Suchergebnisse

"This examination of the jurisdiction of international courts and the admissibility of cases before them analyses jurisdictional and admissibility rules in light of the roles assumed by international courts in international life and in light of the roles that jurisdictional and admissibility rules play in promoting the effectiveness and legitimacy of international courts. The theory pursued views jurisdiction as a form of delegation of power (the power to exercise judicial power and decide the law) and regards admissibility as a framework for deciding upon the propriety of exercising such power. On the basis of this theoretical framework, the author critically evaluates the exercise of judicial discretion in the existing case law of a variety of international courts, distinguishing between the category-based case selection implicit in jurisdictional rules and the case-by-case analysis and selection implicit in rules on admissibility"--

In this chapter, the concept of jurisdiction as exercised by states (or regional organizations such as the European Union) is analysed. Such jurisdiction is concerned with the reach of a state's law: what link, if any, is required for a state to apply its laws to situations and persons? Jurisdiction is an aspect of a state's sovereignty, as the right to prescribe and enforce laws is an essential component of statehood. In the classic Westphalian understanding, this right has been limited to a state's territory, a limitation that at the same time ensures that no state intervenes in another state's affairs (2.1). This idea is no longer strictly applied, if it ever was. Exceptions that allow for limited extra-territorial jurisdiction have been carved out, and, moreover, the territoriality principle has been construed rather liberally (2.2). To be true, some states employ a rather strict presumption that the legislature does not normally intend to apply its laws extra-territorially, but such a presumption does not limit the discretion of the legislature to do just that if it so desires (2.3). The overlapping assertions that result from multiple states' invocation of permissive principles of jurisdiction may almost unavoidably result in international friction. This friction may be mitigated by a 'rule of reason', which instructs courts and regulators to balance the interests and connections of the case with the different states involved (2.4).

It has been said that consent is the cornerstone of international law. Even if, strictly speaking, the progression of international lawmaking has taken us beyond that view on matters of substance, surely the proposition maintains traction on matters of jurisdiction. The increase in international treaties conferring courts and tribunals with competence to resolve disputes has tied many states to the mast, but, like Odysseus, we must remember that the origin of that conferral is consent.

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

When, on October 24, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its decision in Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America and denied U.S. jurisdiction out of regard for the Honduran "system of justice," there may have been some surprise that the case was still pending. The Timberlane decision of 1976 of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the matter to the district court, had already become a classic, even though it was preceded by the 1968 decision in United States v. First National City Bank on the production of documents located abroad. The Timberlane approach outlined by Judge Choy, under which the exercise of antitrust jurisdiction has to be restrained by a case-by-case analysis of various factors, was widely discussed (and usually praised) in legal writing, and was also followed by federal courts of the Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits.

Comment and correspondence: 161-3 Ag, 252-3 S '60.