| 1. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf, et al.
(författare)
-
Chaps. 1-11, 15
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Folkrätten i ett nötskal, 2 uppl. - 9789144079134
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf, et al.
(författare)
-
Chapters 1-8, 11 and 13
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Folkrätten i ett nötskal. - 9144008732
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf, et al.
(författare)
-
Proportionality and International Legal Pragmatics
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Revisiting Proportionality in International and European Law: Interests and Interest-Holders. - 9789004448070 - 9789004448063 ; , s. 168-183
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf
(författare)
-
All the Things That You Can Do With Jus Cogens: : A Pragmatic Approach to Legal Language
- 2013
-
Ingår i: German Yearbook of International Law. - 0344-3094. ; 56, s. 351-386
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Investigating the meaning of conceptual terms is an important task for international legal scholars. In the analysis of the usage of conceptual terms in international legal discourse, traditionally, most international lawyers have confined studies to the descriptive meaning of those terms. They have assumed that conceptual terms describe a relationship between, on the one hand, the particular properties identifying a particular phenomenon or state of affairs as one that belongs to the extension of a particular concept, and on the other hand, the legally relevant inferences ensuing from the categorisation. While this theory works reasonably well as long as studies are confined to the meaning of conceptual terms in law, it is ill-suited for any similar study of international legal discourse. In the search for possible alternatives, this article adopts instead a pragmatic approach to legal language. More specifically, it equates the meaning of a conceptual term with its functionality, that is, with what the uttering of a conceptual term potentially does to the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour of participants in international legal discourse. The investigation proceeds in two steps. As Section II argues, a functionality-based theory of meaning suggests a method (referred to throughout the article as functionality analysis) that can be used for the analysis of international legal discourse. Sections III, IV and V illustrate the ramifications of functionality analysis by applying it relative to the usage of one particular conceptual term, namely jus cogens.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf
(författare)
-
Is Treaty Interpretation an Art or a Science? International Law and Rational Decision Making
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of International Law. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1464-3596 .- 0938-5428. ; 26:1, s. 169-189
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although treaty interpretation is undoubtedly an activity governed by international law, and by Articles 31-33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in particular, some commentators continue repeating the pre-Vienna adage that treaty interpretation is a matter of art and not science, the implication of which is that no understanding of a treaty provision can ever be explained rationally. As the present article argues, this idea of interpretation must be rejected. While, sometimes, an assumed meaning of a treaty cannot be justified based on international law simpliciter, many times it can still be explained based on the structural framework of Articles 31-33 of the VCLT. Consequently, any characterization of treaty interpretation in the abstract as either art or science is misplaced. Whether treaty interpretation is an art or a science remains a question of fact inextricably tied to the approach taken by each and every law-applying agent in particular cases.
|
|
| 8. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf
(författare)
-
Navigating the Legal Landscape between the General and the Specific : General Concepts as Tools of Legal Reasoning
- 2017
-
Ingår i: International Community Law Review. - : Brill. - 1871-9740 .- 1871-9732. ; 19:2-3, s. 302-323
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The common practice of using general concepts as tools in legal reasoning is bound to raise questions concerning the relative importance of the general and the specific for the understanding of international law. To illustrate, this article uses two judgments handed down by the icty Trial Chamber. While for both judgments, the Chamber inferred from human rights instruments an alleged general concept of torture, which it then brought to bear on its understanding of the prohibition of torture contained in the laws and customs of war, it used the concept differently. The question that this article asks is whether this difference of approach can possibly be explained so as to reconcile the two judgments. Two mutually exclusive explanations are suggested. As argued, choosing between them presents a dilemma. The first explanation prompts us to accept the occurrence of irreconcilable conflicts between different jus cogens rules. The second explanation commits us to an unacceptably broad understanding of the jus cogens prohibition of torture.
|
|
| 9. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf
(författare)
-
Proportionality and international legal pragmatics
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nordic Journal of International Law. - : Brill. - 0902-7351 .- 1571-8107. ; 89:3-4, s. 422-437
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To respond to the question of whose interest proportionality serves, this article enquires into the function of this important principle. As the article argues, proportionality functions in much the same way as any generally applicable pragmatic principle: it facilitates comprehension of communicative behaviour on the part of utterers, in this case international lawmakers. Thus, the principle of proportionality serves two important interests. First, it serves the interest of legal communication, helping international lawmakers to make themselves understood. Second, it serves the interests of legal efficacy - it facilitates the effective realisation of the objects and purposes conferred by international lawmakers on international norms.
|
|
| 10. |
- Linderfalk, Ulf, et al.
(författare)
-
Revisiting Proportionality in International and European Law : Interests and Interest- Holders
- 2021
-
Bok (refereegranskat)abstract
- This book casts new light on the application of the principle of proportionality in international law. Proportionality is claimed to play a central role in governing the exercise of public power in international law and has been presented as the ‘ultimate rule of law’. It has also been the subject of fierce criticism: it is argued that it leads to unreflexive and arbitrary application of the law and deprives rights of their role as a ’firewall’ protecting individuals. But the debate on proportionality has tended to focus on the question of ‘how’ proportionality should be carried out. Much less attention has been devoted to the question of ‘who’. This edited volume bring together scholars from a wide range of areas of international law to consider that question: whose interests are at stake when courts and other legal authorities apply the principle of proportionality? In so doing, this volume casts new light on the role which proportionality can play in international law, in shaping and modulating the power relations between the different entities governed by it.
|
|
