In the Supreme Court of Canada's 1993 judgment in Hunt v. T & N Plc, Justice La Forest laid down the following goal to international law : “develop (…) co-ordination in the face of [the] diversity” of the international system. In other words, international law has to reconcile the protection of diverse state interests and sovereignty with the principle of normative unity. Otherwise, it would not be effective. If sovereignty were understood in too restrictive a sense, or to the contrary, if no respect was shown to their interest, there would be no way to compel states to abide by their promises.
Now, the very fact of laying down a goal to international law seems strange given the particular nature of international law. States being sovereign and independent, they can make the arrangements they like with each other with no regard for normative unity. Normative unity is the rule within states, where there is one law that is issued from top to bottom and applies universally to every citizen, but it is not the rule within an anarchic system such as the international system, where actors are not subordinate to any institution entitled to issue legislation from top to bottom.
[...] International law is the expression of the sovereignty of states International law is based on the sovereignty of states International law takes its roots in an anarchical society, whose main actors states are sovereign and independent. It regulates the relations between states without threatening their sovereignty. Furthermore, it does not derive from one single legislative, whose decrees would be “hierarchically” imposed on the international community, but from the consent of states themselves. Consequently, international law cannot be a “world challenging state sovereignty. This absence of a single international legislative is corollary to the basis of international law in the consent of states. States are the only actors entitled to set up rules of international law. [...]
[...] Contemporary international law would thus place boundaries on the will of states. The moral and technical difficulties of the implementation of rules of ius cogens However, such thesis is untenable. Indeed, the principle of non- intervention makes it almost impossible for states to legally intervene in the affairs of another state failing to meet the requirements of ius cogens within its own borders. Furthermore, states increasingly tend to distrust customary international law, in so far as the integration of a custom within international law derives from the practice of a large number of states rather than from their express agreement. [...]
[...] As all states are legally endowed with sovereignty, they are all legally equal. The principle of non-intervention, another key principle of international law, is itself preservative of state sovereignty. States do not have the right to use force or the threat of force in their mutual relations. Similarly, each state can freely choose its social and economic system. The principle of non-intervention are defined by article 2 of the UN Charter and by the resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly concerning the principles of peaceful co-existence and cooperation between states. [...]
[...] International law recognises state sovereignty as the theoretical basis of the rules it prescribes. Sovereignty is therefore the fundamental basis for the banning of aggression, colonisation, non-contractual annexation of territories and most forms of political intervention of one state within the borders of another. The respect of sovereignty is essential to the peacefulness of an anarchical international society, which otherwise could only be ruled by force, which negates sovereignty. As states are sovereign, they have the right to do and undo international law. [...]
[...] International law and normative unity In the Supreme Court of Canada's 1993 judgement in Hunt v. T & N Plc, Justice La Forest laid down the following goal to international law : “develop ( ) co-ordination in the face of [the] diversity” of the international system. In other words, international law has to reconcile the protection of diverse state interests and sovereignties with the principle of normative unity. Otherwise, it would not be effective. If sovereignty were understood on too restrictive a sense, or, to the contrary, if no respect was shown to their interest, there would be no way to compel states to abide by their promises. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
