Papers by Nikolaos voulgaris
1(2019) AthensPIL Research Paper Series, 2019
This volume is a compilation, of the practice of international courts and tribunals with respect... more This volume is a compilation, of the practice of international courts and tribunals with respect to the VCLT from the 1st of January 2012 and up to the completion of the present study, i.e. the 31st of January 2019. During this period, 118 relevant decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies were recorded. The general formatting of the present collection of materials follows the previous similar study carried out by LLM students of the same programme. Each VCLT provision is translated in modern Greek and then followed by the selected extracts of decisions/judgments/awards. No further context in which the dicta were made is given. Submissions of parties invoking the articles, and opinions of judges appended to a decision are not included.
1(2016) AthensPIL Research Paper Series, 2016
Undeniably, the articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, finally adopt... more Undeniably, the articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, finally adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001, constitute a milestone in the evolution and codification of the law of State responsibility. Shortly after the adoption of the articles by the Commission, the General Assembly took note of the articles in resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001, and commended them to the attention of governments without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action. The topic of State responsibility has figured prominently in the programme of work of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. In the meantime, at the request of the General Assembly, the Secretary General prepared in 2012 a compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies referring to the articles covering the period from their adoption up to the 31st of January 2010*.
The Athens PIL Materials on State Responsibility 2010-2016 aim at putting into a single volume the concomitant decisions of international courts and tribunals rendered the past five years. Given the fundamental place of the law of State responsibility within the international legal order and the increasing authority the articles have acquired, it is only natural that international courts and tribunals have been frequent users of the articles. A thorough study of international judicial and arbitral practice in relation to the articles has immense practical significance for our understanding of the law, but it also reveals who at the end of the day are the main users of the articles. Equally important, an examination of how international courts and tribunals apply the articles over the course of a substantial time-span brings to light is telling also of the way in which international law comes to life and evolves through judicial decisions.
What follows therefore in this volume is a compilation, to the best of our efforts, of the practice of international courts and tribunals from the 31st of January 2010 and up to the completion of the present study, the 1st of January 2016. During this period, 64 relevant decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies were recorded. The general formatting of the present collection of materials follows the Secretary General’s 2012 Report, with minor modifications. Thus, each article is followed by the respective extracts of decisions prepared by the students, and each extract is accompanied by a brief description of the context in which the international court, tribunal or other body made the relevant statement.
Manchester University Press eBooks, Dec 8, 2020
The International Law Commission and Politics: Taking the Science Out of International Law’s Progressive Development, 2022
The idea that jurists have a vocational duty to progressively develop the law finds its way in in... more The idea that jurists have a vocational duty to progressively develop the law finds its way in international law chiefly via the mission statement of the United Nations’ International Law Commission (ILC). Mandated by states to codify and progressively develop international law, the ILC’s modern practice has merged these two distinct exercises. The Commission utilizes a common working procedure for the elaboration of both and appears to perceive progressive development as an appurtenance of codification. What is more, progressive development has often been equated by the ILC with lex ferenda propositions and policy considerations. It is little wonder then that the ILC has never attempted to meaningfully analyse this aspect of its mandate. This article examines progressive development from a methodological standpoint and maintains that it is an exercise with self-standing importance. It argues that there are two ways to understand the ILC’s mandate to progressively develop the law: either as ‘progressive development stricto sensu’ or as ‘legislation’. The difference between the two is methodological; ‘progressive development stricto sensu’ is elaborated via an inductive methodology and principally justified by legal considerations. On the other side, in the case of ‘legislation’, provisions are principally justified by policy considerations and, hence, imbued with uncertainty regarding their methodological foundations. The article suggests that ‘progressive development stricto sensu’ falls squarely within the ILC’s legal mandate, while this will be the case with respect to ‘legislation’ only when the ILC is conscious of the question it sets out to answer and the requisite methodology that it employs to do so. To this end, the article lays down some basic methodological principles that the ILC should adhere to when engaging with topics of work where political considerations play a significant role in the development of the law. Finally, it calls for a revival of the forgotten discussion regarding the ILC’s capacity to develop international law.
Permutations of Responsibility in International Law
How do we reach a conclusion that an act is morally right? Do we take other people into account w... more How do we reach a conclusion that an act is morally right? Do we take other people into account when performing a morally right act? And what does this imply about our relations with other people? Moral philosophy addresses, among others, this interrelated array of questions and the answers given intend to capture the social dimension of ethics. Here I shall employ the findings from Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Scanlon’s What We Owe to Each Other in order to outline their account on the aforementioned matters. I will conclude this tour d’ horizon by highlighting certain points of affinity and divergence between these two theories.
In its Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, the International
La... more In its Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, the International
Law Commission included Article 17 in order to regulate instances in
which binding decisions and authorizations were made by international organizations
that bound or applied in respect of their member States. Given that courts
have struggled in vain to come up with a uniform approach applicable in
such situations, one would expect that Article 17 would have been a cause for celebration.
Commentators,
however, lamented the inclusion of the provision, arguing
that it cannot function effectively because it forms part of the problematic
Chapter IV that regulates scenarios of indirect responsibility. The article rejects
this approach. For the first time, it offers an integrated normative analysis of
all Chapter IV provisions, and calls on the reader to rethink indirect responsibility
in a way that advances and promotes coherence in the law of international responsibility.
The paper adopts a contextual approach, and suggests that this understanding
of Article 17 offers courts a twofold opportunity: first, the ability to
effectively tackle cases that have troubled them to date; and second, to initiate a
change in the way in which States and international organizations interact in the
international arena.
Uploads
Papers by Nikolaos voulgaris
The Athens PIL Materials on State Responsibility 2010-2016 aim at putting into a single volume the concomitant decisions of international courts and tribunals rendered the past five years. Given the fundamental place of the law of State responsibility within the international legal order and the increasing authority the articles have acquired, it is only natural that international courts and tribunals have been frequent users of the articles. A thorough study of international judicial and arbitral practice in relation to the articles has immense practical significance for our understanding of the law, but it also reveals who at the end of the day are the main users of the articles. Equally important, an examination of how international courts and tribunals apply the articles over the course of a substantial time-span brings to light is telling also of the way in which international law comes to life and evolves through judicial decisions.
What follows therefore in this volume is a compilation, to the best of our efforts, of the practice of international courts and tribunals from the 31st of January 2010 and up to the completion of the present study, the 1st of January 2016. During this period, 64 relevant decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies were recorded. The general formatting of the present collection of materials follows the Secretary General’s 2012 Report, with minor modifications. Thus, each article is followed by the respective extracts of decisions prepared by the students, and each extract is accompanied by a brief description of the context in which the international court, tribunal or other body made the relevant statement.
Law Commission included Article 17 in order to regulate instances in
which binding decisions and authorizations were made by international organizations
that bound or applied in respect of their member States. Given that courts
have struggled in vain to come up with a uniform approach applicable in
such situations, one would expect that Article 17 would have been a cause for celebration.
Commentators,
however, lamented the inclusion of the provision, arguing
that it cannot function effectively because it forms part of the problematic
Chapter IV that regulates scenarios of indirect responsibility. The article rejects
this approach. For the first time, it offers an integrated normative analysis of
all Chapter IV provisions, and calls on the reader to rethink indirect responsibility
in a way that advances and promotes coherence in the law of international responsibility.
The paper adopts a contextual approach, and suggests that this understanding
of Article 17 offers courts a twofold opportunity: first, the ability to
effectively tackle cases that have troubled them to date; and second, to initiate a
change in the way in which States and international organizations interact in the
international arena.
The Athens PIL Materials on State Responsibility 2010-2016 aim at putting into a single volume the concomitant decisions of international courts and tribunals rendered the past five years. Given the fundamental place of the law of State responsibility within the international legal order and the increasing authority the articles have acquired, it is only natural that international courts and tribunals have been frequent users of the articles. A thorough study of international judicial and arbitral practice in relation to the articles has immense practical significance for our understanding of the law, but it also reveals who at the end of the day are the main users of the articles. Equally important, an examination of how international courts and tribunals apply the articles over the course of a substantial time-span brings to light is telling also of the way in which international law comes to life and evolves through judicial decisions.
What follows therefore in this volume is a compilation, to the best of our efforts, of the practice of international courts and tribunals from the 31st of January 2010 and up to the completion of the present study, the 1st of January 2016. During this period, 64 relevant decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies were recorded. The general formatting of the present collection of materials follows the Secretary General’s 2012 Report, with minor modifications. Thus, each article is followed by the respective extracts of decisions prepared by the students, and each extract is accompanied by a brief description of the context in which the international court, tribunal or other body made the relevant statement.
Law Commission included Article 17 in order to regulate instances in
which binding decisions and authorizations were made by international organizations
that bound or applied in respect of their member States. Given that courts
have struggled in vain to come up with a uniform approach applicable in
such situations, one would expect that Article 17 would have been a cause for celebration.
Commentators,
however, lamented the inclusion of the provision, arguing
that it cannot function effectively because it forms part of the problematic
Chapter IV that regulates scenarios of indirect responsibility. The article rejects
this approach. For the first time, it offers an integrated normative analysis of
all Chapter IV provisions, and calls on the reader to rethink indirect responsibility
in a way that advances and promotes coherence in the law of international responsibility.
The paper adopts a contextual approach, and suggests that this understanding
of Article 17 offers courts a twofold opportunity: first, the ability to
effectively tackle cases that have troubled them to date; and second, to initiate a
change in the way in which States and international organizations interact in the
international arena.