The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2017

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Global Law

The 2017 edition both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook has established itself as an authoritative resource for research and guidance on the jurisprudence of both UN-based tribunals and regional courts. The 2017 edition continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute Resolution panel. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists. It also includes expert introductory essays by prominent scholars in the realm of international law, on topics as diverse and current as the erosion of the postwar liberal global order by national populism and the accompanying disorder in global politics, a bifurcated global nuclear order due to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty, and the expansion of the principle of no-impunity and its application to serious violations of social and economic rights. New to the 2017 edition, the author of the article in Recent Lines of Internationalist Thought will now talk about their own work as a Scholar/Judge. In addition, this edition memorializes the late M. Cherif Bassiouni. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals and a section focusing on the thought of leading international law scholars on the subject of the globalization.

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Global Law

The 2018 edition of The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute settlement procedures. The contents of this part have been enriched with the inclusion of a new section devoted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the oldest global institution for the settlement of international disputes. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: whether the Paris Declaration of 2017 and the Oslo Recommendation of 2018 deals with enhancing their institutions’ legitimacy; how to reconcile human rights, trade law, intellectual property, investment and health law with the WTO dispute settlement panel upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure; Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood contingent upon prior Palestinian “demilitarization” is potentially contrary to pertinent international law; and a proposal to strengthen cooperation between the ECJ and National Courts in light of the failure of the dialogue between the ECJ and the Italian Constitutional Court on the interpretation of Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2019

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Community ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Global Law

The 2019 edition of the Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (MICT), to international courts of human rights (ECtHR, IACtHR, ACtHPR), to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute Resolution panel. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: a judicial knowledge-sharing process as a tool for courts working together in a universal constitutional structure; the key insights emerging from the Global Environment Outlook-6, and the progress that has been made in international environmental law; the role of human rights treaty monitoring bodies in the international legal order; and an examination of the consequences of the UN Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration on international law. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.

The main approaches to the definition of the international courts’ competence

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Yu. Klyuchnikov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Interpretative Framework

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.

All’s Well That Ends Well. Or Is It? More on the Publications of the International Court of Justice

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-592
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
American Society ◽  
Advisory Opinions

In 1987 I drew attention to a report published in 1986 by a member of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) of the United Nations, recommending a number of changes, some of them fundamental, in the presentation by the International Court of Justice of its judgments and advisory opinions. I indicated the principal objections that the Court had expressed on those recommendations, and pointed out that the implementation of some of them could constitute violations of the Charter, of which the Statute of the Court is an integral part. The matter was also the subject of a resolution adopted on April 9, 1987, by the American Society of International Law, reproduced in part in note 30 on page 695 of my Note. It is now possible to bring the story up-to-date and close an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Joint Inspection Unit.

Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case Seen in Particular From the Perspective of the Law of International Watercourses and the Protection of the Environment

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan G. Lammers
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Law

The subject-matter of this article is the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case. Following an exposition of the relevant facts, it continues with a critical analysis of the Judgment of the Court. In addition to a brief analysis of the issues involving the law of treaties, the law of state responsibility, the law of state succession, and the treaty obligations of Hungary and Slovakia relating to the use of Danube water and the protection of its environment, it focuses on the rules and principles of general international law concerning the use of international watercourses and the protection of the environment that were applied by the Court in this case.

Legal Issues in the Nicaragua Opinion

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Fred L. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject

The opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case will be of interest primarily because of its general pronouncements on questions of international law. Its impact on the immediate controversy appears slight; the United States Government has strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy, has vetoed subsequent proposed Security Council resolutions on the subject, and is appropriating additional funds for the contested activities, without apparent reference to the Court’s decision. This Comment is limited to the general theoretical and legal issues and will not treat the underlying factual issues, the Court’s disposition of the immediate case or the implications of the opinion for the evolution of the dispute.

Institutions of International Law: How International Law Secures Orderliness in International Affairs

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-217
Author(s):  
Volker Roeben
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Normative Order ◽  
Rule Making

This article is a plea for adopting a reinvigorated, analytic perspective on contemporary international law, building on MacCormick’s powerful insights into law’s essential structure. The article proposes that international law as whole forms an institutional normative order. The idea of institutional normative order has certain conditions. These link a normative conception of international law with the means of achieving it. The article makes three arguments on these conditions. It first argues that the function of international law is to create order in the sense of orderliness for its principal users, States and international organizations. It then claims that international law establishes normative order through international rules that are binding from the viewpoint of States and international organizations. An international process of rule-making embedded in State practice turns norms into such rules. The process is being held as a bindingness-creating mechanism because it formalizes rules through recognized means and organizes collective consent to authorize them. States and international organizations then apply these rules by exercising international legal powers under a defeasible presumption of legality. Third, the article argues that this normative order becomes institutionalized. The institutions of international law are grounded in ideas about agencies, arrangements, and master-norms that integrate the mass of international rules and principles. The article exemplifies these arguments for UN-driven international law with the relating recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and Annex vii tribunals, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The upshot of this idea of international law as institutional normative order is unity, or indeed a system. No part of international law can be seen outside of this context and hence the burden of argumentation is on those wishing to make the case for divergence.

scholarly journals International Court of Justice and the threat of use of force

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Durmishkhan Givievich Afkhazava
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Subject

The subject of this research is the threat of use of force in the practice of interpretation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Special attention is paid to the analysis of formulations of court rulings regarding violations of the principle of non-use of force and threat of use of force. The practice of the ICJ on interpretation of the threat of use of force is directly tied to the practice of the Court on interpretation of the concept of use of force. The research explores rulings on interpretation of the threat of use of force in international law, dissenting opinions of judges, as well as position and arguments of sides. The work reflects the context of circumstances that served as the basis for Court’s decisions. In author’s opinion, major role is played by the circumstances contributing to the Court’s identification and interpretation of international law pertaining to the threat of use. This is first research within Russian doctrine dedicated to practice of interpretation of the threat of use of force in international law by the International Court of Justice. The conclusions reflected in this article allow fully formulate the Court’s stance on the threat of use of force.

The International Court of Justice: Cruising Ahead at 70

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1103-1119 ◽  
Author(s):  
HUGH THIRLWAY
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Peremptory Norms

AbstractThe International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) continues to hear and determine the contentious cases submitted to it, keeping up what has been referred to as an acceptable ‘cruising pace’. After recalling the extent to which the demands on the Court have increased, and the practical means available to it have been greatly extended, the author (following up an earlier article on the subject in the Netherlands International Law Review) examines the Court's recent case-law (decisions given since 2010) to show how each decision, besides furthering settlement of the specific dispute, has contributed to the enlargement or development of international law. Attention is concentrated, however, on particular questions: the role of peremptory norms (jus cogens); interpretation of treaties; questions of jurisdiction (including the problem of the existence of a justiciable dispute in each case); and certain incidental proceedings contemplated by the Court's Statute and Rules, namely provisional measures and intervention under Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document