scholarly journals Systemic Judicial Authority: The “Fourth Corner” of “The Judicial Trilemma”?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 349-353
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández

Jeffrey Dunoff and Mark Pollack's Judicial Trilemma is a refreshing challenge to prevailing narratives about judicial decision-making in international courts and tribunals and is part of a growing wave of scholarship deploying empirical, social science-driven methodology to theorize the place of judicial institutions in the international legal field. Seeking to peek behind the black robes and divine the reasoning behind judicial decisions without descending into speculation and actively trying to thwart considerations of confidentiality is a fraught endeavor on which I have expressed skepticism in the past. The Judicial Trilemma admirably seeks to overcome these challenges, and I commend the authors for tackling the hard question as to whether one can truly glance behind the black robe.

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
FABIÁN O. RAIMONDO

This article seeks to examine whether the International Court of Justicehas developed jurisprudence on international humanitarian law and whether this has exerted any influence on the decisions adopted by other international courts and tribunals. In so doing, it revisits the issue of the value ofjudicial decisions under international law. Finally, it reveals that despite the non-operation of the rule of stare decisis in international law, the Court's jurisprudence on international humanitarian law has been a persuasive precedent for other international courts and tribunals.


Author(s):  
Andrew Yu. Klyuchnikov

The rules on the competence of international courts determine the nature of the cases they resolve and the conditions for their admission to proceedings. The possibility composition of the court considers each case individually following the principle of jurisdiction to decide the jurisdiction due to the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Each international court of justice, relying on the international law, is solely competent to resolve doubts as to its own jurisdiction. This study aims to identify the approach of courts to solving jurisdictional problems in practice. The material for the study includes the cases of international courts, doctrinal comments, and legal positions of prominent researchers of international justice. The author describes the basic interpretative framework procedure, restraint, activism in the justification, and the lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, if the international court of justice has no confidence in the existence of competence on the subject of the dispute, it will not take measures to justify it. The brevity of the position on the issue will be due to interpretative restraint. Activism arises when the international court of justice seeks to achieve a procedural result, substantiate the rationality of the result of interpretation or the impossibility of achieving it. Science has not resolved the issue of factors that may affect the limits of interpretation by international courts of their own competence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-176
Author(s):  
Sara Mansour Fallah

Abstract 70 years ago, the International Court of Justice decided its first and potentially most important case involving unlawfully obtained evidence. Despite clearly rejecting ‘discovery by intervention’, the judgment left many guessing as to the consequences for evidence obtained through such violations. As parties to international disputes have certainly not become less inclined to obtain evidence by unlawful means, the question arises: Was this old confusion ever unraveled? This article discusses whether today, there are international rules or principles governing the admissibility of unlawfully acquired evidence and applies a two-fold approach. First, it examines traditional sources of international law, including international jurisprudence, and second, it scrutinizes the frequently drawn analogy to national jurisdictions by surveying their treatment of illegally obtained evidence. Although a generally binding “inadmissibility rule” does not yet exist, practice demonstrates a tendency to consider such evidence in light of general principles of law. This article proposes handling unlawfully acquired evidence by applying a defined, yet flexible balancing test using criteria commonly applied in international and national practice.


1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Palmeter ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis

Modern discussions of the sources of international law usually begin with a reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which provides: The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a.international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;b.international custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;c.the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;d.subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Rudall

Should trees have standing? The decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) in its Question of Compensation (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) case of February 2, 2018 provides a pioneering example of damage to the environment being litigated before an international tribunal. The judgment is the first time that the ICJ has adjudicated compensation for environmental damage, and it is only the third time the ICJ has awarded compensation at all. Nevertheless, the ICJ boldly asserted in this case that “damage to the environment, and the consequent impairment or loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services, is compensable under international law” (para. 42). That said, the reasoning employed by the Court leaves much to be desired. Given the increasing number of cases involving the environment, it is unfortunate that international courts and tribunals will garner only limited guidance from the methodology adopted by the ICJ in valuing environmental damage.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-114
Author(s):  
Tran Thang Long

AbstractIn international relation, estoppel is a principle whereby a state is not able to say or act against what it said or did before. The theory of estoppel was originated in the past from the English law system, which was later incorporated into international law. Its main purpose is to prevent a State from benefiting from its inconsistent attitudes, and thus, causing damage to another State. Therefore, estoppel must meet the main conditions. First, the expression of the said State leads to the assumption of the estoppel must be clear and non-ambiguous. Second, this expression must be expressed voluntarily, unconditionally and must be well authorized. Third, there must be a goodwill trust from another State into the expression of a State giving that expression, resulting in damage to the State with this trust or to the benefit of the expressive side. The paper examines the principle of estoppel in international law and the practice of applying this principle in cases tried at the International Court of Justice. On that basis, the paper discusses explaining the factors that constitute an estoppel situation for Vietnam in order to reject the China’s wrong interpretation of the 1958 Diplomatic Note of the late Prime Minister Pham Van Dong.


Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams

This chapter begins with a discussion of the importance of the sources of international law. It then discusses the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945; treaties; customary international law; general principles of law; judicial decisions and the writings of publicists; resolutions of international organisations; soft law.Finally, it looks at whether there exists a hierarchy of international law sources.


Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter provides an overview of the legal sources in international law. Sources of law determine the rules of legal society and, like national legal societies, the international legal society has its own set of rules. The discussion begins in Section 2.2 with article 38 of the International Court of Justice Statute. Section 2.3 discusses treaties, Section 2.4 covers customary international law, and Section 2.5 turns to general principles of international law. Attention then turns to the two additional sources listed in article 38. Section 2.6 discusses judicial decisions and Section 2.7 examines academic contributions. Section 2.8 discusses the role played by unilateral statements. The chapter then turns to the issue of a hierarchy of sources in Section 2.9 and concludes in Section 2.10 with a discussion of non-binding instruments and so-called ‘soft law’.


Author(s):  
Charlotte Ku

This article traces the development of the International Court of Justice from the establishment of its predecessor in 1919, the Permanent Court of International Justice. The article explores the place of the ICJ in the international settlement of disputes including issues relating to the proliferation of international courts and tribunals; the selection and impartiality of judges; provisional measures; the willingness of states to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ; compliance with the Court’s rulings; and where the ICJ has seen the greatest success in developing its jurisprudence. Specific attention is paid to the ICJ’s advisory and contentious jurisdictions. The article concludes with an assessment of its contribution to international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document