Paper for Issue

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE EFFICACY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RESOLVING CONFLICTING TREATY-BASED OBLIGATIONS

Abstract

There is no doubt that the system of international law has become increasingly fragmented and has created a situation where the probability of contradictory obligations is extremely high owing to the absence of a well-established hierarchical normative structure. This makes the interpretation and application of overlapping treaty obligations uncertain, as where the rights and duties of parties to a treaty under international law are unclear because of contradicting obligations established by another treaty, compliance with either of the instruments becomes difficult. It is against this background that this paper attempts to address the issue of resolving conflicts existing between treaty norms and obligations in international law.

Addressing Conflicts in International Treaty Law

Abstract

International law is a vast body of laws that touches on varying subject matters and imposes serious responsibilities and liability on states. Due to its broadness, states have got into the practice of binding themselves to multiple treaties that embody opposing principles. These conflicting treaty obligations highlight the flaws of international laws that consider all treaties to carry equal force, thus making it difficult to determine what law should supersede others in case of a conflict. Thus, this essay analyses the problems involved when states take on conflicting treaty-based obligations. It studies the current rules for resolving these conflicts and underscores particular points where a detailed hierarchy may be developed so that treaty laws can be more effective. Finally, the essay recommends that states pay more attention to their existing bodies of law to avoid potential conflicts with later treaty provisions. Keywords: International Law, Conflict of Laws, Treaty Obligations

RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING TREATY-BASED INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS: THE DILEMMAS AND ALTERNATIVES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Abstract

From the time of Thales, the western philosopher, to the Stoics and Skeptics, ancient Greek philosophy has provided the roots for western intellectual traditions when it relates to the life of reasoning, rational thinking and conflict resolution. Today, unlike the days of old, conflicts have transcended from the occasion of wars and battles for territories to the proliferation of treaties under international law. Overtime, it has now been discovered that the viability of international law, as a legal system, rests principally on the viability of treaties as a source of law. In fact, in the second half of the 20th century, the international system was supported by the development of treaties. As such, these came with states making use of treaties as the primary tool in the construction of international institutions and in the codification of norms. Notwithstanding, with the passage of time, the very success of treaties as an instrument of policy sustenance has birthed a new dilemma: a superfluity of treaties which tend to overlap and with increasing frequency, conflict with one another. To this end, this essay addresses conflict between treaties, and considers how lawyers and policy makers may react to the challenges of treaty-based conflicts cum proliferation. Sufficient arguments are laid to prove that current rules are inadequate to provide clear, systematic remedies to the resolution of treaty-based conflicts under international law. Responding to treaty-based conflicts requires more than just a revision of the relevant provisions of the VCLT. Given this, new landscapes towards the resolution of treaty conflict and congestion are mapped out.

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA

Abstract

Fundamental Rights are rights that are not only basic to the citizens; they are rights that have been entrenched in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria. These rights are sacrosanct and very important to everyone within the borders of Nigeria. These rights are moulded into freedom blocks that fence the citizen from forces of unbridled aggression, oppression, repression, and authoritarianism. Where these rights are to be enforced in Court, the Court within reasonable limits must do all that is necessary to cause a flourishing of these rights.’’ It is well-established that human rights are inalienable and universally applicable to humans because they are necessary for a peaceful, harmonious and dignified living; it is a primary condition for civilized existence . On the other hand, fundamental rights are conventionally infused and enforced under various national laws. The difference here is that fundamental rights are specific to a particular country, whereas human rights has global acceptance and exists in the realm of international law. Human rights in Nigeria are legally considered as fundamental because they have been guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) which is the grundnorm of the Federation . Calling these guaranteed "rights", suggests that they are attached to particular individuals who can invoke them and the fact that these rights are given paramount recognition also means that firm compliance and adherence is mandatory and not merely discretionary. This work focuses on various human rights issues, the legal perspectives, challenges and concludes with possible recommendations to remedy the recounted issues of human rights violations.

Towards Implementing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement: A Framework to Address Bankability Concerns for African Infrastructure Projects

Abstract

In order for the African Union to achieve the laudable trade liberalization and integration objectives of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement, Africa’s troubling infrastructure deficit remains a key challenge to be resolved. While Africa undoubtedly has a demand for infrastructure projects, and investors the world over have capital to invest, a lack of bankable infrastructure projects in which to invest has remained a key factor occasioning the widening deficit and hindering investment inflow into African projects. In this paper, I articulate the centrality of infrastructure to Africa’s free trade area initiative and then I explain the bankability problem with African infrastructure projects. Finally, I conclude by proffering a framework to resolve the bankability impasse, submitting that its successful implementation will eventually produce quality infrastructure projects that will provide the enabling environment for the AfCFTA to achieve its objectives.

The Determination of Priority Between Conflicting Treaty Obligations

Abstract

When parties enter into a treaty, they receive rights and interest and in turn create obligations which they are bound to perform. Most states do not enter just one treaty but multiple treaties, what happens when a state’s obligation in a particular treaty conflicts with another obligation contained in a different treaty? How is the choice made on which obligation should be given priority? What is the yardstick for deciding hierarchy? To answer these questions, the writer will take a critical look at what treaties are, why they are formed, what rules are used to decide priority in case of conflict, where they are applied and their inadequacies. This work will be divided into five parts, Part I introduces the topic by defining what treaties are, and Part II will explain the foundations of international law. In Part III conflicting treaties and the provision of the VCLT and other rules and principles of international law in resolving these conflicts as well as their shortcomings are analyzed; the lex posterior, lex prior and lex specialis rules are discussed in detail, the writer will also discuss where they are applicable and also where they are not. Part IV will explain the role of the court in resolving conflicting treaty based obligations and the method they may employ and Part V will be the conclusion.

SETTLING OF CONTRADICTING TREATIES BETWEEN STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM

Abstract

A treaty is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between States. This essay is aimed at settling of contradicting treaty between States in the International Legal system. Countries over the years engaged in one form of agreement with one another which can thereby lead to a valid contract between the countries, one party may decide not to honor the agreement which the country might have entered into, this may lead to conflict between countries. It may lead to blockage of free interaction between the countries, to this end, this essay tends to provide a possible means of settling contradicting treaties by providing modalities in which country that has pledge her obligation may honor her obligation with all might; which will go a long way in fostering unity among nations. International Court of Justice has over the years resolve so many conflicting treaties to reinstate party to normal status, who as a result of treaty signed has sustained irreparable injury. If there is a contradicting or conflicting treaty, then international legal system will fall apart. When countries are at war with themselves no unity can be achieved and impediment and anarchy will be the order of the day. States must come together with the bid of honoring their agreement and sanction should be meted on erring State who fails to honor the terms of their agreement.