scholarly journals Judicial avenues for upholding the international rule of law: the downing of MH17 case

Eudaimonia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 5-36
Author(s):  
Mina Radončić
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Rule

The article seeks to identify the means in which key principles of the international rule of law are applied in practice. It postulates that the plurality of available legal remedies fosters the international rule of law development. The article evaluates the ongoing and potential legal proceedings against States in relation to the 2014 downing of flight MH17 and their interplay. With the exception of the individual and the Dutch inter-State application, three international bodies are currently tackling the dispute from a perspective wider than the MH17 incident – namely, the situation in Eastern Ukraine (and Crimea). The objective of this article is to showcase the different efforts to bring justice by ramifying the MH17 case within them. The article chiefly focuses on the ongoing proceedings seeking State responsibility – the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

C.G. Weeramantry at the International Court of Justice

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antony Anghie
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Third World ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Rule

This article discusses the judicial vision articulated by Judge Christopher Weeramantry in his time as a member of the International Court of Justice. It seeks to trace the development of his vision by examining his earlier writings, and the factors which shaped his approach to international law. It discusses some of the key elements of his vision: his sensitivity to Third World concerns, his attempts to create a universal international law which represents all the world's cultures, and his views of the judicial function and the international rule of law.

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.

scholarly journals The Core Requirements of the International Rule of Law in the Practice of States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noora Arajärvi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Core ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Core Requirements ◽  
International Rule

AbstractIs it possible to identify some foundational elements of international law that can be generally accepted by all States? Can such core elements reach a normative threshold to be considered requirements rather than “values” or “virtues” ? And finally, what are these core requirements of the international rule of law? This contribution propositions that, indeed, such core elements exist, identifies them—non-arbitrariness, consistency and predictability—from the practice of States at the international level and conceptualises them as the minimum requirements of the international rule of law. It presents an empirical study of statements of governments at the United Nations (UN) during a five-year period (2012–2017), accompanying the relevant findings with references to decisions and opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

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 States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

scholarly journals Responsibility of Serbia for genocide: Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Reconciliation Process

On February 26th 2007, International Court of Justice claimed Serbia responsible for failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators underlining its' responsibility to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Although it was confirmed genocide has been committed in Srebrenica 1995, Serbia is not obliged to pay financial reparations. Judgment makes distinction between individual and three-fold state responsibility for genocide, based on Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other sources of international law. There are evident disagreements among judges on jurisdiction, interpretation rules, even on meritum of the case. Many questions still remain open especially what precedent effects will have on establishment of state's dolus specialis and how it will influence the reconciliation process in the region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document