Skip to main content

Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law

  • Chapter
Multilateral Treaty-Making

Part of the book series: Nijhoff Law Specials ((Nijhoff Law Specials))

Abstract

My starting point for this discussion of the relationship between treaties and soft law is the observation that the subtlety of the processes by which contemporary international law can be created is no longer adequately captured by reference to the orthodox categories of custom and treaty. The role of soft law as an element in international law-making is now widely appreciated, and its influence throughout international law is evident. Within that law-making process the relationships between treaty and custom, or between soft law and custom, are also well understood. The relationship between treaties and soft law is less often explored, but it is no less important, and has great practical relevance to the work of international organizations.

This chapter is reproduced from (1999) 48 ICLQ, p. 901.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. See generally R. R. Baxter, “International Law in `Her Infinite Variety”’ (1980) 29 ICLQ, pp. 549–566;

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. M. Chinkin, “The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law” (1989) 38 ICLQ, pp. 850–866

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, “Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment” (1991) 12 Michigan JIL, pp. 420–435

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jerzy Sztucki, “Reflections on International Soft Law”, in (1992) de Lege,p. 365.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oscar Schachter, “The Twilight Existence of Non-Binding International Agreements” (1977) 71 AJIL, pp. 296–304.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (1994) ICJ Rep. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For example an agreement between a State and a multinational company: see An-glo-Iranian Oil Co. (Jurisdiction) (1952) ICJ Rep. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Richard Gardiner, “Revising the Law of Carriage by Air: Mechanisms in Treaties and Contract” (1998) 47 ICLQ, pp. 278–305.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Articles 17 and 23 of the Statute of the Commission do refer expressly to the con-clusion of conventions, but other possibilities are left open.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The Commission considered the eventual form of its draft articles at its 50th Ses-sion in 1998 but deferred a decision on whether to propose a convention or a declaration. It was noted that the dispute settlement provisions in part three of the draft could not be included in a declaration.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Alan Boyle and David Freestone (eds.), International Law and Sustainable Development: Past Achievements and Future Prospects (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999), chi; Philippe Sands (ed.), Greening International Law (Earthscan, London, 1993), chs. 1 and 3.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kuwait Protocol for the Protection of the Marine Environment Against Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) (1975) ICJ Rep. 12; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits) (1986) ICJ Rep. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Decision I1/5, UNEP/OzL.Pro/WG.3/2/2, Annex 111 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Paolo Contini and Peter H. Sand, “Methods to Expedite Environment Protection: International Ecostandards” (1972) 66 AJIL, pp. 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The preamble to the Nuclear Safety Convention recognises that internationally formulated safety guidelines “can provide guidance on contemporary means of achieving a high level of safety.” IAEA guidelines would be the obvious starting point for determining what constituted the “appropriate steps” with regard to safety controls required by Articles 10–19 of the Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  17. IAEA Safety Series No.110: The Safety of Nuclear Installations (Vienna, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. IAEA Safety Series No.111-F: The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management (Vienna, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  19. IAEA Safety Series No.120: Radiation Protection and the Safety of Radiation Sources (Vienna, 1996);

    Google Scholar 

  20. IAEA GC (XXXIV)/939: Code of Practice on the Transboundary Movement of Nuclear Waste (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  21. E.g. the NUSS codes, IAEA GC (XXXII)/489 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  22. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Articles 207–212.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Especially Articles 4(1) and (2). The United States’ interpretation of these articles was that “there is nothing in any of the language which constitutes a commitment to any specific level of emissions at any time…” The parties determined at their first meeting in 1995 that the commitments were inadequate and they agreed to commence negotiation of the much more specific commitments now contained in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

    Google Scholar 

  24. North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgement) (1969) ICJ Rep. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Duckworth, London, 1977). This argument is developed by Philippe Sands, in, Winfried Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development and International Law (Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, London/Dordrecht/Boston, 1995), ch.5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. E.g. the International Court’s reliance on the principle of sustainable development in the Gabëikovo -Nagymaros Case,on which see Vaughan Lowe, in Boyle and Freestone, International Law and Sustainable Development, op. cit.,ch. 2

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. E. Boyle, “The Gabcikovo -Nagymaros Case: New Law in Old Bottles” (1997) 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See the debate between Philippe Sands and Howard Mann (Ph. Sands, “International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development: Emerging Legal Principles” and Howard Mann, “Comment on the Paper by P.S.” in Lang, Sustainable Development, op. cit.,53–74 at 53–66 and 67–72, respectively).

    Google Scholar 

  29. The so-called “Berlin mandate”: Decision 1/CP.1, in, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 1st Session,UN Doc.FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add. l.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Part XV, on which see Alan Boyle, “Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction”, (1997) 46 ICLQ, pp. 37–54

    Google Scholar 

  31. Robin Churchill, “Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea — The Context of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Alternatives to it”, in Malcolm Evans (ed.), Remedies in International Law: The Institutional Dilemma ( Hart Pub., Oxford, 1998 ), pp. 85–109

    Google Scholar 

  32. John Merrills, International Dispute Settlement (3rd ed., Grotius, Cambridge, 1999), ch. 8;

    Google Scholar 

  33. R. R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (3rd ed., Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999), ch. 19

    Google Scholar 

  34. L. B. Sohn, “Settlement of Law of the Sea Disputes” (1995) 101nt. J. of Marine and Coastal Law,pp. 205–217

    Google Scholar 

  35. Andronico Adede, The System for Settlement of Disputes Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a Drafting History and a Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston, 19817)

    Google Scholar 

  36. E. D. Brown, “Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea: the UN Convention Regime” (1997) 21 Marine Policy,pp. 17–43.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Andronico Adede, in Lang, Sustainable Development, op. cit.,ch. 8

    Google Scholar 

  38. Patricia W. Birnie, “Legal Techniques of Settling Disputes: The `Soft Settlement’ Approach”, in William E. Butler (ed.), Perestroika and International Law ( Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston, 1990 ), pp. 177–195

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thomas Gehring, “International Environmental Regimes: Dynamic Sectoral Legal Systems” (1990) 1 Yearbook of International Environmental Law,pp. 35–56

    Google Scholar 

  40. Günther Handl, “Controlling Implementation of and Compliance with International Environmental Commitments: The Rocky Road From Rio” (1994) 5 Colorado JIELP, pp. 305–331

    Google Scholar 

  41. Alexandre-Charles Kiss, “Compliance with International and European Environmental Obligations” (1996) 9 Hague Yearbook of International Law,pp. 45–54

    Google Scholar 

  42. Winfried Lang, “Compliance Control in International Environmental Law: Institutional Necessities” (1996) 56 ZaöRV, pp. 685–695.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Article 8, and Annex IV, as adopted at Copenhagen in 1992. The process is described in UNEP, Report of the Implementation Committee for the Montreal Protocol, 20th Meeting, UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/20/4, paras. 24–33

    Google Scholar 

  44. O. Yoshida, “Soft Enforcement of Treaties: The Montreal Non-compliance Procedure and the Functions of Internal International Institutions” (1999) 10 Colorado JIELP, pp. 95–141.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 38 provides that the Court of Human Rights “shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the Convention” and the Protocols thereto.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See Decision 1997/2, in, UNECE, Report of the 15th Session of the Executive Body (1997), Annex III and Patrick Széll, “The Development of Multilateral Mechanisms for Monitoring Compliance”, in Lang, Sustainable Development, op. cit.,pp. 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See UNEP, Report of the 7th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol,Decisions VIU15–19 (Poland, Bulgaria, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) UNEP/OzL.Pro.7/12 (1995);

    Google Scholar 

  48. UNEP,, Report of the 8 Meeting,Decisions VIII/22–25 (Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Russia) UNEP/OzL.Pro.8/12 (1996);

    Google Scholar 

  49. UNEP, Report of the 9th Meeting,Decisions IX/29–32 (Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Czech Republic) UNEP/OzL.Pro.9/12 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  50. For the most recent position see Report of the Implementation Committee for the Montreal Protocol, 20th Meeting,UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/20/4 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  51. See generally Jacob Werksman, “Compliance and Transition: Russia’s Non-Compliance Tests the Ozone Regime” (1996) 36 ZaöRV p. 750

    Google Scholar 

  52. David G. Victor, The Early Operation and Effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol’s Non-compliance Procedure ( International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxen-burg, 1996 )

    Google Scholar 

  53. Richard E. Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet (Enlarged ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1998), ch.17.

    Google Scholar 

  54. The problems are discussed in Jacob Werksman, Responding to Non-Compliance Under the Climate Change Regime (OECD, 1998); id. in James Cameron, Jacob Werksman, Peter Roderick (eds.), Improving Compliance with International Environmental Law,(Earthscan, 1996), pp. 85 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  55. UNFCC Article 13; 1997 Kyoto Protocol Article 16. For details of the process see 6th Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Article 13 (1998) UN Doc. FCCC/ AG 13/ 1998 /2.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Martti Koskenniemi, “Breach of Treaty or Non-Compliance? Reflections on the Enforcement of the Montreal Protocol” (1992) 3 Yearbook of International Environmental Law,pp. 123–162.

    Google Scholar 

  57. See for example the Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion),(1996) ICJ Rep. 226, in which some 40 States made written or oral submissions to the Court. In contentious cases involving the construction of a multilateral convention all parties to the convention have a right to intervene in the proceedings, and the construction so given will be equally binding on such States: Statute of the ICJ, Article 66. It should be noted, however, that an allegation of non-compliance is not necessarily a question of construction.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boyle, A. (2000). Some Reflections on the Relationship of Treaties and Soft Law. In: Gowlland-Debbas, V. (eds) Multilateral Treaty-Making. Nijhoff Law Specials. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6964-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6964-8_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6877-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6964-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics