Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T03:09:55.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Powers of Appreciation”: Who is the Ultimate Guardian of un Legality?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Thomas M. Franck
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , July 1992 , pp. 519 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, General List No. 89 (Order of Apr. 14) (mirneo.) [hereinafter Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.)].

2 Id. (Libya v. UK), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, General List No. 88 (Order of Apr. 14).

3 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

4 The Constitution of the United States of America 560 n.2 (Edward S. Corwin ed., 1952).

5 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, Declaration of Judge Oda.

6 UN Charter Art. 92. See also Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, Declaration of Judge Ni.

7 UN Charter Art. 92.

8 Id., Art. 94(1).

9 Rosalyn Higgins, The Development of International Law Through the Political Organs of the United Nations 66 & n.27 (1963). See, however, Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, at 9–14, for a summary of the legislative history that carefully calibrates the conclusions to be drawn.

10 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, slip op. at 6, para. 11.

11 SC Res. 731 (Jan. 21, 1992) and SC Res. 748 (Mar. 31, 1992).

12 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, slip op. at 13–14, para. 38.

13 Id. at 2–3. For the Montreal Convention, Sept. 23, 1971, see 24 UST 564, TIAS No. 7570.

14 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, slip op. at 5, para. 10.

15 Id. at 3, para. 5.

16 Id. at 14, para. 39.

17 Id., para. 42.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Id., Declaration of Judge Oda, pt. III, at 3.

21 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs, at 1.

22 Id. at 2.

23 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, pt. (iii), at 2–3 (emphasis added).

24 Id., pt. (i), at 2.

It appears to me, however, that whatever was the previous position, the inference to be judicially drawn from the facts as they now stand is that the Respondent, having promoted and supported the resolution, is prepared to follow the course indicated in the resolution and accordingly not to resort to force unless authorized by the Security Council.

25 Judge Weeramantry.

26 Libya v. U.S. (Prov. Meas.), supra note 1, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, at 11.

27 UN Charter Art. 108.