A Wiser Century?
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Giegerich, T. (Ed.) (2009). A Wiser Century?. Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53040-3
Giegerich, Thomas. A Wiser Century?: Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference. Duncker & Humblot, 2009. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53040-3
Giegerich, T (ed.) (2009): A Wiser Century?: Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-53040-3
Format
A Wiser Century?
Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference
Editors: Giegerich, Thomas
Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel, Vol. 173
(2009)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
Abstract
The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 dealt with three interlinked topics: the peaceful settlement of disputes, including by arbitration; the restriction of armaments and military budgets; the laws of war. The first two were aimed at preventing the outbreak of war, not by restricting the jus ad bellum in its substance, but by inducing states not to use their continuing war power and to limit the growth of their war machinery. The third topic was concerned with containing the brutality of war where its prevention had failed. Whereas the Conferences succeeded in codifying the laws of war, they made less progress with regard to the peaceful settlement of disputes and failed on limiting armaments. Worst of all, they could not prevent the outbreak of World War I.This volume uses the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Second Hague Peace Conference to follow up on the then concerns and objectives, looking at the Hague legacy through the lens of today's problems. The 27 contributions treat the most pressing recent issues of non-proliferation and disarmament, international humanitarian law and judicial dispute settlement. Three questions run like a thread through this volume: 1. In which areas have the promises of 1899 and 1907 remained unfulfilled and why? 2. In which areas has there been progress, in which other areas perhaps regression? 3. What are our prospects and how can we international lawyers help shaping a promising future in respect of the prevention and containment of war?Whereas the "empire of law" in international relations and the age of international justice, which were envisaged in the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1899/1907, have not yet arrived on the global level, we Europeans have made considerable progress since 1945. But in the age of globalization, Europe cannot for long remain an Isle of the Blest. Together with the other peoples of the United Nations we must therefore strive toward fulfilling the promises of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - peace, justice, freedom and prosperity for everyone and all nations large and small. Only then can wars be prevented.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preface | 5 | ||
| Contents | 7 | ||
| Thomas Giegerich: Prevention and Containment of War – Two Fateful Missions Unaccomplished | 11 | ||
| A. Desperately Yearning for Peace – and Yet Incessantly Waging War | 11 | ||
| B. The Hague Peace Conferences and their Impacton International Law | 13 | ||
| C. The First Pillar of the Hague Legacy: Non-Proliferation and Disarmament | 15 | ||
| I. Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass-Destruction and Nuclear Disarmament | 16 | ||
| II. Conventional Disarmament and Arms Trade | 19 | ||
| D. The Second Pillar of the Hague Legacy: Codifying, Developing and Enforcing International Humanitarian Law | 22 | ||
| I. Excursion into the Jus ad Bellum and Jus post Bellum | 23 | ||
| II. Outsourcing War – The Resurgence of Private Military Contractors | 25 | ||
| III. Avoiding Legal “Black Holes” – Bringing in International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law | 28 | ||
| 1. Preserving the “Empire of Law” | 28 | ||
| 2. Combatting Impunity – Then and Now | 33 | ||
| IV. Belligerent Occupation and International Territorial Administration | 34 | ||
| V. The International Committee of the Red Cross: Humanizing Armed Conflicts through Law and Silent Diplomacy | 37 | ||
| E. The Third Pillar of the Hague Legacy: Judicial Settlement of International Disputes | 38 | ||
| I. The Gradual Development of a StillImperfect International Judiciary | 38 | ||
| II. The Advancement of the World Court and the Role of Germany in It | 40 | ||
| III. Judicial Dispute Settlement – the Perspective of the European Union | 44 | ||
| F. Has International Law Civilized Conflicts since 1907? | 46 | ||
| G. World Peace through International Law | 47 | ||
| Jost Delbrück: Walther Schücking’s Contribution to the International Rule of Law | 53 | ||
| A. Biographical Data: Walther Schücking’s Careeras Scholar and Pacifist Politician | 53 | ||
| B. The Legacy of Walther Schücking: An International Legal Community and the Rule of Law | 55 | ||
| Stephen C. Neff: The Hague Peace Conferences and a Century of Further Struggles | 59 | ||
| A. Militarization and Armaments | 60 | ||
| I. The Fate of the Hague Conference Declarations | 61 | ||
| II. Prohibiting Certain Weapons | 64 | ||
| III. Arms Reduction | 66 | ||
| IV. Restricting the Resort to Armed Force | 67 | ||
| V. An Overall Assessment | 68 | ||
| B. The Laws of Armed Conflict | 71 | ||
| I. War on Land | 72 | ||
| II. War at Sea | 73 | ||
| III. Neutrality | 74 | ||
| IV. An Overall Assessment | 75 | ||
| C. The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes | 76 | ||
| An Overall Assessment | 84 | ||
| D. Some Final Thoughts | 85 | ||
| Ian Anthony: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reduction of Stockpiles and Non-Proliferation | 89 | ||
| A. Current Status of Reductions of Stockpiles | 91 | ||
| B. Pushing Ahead on the Global Nuclear Disarmament Agenda | 98 | ||
| C. Preventing the Spread of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons | 100 | ||
| D. The Role of Law in Eliminating Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons | 104 | ||
| Heike Krieger: Disarmament Obligations of and Assurances of Non-Use by Nuclear Weapon States | 107 | ||
| A. Introduction: From Deterrence to Preemption? | 107 | ||
| B. Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty | 108 | ||
| C. Disarmament Efforts | 109 | ||
| D. Consequences of the Failure to Disarm | 111 | ||
| I. Negative Security Assurances | 111 | ||
| 1. Legally Binding Character? | 112 | ||
| 2. Negative Security Assurances and Preemption | 114 | ||
| II. Effects on the Validity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty? | 115 | ||
| 1. Termination for Breach or clausula rebus sic stantibus? | 115 | ||
| 2. Failure to Disarm as a Material Breach? | 117 | ||
| E. Revival of Disarmament | 119 | ||
| Christian Schaller: Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction from Terrorists – An International Law Perspective | 121 | ||
| A. Assessing the Threat | 121 | ||
| B. Strategic Framework | 122 | ||
| C. Normative Framework | 124 | ||
| I. International Anti-Terrorism Law | 124 | ||
| II. Norms on Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament | 126 | ||
| III. Informal Arrangements and Initiatives | 128 | ||
| D. Specific Approaches | 129 | ||
| I. International Criminalization | 129 | ||
| 1. The Nuclear Terrorism Convention as a Prototype | 130 | ||
| 2. Other Convention-Based Crimes | 132 | ||
| 3. Criminalization by the Security Council | 133 | ||
| II. Physical Protection of WMD and Related Material | 133 | ||
| III. Interdiction of Shipments | 135 | ||
| 1. The Proliferation Security Initiative as a Model for Cooperation | 136 | ||
| 2. Legal Issues Surrounding Interdiction Operations at Sea | 136 | ||
| E. Concluding Remarks | 140 | ||
| Knut Dörmann: Conventional Disarmament – Nothing Newon the Geneva Front? | 143 | ||
| A. Scope | 143 | ||
| B. Achievements in the Context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons | 144 | ||
| C. Failed or Unfinished Business of the Conventional Weapons Convention and Responses Outside that Context | 152 | ||
| I. Anti-Vehicle Mines | 152 | ||
| II. Cluster Munitions | 154 | ||
| 1. The Problem | 154 | ||
| 2. The Reaction of the International Community – Two Codification Initiatives | 157 | ||
| III. Evaluation | 162 | ||
| D. Development of an International Arms Trade Treaty | 163 | ||
| E. Conclusion | 166 | ||
| Christiane Höhn: International Humanitarian Law in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, in Particular the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports | 167 | ||
| A. Introduction | 167 | ||
| B. The European Union’s Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law | 168 | ||
| C. The EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports | 170 | ||
| I. Introduction | 170 | ||
| II. Provisions of the Code | 173 | ||
| 1. General | 173 | ||
| 2. Criterion Two: Human Rights | 175 | ||
| 3. Criterion Six: International Law, Including IHL | 177 | ||
| 4. Notification and Consultation Mechanism about Denials | 177 | ||
| 5. Reporting and Outreach | 178 | ||
| III. The Way Ahead | 179 | ||
| D. Conclusion | 181 | ||
| Sean D. Murphy: Protean Jus ad Bellum | 183 | ||
| A. Introduction | 183 | ||
| B. Static Jus ad Bellum | 185 | ||
| C. Protean Jus ad Bellum | 187 | ||
| I. The Pre-Charter Era | 188 | ||
| II. Direct Aggression by States | 189 | ||
| III. Indirect Aggression by States | 190 | ||
| IV. Distant but Grave Threats | 192 | ||
| V. Grave Threats to Persons | 194 | ||
| VI. Grave Threats from Transnational Terrorism | 197 | ||
| D. Reaffirming or Recodifying the Jus ad Bellum | 199 | ||
| I. Maintaining the Status Quo | 199 | ||
| II. Debating Reaffirmation or Recodification | 208 | ||
| III. The Means of a Reaffirmation or Recodification | 211 | ||
| E. Conclusion | 215 | ||
| Christine Gray: The International Community’s “Responsibility to Protect” Populations from War Crimes and Other International Crimes | 217 | ||
| A. The Threshold for Intervention | 218 | ||
| B. The UK Approach to the Threshold for Military Intervention | 220 | ||
| C. Characterization of International Crimes | 223 | ||
| D. Darfur and the Responsibility to Protect | 224 | ||
| E. The Duties of UN Member States under the Responsibility to Protect | 226 | ||
| F. Decision Making on Military Action through the UN Security Council | 227 | ||
| G. Action on Behalf of the International Community? | 228 | ||
| Kirsten Schmalenbach: Preventing and Rebuilding Failed States | 231 | ||
| A. Introduction | 231 | ||
| B. Anamnesis: From Weakness to Failure | 233 | ||
| C. Preventing State Failure | 237 | ||
| I. The UN Prevention Strategy | 237 | ||
| II. Duty to Cooperate | 238 | ||
| III. Unilateral Measures and Interventions | 242 | ||
| IV. Legal Limits to Chapter VII Measures | 243 | ||
| D. Rebuilding Failed States | 246 | ||
| I. Actors and Approaches | 247 | ||
| II. Law Governing United Nations State-Building Missions | 248 | ||
| 1. Right to Internal Self-Determination | 249 | ||
| 2. Law of Occupation and Human Rights Law | 251 | ||
| III. Law Governing Rebuilding Efforts of Third States | 254 | ||
| E. Conclusion | 256 | ||
| Dagmar Richter: Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: Intersecting Circles or Separate Spheres? | 257 | ||
| A. The Fragmentation of International Law Relating to Armed Conflict – An Introduction | 257 | ||
| B. Rules Governing the Relationship between Norms in International Law | 259 | ||
| I. “Conflict Rules” in International Law | 259 | ||
| 1. General Rules of Interpretation: Lex Specialis and Lex Posterior | 259 | ||
| 2. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties | 261 | ||
| a) Art. 30 VCLT | 261 | ||
| b) Art. 31 (3) (c) VCLT | 262 | ||
| 3. Art. 103 UN Charter – a “Meta Conflict Rule”? | 264 | ||
| II. Reference Rules | 265 | ||
| 1. Derogation Clauses in Human Rights Treaties | 265 | ||
| 2. Most-Favorable-to-the-Individual-Clauses | 267 | ||
| 3. IHL References to HRL | 267 | ||
| a) Common Art. 2 of the Geneva Conventions | 268 | ||
| b) The Martens Clause and Its Successors | 268 | ||
| c) Explicit Human Rights Clauses in Humanitarian Law Treaties | 269 | ||
| C. The Applicability of Treaty Law (HRL and IHL) in Situations of Armed Conflict | 271 | ||
| I. Situation Assessment by Humanitarian Law | 271 | ||
| II. Territorial Limits and Openness of Human Rights Treaty Regimes | 272 | ||
| 1. Art. 2 (1) ICCPR | 273 | ||
| 2. Art. 1 ECHR | 278 | ||
| a) States Exercising Control over the Territory of Another State Party: Inside the European espace juridique | 279 | ||
| b) Outside the European espace juridique | 281 | ||
| c) Control Being Exercised by an International Organization | 283 | ||
| d) State Practice: The Jurisprudence of the House of Lords | 285 | ||
| 3. A Common View on “Jurisdiction”? | 286 | ||
| D. The Relationship between HRL and IHL in Practice | 288 | ||
| I. Applying Law Other than the Law Specific to a Court’s Jurisdiction | 288 | ||
| 1. The Application of Humanitarian Law by Human Rights Bodies | 288 | ||
| 2. The Application of Human Rights Lawby International Criminal Courts | 289 | ||
| II. Jurisprudence | 290 | ||
| 1. ICJ: Learning About the Limits of Lex specialis | 290 | ||
| a) Nuclear Weapons (1996) | 290 | ||
| b) The Likely Impact of General Comment No. 31 of the Human Rights Committee | 291 | ||
| c) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (2004) and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (2005) | 292 | ||
| 2. Inter-American Human Rights Bodies: From the Establishment of Violation to the Mere Consideration of IHL | 293 | ||
| a) Inter-American Commission of Human Rights | 293 | ||
| aa) The Early “Substantive Overlap” Doctrine: Abella (1997) and Other Similar Cases | 293 | ||
| bb) The “Common Nucleus” Doctrine: Coard (1999) | 295 | ||
| cc) Conjunctive Approach: Ellacuría, S.J. (1999), Monsignor Romero (2000) | 296 | ||
| dd) Interpretative Approach: Riofrío Massacre, Columbia (2001) | 297 | ||
| ee) Subsidiary Approach: Detainees at Guantánamo Bay (2002) | 297 | ||
| b) Inter-American Court of Human Rights | 298 | ||
| aa) Las Palmeras (2000) | 299 | ||
| bb) Bamaca-Velasquez (2000) | 300 | ||
| cc) Serrano Cruz Sisters (2004) | 300 | ||
| c) Analysis | 301 | ||
| 3. European Court of Human Rights: The Mystery of Ignorance | 303 | ||
| a) Ergi (1998) and Isayeva (2005) | 304 | ||
| b) Analysis | 305 | ||
| 4. International Criminal Tribunals: Transforming Human Rights Concepts into Humanitarian Law | 306 | ||
| a) Ad hoc Tribunals: Indirect Consideration of Human Rights Law | 306 | ||
| aa) The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as a Peace-maker: Akayesu (1998) | 306 | ||
| bb) The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: Adopting the Further Elements Approach in Delalić and Furundžija (1998) | 307 | ||
| cc) Peculiarity and Embedment of the ad hoc Tribunals in the International Human Rights Order | 309 | ||
| b) International Criminal Court: Subsidiary Function of Human Rights Law | 310 | ||
| E. Synthesis | 311 | ||
| I. General Overview | 311 | ||
| II. Application of Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict | 311 | ||
| 1. The Relevance of the Character of the Armed Conflict | 311 | ||
| 2. Restatement of the Effective Control Criterion with Regard to Extraterritorial Application | 313 | ||
| a) Importing Human Rights to Foreign Legal Cultures? | 313 | ||
| b) Reverse Proportionality | 314 | ||
| c) Presumption of the Existence of Jurisdiction and Priority Rule | 314 | ||
| d) The Prime Importance of the “Normality Rule” | 315 | ||
| e) Which Human Rights Convention is to Be Applied by an Occupying Power? | 316 | ||
| 3. Expressiveness and Consequences of Non-Derogation | 317 | ||
| III. Rethinking the Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law | 319 | ||
| 1. Why the Specialty Rule Proves Erroneous | 319 | ||
| 2. The System-Based Approach | 320 | ||
| 3. Intersecting Circles but Separate Spheres | 321 | ||
| Rainer Hofmann: Can Victims of Human Rights Violations Claim Damages? | 323 | ||
| A. Individual Claims for Human Rights Violations | 323 | ||
| B. Individual Claims for International Humanitarian Law Violations | 325 | ||
| I. The Situation under the lex lata | 325 | ||
| II. Considerations de lege ferenda | 329 | ||
| C. Concluding Remarks | 331 | ||
| Ralph Wilde: From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers | 333 | ||
| A. Introduction | 333 | ||
| B. What is Occupation in International Law and Public Policy? | 335 | ||
| C. What is Trusteeship in International Law and Public Policy? | 336 | ||
| I. General Concept | 336 | ||
| II. Colonial Trusteeship | 337 | ||
| III. Mandate and Trusteeship Arrangements | 338 | ||
| IV. Occupation as Trusteeship | 338 | ||
| V. The Twin Objectives of Trusteeship: Care and Improvement | 340 | ||
| VI. Common Concept of Trusteeship | 341 | ||
| D. How do Occupation and Trusteeship Relate to International Territorial Administration? | 341 | ||
| I. Trusteeship Characteristics | 341 | ||
| II. Michael Bothe and Thilo Marauhn’s “Security Council Trusteeship Administration” Concept | 342 | ||
| III. Do Trusteeship and Occupation Presuppose Imposition? | 345 | ||
| IV. Does Occupation only Cover State-Conducted Activity? | 346 | ||
| V. Holistic Category of “Trusteeship” Encompassing Colonialism, Occupation and International Territorial Administration | 348 | ||
| E. Applicable Law – What Law Does Apply? | 351 | ||
| I. General Issues | 351 | ||
| II. Human Rights Law in Particular: Whether and How it Applies Extraterritorially | 353 | ||
| F. Applicable Law – What Law Should Apply? | 356 | ||
| I. Why Consider this Question | 356 | ||
| II. Occupation Law: Compatibility with Transformation and Adequacy as a Framework for Regulation | 357 | ||
| III. Human Rights Law: Should it Apply? | 358 | ||
| G. Trusteeship and Accountability | 362 | ||
| H. The Missing Issue and Area of International Law – Self-Determination | 368 | ||
| Eyal Benvenisti: The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation | 371 | ||
| A. Introduction: The Ways of Ending Occupations | 371 | ||
| B. When Occupation Ends? | 372 | ||
| C. The Occupant’s Forward-Looking Obligations | 376 | ||
| I. Forward-Looking Obligations of the Occupant During the Occupation | 376 | ||
| II. Obligations of the Occupant at the Moment of Ending the Occupation | 377 | ||
| III. Obligations of State Parties under Human Rights Law | 378 | ||
| D. Consequences of Failure to Comply | 380 | ||
| E. Conclusion | 381 | ||
| Gregory H. Fox: A Return to Trusteeship? A Commenton International Territorial Administration | 383 | ||
| A. Introduction | 383 | ||
| B. Why Not a “Return” to Trusteeship? | 386 | ||
| I. Distinct Objectives | 386 | ||
| II. Distinct Normative Foundations | 388 | ||
| C. Conclusions | 392 | ||
| Robert Heinsch: The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Challenges of Today’s Armed Conflicts | 393 | ||
| A. Introduction | 393 | ||
| I. The ICRC’s Mission in General | 393 | ||
| II. What Are Today’s Predominant Types of Conflicts? | 394 | ||
| III. Can International Humanitarian Law Stand the Test of Time? | 396 | ||
| B. The Challenges for International Humanitarian Law with Regard to Today’s Armed Conflicts | 397 | ||
| I. Assimilation of the Rules for International and Non-International Armed Conflict | 397 | ||
| 1. Is There Still a Clear-Cut Distinction between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts? | 397 | ||
| 2. Jurisprudence and Statutes of International Criminal Tribunals Have Assimilated the Two Legal Regimes | 399 | ||
| 3. Customary Law as Presented in the ICRC Study Reflects this Assimilation | 403 | ||
| II. The Challenges of Asymmetrical Warfare and Terrorism | 404 | ||
| 1. Today’s Discussion Does Not Circle around Non-Internationalor International Armed Conflict but Rather on IHL or Not IHL | 404 | ||
| 2. Is the “War Against Terrorism” an Armed Conflict in the Sense of IHL? | 407 | ||
| 3. How Does International Humanitarian Law Deal with “Illegal Combatants?” | 411 | ||
| 4. Definition for “Direct Participation of Civilians” | 413 | ||
| III. Do We Need a Revision of the Present Rules of International Humanitarian Law? | 414 | ||
| C. Conclusion | 415 | ||
| Walter Kälin: The ICRC’s Compilation of the Customary Rules of Humanitarian Law | 417 | ||
| A. The Study | 417 | ||
| B. The Critique | 419 | ||
| C. Assessment | 421 | ||
| I. “Specially Affected” Interests of States | 422 | ||
| II. Expansion of the Situational Scope of Application | 424 | ||
| III. Persistent Objectors | 425 | ||
| D. Opinio Juris: Subjective Will or Objective Element? | 426 | ||
| E. The Way Forward | 427 | ||
| Hans-Joachim Heintze: Terrorism and Asymmetric Conflicts – A Rolefor the Martens Clause? | 429 | ||
| A. The Stages of Development of the Martens Clause | 429 | ||
| B. Application in Asymmetric Wars | 431 | ||
| C. Application of the Martens Clause in the “War on Terror” | 432 | ||
| D. Conclusion | 434 | ||
| Karin Oellers-Frahm: Nowhere to Go? – The Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully in the Absence of Compulsory Jurisdiction | 435 | ||
| A. Introduction | 435 | ||
| B. The Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully | 435 | ||
| I. From the Principle to the Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully | 435 | ||
| II. Settlement of Disputes and Maintenance of International Peace | 436 | ||
| III. Free Choice of Means of Dispute Settlement | 437 | ||
| C. Compulsory Jurisdiction | 438 | ||
| I. “Compulsory” Jurisdiction in International Law | 438 | ||
| II. Requirement of a Permanent Judicial Organ | 438 | ||
| III. Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction | 439 | ||
| D. Compulsory Jurisdiction in Special Regimes | 440 | ||
| I. The Creation of Special Regimes | 441 | ||
| II. Special Courts for Special Regimes | 442 | ||
| III. Interim Conclusions | 444 | ||
| E. Settlement of Political Disputes | 445 | ||
| I. The Different Categories of Disputes and Their Justiciability | 445 | ||
| 1. Maintenance of Peace and Settlement of Disputes | 445 | ||
| 2. Justiciability of Political Disputes | 446 | ||
| II. The “Settlement” of Disputes | 447 | ||
| 1. The Justiciability of Disputes | 447 | ||
| 2. Compliance with Judgments | 448 | ||
| III. Use of Force and Settlement of Disputes | 449 | ||
| F. Where to Go? | 450 | ||
| G. Concluding Remar | 451 | ||
| Bruno Simma: How Has Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute Fared? | 455 | ||
| Christian J. Tams: The Continued Relevance of Compromissory Clauses as a Source of ICJ Jurisdiction | 461 | ||
| A. Introduction | 461 | ||
| B. Clarifications | 462 | ||
| I. Compromissory Clauses | 462 | ||
| 1. Clauses in Treaties versus Clauses in Optional Protocols | 465 | ||
| 2. PCIJ/ICJ Clauses versus Clauses Referring to Other Dispute-Settlement Bodies | 466 | ||
| 3. Types of Treaties Containing Compromissory Clauses | 467 | ||
| 4. Proper Compromissory Clauses versus Opt-In Mechani | 468 | ||
| 5. PCIJ versus ICJ Clauses | 468 | ||
| 6. Interim Assessment | 469 | ||
| II. Relevance | 469 | ||
| C. The Continued Relevance of Compromissory Clauses | 469 | ||
| I. Agreement on Compromissory Clauses | 470 | ||
| 1. Statistics | 470 | ||
| 2. Importance | 471 | ||
| 3. Developments | 476 | ||
| 4. Interim Conclusions | 479 | ||
| II. Reliance on Compromissory Clauses in ICJ Proceedings | 481 | ||
| 1. Statistics | 481 | ||
| 2. Importance | 484 | ||
| 3. Developments | 485 | ||
| III. An Assessment | 487 | ||
| D. Consequences of their Continued Relevance | 488 | ||
| I. Incremental Progress | 488 | ||
| II. A Piecemeal Approach to Dispute Settl | 489 | ||
| III. A Focus on Treaty Breaches | 490 | ||
| E. Concluding Remarks | 491 | ||
| Frank Hoffmeister: The Aegean Conflict – An Unsettled Disputein Turkey’s EU Accession Course | 493 | ||
| A. Introduction | 493 | ||
| B. Background | 493 | ||
| I. Historical Development | 493 | ||
| II. The Approaches of Greece and Turkey | 494 | ||
| 1. The Scope of the Dispute | 494 | ||
| 2. The Applicable Law | 495 | ||
| 3. Third Party Settlement | 497 | ||
| C. The EU Dimension | 498 | ||
| I. The Peaceful Settlement of Border Disputes as a Criterion for Accession | 498 | ||
| II. The Aegean Conflict in Turkey’s Accession Course | 500 | ||
| D. Conclusion | 502 | ||
| Oliver Dörr: The European Court of Justice Getting in the Way: The Abortive MOX Plant Arbitration | 503 | ||
| A. Conflicts of Courts in International Law | 504 | ||
| B. The MOX Plant Dispute | 505 | ||
| C. Exclusive Jurisdiction under European Community Law | 507 | ||
| D. Final Remarks | 508 | ||
| Christine Chinkin: Panel Discussion: Has International Law Civilized Conflicts since 1907? (Remarks) | 509 | ||
| Remarks by Christian Tomuschat | 513 | ||
| Remarks by Natalino Ronzitti | 515 | ||
| List of Contributors | 521 |