This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
See Chapter V of this work. In the opinion of THIRLWAY, H., the Court had stated the principle in a dangerously wide formulation so that “in any future development of the law of the unilateral acts as a source of obligation, it may however be expected that some of the characteristics stated in Nuclear Tests will be tempered and modified” (op. cit., B.Y.I.L., 1989, p. 17).
See the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, (I.C.J., Reports 1984, p. 418).
See the cases concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (I.C.J., Reports 1961, p. 32) and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (I.C.J., Reports 1984, p. 418. It can be deduced, consequently, that in the case of verbal statements that intention shall be derived from the terms employed in the declaration. See Chapter V of this work.
The principle of good faith plays “an essential role” (the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, I.C.J., Reports 1984, p. 418).
See the cases of the Temple of Preah Vihear (I.C.J., Reports 1961, p. 32) and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and agianst Nicaragua (I.C.J., Reports 1984, p. 418). In this latter case the I.C.J. states that: “Although the United States retained the right to modify the contents of the 1946 Declaration or to terminate it, a power which is inherent in any unilateral act of a State, it has, nevertheless assumed an inescapable obligation towards other States accepting the Optional Clause, by stating formally and solemnly that any such change should take effect only after six months have elapsed as from the date of notice” (ibid., p. 419).
See ibid., pages 31–32. About this question the I.C.J. stated that: “The precise form and language in which they do this is left to them, and there is no suggestion that any particular form is required, or that any declarations not in such form will be invalid”, although “custom and tradition have brought it about that a certain pattern of terminology is normally, as a matter of fact and convenience, employed by countries accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; but there is nothing mandatory about the employment of this language” (ibid., p. 32). See also the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (I.C.J., Reports 1984, p. 412).
See the Declaration of Canadá in I.C.J., Yearbook 1993–1994, No. 48, pages 91–92. That of Spain in B.O.E., No. 275, of 16 November 1990. See also I.C.J., Reports 1995, pages 87–88. The reasoning of Canada is based on paragraph 2 of its declaration of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court, according to which the Court has a compulsory jurisdiction “over all disputes... other than... disputes arising out of or concerning conservati and management measures taken by Canada with respect to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area... and the enforcement of such measures” (I.C.J., Yearbook 1993–1994, No. 48, p. 91). See also pp. 259–261 of the present work.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Unilateral Declarations. In: Sovereignty and Interpretation of International Norms. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68207-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68207-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-68206-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68207-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)