International Law and Unilateral Acts - published: 25/07/2026

Extract

[...] In fact, in accordance with its conclusions, the Court emphasizes the duty of UN member states, in their capacity as third-party states, not to provide any aid to this attack, nor to recognize or contribute to the construction of this wall. In addition, it is the duty of the United Nations to mark the end of these international violations. Finally, it is the entire international community that is concerned and is also obliged to respect and enforce international humanitarian law. [...]

[...] In the specific case submitted to our study, the Permanent Court of Arbitration condemned the Peruvian government by obliging it to pay the sum of 25 million francs to the creditors Dreyfus Frères et Cie, and the other creditors, based on the development explained below. How does the Court qualify the construction of a wall by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory? What are the legal consequences of this wall for Israel? And, for the other members of the UN? [...]

[...] For the CPA, can a revolutionary government legally get rid of a treaty by the legal government it overthrew? What is the underlying legal principle that supports the answer? What are the effects of this principle in the case for the parties involved? The arbitral tribunal does not support the idea that the Peruvian revolutionary government can legally get rid of a treaty concluded by the overthrown legal government. In fact, law prevails over governments. In this sense, international law recognizes a principle of inalterability of conventions that cannot be questioned. [...]

[...] In addition, only a legitimate object can give rise to a unilateral act. Thus, the imperative norms of public international law cannot be set aside and the will of the emitting State must in no case be vitiated. A unilateral act can thus, subject to respecting the conditions mentioned, be opposable to a particular State or to States in general. However, it is necessary to demonstrate a link of imputability between the State and the act in question. As a result, difficulties may arise, as was the case in the Gulf of Maine case. [...]

[...] In fact, international norms and conventions have a predominant place in the hierarchy of norms developed by Hans Kelsen. In French law, the character of supreme norm of the block of constitutional supremacy, however, subordinates the international rules and norms. This is a particularity of French law. In fact, the Constitution is, in French law, the supreme norm, above all other norms. As a result, the French Constitution and its block of constitutional supremacy are placed before the conventionalist block of international agreements and acts. [...]