Legally binding unilateral declarations of States

== Definition ==
Legally binding unilateral declarations of States
Under certain circumstances, a unilateral declaration of a State may give rise to legally binding obligations onto the declaring State. UN International Law Commission, Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with Commentaries thereto (adopted at its Fifty-eighth session, in 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A2006/Add.1 (Part 2) (ILC Guiding Principles), principle 2; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v. France) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, [43]. Examples are the public statements of the French President and Foreign and Defence Ministers to cease nuclear tests in the South Pacific, see Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v. France) [1974] ICJ Rep 457, [43–50]; Egypt’s 1957 Declaration on the Suez Canal; Jordan’s 1988 waiver of claims to the West Bank; U.S. representations before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the 1974 Trade Act case; and (at least potentially) US and Soviet 1977 declarations in relation to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; and Cuba’s 2002 declarations about the supply of vaccines to Uruguay. The binding character of such a declaration is based on the principle of good faith.ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [46]; Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v France) (n 43) [49]. 
States regularly resort to unilateral declarations in the cyber context, including declarations on the possible content of confidence-building measures for cyber space,K Ziolkowski, ‘Confidence Building Measures for Cyberspace – Legal Implications’ (2013) 23–24 . declarations of disapproval regarding specific cyber behaviour by other States,PC Anderson, ‘Cyber Attack Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’ (2017) 102(4) Cornell Law Review 1087, 1109 . declarations regarding the attribution of specific cyber attacks, and national position papers on cyber space. See for an overview of available position papers the section National positions . It is, however, doubtful that these declarations fulfil the criteria for binding unilateral declarations. 
For a unilateral declaration to be legally binding, the following criteria must be met:
# The declaration must be made publicly.ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [43]; VR Cedeño and MIT Cazorla, ‘Unilateral Acts of States in International Law’ in A Peters (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law (OUP) para 19. It may be expressed either in oral or written form. ILC Guiding Principles principle 5. The declaration may be addressed to a specific subject of international law, i.e., a State, or to the international community as a whole.ILC Guiding Principles principle 6. 
# The declaration must express the will of the declaring State to be bound by the declaration.ILC Guiding Principles principle 1; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [43]. To determine whether a declaration is binding, its content, all the factual circumstances in which it was made, and the reactions to which it gave rise must be considered.ILC Guiding Principles principle 3.
# The declaring state organ must be authorized to make the according declaration,ILC Guiding Principles principle 4.as is presumed for heads of State, heads of Government, and ministers for foreign affairs.ILC Guiding Principles principle 4.
# The content of the declaration must be sufficiently clear and specific.ILC Guiding Principles principle 7; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [43, 51]; Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand v France) (n 43) [46, 53]; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 168, [50, 52]. The obligations themselves must be interpreted primarily considering the text together with the context and the circumstances in which it was formulated.ILC Guiding Principles principle 7. In case of doubt, a restrictive interpretation should be chosen.ILC Guiding Principles principle 7; Nuclear Test Case (Australia v France) (n 43) [44, 47]; Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (United Kingdom v Iran) (Preliminary Objection) [1952] ICJ Rep 93, [106–108].
== Appendixes ==
=== See also ===
* Scenario 26: Export licensing of intrusion tools
=== Notes and references ===
=== Bibliography and further reading ===
Category:Legally binding unilateral declarations of States
Category:Legal concepts