Legal interpretative acts of the European court of human rights

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to define and implement the characteristics of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which have the legal properties of classical interpretative legal acts. Methodology. The theoretical tools of the study were: universal epistemological principles of cognition, complex, dialectical, axiological approaches, general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition. In particular, the following methods of scientific research were used during the research: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, structural, systemic, technical-dogmatic. Results. As a result of the study it was established that the legal acts of the European Court of Human Rights, which have the legal nature of interpretative-legal are: 1) advisory opinions of the Strasbourg Court, adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in connection with requests from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe or the higher courts of the States Parties to the Convention; 2) judgments of the Strasbourg Court, containing explanations of legal positions and / or individual prescriptions previously formulated by the Court of Europe, contained in the decisions adopted by the Strasbourg Court on the merits. Scientific novelty. For the first time, the paper substantiates the legal nature of those legal acts of the Court of the Council of Europe that have exclusively interpretive properties. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law enforcement activities of entities authorized to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the national legal order of Ukraine.

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

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.

Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice

The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. Those developments comprise jurisdiction ratione materiae under compromissory clauses; procedural preconditions in compromissory clauses; expert opinions; admissibility challenges based on abuse of process and the “clean hands” doctrine; conditions for the indication of provisional measures; and the Court’s discretion to give advisory opinions in cases where a request overlaps with a dispute between States.

Part IV Normative Development, Ch.27 Judicial Development

This chapter examines the role of international judicial bodies' primary role with respect to the environment, which is to resolve disputes by deciding contentious cases and to guide the application of international law by issuing advisory opinions. International court and tribunals (ICTs) can influence the development of international environmental law by providing an authoritative articulation of a legal rule or principle. The chapter then looks at the development of legal norms for governing Earth's environment through ICT judgments. It describes the range of courts available, the remedies that they can offer, the capacity of ICTs to handle environmental problems, and problems that challenge their effectiveness in the overarching objective of providing a high degree of environmental quality. It does this whilst recognizing that courts and law are but one part of the system of governance, technology, politics, and economics that shapes human interactions with the environment.

10. Peaceful settlement of disputes

This chapter examines the means and methods relating to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UN Charter obliges States to resolve their disputes peacefully and suggests certain means for such settlement: on the one hand, diplomatic means, like negotiation, mediation, conciliation, or the ‘good offices’ of the UN Secretary General and, on the other, legal methods, such as arbitration and recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which are binding. The ICJ exercises its jurisdiction over contentious cases only upon the consent of the parties to the dispute, which may be expressed through various forms (eg compromis or optional clause declaration). The ICJ may also render advisory opinions to questions of international law posed by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, or other competent organs and organizations. The chapter also explains dispute settlement in the context of international investor–State arbitration and in the World Trade Organization.

Regulatory Coherence

Part II comprises two chapters, Chapter Three and Chapter Four. These chapters together investigate the decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII tribunals, as well as other Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) cases. The courts and tribunals studied in these chapters make use of a broad range of interpretive methodologies in identifying emerging global regulatory standards, including reliance on the inbuilt logic of the regulatory schemes they are applying. The standards articulated make relatively minimal demands on domestic legal systems compared with more demanding standards that could have been developed. In this respect the standards appear to enhance traditional procedural justifications for international law’s claim to legitimate authority. Chapter Three focuses on tests for ‘regulatory coherence’.

Some Developments and Issues after the Adoption of UNCLOS

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a framework treaty and a number of its provisions lend themselves to divergent interpretations. There are developments that had not been foreseen at the time of its adoption. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has made a substantive contribution to the development of the law of the sea by its jurisprudence, including advisory opinions. The issue of the regime of islands, which has in particular arisen in the South China Sea, is still highly controversial and no consistent State practice exists. A largely unresolved and complex question is that of the limits of the international seabed Area as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) is overburdened by a tremendous and unforeseen heavy workload. The issue of Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs) in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), of which there was no knowledge at the time of the elaboration of UNCLOS, remains to be resolved by a further implementation agreement to UNCLOS currently under negotiation.

The Role of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the Formation of Advisory Competence of International Judicial Bodies

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the role of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in the formation of the advisory competence of modern international judicial bodies. Тhe authors emphasize the historical connection named after of the corresponding articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Statute of the Court (PCIJ) and the Rules of Court (PCIJ). We present a list of reasons for rejection of the request for an advisory opinion; the authors analyze to what extent are states bound by the advisory opinions. A special attention is paid to the review of the practice of implementation by the PCIJ of its advisory function and assessment of the impact of advisory opinions on the development of norms of international law.