Changing the status quo in nuclear arms control law : the treaty prohibiting in nuclear weapons 2017 -- Adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 : a new dawn, a new deal, a new direction in nuclear disarmament law? -- Humanitarian nuclear disarmament : challenging the status quo through new approaches to legal process, purpose and provisions -- Legal congruence with existing treaty obligations : towards complementary or competing interests? -- Customary international law, opinio juris and state practice regarding the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 : towards universality? -- Treaty safeguards, verification, and implementation : a simple-ban approach and a need for oversight -- Nuclear deterrence policies and the prohibition treaty : disarmament considerations -- Nuclear defence doctrines : disarmament and emerging humanitarian concerns -- Competition, fragmentation, and polarization : a bifurcated international legal infrastructure regarding the nuclear architecture and regulation? -- Stigmatization-action and changing global perceptions to delegitimize and eliminate nuclear weapons -- Towards neo-universalism : towards a new reality in international law? -- Obligations erga omnes : the missing link for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament compliance -- The treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons within the nuclear non-proliferation and security architecture in international law : from grand bargain to grand challenges with the right to nuclear peace and freedom from nuclear fear.
Summary:
"As has been established, there is widespread agreement that customary international law consists of two elements: state practice and opinio juris.114 In relation to the crystallization of opinio juris and practice into binding customary law, one must also bear in mind the ICJ's decision regarding states "whose interests" have been "specially affected" as per the North Sea Continental Shelf case.115 In this case, the Court examined the delimitation of the continental shelf areas in the North Sea in relation to Germany and Denmark as well as between Germany and the Netherlands, looking beyond the partial boundaries which had been previously agreed upon by the parties. Specifically, the parties to the dispute requested the Court to issue principles and rules of international law to be applied to the delimitation of the continental shelf delimitation because they disagreed on the applicable principles or rules of delimitation.116 In its decision, the Court listed criteria necessary in 114 "Practice and Customary Law in Military Operations, Including Peace Support Operations" Congress of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War (2009), available online: http://ismllw.org/congres/General%20Report%20Congress.pdf. 115 North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment of the ICJ (Germany v Denmark; Germany v Netherlands), ICJ Reports (1969) p 3 at para 74, available online: . 116 Specifically, the case examined "What principles and rules of international law applied to the dispute regarding the delimitation of the continental shelf between the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark on the one hand, and between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands on the other, and then how to delimit the area on that basis. Whether the delimitations at issue"-- Provided by publisher.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.