1. It is evident that conventional international law should take any form that the contracting parties agree upon.
2. It is obligatory that agreements should not conflict with the rules of international law.
3. It is necessary that customary law and law made by international agreement should have equal authority as international law.
4. The secretary demanded that the documents should be submitted without delay.
5. I wish general principles common to systems of national law were observed.
.
1. , .
2. , .
3. , .
4. , , .
5. , .
.
1. Even if the law is not able to stop the outbreak of war, it will govern the conduct of hostilities.
2. If the laws of a nation-state were applicable in regional agreements there would be no need for supranational law.
3. If the United Nations hadn`t developed new advisory standards, there would be no Declaration of Human Rights.
4. Had the circumstances been more favourable the parties would have come to an agreement.
5. If the East African community becomes a political federation, it will be another example of a supranational legal framework alongside with the European Union.
.
1. , .
2. , .
3. , .
4. 2 , .
5. , .
UNIT 3. SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
. - , , .
SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
LEGAL
STATES INSURGENTS
ENTITIES
NATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL LIBERATION INDIVIDUALS ORGANIZATIONS MOVEMENTS
TEXT
Subjects of International Community
Vocabulary
1. backbone of the community
|
|
|
2. to possess full legal capacity
3. to be vested with rights
4. to fall apart
5. insurgents ,
6. to assert oneselves
7. provisional existence
8. a fully-fledged state
9. to be defeated
.
1. What are the legal subjects in national systems? Which of them are primary?
2. What are the primary subjects in the international community?
3. How are states defined in international law?
4. What does full legal capacity mean?
5. Are states of the international community equal?
6. Who are insurgents?
7. Which subjects of the international community are traditional and which are relatively new?
8. Which subjects of the international community possess limited legal capacity?
National systems comprise very many legal subjects: citizens, foreigners residing in the territory of the State, corporate bodies and State institutions (if endowed with legal personality). Individuals are the primary subjects in national legal systems. In contrast, the legal subjects of the international community are relatively few. In addition, the fundamental or primary subjects are not individuals, but States. They are entities which, besides controlling territory in a stable and permanent way, exercise the principal lawmaking and executive functions proper of any legal order. All other subjects either exercise effective authority over territory for a limited period of time only or have no territorial basis whatsoever. States, therefore, are the backbone of the community. They possess full legal capacity, that is, the ability to be vested with rights, powers, and obligations. Were they to disappear, the present international community would either fall apart or change radically. For historical reasons, there are at present about two hundred States including a few mini-States. In principle, all States are equal. However, one particular class, a handful of States with strong economic and military systems, holds authority in the international community.
There is another category of international subjects, namely, insurgents, who come into being through their struggle against the State to which they belong. They are born from a wound in the body of a particular State and are not, therefore, easily accepted by the international community unless they can prove able to exercise some of the sovereign rights typical of States. They assert themselves by force and acquire international status proportionate to their power and authority. However, their existence is by definition provisional: they either win and turn into fully fledged States or are defeated and disappear.
States and insurgents are traditional subjects of the international community in the sense that they have been the principal actors on the international scene since its inception. In the twentieth century and increasingly after the Second World War, other poles of interest and activity have gained international status. They are: international organizations, national liberation movements and individuals. The emergence of these relatively new subjects is a distinct feature of modern international law.
|
|
|
Unlike States, all the other international subjects just mentioned, on account of their inherent characteristics (e.g. lack of permanent or at least stable authority over a territory, etc.) possess a limited capacity in the area of international rights and obligations. They also have a limited capacity to act, that is, to put into effect their rights and powers, in judicial and other proceedings or to enforce their rights.
