Introduction 1
1 The international community, jus cogens norms and obligations erga omnes 11
1 Introduction 11
2 Transition from bilateralism to the ‘international community as a whole' 12
2.1 A bilateralist approach 12
2.2 Community interests in contemporary international law 14
3 The concepts of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes 21
3.1 Peremptory norms of international law 21
3.1.1 The legal roots of peremptory norms and state consent 22
3.1.2 The scope, content and legal effect ofperemptory norms 25
3.1.3 Treaty execution and indirect violations of jus cogens norms 29
3.2 Obligations erga omnes 33
3.2.1 The Barcelona Traction case 34
3.2.2 Collective interests before international bodies and legal standingfor violations erga omnes 37
3.2.2.1 Standingfor treaty-based obligations establishing general interests 39
3.2.2.2 The doctrine of indispensable third rights 43
3.2.2.3 Erga omnes claims before international judicial bodies 45
3.2.2.4 Concluding observations 48
3.2.3 Scope and content of obligations erga omnes 49
4 Conclusion 52
2 Community interests in the law on state responsibility 54
1 Introduction 54
2 The ILC's mandate to cod the law on state responsibility 56
3 Content of the obligation breached and subjects entitled to invoke state responsibility 58
3.1 Early approaches to responsibility and standing 60
3.2 Approaches to responsibility and standing after World War II 62
4 State crimes in the law on state responsibility 64
5 Countermeasures as enforcement of international law 68
5.1 The progressive development of countermeasures 68
5.2 Conditions and functions of countermeasures 71
5.3 Subjects entitled to resort to countermeasures 73
6 Jus cogens norms, erga omnes obligations and third States in the Final Articles on State Responsibility 76
6.1 State crimes and serious breaches ofperemptory norms 76
6.2 The injured state and states other than the injured 79
6.3 Countermeasures by states other than the injured 85
7 Conclusion 88
3 Countermeasures in the name of community interests in state practice 90
1 Introduction 90
2 Economic measures as a means of coercion 93
3 Foreign policy and human rights 96
4 European community action 99
5 Responses to violations of collective interests in state practice 102
5.1 State action not amounting to countermeasures 103
5.1.1 Soviet action against Israel （1956） 103
5.1.2 The Bonn Declaration （19 78） and the hijacking incident （1981） 104
5.1.3 US action against Iraq （1980） 107
5.1.4 Denmark against Turkey （2000） 108
5.2 Countermeasures by states other than the injured in state practice 109
5.2.1 Slavery and the United States-Great Britain Mixed Commission （1853） 110
5.2.2 Coercive action againstJapan （1940-41） 113
5.2.3 US measures against North Korea and China （1950） 114
5.2.4 Organization ofAmerican States （OAS） against the Dominican Republic （1960） 114
5.2.5 Action against Greece （1967） 116
5.2.6 The Arab oil embargo （1973） 122
5.2.6.1 An introduction to the Arab Israeli conflict 122
5.2.6.2 Legality of the oil measures in international law 123
5.2.6.3 Concluding observations 125
5.2.7 Unilateral coercive action against Portugal （1973） 126
5.2.8 US embargo against Uganda （1978） 126
5.2.9 Action against the Central African Republic （1979） 132
5.2.10 US action against Libya （1979） 133
5.2.11 Netherlands' action against Surinam （1980） 133
5.2.12 Action against Liberia （1980） 135
5.2.13 The Soviet invasion in Afghanistan （1980） 135
5.2.14 International reaction to the Teheran hostage crisis （1980） 141
5.2.15 Imposition of martial law in Poland and Soviet involvement （1981） 145
5.2.16 US action against Nicaragua （1982） 152
5.2.17 The Falklands crisis （1982） 156
5.2.18 Non-forcible action against the Soviet Union for the destruction of a civil aircraft in flight （1983） 163
5.2.19 Countermeasures against the apartheid regime in South Africa （1960-64 and 1986） 165
5.2.19.1 Introductory note 165
5.2.19.2 The Indian reaction （1946） 166
5.2.19.3 Reaction ofAfrican states 167
5.2.19.4 Calls far the imposition of an oil embargo against South Africa 168
5.2.19.5 US reaction 169
5.2.19.6 Reaction of the Dutch government 173
5.2.19.7 Canadian measures against apartheid 175
5.2.19.8 Other action 176
5.2.19.9 Concluding observations 177
5.2.20 US action against Panama （1988） 177
5.2.21 The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and EEC response （1990） 178
5.2.22 EC measures against Haiti （1991） 181
5.2.23 Countermeasures against Yugoslavia （1991） 182
5.2.24 Peaceful coercive measures against Nigeria （1995） 189
5.2.25 Unilateral coercive action against Burundi （1996） 190
5.2.26 US action against Sudan （1997-2005） 190
5.2.27 Coercive action against Burma/Myanmar（1997-2005） 191
5.2.28 Collective action against Yugoslavia （1998） 191
5.2.29 Legal issues arisingfrom extradition agreements（1989 and 1991） 196
5.2.30 Unilateral coercive action against Zimbabwe（2002-2008） 197
5.2.31 US action against Syria （2003-2004） 198
5.2.32 Action against Belarus （2004-2006） 199
5.2.33 The ruling of the ECJ in Kadi and Al Barakaat （2008） 199
6 Legal assessment of state practice and opinio juris 201
6.1 Elements of customary rules of international law 202
6.2 Some conclusions from the analysis of state practice 203
7 Conclusion 208
4 Self-contained regimes, solidarity measures and the fragmentation of international law 210
1 Introduction 210
2 Relationship between the law on treaties and the law on state responsibility 212
3 Lex specialis, self-contained regimes andgeneral international law 216
3.1 Application of countermeasures and principles under general international law within self-contained regimes 222
3.1.1 The law on diplomatic immunities 222
3.1.2 The EUas a self-contained regime 222
3.1.3 Human rights treaties 225
3.2 Application of countermeasures and principles under general international law within the WTO 227
3.2.1 The WTO example 227
3.2.2 Legal nature and jurisdiction of the WTO 228
3.2.3 The general and security exceptions under Articles XX and XXI of GATT 238
4 Lex specialis and self-contained regimes in the 2001 Final Articles on State Responsibility 239
5 On the risk offragmentation of international law 241
6 Conclusion 246
5 The principle of proportionality 248
1 Introduction 248
2 The principle of proportionality in the law of the EU 250
3 The concept ofproportionality in national law 253
4 Proportionality in jus ad bellum and jus in bello 254
4.1 Introduction 254
4.2 Jus ad bellum 255
4.3 Jus in bello 256
4.4 Proportionality in state practice and judicial review 257
5 Proportionality in the law of countermeasures 260
5.1 In search of international enforcement 260
5.2 Legal constraints of countermeasures 263
5.3 Concept of proportionality in the work of the ILC 265
5.4 Development of proportionality in the law of countermeasures 269
6 A critical assessment of proportionality in the law on countermeasures 276
7 Conclusion 279
Conclusion 281
Appendix: UN and other documentation 293
Bibliography 312
Index 324