英语论文网

modes to detect a state practice and the position a state takes in the international plane. The foreign minister on a number of occasions may be asked to elucidate the state’s position on a particular issue of an international concern, thus parliamentary statements, can evoke a particular state practice. A state practice is a general practice which is normally accepted as law.

 

The other limb is that this state practice must be accepted as law and this is what we call “opinio juris sive necessitatis”. This opinio juris sive necessitatis is what authors refer to as the psychological element of states, this is because the state practice has to be accompanied by the intent which represent why the state acts in that particular manner. This means that parliamentary statements and therefore minister’s statements in the international court of justice reflects and determine the state practice and what it’s position is.

 

The Position of the Minister in the ICJ

 

Another important thing that we must notice is that the International Court of Justice deems the position of foreign Ministers to be of a very important nature. This is illustrated in Belgium VS Congo delivered by the International Court of Justice on 14th Febuary 2002 where it implied that customary international law grants to foreign ministers as long as they hold their office the advantage of absolute jurisdiction and inviolability. The reason behind this is for the international court of justice to ascertain performance of the very importatnt functions that foreign ministers excercise when they represent their states. This clearly points out that the international court of justice gives a lot of importance to the position of the foreign minister in the international court of justice but the question that arises is ‘Does it give the same importance to their statements?’

 

One must begin by saying that for a statement of foreign minister to be accepted and taken into consideration it must be in accordance with international law. In fact a point that was revealed in Military and Paramilitary Activities Case is that for the existence international customary law to be reduced the court must deems it tolerable that the conduct of state should on the whole be uniform with such rules and that when instances of state conduct are varying from a given rule they should generally be treated as a breach of that rule, and not as a manifestation of the recognition of a new rule.

 

In this context the Court continue to say that if a state acts in a way which is prima facie conflicting with the recognized rule and if it seeks to conserve its conduct by appealing to exemptions or justifications, then whether or not the State’s conduct is justifiable or not, it must be proved that the implication of that attitude is to support rather than to weaken the rule.

 

As a conclusion one can say that with 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。