Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 979-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin von Bogdandy ◽  
Ingo Venzke
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
Normative Expectations ◽  
Legal Structures ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
The Individual ◽  
And Shifts ◽  
Legal Normativity

The increasing number of international judicial institutions, producing an ever-growing stream of decisions, has been one of the dominant features of the international legal order of the past two decades. The shift in quantity has gone hand in hand with a transformation in quality. Today, it is no longer convincing to only think of international courts in their role of settling disputes. While this function is as relevant as ever, many international judicial institutions have developed a further role in what is often called global governance. Their decisions have effects beyond individual disputes. They exceed the confines of concrete cases and bear on the general legal structures. The practice of international adjudication creates and shifts actors' normative expectations and as such develops legal normativity. Many actors use international judicial decisions in similar ways as they do formal sources of international law. To us, this role of international adjudication beyond the individual dispute is beyond dispute.

International Legal Personality as a Theoretical Construct

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Theoretical Construct ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Legal Personality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

Chapter 2 identifies and explains the four theoretical conceptions of international legal personality, which will be tested against historical and existing norms of positive international law in Chapters 3–8. With particular focus on the role attributed to the individual as the ultimate subject of international law, the examination will concentrate on selected scholars’ conclusions on the criteria for, and the consequences of acquiring, international legal personality. Moreover, it will address the way in which proponents of the various conceptions perceive the relationship between the international legal order and national legal order(s) and the role of the concept of international legal personality in that regard. Given that a primary aim of the book is to ascertain the position of the individual as a matter of international lex lata, particular attention is given to the two main conceptions of international legal personality, which both claim to be positivist.

A Typology of International Judicial Practices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L Dunoff ◽  
Mark A Pollack
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Practice Theory ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Everyday Practices ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Judicial Opinions

This chapter discusses the inner working of ICs, such as the drafting of judicial opinions; practices concerning separate opinions; the role of language and translation; and the roles of third parties. It also presents a preliminary effort to identify and examine the everyday practices of international judges. In undertaking this task, the authors draw selectively upon a large literature on ‘practice theory’ that has only rarely been applied to international law in general or to international courts in particular. A typology and synoptic overview of practices is presented.

The International Legal Personality of the Individual

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Legal Personality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Second World

This book scrutinizes the relationship between the concept of international legal personality as a theoretical construct and the position of the individual as a matter of positive international law. By testing four main theoretical conceptions of international legal personality against historical and existing international legal norms that govern individuals, the book argues that the common narrative about the development of the role of the individual in international law is flawed. Contrary to conventional wisdom, international law did not apply to States alone until the Second World War, only to transform during the second half of the twentieth century to include individuals as its subjects. Rather, the answer to the question of individual rights and obligations under international law is—and always was—solely contingent upon the interpretation of international legal norms. It follows, of course, that the entities governed by a particular norm tell us nothing about the legal system to which that norm belongs. Instead, the distinction between international and national legal norms turns exclusively on the nature of their respective sources. Against the background of these insights, the book shows how present-day international lawyers continue to allow an idea, which was never more than a scholarly invention of the nineteenth century, to influence the interpretation and application of contemporary international law. This state of affairs has significant real-world ramifications as international legal rights and obligations of individuals (and other non-State entities) are frequently applied more restrictively than interpretation without presumptions regarding ‘personality’ would merit.

China and International Adjudication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Eder
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
International Adjudication

China aims to become a “leader country” in international law that “guides” the international legal order. Delivering the first comprehensive analysis of case law and Chinese academic debates from 2002 to 2018, this book shows that gradually increased engagement with international adjudication is part of a broad effort to consolidate China’s economic and political gains, and regain great power status. It covers trade, investment, territorial and law of the sea matters – including the South China Sea disputes – and delineates a decades-long process between caution and ambition. Both in debate patterns and in actual engagement, this book finds remarkable similarities in all covered fields of law, merely the timetables differ.

scholarly journals International Courts and Tribunals – the New Environmental Sentinels in International Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 17-33
Author(s):  
Bharat H. Desai ◽  
Balraj K. Sidhu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Future

This study examines the role of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) as important agents for the peaceful settlement of international disputes through the instrumentality of law. The rapid upswing in the number of specialised international courts and tribunals (in areas such as trade, human rights, law of the sea, criminal justice and environment) can be perceived as an attempt by sovereign States to maintain the viability of ICTs in light of perplexity in international relations, growing recognition of peaceful co-existence, quest for institutionalised cooperation and emergence of some of the “common concerns of humankind”, as well as the “duty to cooperate”. The article has sought to make sense of the emergence of ICTs as the “New Environmental Sentinels” and what it portends for our common future. Do we need a specialised international environmental court?

Thoughts on Domestic Adjudication and the Identification and Formation of Customary International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-149
Author(s):  
Cameron Miles
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication

Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute provides that “judicial decisions” may serve as a subsidiary means for the determination of customary international law. The absence of a qualifying adjective to the term “judicial decisions” confirms that, at least ex facie, there is no priority to be given to international over domestic judgments in this respect. And yet – as the International Law Commission’s Draft Conclusions on Formation and Identification of Customary International Law confirms – the reality of international adjudication is one in which domestic judicial decisions are often side-lined. In this paper, I question the ILC’s assertion that this is due to the relative expertise of international versus domestic courts, and instead posit a model based on the shifting architectonics of international adjudication. Two related developments are key: (1) the florescence of international adjudicative bodies in the post-1945 era, and (2) the tendency for international courts and tribunals to see domestic judicial decisions as evidence of state practice and opinio juris under Article 38(1)(b), rather than as subsidiary means for the determination of custom – that is, as factual rather than legal precedents.

Expanding the Competence to Issue Provisional Measures— Strengthening the International Judicial Function

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1279-1294
Author(s):  
Karin Oellers-Frahm
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
National Level ◽  
Organizational Status ◽  
International Courts ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Normative Expectations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Judicial Procedures ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Holistic Vision

In international law, jurisdiction serves the same principal aim as in national law, namely the settlement of disputes in order to maintain (legal) peace and security. In international law, as in national law, judicial procedures take time, sometimes a lot of time, during which the rights at stake may be negatively affected by acts of one of the parties potentially resulting in an ineffective judgment. A remedy against such an occurrence has been developed through an instrument of interim protection by which the court directs the parties to leave the rights as they stand and not to interfere with the situation. Such an instrument appears indispensable in order to ensure that a court or tribunal is able to effectively exercise its function. At the national level, interim protection is usually unproblematic since the competence of the tribunals is mostly comprehensive. In international law, in contrast, the competence of judicial organs is one of the most discussed problems because it depends on the consent of states. Any expansion of competence without an explicit agreement of the states concerned is therefore of utmost significance for the role and the acceptance of international courts and reflects the organizational status of international society. Thus, in the context of the project “Beyond Dispute: Lawmaking by International Judicial Institutions,” the subject-matter of this contribution mostly relates to the role and self-understanding of international judicial organs; it is less concerned with the creation of substantive normative expectations between international subjects. Yet, the expansion of judicial competences fits into the conceptual apparatus of this research as it innovates the legal order and reaches beyond the case at hand. The case of provisional measures provides a particularly fine example of incremental judicial law making through progressive interpretation, supported by a holistic vision of the international judiciary, reciprocal strengthening and later state practice, as well as its functional legitimation and its limits.

Equity in Arbitration and in Judicial Settlement of Disputes

1993 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judge Manfred Lachs
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Type I ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Past ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Recommended Action

Much has been written on the similarities and differences between arbitration tribunals and international courts; much more could and will certainly be written in the future. The purpose of my comments is to define similarities and differences in regard to the role of equity in both. However, I hope to enter the caveat at the very outset that in this paper I will focus solely on the role of equity in cases where the decision is to be based on international law. Accordingly, I will not here discuss cases of the type I had in mind when I pointed out in a speech delivered 34 years ago to the Legal Committee of the UN General Assembly that “[t]he arbitral solution has been applied in the past to a variety of problems, some of which were not judicial in character and did not raise issues of law”. Nor will I now discuss arbitrations in which the parties have agreed that the arbitrators need not be guided by law, or where the arbitral tribunal is expressly authorized by the parties to decide ex aequo et bono and thereby to settle the matter in a liberal spirit without regard to legal requirements and technicalities. Thus, cases in which the arbitrators have been empowered to seek mutual accommodations that would give offense to neither party are outside the scope of this discussion, as are cases where arbitrators recommended action by one of the parties as an act of grace.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document