Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Sovereign Equality Obsolete? Understanding Twenty-First Century International Organizations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2012

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 43))

Abstract

This paper explores some of the major changes in the practices of international organizations that have occurred in the decades since The Doctrine of the Legal Equality of States was published. First, much international law-making in contemporary international organizations consists of regulation and administration whose creation, content and application differs significantly from that of traditional forms of international legislation associated with international organizations. Second, in a highly fragmented international legal order, twenty-first century international organizations increasingly interact with each other in a wide variety of law-making and operational capacities. Given these changing roles and activities, it is no longer sufficient to view international organizations primarily as fora through which other actors – typically states – pursue their interests. Rather, twenty-first century international organizations often pursue their own goals and agendas as autonomous actors in international affairs. These developments have rendered traditional debates over sovereign equality within international organizations substantially less salient than they were when Legal Equality was written. In the future, the cutting-edge doctrinal and jurisprudential issues raised by twenty-first century international organizations largely will arise out of interactions among international organizations. As a result, legal scholars should shift their attention from inter-state interactions and processes within any particular IO to interactions and processes among twenty-first century IOs. Of course, decentering sovereign equality does not mean that the international system should celebrate or enshrine legal inequality. Rather, the international community should develop other concepts that incorporate the notions of inclusiveness and egalitarianism associated with sovereign equality, but that are more applicable to the actions of twenty-first century IOs.

The author is Laura H. Carnell Professor of Law and Director, Institute for International Law and Public Policy, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kooijmans 1964, at 3.

  2. 2.

    Kooijmans 1964, at 241.

  3. 3.

    Several caveats are in order. First, the focus on English-language publications reflects my linguistic limitations, and is not a judgment about the relative quality or importance of English-language scholarship. Second, many of today’s leading publications did not exist in the early 1960s. By way of example, the first issue of this Yearbook was published in 1970, and the first issue of the European Journal of International Law was published in 1990. Finally, the focus on U.S. and British publications is not intended to reflect a normative judgment. Indeed, the non-European English-language publications had a similar focus. For example, virtually all of the articles on international organizations in the Indian Yearbook of International Law between 1960 and 1964 addressed the UN and the focus of these articles overlap considerably with European publications. <http://www.isil-aca.org/contents.htm>.

  4. 4.

    Bowett 1960, at 415; Dean 1960, at 751.

  5. 5.

    Schachter 1961, at 1; Halderman 1962, at 971; Draper 1963, at 387; Seyersted 1961, at 351.

  6. 6.

    Alexandrowicz 1962, at 1109.

  7. 7.

    Gross 1960, at 118.

  8. 8.

    Gregg 1964, at 96.

  9. 9.

    Kerley 1961, at 892.

  10. 10.

    Schick 1963, at 1232.

  11. 11.

    Higgins 1961, at 269.

  12. 12.

    Meron 1960, at 250.

  13. 13.

    Schachter 1964, at 960.

  14. 14.

    Brohi 1961, at 121.

  15. 15.

    Schachter 1963, at 165.

  16. 16.

    Saba 1964, at 602.

  17. 17.

    Simmonds 1963, at 56.

  18. 18.

    Robertson 1961, at 143.

  19. 19.

    Fawcett 1960, at 321; Fawcett 1964, at 32.

  20. 20.

    Detter 1962, at 421.

  21. 21.

    Aufricht 1962, at 154.

  22. 22.

    Feinberg 1963, at 189.

  23. 23.

    Brewer 1964, at 62.

  24. 24.

    Of course, these projects drew on a large literature addressing the legal equality of states. On this concept, see, e.g., Dickinson 1920; Kelsen 1944, at 207; Weinschel 1951, at 417.

  25. 25.

    Kooijmans 1964, at 39.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., at 37.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., at 39.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., at 200.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., at 239-241.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., at 241-242.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., at 242.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., at 243.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    For analyses of various Security Council reform efforts, see, e.g., Blum 2005, at 632; Zacher 2004.

  36. 36.

    Prosecutor v. Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-I-AR72, 2 October 1995.

  37. 37.

    International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), 1992 ICJ 1 (14 April); Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, 2008 ECR I-6351, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P.

  38. 38.

    UNSC Res. 687, 3 April 1991.

  39. 39.

    UNSC Res. 692, 20 May 1991.

  40. 40.

    Prosecutor v. Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-I-AR72, 2 October 1995; Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi, Trial Chamber, Decision in the Defense Motion on Jurisdiction, Case No. ICTR-96-15-T, 18 June 1997.

  41. 41.

    Alvarez 2005, at 176.

  42. 42.

    Szasz 2002, at 901.

  43. 43.

    Rosand 2005, at 542; Talmon 2005, at 175.

  44. 44.

    Remarks of Bellinger 2005.

  45. 45.

    Indeed, several states found themselves unable to support the resolution for precisely this reason. See, e.g., UN Doc. S/PV.4803, 1 August 2004 (statements of German, French and Mexican representatives).

  46. 46.

    For a fuller discussion, see Talmon 2009, at 65, from which many of these examples are drawn.

  47. 47.

    For general discussions, see Gold 1974, at 687; Jenks 1965, at 48; McIntyre 1954, at 484; Zamora 1980, at 566.

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Art. V(3) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Articles of Agreement, opened for signature 27 December 1945, 1440 UNTS 134, as amended 16 UST 1942, 606 UNTS 294; Art. XII(5) International Monetary Fund, Articles of Agreement, opened for signature 27 December 1945, 1401 UNTS 39. Of course, using size of economy as a method of allocating votes is hardly a new idea. In 1692, William Penn advanced a plan for an international organization that would have a Council where each state would have a number of delegates proportional to its annual income, or share of international trade. Penn 1726.

  49. 49.

    See, e.g., Art. 12, Grains Trade Convention, 1995, 7 December 1994, 1882 UNTS 195; Art. 12 International Coffee Agreement, 2001, 28 September 2000, 2161 UNTS 308; Art. 11 International Sugar Agreement, 1992, 20 March 1992, 1703 UNTS 203; see also Art. 10 International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006, 27 January 2006, UN Doc. TD/TIMBER.3/12 (allocating votes among producers by region as well).

  50. 50.

    Art. 10(9) Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, as amended June 29, 1990, Doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro.2/3, Annex II (1990); see also id., Art. 10(5) (providing that the representation on the Executive Committee shall be ‘balanced’ between developing and industrial countries).

  51. 51.

    See Art. 17 Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, 6 March 1948, 9 UST 621, 289 UNTS 48; Art. 50(b) Convention on International Civil Aviation, 17 December 1944, 15 UNTS 295.

  52. 52.

    Art. 7(2) Constitution of the International Labour Organization, Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles), pt. XIII, 28 June 1919, 2712 Bevans 43.

  53. 53.

    Erler 1964, at 153.

  54. 54.

    Alvarez 2005, at 218.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., at 218.

  56. 56.

    See, e.g., Buergenthal 1969; Kirgis 1997.

  57. 57.

    Moreover, these standard setting activities are merely the most conspicuous examples of a wide variety of non-consensual law-making activities carried out under IO auspices. Helfer 2008, at 71; Brunée 2002, at 1; Churchill and Ulfstein 2000, at 623.

  58. 58.

    Roben 2008, at 889.

  59. 59.

    For more on the SPS Agreement, see Dunoff 2006, at 153.

  60. 60.

    See, e.g., Smrkolj 2008, at 1779.

  61. 61.

    Romano 2011, at 241; Romano 1999, at 709.

  62. 62.

    Alter 2013.

  63. 63.

    See, e.g., Lowe 2012, at 209; Lauterpacht 2011, at 155.

  64. 64.

    Thus, the treaty is an example of the ‘external referencing’ discussed above.

  65. 65.

    See, e.g., Young 2011; Young 2008, at 477. An arguably less successful example is the sometimes difficult interactions among the ILO, IMO and Basel Convention secretariat on the issue of ship scrapping. See, e.g., Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping, Report of the Working Group, ILO/IMO/BC WG 1/8 (18 February 2005).

  66. 66.

    For a fuller discussion, see, e.g., UNAIDS, UNAIDS Technical Support Division of Labour (2005).

  67. 67.

    Members include the FAO, International Tropical Timber Organization, UNDP, UNEP, and secretariats of the Convention to Combat Desertification, Framework Convention on Climate Change, and UN Forum on Forests. For more on the Partnership, see Collaborative Partnership on Forests Framework 2008 and 2009, E/CN.18/2009/12 (9 February 2009).

  68. 68.

    Johnstone 2008, at 87.

  69. 69.

    For a very preliminary effort in this direction, see Dunoff 2012, at 136-174.

  70. 70.

    See, e.g., WHO, Prequalification Programme: A United Nations Programme managed by WHO, available at <http://apps.who.int/prequal/>.

  71. 71.

    Kooijmans 1964, at 210.

  72. 72.

    Note that even if this objection ultimately rests on a notion of state sovereignty, it is not a notion of sovereign equality.

  73. 73.

    Talmon 2005, at 180.

  74. 74.

    Boyle and Chinkin 2007, at 115.

  75. 75.

    Stein 2001, at 489.

  76. 76.

    UNGA Res. 47/62, 11 December 1992.

  77. 77.

    UNGA Res. 48/26, 2 December 1993.

  78. 78.

    Cogan 2009, at 209.

  79. 79.

    For a discussion, see Dunoff 2011.

  80. 80.

    Kooijmans 1964, at 281.

  81. 81.

    See, e.g., Waldron 2011, at 315.

  82. 82.

    See generally Peters 2009, at 397.

  83. 83.

    Dunoff and Trachtman 2009.

  84. 84.

    Hart 1961.

  85. 85.

    See, e.g., Petersmann 2008, at 827.

  86. 86.

    See generally Kumm 2004, at 907.

  87. 87.

    See generally Fassbender 2009, at 133-148.

  88. 88.

    For a discussion, see Dunoff and Trachtman 2009, at 3–36.

  89. 89.

    See Kingsbury et al. 2005, at 1; Krisch and Kingsbury 2006, at 1.

  90. 90.

    Kingsbury 2009, at 23.

  91. 91.

    See Dunoff and Trachtman 2009, at 33–34; Krisch 2010.

  92. 92.

    Krisch 2010.

  93. 93.

    Ibid.

References

  • Alexandrowicz CH (1962) The Secretary General of the United Nations. Int Comp Law Q 11:1109–1130

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter KJ (2013) The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. In: Dunoff JL, Pollack MA (eds) Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 345–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez J (2005) International Organizations as law-makers. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aufricht H (1962) State succession under the law and practice of the International Monetary Fund. Int Comp Law Q 11:154–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellinger JB III (2005) Remarks of legal adviser, U.S. Department of State. United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the application of international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law, International Conference, San Remo, Italy. http://www.state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm. Accessed 23 June 2012

  • Blum YZ (2005) Proposals for UN Security Council reform. Am J Int Law 99:632–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett DW (1960) The second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Int Comp Law Q 9:415–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A, Chinkin C (2007) The making of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer W Jr. (1964) The proposal for investment guarantees by an international agency. Am J Int Law 58:62–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Brohi AK (1961) Five lectures on Asia and the United Nations. A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunée J (2002) COPing with consent: law-making under multilateral environmental agreements. Leiden J Int Law 15:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Buergenthal T (1969) Law-making in the International Civil Aviation Organization. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill R, Ulfstein G (2000) Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: a little-noticed phenomenon in international law. Am J Int Law 94:623–659

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogan JK (2009) Representation and power in international organization: the operational constitution and its critics. Am J Int Law 103:209–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean A (1960) Second Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea. Am J Int Law 54:751–789

    Google Scholar 

  • Detter TIH (1962) The organs of international organizations exercising their treaty-making power. Br Yearb Int Law 38:421–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson E (1920) The equality of states in international law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper GIAD (1963) The legal limitations upon the employment of weapons by the United Nations force in the Congo. Int Comp Law Q 12:387–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff JL (2006) Lotus eaters: the Varietals dispute, the SPS Agreement, and WTO dispute resolution. In: Bermann G, Mavroidis P (eds) Trade and human health and safety. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 153–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff JL (2011) China’s role in the evolving global order: reflections on ten years of membership in the World Trade Organization. (Chinese) J Int Econ Law 18:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff JL (2012) A new approach to regime interaction. In: Young M (ed) Regime interaction in international law: facing fragmentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 136–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunoff JL, Trachtman JP (2009) A functional approach to international constitutionalization. In: Dunoff JL, Trachtman JP (eds) Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 3–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Erler J (1964) International legislation. Can Yearb Int Law 2:153–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B (2009) Rediscovering a forgotten constitution: notes on the place of the UN Charter in the international legal order. In: Dunoff JL, Trachtman JP (eds) Ruling the world? Constitutionalism, international law, and global governance. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 133–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett JES (1960) The place of law in an international organization. Br Yearb Int Law 38:321–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett JES (1964) The International Monetary Fund and international law. Br Yearb Int Law 40:32–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg N (1963) Unilateral withdrawal from an international organization. Br Yearb Int Law 39:189–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold J (1974) Weighted voting power: some limits and some problems. Am J Int Law 68:687–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg RW (1964) The United Nations and the opium problem. Int Comp Law Q 13:96–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross L (1960) The question of Laos and the double veto in the Security Council. Am J Int Law 54:118–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Halderman JW (1962) Legal basis for United Nations armed forces. Am J Int Law 56:971–996

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (2008) Nonconsensual international lawmaking. Univ Ill Law Rev 2008:71–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1961) The legal limits to the use of force by sovereign states: United Nations practice. Br Yearb Int Law 38:269–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks CW (1965) Unanimity, the veto, weighted voting, special and simple majorities and consensus as modes of decision in international organisations. In: Bowett DW et al. Cambridge essays in international law: essays in honour of Lord McNair. Stevens Publishing Company, London, pp 48–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone I (2008) Law-making through the operational activities of international organizations. George Wash Int Law Rev 40:87–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1944) The principle of sovereign equality of states as a basis for international organization. Yale Law J 53:207–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerley EL (1961) The powers of investigation of the United Nations Security Council. Am J Int Law 55:892–918

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B (2009) The concept of ‘law’ in global administrative law. Eur J Int Law 20:23–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B et al. (2005) Foreword: global governance as administration—National and transnational approaches to global administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 68:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirgis F Jr (1997) Specialized law-making processes. In: Joyner C (ed) The United Nations and international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooijmans PH (1964) The doctrine of the legal equality of states. An inquiry into the foundations of international law. A.W. Sythoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2010) Global administrative law and the constitutional ambition. In: Dobner P, Loughlin M (eds) The twilight of constitutionalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N, Kingsbury B (2006) Introduction: global governance and global administrative law in the international legal order. Eur J Int Law 17:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2004) The legitimacy of international law: a constitutionalist framework of analysis. Eur J Int Law 15:907–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (ed) (2011) The development of international law by the International Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe V (2012) The function of litigation in international society. Int Comp Law Q 61:209–222

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre E (1954) Weighted voting in international organizations. Int Organ 8:484–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1960) The question of the composition of the Trusteeship Council. Br Yearb Int Law 36:250–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Penn W (1726) An essay towards the present and future peace of Europe. In: Portsmouth NH (ed) A collection of the works of William Penn. J. Sowle, London, pp 838–848

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2009) The merits of global constitutionalism. Indiana J Glob Legal Stud 16:397–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann EU (2008) Judging judges: from ‘principal-agent theory’ to ‘constitutional justice’ in multilevel ‘judicial governance’ of economic cooperation among citizens. J Int Econ Law 11:827–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Roben V (2008) International law, development through international organizations. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 889–895

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson AH (1961) The legal work of the Council of Europe. Int Comp Law Q 10:143–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano CPR (1999) The proliferation of international judicial bodies: the pieces of the puzzle. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 31:709–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano CPR (2011) A taxonomy of international rule of law institutions. J Int Dispute Settl 2:241–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosand E (2005) The Security Council as ‘global legislator’: ultra vires or ultra innovative. Fordham Int Law J 28:542–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Saba H (1964) L’activité quasi-législative des institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies. A.W. Sythoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1961) Legal aspects of the United Nations action in the Congo. Am J Int Law 55:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1963) The relation of law. Politics and action in the United Nations. A.W. Sythoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1964) The quasi-judicial role of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Am J Int Law 58:960–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick FB (1963) The question of China in the United Nations. Int Comp Law Q 12:1232–1250

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyersted F (1961) United Nations forces: some legal problems. Br Yearb Int Law 37:351–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmonds KR (1963) The constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMCO. Int Comp Law Q 12:56–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Smrkolj M (2008) International institutions and individualized decision-making: an example of the UNHCR’s refugee status determination. Ger Law J 9:1779–1804

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein E (2001) International integration and democracy: no love at first sight. Am J Int Law 95:489–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Szasz P (2002) The Security Council starts legislating. Am J Int Law 96:901–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2005) The Security Council as world legislature. Am J Int Law 99:175–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2009) Security Council treaty action. Revue Hellenique de Droit International 62:65–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2011) Are sovereigns entitled to the benefit of the international rule of law? Eur J Int Law 22:315–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinschel H (1951) The doctrine of the equality of states and its recent modifications. Am J Int Law 45:417–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Young M (2008) Fragmentation or interaction: The WTO, fisheries subsidies and international law. World Trade Rev 8:477–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Young MA (2011) Trading fish, saving fish: the interaction between regimes in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacher M (2004) The conundrums of international power sharing: the politics of Security Council reform. In: Price R, Zacher M (eds) The United Nations and global security. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 211–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamora S (1980) Voting in international economic organizations. Am J Int Law 74:566–608

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Law and Public Policy, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 1719 N Broad St, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    Jeffrey L. Dunoff

Authors
  1. Jeffrey L. Dunoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Dunoff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Dept. of International and European Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1000 BA, Netherlands

    Janne Elisabeth Nijman

  2. , Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Wouter G Werner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dunoff, J.L. (2013). Is Sovereign Equality Obsolete? Understanding Twenty-First Century International Organizations. In: Nijman, J., Werner, W. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2012. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 43. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-915-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation