The formation of international customs in the light of the role of government officials in the virtual space

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22099/jls.2024.48004.4987

Abstract

Digital diplomacy has become a crucial instrument for advancing a nation's foreign policy, offering direct interaction and cooperation with foreign entities. Social media plays a pivotal role in achieving these objectives, facilitating rapid decision-making and action. This diplomacy transcends traditional boundaries, involving not only officials and diplomats but also individuals and groups worldwide.
A primary advantage of digital diplomacy is its ability to strengthen and facilitate bilateral communication, fostering connections between nations and societies. In contrast to classical diplomacy, which was limited to official interactions, social media empowers diplomats and heads of state to expand their diplomatic reach and engage with a broader audience. This has elevated the status of non-state actors in the diplomatic arena and enabled global discussions on various issues.
The proliferation of digital communication has significantly impacted the formation of international law norms, necessitating a revised approach to international law sources, particularly customary rules. In the contemporary international law system, public statements made by government officials on social media can be considered as government practice (material element of custom) or evidence of legal belief (spiritual element of custom), provided certain conditions are met.
The digital realm has presented unique opportunities to re-examine the classical approach to compiling and developing sources of international law, especially regarding the proof of international customary rules. With respect to the material element of custom, the focus has shifted from solely physical actions to include any official government action, encompassing heads of state, government heads, foreign ministers, and other government officials. The spiritual element, belief in enforceability, can be verified through various government actions, such as statements, treaty accessions, multilateral conference statements, diplomatic statements, and international correspondence, all of which align with digital diplomacy.
While there is no definitive framework for what constitutes government practice or evidence of legal opinion, the International Law Commission's report offers a broad range of possibilities, including official statements and public statements made by governments. However, not all statements can be considered as government practice or endorsements. Such statements must be public, consistent, general, continuous, and clear to be recognized as government practice or evidence of legal belief. Therefore, social media statements can potentially be considered as both government practice and legal opinion.
The evidence base for customary international law is extensive and adaptable to government activity on social media. Statements made by heads of state in public speeches can serve as examples of government practice or evidence of legal opinion. Similarly, social media statements, if public, can be considered as potential elements in the formation of customary international law. The recognition of social media as a new form of communication and its role in public diplomacy and digital diplomacy necessitate a flexible approach to international law, which should not be indifferent to government communication through these channels. The customary law system must embrace government actions in the virtual space to formulate and develop laws, improve relations, and promote sustainable peace and security.
One of the most significant challenges is the failure of government officials to adopt a transparent and interactive approach to using digital tools. Governments often underutilize the full potential of digital platforms, limiting their use to specific aspects or fields.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Akehurst, M. (1975). Custom as a Source of International Law, British Yearbook of International Law, 47(1), 1–53, DoI:10.1093/BYBIL/47.1.1
Aminfard, Ahmad (2021) Trategies to Improve Islamic Republic of Iran Digital Diplomacy in the Post- JCPOA, New Media Studies ,7(26), 1-28. DOI:10.22054/NMS.2021.30326.432.[In Presian]
Arajarvi, N. (2017). The Requisite Rigour in the Identification of Customary International Law: A Look at the Reports of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission, International Community Law Review, 19(1), 9-46.  DoI: 10.1163/18719732-12341346
Azpíroz, M. L. (2023). Do MENA countries practice digital diplomacy? An analysis of their embassies’ websites in Spain”, Communication & Society, 36(2), 271-289. DoI: 10.15581/003.36.2.271-289
Azizi, S.,  and Mokhtari Motlaq, A. (2016). Elements of Customary Law in the light of the 2014 Report of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission,  International Relations  Research, 5(18)1, 157-182. [In Presian]
Bagheri Abianeh, A. (2018). Change in custom identification or invention of custom? (Appeal to customary indeterminate cases in international criminal law), Research Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 14, 103-138. [In Presian]
Barzegarzadeh, A. (2017). Developments in the Two-element Approach of Customary Law In International Jurisprudence, Culmination of Law, 3(20), 75-102. [In Presian]
Coe, P. (2015). The Social Media Paradox: An Intersection with Freedom of Expression and the Criminal Law, Information and Communications Technology Law, 24(1), 16–40. DoI: 10.1080/13600834.2015.1004242
Costa, V. (2017). Shaping Public Diplomacy through Social Media Networks in the 21st Century, Romanian Journal of History and International Studies (RJHIS), 4(1), 139-154.
Cull, N. J. (2013). The Long Road to Public Diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US Public Diplomacy, International Studies Review, 15, 123–139. DoI:10.1111/misr.12026.
Daugirdas, K. (2020). International Organizations and the Creation of Customary International Law, The European Journal of International Law, 31(1), 201-233.  DoI: 10.1093/ejil/chaa012.
Duncombe, C. (2017). Twitter and Transformative Diplomacy: Social Media and Iran–US Relations, International Affairs, 93(3), 545–562.  DoI: 10.1093/ia/iix048
Green, James A. (2022). The Rise of Twiplomacy and the Making of Customary International Law on Social Media, Chinese Journal of International Law, 21(1), 1–53 .  DoI:10.1093/chinesejil/jmac007.
Hakimi, M. (2006). The Media as Participants in the International Legal Process Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 16(1), 1-35.
Haman, M. (2020). The Use of Twitter by State Leaders and its Impact on the Public during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Heliyon, 6(11), 2-9. DoI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05540
Hedling, E. and Bremberg, N. (2021). Practice Approaches to the Digital Transformations of Diplomacy: Toward a New Research Agenda, International Studies Review, 23, 1595–1618. DoI: 10.1093/isr/viab027
 Helfer, R. L., Wuerth, I. B.  (2016). Customary International Law: An Instrument Choice Perspective, Michigan Journal of International Law, 37(4), 563-608.
Joseph, S. (2015). Social Media and Promotion of International Law, Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , 109, 249 – 253. DoI: 10.5305/procannmeetasil.109.2015.0249
Kadkhodaee, A. and Zarneshan, S. (2013). Evolution of the Approach of International Judicial Practice in the Process of Recognition of Rules of Customary International Law, Private Law Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 173-192. [In Presian] DoI: 10.22059/JLQ.2013.35286.
Lupu, B. (2022). Digital Diplomacy Analysis on the Twitter Account of Romania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Journal of Cyber Diplomacy, 3, 1-10
Mahmoodi, H and Setayeshpur, M. (2019). Passage of ‘Time’ in the Formation of Rule of Customary International Law: Revisiting Legal Doctrine and ICJ Jurisprudence, Journal of Comparative Law,6(1), 207-226. [In Presian] DoI: 10.22096/law.2019.36883
 Mansouri, A. (2018). The impact of information technology transformation on the performance of the diplomatic system, Foreign Policy Quarterly, 3, 657-674. [In Presian] 10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175.
Parks, H. (2005). The ICRC Customary Law Study: A Preliminary Assessment, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, American Society of International Law, 99, 208-212 
Peters, C. (2011). Subsequent Practice and Established Practice of International Organizations: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Goettingen Journal of International Law, 3(2), 617-642.
Polanski, P. (2017). Cyberspace: A new branch of international customary law? Computer Law & Security Review, 33(23), 371-381. 10.1016/j.clsr.2017.03.007
Serendahl, E. (2018). Unilateral Acts in the Age of Social Media, Oslo Law Review, 5(3), 126–146. DoI: 10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-03-01.
Toofan, M. (2016). Status and Capacity of Virtual Embassies in New Diplomacy,  Rasaneh, 27(2), 123-138. DoI: 20.1001.1.10227180.1395.27.2.7.5 [In Presian]  
Verrekia, B. (2017). Digital Diplomacy and Its Effect on International Relations, SIT Study Abroad (SIT Digital Collections), 1-33.
Zarneshan, S., and Rastgoo Afkham, A. (2020), Modern Considerations in the Identification of Customary International Law: Reflections on the ILC’ Reports (2013-2018) & Some International Judicial Decisions, The Iranian Review for UN Studies (IRUNS),3(1), 83-110. DoI:  10.22034/IRUNS.2020.126541.  [In Presian]
Zarneshan, S. (2013), The concept and nature of "material element" in the process of forming the rules of customary international law, comparative law researches, 18(3), 77-99. DoI: http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22516751.1393.18.3.1.1 [In Presian]
 
 
Documents:
ILC (2014), Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc A/CN.4/672.
ILC (2015), Third Report on Identification of Customary International Law, by Sir Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc A/CN.4/682, ILCYB.
ILC (2018), Fifth Report on Identification of Customary International Law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/717, ILCYB.
ILC (2018), Conclusions on the Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries, UN Doc A/73/10.
The General Assembly (2018), UN Doc Res 73/203. See also UN Doc A/CN.4/672
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 53
October 2024
Pages 257-290

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics