The Relationship between International Tribunals and Domestic Courts

Author(s):  
Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-Van Hof ◽  
Anne K. Hoffmann
2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-94
Author(s):  
Muyiwa Adigun

The principle of complementarity is one of the most important concepts in international criminal law as it defines the relationship between international criminal tribunals and domestic courts. Certain claims have been made in respect of this concept thus this study examines the correctness of the claims made. The study finds that the concept is claimed to have originated from the sciences and that its expression in international criminal law has taken a distinctive form different from that in the sciences, that it is traceable to the First World War and that there are at least about four categories of the concept. The study, however, argues that while the concept originated from the sciences, its expression in international criminal law is no different from that in the sciences, that it is traceable to the trial of Peter von Hagenbach in 1474 (the Breisach Trial) and that there are at least five categories of the concept. The study therefore concludes that the claims made are incorrect.


Author(s):  
W. F. Foster

The relationship of state sovereignty and the jurisdiction of international tribunals presents one of the main problems in the law of international adjudication. Submission to the jurisdiction of a tribunal implies a partial surrender of sovereignty. The extent of the surrender may be said to be proportionate to the degree of discretion open to the tribunal concerned when deciding a case submitted to it. The present study will deal with an important aspect of this judicial freedom of determination, namely, the extent to which the World Court can seek to discover the facts and circumstances of a dispute independently of the evidence and information brought before it voluntarily by the parties.


2020 ◽  
pp. 154-178
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter focuses on the relationship between EU law and national law. It first explores the jurisprudence on what is known as the doctrine of supremacy of EU law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). When a national court observes that a national law clashes with an EU law, they must set aside that national law. The EU legal order would not work without a doctrine like supremacy: not only would domestic courts not be compelled to apply EU law instead of conflicting national law, but it is likely that different domestic courts would take different decisions as to whether to apply EU law over national law in a given scenario. The chapter then considers how supremacy has been received in Germany and the UK, looking at how the German and UK legal orders interact with EU law. It then addresses whether ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ is compatible with EU membership, and examines the impact of Brexit on the supremacy of EU law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 184-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filiz Kahraman ◽  
Nikhil Kalyanpur ◽  
Abraham L. Newman

This article revisits the relationship between law and international order. Building on legal research concerned with transnational law, we argue that domestic courts are endogenous sites of international political change. National courts are constitutive of international order by generating new rules, adjudicating transnational disputes, and bounding state sovereignty. We illustrate the ways in which national courts create new political opportunities by updating three core international relations theory debates. Recognizing the role of domestic courts as global adjudicators enhances our understanding of regime complexity and international forum shopping. By re-interpreting aspects of conventional international law, and engaging in cross-border dialogue, domestic courts challenge our understanding of international diffusion and judicialization. By redefining the boundaries of state authority and sovereignty, national courts create potential for conflict and cooperation. A transnational law perspective illustrates the porous nature between domestic and international spheres, highlighting how domestic courts have become adjudicators for state and non-state actors that operate across mainstream levels of analysis. Our approach calls on scholars to move beyond analyzing national legal systems as mechanisms of compliance to instead consider domestic courts as co-creators of international order.


2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Mensah

AbstractThe paper examines the way in which the Tribunal has so far dealt with applications for the prompt release of arrested vessels and crews under Article 292 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. It begins by setting out the prerequisites for the Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with such applications. These include the requirement that an application must be submitted by or on behalf of the flag State of the vessel, the need for the Tribunal to determine that the application is admissible and that the allegation of non-compliance with a provision of the Convention is "well founded." The paper then examines the nature and content of the Order of the Tribunal, including the issue of the reasonable bond or other financial security to be set for the release of the ship or its crew. A core problem considered is the relationship of the prompt release application to the proceedings "on the merits" before other courts or tribunals. In particular, consideration is given to possible problems that may arise where an application is presented after proceedings in the domestic courts have been completed. The paper concludes by noting with approval the flexible and evolutionary approach by which the Tribunal has so far applied this innovative provision of the Convention.


Author(s):  
Bernard Stirn

Chapter 4 turns to the domestic law of the countries of Europe, arguing that the combination within European public law of EU law, the law of the ECHR, and of domestic law cannot be conceived of along the lines of a pyramidal hierarchy. The chapter examines the ways in which the different European domestic legal systems conceive of the relationship between international law and domestic law. The chapter then looks at the relationship between international law and domestic law through a constitutional lens, an approach which more and more domestic courts in Europe seem to be adopting. The chapter then turns to the integrated legal order of the European Union, a legal order distinct both from domestic and general international law. Finally, the chapter teases out and analyses four shared guiding principles of European public law: equality and non-discrimination; proportionality; subsidiarity; and legal certainty.


Author(s):  
James Arthur

This chapter explores how increasingly diverse and democratic societies reconcile issues of religion and secular education in public schooling, focusing on the American and European public school systems. It addresses ongoing legal conflicts in education and religion and explores some recent US Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights decisions in this arena. In particular, it discusses the issues involved in the relationship between secular and religious conceptions in public schooling as well as exploring the increasingly controversial themes of religious symbolism, religious curricula content, neutrality, and secularism in public schooling. The chapter concludes with discussion of issues related to the tendency of some domestic courts and national legislators to secularize the meaning of religious symbols and the application of principles of secularism to determine neutrality in the educational field.


2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Siyuan Chen

AbstractLike many international tribunals, the International Court of Justice subscribes heavily to the principle of free admissibility of evidence. Neither its statute nor rules impose substantive restrictions on the admissibility of evidence, whether by way of exclusionary rules or an exclusionary discretion. Instead, the court’s practice has been to focus on evaluating and weighing the evidence after it has been admitted. There are certainly features of the ICJ that sets it apart from domestic courts and arguably justify such an approach: the ICJ is for settling disputes between sovereign states; it does not use a typical fact-finding system; its rules and practices reflect a mix of civil and common law traditions; and traditional exclusionary rules were not conceived with inter-state dispute resolution in mind. Yet for any judgment to have legitimacy, the evidential foundations must be strong and there should be a coherent and principled mechanism to sieve out problematic evidence at an early stage. Having this mechanism can also ensure that resources are not wasted and rights protected. Through an examination of the court’s rules and jurisprudence and the rules and practices of other international tribunals, this article makes the case for the codification of a provision that gives the ICJ an exclusionary discretion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document