Articles & Contributions

“Ad hoc investment arbitration based on State contracts: from Lena Goldfields to the Libyan oil arbitrations”

Commentary of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice

“Droits et obligations issus du droit de l’investissement et des droits de l’homme : entre exclusivité et harmonisation”

“The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica”

The Treaty of Limits concluded between Nicaragua and Costa Rica in 1858 was aimed at determining the land boundary along the San Juan River and at establishing a specific regime of navigational rights in respect of part of this river. It became the source of constant differences and disputes between the two States. Some of these disputes concerning the interpretation and the application of the 1858 Treaty were submitted to arbitration in the late nineteenth century and to the Central American Court of Justice in the early twentieth century. Since 2005, both States have submitted four cases to the International Court of Justice concerning the course of the boundary determined in the 1858 Treaty and the scope of the navigational rights granted within this instrument.

“L’extraterritorialité du droit pénal et les sanctions”

“Les limites extérieures [des espaces marins]” (Chapter 2)

“La prétendue requête de la Bosnie-Herzégovine demandant la révision de l’arrêt du 26 février 2007 en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie) :

Le refus de la Cour d’inscrire l’affaire au rôle”

Le 23 février 2017, un document intitulé « Demande en revision de l’arrêt du 26 février 2007 en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie) » a été reçu par la Cour internationale de Justice. La Cour a refusé l’inscription au rôle de cette demande en révision. Les raisons de ce refus et la position de la Cour ont été expliquées par le président de celle-ci dans une déclaration publiée dans un communiqué de presse du 9 mars 2017. La présente contribution revient sur les faits et les explications sur lesquels la position de la Cour est fondée, tenant à la question de la représentation des États dans une affaire donnée, ainsi que sur la forme très peu habituelle de cette décision.

“Sécession : mieux vaut la réussir”

“The Question Question” (Chapter 7)

This chapter examines the question submitted to the International Court of Justice by General Assembly resolution 63/3. Although the Court considered that the question was clearly formulated, it extensively discussed its scope and its formulation. The Court refused to broaden the scope of the question submitted to it and to address issues related to the conformity of the declaration of independence with international law, like Kosovo’s statehood or the consequences of the many recognitions of Kosovo. However, the Court corrected the formulation of the question in regard to the identity of the authors of the declaration of independence. It further interpreted the question in a rather narrow way to cover only whether the declaration of independence itself violated international law.

“Le prix de la vie humaine en droit international : La réparation des dommages en cas de pertes de vies humaines dans la responsabilité internationale”

L’obligation de réparer le préjudice causé par un fait internationalement illicite est solidement ancrée dans le droit de la responsabilité internationale. Mais peut-on réparer l’irréparable, à savoir la perte d’une vie humaine en raison d’une violation des obligations internationales attribuable à un État ? Il est logiquement impossible d’indemniser la vie perdue en tant que telle en raison de la caractéristique et des conséquences de ce préjudice fatal. Pour cette raison, la vie ne peut pas avoir de « prix » intrinsèque. Néanmoins, la pratique jurisprudentielle et arbitrale a consacré des solutions permettant d’offrir une compensation à certains proches du défunt, voire à l’État de nationalité de ce dernier, pour leurs dommages respectifs.

“Reservations and Time: Is there only one Right Moment to Formulate and to React to Reservations?”

Time is an important element in the process of reservations to treaties and, consequently, in the legal regime established by the Vienna Conventions for reservations and reactions thereto. The very definition of reservations, embodied in Article 2(1)(d) of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions, as well as in Article 2(1)(j) of the 1978 Vienna Convention, and incorporated in the definition adopted by the International Law Commission in its Guide to Practice, includes precise indications and limits concerning the moment in time for a reservation to be formulated. In practice, however, reservations have been made before and after this peculiar moment. The work of the International Law Commission has shown that these are still reservations, even if they are not contemplated by the Vienna regime. But they can nevertheless deploy their purported effects under some additional conditions. The same holds true with regard to objections to reservations which can be formulated prematurely or late. They are still objections even if their concrete legal effects may be affected. Whereas time is important for the legal consequences attached to reservations and reactions thereto, it plays a less important role in the overall process of reservations dialogue.

“The Court’s Advisory Opinions on the Admission of States to Membership in the United Nations”

“Le dialogue réservataire”

“Les loisirs”

“L’engagement de la responsabilité de l’Union européenne dans l’ordre juridique international”

Commentaries of Articles 20 and 21 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties

“Reservations to Human Rights Treaties: Not an Absolute Evil …”

This chapter on reservations to human rights has its place in a volume devoted to the evolution of international law from bilateralism to community interest. It could even be said that it is at the very heart of the dialectic called by these two trends: on the one hand, reservations, in a way, ‘bilateralize’ the relations between the parties to multilateral treaties while, at the same time, facilitating a wider acceptance of the core elements of the treaties in question and, therefore, strengthening the global community interest. This dialectic is vividly present with regard to human rights treaties even though, according to a dominant view among human rights activists, reservations to those treaties are seen as an absolute evil. They are not.

“Reservations to Treaties: An Objection to a Reservation is Definitely not an Acceptance”

The differences between the effects and implications of an acceptance of a reservation and of an objection to a reservation are quite easy to overlook, especially if one considers Articles 21(1) and 21(3) of the Vienna Convention in isolation. Nevertheless, in spite of some troubling similarities in specific circumstances, it cannot be denied that these differences do exist: an objection is not an acceptance and the effects of an acceptance or an objection must be distinguished in respect to the entry into force of the treaty, on the one hand, as well as to the relations between the parties if and when the treaty enters into force between them, regardless of whether the reservation is permissible, on the other hand.

Commentaire de l’article 48 du Pacte international pour les droits civils et politique de 1966

“The Work of García Amador on State Responsibility for Injury to Aliens” (Chapter 8)

“The Iran-US Claims Tribunal” (Chapter 54.2)

“Pollution, responsabilité, règlement des différends : le cas du fleuve Uruguay”

Commentaire de l’article 15 (2) de la Charte des Nations unies

“L’investissement étranger : Tentative d’identification” (Chapter 52)