Kritikk Interne/Rettsdogmatisk: Vektlegging av praksis og opinio juris
Eksterne
Traktater
Typer traktater Kontraktstraktater og rettssettende traktater Rammetraktater og protokoller Traktater som oppretter internasjonale institusjoner (domstoler, IGOs, traktatorganer)
Wien konvensjon Signert i 1969, ikrafttredelse 1980 Norge ikke tilsluttet Generelt akseptert som et uttrykk for folkerettslig sedvanerett (Donau-saken, 1997) land som ikke har ratifisert avtalen (f. eks. Norge) vil også være bundet av dens bestemmelser Regulerer inngåelse, tolkning og opphør av traktater Gjelder (skriftlige) avtaler mellom stater Konvensjon om traktater hvor internasjonale organisasjoner er parter, 1986, inneholder stort sett samme regler
Innga else av traktater 1. Myndighet til a innga avtaler (Art. 7 VCLT) Fullmakt («full powers») Statenes praksis eller andre omstendigheter, eller «by virtue of their functions»
Innga else av traktater 2. Hvordan blir teksten vedtatt? (Art. 9 VCLT) Vedtak etter art. 9 VCLT krever samtykke eller 2/3 flertall (internasjonale konferanser) Vedtak av internasjonale organisasjoner Konsensus (for a unnga «a blocking third»)
Hva er konsensus? UN Office of Legal Affairs: UNFCCC COP, Doha (2012) a practice under which every effort is made to achieve unanimous agreement; but if that could not be done, those dissenting from the general trend were prepared simply to make their position or reservations known and placed on record. Statement by the Director of the General Legal Division, UN Office of Legal Affairs, Official Records of ECOSOC, 56th session, Supp. No.3A, UN Doc. E.5462 (6 March 1974), para.64 summarised in Use of the term consensus in UN practice, UN Juridical Yearbook 1974, Chap. VI A.12., pp.163-164.
Hvordan blir en traktat bindende? Samtykke Arts. 9-17 Ikrafttredelse Arts. 24, 25
Innga else av traktater 3. Samtykke (art. 11 VCLT) Undertegning (art. 12) De deler av traktaten som fastsetter hvordan den blir bindende gjelder ved vedtak (art. 24(4) VCLT) Hvis det trenges etterfølgende ratifikasjon (art. 14): Staten forplikter seg til ikke a handle i strid med traktatens formål (Art. 18 VCLT) Innebærer i praksis ofte behov for samtykke fra Stortinget (demokratisk element)
Inngåelse av traktater 4. Ikrafttredelse: Art. 24 VCLT; ofte regulert i traktaten Eksempler: Art. 23 UNFCCC Art. 308(1) UNCLOS Art. 25 KP Art. 21 Parisavtalen
Rettslige konsekvenser: Arts. 26, 27 VCLT Reservasjoner Det absolutte system Det relative system (Art. 19-23 VCLT) Stemmeerklæringer (e.g. FN s Urfolkserklæring) Ugyldige traktater Inkompetanse Tilblivelsesmangler Innholdsmangler
Case Study: CEDAW Reservations and Objections The United Arab Emirates makes reservations to articles 2 (f), 9, 15 (2), 16 and 29 (1) of the Convention, as follows: Article 2 (f): The United Arab Emirates, being of the opinion that this paragraph violates the rules of inheritance established in accordance with the precepts of the Shariah, makes a reservation thereto and does not consider itself bound by the provisions thereof. "The Government of Australia advises that it is not at present in a position to take the measures required by article 11 (2) to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits throughout Australia.
With regard to reservations made by Saudi Arabia upon ratification: The Government of the French Republic has examined the reservations made by the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted in New York on 18 December 1979. By stating that in case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of Islamic law, it is not under obligation to observe the terms of the Convention, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia formulates a reservation of general, indeterminate scope that gives the other States parties absolutely no idea which provisions of the Convention are affected or might be affected in future. The Government of the French Republic believes that the reservation could make the provisions of the Convention completely ineffective and therefore objects to it. The second reservation, concerning article 9, paragraph 2, rules out equality of rights between men and women with respect to the nationality of their children and the Government of the French Republic therefore objects to it. These objections do not preclude the Convention's entry into force between Saudi Arabia and France.
CEDAW Committee Statement on Reservations (1998) 7. Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention adopts the impermissibility principle contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It states that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted. 8. Although the Convention does not prohibit the entering of reservations, those which challenge the central principles of the Convention are contrary to the provisions of the Convention and to general international law. As such they may be challenged by other States parties. 16. The Committee holds the view that article 2 is central to the objects and purpose of the Convention. States parties which ratify the Convention do so because they agree that discrimination against women in all its forms should be condemned and that the strategies set out in article 2, subparagraphs (a) to (g), should be implemented by States parties to eliminate it. 17. Neither traditional, religious or cultural practice nor incompatible domestic laws and policies can justify violations of the Convention. The Committee also remains convinced that reservations to article 16, whether lodged for national, traditional, religious or cultural reasons, are incompatible with the Convention and therefore impermissible and should be reviewed and modified or withdrawn.
Opphør av traktater Formål oppfylt eller tidsbegrensning Ny traktat (som ikke er konsistent med den gamle): Art. 59 Jus cogens: Arts. 54, 64 Bristende forutsetninger: Art. 62 Umulighet: Art. 61 Brudd («material breach»): Art. 60 Rett til a si opp: Art. 56 Nødvendighet? (-)
Wien konvensjonen om traktatretten, 1969 Article 31, GENERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a) Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) Any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty. 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) Any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; (b) Any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; (c) Any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. 4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended. Article 32. SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS OF INTERPRETATION Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) Leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
Fortolkningsmetoder A.Objektiv B.Teleologiske C.Subjektiv
A. Objektiv fortolkning 1. God tro: Art 31(1) En fornuftig tilnærming til fortolkning. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that a treaty should be interpreted in good faith and not lead to a result that would be manifestly absurd or unreasonable McTaggert Sinclair, 1984, s. 120. Formålet og partenes (objektive) intensjoner «should prevail over its literal application» : Donau-saken, 1997, avsnitt 142.
2. Ordlyden: Art 31(1) Begynner med «vanlige ordlyden» i «den konkrete traktaten» Øst-Grønland-saken (1933), PCIJ: The geographical meaning of the word Greenland i.e. The name which is habitually used in the maps to denominate the whole island, must be regarded as the ordinary of the meaning of the word.
Et eksempel: Hva er Australia?
Men for i den 2005 Innvandringslov, er Australia mye mindre...
Den vanlige Kanskje i forhold til flytningskonvensjonen men veldig kontroversielt
B. Teleologiske tolkning 1. Formål: art. 31(1) Dersom ordlyden ikke gir noen klar løsning, er det vanlig å legge stor vekt på formålet. Man bruker det effektivitetsprinsippet. Prinsippet har sin grense kan ikke bidra til en konflikt med ordlyden og god tro (ICJ Rep. 1950. s. 220). Men i dag er det prinsippet viktigere enn bevarelse av statenes suverenitet (et annet prinsipp som bidrar til mer restriktiv tolkning) 2. Konteksten: art 31(1) og definert i art 31(2) Defineres som fortalen, andre bestemmelser i traktaten, og andre avtaler mellom de partene i forbindelse med traktaten. 3. Må ta hensyn til...: (art. 31(3)) Senere avtaler, praksis Relevante regler
C. Subjektiv tolkning Dersom fortolkningsmomentene i art. 31 fører til uklar løsninger eller absurde resultater kan man bruke supplerende tolkningsmomenter: Traktatens forarbeider Traktatens forhistorie
Konflikt mellom og harmonisering av traktater Lex specialis derogat lege generali Lex posterior derogat lege priori (Art. 30(3) og (4)) Lex superior derogat lege inferiori
Alminnelige rettsgrunnsetninger
General principles of law recognized by civilized nations Prinsipper som er alminnelig utbredt i ulike nasjoners nasjonale rett Krever anerkjennelse av statene, men hvor mange er ikke klart Må være egnet til overføring fra internasjonal rett til nasjonal rett Anvendes sjelden som selvstendig rettskilde (intet eksempel hos ICJ, men brukt av den permanente voldgiftsdomstolen (PCA))
Corfu Channel-saken (1949) [T[he fact of this exclusive territorial control exercised by a State within its frontiers has a bearing upon the methods of proof available to establish the knowledge of that State as to such events. By reason of this exclusive control, the other State, the victim of a breach of international law, is often unable to furnish direct proof of facts giving rise to responsibility. Such a State should be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence. This indirect evidence is admitted in all systems of law, and its use is recognized by international decisions. It must be regarded as of special weight when it is based on a series of facts linked together and leading logically to a single conclusion.
Rettspraksis og rettsteori
Rettspraksis (artikkel 38(1)(d)) Ingen formell stare decisis/bindende prejudikater men stor praktisk betydning Internasjonale domstoler vektlegger ofte egen praksis Internasjonale domstoler vektlegger mer og mer andre domstolers praksis Se f. eks. Diallo-saken (2010) og Mur-saken (2004). Rettslig teori (artikkel 38(1)(d)) Utvidet bruk i prosesskriv, men som regel ikke sitert i majoritetsavgjørelser