The Duty to Cooperate in International Law

This research paper assesses the development of global courts, their structure, impact, and role in the global governance system using the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as an indicator.
First, it outlines the historical emergence of global courts with a special focus on the establishment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea before generally circumscribing international courts and tribunals (ICTs) with general jurisdiction from ICTs with specialized jurisdiction. Additionally, the major judicial mechanisms for dispute settlement as in international arbitration and adjudication will be described. In the following chapter the concrete structure of the Tribunal on the foundation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in connection with the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (the Statute) and other treaties will be assessed before the Tribunals awards are analysed at the example of the MOX Plant case and the Tribunals advisory opinion regarding illegal fishing activities by foreign vessels. Both cases highlight important principles of the emerging discipline of global administrative law. Lastly, an overall analysis discusses corresponding questions, inter alia, the impact of conflicting jurisdiction and the lack of certain enforcement mechanisms in the global legal sphere.
It is being assumed that global legal integration is moving forward due to competition through proliferation, although divergent rulings and the lack of enforcement mechanisms do curb their reputation and authority in the global community.
According to this research, one can outline global legal regimes as young creations, extremely diverse and numerous. Their main objective is to interact peacefully and cooperatively at the global level.
However, the integration process is not finalized yet, its biggest flaw might be the lack of hierarchical structures and concomitant law enforcement mechanisms. Though as described in this paper, the global governance system is not at a lost root, its biggest strength might be its flexibility and resulting ability to create similarly functioning tools, inter alia, principles as the duty to cooperate and mutually owed diligence. With the strengthening of such natural principles, this marbled and heterarchical global governance system can increase its functionality and continue to evolve.

This paper examines Chinese transboundary water cooperation specifically through the prism of the rules of international law that govern the uses of transboundary water resources. China’s state practice will be considered in the light of the principal legal instruments in this field – the UN Watercourses Convention (UNWC)  and the UNECE Transboundary Water Convention (UNECE TWC), each a result of codification and progressive development of the rules in this field.  Increasing transboundary water cooperation is a global theme as the international community seeks new ways to tackle serious water problems, witnessed at the recent UN Security Council meeting that concluded emphasizing this very topic.  As one of the largest players in the international arena, China has an opportunity to build upon and enhance its cooperation on transboundary waters.

This thesis researches if human rights law can be the foundation of a legal framework to stop climate change.

First, it is proved that climate change meets the definition of Hardin’s ‘tragedy of the commons’: a common resource is exploited without a regulatory framework that prevents overexploitation. The atmosphere is a common resource that suffers from overexploitation due to the emissions of greenhouse gases by human activities. This causes climate change. Only a regulatory framework that entails all the subjects that are responsible for this overexploitation can avoid a tragedy commons such as climate change. The attempts made in the past to create an effective global regulatory framework have failed.

There are clear linkages between climate change and human rights. Climate change interferes with the enjoyment of several human rights. Both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights are under pressure due to climate change. For that reason, it is justified to research if international human rights law can be the foundation of a global regulatory framework to stop climate change. Human rights law could be a basis to force states and non-state actors to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the tragedy of the commons of climate change.

Environmental human rights jurisprudence has developed procedural and substantive standards and requires states to regulate private actors. This is derived from economic, social and cultural rights and from civil and political rights. However, this jurisprudence is in the context of environmental problems within one state. If these principles were to be applied to a global problem such as climate change, the duties arising out of human rights must be extended extraterritorially.

The duties arising from civil and political rights are not easily translated in extraterritorial obligations. However, the duties arising out of economic, social and cultural rights can be extended extraterritorially using the ‘duty to cooperate’. The duty to cooperate makes it possible to apply the standards developed in environmental human rights jurisprudence to the global problem of climate change. It requires states to work together to solve climate change. This can found the regulatory framework to avoid the tragedy of the commons of climate change in international human rights law. Using the duty to cooperate proves to be a legitimate option to come to a human rights based approach to climate change.

This paper examines the effects of changes in the geographical distribution (CGDs) of shared (transboundary and straddling) fish stocks on the legal duties of state to cooperate on the conservation and management of marine living resources. CGD can involve changes in the (1) nature of the stock, (2) the States involved in the fishery, or (3) the zonal attachment of the stock. The CGD phenomenon, while not completely novel, appears to have intensified in recent years, in large part due to the impact of climate change on the oceans.  The paper explores what States must do in order to satisfy their obligation to cooperate in a CGD situation and the consequences should they fail to do so. The Mackerel War is used as a case study throughout the paper because it is a recent and comprehensive CGD dispute, which fittingly exemplifies a wide array of the legal issues that CGDs can raise. In its analysis of the duty of cooperation, the paper finds that states have a large amount of discretion in deciding how to deal with a CDG, including ignoring the CGD if they so agree. However, there is less discretion if the viability of a stock is threatened by the CGD and the conservation obligations of states under international law are triggered. In analysing the consequences of unsuccessful cooperation, the paper focuses on three issues – pre-CGD agreements, dispute settlement and self-help measures. The paper argues that CGDs can be a basis for the termination of international agreements. The paper also suggests that, while existing dispute settlement mechanisms may provide some answers for CGD-related issues, the sweeping jurisdictional limitations for fisheries cases can provoke retaliation and counter-measures instead of further cooperation. Overall, the paper concludes that States and scholars alike must be very attentive to CGDs in the future for the issues they can create.

This article examines the international assistance and cooperation (IAC) under the international law. It discusses human rights obligations regarding IAC in health taking into account international legal foundations and drawing core principles based in the right to health normative features. It also suggests that extra-territorial responsibilities should apply in order to prevent human rights violations in the context of IAC.