Is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in an Existential Crisis?

Employing a sociological perspective on the law, this study explores instances of resistance against the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Union’s continental human rights judicial body. This approach allows us to examine different forms of resistance that might not necessarily be of a legal character, but which may still have profound implications for the Court’s authority, legitimacy, and operation. Accordingly, the article identifies two forms of resistance against the African Court: ‘pushback’ and ‘backlash’. The former refers to an ordinary form of critique directed against the overall development of an international court, while the latter is understood as an extraordinary form of critique that puts the fundamental authority of a court at stake. While pushback was mainly seen in the early stages of the Court’s establishment, backlash started to emerge following its ground-breaking judgments that caused heated debates on controversial topics. This article concludes that based on the identified and analysed forms of resistance, it is doubtful that the African Court can maintain and fulfil the purpose for which it was established: the protection and promotion of human rights in Africa.

Hunting the standard of compensation – intellectual property, Chorzów Factory and investments: a response

While the debate on intellectual property and international investment law is relatively young, the role of historical cases will be important in offering some interpretative analysis. Due to the niche nature of both areas of law, where, often times, the legal luminaries found in both areas often speak past each other, in an earlier issue of this journal I offered an interpretative history of Chorzów Factory as an example of early case law by an international court illustrating the origins of the ISDS involving intellectual property. As with any interpretation, there are bound to be opposing views or explicit endorsement, but whatever the merits, that interpretative history has initiated a debate in the pages of this journal. That debate is in part, a response to my original analysis, to which I offer a response. This response is to endorse the fact that additional information has come forward that will enrich the debate on Chorzów Factory and its connection to intellectual property. Moreover, this response argues that the reply misses the point regarding the formal connection of international law to intellectual property in ISDS, a connection that I attempted to demonstrate through the example of the Chorzów Factory case – where a legal fight in the 1920s over nitrate, other chemical production and ownership still continue to be of relevance to international law.

The international legal basis for implementation of judgments of the european court of human rights into the domestic legal system

An analysis of the international legal bases of implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to the national legislations of the member states of the Council of Europe is carried out. Such implementation takes various forms, and in general there is no single implementation mechanism. At the same time, the importance of implementing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights lies in the state's fulfillment of its obligations both to the world community of states and to its own citizens. Forms and methods that ensure the progressive development of national law, taking into account the practice of international courts, are considered. The synthetic research method determines the impact of ECtHR decisions on the structure of national law, which stimulates the transformation of its entire branches. It is demonstrated, how the ECtHR promotes the formation of progressive legal institutions in legal systems, exerting organizational and civilizational influence on the legal systems of states. It is emphasized, that the principle of legal certainty, by which the international court assesses vague and insufficiently clear provisions of national law, is fundamental for the implementation of the case law of the ECtHR into national laws. With this influence, the ECtHR determines the nature of lawmaking and law enforcement in a country. As a result, it is concluded, that the most effective mechanism for implementing the principle of legal certainty in a state is the adoption of general measures, contained in the pilot decisions of the ECtHR. The second important mechanism is the application of the rules of law by national courts, taking into account the case law of the ECtHR, which ensures the interpretation of human rights rules in a way that is most acceptable to the national legal system

Territory of state as indivisible whole and the norms of Constitution

In the study of the substantive legal grounds for the resolution of territorial disputes, the judicial form is characterized by the priority of the grounds of legal title (agreemental title, uti possidetis) based on international treaties, or legal acts of the state possessing sovereignty over the grounds of actual title (effective occupation and governning of the territory, tacit recognition, prescriptional acquisition). Like the initial occupation, the acquisition of territory on the basis of prescription has a long and effective occupation of territory as a prerequisite. The possession of alien or contested territory without a treaty may be legal and enforceable only when there is an inviolable, uninterrupted and undisputed exercise of possession. Where the disputable territory is in fact administrated by a state other than that which holds title, the International Court of Justice gives preference to the title holder.

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND UN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN RESOLVING AEGEAN DISPUTE

The articles states that the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Aegean has been the main contentious issue between Greece and Turkey for the past 50 years. It has been unsuccessfully brought before the International Court of Justice, has been repeatedly discussed in the Security Council and has given rise to at least one delimitation agreement. The key problem is Greece would like to resolve the Aegean Sea dispute by the International Court of Justice but if Turkey accepts Greek offer, which is to refer the Aegean Sea dispute before the International Court of Justice, it may not only impair the Turkish sovereignty over her territorial sea and continental shelf but also endanger the Turkish mainland security because of the Greek re-militarized operations. The purpose of this article is to study the practice of resolving maritime disputes by the international judicial bodies. Turkey is one of the 16 countries which have not signed or ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. International law offers various means which Greece and Turkey can employ in order to deal with the Aegean Sea dispute. The parties can establish an international boundary via delimitation, agree on a moratorium of petroleum operations or enter into a Joint Development Agreement. However, reality often imposes obstacles which law cannot surmount. All options require good faith and a mutual spirit of compromise between the concerned parties. Without an agreement, unilateral acts or claims have no legal value. The International Court of Justice has settled a number of maritime disputes in the course of its work. Despite its decisions on some cases were made not in favor of the disputing parties the role of the UN International Court of Justice in resolving interstate disputes and maintaining international law and order is quite significant. The procedure in the UN International Court of Justice is quite effective and allows it to perform the tasks set by the world community based on international legal instruments governing interstate relations in the field of international maritime law.

The Rule of Law and Good Governance at the United Nations during the COVID-19 Pandemic

This contribution discusses how the United Nations (UN) adapted to the working conditions under the COVID-19 pandemic while respecting the rule of law and good governance at different levels. The article first examines what the rule of law means in the UN context. On this basis, the article then considers the different COVID-19-related emergency measures taken by the UN with a focus on four of the UN principal organs: the Secretariat, the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the International Court of Justice. Overall, the UN has succeeded in maintaining public trust, including the trust of its member states, in responding to and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic because it continued to respect standards of good governance and the rule of law during the pandemic. Moreover, the UN has learned important lessons that will allow it to adapt even better to future emergencies.

Ordering Institutions: The Judicial Function of the Permanent Court of International Justice in Relation to Interwar Organizations

The Permanent Court played a vital role in the emergence of the law of international organizations. Existing accounts of this development focus on the Court’s conception of organizations. This paper argues that this interpretation underappreciates the controversy regarding the performance of the Permanent Court’s judicial function and its place within the inter-war institutional order. Crucially, it is claimed that initially the Permanent Court adopted the perspective of an authoritative interpreter, limiting the scope for recognising the autonomy of organizations. However, the Court began to adopt a more restrained conception of its judicial function and recognised that international organizations possessed a form of compétence de la compétence. This recognition paved the way for a ‘law of international organizations’ to emerge, but, crucially, was not based on any revised understanding of what it meant to ‘be’ an international organization, but rather, on what it meant to ‘be’ an international court.

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

The Legality of a Jewish State

In The Legality of a Jewish State, the author traces the diplomatic history that led to the partition of Palestine in 1948 and the creation of Israel as a state. He argues that the fate of Palestine was not determined on the basis of principle, but by the failure of legality. In focusing on the lawyer-diplomats who pressed for and against a Jewish state at the United Nations, he offers an explanation of the effort in 1947-48 by Arab states at the UN to gain a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice about partition and the declaration of a Jewish state. Their arguments at that time may surprise a twenty-first-century reader, touching on issues that are still at the heart of the contemporary conflict in the Middle East.