British Yearbook of International Law 

About: British Yearbook of International Law is an academic journal published by Oxford University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): International law & Human rights. It has an ISSN identifier of 0068-2691. Over the lifetime, 455 publications have been published receiving 5490 citations. The journal is also known as: British yearbook of international law.

Custom as a Source of International Law

Abstract: The attitude of international lawyers towards customary international law is somewhat similar; they invoke rules of customary international law every day, but they have great difficulty in agreeing on a definition of customary international law. This chapter deals with the relationship between treaties and custom. In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases the International Court treated the Truman Proclamation and similar claims by other States as State practice which had given rise to a rule of customary law. Anthony D'Amato argues that claims and other statements by States are likely to conflict with one another, and that physical acts do not suffer from this defect. Assertions made in abstracto concerning the content of existing law are sometimes found in resolutions passed by the representatives of States at the meetings of international organizations. In the Nottebokm case the International Court relied partly on the fact that national laws provide for naturalization only when there is a genuine link.

What Is a Military Occupation

Abstract: ALTHOUGH there is a substantial body of international law which relates to military occupation, the scope of application of this law has been perennially problematical. The foreign military involvements of States, not least in the post1945 world, have taken place in a bewildering variety of circumstances, and have assumed an equally bewildering variety of forms. Many recent and contemporary cases-in eastern Europe, the Middle East, Namibia, northern Cyprus, the Western Sahara, East Timor, Kampuchea and Afghanistan-raise a difficult question: what exactly is a military occupation? Underlying this question are several others: are certain types of occupation, which differ in some respect from what was envisaged in the 19°7 Hague Regulations or the 1949 Geneva Conventions, still subject to the rules laid down in these and other agreements? Who determines whether a particular situation is to be called an occupation? Can the relevant body of law be applicable even in situations where the term 'occupation', with all its emotional overtones, is rejected by one or another party? Is there one law of military occupation, or is there a combination of rules which may vary somewhat depending on the type of occupation? Michel Veuthey has gone so far as to say that 'the concept of \"occupation\" is juridically inoperative or disputed in practically all contemporary conflicts, including those involving guerrilla warfare. '2 These are sobering words, and they raise doubts as to whether there is much merit in trying to define exactly what an occupation is, when one knows that in practice States will often disagree about the application of this label to particular situations. Might it not be more useful, as Veuthey suggests, to think rather in terms of basic humanitarian rules which apply to all situations, irrespective of arid academic distinctions and definitions? Certainly there is no use worrying excessively about the definition of occupation. The core meaning of the term is obvious enough; but, as usually happens with abstract concepts, its frontiers are less clear. There sometimes is genuine difficulty in determining such questions as when an