In general, this approach is based on the principle of “equality of belligerents” and therefore aims to allow for a higher degree of effectiveness of IHL in the context of the YIC. This idea implies that all parties to the conflict, regardless of the reason, have the same rights and obligations. We agree with those who argue that this principle implies that the practice of OGOs can also be taken into account in the creation of IHL, such as.B. Somer and Sassòli. Special agreements seem to follow this logic: they tend to impose consistent rights and obligations on all signatories, and the process by which they are generally created leads to recognition of the equal capacity of each party to take all necessary measures to supplement them. The problem, however, seems to lie essentially in their inclusion in a legal category as the source of international law. This alternative suggests that special agreements are subject to national law, as OGOs do not have the recognized ability to create international rules. The role of authors is reserved exclusively to States (or those to which States recognize the same capacity), so that OGOs are only clear recipients of IHL rules. This perspective was supported by the Colombian Constitutional Court when it confirmed here that such agreements are not treaties because they are not created between subjects of international law, but by parties to a NIAC, mere subjects of IHL.
The same view has been confirmed here by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. 17.502-1 General. (a) Written Agreement on Management and Administration Responsibility – (1) Sustained Acquisitions. (i) Prior to the publication of an application, both the service agency and the applicant organization shall sign a written interinstitutional agreement setting out the terms and conditions governing the relationship between the parties, including roles and responsibilities for procurement planning, contract execution, and the management and administration of contracts or orders. The Requesting Agency shall provide the Service Agency with all applicable terms, conditions and laws, regulations, guidelines and other applicable requirements specific to the Agency for inclusion in the Order or Contract. If there are no clear agency requirements beyond the FAR, the applicant organization shall inform the service agency contractor in writing. For acquisitions made on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, see also subsection 17.7. For patent rights, see 27.304-2. When preparing interagency agreements in support of supported acquisitions, authorities should read the Federal Procurement Policy Office (OTP) guidelines, Interagency Procurement, available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/procurement/interagency_acq/iac_revised.pdf.
(ii) The file of each agency shall contain the interinstitutional agreement between the applicant body and the regulatory body and shall contain sufficient documents to ensure an appropriate audit in accordance with Article 4.801(b). (2) Direct acquisitions. The requesting party manages the order; therefore, no written agreement with the service agency is required. b) Business case requirements for multi-agency contracts and government-wide procurement agreements. To enter into a government or government-wide procurement agreement, a business case must be prepared by the service organization and approved in accordance with the OTP business case guidelines available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/procurement/memo/development-review-and-approval-of-business-cases-for-certain-interagency-and-agency-specific-acquisitions-memo.pdf. The business case should – (1) examine strategies for the effective participation of small businesses in procurement planning (see 7,103(u)); (2) describe in detail the management of such a contract, including an analysis of all the direct and indirect costs incurred by the Government for the award and administration of such a contract; (3) Describe the impact that such a contract will have on the government`s ability to use its purchasing power, e.B. Will it have a negative impact because it dilutes other existing treaties? (4) include an analysis showing that the establishment of the multi-agency contract is necessary; and (5) Document roles and responsibilities in contract management. 17.502-2 Economic Law. a) The Economy Act (31 U.S.C.1535) authorizes agencies to enter into agreements to receive supplies or services from another organization. FAR applies when an organization uses another organization`s contract to receive supplies or services.
If the inter-institutional transaction does not result in a contract or order, the FAR does not apply. The Economic Law also provides for the power to place orders between important organizational units within an agency; The procedures applicable to these intra-institutional transactions are dealt with in the Agency`s Regulations. (b) Economic law applies if there is no more specific legal authority. Examples of more specific powers include 40 U.S.C. 501 for Federal Supply Schedules (subsection 8.4) and 40 U.S.C. 11302(e) for government-wide procurement contracts (GWOCs). (c) requirements for findings and findings. (1) Any order of the Economic Law on the acquisition of supplies or services by inter-agency acquisition must be supported by a determination and conclusions (D &F). The D&F notes that the use of inter-agency procurement is in the best interests of the government; (ii) indicate that supplies or services cannot be provided in such a favourable or economical manner through direct contracts with a private source; and (iii) include a statement that at least one of the following circumstances applies: (A) The purchase is made in an appropriate manner under an existing service agency contract entered into prior to the placing of the order to meet the service agency`s requirements for the same similar supplies or services. (B) the point of service has the capacity or expertise to enter into a contract for supplies or services that are not available within the requesting party.
(C) The service agency is expressly authorized by law or regulation to purchase such supplies or services on behalf of other agencies. 2. The D&F shall be approved by a contract agent of the applicant organisation authorised to order supply or service contracts to be ordered or by another official designated by the Head of the Agency, except that, where the service entity is not covered by the FAR, the approval of the E&F shall not be delegated to the head of public procurement of the applicant agency. (3) The applicant organization shall provide the service point with a copy of the D&F with the order request. (d) Payment. 1. The service centre may request in writing from the requesting Party an advance payment for the estimated costs of the supply of supplies or services, in whole or in part. The correction on the basis of actual costs shall be made by mutual agreement between the agencies. 2. Once approved by the place of operation, the actual costs may be borne by the requesting Party after the supply of the supplies or services.
(3) Invoices or requests for advance payment shall not be subject to prior verification or confirmation. 4. Under no circumstances may the requesting point of service or agency charge any fee or charge in excess of the actual costs (or estimated costs if the actual costs are not known) for the conclusion and management of the contract or any other agreement under which the contract is performed. b) Due to the nature of the work or because it must be carried out in state institutions, the government must work in various important areas (e.B. Security, cost control, site conditions) maintain a special and close relationship with the contractor and the contractor`s staff. Thank you for this very interesting article. There may indeed be an additional way to understand the legal status of such agreements, by interpreting them as conditional unilateral statements. That is, the state has expressed that it is obliged to act (or abstain) in a certain way, provided that the non-state actor meets certain conditions. Such a proposal was made in relation to the Oslo Accords and provided a solution to the difficult question of whether the PLO was an international subject with treaty-making capacity (see: Robbie Sabel, Book Review, 95 AJIL 248, 250-51 (2001)). In order to prevent such distinctions from weakening overall protection, common article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions sets out the minimum requirements that remain applicable at all times. In addition, in situations where the Geneva Conventions are not automatically applicable, common article 3 stipulates that the parties to the conflict shall endeavour to bring into force the provisions of the Conventions in whole or in part by means of special agreements. Article 6, jointly GCI, GCII and GCIII, and Article 7 of the GCIV provide the framework for these agreements.
Given this complexity, it might be a good idea to look for other alternatives. .
