International law preserve refer to three different legal disciplines.
- Public international Law.
- Private International Law.
- Supranational law or the Law of supranational organizations.
Public international law
Public international law is also known as international public law concerns the relationships between supreme ruler nations. This is developed mainly through involving more than two or more nation’s conventions, though the custom can play an important role in Public International Law. The modern corpus of Public International Law started to be developed in the middle age of the 19th Century. The foundation of public international law got stronger after two World Wars.
The League of Nations and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law. The League of Nations is replaced by the United Nations, after the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II.
The United Nations was founded under the UN Charter. The UN has developed new advice-giving standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements; e.g. the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed disagreement, as well as by other international organizations such as the ILO, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. Thus later law is of great importance in the realm of international relations.
Private International Law
Conflict of laws is well known as “private international law” in civil law jurisdictions, is not as much of international as public international law. The Private International Law is distinguished from public international law because it governs conflicts between private persons, rather than states. It concerns the questions of which jurisdiction should be permitted to hear a legal heated discussion between private parties, and which jurisdictions law should be applied, therefore raising issues of international law.
Today corporations are increasingly accomplished of shifting capital and labor supply chains across borders. This corporation is also trading with overseas corporations. This increases the number of disputes of an inter-state nature outside a unified legal framework and raises issues of the enforceability of standard practices. Increasing numbers of businesses use marketable intercession beneath the New York Convention 1958.
The best example of supranational Law is European Union. The European Union is the first example of a supra-national legal framework, where sovereign nations have shared their authority through a system of courts and political institutions. It constitutes a new legal order in international law for the mutual social and economic benefit of the member states in European Union countries. The EU is the only example of the supranational Law. And now there are ambitions to make the East African Community. The East African Community consisting of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda. It’s a political federation with its own form of binding supranational law by 2010.
Treaties are define as International agreements between parties such as independent states and international organizations which are binding under international law, these agreements are known as treaties. These agreements could obtain a variety of forms and titles, for example, “convention”, “agreement”, “protocol”, “executive agreement”, “exchange of notes” or “exchange of letters”. They more often than not consist of a title, a preface, recitals, a series of numbered articles and a termination or we can say conclusion, which is instantaneously followed by the signatures. There are two types of agreement or treaties 1st bilateral (between two parties or two countries) and other one is multilateral (among more than two parties or countries).
A party is grateful to scrutinize the requirements of a treaty once it has consented to be bound by it, or from a specified time after that consent. There are numerous ways of consenting to be bound by a treaty such as authoritative signature, signature confirmed by a later step such as ratification or approval, or accession (also sometimes called acceptance or adhesion). This is consent to be bound by a treaty.
Most of the law relating to treaties is set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; 1969. This Law is known as Law of treaties. Treaties may be accomplished on any subject or issue on whom international collaboration or action is appropriate. The majority deal with realistic aspects of intercontinental or global communication, few as postal services, telecommunications, shipping, trade, health and welfare, taxation, investment protection and scientific and technological co-operation. Other subjects dealt with include defense, cooperation in criminal justice matters, human rights and environmental protection.
The two-sided treaty is negotiated by officials of the two countries, whether a multilateral or involving more than two side’s treaty is usually negotiated at a political conference.
Capacity of dates to conclude treaties
Every state possesses capacity to conclude treaties and stat member of a federal union may have power over a capacity to conclude treaties. If such capacity is admitted by the federal charter and within the limit there put down. Some member of hire considered that there was no need for an article on capacity in international law of concludes treaties. They pointed out that capacity to enter onto diplomatic relation had not been dealt with in Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation and recommended that if it were to be dealt with in the law of treaties the commission might find itself codifying the whole law regarding the subject of international Law.
Other member felt that the question of capacity was more outstanding in the law of treaties than in the law of diplomatic interaction and immunities and that draft articles should contain at least some general provisions concerning capacity to conclude treaties.
In 1962 the commission while property that it would not be appropriate to go into into all the detailed problem of capacity which might arise, decided to include in the present article three broad necessities concerning the capacity to conclude treaties of states and other subjects of international law Member states of a federal union and International organization.
The third of these provisions capacity of international organizations to conclude treaties was an echo from a period when the commission contemplated including a separate part dealing with the treaties of international organizations.
Although at its session in 1962 the Commission had decided to confine the draft articles to treaties conclude between states, it retained this provision in this present articles, however , at this Seventeenth Session the commission conclude that the logic of its decision that the draft articles should deal only with the treaties concluded between stats necessitated the omission form the first paragraph of the reference to the capacity of ‘other subject of international law’, and also required the deletion of the entire third paragraph dealing specifically with the treaty making capacity of international organizations.
European laws undergo an evolution parallel to that of the United Nations. In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights specified, that “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law”. The Sixth Protocol to the Convention abolished, in 1982, the death sentence, except in time of war or forthcoming danger of war.
The nature and expansion of international law
In the long march of humanities from the cave to the computer a fundamental responsibility has always been played by the idea of law, the idea that arrange is necessary and pandemonium discouraging to a just and stable subsistence. Every society, whether it is large or small, influential or scrawny, has created for itself a framework of principles within which to develop. What can be done, what cannot be done, permissible acts, forbidden acts, have all been spelt out within the attentiveness of that community. Progress, with it’s out of the ordinary leaps and boundaries, has always been based upon the group as men and women join to hunt commonly accepted goals, whether these are hunting animals, growing food or basically making money.
Law is that ingredient which binds the members of the community together in their dedication to predictable values and principles. It is both permissive in allowing individuals to institute their own legal relations with constitutional rights and duties. The creation of contracts, and coercive, it punishes those who infringe its regulations. Law consists of a sequence of rules regulating behavior, and reflecting, to some coverage, the ideas and preoccupations of the public within which it functions. And so it is with what is termed international law, with the important difference that the principal subjects of international law are nation-state, not individual citizens.
There are numerous contrasts between the law within a country (metropolitan law) and the law that operates outside and between states, international organizations and, in certain cases, individuals. International law itself is divided into clash of laws or private international law as it is sometimes called and public international law more often than not just termed international law. The former deals with those cases, within scrupulous legal systems, in which foreign elements obtrude, raising questions as to the application of foreign law or the role of overseas courts.
We can simple understand by this thing through an example ‘If two Englishmen make a contract in France to sell goods situated in Paris, an English court would apply French law as regards the validity of that contract’. By contrast, public international law is not basically an accessory of a legal order, but a separate system altogether, and it is this meadow that will be considered in this book.
Public international law covers relations between states in all their massive amount of forms, from war to satellites, and regulates the operations of the many international institutions. It may be universal or general, in which case the predetermined rules bind all the states or practically all depending upon the nature of the law, or provincial, whereby a group of states linked organically or ideologically may recognize special rules applying only to them, for example, the practice of diplomatic asylum that has developed to its greatest amount in Latin America.
The rules of international law are obliged to be distinguished from what is called international comity, or practices such as saluting the flags of foreign warships at sea, which are implemented exclusively through courtesy and are not regarded as legally binding.
Similarly, the fault of confusing international law with international principles must be avoided. While they may meet at certain points, the former discipline is a legal one both as regards its content and its form, while the concept of international morality is a branch of ethics. This does not mean, however, that international law can be unconnected from its values. In this chapter and the next, the characteristics of the international legal system and the historical and theoretical background indispensable to a proper gratitude of the part to be played by the law in international law will be examined.
- An act by which a State, to end with and in a written instrument duly executed, confirms and accepts a treaty as binding, is known as ‘Ratification’.
- It may be made subject to uncertainties or circumstances in harmony with the provisions of Article in Ratification.
- The ratification apparatus is deemed to be accordingly executed within the meaning of sub-paragraph, if it is executed by such appendage of the State as is nominated in the treaty or, if none such is designated by any organ of the State competent under that State’s constitutional law or observe.
It is whispered that the steady observation of States for centuries justifies the formulation adopted here in preference to that used in article 6 of the Harvard Draft. “Confirm” and “accept” are used in nearly all instruments of ratification and in practice such instruments are in writing. Diplomatic practice frequently speaks of “acts” or “instruments” of ratification. And in nastiness of the discussion in text books of implicit
ratification it is believed to be the better opinion that the actual ratification should be in writing—all the more so since treaties generally provide that ratifications must be exchanged or deposited and it is not possible to exchange or deposit mere inactivity.
The requirement of Ratification is necessary some time, when
- A treaty or agreement provides it shall be ratified.
- A treaty provides that it shall be ratified, by a State and does not provide for its coming into force before such ratification.
- The State’s representatives who are in full power which negotiated or signed a treaty stipulated that ratification was compulsory.
- When the form of the treaty or the attendant circumstances do not indicate an intention to dispense with ratification;
In any such case a State is not deemed to have undertaken a final obligation under the treaty until it ratifies that treaty.
This article adopts the requirements of article 7 of the Harvard Draft with slight verbal variations. It has already been pointed out in comment on article 1 that autograph is the normal method by which a treaty is accomplished unless it is of the type falling under article 1 (b) as is the case with United Nations Conventions. The treaty may, though, enter into force on signature in which case signature is also the act by which the State undertakes a final responsibility.
It will be observed that nothing is said here about the moderately recent development of “acceptance”. Examples of this have been common in United Nations conventions but on 22 November 1949, the Sixth Committee of the Assembly which is official Records of the Fourth Session of the General Assembly, Sixth Committee, 201st Meeting, voted an confirmatory answer to the following question put to it by its Chairman Person: “Does the Sixth Committee approve the procedure of signature followed by ratification and accession in preference to the procedure described in the draft proposed by the Third Committee”. The latter procedure was that of “acceptance”.
Commandment and political views in the Global Society
The authorized superiority of worldwide law, which is the first difficulty to be posed in each side to an international argue will beyond question claim legal explanation for its measures and within the international system there is no independent institution able to determine the issue and give a final decision.
Practically every person who starts reading the international law does so having learned or engrossed something about the characteristics of ordinary or domestic law. This is identifying marks would include the existence of a recognized body to legislate or create laws, a chain of command of courts with required jurisdiction to patch up disputes over such laws and an accepted system of enforcing that law. Without a legislature, judiciary and executive, it would seem that one cannot talk about a legal order.6 and international law does not fit.
International law has no parliament. The General Assembly of the United Nations comprising delegates from all the member states exists, but its resolutions are not legally binding save for certain of the organs of the United Nations for certain purposes, there is no system of courts. The International Court of Justice does subsist at The Hague but it can only come to a decision cases when both sides agree. And it cannot make certain that its decisions are complied with, higher than all there is no executive or governing entity.
The Security Council of the United Nations, which was projected to have such a role in a sense, has at period been successfully embarrassed by the veto power of the five permanent members (USA; USSR (now the Russian Federation); China; France; and the United Kingdom). Thus, if there is no certain institution either to begin rules, or to elucidate them or see that those who break them are punished, how can what is called international law is law?
In the nineteenth century, the English philosopher John Austin elaborated a hypothesis of law based upon the idea of a sovereign issuing a command backed by authorize or punishment. Since international law did not fit within that definition it was relegated to the category of ‘positive morality’. This perception has been criticized for oversimplifying and even perplexing the true nature of law within a culture and for overemphasizing the role of the sanction within the system by linking it to every rule. This is not the place for a inclusive summary of Austin’s theory but the idea of compulsion as an fundamental part of any legal order is a imperative one that needs looking at in the milieu of international law.
Entry into Force
A treaty enters into force, when it becomes legally binding in relation to two or more States. The circumstances underneath which the treaty enters into force depend on the first instance and on the terms of the treaty itself.
The appearance “enters into force” has been chosen in penchant to any other because in treaties containing conditions of a formal nature. This is the expression most commonly used. Dissimilarity is drawn in the draft between the entry into force of the treaty as a legal instrument and its binding force or application in relation to fastidious States.
There is no incorporated system of sanctions12 in international law in the sense that there is in public law, but there is state of affairs in which the use of force is regarded as justified and officially authorized. Within the United Nations system, sanctions may be imposed by the Security Council upon the determination of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of violence. Such sanctions may be financial, for case in point those proclaimed in 1966 against Rhodesia, or military as in the Korean War in 1950, or indeed both, as in 1990 against Iraq.
Coercive exploit within the framework of the UN is unusual because it requires synchronization amongst the five permanent members of the Security Council and this perceptibly needs an issue not regarded by any of the great powers as a threat to their imperative interests. Korea was an exemption and joint action could only be undertaken because of the accidental nonexistence of the USSR from the Council as a protest at the seating of the Nationalist Chinese representatives.
Apart from such institutional sanctions, one may note the fortune of rights to take aggressive action known as self-help. This method to resort to force to defend certain rights is attributing of primal systems of law with blood-feuds, but in the conjugal legal order such events are now with in the exclusive control of the recognized authority. States may use force in self-protection, if the object of aggression, and May take action in response to the unlawful acts of other states.
In this cases the states themselves choose whether to take action and, if so, the amount of their trial, and there is no supreme body to rule on their authority or otherwise, in the absence of an inspection by the International Court of Justice, adequate to both parties, although international law does lay down germane rules. Accordingly those writers who put the constituent of force to the forefront of their theories face many difficulties in recitation the nature, or rather the legal nature of international law, with its lack of a consistent, recognized and comprehensive framework of sanctions.
To see the sanctions of international law in the states’ rights of self-defense and reprisals is to misread the role of sanctions within a system because they are at the disposal of the states, not the scheme itself. Neither must it be forgotten that the current trend in international law is to control the use of force as far as potential, thus leading to the meaningless result that the more force is proscribed in international society, the less legal international law becomes.
Since one cannot discover the nature of international law by reference to a definition of law predicated upon sanctions, the character of the international legal order has to be examined in order to seek to determine whether in fact states feel obliged to obey the rules of international law, why? If, certainly, the answer to the first question is unconstructive, that states do not feel the inevitability to act in harmony with such rules, then there does not any system of international law admirable of the name.
The key to the search lies within the exclusive attributes of the international system in the sense of the network of relationships accessible mainly, if not exclusively, between states recognizing certain common principles In the daily schedule of international life, large numbers of agreements and customs are complied with. However, the need is felt in the hectic interplay of world affairs for some kind of regulatory support or policy, net work with in which the game can be played, and international law fulfils that requirement. States feel this necessity because it imports a constituent of stability and inevitability into the situation.
Where countries are involved in an incongruity or a dispute, it is handy to have recourse to the rules of international law even if there are at variance interpretations since at least there is an ordinary frame of orientation and one state will be aware of how the other state will develop its disagreement. They will both be talking a frequent language and this factor of communication is vital since misunderstandings happen so easily and often with tragic cost. Where the antagonists dispute the understanding of a particular rule and adopt opposing stands as regards its implementation, they are at least on the same wavelength and correspond by means of the same phrases.
That is something. It is not everything, for it is a mistake as well as imprecise to claim for international law more than it can possibly deliver. It can comprise a mutually understandable vocabulary book and suggest possible solutions which follow from a study of its principles. What it cannot do is solve every problem no matter how dangerous or complex merely by being there. International law has not yet been developed, if it ever will, to that particular stage and one should not embellish its capabilities while pointing to its positive features.
What is to stop a state from simply ignoring international law when arranged upon its chosen policy? Can a legal rule against antagonism, for example, of itself succeed over political temptations? There is no international police force to prevent such an action, but there are a series of other considerations closely bound up with the character of international law which might well cause a latent assailant to abstain. There are some component of reciprocity at work and a powerful weapon it can be.
States quite often do not pursue one particular course of action which might bring them temporary gains, because it could interrupt the lattice of reciprocal acceptance which could very well bring long-term disadvantages. For example, states everywhere defend the imperviousness of foreign diplomats for not to do so would place their own officials out of the country at risk. This constitutes an enticement to states to act sensibly and restrained demands in the expectation that this will similarly encourage other states to act reasonably and so avoid confrontations.
The rules can eventually be changed by states varying their patterns of activities and causing one custom to supersede another by reciprocal agreement. A certain specific reference to biased life is retained. But the point must be made that a state, after weighing up all possible alternatives, might very well feel that the only technique to protect its critical happiness would engage a contravention of international law and that blame would just have to be taken. Where endurance is involved international law may take second place.
Another significant factor is the advantages, or ‘rewards’, that may occur in certain situations from a ceremonial of international law. It may encourage friendly or neutral states to side with one country concerned in a conflict rather than its challenger, and even take a more active role than might otherwise have been the case. In many ways, it is an appeal to public opinion for support and all states employ this tactic. In many ways, it reflects the esteem in which law is held.
The Soviet Union made significant use of legal influence in its effort to set up its non-liability to give towards the mediation operations of the United Nations and the Americans too, acceptable their activities with regard to Cuba and Vietnam by orientation to international law. In some cases it may work and bring considerable support in its rouse, in many cases it will not, but in any event the very fact that all states do it is a beneficial sign.
A further element worth mention in this context is the invariable formulation of international business in naturally legal terms. Points of vision and disputes, in particular, are framed legally with references to standard, international agreements and even the opinions of juristic authors.
Claims are pursued with observe to the rules of international law and not in terms of, for example, morals or ethics. This has brought into organism a class of officials throughout lawmaking departments, in calculation to those working in international institutions, versed in international law and transportation on the everyday functions of government in a law-oriented technique. Many writers have, in detail, emphasized the role of officials in the actual implementation of law and the sway they have upon the legal process.
Having come to the termination that states do observe international law and will usually merely disobey it on a subject regarded since imperative to their interests, the question arises as to the basis of this sense of compulsion. The nineteenth century, with its business-oriented thinking, worried the consequence of the agreement, as the legal basis of an agreement liberally entered into by both sides, and this partial the theory of approval in international law.
States were sovereign, and free agents, and therefore they could only be hurdle with their own sanction. There was no power in existence able hypothetically or practically to inflict rules upon the assorted nation-states. This advance found its extreme appearance in the assumption of ‘auto-limitation’ or ‘self-limitation’, which declared that states could only be grateful to observe with international legal rules if they had first agreed to be so thankful. Yet, this theory is most unacceptable as an account of why international law is regarded as required otherwise smooth as a clarification of the international legal system.
To give one example, there are about 100 states that have appear into existence since the end of the Second World War and by no elongate of the thoughts can it be said that such states have consented to all the rules of international law formed prior to their institution. It might be argued that by ‘accepting independence’, states assent to all existing rules, but to take this view relegates consent to the role of a meager invention.
This premise moreover fails as a plenty clarification of the international official system, because it does not take into account the marvelous growth in international institutions and the network of system and regulations that have emerged from them within the last cohort. To accept consent as the basis for compulsion in international law begs the question as to what happens when permission is withdrawn. The state’s reversal of its agreement to a rule does not render that rule elective or remove from it its aura of legality. It merely places that state in contravene of its obligations in international law if that state earnings to act upon its choice. Certainly, the standard that agreements are compulsory (pacta sunt servanda) upon which all treaty law must be based cannot itself be based ahead consent.
One existing approach to this difficulty is to refer to the principle of accord. This reflects manipulate of the mainstream in creating new norms of international law and the reception by other states of such new rules. It attempts to put into focus the change of importance that is commencement to take place from exclusive concentration upon the nation-state to a deliberation of the developing forms of international co-operation somewhere such concepts as consent and sanction are scarce to explain what is happening.
Of course, one cannot ignore the role of consent in international law. To identify its limitations is not to abandon its significance. Much of international law is constituted by states expressly supportive to specific normative standards, most perceptibly by entering into treaties. This cannot be minimized. Nevertheless, it is preferable to consider consent as important not only with regard to specific rules purposely established, which not the sum total of international law is. The light of the approach of states usually to the totality of rules, understandings, patterns of actions and structures groundwork and constituting the worldwide system. In a broad sense, states recognize or consent to the general system of international law, for in reality without that no such system could possibly function.
CTBT, Entry into force: US (The Status of CTBT):
Few years ago, the United States decided to pursue a “zero-yield” Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).Its opening the way to the successful completion of consultation and the approval of the treaty here at the United Nations in September 1996.
The CTBT is the creation of decades of hard work, dedication, and advocacy by key legislative leaders and conceivably even more importantly, by NGOs, scientific experts, and millions of regular people around the world. They have long unstated that ending nuclear testing is essential for three powerful reasons: to hamper the development of new types of nuclear warheads and reduce dangerous nuclear arms rivalry; to obstruct the appearance of new nuclear powers; and to prevent further wreckage of human health and the global environment.
Article XIV of the CTBT requires that a precise list of 44 states must endorse before the accord formally enters into force. Sadly, a relatively small but important set of CTBT scoundrel states stand in the way. The failure of the U.S. Senate to give its advice and consent for ratification in 1999, the current administration’s hostility to the treaty, and the reluctance of 10 other key states to approve the treaty means that the formal entry into force of the treaty is still years away.
To keep the chances for U.S. ratification and CTBT entry into force alive, it is also vital the international community not discard the goal of CTBT entry into force and that key governments continue to press publicly and secretly for the CTBT at every opportunity, together with this Article XIV Review Conference.
Improving the prediction for CTBT entry into force requires a versatile approach. Failure in any one of the following areas could untangle the test moratorium, sink the CTBT, and lead to a hazardous action reaction cycle of nuclear abundance:
- maintaining the U.S. test moratorium and signature on the CTBT;
- Blocking new U.S. nuclear weapons research and development that could lead to the renewal of nuclear testing;
- Effectively maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the absence of nuclear test explosions;
- Sustaining Strong U.S. financial support for the CTBT Organization Preparatory Commission;
- Improving test site monitoring and transparency measures to better detect and deter possible clandestine nuclear testing.
The CTBT has been and remains a vital part of a inclusive approach to global security dangers. Despite the obstacles still facing the CTBT, the treaty is already working. It has unbreakable the 14 year old U.S. test moratorium and helped to bring about the de facto global nuclear test moratorium which exists today. In the deficiency of a requirement for a new nuclear warhead, a defect in an existing weapon that cannot be addressed without resuming testing, and the perception that clandestine nuclear testing has occurred, the seven states that have conducted nuclear test explosions are not likely going to do so again.
Even India and Pakistan, which complicated the conclusion of the CTBT negotiations in Geneva in 1996 and which conducted nuclear test explosions in 1998, have declared testing moratoria. Nevertheless, the longer it takes to achieve CTBT entry into force, the probability that one or another state will someday break the global taboo against nuclear testing will increase. Achieving CTBT entry into force requires a extensive shift in attitudes about the value of the test ban and new nuclear weapons in the White House and the Senate, as well as effecting changes in government policy in India, Pakistan, China, and Israel.
My organization, the Arms Control Association, and many other civil society organizations appreciate the steady support for the CTBT as established by numerous statements made by individual governments and regional groupings at Article XIV conferences, at the 2000 and 2005 NPT Review Conferences, the United Nations General Assembly, and strong support for the treaty articulated by the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Organization of American States despite objections raised by the United States.
Although these statements and activities are important, they are not sufficient. Delegates at this conference must realize that while the Bush administration’s active opposition to the treaty is destructive to the prospects for entry into force, it is not for the Bush administration alone to decide the fate of the treaty, which remains on the calendar of the U.S. Senate and which may be reconsidered by the next U.S. administration. We therefore support the governments represented at this conference to actively urge — at the highest level — the U.S. administration to join the list of responsible and civilized states and reconsider its opposition to the treaty.
If they are serious in their support for nuclear nonproliferation, they must not shrivel from confronting CTBT hold out states and urge them to reconsider their positions though sustained diplomacy in the years ahead. The CTBT alone will not stop increase, but further nuclear proliferation cannot be checked without the CTBT’s entry into force. We still have a lot of work to do.
Malcolm N. Shaw, The nature and development of international law, Cambridge University Press, Fifth Edition, 2007. Web.
Mr. J.L. Brierly, Second Report on the Law of Treaties: Revised articles of the draft convention, Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol II, 2007. Web.
Daryl G. Kimball, The Status of CTBT Entry Into Force: the United States, VERTIC Seminar on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on the Occasion of The Fourth Article XIV Conference on Accelerating Entry Into Force, 2007. Web.
International law – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web.
Public international law – Wikipedia. Web.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on the Occasion of The Fourth Article XIV Conference on Accelerating Entry Into Force, 2005. Web.
JSTOR: Part 2: Conclusion and Entry into Force of Treaties Part 2: Conclusion and Entry into Force of Treaties. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 61, No. 1, 295-334. 1967. Web.