The application of international law fulfills important task whereas enables the practical exercise of regulatory functions of its concrete rules in the international practice. In this respect it should be firstly noted that implementation of international law into domestic legal order is generally required by states as a necessary precondition for its application. Taking into account the absence of international rule prescribing specific form and manner of implementation, the relevant practice of the states is decisive. Within the states preferring the monist conception the direct application of international treaties (self executing treaties) is possible. Relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) should be respected (namely Articles 25, 28, 29, 31) within the process of direct application of international treaties and their breach raises the international responsibility of states. The same requirement has to be complied with respect of application of international treaties by international organizations. There is no room for direct application of international treaties within states preferring dualist conception whereas the content of each treaty has to be obligatory transformed into specific kind of domestic legal regulation. Regarding the application of customary international law, the practice of states in principle confirms that they are not formally implemented into domestic legal orders of states and public bodies usually apply customary international law directly. The diversity of the judgments of international judicial bodies and decisions of international organizations prevent any attempt of states to apply them in a uniform manner. Similarly, as in the case of international treaties, there are no rules prescribing their specific application and different practice of states enjoy the leading role in the application of the international obligations arising from the international judgments and decisions.
During the 70s and 80s of the last century a few new items of the codification´s agenda of International Law Commission (ILC) concerning the international intergovernmental organizations (IGO) have appeared. Heretofore results the ILC work confirm the analysis of this new item from three angles. The main goal of the first was to prepare the set of uniform rules for regulation certain common activities of IGOs regardless of their legal and factual specificities. Similarily as in the agenda concerning states a different level of codification and/or progressive development of international may be identified depending on the „ripeness“ of concrete topic for the purpose of codification.The final results of the ILC work represent four international treaties and one Draft of articles. As regards as international treaties it should be noted Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of Universal charater of 1975, Vienna Convention on the Succession of States with respect of Treaties 1978, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations of between International Organizations of 1986 and finally Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations of 2011.Excepting Vienna Convention of 1975 the Commision has dealt with similar problems namely whether a to what extent the rules of IGOs should have the priority over the codified rules prepared by ILC. Concrete articles of treaties and/or draft articles solve this question regarding the specifities of each concrete topic. As regards as second aspect of ILC work it evaluated the impact of different „external“ factors on the IGOs selected acts and/or activities. The relevent results are presented by the Draft Articles on the Effect of Armed Conflict on Treaties 2011 and Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents of 1973.
The content of this article was presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Autumn School of Law “The Changes of the Rule of Law” organized by the Institution of State and Law of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (11.-19. november 2011 in Modra Harmonia).One of the most remarkable feature of the past century represents the process of the “gradual externalization” of the rule of law principles (originally rooted within the internal legal order of states) on the “higher” level of international legal order. This process has been accompanied by a number of problems due to particularities of international legal order and its differences (with the comparison of domestic legal orders of states).Despite this facts some concrete results of this process have been achieved and following segments of international rule of law are today generally recognized both in the practice of states and legal writing of international law. International normativity today represents dynamic segment of international rule of law with regard of the increasing scope of its regulation combined with specialization and the tendency of universality in more important topics of international law. In its entirety represents less or more detailed and/or efficient measure in order to exclude or at least to reduce the room for wilful (arbitrary) conduct of states and other subjects of international law. Principle of legal equality of states can be also observed within the segment of international normativity. Generally speaking its main purpose is to guarantee equal position of all states vis á vis the system of international law including the process of creation of its rules (both conventional and customary), process of its formal validity, the process of their practical application by equal and non discriminatory manner in relation to all state parties of valid international treaties etc. Unlike of domestic legal orders of states where the application of responsibility is regularly preceded by the decision (s) of independent judicial bodies the situation within the segment of international normativity is different. The principal reason of such difference consists in a lack of obligatory jurisdiction of international judicial bodies. There is a general consensus that the acceptation of obligatory jurisdiction of international courts would strengthen the role of rule of law especially in the sphere of so called secondary rules of international law and their enforceability.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.