Suchergebnisse

In its recent report, the ILC addressed two main outstanding issues relating to jus cogens norms: the existence of regional jus cogens and the possibility of an illustrative list. The report concludes with draft conclusion 24, which proposes a non-exhaustive list of the "most widely recognised" peremptory norms, such as the prohibition of genocide and aggressive use of force. Peremptory norms are no doubt a "positive part of international law," yet are still conceptualised by some as "a dramatic (or threatening) magic." The ILC's report is perhaps an attempt to concretise jus cogens as, in Kolb's words, an "operational concept of law", rather than a mere extension of natural law theory or lofty ideals. This post offers the thesis that, whilst such a mission is admirable, the operation of peremptory norms as envisaged by the 'hierarchy theory' remains impeded by the dominance of treaties as a source of international law. Furthermore, this seems unlikely to change in the immediate future because treaties are a primary vehicle for the enforcement of state sovereignty, which remains paramount in an international legal sphere dominated by positivist notions of state consent. The conflict is thus characterised by the dichotomy between realpolitik and international ideals.

In the existence of international relations, of course there are not only positive things but also negative things, one of which is that it can cause a conflict within or that can be called an international dispute. An international dispute is a dispute between subjects of international law that can be about facts, law or politics in which a claim or inclusion of one party is rejected, claimed back or denied by another party. International disputes themselves are also based on type and type. Based on the type there are political disputes and also legal disputes. International disputes can also occur due to many factors such as terrorism, the ruling regime in a country, culture, territorial territoriality, a country's intervention on the sovereignty of another country, natural resources, foreign policy that is too flexible or otherwise too rigid, moral elements , itas and politeness of the nation, the problem of claims of national or territorial power boundaries, economic problems and many more which are of course related to subjects in international law. Yemen is a country that is currently experiencing an international dispute. The Yemeni War is a war that is a continuing war. This war began in 2015 or four years ago. In the Yemen war it was also called a civil war involving two parties namely Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi who led the Yemeni government (officially recognized by the International) with an armed movement called the Houthis and their supporters. So these two camps both claim that they are the official government of Yemen. The war is ongoing. The Ansar Allah group, which is often referred to as Ansarullahh or Houthi, is a Zaidi group originating from the Governor of Sa'dah in the mountains on the northern border of Yemen with Saudi Arabia. This conflict continued to occur continuously during the 2000s which sometimes experienced an increase and shrinkage. Some steps have also been taken to resolve this conflict but during the negotiations failed.

После вступления решения международного суда в силу государство-адресат обязано его исполнить. Но государство может быть им не удовлетворено по причинам правового, политического, социального характера, пересмотреть его и в конечном счете отклонить. Автором сделаны выводы, что решение может быть верифицировано на базе международной организации, через его учредительные органы, иные структуры, способные оказать давление, осуществление организационного контроля. Доказано, что, преследуя цель неисполнения решения, государства применяют следующие способы проверки: обжалование решения в вышестоящую инстанцию с одновременным обращением в исполнительный орган международной организации, изменение действующего международного договора (включая ограничение юрисдикции суда), его денонсация, заключение нового договора, изменение существующей практики толкования ; A state is obliged to comply with the decisions of the international court. However, the state may not be satisfied with it for legal, political, or social reasons; it may review or ultimately reject it. The author concludes that the decision can be verified based on an international organization, its constituent bodies, other structures (that can exert pressure), or through the implementation of organizational control. The states apply the following methods of verification for the decision non-execution: an appeal to a higher instance with simultaneous appeal to the executive body of an international organization; a modification of an existing international treaty (including limitation of the jurisdiction of the court); its denunciation; signing a new treaty; or amending an existing practice of interpretation.

A long-standing debate amongst international relations scholars has surrounded the question of whether international institutions with judicial authority enjoy more autonomy and discretion than other global institutions. This is mainly because international courts are established as impartial third-party actors tasked with performing adjudicative functions for conflicting parties. As such, the delegation contracts of international institutions with judicial authority are expected to minimize control by states, even in cases where the members of a court engage in judicial overreach. This article contributes to that debate by examining the case of the crisis of the WTO Appellate Body. The article analyzes the Trump administration's successful efforts at rendering dysfunctional one of the most powerful courts in the international system. The findings showcase how powerful states are capable and willing to take advantage of the available control mechanisms and the institutional opportunity structures inherent in the design of international courts. The article speaks to the scholarship on the contestation of international institutions. The analysis relies on original data obtained through 22 interviews with WTO officials, state representatives, and experts.

Legitimacy and International Courts examines the underpinnings of legitimacy, or the justification of the authority, of international courts and tribunals. It brings together an esteemed group of authors, noted for both their expertise in individual courts, tribunals, or other adjudicatory bodies, and their work on legitimacy, effectiveness, and governance more broadly, to consider the legitimacy of international courts from a comparative perspective. Authors explore what strengthens and weakens the legitimacy of various different international courts, while also considering broader theories of international court legitimacy. Some chapters highlight the sociological or normative legitimacy of specific courts or tribunals, while others address cross-cutting issues such as representation, democracy, independence and effectiveness. ; https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/facw_bkcntri/1004/thumbnail.jpg

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute) was not introduced initially as the primary reference to the sources of international law because the word "a source" was not mentioned at all in the text of this article. Article 38 has mainly been inserted in the Statute of ICJ as a guide that facilitates the work of judges of the court to settle the disputes between states. However, it is recognised now that this article is regarded as an authoritative statement on the sources of international law (Wallace, 1997).This paper argues that Article 38 (1) no longer reflects the actual sources of international law in the twenty-first century. In other words, there are some new and emerging sources of international law that should be included in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. For example, the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations (not listed in Article 38) intervened in most areas of international law and many of such resolutions no longer are political and executive. The Security Council plays now a legislative role and has become a primary source of international law. Also, the judicial decisions of international courts can be considered in the current time as another primary source and not a subsidiary source, as stated in Article 38 (1) of the ICJ Statute. The decisions of the International Criminal Court and the ad hoc tribunals (created by the Security Council) are a good illustration of such source.This paper concludes that the content of Article 38(1) of the ICJ does not correspond with the actual sources of international law in practice and there is a need to amend this article. Article DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.43.287297 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

The 2011 judgment in Georgia v Russian Federation represents an apparent watershed in the approach of the International Court of Justice in ascertaining the critical date for assessing jurisdiction. With few historic exceptions, the Court had previously applied a doctrine of realism that allowed for the resolution of procedural defects between the date of seisin and the Court's decision on jurisdiction. In Georgia however, the Court applied a formalistic approach that assessed competence solely by reference to the date on which the application was filed, and accordingly declined jurisdiction. This vacillating approach to the critical date is an example of how the Court exercises interpretative discretion to further its own procedural objectives through engagement in judicial case selection. This practice will be criticised on two grounds: first for depriving the Court of opportunities to fulfil its primary function of developing international law, and second for betraying an institution that has applied formalism on an ad-hoc basis on political grounds. It will be concluded that the Court's broader institutional function would be better served through the adoption of a blanket and permanent approach of flexible realism in allowing for the post-filing resolution of jurisdictional defects.

Tagungsbericht: CES Berlin Dialogues: "The UN, NATO and International Courts: New Rules of Engagement" / erster Themenabend der CES Berlin Dialogues in der Reihe "Redefining Justice" am 12. Januar 2004.

This chapter is part of an upcoming interdisciplinary volume on international law and politics. The chapter defines four judicial roles states have delegated to international courts (ICs) and documents the delegation of dispute settlement, administrative review, enforcement and constitutional review jurisdiction to ICs based on a coding of legal instruments defining the jurisdiction of 25 ICs. I show how the design of ICs varies by judicial role and argue that the delegation of multiple roles to ICs helps explain the shift in IC design to include compulsory jurisdiction and access for nonstate actors to initiate litigation. I am interested in the multiple roles ICs play because they allow us to appreciate the many different contributions ICs make to international politics. ICs do oversee state compliance with international agreements, but this is not all they do. Finally, I explain the relevance of this analysis for two prevalent debates regarding ICs; 1) whether we should conceive of ICs as Agents or Trustees and 2) whether compulsory jurisdiction and private litigant access for ICs inherently features undermine national sovereignty.

The Central American and of the Caribbean Courts of Justice (CACJ and CCJ) are hybrid judicial institutions. While their Member States chiefly envisaged them as EU-style regional economic courts, they have explored the whole extension of their formally delegated functions and have developed peculiar expertise in matters relating to freedom of movement, human and fundamental rights, and mega-politics. The article explains how two ICs seemingly established to build common markets have come to rule on high-stakes political disputes, which, ostensibly, have little to do with regional economic integration. The article posits that the scholarship on delegation to ICs is only partially able to provide an answer to this question. It, hence, suggests an alternative theoretical framework by relying on transnational field theory and reflexive sociology. The article demonstrates that, despite the rhetoric of their founding documents, both the CACJ and the CCJ were only partially established to pursue regional economic integration. Instead, both Courts were fashioned at the crossroad of several – and at times even conflicting – forms of legality, power battles, professional interests, and visions of the world that shaped the Central American and Caribbean legal fields over time. Seen through the diachronic lens of the interests, ideologies, professional practices, and visions of the world of the actors inhabiting the Central American and Caribbean legal fields, the involvement of the two Courts in politically sensitive issues becomes less surprising, and – the article argues – it constitutes part of a strategy of the judges to legitimize the two Courts vis-à-vis their peculiar institutional, political, and social environments.

In the 1970s, Taiwan lost its United Nations seat, and most nations switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China (PRC). The loss of Taiwan's diplomatic recognition became a fundamental issue in judicial proceedings. Contrary to the PRC's claim, the article argues that, from the viewpoint of international law, Taiwan has never been succeeded by the PRC. The article explores the Taiwan question faced by foreign courts and finds that, albeit the lack of diplomatic recognition, the courts around the world have almost uniformly accorded Taiwan the status of state and this judicial recognition has risen to the level of customary international law. As for the standing of Taiwan before the international courts, the article analyzes whether Taiwan, as a non-UN member, may be granted standing before the International Court of Justice. The article also argues that Taiwan, as a fishing entity, has the right to access the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Furthermore, Taiwan's status as a separate customs territory in the World Trade Organization enables the nation to utilize the dispute settlement mechanism. The article concludes that, to avoid the judicial black hole in terms of global justice, it is both necessary and pragmatic to deem Taiwan a state in all judicial proceedings.

This paper deals with recent court cases and business legislation taking place in the United States against the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for their collaborative activity during the Vichy Regime of World War II. This paper analyzes the results of viewing history and memory through the lens of judicial and business proceedings. I follow Henry Rousso's idea of forums of memory as a way to release history which in nature is traumatic; in this case collaborating with the Nazi Regime and aiding the Holocaust. Building on that this paper highlights the emerging business vector. Furthermore, I will analyze the international aspect of this controversy. The thesis primarily discusses the implications of using these vectors, their results for the parties in question and their results for the study of history.

This paper deals with recent court cases and business legislation taking place in the United States against the French National Railway Company (SNCF) for their collaborative activity during the Vichy Regime of World War II. This paper analyzes the results of viewing history and memory through the lens of judicial and business proceedings. I follow Henry Rousso's idea of forums of memory as a way to release history which in nature is traumatic; in this case collaborating with the Nazi Regime and aiding the Holocaust. Building on that this paper highlights the emerging business vector. Furthermore, I will analyze the international aspect of this controversy. The thesis primarily discusses the implications of using these vectors, their results for the parties in question and their results for the study of history.

In 2019, Gambia, a small country which located in West Africa, is suing Myanmar to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with alleging that Myanmar has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948. The governments of Myanmar in doing the violations were intended to destroy the Rohingya Muslim as a group, wholly or partly, followed by other violations such as mass murder, rape, and also damage to the villages by fire with some people are still locked in the house and burnt inside the house. Government of Myanmar keep doing so, because based on Burma Citizenship Law 1982, Myanmar doesn't recognize the existence of Rohingya as citizen of Myanmar. It causes Rohingya as stateless. The study is normative legal research with Statute Approach and Case Approach. The study analyse the violations which is done by Myanmar to the Rohingya Ethnic in Rakhine. The result shows that International Court of Justice has a jurisdiction upon Rohingya case under the Statute of the Court as well as the Genocide Convention. The statute of the Court in Article 36 (1) stated that ICJ has jurisdiction to all cases of the Convention as long as the states are contracting parties. The Article IX of the Convention also stated that any dispute between contracting parties must be referred to ICJ.

In traditional international law, if the rebels were able to capture a significant part of the country, the third state should no longer assist any of the parties to the conflict, And if the conflict escalated to the level of conflict, that is, the degree of control of the rebels over the country reached the same level as the control of the government or even beyond it, and this situation was recognized by foreign countries, Then the third government could intervene at the request of any of the parties to the conflict. Contemporary international law has adopted a different approach in the light of the provisions of the United Nations Charter. On the one hand, the Institute of International Law, in the resolution of 1975, prohibited any kind of intervention by foreign countries in internal conflicts and assistance to the parties to the conflict, But on the other hand, in the case of Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice, by distinguishing between the government and the rebel group, recognized the government as having the right to invite foreign countries to intervene, And he considered helping the rebel group to be contrary to the military activities in the territory of the Congo, the provisions of international law and the principle of prohibition of intervention. In the case, the court once again emphasized on its previous practice. In the African continent, there have been many cases of border tensions since the past. The water border conflict between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo is one such case where the main dispute is over the water border area in Lake Albert. This issue has caused insecurity in the border areas on both sides of this lake, Therefore, in this article, the new decision of the International Court of Justice related to the disputes between Congo and Uganda was discussed Various reasons can be listed for the occurrence of conflict and tension in the water border areas between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo around Lake Albert, That The most important of ...