Concepts in Collusion - Clarifying and comparing the legal obligations of third states and international organizations, and their right to take countermeasures in response to violations of international law
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) published its Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Advisory Opinion received much attention as the Court devoted a full section to the obligations of third states and international organizations, arising from Israel’s breaching of peremptory norms of international law. The obligations discussed were in large identical to those arising under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA and the corresponding Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO. This led to a renewed discussion in the legal debate regarding these two concepts and their practical implications. A reoccurring third concept... (More)
- On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) published its Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Advisory Opinion received much attention as the Court devoted a full section to the obligations of third states and international organizations, arising from Israel’s breaching of peremptory norms of international law. The obligations discussed were in large identical to those arising under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA and the corresponding Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO. This led to a renewed discussion in the legal debate regarding these two concepts and their practical implications. A reoccurring third concept in these discussions were the concept of countermeasures. However, what the three concepts actually implies and how they relate to each other is not clear, and there is no previous research comparing these concepts. The purpose of the thesis is therefore to clarify each of these concepts practical implication and compare how they relate to each other.
Through a legal dogmatic method, the concept of third states’ obligations under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA, international organizations’ obligations under Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO and the concept of countermeasures is elaborated. It is concluded that third states and international organizations have certain obligations under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA and corresponding Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO, when states act in violation of jus cogens norms of international law. These contain obligations of non-cooperation, non-recognition, and non-assistance in upholding a situation caused by an unlawful act. Countermeasures on the other hand, may as a general rule, only be taken by an injured state against the injuring state in response to an act in violation of an obligation erga omnes. Despite this, there is an ongoing discussion regarding third states’ right to take countermeasures in international law. Third states taking countermeasures however rarely refer to the term countermeasures, but rather to the term ‘sanctions’.
After clarifying each of these three concepts, they are compared and analyzed. The analysis shows that third states’ and international organizations’ obligations under ARSIWA and ARIO have several similarities, despite their fundamental differences. Following international organizations various structures, no general conclusions regarding the relation between states and international organizations can be drawn. These concepts, however, differs from counter-measures for several reasons. Third states’ and international organizations’ obligations have more similarities with third party countermeasures, even though this legal construction is debated in the legal discussion.
To summarize, these three concepts have several differences. Despite this, they still have a common goal, namely, to prevent serious crimes of international law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9189049
- author
- Sahlin, Ida LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Public international law, state responsibility, countermeasures, sanctions, international organizations, ARSIWA, ARIO.
- language
- English
- id
- 9189049
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-05 14:26:23
- date last changed
- 2025-06-05 14:26:23
@misc{9189049,
abstract = {{On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) published its Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Advisory Opinion received much attention as the Court devoted a full section to the obligations of third states and international organizations, arising from Israel’s breaching of peremptory norms of international law. The obligations discussed were in large identical to those arising under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA and the corresponding Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO. This led to a renewed discussion in the legal debate regarding these two concepts and their practical implications. A reoccurring third concept in these discussions were the concept of countermeasures. However, what the three concepts actually implies and how they relate to each other is not clear, and there is no previous research comparing these concepts. The purpose of the thesis is therefore to clarify each of these concepts practical implication and compare how they relate to each other.
Through a legal dogmatic method, the concept of third states’ obligations under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA, international organizations’ obligations under Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO and the concept of countermeasures is elaborated. It is concluded that third states and international organizations have certain obligations under Articles 40 and 41 of ARSIWA and corresponding Articles 41 and 42 of ARIO, when states act in violation of jus cogens norms of international law. These contain obligations of non-cooperation, non-recognition, and non-assistance in upholding a situation caused by an unlawful act. Countermeasures on the other hand, may as a general rule, only be taken by an injured state against the injuring state in response to an act in violation of an obligation erga omnes. Despite this, there is an ongoing discussion regarding third states’ right to take countermeasures in international law. Third states taking countermeasures however rarely refer to the term countermeasures, but rather to the term ‘sanctions’.
After clarifying each of these three concepts, they are compared and analyzed. The analysis shows that third states’ and international organizations’ obligations under ARSIWA and ARIO have several similarities, despite their fundamental differences. Following international organizations various structures, no general conclusions regarding the relation between states and international organizations can be drawn. These concepts, however, differs from counter-measures for several reasons. Third states’ and international organizations’ obligations have more similarities with third party countermeasures, even though this legal construction is debated in the legal discussion.
To summarize, these three concepts have several differences. Despite this, they still have a common goal, namely, to prevent serious crimes of international law.}},
author = {{Sahlin, Ida}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Concepts in Collusion - Clarifying and comparing the legal obligations of third states and international organizations, and their right to take countermeasures in response to violations of international law}},
year = {{2025}},
}