<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>An interesting observation by Marko Milanovic about the formation of custom as espoused in the recent decision (10 November 2010) of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (link to case below). An 'unorthodox' (but different) approach to the formation of custom was also evident in the <EM>Tadic</EM> case over which Judge Cassese also presided, as Milanovic notes. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<H2 style="MARGIN: auto 0cm"><A href="http://www.ejiltalk.org/formation-of-custom-and-the-inherent-powers-of-the-special-tribunal-for-lebanon/" target=_blank><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3>Formation of Custom and the Inherent Powers of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></A></H2>
<H2 style="MARGIN: auto 0cm"><SPAN class=entry-source-title-parent><SPAN lang=EN-AU><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">from </FONT><A href="http://www.google.com.au/reader/view/feed/http://www.ejiltalk.org/feed/?hl=en" target=_blank><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">EJIL: Talk!</FONT></A></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-AU><FONT size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <SPAN class=entry-author-parent>by </SPAN><SPAN class=entry-author-name>Marko Milanovic</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></H2>
<P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Yesterday the STL Appeals Chamber issued its </FONT><A href="http://www.stl-tsl.org/x/file/TheRegistry/Library/CaseFiles/chambers/20101110_CH-AC-2010-02_AC_Decision_EN.pdf" target=_blank><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">first substantive decision</FONT></A><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> (h/t </FONT><A href="http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-judgment-of-appeals-chamber-at.html" target=_blank><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Bill Schabas’ blog</FONT></A><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">), penned by Professor Antonio <B>Cassese</B>, who was not only the presiding judge but also the judge rapporteur in the Chamber. The decision delves in great detail into the concept of inherent powers of international courts and tribunals, and is strongly reminiscent of the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s first decision in <EM>Tadic</EM>, over which Judge <B>Cassese</B> obviously also presided.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Expansive invocations of inherent powers have not come without controversy. The STL decision, although ostensibly dealing with a very technical matter of the access of a potential suspect to documents in his case file, is well worth the read on several points of principle. I was particularly struck by the Appeals Chamber assertion (para. 43 of the decision) that a rule of customary international law now exists to the effect that international courts and tribunals possess an inherent jurisdiction, which confers on each of them the power to determine the scope of their own jurisdiction (<EM>competence de la competence; Kompetenz-Kompetenz</EM>). I was even more struck by how the Appeals Chamber went on to prove that such a customary rule existed (para. 47):</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">The extensive practice of international courts and tribunals to make use of their inherent powers and the lack of any objection by States, non-state actors or other interested parties evince the existence of a general rule of international law granting such inherent jurisdiction. The combination of a string of decisions in this field, coupled with the implicit acceptance or acquiescence of all the international subjects concerned, clearly indicates the existence of the practice and <EM>opinio juris </EM>necessary for holding that a customary rule of international law has evolved.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">Fantastic, no? Note how custom now apparently equals what tribunals say is custom, plus lack of objection by anyone else. Note also how the Appeals Chamber does not refer to <EM>state </EM>practice and <EM>opinio juris</EM>, but to practice pure and simple, as well as to the ‘lack of any objection by States, <EM>non-state actors or other interested parties</EM>‘ and the ‘acquiescence of all the international subjects concerned.’ Hardly an orthodox account of the formation of custom!</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-AU><o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>