Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:42:05.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Philosophical Background of Effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

J. Wildeman
Get access

Extract

In the first decades of this century a new concept appeared in public international law, namely, effectiveness. A survey of present literature shows that no general agreement has yet been reached as to the scope of this concept. Some writers regard effectiveness as a basic principle of public international law while others tend to give it a more moderate place.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1-2 , May 1977 , pp. 335 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1977

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. Oppenheim, L., ed. Lauterpacht, H., International Law, 8th ed., (London: Longmans, Green, 1967).Google Scholar

2. Ch.Fenwick, G., International Law (4th ed., New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, 1965).Google Scholar

3. Akehurst, M., A Modern Introduction to International Law (London: George Allen and Unwin 1970).Google Scholar

4. Verzijl, J.H.W., International Law in Historical Perspective, Vol. I (Leyden: A.W. Sijfhoff, 1968), p. 293 ff.Google Scholar

5. Kelsen, H., Principles of International Law, (2nd ed.New Yorks: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966Google Scholar, cited as: Kelsen, , Principles), p. 420.Google Scholar

6. Kelsen, , Principles, pp. 422–433.Google Scholar

7. Dahm, G., Völkerrecht (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1958).Google Scholar

8. All translations into English are by the author, unless otherwise stated.

9. A concept closely related to effectiveness, as will be shown later.

10. Dahm, , Vol. I, p. 19.Google Scholar

11. Dahm, , Vol. I, p. 42.Google Scholar

12. Visscher, Charles de, Les effectivités du droit international public [The effectiveness of international public law] (Paris: Pedone, 1967).Google Scholar

13. Touscoz, J., Le principe d'effectivité dans I'ordre international [The principle of effectiveness in the international order] (Paris: R. Pichon et R. Durand-Auzias, 1964).Google Scholar

14. Visscher, De, op.cit. p. 65.Google Scholar

15. Ibidem.

16. Whitehead, A.N., Science and the Modern World (New York: First Free Press, 1967), pp. 29–32.Google Scholar

17. Grotius, H., De Jure Belli Ac PacisGoogle Scholar, Prolegomena, par. 58 juncto par. 37.

18. von Savigny, F.C., System des heutigen Römischen Rechts [System of Contemporary Roman Law], Vol. 8 (Berlin: Veit und Comp, 1849), pp. 24–28 and p. 108.Google Scholar

19. For the present state of this doctrine in international private law see Kegel, G., “The Crisis of Conflict of Laws”, 112 Recueil des Cours (1964, Vol. II), p. 95 ff.Google Scholar

20. I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 23.Google Scholar

21. Very much in favour of this view: Mann, F.A., “The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law”, 111 Recueil des Cours (1964, Vol. I), esp. p. 43 ffGoogle Scholar. Also Dahm, , op.cit. Vol. I, pp. 254–260Google Scholar; Wengler, W., Völkerrecht (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1964), Vol. II, p. 936CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law (2nd.ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), pp. 291–303.Google Scholar

22. Mann, , op.cit., p. 49.Google Scholar

23. See writers mentioned in note 21 on the growingly unsatisfactory results of the territorial principle in some criminal cases.

24. Kant, I., Kritik der Reinen Vernunft [Critique of Pure Reason] (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1974)Google Scholar. Kant gave in the preface to the second edition of his work a survey of what he wanted to achieve (Band I, pp. 20–41), esp. p. 32: “so behauptet die Lehre der Sittlichkeit ihren Platz, und die Naturlehre auch den ihrigen” [in this way the doctrine of morals keeps its place, and the doctrine of nature also].

25. Whitehead, op.cit., p. 32, 33.Google Scholar

26. Whitehead, op.cit., p. 38.Google Scholar

27. Comte also created a new discipline: “Sociology”, which was to become of great importance for the development of legal thought. About his positivism see Friedmann, W., Legal Theory, 4th ed. (London: Stevens and Sons, 1960), p. 178.Google Scholar

28. Wolf, E., Grosse Rechtsdenker [Great Legal Thinkers] (Tübingen: Mohr, 1963)Google Scholar. On the impact of positivism on the German legal minds see pp. 622–627.

29. For legal positivism in England see Friedmann, on Austin, (op.cit., p. 211–213).Google Scholar

30. Whitehead, op.cit., p. 32.Google Scholar

31. These two approaches had political implications. The nationalistic, liberal and conservative minds looked for safety in State power, while the political left wanted to give social forces a decisive place.

32. Friedmann, , op.cit., p. 213.Google Scholar

33. von Ihering, R., Der Zweck im Recht [The Purpose in Law] (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1877), Vol. I, p. 434.Google Scholar

34. Ihering, , op.cit., pp. 246–255.Google Scholar

35. Ihering, , op.cit., pp. 440–441.Google Scholar

36. Ihering, , op.cit., p. 539–540.Google Scholar

37. About the background of Jellinek's thoughts see Holubek, R., Allgemeine Staatslehre als Empirische Wissenschaft, eine Untersuchung am Beispiel von Georg Jellinek (Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1964).Google Scholar

38. Jellinek, G., Allgemeine Staatslehre, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Häling, 1905), p. 20.Google Scholar

39. Jellinek, , op.cit., p. 41.Google Scholar

40. Jellinek, , op.cit., p. 528.Google Scholar

41. Jellinek, , op.cit., pp. 475, 476.Google Scholar

42. Jellinek, , op.cit., p. 329.Google Scholar

43. Jellinek sees his doctrine as democratic. He maintains that the ruling power is threatened if it does not succeed in having their dictates accepted as norm by the ruled. Unfortunately this would one day mean: have a minister of propaganda who is capable to indoctrinate the people.

44. Jellinek, , op.cit., pp. 331–332.Google Scholar

45. Münch, F., “Brauch und Missbrauch der Normative Kraft des Faktischen” [Use and Abuse of the normative power of the factual], Jahrbuch der Albertus Universität 1965, p. 29 ff.Google Scholar; Menzel, E., “Die Normative Kraft des Faktischen in Völkerrechtlicher Betrachtung” [The normative power of the factual in the perspective of the law of nations] 14 Universitas (1959), p. 631 ff.Google Scholar

46. For Kelsen's tenets see Friedmann, , op.cit., p. 228 ff.Google Scholar

47. Kelsen, , Allgemeine Staatslehre [General Theory of State] (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1925), p. 18.Google Scholar

48. Kelsen, , Staatslehre, p. 19.Google Scholar

49. Kelsen, , Reine Rechtslehre (2nd ed., Wien: Deuticke, 1967).Google Scholar

50. Kelsen, , The Pure Theory of Law (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967).Google Scholar

51. Kelsen, , The Pure Theory of Law, pp. 211. 212.Google Scholar

52. Kelsen, , The Pure Theory of Law, p. 214Google Scholar. Kelsen's problem here is, like von Ihering's and Jellinek's: the relation of right and might.

53. Kelsen, , Principles, p. 420Google Scholar, note 116.

54. Kelsen, , Principles, p. 561.Google Scholar

55. Kelsen, , Principles, pp. 420–433.Google Scholar

56. Kelsen, , Principles, p. 433.Google Scholar

57. Friedmann, , op.cit., pp. 178, 179.Google Scholar

58. Whitehead, , op.cit., pp. 51–55.Google Scholar

59. See infra De Visscher and Touscoz.

60. Friedmann, , op.cit., pp. 180–182.Google Scholar

61. Friedmann, , op.cit., p. 286 ff.Google Scholar

62. Friedmann, , op.cit., p. 288.Google Scholar

63. Appeared first under this title in Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts 1910, pp. 56–134Google Scholar. Published again in 1928 as “Die Soziologischen Grundlagen des Völkerrechts” [The Sociological Bases of the Law of Nations] (Berlin: Walter Rothschild, 1928) from which I quote.

64. Huber, , op.cit., p. 9.Google Scholar

65. R.I.A.A., Vol. II, p. 829 ffGoogle Scholar.; quotation on p. 839.

66. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, P.C.I.J., Ser.A/B, No. 53 (1933)Google Scholar. Minquiers and Ecrehos, I.C.J. Rep. 1953, pp. 47–109Google Scholar. Certain Frontier Lands, I.C.J. Rep. 1959, pp. 209–258.Google Scholar

67. Touscoz, , op.cit., p. 9.Google Scholar

68. Touscoz, , op.cit., p. 17.Google Scholar

69. Touscoz, , op.cit., p. 51.Google Scholar

70. Visscher, De, op.cit., p. 65.Google Scholar

71. Visscher, De, op.cit., p. 11.Google Scholar

72. Radbruch, , Der Geist des Englischen Rechts [The Spirit of English Law] (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1956), pp. 50–55.Google Scholar

73. See Friedmann, , op.cit., p. 209Google Scholar, for various meanings of “positivism”.