Suchergebnisse

The purpose of our research is to acknowledge that the link between the Security Council and international criminal jurisdictions is to be understood essentially under two entirely new perspectives in international law: the direct or indirect involvement of the Security Council in the creation of jurisdictional bodies and its intrusion in the operating procedures of the latter. Legally, the Security Council fully exercises this double role in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, which devolves to it the main responsibility in the matter of maintaining peace and international security. Indeed, the Security Council, whether it is in the creation of ICCs, in its variable role in the setting up of mixed courts, in its power of submission and suspension of cases before the ICP which is imparted to it by the Statute of Rome, in its ultimate part in ensuring the obligation mutual cooperation amongst states, or in its discretionary power in the characterization of the crime of aggression, has become, thanks to the abiding foundation of Chapter VII, the genuine catalyst of international criminal justice. However, the downside to this importance of the Security Council is neither to be overlooked nor without interest. The sudden, and at first highly debated emergence of the Security Council in the area of international criminal justice has rekindled an old debate in international law: that of the political and the juridical order. The terms of this conflict show quite clearly through the approach of our analysis. We cannot evade this debate, considering how intricately the issues and concerns of international criminal justice and those of relating to peacekeeping are consubstantially interwoven. We may notice, albeit at some distance and some restraint, that the very terms of this link nurture all sorts of conjectures over the independence and impartiality of the international criminal courts. ; L'objet de notre réflexion est de voir que l'articulation entre le Conseil de sécurité et les juridictions pénales internationales s'appréhende essentiellement sous deux angles complètement nouveaux en droit international : la participation directe ou indirecte à la création d'organes juridictionnels et l'intrusion dans les procédures de fonctionnement de ceux-ci. Juridiquement, le Conseil de sécurité exerce pleinement ce double rôle sous le prisme de l'article 24 de la Charte des Nations Unies qui lui attribue la responsabilité principale en matière de maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales. En effet, qu'il s'agisse de la création des T.P.I., de son rôle peu ou prou variable dans l'établissement des juridictions mixtes, du pouvoir de saisine et de suspension de la C.P.I. que lui confère le Statut de Rome, de l'obligation de coopération des Etats dont il est l'ultime gardien ou de son pouvoir discrétionnaire dans la qualification du crime d'agression, le Conseil de sécurité est devenu, grâce à l'inépuisable fondement du Chapitre VII, le véritable catalyseur de la justice pénale internationale. Cependant, le revers de la médaille de cette importance du Conseil n'est pas anodin ou sans intérêt. Son irruption, très contestée au départ, dans le domaine de la justice pénale internationale donne lieu à une confrontation ancienne en droit international : celle de la politique et du juridique. Les termes de ce conflit transparaissent assez clairement de l'esprit de notre analyse. On ne peut d'ailleurs y échapper tant les préoccupations liées à la justice pénale internationale et celles relatives au maintien de la paix sont consubstantiellement imbriquées. Nous observons, non sans une certaine distance et une forme de retenue, que les termes mêmes de l'articulation alimentent toutes formes de conjectures sur l'indépendance et l'impartialité des juridictions pénales internationales.

Arbitration in its legislative context -- Arab laws and practice of arbitration -- Freedom of the parties -- Autonomy of the international arbitrator -- Safety within arbitration -- Safety of international arbitration -- Conclusion

Each legal system has individuals who are addressed with its rules and that the legal rules of the legal system are designed to regulate the relationship between these individuals, and one individual can have legal personality in more than one legal system.

The legal personality of these individuals is highlighted by the relationship between them and the legal system in which arranges for them rights and impose obligations on them.

The rights and duties of a legal person are not the same; they vary from person to person within the same legal system, and vary from one legal system to another.

With regard to the international legal order, it has its own international legal persons, foremost among them States.

As for the individual, his legal status under general international law is still not clearly defined and is a subject of controversy among the jurists and interpreters of international law. We will present the position of international jurisprudence on the status of the individual in the first demand, the rules of international law that address individuals directly in a second demand, and the right to submit complaints and claims at the international level in a third demand.