Search results

Opinions differ widely as to the part which an international court of justice should play in world organization. Individuals and governments for whomIndividuals and governments for whom the pursuit of certain national or international aims which are not susceptible of immediate achievement transcends the need for law and order will be inclined to conceive the role of such a court as more restricted, more subordinate, than those who believe that, in the long run, the interests of the mightiest and most dynamic nations and the most ambitious ideals of social betterment on a world-wide scale will best be served by first securing such measure of orderly world government as is today within our reach.

In International Intervention and the Problem of Legitimacy Andrew C. Gilbert argues for an ethnographic analysis of international intervention as a series of encounters, focusing on the relations of difference and inequality, and the question of legitimacy that permeate such encounters. He discusses the transformations that happen in everyday engagements between intervention agents and their target populations, and also identifies key instabilities that emerge out of such engagements. Gilbert highlights the struggles, entanglements and inter-dependencies between and among foreign agents, and the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina that channel and shape intervention and how it unfolds. Drawing upon nearly two years of fieldwork studying in postwar Bosnia and Herzegovina, Gilbert's probing analysis identifies previously overlooked sites, processes, and effects of international intervention, and suggests new comparative opportunities for the study of transnational action that seeks to save and secure human lives and improve the human condition. Above all, International Intervention and the Problem of Legitimacy foregrounds and analyzes the open-ended, innovative, and unpredictable nature of international intervention that is usually omitted from the ordered representations of the technocratic vision and the confident assertions of many critiques.

Intro -- Editors Note and Acknowledgements -- Chronological List of Cases of Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice -- 1958: Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua) -- Judges Ad Hoc Ago, Urrutia Holguin -- 1984: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) -- Judge Ad Hoc Colliard -- Provisional Measures -- Questions of Jurisdiction and/or Admissibility -- Declaration of Intervention -- Merits -- Reparation -- 1986: Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) -- 1986: Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) -- 1986: Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening) -- Judges Ad Hoc Valticos, Torres Bernrdez -- 1999: Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) -- Judges Ad Hoc Torres Bernndez, Gaja -- 2001: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) -- Judges Ad Hoc Mensah, Cot -- 2005: Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) -- Judge Ad Hoc Guillaume -- 2010: Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) -- Judges Ad Hoc Guillaume, Dugard -- 2011: Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) -- Judges Ad Hoc Guillaume, Dugard -- PENDING CASES BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. -- 2013: Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the ... -- Judges Ad Hoc Skotnikov, Brower -- 2013: Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) -- Judges Ad Hoc Daudet, Caron

There is a large body of literature arguing that positive perceived legitimacy is a critical factor in the success of international criminal courts, and that courts can be engineered in such a way that they will be positively perceived by adjusting factors such as their institutional structure and outreach efforts. But in many situations the perceived legitimacy of international criminal courts has almost nothing to do with these factors. This Article takes the latest research in social psychology and applies it to survey data about perceptions of international criminal courts in order to understand how affected populations form attitudes about courts. The resulting conclusions are at odds with most other theorists' understanding of perceived legitimacy. Where there is a high degree of identification between large parts of the affected population and the "sides" in the conflict that led to the establishment of a court, the way in which the court is perceived will be determined largely by whom the court prosecutes. Indictments that conflict with the dominant internal narratives among the various groups will lead directly to lower perceptions of the court's legitimacy.

There is a large body of literature arguing that positive perceived legitimacy is a critical factor in the success of international criminal courts, and that courts can be engineered in such a way that they will be positively perceived by adjusting factors such as their institutional structure and outreach efforts. But in many situations the perceived legitimacy of international criminal courts has almost nothing to do with these factors. This Article takes the latest research in social psychology and applies it to survey data about perceptions of international criminal courts in order to understand how affected populations form attitudes about courts. The resulting conclusions are at odds with most other theorists' understanding of perceived legitimacy. Where there is a high degree of identification between large parts of the affected population and the "sides" in the conflict that led to the establishment of a court, the way in which the court is perceived will be determined largely by whom the court prosecutes. Indictments that conflict with the dominant internal narratives among the various groups will lead directly to lower perceptions of the court's legitimacy.

Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals includes, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence.

In looking at the role and influence of the International Court as it advances on towards and beyond the millenium, one is struck by the variety of perspectives from which one may view that institution. These include those adopted by the Court itself, academic theorists, practitioners both private and governmental, states more generally, international organisations and individuals. Each of these manifests its own methodology, needs and interests. Academics, for example, are keen to examine the intellectual basis and consistency of decisions and to infer, analyse and criticise the existence and nature of rules and institutions. Practitioners seek to equip themselves with the knowledge and tools necessary in order to enable their clients to win before the Court. States cautiously seek to uphold the dispute resolution role of the Court in general terms without losing any cases or putting themselves in a position where this is a possibility. International organisations and individuals look at the Court with keen and hopeful eyes.

PART I: SOURCING INTERNATIONAL LAW -- 1. INTERNATIONAL LAW IN DOMESTIC PRACTICE AREAS -- 2. SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW -- PART II: USING INCORPORATING STATUTES AND INCORPORATED TREATIES -- 3. INCORPORATING STATUTES -- 4. INTERPRETING TREATIES: GENERAL PRINCIPLES -- 5. INTERPRETING TREATIES: SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS -- 6. THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972: A DIRECTLY INCORPORATING STATUTE -- 7. THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: AN INDIRECTLY INCORPORATING STATUTE -- PART III: USING UNINCORPORATED TREATIES -- 8. UNINCORPORATED TREATIES -- 9. UNINCORPORATED TREATIES AND LEGISLATION -- 10. UNINCORPORATED TREATIES AND COMMON LAW -- 11. UNINCORPORATED TREATIES, DISCRETION AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS -- PART IV: JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, ACT OF STATE AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW -- 12. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND ACT OF STATE -- 13. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

Author explores different temporal aspects of jurisdiction of International Court of Justice, European Court for Human Rights and international investment arbitrations. Temporal limitations are two-fold: non-retroactivity of international acts, on one hand, and ratione temporis conditions for each and every international forum, on the other. Despite differences courts tend to conceptualize common elements across the borders of different jurisdictional rules. The rule of non-retroactivity will find its application before different fora, but discrepancies will emerge with respect to concepts of continuous and composite acts which potentially may overcome temporal limitations. This article explores intertemporal rule and non-retroactivity within the meaning of Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Articles 13-15 of ILC Articles on State Responsibility.

Introduction -- Language: Approach and Key Concepts -- Legitimacy and the Domestic Use of Force: Charting a Theoretical Approach -- The Sri Lankan Conflict (2006-2009): Justifications -- The Aceh Conflict (2003-2005): Justifications -- The Sri Lankan Conflict (2006-2009): Audience Responses -- The Aceh conflict (2003-2005): Audience Responses -- The Politics of International Legitimacy -- Conclusion.

The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) took place in Rome at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization from June 15 to July 17, 1998. The participants numbered 160 states, thirty-three intergovernmental organizations and a coalition of 236 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The conference concluded by adopting the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a nonrecorded vote of 120 in favor, 7 against and 21 abstentions. The United States elected to indicate publicly that it had voted against the statute. France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation supported the statute.