scholarly journals The role of international courts’ decisions in the system of sources of international financial law

2021 ◽  
pp. 254-272
Author(s):  
O. Vaitsekhovska ◽  
O. Chepel

The paper deals with the analysis of the legal nature of international courts’ decisions and their impact on the international financial legal order. The author claims that decisions of international courts, creating no new international legal financial norms, act as an additional source of international financial law, having no autonomy, and in combination with other sources of international law, performs the following functions: 1) regulatory-prescriptive (via opinio juris of existing traditions in interstate practice in the financial sphere transforming them into international customary law); 2) regulatory-affirming (confirming the legal nature of the international agreement between the subjects of international financial legal relations which caused a disputable situation). The judicial practice on financial issues and specificity of functioning of such judicial institutions as the Permanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of Justice, the CIS Economic Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, etc. are examined. The features of the provisions of international agreements on financial issues regarding the procedure for resolving disputes between the parties of the agreement about its implementation are analyzed. The paper explores particularities of the origin and development of the idea of the creation of an international financial court. Amid modern processes of the rapid growth of the amount of cross-border financial flows in the context of globalization, which is the consequence of the implementation of numerous international financial agreements, the idea of creation of an international financial court, which was first suggested in 1935, due to the complexity of legal nature of interstate financial disputes, is an objective necessity. The following features intrinsic to decisions of international courts (including decisions on financial issues) have been identified: 1) locality (binding only on the parties involved in the case, and only in the current case); 2) situatedness and unprompted appearance; 3) impartiality (due to the judges’ lack of political interest); 4) authority (international courts include generally recognized experts in international law).

Author(s):  
Salvatore Caserta ◽  
Pola Cebulak

Abstract International courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate socially divisive disputes. They are therefore exposed to a heightened risk of backlash that questions their authority and impedes the implementation of their judgments. This article puts forward an analytical framework for mapping the resilience techniques used by international courts to counter this growing resistance. Case studies involve the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has been cautious in its stance regarding democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and the Caribbean Court of Justice, which has engaged in legal diplomacy while adjudicating both on the land rights of indigenous groups and on Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer and Intersex (LGBTQI) rights. It is argued that, in order to effectively avoid and mitigate backlash, international courts should deploy resilience techniques that go beyond merely exercising their judicial function. The successful deployment of resilience techniques can allow international courts to become significant actors in global governance during a time of crisis for the international liberal order.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Gyulavári ◽  
Gábor Kártyás

International courts have become a crucial element of protecting employee rights in recent decades. The ‘unorthodox’ 1 measures of the Hungarian Orbán government have provided a unique opportunity to test the effectiveness of international courts, since these national measures have been defying various legal principles in general, but in particular in the field of employment, since acquiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2010. The article analyses the most important of these employment laws, their objectives, problematic legal nature and the responses of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (hereinafter CC), the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), and the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR). 2 Are these national and international courts able to ensure effective protection against such policies when they adversely affect workers’ fundamental rights, and if so, on what legal basis? Conclusions regarding unorthodox employment laws, such as termination without cause, the compulsory retirement of judges, a retroactive 98% tax on severance pay, and/or the nationalisation of private pension funds, might be useful to other countries with similar legislative tendencies. The article focuses on the question of whether international courts are able to block and efficiently remedy such national measures and tendencies in employment law.


Author(s):  
Julio Baquero Cruz

This book discusses the impact of the difficult situation the European Union is currently going through on some structural elements of its legal order, looking for symptoms of decay, exploring examples of resistance, and assessing its overall state of health. The original choices made by the drafters of the Treaties and by the Court of Justice are put in their proper historical perspective, understanding Union law as a tool of civilization, and explaining its current problems, at least in part, as a consequence of the waning of the initial impetus behind integration. The concrete themes to be explored are the following: primacy, the national resistance to it and constitutional pluralism; the preliminary rulings procedure; Union citizenship, equality, and human dignity; the scope of the Charter and the standard of protection of fundamental rights; and the rigidity and fragmentation of the Union system in connection with the recent occasional use of international law as an alternative to Union law. The book looks at the development of the law throughout the decades, inevitably losing much detail, but hopefully also uncovering structural connections and continuities.


Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 330
Author(s):  
Luis Ignacio Gordillo Pérez

Resumen: Este trabajo realiza un análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia respecto del Derecho internacional. Para ello, analiza los acuerdos internacionales y otras fuentes afines, la problemática derivada de los acuerdos firmados por los Estados miembros con terceros Estados, la relación entre el Derecho de la UE y el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y, finalmente, el valor que el Tribunal confiere al Derecho internacional general y a la Carta de Naciones Unidas. La conclusión fundamental será que el principio básico que guía la jurisprudencia del TJ es la reivindicación y protección de su propia autonomía.Palabras clave: monismo, dualismo, pluralismo, autonomía, acuerdos mixtos, Dictamen 2/13, Dictamen 2/15.Abstract: This paper critically analyzes the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on International law. To that end, it analyzes international agreements and other related sources, the problems arising from agreements signed by Member States with third States, the relationship between EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and finally the value that the Court confers on general international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The fundamental conclusion will be that the basic principle guiding the jurisprudence of the CJEU is the claim and protection of its own autonomy.Keywords: monism, dualism, pluralism, autonomy, mixed agreements, Opinion 2/13, Opinion 2/15.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-751
Author(s):  
Paz Andrés Sáenz De Santa María

Abstract This article examines the European Union’s (EU) treaty practice from the perspective of the international law of treaties, focusing on its most significant examples. The starting point is the EU’s attitude towards the codification of treaty law involving states and international organizations. The article discusses certain terminological specificities and a few remarkable aspects, such as the frequent use of provisional application mechanisms as opposed to much less use of reservations, the contributions regarding treaty interpretation, the wide variety of clauses and the difficulties in determining the legal nature of certain texts. The study underlines that treaty law is a useful instrument for the Union and is further enriched with creative contributions; the outcome is a fruitful relationship.


Author(s):  
Mathias Forteau

This chapter examines one of the most contentious issues in the jus ad bellum: whether and when international law permits a state to use force unilaterally to rescue its nationals abroad when their lives or security are threatened. It first considers the definition of the phrase ‘rescuing nationals abroad’ and the legal scope and legal nature of the justification based on the necessity of carrying out such an act. It analyses the opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the matter before assessing the current position of international law on the permissibility of rescuing nationals abroad. It also discusses whether the use of force to rescue nationals abroad can be invoked for humanitarian assistance purposes involving non-nationals. The chapter shows that the notion of ‘rescuing nationals abroad’ is ambiguous from a legal perspective and that the legality of using force to rescue nationals abroad has remained unclear since 1945.


Author(s):  
Joerg Kammerhofer

This chapter examines the resilience of the treaty, and perhaps also customary, law on self-defence since 2001. It first considers ‘resilience’ in the context of the jus ad bellum and how law can be resilient vis-à-vis changing circumstance, opinions, interpretation, and state practice. It then looks at the indicators for and against resilience by analysing post-2001 developments, paying particular attention to three areas: jurisprudence, scholarly literature in international law, and state and institutional practice. The chapter also explains what ‘resilience’ can and cannot be, and how the law and its perceptions change—or remain the same. Two avenues on the question of what is resilient are evaluated: either the norm or its interpretation (perception) change. Finally, the chapter considers a number of cases in which the International Court of Justice has made pronouncements on and partial clarifications of important aspects of the law on self-defence since 2001.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document