XI. Read the text and decide whether the statements are true or false

1. Some sources of International Lawmaking may be termed “ primary”; they are customs, treaties, judicial decisions, unilateral acts of States.

2. Some treaties grant international courts and tribunals the power to make decisions based on existing law and principles of equity.

3. International law encompasses subsidiary sources such as norm-setting process in addition to the rule produced by a primary or secondary source.

4. The ICJ has gone so far as, in fact, to set new international rules in spite of its lack of a formal power to do so.

5. Both “soft law” and “hard law” are a body of resolutions created within international organisations.

6. Taking into consideration that “soft law” relates to human rights, economic relations and protection of environment, it’s not still reasonable to think that it gradually may turn into law proper.

international lawmaking: other
LAW-CREATING PROCESSES (part II)

Secondary sources of law are hedged around with these limitations is quite understandable. States only accept being bound by written rules other than those based on consent, if they have previously accepted the norm-creating process through a treaty, that is, have previously manifested in writing their willingness to be bound in future by rules set by an international body.

Some treaties grant international courts and tribunals the power to make decisions based not on existing law, but rather on principles of equity. This power is also laid down in Article 38.2 of the ICJ Statute, although States have never granted the Court specific jurisdiction to make decisions ex aequo et bono.

In addition to primary and secondary sources of law, international law also encompasses subsidiary sources. These are norm-setting processes that bring about rules to which recourse may only be had if and when no rule produced by a primary or secondary source (treaties, customs, unilateral acts giving birth to obligations proper, general principles of international law, and so on) regulates a certain matter.

The ICJ has even gone so far as, in fact, to set new international rules, in spite of its aforementioned lack of a formal power to do so. As one distinguished commentator noted,⁵⁸ this happened when the ICJ set out the implied powers doctrine whereby international organizations may be deemed to pos­sess all the powers necessary for the fulfilment of their functions or goals (Reparations for Injuries};⁵⁹ developed a new regime of reservations to treaties.