Pacta sunt servanda International lawyers use the phrase pacta sunt servanda to express the fundamental principle

le that agreements between states must be complied with. The Statute of the International Court of Justice places "international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states," first in its list of the rules to be applied by the Court in deciding cases before it, and most commentators assign treaties the highest rank among the sources of international law.

A Primer on International Law Since many of the students enrolled in this course may not have previously taken an introductory international law course, I am providing this short Primer on International Law to provide basic background about the fundamental international law concepts and principles that underlie the issues covered in this course. Is International Law Really Law? As students are first exposed to international legal materials there may be a degree of skepticism about the importance of international law. Some may believe that international law is merely illusionary since governments seem to comply with it only out of convenience and disregard it whenever a contrary interest appears. Others may suspect that international law cannot really be law since there is no effective world legislature, judiciary, or police force to enforce it. In fact, government compliance with international law is the norm and noncompliance is the very rare exception. There are over 45,000 international treaties, which fill 1,800 thick volumes -- usually located in some obscure place in a law school library.1 Fortunately, they are also available electronically via CDRom, Lexis, Westlaw, and various sites on the Internet. Treaties govern every aspect of international relations and commerce, including air travel, telephone communications, television broadcasting, mail delivery, weather reporting, private contracts, protection of the environment, human rights, and trade with foreign countries. Breaches are infrequent and not without significant costs as discussed below. Although there is not a world legislature per se, there is an international legislative process, which takes one of two forms. The first relates to bilateral treaties, which are negotiated and enforced in a manner similar to domestic contracts. The second process relates to multilateral treaties, which are adopted by the United Nations or a Diplomatic Conference of States (in international law, the term "States" means countries). This process can be very similar to the domestic legislative process, with the exception that the laws do not immediately go into effect when the United Nations or Diplomatic Conference approves the text of a treaty. Rather, each State becomes bound to the treaty only when it has been approved through the State's internally proscribed process. While there is no single international judiciary, there are numerous international courts established by treaty which clarify and develop law, resolve disputes impartially, and impel nations to observe the law. The most influential of these are the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, the

Law of the Sea Tribunal, and Western Europe's two regional international courts -- the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg and the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg. In addition, there are two Security Council-created international war crimes tribunals (for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda), three hybrid international criminal tribunals (for Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and Lebanon), and a permanent international criminal court established by treaty. International law is also interpreted by numerous international arbitral tribunals, such as the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal. But most frequently, international law is litigated in domestic courts. While there is no international police system whose pervasive presence might deter violation, that does not mean that international law is without effective mechanisms for enforcement. With respect to the most egregious breaches, the U.N. Security Council can impose economic sanctions, freeze assets, and even employ military force to compel compliance. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards provides a means for enforcing international arbitration awards using the assets of the liable party located in any of the over 100 States Parties to the Convention. As with domestic contracts, the most frequent and effective means of inducing compliance with treaty obligations is by the suspension of reciprocal obligations by the non-breaching party until the breach is remedied. In addition, international law is routinely enforced by individual States through their domestic laws, courts, and police forces. Thus, for example, Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to "define and punish ... offenses against the Law of Nations." The Sources of International Law There are four sources of the rules of international law. The first is treaty, which is analogous to the domestic law notion of contract. The word "treaty" in international law includes all the many different sorts of international instruments intended to create binding obligations, whether the particular instrument is labeled an "agreement," "convention," "accord," etc. (In U.S. domestic law, the word "treaty" refers only to those international agreements that are approved by two-thirds of the Senate, as discussed below). International lawyers use the phrase pacta sunt servanda to express the fundamental principle that agreements between states must be complied with. The Statute of the International Court of Justice places "international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states," first in its list of the rules to be applied by the Court in deciding cases before it, and most commentators assign treaties the highest rank among the sources of international law. A second source of international law is known as "custom." "Customary International Law" constitutes a widespread practice of states followed out of a sense of legal obligation. It is analogous to the domestic commercial law notions of "course of dealing" and "the usage of trade," where practice creates justifiable expectations of future observance. Like treaty law, customary international law reflects the consent of States. A State which persistently objects during the formation of a norm of customary international law is not bound by it. A third source of international law is the general municipal practice of states. The idea behind these socalled "General Principles of Law" is that if most domestic legal systems recognize certain rules, then it

may be presumed that these rules are so fundamental as to be a part of international law. General Principles of Law are often used as a gap-filler, where treaty and customary international law are silent. General Principles of Law recognized by the International Court of Justice, for example, include the principle of estoppel, the concept of unclean hands, the rule that every violation involves an obligation to make reparation, the principle of res judicata, the principle of equity and unjust enrichment, and the use of circumstantial evidence.2 Where the first three sources of international law may be said to emanate from the consent of states, the fourth source, known as "jus cogens," reflects the natural law concept of fundamental rights. Jus cogens limits the contractual power of parties to a treaty in much the way domestic contracts are void if they are found to contravene "public policy." The notion of jus cogens may, for example, be applied to invalidate treaties, customary international law, or domestic statutes which promote the use of aggression, slavery, genocide, or war crimes. In the 1992 Siderman case, the U.S. Ninth Circuit ruled that "the right to be free from official torture is fundamental and universal, a right deserving of the highest status under international law, a norm of jus cogens."3 The Court distinguished customary international law and jus cogens as follows: "Whereas customary international law derives solely from the consent of states, the fundamental and universal norms constituting jus cogens transcend such consent, as exemplified by the theories underlying the judgments of the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II."4 Treaties A. The Rules of Treaty Interpretation The rules of treaty interpretation are set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the socalled Treaty on Treaties), which came into force in 1980.5 Although the United States has not yet ratified the Vienna Convention, the U.S. Department of State recognizes the Vienna Convention as "the authoritative guide to current treaty law and practice."6 There is an important difference between signing a treaty and ratifying a treaty. The former constitutes authentication of a treaty's text and the intention to submit the treaty to the domestic process necessary to approve it. After the treaty has been approved domestically, the party can bring it into force (ratify it) by exchanging instruments of ratification (if it is a bilateral treaty) or depositing its instrument of ratification with the designated depositary (if it is a multilateral treaty). In the United States an international agreement must be approved either by two-thirds of the Senate or by a majority of the House and Senate unless it concerns an area within the President's exclusive constitutional province (such as a Status of Forces Agreement concluded pursuant to the President's Commander and Chief Powers). When a State has signed a treaty and is awaiting the domestic process necessary for ratification, the Vienna Convention provides that the State "is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty."7 When ratifying a treaty, a State may often express reservations, which purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State. According to the Vienna Convention, reservations are acceptable unless specifically prohibited by the treaty or

"incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty."8 In the United States, the Senate often attaches reservations (as well as nonbinding "understandings" and "declarations) when giving advice and consent to ratification. The general rule of the Vienna Convention is that a "treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose."9 The "context" referred to in the Vienna Convention constitutes the treaty's preamble and annexes and any reservations expressed in the instrument of ratification.10 The Vienna Convention and the practice of the International Court of Justice give comparatively less emphasis to the negotiating record and legislative history in interpreting a treaty than is common in domestic interpretation of legislative enactments. Under the Vienna Convention, such "supplementary means of interpretation" are to be used only where the primary means of interpretation yield an ambiguous or obscure meaning or a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. However, U.S. courts tend to resort more freely to the negotiating record and legislative history in interpreting treaties, frequently citing the Executive Report and the Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In addition, U.S. courts pay great judicial deference to the interpretations asserted by the Executive Branch, often in the form of State Department Affidavits.11 Once a State becomes party to a treaty, it must comply with the treaty's provisions unless or until: (a) there are grounds for objecting to the treaty's validity,12 (b) the party has withdrawn from the treaty in conformity with its provisions or with the consent of all of the other Parties,13 (c) there has been a fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus),14 or (d) there has been a material breach by the other party.15 Under the Vienna Convention, the grounds for objecting to the validity of a treaty include: error relating to a fact or situation forming an essential basis of a State's consent to be bound16; the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State17; corruption or coercion of a State's representative by another negotiating State18; the threat or use of force in violation of the United Nations Charter; and conflict with a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens). A material breach of a treaty, giving rise to the right to the other Party to terminate the treaty or suspend its operation, consists of a "violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty."19 In the United States, the power to suspend or terminate a treaty is vested in the President. B. The Effect of Treaties in the Law of the United States In the United States, international agreements are characterized as either treaties or executive agreements. This is to be contrasted with the international practice to refer to all binding international agreements as treaties. In the United States, "treaties" are ratified only after receiving the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senate pursuant to Article II(2) of the Constitution. Only 6 percent of international agreements made by the United States have been submitted to the Senate as treaties. Eight percent of the United States' international agreements are sole executive agreements, that is

compacts concluded by the President under his constitutional authority without any congressional participation.20 The vast majority (over 86 percent) of the United States' international agreements have been congressional-executive agreements. Such agreements are ratified pursuant to ordinary legislation, that is, statutes passed by a majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So-called "implementing legislation" may authorize the President to enter into an international agreement in advance of its negotiation or approve such an agreement after it has been signed by the parties. There are no hard and fast rules about what route the Executive Branch must follow in obtaining domestic approval of an agreement. The way in which international agreements are given domestic legal effect depends on whether a State has adopted a "dualist" or a "monist" approach to treaty incorporation. Dualist States, such as the United Kingdom, require a legislative enactment before any treaty becomes the law of the land. In monist States, such as France and Germany, a treaty is given domestic legal effect as soon as it is ratified without the need for any implementing legislation. The United States practice reflects a hybrid of the dualist and monist approaches, resting on the distinction between "self-executing" and "non-self-executing" international agreements. Consistent with the dualist approach, non-self-executing agreements/treaties are given no domestic legal effect until Congress enacts implementing legislation (in which case it is the statute and not the agreement which is given effect). But consistent with the monist approach, a self-executing agreement/treaty will be applied in a case by U.S. courts without any legislative act. By virtue of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, self-executing agreements/treaties are made "law of the land." Self-executing agreements/treaties are considered to be equivalent to federal statutory law; where the two are in conflict, the one that is latter in time will prevail.21 Before applying this rule in the case of a latter in time statute in conflict with an earlier agreement/treaty, U.S. courts will first try to reconcile the apparently conflicting provisions if at all possible.22 This reflects recognition of the fundamental rule of international law that a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for its failure to perform an international obligation.23 Like federal statutory law, self-executing agreements/treaties are given supremacy over state and municipal law. And like federal statutory law, self-executing agreements/treaties are subject to the constitutional limitations contained in the Bill of Right.24 A treaty or executive agreement is deemed to be self-executing if its provisions are aimed directly at the courts and not at the Congress requiring legislative action. The Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations law suggests the following formula for determining whether an agreement/treaty should not be deemed self-executing: (a) if the agreement manifests an intention that it shall not become effective as domestic law without enactment of implementing legislation; (b) if the Senate in giving consent to a treaty, or Congress by resolution, requires implementing legislation; or (c) if implementing legislation is constitutionally required.25

With respect to human rights treaties, the Senate has recently adopted the practice of declaring at the time of giving advice and consent to ratification that the treaty is non-self-executing. Normally, the President will not deposit the instrument of ratification of a non-self-executing agreement/treaty until the necessary implementing legislation has been enacted. It may be that the President has the power, when acting within his constitutional authority, to disregard or violate an executive agreement or treaty. To do so, however, would potentially subject the United States to liability for breach of its international legal obligations. Thus, in Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court refused to enjoin President Carter from unilaterally terminating treaties with Taiwan on the ground that it was a nonjusticiable political question. Customary International Law A. Determining What Constitutes Customary International Law Customary International Law is made up of two components: (1) a widespread practice of states; and (2) "opinio juris" (a sense of legal obligation). Evidence of practice and opinio juris may be derived from the constitutional, legislative, and executive promulgations of states; diplomatic correspondence; official statements; votes in international organizations; and military actions. The requirement of opinio juris distinguishes a practice followed by a State out of mere convenience from a practice which implicitly recognizes an international legal rule. Non-binding resolutions of international conferences or United Nations bodies (often thought of as "soft law") may harden over time into legally binding international obligations. Treaties that have not yet been ratified by the required number of States to bring them into force, or which are in force but have not yet been ratified by a particular state, may nevertheless become binding if they are recognized as customary international law. Domestic and international judicial and arbitral decisions, as well as the writings of scholars, provide important evidence of the existence of a new rule of customary international law. To constitute customary international law, a practice must be followed repetitively by a relatively large number of states over a relatively long period of time. How many States and how much time are required depend on the circumstances. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has said that customary international law is "universal law of society,"26 customary international law may exist on a regional level. Moreover, some States may be found not to be bound by customary international law if they have persistently dissented to the rule's formulation. But inconsistent practice does not necessary exempt a State from the obligations of customary international law. As the International Court of Justice observed in the Nicaragua Case: In order to deduce the existence of customary rules, the Court deems it is sufficient that the conduct of States should, in general, be consistent with such rules, and that instances of State conduct inconsistent with a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches of that rule, not as indications of the recognition of a new rule. If a State acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a recognized rule, but

defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within the rule itself, ... the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to weaken the rule.27 B. The Effect of Customary International Law in the United States Customary international law is treated as federal common law, which is supreme over state and municipal law. In The Paquete Habana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "[customary] international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination."28 Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains."29 But where there is an irreconcilable conflict, a latter in time statute will supersede customary international law. A newly emerging custom will not, however, supersede a federal statute where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two. As with treaties, the President and other Executive Branch officials acting within their delegated authority have the power to disregard a rule of customary international law. Thus, in Garcia-Mir v. Meese, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit gave effect to an action of the Attorney General authorizing indefinite detention of aliens although it accepted that such detention was in violation of customary international law, stating that "the power of the President to disregard international law in service of domestic needs is reaffirmed." Customary international law may be raised in a variety of contexts in domestic litigation. The issue is most frequently raised in connection with the Alien Torts Claims Act, which provides a federal cause of action where an alien sues for a tort in violation of the law of nations (i.e., treaties and customary international law).30 Alien Torts Claims Act cases have involved torture, terrorism, war crimes and genocide. The United Nations and the Formation of International Law The United Nations came into existence with the adoption of the U.N. Charter in 1945. Its membership is open to States and it has over 190 members. Its headquarters are in New York City, but it has important offices in several other cities, including Geneva, Vienna, and The Hague. The United Nations consists of six principal organs: The Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, the Secretariat, and the Trusteeship Council. Each of these has played an important function in the making, interpretation and implementation of international law. A. The Security Council The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the U.N. Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 25 of the U.N. Charter requires the members of the organization to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While the other organs of the U.N. are authorized to make non-binding recommendations, the Security Council is unique in that its decisions (taken under Chapter VII of the Charter) automatically become international law.

The Security Council is comprised of 15 members: five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 rotating members that are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. Each member of the Council has one vote but decisions on substantive matters require a majority including the concurring votes of the permanent members, thus providing each permanent member a veto. In recent years, the Security Council has taken a wide variety of measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. It has, for example, created "no-fly zones,"31 "safe areas,"32 and humanitarian corridors;33 it has established a commission to grant compensation to the victims of armed attack;34 it has created a commission to delimit disputed borders;35 it has instituted a commission to supervise the elimination of a particular State's weapons of mass destruction;36 it has created numerous investigative commissions;37 and it has established two international criminal tribunals, and three hybrid Tribunals.38 To impel cooperation and compliance, the Security Council has on a number of occasions adopted resolutions requiring the international community to impose economic and political sanctions on a State which is acting in contravention of a Security Council resolution. Such sanctions have included arms embargoes, trade embargoes, prohibitions on air flights, seizure of vessels and vehicles, freezing of assets, prohibition on team participation in sports events, and reduction of diplomatic ties. Security Council-imposed sanctions are currently in force against several states, including Iraq, Libya, Liberia, Somalia, Angola, and the former Yugoslavia.39 In the past, sanctions had been imposed against the military regime in Haiti and the apartheid regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa.40 The sanctions resolutions often contain numerous exceptions, for example, for the import of humanitarian items and informational materials. The sanctions resolutions are interpreted by a Security Council-created body known as the Sanctions Committee. The jurisprudence of the Sanctions Committee has a direct impact on the conduct of thousands of businesses around the world on a daily basis.41 B. The General Assembly The General Assembly is composed of representatives of all Member States, each of which has one vote. Large countries such as the United States, Russia, and China, are counted the same as smaller countries such as the tiny island of Palau, which has less than 15,000 inhabitants. The General Assembly determines the budget of the United Nations, and elects the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the judges of the International Court of Justice, and the judges of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Through its seven Main Committees and numerous subsidiary bodies, the General Assembly studies and makes recommendations on specific issues, such as those involving disarmament, terrorism, outer space, human rights, the law of the sea, protection of the environment, and peace-keeping. While the General Assembly is not empowered to render binding decisions like the Security Council, there are two important ways the General Assembly creates international law: (1) the General Assembly bodies regularly draft treaties and convene international conferences for their adoption; and (2) the

non-binding resolutions and declarations of the General Assembly (especially those adopted without dissent) can constitute evidence of customary international law. One of the General Assembly's most important subsidiary bodies is the International Law Commission, comprised of thirty-four jurists. The ILC has produced a number of successful draft multilateral treaties, such as the 1958 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, the 1978 Convention on the Succession of States, and the Statute for a permanent international criminal court.42 C. The Economic and Social Council The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was established by the U.N. Charter as the principal organ to coordinate economic and social work of the United Nations. ECOSOC has 54 members who serve for three year terms. In addition, over 900 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have consultative status and participate in the work of ECOSOC. ECOSOC is responsible for coordinating the sixteen specialized agencies of the United Nations system. These include the Human Rights Commission (recently re-named the Human Rights Council), the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. In addition to adopting numerous resolutions, ECOSOC and its specialized agencies have developed several quasi-legal instruments known as codes of conduct. These codes establish voluntary guidelines that are intended to influence the behavior of both governments and private enterprises. The most important thus far has been the ECOSOC-sponsored Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations. D. The International Court of Justice The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It is the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was established under the League of Nations. Located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the ICJ is composed of 15 judges, who are elected by the U.N. General Assembly to serve nine-year terms. The ICJ is empowered to decide two types of cases. First, the ICJ can issue advisory opinions when requested to do so by the Security Council, the General Assembly or several other United Nations bodies authorized to request such opinions. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued twenty-one advisory opinions. Second, the Court can exercise jurisdiction in a contentious case between two or more States with the consent of the parties. The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals, except to the extent that a State espouses their claims. Since its creation, the ICJ has issued judgments in thirty-nine contentious cases. That amounts to the Court hearing an average of less than two cases each year. During the 1990s, however, the Court became increasingly active, and it currently has eight contentious cases, and two requests for advisory opinions on its docket.

Consent to jurisdiction over contentious cases can be given in three ways. First, States can agree to have their disputes decided by the ICJ on an ad hoc basis. Second, many treaties contain provisions giving the ICJ jurisdiction over any dispute between parties to the treaty as to its interpretation or application. Third, States may make a declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ statute, agreeing to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in relation to other States that have made a like declaration. As of 1997, fiftynine States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Declarations made under Article 36(2) may specifically exclude certain categories of disputes from the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction. Such declarations are subject to reciprocity, and a defendant state against which a proceeding is brought may invoke an exclusion not stipulated in its own declaration but included in the declaration of the plaintiff state. The United States had agreed in 1946 to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ with two principal exceptions. The first, known as the "Connelly reservation," provided that the United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ over disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States. The second, known as the "Vandenberg reservation" exempted the United States from the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction with respect to any disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court. After the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over Nicaragua's suit against the United States concerning U.S. support of the Contras and mining of Nicaragua harbors, the United States terminated its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. The termination of the United States' acceptance of the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction has not completely immunized the United States from the ICJ. The United States has subsequently been hailed before the ICJ on several occasions pursuant to clauses contained in multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party. It has become the recent practice of the United States to make a reservation opting out of the ICJ jurisdiction clause of multilateral treaties at the time of ratification, but the United States continues to be party to over one hundred treaties containing an ICJ jurisdiction clause. Judgments of the ICJ are binding between the parties. Under Article 94(1) of the U.N. Charter, all members of the United Nations have undertaken to comply with a judgment of the ICJ in any case to which they are parties. If a party fails to comply with the judgment of the ICJ, any other party may call on the Security Council to enforce the judgment. ICJ decisions are widely recognized as important statements of existing international law, and they are often cited as authority to support fundamental principles of international legal development. Contentious cases usually involve three phases. First, the parties often request that the ICJ "indicate" provisional measures in order to preserve their respective rights while a case is pending. Decisions on provisional measures are usually issued within a few weeks from the initial request. While provisional measures are somewhat analogous to a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order under U.S. domestic law, the court has never ruled whether an order indicating provisional measures is mandatory on the parties. The second phase involves challenges to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court will entertain briefs and oral arguments on the matter before making a decision. Finally, the Court will

entertain briefs and oral arguments on the merits of the case. From start to finish, the ICJ may take several years to rule on a dispute. The final decision of the ICJ is not subject to appeal. E. International Criminal Tribunals The UN Security Council acting under its Chapter VII authority established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (in The Hague) in 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (in Arusha, Tanzania) in 1994, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (in The Hague) in 2009. Through agreements between the UN and domestic authorities, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (in Freetown and the Hague) was established in 2002, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia was established (in Phnom Penh) in 2006. In 2002, the permanent International Criminal Court was established (at The Hague) through a treaty negotiated at the Rome Diplomatic Conference; the ICC currently has 122 State parties. These six international tribunals have prosecuted over 200 defendants and have produced extensive case law that constitutes persuasive (though not binding) authority for other tribunals and domestic courts. F. The Secretariat The Secretariat is the international bureaucracy which services the other organs of the United Nations and administers the programs and policies laid down by them. It consists of more than 50,000 men and women from more than 150 countries. The Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General who is appointed for a term of five years by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General and other Secretariat personnel are often called upon to serve as fact finders and mediators, and have played an important role in ending recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Cyprus, Namibia, the Falkland Islands, Lebanon, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia. The Secretariat serves as an officially designated world depository for international agreements. More than 45,000 treaties are registered with the U.N. The Secretariat publishes the United Nations Treaty Series, which is an authoritative registry of international agreements. The Secretariat includes the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs, headed by the Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs (the U.N. Legal Counsel), which plays a critical role in the interpretation of the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the Security Council, General Assembly, ECOSOC, and other U.N. bodies. The opinions of the U.N. Legal Counsel are published annually by the United Nations.