Om kontraåtgärder och proportionalitet - "An awkward balancing between apples and oranges"
(2023) LAGF03 20232Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Kontraåtgärder är ett slags självhjälpsåtgärd som stater under vissa förutsättningar tillåts vidta som ett svar på internationellt felaktiga handlingar. Konceptet kontraåtgärder grundar sig på internationell sedvanerätt, och kommer till uttryck i ILC:s kodifiering av reglerna om statsansvar, ARSIWA. Ett grundläggande krav för en laglig kontraåtgärd är att åtgärden uppfyller kravet på proportionalitet. Det råder enighet om existensen av ett krav på proportionalitet, samtidigt som det i viss utsträckning är oklart hur detta krav närmare bör förstås. I denna uppsats utreds hur kravet på pro-portionalitet bör förstås vid kontraåtgärder som vidtas av skadade stater. Utredningen visar att kravet på proportionalitet delvis har förändrats över... (More)
- Kontraåtgärder är ett slags självhjälpsåtgärd som stater under vissa förutsättningar tillåts vidta som ett svar på internationellt felaktiga handlingar. Konceptet kontraåtgärder grundar sig på internationell sedvanerätt, och kommer till uttryck i ILC:s kodifiering av reglerna om statsansvar, ARSIWA. Ett grundläggande krav för en laglig kontraåtgärd är att åtgärden uppfyller kravet på proportionalitet. Det råder enighet om existensen av ett krav på proportionalitet, samtidigt som det i viss utsträckning är oklart hur detta krav närmare bör förstås. I denna uppsats utreds hur kravet på pro-portionalitet bör förstås vid kontraåtgärder som vidtas av skadade stater. Utredningen visar att kravet på proportionalitet delvis har förändrats över tid, på det sättet att kravet tidigare utformats med en negativ formulering, medan det numera uttrycks med en positiv formulering. Tanken om ett negativt formulerat krav tycks dock inte vara helt övergiven, och det råder viss oklarhet kring hur kravet i detta avseende bör förstås. Utredningen visar också på att hänsyn ska tas till såväl kvantitativa element som kvalitativa element, samtidigt som det i viss mån är oklart dels hur denna avvägning ska ske, dels vilka omständigheter som hänsyn får tas till. Det är dock tydligt att kvalitativa element kan spela en avgörande roll vid proportionalitetsbedömningen, och att kontraåtgärder mycket väl kan orsaka mer skada än den internationellt felaktiga handlingen som har motiverat dem. Vidare visar utredning på att betydelsen av reciprocitet vid proportionalitetsbedömningen inte bör överdrivas, samt att bedömningen av syfte ska hållas avskild från bedömningen av proportionalitet. Slutligen kan sägas att proportionalitetsbedömningen vid kontraåtgärder som vidtas av skadade stater bör förstås på det sättet att bedömningen aktualiserar svåra bedömningsfrågor och att det i viss utsträckning är svårt att dra säkra slut-satser om vad som är gällande rätt på området. Det är dock tydligt att proportionalitetsprincipen är ett redskap som möjliggör svåra avvägningar, samtidigt som den renderar viss förutsebarhet genom att sätta upp gränser för vad som kan förväntas av en stat som vidtar kontraåtgärder. (Less)
- Abstract
- Countermeasures are a form of self-help measures that States, under certain conditions, are allowed to take in response to internationally wrongful acts. The concept of countermeasures is based on customary international law and is expressed in the International Law Commission’s codification of the law of State responsibility, ARSIWA. A fundamental requirement for a lawful countermeasure is that the measure meets the criterion of proportionality. There is consensus on the existence of a requirement of proportionality, although it is somewhat unclear how the requirement of proportionality should be understood in more detail. This essay investigates how the requirement of proportionality should be understood when countermeasures are taken by... (More)
- Countermeasures are a form of self-help measures that States, under certain conditions, are allowed to take in response to internationally wrongful acts. The concept of countermeasures is based on customary international law and is expressed in the International Law Commission’s codification of the law of State responsibility, ARSIWA. A fundamental requirement for a lawful countermeasure is that the measure meets the criterion of proportionality. There is consensus on the existence of a requirement of proportionality, although it is somewhat unclear how the requirement of proportionality should be understood in more detail. This essay investigates how the requirement of proportionality should be understood when countermeasures are taken by injured States. The study shows that the requirement of proportionality has changed over time, with the requirement previously formulated negatively, while now it is expressed positively. However, the idea of a negatively formulated requirement does not seem to be entirely abandoned, and there is some uncertainty about how the requirement in this regard should be understood. The study also indicates that consideration should be given to both quantitative and qualitative elements, while it is somewhat unclear how this balance should be struck and which circumstances that can be taken into account. However, it is clear that qualitative elements can play a decisive role when proportionality is assessed, and that countermeasures can cause more harm than the internationally wrongful act that motivated them. Furthermore, the study indicates that the significance of reciprocity in the proportionality assessment should not be overstated, and that the assessment of purpose should be kept separate from the assessment of proportionality. Finally, it can be said that the assessment of proportionality of countermeasures taken by injured States should be understood in that sense that it raises difficult questions, and that it is somewhat difficult to draw secure conclusions regarding current law in the field. However, it is clear that the principle of proportionality is a tool that enables difficult balancing, while providing some predicta-bility by setting limits on what can be expected from a State taking coun-termeasures. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9142661
- author
- Askmalm, Pontus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt (en. public international law)
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9142661
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-02 11:58:55
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 11:58:55
@misc{9142661,
abstract = {{Countermeasures are a form of self-help measures that States, under certain conditions, are allowed to take in response to internationally wrongful acts. The concept of countermeasures is based on customary international law and is expressed in the International Law Commission’s codification of the law of State responsibility, ARSIWA. A fundamental requirement for a lawful countermeasure is that the measure meets the criterion of proportionality. There is consensus on the existence of a requirement of proportionality, although it is somewhat unclear how the requirement of proportionality should be understood in more detail. This essay investigates how the requirement of proportionality should be understood when countermeasures are taken by injured States. The study shows that the requirement of proportionality has changed over time, with the requirement previously formulated negatively, while now it is expressed positively. However, the idea of a negatively formulated requirement does not seem to be entirely abandoned, and there is some uncertainty about how the requirement in this regard should be understood. The study also indicates that consideration should be given to both quantitative and qualitative elements, while it is somewhat unclear how this balance should be struck and which circumstances that can be taken into account. However, it is clear that qualitative elements can play a decisive role when proportionality is assessed, and that countermeasures can cause more harm than the internationally wrongful act that motivated them. Furthermore, the study indicates that the significance of reciprocity in the proportionality assessment should not be overstated, and that the assessment of purpose should be kept separate from the assessment of proportionality. Finally, it can be said that the assessment of proportionality of countermeasures taken by injured States should be understood in that sense that it raises difficult questions, and that it is somewhat difficult to draw secure conclusions regarding current law in the field. However, it is clear that the principle of proportionality is a tool that enables difficult balancing, while providing some predicta-bility by setting limits on what can be expected from a State taking coun-termeasures.}},
author = {{Askmalm, Pontus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Om kontraåtgärder och proportionalitet - "An awkward balancing between apples and oranges"}},
year = {{2023}},
}