Suchergebnisse

The paper deals with the analysis of the legal nature of international courts' decisions and their impact on the international financial legal order. The author claims that decisions of international courts, creating no new international legal financial norms, act as an additional source of international financial law, having no autonomy, and in combination with other sources of international law, performs the following functions: 1) regulatory-prescriptive (via opinio juris of existing traditions in interstate practice in the financial sphere transforming them into international customary law); 2) regulatory-affirming (confirming the legal nature of the international agreement between the subjects of international financial legal relations which caused a disputable situation). The judicial practice on financial issues and specificity of functioning of such judicial institutions as the Permanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of Justice, the CIS Economic Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, etc. are examined. The features of the provisions of international agreements on financial issues regarding the procedure for resolving disputes between the parties of the agreement about its implementation are analyzed. The paper explores particularities of the origin and development of the idea of the creation of an international financial court. Amid modern processes of the rapid growth of the amount of crossborder financial flows in the context of globalization, which is the consequence of the implementation of numerous international financial agreements, the idea of creation of an international financial court, which was first suggested in 1935, due to the complexity of legal nature of interstate financial disputes, is an objective necessity. The following features intrinsic to decisions of international courts (including decisions on financial issues) have been identified: 1) locality (binding only on the ...

The paper deals with the analysis of the legal nature of international courts' decisions and their impact on the international financial legal order. The author claims that decisions of international courts, creating no new international legal financial norms, act as an additional source of international financial law, having no autonomy, and in combination with other sources of international law, performs the following functions: 1) regulatory-prescriptive (via opinio juris of existing traditions in interstate practice in the financial sphere transforming them into international customary law); 2) regulatory-affirming (confirming the legal nature of the international agreement between the subjects of international financial legal relations which caused a disputable situation).
The judicial practice on financial issues and specificity of functioning of such judicial institutions as the Permanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of Justice, the CIS Economic Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, etc. are examined. The features of the provisions of international agreements on financial issues regarding the procedure for resolving disputes between the parties of the agreement about its implementation are analyzed.
The paper explores particularities of the origin and development of the idea of the creation of an international financial court. Amid modern processes of the rapid growth of the amount of cross-border financial flows in the context of globalization, which is the consequence of the implementation of numerous international financial agreements, the idea of creation of an international financial court, which was first suggested in 1935, due to the complexity of legal nature of interstate financial disputes, is an objective necessity.
The following features intrinsic to decisions of international courts (including decisions on financial issues) have been identified: 1) locality (binding only on the parties involved in the case, and only in the current case); 2) situatedness and unprompted appearance; 3) impartiality (due to the judges' lack of political interest); 4) authority (international courts include generally recognized experts in international law).

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.

This article discusses the problems with enforcement of decisions of international courts. The issue of compliance by states with decisions of international courts is critical for the whole system of international law. If states cannot rely on law and have it clarified and enforced through courts' judgements, international law would become useless, disregarded, avoided and replaced by economic or military pressure or force. There exist a variety of different enforcement mechanisms in courts with global (International Court of Justice, World Trade Organi-zation Dispute Settlement Body) and regional (European Court of Justice, Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independ-ent States, Court of Eurasian Economic Union) reach. Basi-cally every international court has got some type of formal enforcement mechanism, even if it is only political in nature. But none can be called very effective and in particular – effi-cient. Some of them are equipped with economic sanctions (suspension of concessions, penalty payment, lump sum). They are not used often though. One should note that records of compliance with decision of courts which are able to impose sanctions are also far from being perfect. In particular, it seems that wealthy states can simply afford bearing economic sanc-tions without execution of the court decision. They therefore "buy themselves out" of their legal obligations. There is no doubt that for the sake of international legal certainty and stability it is desirable that international community pays more attention to improving the mechanisms for enforcement of decisions of international courts.

Характеристика влияния решений международных судов на правоприменение исследуется в основном в западной доктрине. Понимание роли данного источника международного права является важной предпосылкой эффективного исполнения Российской Федерацией принятых на себя международных обязательств, участия в отправления правосудия. Все возрастающая роль международных актов в российской правовой системе требует их изучения в целях правильной реализации. Целью исследования является определение роли практики международных судов в выявлении норм международного права, места судебных решений в ряду иных источников международного права. Базовым тезисом является отсутствие у судей правотворческих полномочий, что не исключает возможность интерпретации норм в новых ситуациях с учетом возникающих потребностей. Однако изменения судебной практики должны находиться в пределах допустимого толкования. В ряде случаев источниками международного права следует рассматривать консультативные заключения. Сами решения не могут порождать нормы международного права. Судебные решения следует рассматривать сквозь призму межгосударственного консенсуса, они выступают основным элементом международного обычая. Однако международная юстиция существует как независимый от государств институт, задачей которого является правоприменение и отправление международного правосудия. ; Apart from the western doctrine, not many studies have touched the topic of the influence of international courts' decisions on the enforcement. Understanding of the role of this source of the international law is an important prerequisite for the Russian Federation effective execution of the adopted international obligations and administration of justice. The increasing role of the international acts in the Russian legal system requires their studying for their correct implementation. Thus, the aim of this paper is the definition of a) the role that the international courts take in identifying the rules of the international law, as well as b) the place, which the judicial decisions occupy among other sources of the international law. The main thesis is that the judges lack legislative authorities, which does not exclude the possibility of interpreting the rules in new situations according to arising needs. Yet, the changes in jurisprudence should lie within the existing interpretation. In a number of cases, advisory opinions may serve as the sources of international law. The decisions themselves cannot lead to rules of international law. Judicial decisions should be viewed through the interstate consensus; they shoud act as the key element of the international traditions. Nevertheless, the international justice exists as an independent from states institute, the aim of which is the law enforcement and international justice administration.

In this ground-breaking study, taken on the initiative of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Thomas M. Franck, and Gregory H. Fox explore the use of international law decisions by national courts, providing in-depth materials for answers to such critical and practical questions as: To what extent do national judges treat the decisions of their international colleagues as binding or persuasive? Do national judges regard the outcomes of international decisions as res judicata? As evidence of law or fact? Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint

This article discusses the problems with enforcement of decisions of international courts. The issue of compliance by states with decisions of international courts is critical for the whole system of international law. If states cannot rely on law and have it clarified and enforced through courts' judgements, international law would become useless, disregarded, avoided and replaced by economic or military pressure or force. There exist a variety of different enforcement mechanisms in courts with global (International Court of Justice, World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body) and regional (European Court of Justice, Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Court of Eurasian Economic Union) reach. Basically every international court has got some type of formal enforcement mechanism, even if it is only political in nature. But none can be called very effective and in particular – efficient. Some of them are equipped with economic sanctions (suspension of concessions, penalty payment, lump sum). They are not used often though. One should note that records of compliance with decision of courts which are able to impose sanctions are also far from being perfect. In particular, it seems that wealthy states can simply afford bearing economic sanctions without execution of the court decision. They therefore "buy themselves out" of their legal obligations. There is no doubt that for the sake of international legal certainty and stability it is desirable that international community pays more attention to improving the mechanisms for enforcement of decisions of international courts.

The paper deals with the analysis of the legal nature of international courts' decisions and their impact on the international financial legal order. The author claims that decisions of international courts, creating no new international legal financial norms, act as an additional source of international financial law, having no autonomy, and in combination with other sources of international law, performs the following functions: 1) regulatory-prescriptive (via opinio juris of existing traditions in interstate practice in the financial sphere transforming them into international customary law); 2) regulatory-affirming (confirming the legal nature of the international agreement between the subjects of international financial legal relations which caused a disputable situation). The judicial practice on financial issues and specificity of functioning of such judicial institutions as the Permanent Court of International Justice, the International Court of Justice, the CIS Economic Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, etc. are examined. The features of the provisions of international agreements on financial issues regarding the procedure for resolving disputes between the parties of the agreement about its implementation are analyzed. The paper explores particularities of the origin and development of the idea of the creation of an international financial court. Amid modern processes of the rapid growth of the amount of cross-border financial flows in the context of globalization, which is the consequence of the implementation of numerous international financial agreements, the idea of creation of an international financial court, which was first suggested in 1935, due to the complexity of legal nature of interstate financial disputes, is an objective necessity. The following features intrinsic to decisions of international courts (including decisions on financial issues) have been identified: 1) locality (binding only on the parties involved in the case, and only in the current case); 2) situatedness and unprompted appearance; 3) impartiality (due to the judges' lack of political interest); 4) authority (international courts include generally recognized experts in international law). ; Анализируются правовая природа решений международных судов и их влияние на международный финансовый правопорядок. Отмечается, что решения международных судов, не создавая новых международно-правовых норм, выступают как дополнительный источник международного финансового права, который в сочетании с другими источниками международного права выполняет следующие функции: 1) нормативно-устанавливающую (путем opiniojuris существующих обычаев в межгосударственной практике в финансовой сфере трансформирует их в международно-правовые обычные нормы); 2) нормативно-подтверждающую (подтверждает правовую норму международного соглашения между субъектами международных финансовых отношений, по поводу которой возникла спорная ситуация). Рассмотрено практику международных судов в финансовой сфере. Определены следующие признаки, присущие решениям международных судов (включая решения по финансовым вопросах): 1) локальность (обязательность только для сторон, которые берут участие в конкретном судебном деле); 2) ситуативность и незапланированость появления; 3) беспристрастность (в силу отсутствия политического интереса у судей); 4) авторитетность (в состав международных судов входят признанные специалисты по международному праву). ; Проаналізовано правову природу рішень міжнародних судів та їх вплив на міжнародний фінансовий правопорядок. Рішення міжнародних судів, не створюючи нових міжнародно-правових фінансових норм, виступають як додаткове джерело міжнародного фінансового права, яке, не володіючи самостійністю, в поєднанні з іншими джерелами міжнародного права виконує нормативно-встановну (шляхом opiniojuris існуючих звичаїв у міждержавній практиці у фінансовій сфері трансформує їх у міжнародно-правові звичаєві норми) та нормативно-підтверджувальну функції (підтверджує правову норму міжнародної угоди між суб'єктами міжнародних фінансових правовідносин, з приводу якої виникла спірна ситуація). Розглянуто практику міжнародних судів у фінансовій сфері. Визначено такі ознаки, притаманні рішенням міжнародних судів (включаючи рішення з фінансових питань): 1) локальність (обов'язковість тільки для сторін, які беруть участь у конкретній справі); 2) ситуативність і незапланованість появи; 3) неупередженість (в силу відсутності політичного інтересу у суддів); 4) авторитетність (до складу міжнародних судів входять загальновизнані фахівці з міжнародного права).

On 16 March 2001 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in what was then its most longrunning case. It was in 1987 that Qatar and Bahrain had begun a process of attempting to agree upon the submission of their differences to the Court, but although they were able to agree upon the subject matter in dispute, they could not agree upon its legal characterization and the manner in which the dispute should be placed before the Court. That notwithstanding, and basing itself upon the agreed minutes of a meeting held at Doha in December 1990, Qatar unilaterally instituted proceedings against Bahrain on 8 July 1991. Bahrain raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the case which were first addressed by the Court in its judgment of July 19941 and, following a reformulation of elements of the Qatari application in November 1994, the application was declared admissible in February 1995.2 During the course of the subsequent written pleadings a further dispute arose concerning the authenticity of 82 documents annexed to the Qatar Memorial and, following exchanges on the matter, Qatar announced that it would not rely on the disputed documents.3 Oral hearings were held in May 2000 and judgment given some ten months later. The two principal elements of the case concern, first, the disputed title to, and status of, a number of islands, maritime features and a portion of the Qatar peninsula and, secondly, the course of the maritime boundaries between them. The case was extremely complex, with disputed characterizations of the physical and legal