Internationell förhandlingsskyldighet
(2014) LAGF03 20141Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats behandlar förhandlingsskyldigheten i internationell rätt. Syftet är att utreda under vilka förutsättningar en sådan skyldighet finns, hur den i så fall tar sig uttryck och hur den kan komma att se ut i framtiden. Förhandling har länge betraktats uteslutande som en diplomatisk tvistelösningsmetod. Uppsatsens fokus ligger på att utreda de juridiska aspekterna av förhandling.
För att göra denna utredning används en rättsdogmatisk metod och genom uppsatsen anläggs ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv. Både traktat- såväl som sedvanerättslig förhandlingsskyldighet kommer analyseras. Förhandlingskyldigheten i traktaträtten exemplifieras i FN-stadgans artikel 33 samt WTO:s tvistelösningssystem, medan förhandlingsskyldigheten i... (More) - Denna uppsats behandlar förhandlingsskyldigheten i internationell rätt. Syftet är att utreda under vilka förutsättningar en sådan skyldighet finns, hur den i så fall tar sig uttryck och hur den kan komma att se ut i framtiden. Förhandling har länge betraktats uteslutande som en diplomatisk tvistelösningsmetod. Uppsatsens fokus ligger på att utreda de juridiska aspekterna av förhandling.
För att göra denna utredning används en rättsdogmatisk metod och genom uppsatsen anläggs ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv. Både traktat- såväl som sedvanerättslig förhandlingsskyldighet kommer analyseras. Förhandlingskyldigheten i traktaträtten exemplifieras i FN-stadgans artikel 33 samt WTO:s tvistelösningssystem, medan förhandlingsskyldigheten i sedvanerätten exemplifieras genom två rättsfall från Internationella Domstolen (ICJ), samt ett pågående fall, där Marshallöarna stämt USA i amerikansk domstol.
Vidare beskrivs principen om good faith, vilken har stor påverkan på förhandlingsskyldighen, och jämförs med EUs lojalitetsprincip.
Avslutningsvis analyseras förhandlingsskyldigheten i ljuset av ovanstående. De slutsatser som dras är att både traktat- och sedvanerätten är under utveckling. Förhandlingsskyldigheten i internationell rätt tillskrivs alltmer juridisk tyngd, särskilt i den mer rörliga sedvanerätten, där ICJ tydligt uppmuntrar till förhandling. Även stater tycks i ökande utsträckning betrakta förhandling som en judiciell tvistelösningsmetod, och i takt med att samarbetet inom det internationella samfundet ökar får förhandlingsskyldigheten tillsammans med principen om good faith allt större betydelse. Ett skifte i synen på förhandlingsskyldighet håller således på att ske. (Less) - Abstract
- The subject of this thesis discusses the issue of obligation to negotiate in international law. The aim is to examine whether such an obligation exists, how it, in that case, is expressed and how it may evolve in the future. Negotiation has a record of being viewed merely as a diplomatic method for peaceful settlement of disputes. The focus in this thesis is on the judicial aspects of negotiation.
In order to make this analysis, conventional as well as customary law is analysed through a developmental perspective. The obligation to negotiate in conventional law is examplified through article 33 in the UN-charter and the dispute settlement system of the WTO, whereas the obligation to negotiate in customary law is examplified through two... (More) - The subject of this thesis discusses the issue of obligation to negotiate in international law. The aim is to examine whether such an obligation exists, how it, in that case, is expressed and how it may evolve in the future. Negotiation has a record of being viewed merely as a diplomatic method for peaceful settlement of disputes. The focus in this thesis is on the judicial aspects of negotiation.
In order to make this analysis, conventional as well as customary law is analysed through a developmental perspective. The obligation to negotiate in conventional law is examplified through article 33 in the UN-charter and the dispute settlement system of the WTO, whereas the obligation to negotiate in customary law is examplified through two cases by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In addition, an ongoing case about the breach of an obligation to negotiate between the Marshall Islands and the US is analysed. Furthermore is the principle of good faith, which has a large impact on the obligation to negotiate, is also described and compared to the duty of sincere cooperation in the EU.
In conclusion, this thesis shows that both the conventional and customary law is evolving in regard to the obligation to negotiate. The drawn conclusions are that both the conventional and customary law is evolving in regard to the obligation to negotiate. This obligation is regarded as more and more important, especially in the customary law where the ICJ repeatedly promotes negotiation as a desirable method for settling disputes. States also seem to have an expanding appreciation of negotiation as a judicial settlement method, and while the collaborations within the international community are intensified, the importance of the obligation to negotiate together with the principle of good faith is increasing. Thus, a switch in the perception of the functions of negotiation is happening. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4449715
- author
- Jönhagen, Erik LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Internationell förhandlingsskyldighet, förhandlingsskyldighet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4449715
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-19 12:56:55
- date last changed
- 2014-06-19 12:56:55
@misc{4449715,
abstract = {{The subject of this thesis discusses the issue of obligation to negotiate in international law. The aim is to examine whether such an obligation exists, how it, in that case, is expressed and how it may evolve in the future. Negotiation has a record of being viewed merely as a diplomatic method for peaceful settlement of disputes. The focus in this thesis is on the judicial aspects of negotiation.
In order to make this analysis, conventional as well as customary law is analysed through a developmental perspective. The obligation to negotiate in conventional law is examplified through article 33 in the UN-charter and the dispute settlement system of the WTO, whereas the obligation to negotiate in customary law is examplified through two cases by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In addition, an ongoing case about the breach of an obligation to negotiate between the Marshall Islands and the US is analysed. Furthermore is the principle of good faith, which has a large impact on the obligation to negotiate, is also described and compared to the duty of sincere cooperation in the EU.
In conclusion, this thesis shows that both the conventional and customary law is evolving in regard to the obligation to negotiate. The drawn conclusions are that both the conventional and customary law is evolving in regard to the obligation to negotiate. This obligation is regarded as more and more important, especially in the customary law where the ICJ repeatedly promotes negotiation as a desirable method for settling disputes. States also seem to have an expanding appreciation of negotiation as a judicial settlement method, and while the collaborations within the international community are intensified, the importance of the obligation to negotiate together with the principle of good faith is increasing. Thus, a switch in the perception of the functions of negotiation is happening.}},
author = {{Jönhagen, Erik}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Internationell förhandlingsskyldighet}},
year = {{2014}},
}