Antonios Tzanakopoulos

The introductory paper to a symposium issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law, edited by the authors, dealing with the function of domestic courts as agents for the development of international law. The paper 'sets the scene' for the contributions to the symposium, which seek to trace the impact of domestic courts in the development of canonical areas of international law, such as jurisdiction, immunity, state responsibility, the law of international organisations/human rights, and the law of armed conflict/conduct of hostilities. It discusses the formal quality and actual influence of domestic court decisions on the development of international law, and introduces the concept of 'agents' of international law development. This is the analytical perspective that the contributions to the symposium adopt.

ISBN: 0922-1565

This paper discusses (in French) whether countermeasures can be invoked as a justification for disobeying binding decisions of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The first part establishes how the Security Council may engage the international responsibility of the UN and who should be allowed to determine that such engagement has in fact taken place. The second part argues that disobedience of illegal sanctions adopted by the Council may be justified under international law as a countermeasure in response to the Council's (the UN's) internationally wrongful act.

ISBN: 0035-0788

As the title suggests, this paper does not deal with 'international law in domestic courts' but rather with 'domestic courts in international law'. It seeks to ascertain whether domestic courts are assigned an international judicial function by international law, and whether and to what extent they are in fact assuming and exercising that function. The paper attempts to define the concept of an ‘international judicial function’ and argues that, because of the peculiar ‘directionality’ of a great many international obligations (which require implementation within the domestic jurisdiction), domestic courts are the first port of call and the last line of defense for the interpretation and application of international law. However, as organs of States, courts may engage the international responsibility of the State if their conduct results in the breach of an international obligation. This is why the exercise of the international judicial function of domestic courts is supervised by States, either through the submission of disputes to international courts, or, more usually, through decentralized reactions.

ISBN: 1533-5860

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000361

The article revisits the Barcelona Traction judgment of the International Court of Justice, rendered forty years ago. It evaluates the lasting influence of the Court's pronouncements on the nationality of corporations and on obligations erga omnes, and uses the case to illustrate the Court's role as an influential agent of legal development. In this respect, it identifies a number of factors that can help to explain under which circumstances judicial pronouncements are likely to shape the law.

ISBN: 0922-1565

DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqq006

Domestic courts are increasingly being seized by persons subjected to or affected by sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, particularly through the regime established under Resolution 1267. In Abdelrazik v. Canada, the Canadian Federal Court ‘interprets away’ the obligations of Canada under the 1267 regime, potentially forcing upon the state a breach of its international obligations under the resolution and the UN Charter. But at the same time it offers an important — if implicit — justification for that breach under international law.

ISBN: 1478-1387