomatic status would be the
punishment for the abuse.
Over the past years, the role of judges has been expanding worldwide, even on
constitutional and political issues. Judicialization is also the main consequence of a new
The judges have a dominant role in setting policy and taking part in
all major institutional and social issues.
Joyner asserts that it is important, on the other hand,
not to overrate judicial decisions and arbitral awards, as sources of international law, for each
case is decided on its own merits and the decision affects only the states, involved in each
particular case. In addition, analytical deductions can not obligate national governments and
create or codify international legal rules. Governments may adopt these interpretations and
suggestions on the application of international legal rules to foreign policy.
out that many of the rules of international law on topics, such as diplomatic immunity, have
been developed by judgments of national courts and such judgments should be used with
caution. The judges may look as if they applied international law, when in fact they applied
some peculiar rule of their own national law.
In this way, the nature and extent of the
inviolability, granted to a diplomatic agent in transit, often defined by the courts of these
countries. Brown points out that the decisions of courts may not always be welcome, for
example, when an accused is released from the jurisdiction, but the courts have the opportunity,
occasionally, though, to develop clear rules.
Certain other sources of international law, such as the legal doctrine and general
principles of law, being recognized in legal systems at international level, may also serve as
International Court of Justice. Reports of judgements, advisory opinions and orders. Case concerning United
States diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran. (United States of America v. Iran) Judgement of 24 May, 1980,
para. 41, 86. [Hereinafter: The American Hostages Case.]
The American Hostages Case. Judgement of 24 May, 1980, para. 85.
Mario P. Chiti: Judicial and Political Power: Where is the Dividing Line? A Praise for Judicialization and for
Judicial Restraint. European Public Law. Vol. 21, No. 4. December 2015, 406.
Chitti op. cit. 719.
Joyner shares the point of view, according to which this source, besides judicial decisions of national and
international courts, also includes teachings and writings of the most highly qualified jurists and publicists. Joyner
op. cit. 14.
Malanczuk op. cit. 51.
Jonathan Brown: Diplomatic Immunity: State Practice under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
The International and Comparative Law Quaterly. Vol. 37, No. 1. January, 1988, 59. [Hereinafter: Brown:
additional sources of diplomatic law. Boyle and Chinkin, speaking of reform of international
law-making, note that the international legal system moved far beyond the traditional
categorization of the sources of international law in the Statute of the International Court of
Justice and engendered flexibility in this regard. The new instruments include such techniques
as opting into (or out) treaty amendments that allow for technical changes, or extention to the
scope of existing treaties without the need for adoption of formal processes, such as diplomatic
conferences. A future question that arises is who determines an instrument to be law-making,
since it is no longer the case that such decisions are made by heads of governments or Ministers
of Foreign Affairs.
(So far, scholars from different theoretical perspectives have
acknowledged the broad range of participants in the current processes of international law-
Lastly, the different sources of international law are not arranged in a fixed
hierarchical order. In practice, supplementing each other, they are applied side by side. In case
of a clear conflict, treaties prevail over custom and custom prevails over general principles of
law and the subsidiary sources.
Summarizing Chapter III on sources and subject of diplomatic law with regard to the
examined topic of diplomatic privileges and immunities, it should be mentioned here that in
spite of the high level of codification concerning the legal sources, international law is not
imposed on states in the sense that there is no international legislature. (In addition, according
to the traditional Western view, international law is founded essentially on consensus.) As to
enforcement of international law, besides the execution measures of the United Nations
Council, judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice and self-help (self-defense), also
the loss of legal rights and privileges is a common enforcement method, used by states in
relation to withdrawal of legal rights and privileges. Typical example of this method is severing
of diplomatic relations, which may be followed by trade embargos, along with the freezing of
assets and suspension of treaty rights. The application of the listed measures and even the mere
threat of them can prove to be effective in enforcing of international obligations. Two other
measures in order to follow international law are reciprocity and public opinion, since states are
well aware of the fact that their violations of law in regard to other states may be reciprocated,
and states generally try to avoid criticism for failure concerning observation of the rules of
Boyle–Chinkin op. cit. 35.
Boyle–Chinkin op. cit. 43.
Malanczuk op. cit. 57.
Tim Hillier: Sourcebook on Public International Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited. London, 1998, 30-31.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
©2018 Учебные документы
Рады что Вы стали частью нашего образовательного сообщества.