Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Lasting Legacy of the Martens Clause in International Law: An ‎Analysis of Intellectual Currents Regarding Its Nature and Legal ‎Functions

Document Type : Article

Authors

Heidar Piri 1
Parisa Dehghani 2

1 Assistant Professor of Public International Law, Law Department, Faculty of Humanities and ‎Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandanj, Iran‎

2 Martens Clause, Source of ‎Law,‎ Ethics,‎ Interpretation,‎ Non-liquet,‎ Customary Rules,‎ Modern Armed Conflicts.‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.365678.3398
Abstract
The Martens Clause has occupied the minds of international law scholars for years. Determining the precise legal nature and significance of the Martens Clause is very challenging, as it encompasses concepts that are not explicitly defined in international law. Consequently, there has been a degree of divergence regarding the legal effect of this clause and its position, each supported by case law, treaties, and doctrine. This study, after providing a brief overview of the Martens Clause, presents an analytical framework aimed at developing a comprehensive understanding of the Martens Clause as a source of international law. It appears that various interpretations of the Martens Clause influence our understanding of how humanitarian law is applied in armed conflicts in general and the process of forming new rules to regulate modern armed conflicts in particular. Therefore, a deep understanding of the new functions of the Martens Clause could herald a new era for the interpretation and development of international law and the application of the clause in other less developed areas. The authors believe that the Martens Clause can have different legal functions depending on the circumstances in which it is invoked. The greatest achievement of the Martens Clause, in addition to resolving legal gaps in international law, has been to offer a positivist basis for integrating concepts of natural law into positive law.

Keywords

The Martens Clause
‎source of law
‎ ethics
‎ interpretation
‎ non-liquet
‎ customary rules
‎ modern armed conflicts.‎
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Alexy, R. (2010). A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    3. Atadjanov, R. (2019). Humanness as a Protected Legal Interest of Crimes Against Humanity: Conceptual and Normative Aspect. International Criminal Justice Series, Vol.22, Springer, Asser Press.
    4. Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    5. Dinstein, Y. (2013). The Principle of Proportionality. In: Larsen K et al (eds.) Searching for a “Principle of Humanity” in International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    6. Fitzmaurice, S. G (1986). The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice.1, No.1.
    7. Franck, T. (1998). Fairness in International Law and Institutions, Oxford University Press.
    8. Gary, D. S. (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    9. Kolb, R. (2017). Legal History as a source of International Law: from Classical to Modern International Law. The Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    10. Meron, T. (2006). The Humanization of International Law. The Hague Academy of International Law, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
    11. Sparow, R. (2017). Ethics as a Source of Law; Martens Clause and Autonomous Weapons. Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Abi-Saab, R. (1987). The General Principles of Humanitarian Law According to the International Court of Justice. IRRC, (27), 367-375.
    3. Agarwal, K. (2018). An Analysis of Martens Clause with Respect to International Humanitarian Law. International Journal of Legal Developments and Allied Issues, 4 (5), 230-236.
    4. Cassese, A. (2000). The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?’’ EJIL, 11(1), 187-216.
    5. Cerone, J. (2008). The Jurisprudential Contributions of the ICTR to the Legal Definition of Crimes against Humanity-the Evolution of the Nexus Requirement. New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, 14(2), 191-202.
    6. Crawford, E. (2006). The Modern Relevance of the Martens Clause. ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law, 6(1), 1-18. <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1810177>.
    7. Filibeck, G. (1998). Restoring a Just Order in Post-Conflict Situations in the Light of the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church. IRRC, 38(322), 75-81.
    8. Handeyside, H. (2007). ‘‘The Lotus Principle in ICJ Jurisprudence: Was the Ship Ever Afloat?. Michigan Journal of International Law, 29(1), 71-94.
    9. Ivanenko, V. (2022). The Origins, Causes and Enduring Significance of the Martens Clause: A view from Russia. IRRC, (104), 1708-1724.
    10. Leisure, P. (2021). The Martens Clause, Global Pandemics, and the Law of Armed Conflict. Harvard International Law Journal, 62(2), 469-524.
    11. Lülf, C. (2013). Modern Technologies and Targeting under International Humanitarian Law. Working Paper, 3(3), 1-66.
    12. Petersen, N. (2008). Customary Law without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation. American University International Law Review, 23(2).
    13. Pustogarov, V.(1999). The Martens Clause in International Law. Journal of the History of International Law, 1(2), 125–135.
    14. Quadri, R. (2023). Cours général de droit international public (Vol.113). in: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Consulted online on 21 September 2023 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789028615021_03>
    15. Salter, M. (2012). Reinterpreting Competing Interpretations of the Scope and Potential of the Martens Clause. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 17(3), 403-437.
    16. Sarkin, J. (2007). The Historical Origins, Convergence, and Interrelationship of International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law, and Public International Law and their Application from at least the Nineteenth Century. Human Rights and Legal Discourse, (1).
    17. Scobbie, Iain G. M. (1997). The Theorist as Jude: Hersh Lauterpacht’s Concept of the International Judicial Function. EJIL, (2),264-298.
    18. Smith, T. (2019). Challenges to Identifying Binding Martens Clause Rules from the ‘Dictates of the Public Conscience’ to Protect the Environment in Non-International Armed Conflict. Transnational Legal Theory, 10(2), 184-201.
    19. Stapleton-coory, M. (2019). The Enduring Legacy of the Martens Clause: Resolving the Conflict of Morality in International Humanitarian Law. Adelaide Law Review, 40 (2), 471-484.
    20. Ticehurst, R. (1997). The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict. IRRC, (37), 125-134.

     

    1. C) Cases
    2. A. Res. 74/306 (Sept. 11, 2020)
    3. ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Appeal Chamber, ICC-01/04-02/06.
    4. ICC, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, ICC Trial Chamber, ICC-01/04-02/06-1707, 4 January 2017.
    5. ICJ Rep, Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta),1985.
    6. ICJ Rep, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), 1996.
    7. ICJ Rep, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Merits, 1986.
    8. ICJ Rep. North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark and Netherlands), 1969.
    9. ICJ, Verbatim Records, 15 November 1995, CR/95/34.
    10. ICTY, Prosecutor v Delalic et all. (“Čelebići Case”), Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-96-21-A, 2001.
    11. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 10 August 1995.
    12. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, IT-94--1 -AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (2 October 1995).
    13. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Case No. IT-95-16-T, 2000.
    14. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Martić, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61, No.IT–95–11– R61, 1996.
    15. IMT, Nuremberg Military Tribunal Under Control Council Law No.10, United States of America v Alstötter, Case No.3, 3–4 December 1947.
    16. IMT, Nuremberg Military Tribunal Under Control Council Law No.10, United States of America v Krupp, Case No.10, 31 July 1948.
    17. PCIJ Rep, SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey), 1927, (ser A) No.10.
    18. Statement of Support by 171 UN Member States, Non-Member Observer States, and Observers to the U.N. Secretary-General’s Appeal for a Global Ceasefire amid the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020).

     

    1. D) Reports
    2. UN Report of the ILC on the Work of its Forty-sixth Session, 2 May - 22 July 1994, GAOR A/49/10.

     

    References In Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Falsafi, H. (2018). The Course of Reason in the International Law System. Tehran: Farhang-e Nashr-e No (In Persian).
    3. Ziyai Bigdali, M. R. (2022). Public International Law. Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Dehghani, P., Ramazani Ghavamabadi, M. H., & Alipour, M. R. (2022). The Martens clause in International Criminal Law; the Nature and Interpretive Functions. Criminal Law Doctrines, 19(23), 123-156 (In Persian).
    3. Piri , & Dehghani, P. (2023). The Role of The Martens Clause in Codification and Criminalization of International Crimes. Journal of Legal Studies, 14(4), 253-288 (In Persian).
    4. Piri, H. (2024). Analytical Investigation of Non Liquet in Iran's Legal System and ‎International Law; with Special emphasis on its Solutions. Comparative Law Review, 14( 2), 655-677 (In Persian).
    5. Zarneshan, S. (2018). The Relationship of "Martens Clause" & Human Rights in the Contemporary International Legal System. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 319-338 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 1215-1239

  • Receive Date 27 September 2023
  • Revise Date 04 February 2024
  • Accept Date 15 September 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us