The international court of justice and the concept of state practice
| Abstract | State practice is an important element of international law, both as a key component of customary international law and as a crucial tool for interpreting treaties. In this paper, Professor Weisburd seeks to show that there are important flaws in the application of state practice by the International Court of Justice. The Court has relied on actual practice to determine the content of customary rules surprisingly rarely, frequently basing its conclusions instead on non-binding actions by international bodies or on its own decisions. It has reached decisions in some cases clearly inconsistent with significant and relevant state practice and in others proclaimed as rules of law formulations unsupported by state behavior. The Court has been inconsistent in its treatment of the practice of parties to treaties in cases presenting interpretation questions, sometimes proclaiming the necessity of relying on such practice while on other occasions failing even to acknowledge the existence of practice contrary to the result it reaches. This behavior by the Court is problematic for a number of reasons and, paradoxically, makes the Court itself an impediment to wider reliance on international law. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Roland Pierik & Wouter Werner (2005). Cosmopolitism, Global Justice and International Law. The Leiden Journal of International Law 18 (4):679-684.
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #274,507 of 548,973 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |

