Towards the optimal structure of judicial system: peer review of the book “The Dynamics of Judicial Transformations in Russia in the late XIX – early XXI centuries (historical and legal research)” by V. M. Bolshakova

International Court ◽

Jury Trials ◽

History Of ◽

First Time

The subject of this research is the peer review of the monograph by Valentina Mikhailovna Bolshakova on the topic “Dynamics of Judicial Reforms in Russia in the late XIX – early XXI centuries (historical and legal research)” published in 2021. The author underlines the timeliness, relevance, structure and main findings of the monograph, and indicates that this work is an important stage in the development of theoretical-methodological grounds for the improvement of modern judicial system in the Russian Federation. The conducted analysis allows assessing the monograph by V. M. Bolshakova as a fundamental study of the domestic judicial system for over a century-long period. The book introduces a new scientific direction in the history of state and law – tracing the dynamics of transformations of government bodies in a particular country for an extensive historical period. This direction suggest comprehensive analysis of not only the overall dynamics of judicial transformations, but also their causes, problems of implementation, results, as well as examination of judicial legislation, principles of organization of the judicial system, its elements, evolution of separate institutions, and periodization. For the first time in scientific literature, in the context of tracing the dynamics of the Russian judicial transformations, analysis of is conducted on the international court of justice, jury trials, bailiffs, and appeals using the methodology of chrono-discrete mono-geographic comparative jurisprudence.

I

10.2307/2202068 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 80 (4) ◽

pp. 896-901 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Manfred Lachs

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

The United States ◽

Second World War ◽

World War ◽

International Court ◽

History Of ◽

American Society ◽

Second World ◽

Shed Light

To write of Philip Jessup means to survey the history of the teaching of international law in the United States throughout the last half century; to cover all important events concerning the birth of international organizations on the morrow of the Second World War; to visit the halls of the General Assembly and the Security Council; to attend meetings of the American Society of International Law and the Institute of International Law, where he so frequently took the floor to shed light on their debates; to attend sittings of the International Court of Justice in the years 1960-1969. I could hardly undertake this task; there are others much more qualified to do so. What I wish to do is to recall him as a great jurist I knew and a delightful human being; in short, a judge and a great friend whom I learned to admire.

Intervention in the International Court

10.2307/2201357 ◽

1981 ◽

Vol 75 (4) ◽

pp. 903-909 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Philip C. Jessup

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

The Right ◽

First Time

For the first time the International Court of Justice has squarely faced and ruled upon the right of a third state to intervene in a case to which two other states are parties. The litigation was the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application of Malta for Permission to Intervene, Judgment of April 14, 1981. The Court unanimously denied permission to intervene, but three judges appended separate opinions which contain matters of considerable interest.

The Changing Role of the International Court

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700017623 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 20 (2-3) ◽

pp. 182-205 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Shabtai Rosenne

Keyword(s):

Western Europe ◽

League Of Nations ◽

International Justice ◽

Russian Revolution ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

History Of ◽

Changing Role

En s'efforçant, au lendemain de la guerre [1914 – 1918], de poser les bases d'une société de peuples régie par le droit, les fondateurs de cette communauté internationale nouvelle se rendaient pleinement compte qu'il ne saurait y avoir une société organisée sans un pouvoir judiciaire chargé de veiller, en dehors de toute préoccupation de politique et de force, à la stricte observation du droit. C'est dans cette conviction qu'ils ont prévu, dès l'origine, la création de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale.Feinberg in 1931Reviewing the history of the Permanent Court of International Justice and of the International Court of Justice from 1922—the World Court, a convenient but possibly misleading expression which embraces both the Permanent Court from 1922 to 1945 and the present International Court of Justice established as an integral part of the United Nations since—four clearly separated periods can be discerned. They run from 1922 to 1931, 1932 to 1940, 1946 to 1966, and from 1967 onwards.The establishment of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court after a cataclysmic war in Europe and the awe-inspiring Russian Revolution released a wave of euphoria upon the exhausted and war-weary peoples of what is now known as Western Europe, and they placed great hopes in the new League and Court.

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): So Far, So Good?

Arab Law Quarterly ◽

10.1163/15730255-bja10053 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 387-407

Author(s):

Udoka Ndidiamaka Owie

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

Racial Discrimination ◽

United Arab Emirates ◽

International Convention ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

History Of ◽

The United Nations

Abstract International law has a long history of dealing with racial discrimination, including its involvement in the perpetration of racial discrimination. However, in establishing a body of norms to tackle the problems of racial discrimination, several multilateral instruments have been adopted under the auspices of the United Nations addressing this malaise to various extents with the most extensive being the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) of 21 December 1965. While lauded for its singular and dedicated focus on racial discrimination, the Convention is challenged, at least interpretatively, as to the grounds for racial discrimination within its remit. Events occurring between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017 have afforded the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, an opportunity—the third since the coming into effect of the Convention—to interpret this landmark treaty.

Droit des Comtnunautés Européennes. Under the direction of W. J. Ganshof van der Meersch, Procureur général at the Cour de Cassation and Professor at the Faculty of Law of Brussels. Secretary of the Editorial Board: Michael Waelbroeck, Professor at the Faculty of Law of Brussels, Director of Legal Research at the Institute of European Studies of Brussels, in collaboration with Liliane Plouvier and Georges Vandersleben of the Institute of European Studies. [Brussels: Ferdinand Larcier. 1969. cxi (list of contributors; preface; abbreviations; tables of Community legislation, international Acts and Conventions, and national legislation; chronological tables of decisions of the European Court of Justice, of the Permanent Court of International Justice, of the International Court of Justice and of Belgian, French, Italian, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United States and Swiss courts; list of authors cited; index of subject-matter; detailed table of contents) and 1193 (double columns) pp. F.B.3,200.]

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1093/iclqaj/19.1.169 ◽

1970 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 169-170

Author(s):

Norman S. Marsh

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

International Justice ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

European Studies ◽

Legal Research ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

International Court

The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter

10.1093/law/9780199673049.003.0022 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Nico Schrijver

Keyword(s):

International Relations ◽

International Law ◽

Legal Status ◽

Use Of Force ◽

The Other ◽

General Assembly ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

History Of

This chapter focuses on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force in international relations. After discussing pre-Charter attempts to restrict states’ freedom to resort to warfare, it examines the emergence of a normative doctrine on a bellum justum. It considers the history of Article 2(4) and the other articles of the Charter that touch on the use of force and outlines exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force, including the so-called Uniting for Peace procedure. It examines the interpretation of Article 2(4) in the practice of the General Assembly, Security Council, and International Court of Justice), together with its inclusion in a number of multilateral treaties. Finally, it assesses the question whether the use of force after 1945 conforms to the object and purpose of Article 2(4), as well as the legal status of the prohibition to use force in contemporary international law.

Nihil Novum Sub Sole Since the South West Africa Cases? On Ius Standi, the ICJ and Community Interests

International Community Law Review ◽

10.1163/187197308x311290 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 171-197

Author(s):

Ignacio de la Rasilla del Moral

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Court ◽

The Icj ◽

Republic Of The Congo ◽

South West Africa ◽

Jus Cogens ◽

Peremptory Norms ◽

First Time ◽

The Relationship

AbstractThe Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda Judgement of 3rd February 2006 marked the first occasion in which the International Court of Justice expressly pronounced on the jus cogens character of a norm of international law. The Court did also expressly extend, for the first time, the scope of the principle of consensual jurisdiction to cover the relationship between peremptory norms of general international law and the establishment of the Court's jurisdiction. Against this backdrop, this piece revisits some of the main ICJ milestones regarding community interests in light of recent doctrine on the question of ius standi in disputes involving obligations erga omnes and jus cogens norms. It does so in order to examine the main alternatives put forward by the doctrine to circumvent the requirement of state consent for the protection of community interests by jurisdictional means at the international level.

The Thirty—Third Year of the World Court

10.2307/2194096 ◽

1955 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 1-15 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Manley O. Hudson

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Soviet Union ◽

United States Of America ◽

The United States ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

International Court ◽

History Of

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases—A Critique

10.2307/2198663 ◽

1970 ◽

Vol 64 (2) ◽

pp. 229-240 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Wolfgang Friedmann

Keyword(s):

Continental Shelf ◽

International Law ◽

North Sea ◽

New Developments ◽

The North ◽

Continental Shelves ◽

International Court ◽

History Of ◽

The North Sea

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases is surely one of the most interesting as well as debatable decisions in the history of the Court. It deals with certain aspects of one of the most important new developments of international law, the doctrine of the Continental Shelf. It also touches on some basic problems of the sources of international law. Among the matters dealt with, in greater or lesser detail, by the Court are the formation of custom in contemporary conditions, the effect of custom upon treaty and, in turn, the possible translation of principles formulated in a multilateral treaty, into universal custom. Above all, the Court was compelled to formulate certain principles of general equity as applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelves between three of the coastal states of the North Sea. It is this attempt of the Court to formulate the general principles of equity applicable to a fair allocation of the resources of the Continental Shelf between neighbors with which the present article will be mainly concerned.

Investigating the Petition of Marshall Islands against Britain in the International Court of Justice

Journal of Politics and Law ◽

10.5539/jpl.v10n4p15 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. 15

Author(s):

Sahar Asadi Moghadam ◽

Abu Mohammad Asgar Khani

Keyword(s):

Nuclear Weapons ◽

The United States ◽

Marshall Islands ◽

Federal Judiciary ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

The Hague ◽

Nuclear Tests ◽

First Time

The international court of justice was established by Charter of the United Nations and is considered as one of its integral parts in which only experienced and knowledgeable judges and lawyers can be employed. In fact, it consists of several independent judicial institutions. Marshall Islands, a country which was cruelly imposed to nuclear tests, was brave enough to sue powerful countries with nuclear weapons. In 1996, nuclear weapons case was considered by the international court of justice for the first time. All the court’s members came to this conclusion that these countries should stop their nuclear activities and they are not permitted to use any nuclear weapon. As a result they ratified a bill. Then, Marshall Islands’ petition was considered by the international court of justice in The Hague. This country also took legal action against U.S.A. and the federal judiciary of the United States accepted to take it into consideration. This paper aims at analyzing the petition of Marshall Islands against Britain in the international court of justice. According to the content of this petition, countries can’t develop their nuclear weapons which threat men and the world. As a result, the destruction of present nuclear weapons is the only effective way to achieve this goal.