The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah Shelton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Nongovernmental Organizations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Do So

Nongovernmental organizations are playing an increasingly important role in international litigation. This study will analyze the participation of nongovernmental organizations, primarily as amici curiae, in the proceedings of four permanent international courts: the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. After discussing the impact of amici in national and regional courts, it recommends that the International Court of Justice expand its acceptance of submissions from nongovernmental organizations in appropriate cases. The Court has a jurisdictional basis to do so and amici have usefully contributed to cases before other courts.

Crimea in International Courts and Tribunals: Matters of Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 378-403
Author(s):  
Gaiane Nuridzhanian
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Inter State

The events taking place in Crimea since early 2014 have given rise to a number of international disputes currently pending before international courts and tribunals. Ukraine instituted inter-State proceedings against Russia before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and an unclos Annex vii Tribunal. Seven investor-State cases have been commenced against Russia. The Prosecutor of the icc is conducting preliminary examination into the crimes allegedly committed in Crimea in 2014 and afterwards. Foreign courts have also had to deal with cases related to the annexation of Crimea. This article provides an overview of cases pending before international courts and tribunals in relation to events in Crimea. The focus is on the questions related to jurisdiction of the international courts and tribunals seized in Crimea-related cases. The study explores the limits of the jurisdiction of international courts to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation and application of a treaty arising in connection with a larger dispute regarding the use of force, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The article also discusses novel and debated jurisdiction-related matters that arise in cases brought in relation to events in Crimea. A brief description of cases heard in foreign courts is provided as well.

scholarly journals Specyfika odpowiedzialności za naruszenia Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka związane z działalnością nieuznawanych reżimów – analiza orzecznictwa

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-66
Author(s):  
Szymon Zaręba
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Responsibility

The aim of the article is to compare the way in which the issue of responsibility for violations related to the acts of unrecognized authorities claiming to be States is treated by the European Court of Human Rights and other international courts, particularly the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The article considers in detail the relations between jurisdiction and responsibility, responsibility of parent States (including the concept of “positive obligations”) and responsibility of States which provide assistance to unrecognized regimes (with emphasis put on the concept of “effective control”). The results of the study indicate that the jurisprudence of the European Court differs in several important aspects from decisions of other international courts. These differences, while undoubtedly enhancing the protection of human rights in Europe, contribute to the process of fragmentation of the law of international responsibility.

Unilateral Diplomatic Assurances as an Alternative to Provisional Measures

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Thomas Worster
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
Usual Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court

During litigation on the international plane, states sometimes will issue assurances either to the other litigant or to the international court directly. This article explores how those assurances interact with applications for provisional measures. The practice of courts varies with regard to how to react to these assurances, though the usual approach is that assurances issued to another state or individual are generally non-binding, while assurances issued to the court directly are binding. At the same time, litigants can apply to the court for provisional measures to prevent actions that would disturb the dispute. When the assurances are considered non-binding, they are treated as questions of fact and can be assessed for credibility and reliability, as a part of the provisional measures analysis. But when the assurances are considered binding, they are treated as questions of law, and the undertaken legal obligation disposes of the request for a provisional measures order. This article will examine the practices of the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on this issue, identifying where their practices diverge and converge, and recommending that the dual nature of assurances, as both factual and legal, be considered in assessing their value.

The End of the Road for the Prince? Sixty Years after the Czechoslovak Confiscation of Liechtenstein Property

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-458
Author(s):  
BART DELMARTINO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Road ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Obligations

In 1945 Czechoslovakia confiscated Liechtenstein property as reparation for the damage done by Nazi Germany. Private claims failed before the courts of Czechoslovakia, and international law did not provide Liechtenstein with a means of action against Czechoslovakia. When the property was on loan in Germany, a private case for recovery was declared inadmissible by the German courts, in line with Germany's international obligations. The European Court of Human Rights accepted these decisions. Liechtenstein, on the other hand, considered them to violate its sovereignty. In 2005, the International Court of Justice decided that it lacked temporal jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

The Protection of Diplomatic Correspondence in the Digital Age

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricio Grané Labat ◽  
Naomi Burke
Keyword(s):  
New Technology ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Actors ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Impact

This chapter considers the impact of new technology on compliance with obligations under the VCDR. It focuses on the provisions of the VCDR that establish the inviolability of diplomatic archives and correspondence and considers the challenges posed by technology that was not available at the time of the drafting of that treaty but which is now commonplace. It evaluates the ever-present risk of unauthorized digital access to diplomatic correspondence and archives, including by non-State actors (eg WikiLeaks), and examines whether the framework of the VCDR is still adequate to deal with those challenges. The chapter also addresses the submission of protected information obtained in violation of the VCDR as evidence in proceedings before international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The chapter analyses the admissibility of that evidence and offers answers on how international courts should deal with that information.

Part II Historical and Legal Sources, Ch.8 General Principles and Constitutions as Sources of Human Rights Law

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
O’Boyle Michael ◽  
Lafferty Michelle
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Human Rights Standards

This article examines influence of general principles of law and constitutions in the formulation of human rights standards and in their interpretation and application by international courts, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It describes and compares the application and interpretation of human rights by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This article also highlights the fact that majority of human rights instruments and provisions subsequently adopted at the national and international levels have built upon the guarantees elaborated by the UDHR.

scholarly journals Proof in international court proceedings: articulation of the problem

2020 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Galina Georgievna Shinkaretskaya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Information Materials

One of the important elements of international court proceedings is the acquisition of information materials upon which the court makes its decisions. Such information, same as in the context of domestic courts, is called judicial evidence. The constituent documents of international courts contain very meager regulation of acquisition and evaluation of the evidence. The parties to international legal proceeding are the sovereign states, which makes it primarily adversarial. This implies that the parties represent the facts that confirm their positions. However, international courts rely on the principle of jura novit curia (“the court knows the law”), i.e. the parties to legal dispute do not need to plead or prove the law that applies to their case. This problem gains special importance due to the growing number and variety of international courts, as well as the emergence of a number of quasi-judicial institutions; in this sphere, all of them rely on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Certain new trends are traced in the practice of courts and even categories of cases that pertain to human rights.

The United States and Human Rights Marginalization at the International Court of Justice, 1945–1950

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Olivier Barsalou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Abstract Using the 1950 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Paris Peace Treaties advisory opinions as a vantage point, this articles explores the changing attitude of the American government towards the emerging United Nations human rights regime and the latter became entangled in Cold War politics. The first part situates the contribution of this article within the postwar human rights historiography. The second part explores how US legal advisors constructed arguments destined to insulate the American domestic legal system from the alleged domestic disruptive effects of the new human rights. The final section delves into the cases of Cardinal Mindszenty of Budapest and Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb, and how they reverberated at the ICJ. It argues that US legal advisors sought to turn the human rights violations that triggered the judicial proceedings into violations of treaty provisions. In the process, the ICJ validated this transformation and, thus contributed, to marginalizing the emerging United Nations human rights regime.

State Immunity Against Claims Arising from War Crimes: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice inJurisdictional Immunities of the State

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 773-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Christoph Bornkamm
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court

The recent judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in theCase Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State(Germany v. Italy; Greece Intervening) marks the climax of a series of legal proceedings before Greek, Italian, and German courts, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stretching over a period of more than fifteen years. The international community had eagerly awaited the ICJ's findings on the issue at the heart of the dispute, namely the scope of state immunity before foreign courts in cases concerning claims arising from serious violations of international humanitarian law. While most expected the Court to rule in favor of Germany and to uphold state immunity in principle, it was unclear whether the Court would acknowledge the increasing erosion of immunity with respect to serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. To the disappointment of many, the Court took a conservative approach and rejected the idea of an emerging exception from state immunity.

Inside Out or Outside In? Examining Human Rights in Situations of Armed Conflict

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Inside Out

AbstractWhat duties do states have to individuals who suffer as a result of armed conflict? While the International Court of Justice has stated that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, it has not provided any clarity on how this is to be interpreted. This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the duty of a state to guarantee human rights to persons in whose territory the state is engaged in armed conflict.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document