Scribd
Upload
30 views

Murase Outline2

1. The document discusses the concept of "opposability" in international law as it relates to unilateral measures. It examines relevant cases where the ICJ employed and rejected the concept. 2. It analyzes the concept of opposability compared to legality, looking at elements like the unsettled state of applicable law and the scope of normative effect in particular bilateral relationships. 3. The document explores how applicable law has shifted from the UN Charter to general international law in certain contexts like military interventions. It assesses examples like NATO actions in Kosovo in 1999.

Uploaded by

Saket Ratnu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views

Murase Outline2

1. The document discusses the concept of "opposability" in international law as it relates to unilateral measures. It examines relevant cases where the ICJ employed and rejected the concept. 2. It analyzes the concept of opposability compared to legality, looking at elements like the unsettled state of applicable law and the scope of normative effect in particular bilateral relationships. 3. The document explores how applicable law has shifted from the UN Charter to general international law in certain contexts like military interventions. It assesses examples like NATO actions in Kosovo in 1999.

Uploaded by

Saket Ratnu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

UN Audio Visual Library

Unilateral Measures and the Concept of Opposability


in International Law
Shinya Murase
Outline

1. Introduction
Distinction between unilateral acts and the unilateral measures
Concept of Opposability
A Normative Framework
Legal opposable non-opposable illegal

2. The Relevant ICJ Cases:


Fisheries case of 1951 (United Kingdom v. Norway): The Court employed the
concept of opposability for the ten-mile rule for the baseline of the mouth of
a bay and the straight baseline of the territorial waters.
Fisheries Jurisdiction case of 1974 (United Kingdom v. Iceland): The Court
found in its judgment of 25 July 1974 that it was “bound to conclude that
the Icelandic Regulations of 14 July 1972 establishing a zone of exclusive
fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50 nautical miles … are not opposable to
the United Kingdom”.

3．The Concept of opposability (as compared to legality)

(1) The unsettled state of the applicable law


(2) The causes of action: determination of the external effect
(3) The scope of the normative effect: particular bilateral relationship
The component elements of opposability
(1) Effectiveness and legitimacy
(2) Good faith

4. A Shift of Applicable Law from the UN Charter to General International Law


(1) Precedents: Korea (1950-53); Teheran (1980); Falklands/Malvinas (1982)
(2) Article 2(4) as a “function” of Chapter VII of the Charter
(3) Paralysis of lex specialis and the return to lex generalis

1
5. Legal Assessment of Unilateral Forcible Measures
NATO actions over Kosovo (1999): “Illegal but justified?”
Security Council resolution 1160 (Mar.31, 1998); 1199 (Sept. 23, 1998)
On-going, large-scale human rights violations and the failure of the
Security Council to respond
Security Council resolution 1244 (June 10, 1999): post hoc legalization of
the use of force by NATO
G-8 Summit and the reform of the Security Council

6. Conclusion

Bibliography
1. “Unilateral Measures and the Concept of Opposability in International Law”,
Thesaurus Acroasium, Thessaloniki Institute of International Public Law, vol.28,
1999, pp.397-454;
2. “The Relationship between the United Nations Charter and General International
Law regarding Non-use of Force: The Case of NATO’s Air Campaign in the Kosovo
Crisis of 1999”, Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, Kulwer Law International, 2002,
pp.1543-1553;
3. “Unilateral Responses to International Terrorism: Self-defense or
Law-enforcement?”, in Sienho Yee & Jacque-Yvan Morin, eds., Multiculturalism and
International Law, Essays in Honour of Edward McWhinney, Martinus Nijhoff, 2009,
pp. 429-444.

You might also like