Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PART II
CHAPTER III
I. Introduction
application of the norms and rules, and for guiding the evolution of
the entire legal system 198, so that this latter may readjust to the
changing circumstances of international life, respond to the changing
needs of the international community, and contribute to fulfil the
aspirations of humankind.
209. F. Castberg, “Natural Law and Human Rights”, 1 Revue des droits de
l’homme/Human Rights Journal (1968), p. 37, and cf. pp. 21-22.
210. Cf., e.g., L. Le Fur, “La théorie du droit naturel depuis le XVIIe siècle et
la doctrine moderne”, 18 RCADI (1927), pp. 297-399 ; A. Truyol y Serra,
“Théorie du droit international public. Cours général”, 183 RCADI (1981),
pp. 142-143 ; A. Truyol y Serra, Fundamentos de Derecho Internacional
Público, 4th rev. ed., Madrid, Tecnos, 1977, pp. 69 and 105.
211. J. A. Carrillo Salcedo, “Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional”,
22 Isegoría — Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política, Madrid (2000), p. 75.
212. G. Abi-Saab, “Cours général de droit international public”, 207 RCADI
(1987), p. 378.
General Course on Public International Law 89
the UNHCR dwelt upon the examination of such principles and cri-
teria to guide the application of the norms and rules of International
Refugee Law in the aforementioned case of the armed conflicts in
Central America.
In a document adopted in 1989 resulting from consultations of a
group of experts 213, reference was made to the principles contained
in the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees 214, complemented by
the practice of the affected States and of international organizations.
Half a decade later, in a new document, adopted in 1994, also result-
ing from consultations of another group of experts 215, an assess-
ment was undertaken of the application of those principles. In both
documents the UNHCR stressed the fundamental importance of
the principle of non-refoulement, cornerstone of refugee protection,
applicable irrespectively of the any formal determination of the
condition of refugee by a State or an international organization,
and largely regarded as belonging to the domain of jus cogens 216.
The perennial search for the guiding principles and the care and atten-
tion to the need of compliance with them, and with the norms and
rules ensuing therefom, are revealing of the belief in their continuing
validity.
In International Humanitarian Law, for example, the 1949 Geneva
Conventions and their Protocols of 1977, essentially victim-oriented,
are inspired above all by the overriding principle of humanity, which
calls for respect to the human person in any circumstances and at
all times. As well pointed out by J. Pictet, the general principles in
this domain permeate the whole corpus juris of International
Humanitarian Law, which discloses a “caractère impératif (jus
cogens) et non dispositif” 217 ; those principles are, ultimately, identi-
fied with the very foundations of International Humanitarian Law. In
this connection, it has been persuasively argued 218 that, rather than
attempting to identify provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
or of the 1977 Additional Protocols, that might be regarded as
expressing general principles, one ought to consider the whole of
those Conventions and other humanitarian law treaties as being the
expression — and the development — of those general principles,
applicable in any circumstances, so as to secure a more effective
protection of the victimized 219.
The general principles of law have thus inspired not only the
interpretation and the application of the legal norms, but also the
law-making process itself of their elaboration. They reflect the
opinio juris, which, in its turn, lies on the basis of the formation of
Law 220. Such principles mark presence at both national and interna-
tional levels.
There are fundamental principles of law which identify themselves
with the very foundations of the legal system, revealing the values
and ultimate ends of the international legal order, guiding it, pro-
tecting it against the incongruencies of the practice of States, and
fulfilling the necessities of the international community 221. Such
principles, as expression of an objective “idea of justice”, have a
universal scope, requiring the observance of all States, and securing
— as lucidly pointed out by A. Favre in 1968 — the unity of Law,
as from the idea of justice, to the benefit of the whole humankind 222.
218. On the basis of obiter dicta of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in
the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986).
219. R. Abi-Saab, “Les ‘principes généraux’ du droit humanitaire selon la
Cour internationale de Justice”, 766 Revue internationale de la Croix-Rouge
(1987), pp. 386 and 389.
220. On the wide scope of the opinio juris in the formation of contemporary
International Law, cf. Chaps. V-VI, infra.
221. G. Cohen-Jonathan, “Le rôle des principes généraux dans l’interpréta-
tion et l’application de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme”, in
Mélanges en hommage à L. E. Pettiti, Brussels, Bruylant, 1998, pp. 192-193 ;
M. Koskenniemi, “General Principles : Reflexions on Constructivist Thinking in
International Law”, in Sources of International Law (ed. M. Koskenniemi),
Aldershot, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 2000, pp. 360-365, 377, 381, 387, 390 and 395-
398.
222. A. Favre, “Les principes généraux du droit, fonds commun du droit des
gens”, in Recueil d’études de droit international en hommage à P. Guggenheim,
Geneva, IUHEI, 1968, pp. 374-376, and cf. pp. 369 and 379.
General Course on Public International Law 91
223. Op. cit. supra footnote 222, pp. 376-380, 383, 386 and 389-390.
224. And it could not be otherwise, as human rights are universal and inher-
ent to all human beings, while the rights of citizenship vary from country
to country and encompass only those which the positive law of the State con-
siders citizens. In its memorable Advisory Opinion No. 18 on The Juridical
Condition and the Rights of the Undocumented Migrants (of 17.9.2003), the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has expressly referred to
the principles of the dignity of the human person and of the inalienability of
the rights inherent to her (para. 157). Moreover, in its jurisprudence con-
stante, the IACtHR, in interpreting and applying the American Convention, has
also always resorted to the general principles of law ; cf., e.g., IACtHR, case
of the Five Pensioners v. Peru (Judgment of 28.2.2003), para. 156 ; and cf.
also IACtHR, Advisory Opinion No. 17, on the Juridical Condition and Human
Rights of the Child (of 28.8.2002), paras. 66 and 87 ; IACtHR, Advisory Opinion
No. 16, on The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Frame-
work of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law (of 1.10.1999), paras. 58,
113 and 128. Among these principles, those which are endowed with a truly fun-
damental character, referred to herein, form in reality the substratum of
the legal order itself, revealing the right to the Law of which are titulaires all
human beings ; A. A. Cançado Trindade, Tratado de Direito Internacional dos
Direitos Humanos, Vol. III, Porto Alegre, Brazil, S.A. Fabris Ed., 2003, pp. 524-
525.
225. B. Maurer, Le principe de respect de la dignité humaine et la Convention
européenne des droits de l’homme, Paris, CERIC, Univ. d’Aix-Marseille, 1999,
p. 18.
92 A. A. Cançado Trindade
235. Op. cit. supra footnote 232, pp. 311 and 318-319.
236. Ibid., p. 335.
237. Ibid., pp. 345-346.
238. Ibid., p. 346.
239. E.g., bona fides, res judicata, equality before the law, presumption of
innocence, prohibition of abuse of rights, among others.
General Course on Public International Law 95
national Law, which was retaken in monographs in the sixties 243 and
the seventies 244. Subsequently, except for a few works 245, there
appeared to occur, rather surprisingly, a decline in the interest in the
study of the matter, parallel to the dissemination of a seemingly —
and regrettable — pragmatic approach to the study of International Law.
Although concern with the need to consider the principles of
International Law appears to have declined in the last quarter of a
century, those principles have, nevertheless, always marked their
presence in the doctrine of International Law, including the contem-
porary one 246. Principles of International Law permeate the entire
international legal system, playing an important role in international
law-making as well as in the application of International Law 247. In
some cases, such as, for example, in the Law of Outer Space, they
have paved the way for the construction of a new corpus juris, in a
new domain of International Law which required regulation, and the
principles originally proclaimed have fully retained their value to date 248.
Principles of International Law are guiding principles of general
content, and in that they differ from the norms or rules of positive
International Law, and transcend them. As basic pillars of the inter-
national legal system (as of any legal system), those principles give
243. Cf. M. Miele, Principi di Diritto Internazionale, 2nd ed., Padua, Cedam,
1960 ; L. Delbez, Les principes généraux du contentieux international, Paris,
LGDJ, 1962 ; L. Delbez, Les principes généraux du droit international public,
3rd ed., Paris, LGDJ, 1964 ; H. Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 2nd ed.,
New York, Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1966 ; W. Friedmann, “The Uses of
‘General Principles’ in the Development of International Law”, 57 American
Journal of International Law (1963), pp. 279-299 ; M. Virally, “Le rôle des
‘principes’ dans le développement du droit international”, Recueil d’études de
droit international en hommage à Paul Guggenheim, Geneva, IUHEI, 1968,
pp. 531-554 ; M. Bartos, “Transformations des principes généraux en règles
positives du droit international”, Mélanges offerts à Juraj Andrassy, La Haye,
Nijhoff, 1968, pp. 1-12.
244. Cf., e.g., B. Vitanyi, “La signification de la ‘généralité’ des principes de
droit”, 80 Revue générale de droit international public (1976), pp. 536-545.
245. Cf., e.g., I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed.,
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2003 ; A. A. Cançado Trindade, Princípios do Direito
Internacional Contemporâneo, Brasilia, Edit. University of Brasilia, 1981.
246. Cf., e.g., inter alia, H. Thierry, “L’évolution du droit international.
Cours général de droit international public”, 222 RCADI (1990), pp. 123-185 ;
G. Abi-Saab, “Cours général de droit international public”, op. cit. supra foot-
note 212, pp. 328-416.
247. G. Herczegh, General Principles of Law and the International Legal
Order, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1969, pp. 90, 122 and 126.
248. Cf. M. Lachs, “Le vingt-cinquième anniversaire du traité régissant les
principes du droit de l’espace extra-atmosphérique, 1967-1992”, 184 Revue
française de droit aérien et spatial (1992), No. 4, pp. 365-373, esp. pp. 370 and
372.
General Course on Public International Law 97
253. M. Šahović, “Codification des principes . . .”, op. cit. supra foot-
note 252, pp. 255-261 ; and cf. J. Castañeda, “The Underdeveloped Nations
and the Development of International Law”, 15 International Organization
(1961), pp. 38 and 44-48.
254. E.g., 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples, 1962 Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty of States
over Their Natural Resources, and 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Internal Affairs of States and the Protection of Their
Independence and Sovereignty ; cf. G. Arangio-Ruiz, “The Normative Role of
the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of
Friendly Relations”, 137 RCADI (1972), pp. 431-432.
255. Although its formulation of the principles (1970 Declaration) was not
identical to that of the principles set forth in Article 2 of the UN Charter.
256. H. Blix, “The Helsinki Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations
between States in Europe”, 31 Revue égyptienne de droit international (1975),
p. 4, and cf. pp. pp. 1-15.
257. UN doc. A/6547, paras. 24-25.
General Course on Public International Law 99
force had become a norm of jus cogens” 275. Other points were con-
sidered 276 : as to the meaning and scope to be attributed to the term
“force”, for example, in the long debates that took place 277 most rep-
resentatives of Afro-Asian States, and of Eastern European States,
and of some Latin American States, favoured such a wide interpre-
tation of the prohibition of “force”, while a more restrictive interpre-
tation was supported by the delegates of Western States, some other
Latin American States and other individual States. The 1970 Decla-
ration did not manage to provide a clear answer to the problem — in
the view of some deliberately — in opting for a rather more abstract
drafting of the principle at issue so as to overcome the difficulty 278.
In the debates on the formulation of the second principle, that
of peaceful settlement of international disputes, the old maxim was
reiterated that the acceptance by States of a given procedure of
peaceful settlement of existing or future disputes, which they were
parties to, should not be regarded as incompatible with the
“sovereign equality of States” 279. Some Delegations argued that
“negotiation, mediation and conciliation were methods which
could be used to alter an existing juridical situation, while the
methods of arbitration and judicial settlement applied the law
as it existed” 280.
Different views were expressed on the effectiveness of negotia-
tions 281, and references were made to the functions of political
organs of international organizations — both the United Nations
275. Op. cit. supra footnote 274, para. 38.
276. E.g., it was pointed out that the prohibition of threat or use of force
should refer “not only to (national) frontiers but also to other international lines
of demarcation” ; UN docs. A/6547, para. 41, and A/6165, para. 22 ; as exempli-
fied by what was occurring, in those days, e.g., in Vietnam, Korea, Germany,
and the Middle East.
277. Cf. UN doc. A/6547, para. 37 (“armed force”) ; cf. further, UN docs.
A/6165, para. 25 ; A/7809, para. 20 ; A/6547, para. 38 (“political or economic
pressure”). And cf. UN docs. A/6955, para. 41 ; A/6547, para. 38.
278. The same uncertainties were to be found also in expert writing, disclos-
ing either a wider interpretation of the prohibition of force (G. Arangio-Ruiz,
“The Normative Role . . .”, op. cit. supra footnote 254, pp. 529-530), or a rather
stricter one (R. Rosenstock, “The Declaration of Principles . . .”, op. cit. supra
footnote 252, pp. 724-725).
279. For the insistence on this last point, cf., e.g., UN docs. A/6547, para. 47 ;
and A/6165, para. 34. And cf., generally, e.g., UN docs. A/6230, paras. 157-272 ;
and A/5746, paras. 128-201.
280. UN doc. A/6165, para. 33.
281. UN doc. A/6547, para. 49 ; on the element of good faith in the peaceful
settlement of disputes, cf. ibid., para. 50.
General Course on Public International Law 103
287. Cf. UN doc. A/6955, paras. 83 and 53 ; and cf. UN docs. A/6230, p. 134 ;
A/6547, para. 52 ; A/8018, Suppl. 18, p. 14, and cf. pp. 36-37.
288. Text in UN General Assembly, Resolutions Adopted on the Report of the
Sixth Committee — 25th Session, 1970, p. 213 (AG resolution 2625 (XXV) of
1970) : cf. also UN doc. A/8028, Suppl. 28, p. 123, and cf. pp. 121-124.
289. UN doc. A/6165, para. 52 ; and cf. also UN doc. A/6955, para. 56.
290. Cf., UN docs. A/6230, paras. 414-445 ; and A/6799, paras. 114-170.
General Course on Public International Law 105
crimination and religious intolerance 291. If, on the one hand, there
were areas which continued, more than ever, to require urgently the
co-operation of States, such as, inter alia, those of disarmarment,
exploration of outer space, protection of the environment, explo-
ration of ocean resources, erradication of hunger, peaceful uses of
Antarctica, on the other hand one should acknowledge the intense
activity of international co-operation developed in recent years
within the United Nations and regional organizations, which
appeared as an expression of the opinio juris sive necessitatis of
States 292.
The consideration of principles of International Law by the Special
Committee did not limit itself to a simple reassessment of the basic
principles already found in Article 2 of the UN Charter, but extended
itself also to principles the contents of which were, at that time, still
in evolution, such as that of the equality of rights and self-determi-
nation of peoples 293. References were made to relevant resolutions
of the UN General Assembly on decolonization 294. In the prolonged
debates on the principle at issue 295 there was support for the view
that States had to abstain themselves from any action contrary to the
exercise of self-determination, and that colonial peoples struggling
for emancipation were entitled to search for and receive all kinds of
291. UN doc. A/6955, para. 58, and cf. paras. 51, 53 and 55. In recalling
Article 23 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and Articles 13, 55 and 56
of the UN Charter, one representative remarked that the principle of co-opera-
tion among States encompassed also their duty to co-operate in the juridical
field as well, and “particularly in the progressive development of International
Law and its codification” ; E. Ustor, “The Principle of Co-operation among
States and the Development of International Law”, in Questions of International
Law (Hungarian Branch of the International Law Association), Budapest,
Progresprint, 1971, pp. 245-246 ; and cf. also, on the principle at issue, E.
McWhinney, “Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States : Debate at the
Twentieth General Assembly, United Nations”, 60 AJIL (1966), p. 360.
292. E. Ustor, op. cit. supra footnote 291, pp. 244-245.
293. UN docs. A/6955, paras. 62-63 and 71 ; A/7831, paras. 22-24 and 27 ;
A/6547, para. 69.
294. Such as, e.g., resolutions 1514 (XV) of 1960 (the contents of which
were particularly significant for the conceptualization of self-determination in
the context of decolonization), 2105 (XX) of 1965 (of support to movements of
national liberation), as well as resolutions 2160 (XXI) of 1966, 1541 (XV) of
1960, and 2131 (XX) of 1965 ; UN docs. A/7831, para. 22, A/6547, para. 71,
A/6955, paras. 62 and 65. It is to be noted, however, that the definitive formu-
lation of the principle in the Declaration of 1970 did not quote expressly any
of those resolutions of the UN General Assembly. GA resolution 2621 (XXV)
of 1970 contained the Plan of Action for the Full Implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
295. Cf., e.g., UN docs. A/6799, paras. 171-235 ; and A/6230, paras. 456-521.
106 A. A. Cançado Trindade
302. Cf. UN docs. A/6799, paras. 236-300 ; and A/6230, paras. 522-566.
303. UN doc. A/6165, para. 64 ; and cf. also UN docs. A/6547, para. 74 ;
A/6955, para. 77.
304. Cf. ibid., para. 79.
305. Text in UN General Assembly, Resolutions Adopted on the Report of the
Sixth Committee, 25th session, 1970, p. 124 (GA res. 2625 (XXV) of 1970).
306. By unanimity by the XXV General Assembly shortly after the last ses-
sion of the Special Committee (Geneva, 1970), and composed of a preamble,
seven principles and a general part.
307. For the view that the 1970 Declaration on Principles, as an interpretation
and elaboration of the UN Charter principles, is binding on States Parties, and,
as its principles are also general international law, it is likewise binding on
States non-members of the United Nations as well, cf. B. Sloan, “General
Assembly Resolutions Revisited (Forty Years Later)”, 58 British Year Book of
International Law (1987), pp. 88 and 57.
108 A. A. Cançado Trindade
326. The law of treaties, like the law on the international responsibility of
States, are closely linked to the very foundations of International Law ;
P. Reuter, Introduction au droit des traités, 2nd ed., Paris, PUF, 1985, p. 32.
327. E.g., B. Conforti, Derecho Internacional, Buenos Aires, Zavalía Ed.,
1995, p. 67 ; and cf. H. Mosler, “The International Society as a Legal Com-
munity”, 140 RCADI (1974), pp. 115-116 ; R. R. Baxter, “Treaties and Custom”,
129 RCADI (1970), pp. 31, 43, 57 and 102-103.
328. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed., Oxford,
University Press, 1998, p. 620.
329. Cf. Lord McNair, The Law of Treaties, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961,
pp. 493 and 505 ; and, for the historical and doctrinal evolution of the principle
pacta sunt servanda, cf., e.g., M. Sibert, “The Rule Pacta Sunt Servanda : From
the Middle Ages to the Beginning of Modern Times”, 5 Indian Yearboook of
International Affairs (1956), pp. 219-226 ; J. B. Whitton, “La règle pacta sunt
servanda”, 49 RCADI (1934), pp. 151-268.
330. E. de la Guardia and M. Delpech, El Derecho de los Tratados y la
Convención de Viena, Buenos Aires, La Ley, 1970, p. 276.
331. Cf. J. L. Brierly, The Basis of Obligation in International Law, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1958, p. 65 ; J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations, 6th ed., Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 54.
332. ICJ, Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), ICJ Reports 1974, p. 268, para. 46.
General Course on Public International Law 113
tering power” — before the ICJ, the case of the East Timor again
gained momentum 345.
Earlier on, the assertion of the right of self-determination by the
1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples 346 and subsequent resolutions of the UN
General Assembly on the matter, came to count on judicial recog-
nition, mainly by means of the Advisory Opinions of the ICJ
on Namibia (of 21 June 1971) and on the Western Sahara (of
16 October 1975). In the first Advisory Opinion, the Hague Court
pondered, in relation to the mandates system, that the developments
in the last 50 years — disclosing the expansion of the corpus juris
gentium in the present domain — left little margin for doubt that
“the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was the self-determination
and independence of the peoples concerned” 347. And, in the second
Advisory Opinion, the ICJ concluded in favour of the application of
resolution 1514 (XV) of the UN General Assembly
“in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of
the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine
expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory” 348.
In the restatement of the principle of equality of rights and self-
determination of peoples by the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles
of International Law (cf. supra), a clause was inserted explaining
that a non-self-governing territory — under the UN Charter — has a
separate and distinct status from the territory of the State which
administers it, which persists until the people living in it exert their
right of self-determination in accordance with the principles and pur-
poses of the UN Charter 349.
In sum, a non-self-governing territory in the sense of Chapter XI
350. Cf., in this respect, e.g., Ian Brownlie, “The Rights of Peoples in
Modern International Law”, The Rights of Peoples (ed. J. Crawford), Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1988, pp. 1-16 ; [Various authors,] Les résolutions dans la for-
mation du droit international du développement (Colloque de 1970), Geneva,
IUHEI, 1971, pp. 63-67 (permanent sovereignty over natural resources) ;
A. J. Lleonart y Amselem, op. cit. supra footnote 314, pp. 15-478.
351. Cf. A. Cassese, Self-Determination of Peoples — A Legal Reappraisal,
Cambridge, University Press, 1995, pp. 1-365 ; P. Thornberry, “The Democratic
or Internal Aspect of Self-Determination with Some Remarks on Federalism”,
Modern Law of Self-Determination (ed. Ch. Tomuschat), Dordrecht, Nijhoff,
1993, pp. 101-138 ; Ch. Tomuschat, “Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial
World”, in ibid., pp. 1-20 ; A. Rosas, “Internal Self-Determination”, in ibid.,
pp. 225-251 ; J. Salmon, “Internal Aspects of the Right to Self-Determination :
Towards a Democratic Legitimacy Principle ?”, in ibid., pp. 253-282.
118 A. A. Cançado Trindade
352. In this case, in its award of 18.2.1983, the Arbitral Tribunal which
decided the case referred to the “legitimate claims” of the parties as developing
States and to the right of the peoples concerned to achieve the level of economic
and social development which preserves fully their dignity ; cit. in Ian Brownlie,
The Human Right to Development, London, Commonwealth Secretariat
(Occasional Paper Series), 1989, pp. 1-2, and cf. p. 13 n. 1.
353. A. A. Cançado Trindade, Direitos Humanos e Meio-Ambiente —
Paralelo dos Sistemas de Proteção Internacional, Porto Alegre, S.A. Fabris Ed.,
1993, pp. 186-187.
354. M. C. Maffei, “The Case of East Timor before the International Court of
Justice — Some Tentative Comments”, 4 European Journal of International
Law (1993), pp. 223-238 ; C. M. Chinkin, “East Timor Moves into the World
Court”, in ibid., pp. 206-222. On the position of the so-called Organization of
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples (UNPO), cf. M. C. van Walt van Praag,
“The Position of UNPO in the International Legal Order”, Peoples and
Minorities in International Law (eds. C. Brölmann, R. Lefeber and M. Zieck),
Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1993, pp. 313-325.
355. ICJ Reports 1975, p. 122.
356. Cf., on the matter, e.g., United Nations, Compilation of General Com-
ments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies,
UN doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.3, of 15.8.1997, p. 13 (paras. 1-2 and 6).
General Course on Public International Law 119
3. Principles of International Law, the quest for justice and the uni-
versality of International Law
367. A. Verdross, “Les principes généraux du droit . . .”, op. cit. supra foot-
note 196, p. 202. On his part, H. Lauterpacht sustained that the universality of a
“substantial body of International Law” is to a large extent based on the general
principles of law, which “by definition” have a universal character and applica-
tion, “independently of any express or implied manifestation of the will” of the
members of the international community ; furthermore, the universality of some
provisions of conventional international law stems from “compelling considera-
tions of humanity” ; International Law Being the Collected Papers of Hersch
Lauterpacht (ed. E. Lauterpacht), Vol. I (General Works), Cambridge, University
Press, 1970, pp. 114-117.
368. A. Favre, “Les principes généraux du droit, fonds commun du droit des
gens”, op. cit. supra footnote 222, pp. 369, 374-375, 379, 383 and 390.
122
CHAPTER IV
I. Introduction
Law had become opinio juris communis. Three decades after the his-
torical II Hague Peace Conference, the principle of the non-use of
force found eloquent expression, in the American continent, in the
Declaration of Principles adopted by the Inter-American Conference
of Lima of 1938 377. Shortly afterwards, that principle transcended
that regional ambit to reach the universal one, set forth as it was in
Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter 378, in culmination of a long and
dense evolution of consolidation of the prohibition of the threat or
use of force 379. Shortly afterwards, in its Judgment in the Corfu
Channel case (1949), the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
endorsed the principle of non-use of force in clear and emphatic
terms :
“The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention
as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the
past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot,
whatever be the present defects in international organization,
find a place in International Law. Intervention is perhaps still
less admissible in the particular form it would take here ; for,
from the nature of things, it would be reserved for the most
powerful States, and might easily lead to perverting the admin-
istration of international justice itself.” 380
Subsequently, three significant Declarations, adopted by the UN
General Assembly in a period of less than two decades — the 1970
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the
Eds. Internationales, 1938, pp. 8-9, 16-21 and 51 ; A. Álvarez, Le droit interna-
tional de l’avenir, Washington, Institut Américain de Droit International, 1916,
pp. 7-8, 26, 71, 114, 134-136 and 146-149 ; R. Fernandes, A Sociedade das
Nações, Rio de Janeiro, Imprensa Nacional, 1925, pp. 5-6, 9 and 26.
409. These principles warn that any exception to the regular operation of such
system ought to be restrictively interpreted.
410. And deliberately confusing and manipulating the contents and legal
effects of UN resolutions, such as, e.g, the recent attempt to “link” Security
Council resolution 1441 (particularly its vague and generic paragraph 13), of
November 2002, to Security Council resolutions 678 (of 1990) and 687 (of
1991), adopted much earlier in a distinct context, to try in vain to justify “pre-
ventive” armed attacks.
411. O. Corten, Le retour des guerres préventives : le droit international
menacé, Brussels, Ed. Labor, 2003, pp. 42-44, 56 and 80.
132 A. A. Cançado Trindade
ones who can best identify their own basic needs of assistance ; they
are the titulaires of the right to humanitarian assistance 428. The
ultimate foundation for the exercise of such a right is the dignity
inherent in the human person, in all human beings.
If attention is drawn to those who require assistance — as it ought
to be — and these latter deem that they indeed need it, the aim of
humanitarian assistance will more appropriately be fulfilled. Recent
developments in this domain have in fact disclosed that humani-
tarian assistance has been evolving in the light of the needs of pro-
tection, in the conceptual framework of the corpus juris of
the International Law of Human Rights and of International
Humanitarian Law, which provide elements for the construction of a
right to humanitarian assistance, and the corresponding duty to pro-
vide it 429. The focus would, in sum, be on the human person, on the
titulaires of the right to humanitarian assistance 430. The realization
of this right to humanitarian assistance lies in the confluence
between International Humanitarian Law, International Human
Rights Law and the law of the United Nations 431. It finds inspiration,
above all, in the principle of humanity, permeating customary Inter-
national Law itself, and enabling the victims themselves to request
and receive humanitarian assistance 432.
428. A. A. Cançado Trindade, “Reply [Assistance Humanitaire]”, in 70
Annuaire de l’Institut de droit International, Session de Bruges (2002-2003),
Part 1, pp. 536-540.
429. Cf., in this respect, the Guiding Principles on the Right to Humanitarian
Assistance (1993) of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San
Remo (Principles 1-3 and 6).
430. The UNESCO Colloquy of Paris (of 1995) on the matter effectively con-
cluded by approaching the question as from the angle of the subjective right of
the victims to humanitarian assistance, of the determination of the active and
passive subjects of this right, and of the pressing need to secure the direct access
to the victims to be assisted or protected — foreseen, in fact, by UN General
Assembly resolutions 43/131 (of 8.12.1988) and 45/100 (of 14.12.1990) ; cf.
“Conclusions du Colloque”, in Colloque international sur le droit à l’assistance
humanitaire . . ., op. cit. supra footnote 425, pp. 197-198, and cf. pp. 195-198.
431. E.g., some provisions of the IV Geneva Convention on International
Humanitarian Law of 1949 (Arts. 23, 55 and 59-61) and of the Protocols I
(Arts. 69-70 and 54) and II (Arts. 14 and 18) of 1977, and certain basic principles
of the UN Charter besides resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security
Council on humanitarian assistance ; H. Fischer and J. Oraá, Derecho Inter-
nacional y Ayuda Humanitaria, Bilbao, University of Deusto, 2000, p. 81, and
cf. pp. 17-101 ; [Various Authors,] Colloque international sur le droit à l’assis-
tance humanitaire . . ., op. cit. supra footnote 425, pp. 133-135 and 137-138
(intervention by V. Muntarbhorn).
432. This right has also found expression in certain resolutions of the General
Assembly (cf. supra) and the Security Council (e.g., those pertaining to the con-
flicts of Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) ; the same does not occur with the so-
136 A. A. Cançado Trindade
inspire it. If, in the domestic legal order, society precedes law, at the
international level — it has rightly been pondered — occurs pre-
cisely the opposite : it is International Law which precedes interna-
tional society, and this latter cannot even be conceived or exist with-
out the former 436. It is the Law which is preventive or anticipatory,
and not force, in the form of armed attacks, aggressions, unilateral
interventions, and terrorist acts, which violate it openly.
It may be recalled that already the ancient Greeks were aware of
the devastating effects of the indiscriminate use of force and of war
over both winners and losers, revealing the great evil of the substi-
tution of the ends by the means : since the times of the Iliad of
Homer until today, all “belligerents” are transformed in means, in
things, in the senseless struggle for power, incapable even to “sub-
ject their actions to their thoughts”. As Simone Weil so perspica-
tiously once observed, the terms “oppressors and oppressed” almost
lose meaning in face of the impotence of everyone in front of the
machine of war, converted into a machine of destruction of the spirit
and of fabrication of the “inconscience” 437. As in the Iliad of Homer,
there are no winners and losers, all are taken by force, possessed by
war, degraded by brutalities and massacres 438. Homer’s perennial
message is as valid and poignant in his times in ancient Greece as in
our days :
“War — I know it well, and the butchery of men.
Well I know, shift to the left, shift to the right
my tough tanned shield. That’s what the real drill,
defensive fighting means to me.
I know it all, . . .
I know how to stand and fight to the finish,
twist and lunge in the War-god’s deadly dance.
. . . For a young man all looks fine
and noble if he goes down in war,
hacked to pieces under a slashing bronze blade —
he lies there dead . . . but whatever death lays bare,
436. B. Boutros-Ghali, “Le droit international à la recherche de ses valeurs :
paix, développement, démocratisation”, 286 RCADI (2000), pp. 20, 18 and 30,
and cf. p. 37.
437. S. Weil, Reflexiones sobre las Causas de la Libertad y de la Opresión
Social, Barcelona, Ed. Paidós, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 1995,
pp. 81-82, 84 and 130-131.
438. S. Weil, “L’Iliade ou le Poème de la Guerre (1940-1941)”, in Œuvres,
Paris, Quarto Gallimard, 1999, pp. 527-552.
138 A. A. Cançado Trindade
439. Homer, The Iliad, New York, London, Penguin Books, 1991 (re-ed.),
pp. 222 and 543-544, verses 275-281 and 83-89.
440. For an eloquent and historical account, cf., inter alia, e.g., Bartolomé de
Las Casas, Brevísima Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias (1552), Bar-
celona, Ediciones 29, 2004 (re-ed.), pp. 7-94 ; Bartolomé de Las Casas,
Tratados, Vol. I, Mexico, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1997 (reprint), pp. 14-
199, and cf. pp. 219, 319 and 419.
441. On the Laws, Book II, circa 51-43 BC.
442. M. T. Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws (ed. J. E. G.
Zetzel), Cambridge, University Press, 2003 (re-ed.), Book III, ibid., p. 172.
443. Circa late 50s-46 BC.
444. M. T. Cicero, The Republic — The Laws, Oxford, University Press,
1998, p. 166 (Book III, para. 42).
445. Cit. in La paix (Textes choisis, ed. M. Lequan), Paris, Flammarion, 1998,
pp. 173-174.
General Course on Public International Law 139
456. M. C. Márquez Carrasco, op. cit. supra footnote 424, Madrid, Tecnos,
1998, p. 263. For a long time already, it has been contended that, even eventual
recourse to force by States, on given occasions, has never affected the primacy
of the jus cogens provision of Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter ; cf., e.g.,
T. O. Elias, op. cit. supra footnote 372, p. 84 ; A. A. Cançado Trindade, “El
Primado del Derecho sobre la Fuerza como Imperativo del Jus Cogens”, in
Doctrina Latinoamericana del Derecho Internacional, op. cit. supra foot-
note 370, pp. 51-66.
457. A. Truyol y Serra, Fundamentos del Derecho Internacional Público, 4th
ed., Madrid, Tecnos, 1977, pp. 47 and 56-57.
458. [Various Authors,] La pratique et le droit international (Geneva
Colloquy of 2003), Paris, Pedone, SFDI, 2004, pp. 116 and 120. It may well be,
as pointed out in this Colloquy, that “persistent objectors” of yesterday have
become “persistent violators” of today ; ibid., pp. 120, 233 and 300-301.
459. Likewise, repeated violations of International Human Rights Law and
International Humanitarian Law have not altered these latter ; on the contrary,
they have promptly reacted to such violations and have strengthened, rather than
weakened ; cf. ibid., pp. 300-301 (intervention by L. Condorelli).
460. One cannot expect an illicit act or practice to generate legal effects (ex
injuria jus non oritur).
461. The XXII Congress of the Hispano-Luso-American Institute of
International Law (IHLADI), held in San Salvador, El Salvador, adopted a
declaration, approved by ample majority on 13 September 2002, which rejected
categorically the “doctrine” of the so-called “preventive self-defence”, bear-
ing in mind the UN Charter, customary international law and the general prin-
ciples of law, as well as relevant norms and the principles of International Huma-
nitarian Law. Cf. text of the declaration in IHLADI, 16 Anuario del Instituto
Hispano-Luso-Americano de Derecho Internacional, Madrid (2003), pp. 657-
658.
General Course on Public International Law 143