INTRODUCTION. The international legal content of the concept of sustainable development, so common in international treaties and sometimes expressed in different terms, undoubtedly requires modern clarification, as well as its place in the system of international law. Firstly, it is interesting to answer the question of how ideas of sustainable development have resulted in their crystallization as a concept of international law. Secondly, using treaty sources of the international law of the sea, where this notion is particularly common, it is meaningful to identify the intentions of States parties to such treaties to consider sustainable development clauses as legal obligations. Thirdly, it is important to determine whether these clauses now constitute a principle of the international law of the sea or whether they retain the status of separate treaty obligations that are not interrelated. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the analysis primarily of the norms of the international law of the sea, in which the term «sustainable development» is applied, with reference to the scientific and legal literature and judicial decisions relevant to the topic. The research involves methods of legal construction, legal modeling, analysis and synthesis, systematic, structural-functional, formal-logical, formal-legal, historical and chronological methods. RESEARCH RESULTS. The analysis of international treaties and other international legal instruments applicable to the issue has shown that the long-standing ideas of «sustainable development» are now normatively well-established; that the provisions of international treaties on sustainable development have already developed as an inter-branch (cross-cutting) principle of international law at the intersection, primarily, of the international law of the sea and international environmental law; that States undertake in practice explicit obligations and exercise relevant rights in the framework of upholding this cross-cutting principle. The authors’ vision of the content of this principle is offered and its various manifestations in the international law of the sea are shown. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The study critically evaluates the prevailing view in the Western international legal literature that the idea of sustainable development was suggested by the 1987 Report «Our Common Future» (the Brundtland Report). It has been shown that the idea predates this report, and that the initial mechanisms for sustainable development had already been reflected in existing international treaties by 1987. The suggestion is made that the international legal concept of sustainable development has several cumulative components that together define its content. Among these there are elements that are part of this concept primarily because they are means of achieving sustainable development goals, having a much narrower scope if interpreted in isolation. The international legal principle of sustainable development seeks to resolve the tensions primarily between the States’ right to development and their duty to protect the environment, serving as a nexus that ensures that neither the one nor the other is neglected. Its social dimension is undoubtedly significant, although it has been interpreted very differently in the international legal literature. In the context of contemporary international law, it is expedient to assert an inter-branch (cross-cutting) nature of the sustainable development principle: its legal content extends beyond the scope of specific branches of international law, including international law of the sea, international environmental and economic law. However, most international treaties of a universal and especially regional character that contain some form of sustainable development clauses currently refer to sources of the international law of the sea, which may certainly change in the future.
The purpose of the research. This article examines the key ideas underlying the legal teachings of the New Zealand lawyer, civil servant and judge John William Salmond (1862-1924), who, as the authors of this study demonstrate, was one of the first critics of the “command theory of law” of the founder of the school of analytical jurisprudence John Austin (1790-1859). By analyzing and interpreting Salmond’s legal doctrine the authors refute the view, entrenched in Russian jurisprudence, that the central representative of the 20th century neo-positivism Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart (1907-1992) is considered a pioneer in this field who initiated the criticism of Austin’s legal understanding. The authors advocate the position that Hart’s critique of the command conception and understanding of law in his teachings is largely based on Salmond’s ideas. As a result of this study the authors conclude that there are certain similarities between J.W. Salmond’s idea of “ultimate legal principles” and H.L.A. Hart’s legal doctrine on the “rule of recognition”.
This article examines the peculiarities of the evolution of English legal positivism, which was the only direction of understanding law formed by professional lawyers, expressing the specifics of their legal consciousness, focused on understanding positive law and the practice of its implementation. The authors examine the key concepts that define the historical trajectory and problem field of legal positivism in the Anglo-American tradition, analyzing the legal teachings of T. Hobbes, D. Hume, J. Bentham, J. Austin, M. Hale, W. Blackstone, J. W. Salmond and W. J. Brown. The attention is drawn to the fact that Salmond lays down objections to the concept of law as a rule of the state and considers its main shortcomings. In his work “Jurisprudence or the Theory of Law”, Salmond presents the flaws and omissions of the “imperative theory of law”, among the proponents of which he names T. Hobbes, S. von Pufendorf, J. Bentham and J. Austin. Brown believes that the essence of law can be expressed by a set of three concepts: “will”, “command” and “reason”, and the just conception of law implies recognition of the elements of unity, growth and growth that is consciously directed towards the realization and achievement of the goal.
The purpose of the research. This article analyses the main points of the legal teaching of the Australian jurist William Jethro Brown (1868-1930), which the authors of this study regard as forming one of the significant stages in the evolution of Anglo-American legal positivism. Along with his contemporaries, a New Zealand lawyer John William Salmond (1862-1924) and British jurists Thomas Erskine Holland (1835-1926) and John Mason Lightwood (1852-1947), Brown was among the first critics of the «command theory of law» of the founder of the analytical school of jurisprudence John Austin (1790-1859). The authors of this article prove that the ideas, including those of W. Brown, play the role of a link between the founders of the analytical school of law (J. Bentham, J. Austin), the teachings of William Markby, Sheldon Amos, and subsequent generations of English legal scholars of both positivist and neo-positivist direction. Many provisions of Brown's legal doctrine became the basis for criticism of Austin's command concept and legal understanding in the teachings of H. L. A. Hart, the central figure of English neopositivism of the 20th century. As a result of the research the authors conclude that there are comparative similarities between W. J. Brown's conception of «rules of external action», J. W. Salmond's idea of «ultimate legal principles» and H. L. A. Hart's legal doctrine on the «rule of recognition».
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.