ﬁnanced by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which I wish to express my gratitude. Addressing Norm Conﬂicts in a Fragmented Legal System: The Doctrine of LexSpecialis ANJA LINDROOS* Abstract. The increased fragmentation of international law has been accompanied by a more problematic phenomenon
This article focuses on one part of this conundrum: the (mis)use of the principle of lexspecialis to exempt the UN from its general obligation to account for and address fully the harms it causes. That the UN has such a general obligation to so account is a topic canvassed elsewhere by a
Lex posterior derogat priori, lex specialis derogat generali, Guidelines for a history of conflicting norms with a focus on these two competing solutions. – The two Latin maxims, Lex posterior derogat priori and Lex specialis derogat generali, sometimes presented as evidentially logical, have a complex history and a delicate relationship (whereas the latter can contradict the former). They take their origins in the Digest, but in rather paradoxical forms: Lex posterior is coming from a text written in Greek by Modestinus, lex generalis is induced from a general regula exposed by Papinianus. How have these two ways of resolving the problem of conflicting norms emerged in Roman law? How have they been quoted and explained in canon and in civil law during the Middle Ages? How have they been used by sovereigns and in which scope do they serve the foundations of modern States? This paper tries to answer these questions by analyzing texts where the two maxims are mentioned and proposes to treat this subject as a significant chapter of the history of the sources of law.
treaty can be based on ‘treaty-specific’ rules, 2 as a treaty itself may regulate responses to the breach of its provisions. Such rules constitute lexspecialis to general international law responses. As will be analysed, both the vclt and asr include reservation clauses for the application of any
Court to rely on such flexibility to adapt its ruling to the specific features of each case.
The 1977 Treaty and the Secondary Rules on State Responsibility: Was There a LexSpecialis at Work?
One of the most intriguing issue relating to the Court’s approach to the question of remedies
of the ‘rules of the organization’ and in turn part of international law? Do they constitute relevant lexspecialis that applies over general rules of international law? Partners can—and should—be clear about the basis upon which they are joining the partnership and the extent to which they are
ensuing responsibility allocation questions, in case of wrongdoing by the regional peace support forces. In this context, we will analyze both the lexspecialis , if any, and the lex generalis on international organization responsibility, with a special emphasis on the direct or derivative
* MCIArb (London), ba Hons. (Keele); ll.m with Distinction (Hull); Ph.D. (Nottingham). All Internet sources last accessed 26 April 2017.
Increasingly, national courts find themselves called upon to determine matters where un
lexspecialis laws; regional