E-Book, Englisch, Band 173, 522 Seiten, Gewicht: 1 g
Reihe: Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel
Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference.
E-Book, Englisch, Band 173, 522 Seiten, Gewicht: 1 g
Reihe: Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel
ISBN: 978-3-428-53040-3
Verlag: Duncker & Humblot
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
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.
Fachgebiete
- Rechtswissenschaften Internationales Recht und Europarecht Internationales Recht Internationale Menschen- und Minderheitenrechte, Kinderrechte
- Rechtswissenschaften Internationales Recht und Europarecht Internationales Recht Internationales Kriegsrecht, Territorialrecht, Humanitäres Recht
- Sozialwissenschaften Politikwissenschaft Politische Kultur Menschenrechte, Bürgerrechte
Weitere Infos & Material
Inhalt: Introduction: T. Giegerich, Prevention and Containment of War: Two Fateful Missions Unaccomplished - J. Delbrück, Walther Schücking's Contribution to the International Rule of Law - S. C. Neff, The Hague Peace Conferences and a Century of Further Struggles - Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: I. Anthony, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reduction of Stockpiles and Non-Proliferation - H. Krieger, Disarmament Obligations of and Assurances of Non-Use by Nuclear Weapon States - C. Schaller, Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction from Terrorists. An International Law Perspective - K. Dörmann, Conventional Disarmament: Nothing New on the Geneva Front? - C. Höhn, International Humanitarian Law in the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, in Particular the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports - The Ups and Downs of International Humanitarian Law: S. D. Murphy, Protean Jus ad Bellum - C. Gray, The International Community's "Responsibility to Protect" Populations from War Crimes and Other International Crimes - K. Schmalenbach, Preventing and Rebuilding Failed States - D. Richter, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: Intersecting Circles or Separate Spheres? - R. Hofmann, Can Victims of Human Rights Violations Claim Damages? - R. 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 - E. Benvenisti, The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation - G. H. Fox, A Return to Trusteeship? A Comment on International Territorial Administration - R. Heinsch, The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Challenges of Today's Armed Conflicts - W. Kälin, The ICRC's Compilation of the Customary Rules of Humanitarian Law - H.-J. Heintze, Terrorism and Asymmetric Conflicts: A Role for the Martens Clause? - Dispute Settlement by International Courts or Arbitral Tribunals: K. Oellers-Frahm, Nowhere to Go? The Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully in the Absence of Compulsory Jurisdiction - B. Simma, How Has Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute Fared? - C. J. Tams, The Continued Relevance of Compromissory Clauses as a Source of ICJ Jurisdiction - F. Hoffmeister, The Aegean Conflict. An Unsettled Dispute in Turkey's EU Accession Course - O. Dörr, The European Court of Justice Getting in the Way: The Abortive MOX Plant Arbitration - C. Chinkin / C. Tomuschat / N. Ronzitti, Panel Discussion: Has International Law Civilized Conflicts since 1907?
1;Preface;6
2;Contents;8
3;Thomas Giegerich: Prevention and Containment of War – Two Fateful Missions Unaccomplished;12
3.1;A. Desperately Yearning for Peace – and Yet Incessantly Waging War;12
3.2;B. The Hague Peace Conferences and their Impacton International Law;14
3.3;C. The First Pillar of the Hague Legacy: Non-Proliferation and Disarmament;16
3.3.1;I. Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass-Destruction and Nuclear Disarmament;17
3.3.2;II. Conventional Disarmament and Arms Trade;20
3.4;D. The Second Pillar of the Hague Legacy: Codifying, Developing and Enforcing International Humanitarian Law;23
3.4.1;I. Excursion into the Jus ad Bellum and Jus post Bellum;24
3.4.2;II. Outsourcing War – The Resurgence of Private Military Contractors;26
3.4.3;III. Avoiding Legal “Black Holes” – Bringing in International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law;29
3.4.3.1;1. Preserving the “Empire of Law”;29
3.4.3.2;2. Combatting Impunity – Then and Now;34
3.4.4;IV. Belligerent Occupation and International Territorial Administration;35
3.4.5;V. The International Committee of the Red Cross: Humanizing Armed Conflicts through Law and Silent Diplomacy;38
3.5;E. The Third Pillar of the Hague Legacy: Judicial Settlement of International Disputes;39
3.5.1;I. The Gradual Development of a StillImperfect International Judiciary;39
3.5.2;II. The Advancement of the World Court and the Role of Germany in It;41
3.5.3;III. Judicial Dispute Settlement – the Perspective of the European Union;45
3.6;F. Has International Law Civilized Conflicts since 1907?;47
3.7;G. World Peace through International Law;48
4;Jost Delbrück: Walther Schücking’s Contribution to the International Rule of Law ;54
4.1;A. Biographical Data: Walther Schücking’s Careeras Scholar and Pacifist Politician;54
4.2;B. The Legacy of Walther Schücking: An International Legal Community and the Rule of Law;56
5;Stephen C. Neff: The Hague Peace Conferences and a Century of Further Struggles ;60
5.1;A. Militarization and Armaments;61
5.1.1;I. The Fate of the Hague Conference Declarations;62
5.1.2;II. Prohibiting Certain Weapons;65
5.1.3;III. Arms Reduction;67
5.1.4;IV. Restricting the Resort to Armed Force;68
5.1.5;V. An Overall Assessment;69
5.2;B. The Laws of Armed Conflict;72
5.2.1;I. War on Land;73
5.2.2;II. War at Sea;74
5.2.3;III. Neutrality;75
5.2.4;IV. An Overall Assessment;76
5.3;C. The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes;77
5.3.1;An Overall Assessment;85
5.4;D. Some Final Thoughts;86
6;Ian Anthony: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reduction of Stockpiles and Non-Proliferation;90
6.1;A. Current Status of Reductions of Stockpiles;92
6.2;B. Pushing Ahead on the Global Nuclear Disarmament Agenda;99
6.3;C. Preventing the Spread of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons;101
6.4;D. The Role of Law in Eliminating Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons;105
7;Heike Krieger: Disarmament Obligations of and Assurances of Non-Use by Nuclear Weapon States;108
7.1;A. Introduction: From Deterrence to Preemption?;108
7.2;B. Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty;109
7.3;C. Disarmament Efforts;110
7.4;D. Consequences of the Failure to Disarm;112
7.4.1;I. Negative Security Assurances;112
7.4.1.1;1. Legally Binding Character?;113
7.4.1.2;2. Negative Security Assurances and Preemption;115
7.4.2;II. Effects on the Validity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?;116
7.4.2.1;1. Termination for Breach or clausula rebus sic stantibus?;116
7.4.2.2;2. Failure to Disarm as a Material Breach?;118
7.5;E. Revival of Disarmament;120
8;Christian Schaller: Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction from Terrorists – An International Law Perspective;122
8.1;A. Assessing the Threat;122
8.2;B. Strategic Framework;123
8.3;C. Normative Framework;125
8.3.1;I. International Anti-Terrorism Law;125
8.3.2;II. Norms on Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament;127
8.3.3;III. Informal Arrangements and Initiatives;129
8.4;D. Specific Approaches;130
8.4.1;I. International Criminalization;130
8.4.1.1;1. The Nuclear Terrorism Convention as a Prototype;131
8.4.1.2;2. Other Convention-Based Crimes;133
8.4.1.3;3. Criminalization by the Security Council;134
8.4.2;II. Physical Protection of WMD and Related Material;134
8.4.3;III. Interdiction of Shipments;136
8.4.3.1;1. The Proliferation Security Initiative as a Model for Cooperation;137
8.4.3.2;2. Legal Issues Surrounding Interdiction Operations at Sea;137
8.5;E. Concluding Remarks;141
9; Knut Dörmann: Conventional Disarmament – Nothing Newon the Geneva Front?;144
9.1;A. Scope;144
9.2;B. Achievements in the Context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;145
9.3;C. Failed or Unfinished Business of the Conventional Weapons Convention and Responses Outside that Context;153
9.3.1;I. Anti-Vehicle Mines;153
9.3.2;II. Cluster Munitions;155
9.3.2.1;1. The Problem;155
9.3.2.2;2. The Reaction of the International Community – Two Codification Initiatives;158
9.3.3;III. Evaluation;163
9.4;D. Development of an International Arms Trade Treaty;164
9.5;E. Conclusion;167
10;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 ;168
10.1;A. Introduction;168
10.2;B. The European Union’s Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law;169
10.3;C. The EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports;171
10.3.1;I. Introduction;171
10.3.2;II. Provisions of the Code;174
10.3.2.1;1. General;174
10.3.2.2;2. Criterion Two: Human Rights;176
10.3.2.3;3. Criterion Six: International Law, Including IHL;178
10.3.2.4;4. Notification and Consultation Mechanism about Denials;178
10.3.2.5;5. Reporting and Outreach;179
10.3.3;III. The Way Ahead;180
10.4;D. Conclusion;182
11;Sean D. Murphy: Protean Jus ad Bellum;184
11.1;A. Introduction;184
11.2;B. Static Jus ad Bellum;186
11.3;C. Protean Jus ad Bellum;188
11.3.1;I. The Pre-Charter Era;189
11.3.2;II. Direct Aggression by States;190
11.3.3;III. Indirect Aggression by States;191
11.3.4;IV. Distant but Grave Threats;193
11.3.5;V. Grave Threats to Persons;195
11.3.6;VI. Grave Threats from Transnational Terrorism;198
11.4;D. Reaffirming or Recodifying the Jus ad Bellum;200
11.4.1;I. Maintaining the Status Quo;200
11.4.2;II. Debating Reaffirmation or Recodification;209
11.4.3;III. The Means of a Reaffirmation or Recodification;212
11.5;E. Conclusion;216
12;Christine Gray: The International Community’s “Responsibility to Protect” Populations from War Crimes and Other International Crimes ;218
12.1;A. The Threshold for Intervention;219
12.2;B. The UK Approach to the Threshold for Military Intervention;221
12.3;C. Characterization of International Crimes;224
12.4;D. Darfur and the Responsibility to Protect;225
12.5;E. The Duties of UN Member States under the Responsibility to Protect;227
12.6;F. Decision Making on Military Action through the UN Security Council;228
12.7;G. Action on Behalf of the International Community?;229
13; Kirsten Schmalenbach: Preventing and Rebuilding Failed States;232
13.1;A. Introduction;232
13.2;B. Anamnesis: From Weakness to Failure;234
13.3;C. Preventing State Failure;238
13.3.1;I. The UN Prevention Strategy;238
13.3.2;II. Duty to Cooperate;239
13.3.3;III. Unilateral Measures and Interventions;243
13.3.4;IV. Legal Limits to Chapter VII Measures;244
13.4;D. Rebuilding Failed States;247
13.4.1;I. Actors and Approaches;248
13.4.2;II. Law Governing United Nations State-Building Missions;249
13.4.2.1;1. Right to Internal Self-Determination;250
13.4.2.2;2. Law of Occupation and Human Rights Law;252
13.4.3;III. Law Governing Rebuilding Efforts of Third States;255
13.5;E. Conclusion;257
14;Dagmar Richter: Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: Intersecting Circles or Separate Spheres? ;258
14.1;A. The Fragmentation of International Law Relating to Armed Conflict – An Introduction;258
14.2;B. Rules Governing the Relationship between Norms in International Law;260
14.2.1;I. “Conflict Rules” in International Law;260
14.2.1.1;1. General Rules of Interpretation: Lex Specialis and Lex Posterior;260
14.2.1.2;2. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;262
14.2.1.2.1;a) Art. 30 VCLT;262
14.2.1.2.2;b) Art. 31 (3) (c) VCLT;263
14.2.1.3;3. Art. 103 UN Charter – a “Meta Conflict Rule”?;265
14.2.2;II. Reference Rules;266
14.2.2.1;1. Derogation Clauses in Human Rights Treaties;266
14.2.2.2;2. Most-Favorable-to-the-Individual-Clauses;268
14.2.2.3;3. IHL References to HRL;268
14.2.2.3.1;a) Common Art. 2 of the Geneva Conventions;269
14.2.2.3.2;b) The Martens Clause and Its Successors;269
14.2.2.3.3;c) Explicit Human Rights Clauses in Humanitarian Law Treaties;270
14.3;C. The Applicability of Treaty Law (HRL and IHL) in Situations of Armed Conflict;272
14.3.1;I. Situation Assessment by Humanitarian Law;272
14.3.2;II. Territorial Limits and Openness of Human Rights Treaty Regimes;273
14.3.2.1;1. Art. 2 (1) ICCPR;274
14.3.2.2;2. Art. 1 ECHR;279
14.3.2.2.1;a) States Exercising Control over the Territory of Another State Party: Inside the European espace juridique;280
14.3.2.2.2;b) Outside the European espace juridique;282
14.3.2.2.3;c) Control Being Exercised by an International Organization;284
14.3.2.2.4;d) State Practice: The Jurisprudence of the House of Lords;286
14.3.2.3;3. A Common View on “Jurisdiction”?;287
14.4;D. The Relationship between HRL and IHL in Practice;289
14.4.1;I. Applying Law Other than the Law Specific to a Court’s Jurisdiction;289
14.4.1.1;1. The Application of Humanitarian Law by Human Rights Bodies;289
14.4.1.2;2. The Application of Human Rights Lawby International Criminal Courts;290
14.4.2;II. Jurisprudence;291
14.4.2.1;1. ICJ: Learning About the Limits of Lex specialis;291
14.4.2.1.1;a) Nuclear Weapons (1996);291
14.4.2.1.2;b) The Likely Impact of General Comment No. 31 of the Human Rights Committee;292
14.4.2.1.3;c) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (2004) and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (2005);293
14.4.2.2;2. Inter-American Human Rights Bodies: From the Establishment of Violation to the Mere Consideration of IHL;294
14.4.2.2.1;a) Inter-American Commission of Human Rights;294
14.4.2.2.1.1;aa) The Early “Substantive Overlap” Doctrine: Abella (1997) and Other Similar Cases;294
14.4.2.2.1.2;bb) The “Common Nucleus” Doctrine: Coard (1999);296
14.4.2.2.1.3;cc) Conjunctive Approach: Ellacuría, S.J. (1999), Monsignor Romero (2000);297
14.4.2.2.1.4;dd) Interpretative Approach: Riofrío Massacre, Columbia (2001);298
14.4.2.2.1.5;ee) Subsidiary Approach: Detainees at Guantánamo Bay (2002);298
14.4.2.2.2;b) Inter-American Court of Human Rights;299
14.4.2.2.2.1;aa) Las Palmeras (2000);300
14.4.2.2.2.2;bb) Bamaca-Velasquez (2000);301
14.4.2.2.2.3;cc) Serrano Cruz Sisters (2004);301
14.4.2.2.3;c) Analysis;302
14.4.2.3;3. European Court of Human Rights: The Mystery of Ignorance;304
14.4.2.3.1;a) Ergi (1998) and Isayeva (2005);305
14.4.2.3.2;b) Analysis;306
14.4.2.4;4. International Criminal Tribunals: Transforming Human Rights Concepts into Humanitarian Law;307
14.4.2.4.1;a) Ad hoc Tribunals: Indirect Consideration of Human Rights Law;307
14.4.2.4.1.1;aa) The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda as a Peace-maker: Akayesu (1998);307
14.4.2.4.1.2;bb) The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: Adopting the Further Elements Approach in Delalic and Furundžija (1998);308
14.4.2.4.1.3;cc) Peculiarity and Embedment of the ad hoc Tribunals in the International Human Rights Order;310
14.4.2.4.2;b) International Criminal Court: Subsidiary Function of Human Rights Law;311
14.5;E. Synthesis;312
14.5.1;I. General Overview;312
14.5.2;II. Application of Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict;312
14.5.2.1;1. The Relevance of the Character of the Armed Conflict;312
14.5.2.2;2. Restatement of the Effective Control Criterion with Regard to Extraterritorial Application;314
14.5.2.2.1;a) Importing Human Rights to Foreign Legal Cultures?;314
14.5.2.2.2;b) Reverse Proportionality;315
14.5.2.2.3;c) Presumption of the Existence of Jurisdiction and Priority Rule;315
14.5.2.2.4;d) The Prime Importance of the “Normality Rule”;316
14.5.2.2.5;e) Which Human Rights Convention is to Be Applied by an Occupying Power?;317
14.5.2.3;3. Expressiveness and Consequences of Non-Derogation;318
14.5.3;III. Rethinking the Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law;320
14.5.3.1;1. Why the Specialty Rule Proves Erroneous;320
14.5.3.2;2. The System-Based Approach;321
14.5.3.3;3. Intersecting Circles but Separate Spheres;322
15;Rainer Hofmann: Can Victims of Human Rights Violations Claim Damages?;324
15.1;A. Individual Claims for Human Rights Violations;324
15.2;B. Individual Claims for International Humanitarian Law Violations;326
15.2.1;I. The Situation under the lex lata;326
15.2.2;II. Considerations de lege ferenda;330
15.3;C. Concluding Remarks;332
16; 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;334
16.1;A. Introduction;334
16.2;B. What is Occupation in International Law and Public Policy?;336
16.3;C. What is Trusteeship in International Law and Public Policy?;337
16.3.1;I. General Concept;337
16.3.2;II. Colonial Trusteeship;338
16.3.3;III. Mandate and Trusteeship Arrangements;339
16.3.4;IV. Occupation as Trusteeship;339
16.3.5;V. The Twin Objectives of Trusteeship: Care and Improvement;341
16.3.6;VI. Common Concept of Trusteeship;342
16.4;D. How do Occupation and Trusteeship Relate to International Territorial Administration?;342
16.4.1;I. Trusteeship Characteristics;342
16.4.2;II. Michael Bothe and Thilo Marauhn’s “Security Council Trusteeship Administration” Concept;343
16.4.3;III. Do Trusteeship and Occupation Presuppose Imposition?;346
16.4.4;IV. Does Occupation only Cover State-Conducted Activity?;347
16.4.5;V. Holistic Category of “Trusteeship” Encompassing Colonialism, Occupation and International Territorial Administration;349
16.5;E. Applicable Law – What Law Does Apply?;352
16.5.1;I. General Issues;352
16.5.2;II. Human Rights Law in Particular: Whether and How it Applies Extraterritorially;354
16.6;F. Applicable Law – What Law Should Apply?;357
16.6.1;I. Why Consider this Question;357
16.6.2;II. Occupation Law: Compatibility with Transformation and Adequacy as a Framework for Regulation;358
16.6.3;III. Human Rights Law: Should it Apply?;359
16.7;G. Trusteeship and Accountability;363
16.8;H. The Missing Issue and Area of International Law – Self-Determination;369
17; Eyal Benvenisti: The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation;372
17.1;A. Introduction: The Ways of Ending Occupations;372
17.2;B. When Occupation Ends?;373
17.3;C. The Occupant’s Forward-Looking Obligations;377
17.3.1;I. Forward-Looking Obligations of the Occupant During the Occupation;377
17.3.2;II. Obligations of the Occupant at the Moment of Ending the Occupation;378
17.3.3;III. Obligations of State Parties under Human Rights Law;379
17.4;D. Consequences of Failure to Comply;381
17.5;E. Conclusion;382
18;Gregory H. Fox: A Return to Trusteeship? A Commenton International Territorial Administration ;384
18.1;A. Introduction;384
18.2;B. Why Not a “Return” to Trusteeship?;387
18.2.1;I. Distinct Objectives;387
18.2.2;II. Distinct Normative Foundations;389
18.3;C. Conclusions;393
19;Robert Heinsch: The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Challenges of Today’s Armed Conflicts ;394
19.1;A. Introduction;394
19.1.1;I. The ICRC’s Mission in General;394
19.1.2;II. What Are Today’s Predominant Types of Conflicts?;395
19.1.3;III. Can International Humanitarian Law Stand the Test of Time?;397
19.2;B. The Challenges for International Humanitarian Law with Regard to Today’s Armed Conflicts;398
19.2.1;I. Assimilation of the Rules for International and Non-International Armed Conflict;398
19.2.1.1;1. Is There Still a Clear-Cut Distinction between International and Non-International Armed Conflicts?;398
19.2.1.2;2. Jurisprudence and Statutes of International Criminal Tribunals Have Assimilated the Two Legal Regimes;400
19.2.1.3;3. Customary Law as Presented in the ICRC Study Reflects this Assimilation;404
19.2.2;II. The Challenges of Asymmetrical Warfare and Terrorism;405
19.2.2.1;1. Today’s Discussion Does Not Circle around Non-Internationalor International Armed Conflict but Rather on IHL or Not IHL;405
19.2.2.2;2. Is the “War Against Terrorism” an Armed Conflict in the Sense of IHL?;408
19.2.2.3;3. How Does International Humanitarian Law Deal with “Illegal Combatants?”;412
19.2.2.4;4. Definition for “Direct Participation of Civilians”;414
19.2.3;III. Do We Need a Revision of the Present Rules of International Humanitarian Law?;415
19.3;C. Conclusion;416
20; Walter Kälin: The ICRC’s Compilation of the Customary Rules of Humanitarian Law;418
20.1;A. The Study;418
20.2;B. The Critique;420
20.3;C. Assessment;422
20.3.1;I. “Specially Affected” Interests of States;423
20.3.2;II. Expansion of the Situational Scope of Application;425
20.3.3;III. Persistent Objectors;426
20.4;D. Opinio Juris: Subjective Will or Objective Element?;427
20.5;E. The Way Forward;428
21;Hans-Joachim Heintze: Terrorism and Asymmetric Conflicts – A Rolefor the Martens Clause? ;430
21.1;A. The Stages of Development of the Martens Clause;430
21.2;B. Application in Asymmetric Wars;432
21.3;C. Application of the Martens Clause in the “War on Terror”;433
21.4;D. Conclusion;435
22;Karin Oellers-Frahm: Nowhere to Go? – The Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully in the Absence of Compulsory Jurisdiction;436
22.1;A. Introduction;436
22.2;B. The Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully;436
22.2.1;I. From the Principle to the Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully;436
22.2.2;II. Settlement of Disputes and Maintenance of International Peace;437
22.2.3;III. Free Choice of Means of Dispute Settlement;438
22.3;C. Compulsory Jurisdiction;439
22.3.1;I. “Compulsory” Jurisdiction in International Law;439
22.3.2;II. Requirement of a Permanent Judicial Organ;439
22.3.3;III. Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction;440
22.4;D. Compulsory Jurisdiction in Special Regimes;441
22.4.1;I. The Creation of Special Regimes;442
22.4.2;II. Special Courts for Special Regimes;443
22.4.3;III. Interim Conclusions;445
22.5;E. Settlement of Political Disputes;446
22.5.1;I. The Different Categories of Disputes and Their Justiciability;446
22.5.1.1;1. Maintenance of Peace and Settlement of Disputes;446
22.5.1.2;2. Justiciability of Political Disputes;447
22.5.2;II. The “Settlement” of Disputes;448
22.5.2.1;1. The Justiciability of Disputes;448
22.5.2.2;2. Compliance with Judgments;449
22.5.3;III. Use of Force and Settlement of Disputes;450
22.6;F. Where to Go?;451
22.7;G. Concluding Remar;452
23;Bruno Simma: How Has Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute Fared? ;456
24;Christian J. Tams: The Continued Relevance of Compromissory Clauses as a Source of ICJ Jurisdiction;462
24.1;A. Introduction;462
24.2;B. Clarifications;463
24.2.1;I. Compromissory Clauses;463
24.2.1.1;1. Clauses in Treaties versus Clauses in Optional Protocols;466
24.2.1.2;2. PCIJ/ICJ Clauses versus Clauses Referring to Other Dispute-Settlement Bodies;467
24.2.1.3;3. Types of Treaties Containing Compromissory Clauses;468
24.2.1.4;4. Proper Compromissory Clauses versus Opt-In Mechani;469
24.2.1.5;5. PCIJ versus ICJ Clauses;469
24.2.1.6;6. Interim Assessment;470
24.2.2;II. Relevance;470
24.3;C. The Continued Relevance of Compromissory Clauses;470
24.3.1;I. Agreement on Compromissory Clauses;471
24.3.1.1;1. Statistics;471
24.3.1.2;2. Importance;472
24.3.1.3;3. Developments;477
24.3.1.4;4. Interim Conclusions;480
24.3.2;II. Reliance on Compromissory Clauses in ICJ Proceedings;482
24.3.2.1;1. Statistics;482
24.3.2.2;2. Importance;485
24.3.2.3;3. Developments;486
24.3.3;III. An Assessment;488
24.4;D. Consequences of their Continued Relevance;489
24.4.1;I. Incremental Progress;489
24.4.2;II. A Piecemeal Approach to Dispute Settl;490
24.4.3;III. A Focus on Treaty Breaches;491
24.5;E. Concluding Remarks;492
25;Frank Hoffmeister: The Aegean Conflict – An Unsettled Disputein Turkey’s EU Accession Course;494
25.1;A. Introduction;494
25.2;B. Background;494
25.2.1;I. Historical Development;494
25.2.2;II. The Approaches of Greece and Turkey;495
25.2.2.1;1. The Scope of the Dispute;495
25.2.2.2;2. The Applicable Law;496
25.2.2.3;3. Third Party Settlement;498
25.3;C. The EU Dimension;499
25.3.1;I. The Peaceful Settlement of Border Disputes as a Criterion for Accession;499
25.3.2;II. The Aegean Conflict in Turkey’s Accession Course;501
25.4;D. Conclusion;503
26;Oliver Dörr: The European Court of Justice Getting in the Way: The Abortive MOX Plant Arbitration ;504
26.1;A. Conflicts of Courts in International Law;505
26.2;B. The MOX Plant Dispute;506
26.3;C. Exclusive Jurisdiction under European Community Law;508
26.4;D. Final Remarks;509
27;Christine Chinkin: Panel Discussion: Has International Law Civilized Conflicts since 1907? (Remarks);510
27.1;Remarks by Christian Tomuschat;514
27.2;Remarks by Natalino Ronzitti;516
28;List of Contributors;522
