To Legalize or Not to Legalize? Collective countermeasures in international law
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- This thesis has examined the right of a non-injured state to take collective countermeasures under international state responsibility law. The concept of collective countermeasures refers to countermeasures that are taken by non-injured states (in the sense of Article 42 ARSIWA) in response to breaches of obligations erga omnes (partes), otherwise referred to as communitarian norms. Such obligations are owed either to the international community as a whole (erga omnes) or to a group of states (erga omnes partes), and protect collective interests. However, the issue of collective countermeasures causes great controversy, as both states and scholars are divided with regards to whether such a right can be said to exist under general... (More)
- This thesis has examined the right of a non-injured state to take collective countermeasures under international state responsibility law. The concept of collective countermeasures refers to countermeasures that are taken by non-injured states (in the sense of Article 42 ARSIWA) in response to breaches of obligations erga omnes (partes), otherwise referred to as communitarian norms. Such obligations are owed either to the international community as a whole (erga omnes) or to a group of states (erga omnes partes), and protect collective interests. However, the issue of collective countermeasures causes great controversy, as both states and scholars are divided with regards to whether such a right can be said to exist under general international law. An abundance of arguments has been made both in support of and opposed to the recognition of a right to take collective countermeasures. In spite of the polarized discussions on collective countermeasures, state practice indicates that more states are willing to take action by way of collective countermeasures in response to breaches of communitarian norms. This is seen clearly in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has brought the question of the legality of collective countermeasures back to the table. Through the employment of the legal doctrinal method, re-examination of state practice, however, leads to the conclusion that no customary rule that permits recourse to collective countermeasures exists under international law today, even though the winds seem to be blowing in that direction. This, in turn, begs the question of whether collective countermeasures should be recognized in international law. An analysis of the arguments that have been presented both for and against the recognition of a right to take collective countermeasures demonstrates that, whilst arguments against collective countermeasures cannot be completely discarded, the arguments in support of such a right are more persuasive and bear greater weight. International state responsibility law would therefore greatly benefit from the recognition of collective countermeasures as a tool to enforce communitarian norms in what is otherwise a rather limited toolbox, in order to allow non-injured states a peaceful, yet effective means to respond in the face of breaches of communitarian norms. (Less)
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats har undersökt rätten för en icke-skadad stat att vidta kollektiva kontraåtgärder enligt folkrättens statsansvarsregler. Kollektiva kontraåtgärder innebär att en icke-skadad stat (enligt Artikel 42 ARSIWA) kan vidta kontraåtgärder mot en annan stat, när den staten brutit mot förpliktelser erga omnes (partes), även kallade kommunitära normer (på engelska communitarian norms). Sådana förpliktelser existerar gentemot det internationella samfundet som helhet (erga omnes) eller en grupp av stater (erga omnes partes), och skyddar kollektiva intressen. Emellertid är frågan om lagligheten av kollektiva kontraåtgärder extremt kontroversiell, då både stater och forskare är delade gällande existensen av en sådan rättighet. Ett stort... (More)
- Denna uppsats har undersökt rätten för en icke-skadad stat att vidta kollektiva kontraåtgärder enligt folkrättens statsansvarsregler. Kollektiva kontraåtgärder innebär att en icke-skadad stat (enligt Artikel 42 ARSIWA) kan vidta kontraåtgärder mot en annan stat, när den staten brutit mot förpliktelser erga omnes (partes), även kallade kommunitära normer (på engelska communitarian norms). Sådana förpliktelser existerar gentemot det internationella samfundet som helhet (erga omnes) eller en grupp av stater (erga omnes partes), och skyddar kollektiva intressen. Emellertid är frågan om lagligheten av kollektiva kontraåtgärder extremt kontroversiell, då både stater och forskare är delade gällande existensen av en sådan rättighet. Ett stort antal argument har presenterats både till stöd för och emot erkännandet av rätten att vidta kollektiva kontraåtgärder. Trots denna ständigt polariserade fråga indikerar statspraxis att fler stater är villiga att vidta åtgärder i form av kollektiva kontraåtgärder som svar på brott mot kommunitära normer. Detta exemplifieras i den pågående konflikten mellan Ryssland och Ukraina, som belyst relevansen av frågan om lagligheten av kollektiva kontraåtgärder. Genom en tillämpning av den rättsdogmatiska metoden, så leder en förnyad prövning av statspraxis till slutsatsen att det inte existerar någon sedvanerättslig regel i folkrätten som tillåter vidtagandet av kollektiva kontraåtgärder, även om vindarna verkar blåsa i den riktningen. Därav blir frågan om kollektiva kontraåtgärder bör erkännas i internationell rätt relevant. En analys av argumenten som framförts både för och emot erkännandet av rätten att vidta kollektiva kontraåtgärder visar att argumenten till stöd för en sådan rätt är mer övertygande och är av större vikt i dagsläget, trots att argumenten mot kollektiva kontraåtgärder inte helt kan ignoreras. De internationella statsansvarsreglerna skulle därför ha stor nytta av erkännandet av kollektiva kontraåtgärder som ett verktyg för att säkerställa efterlevnaden av kommunitära normer i vad som annars är en ganska begränsad verktygslåda, för att ge icke-skadade stater ett fredligt men ändå effektivt sätt att reagera inför brott mot kommunitära normer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9189066
- author
- Juhlin-Dannfelt, Roya LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- public international law, collective countermeasures
- language
- English
- id
- 9189066
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-05 11:37:36
- date last changed
- 2025-06-05 11:37:36
@misc{9189066,
abstract = {{This thesis has examined the right of a non-injured state to take collective countermeasures under international state responsibility law. The concept of collective countermeasures refers to countermeasures that are taken by non-injured states (in the sense of Article 42 ARSIWA) in response to breaches of obligations erga omnes (partes), otherwise referred to as communitarian norms. Such obligations are owed either to the international community as a whole (erga omnes) or to a group of states (erga omnes partes), and protect collective interests. However, the issue of collective countermeasures causes great controversy, as both states and scholars are divided with regards to whether such a right can be said to exist under general international law. An abundance of arguments has been made both in support of and opposed to the recognition of a right to take collective countermeasures. In spite of the polarized discussions on collective countermeasures, state practice indicates that more states are willing to take action by way of collective countermeasures in response to breaches of communitarian norms. This is seen clearly in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has brought the question of the legality of collective countermeasures back to the table. Through the employment of the legal doctrinal method, re-examination of state practice, however, leads to the conclusion that no customary rule that permits recourse to collective countermeasures exists under international law today, even though the winds seem to be blowing in that direction. This, in turn, begs the question of whether collective countermeasures should be recognized in international law. An analysis of the arguments that have been presented both for and against the recognition of a right to take collective countermeasures demonstrates that, whilst arguments against collective countermeasures cannot be completely discarded, the arguments in support of such a right are more persuasive and bear greater weight. International state responsibility law would therefore greatly benefit from the recognition of collective countermeasures as a tool to enforce communitarian norms in what is otherwise a rather limited toolbox, in order to allow non-injured states a peaceful, yet effective means to respond in the face of breaches of communitarian norms.}},
author = {{Juhlin-Dannfelt, Roya}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{To Legalize or Not to Legalize? Collective countermeasures in international law}},
year = {{2025}},
}