2
Dispute Settlement and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) The effectiveness of international tribunals depends on the willingness of each state to cooperate. Over the years, courts have been established as a result of treaties, such as the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. However, they are constrained by the treaty, which dictates the subject-matter and the parties to which they may have jurisdiction over. Only states that are members of the treaties may bring a case to the respective courts. This may imply that for smaller treaties, the courts may be limited in power, but for large treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, its court, the ICJ, has jurisdiction over 193 of its member states. Furthermore, the court may deal with anything related to international law. Member states may bring to the court any legal dispute pertaining to the Charter, or any other treaties in force, and this may be done on an ad hoc basis, with the consent of the other involved party. Since 1983, there has been a slow increase in the number of cases referred to the ICJ, indicating an increase in confidence in not only the ICJ, but international law as well. Thus far, the ICJ has been used mainly for territorial disputes, or conflicts involving the use of force. Treaties may also refer disputes to the courts. A clause may indicate that courts may have judicial power to settle disputes should they arise between parties. Currently, there are over 260 treaties that fit the bill. However, this strategy is less observed within African and Asian countries. Overall, the trend for such clauses has been declining, possibly due to newer methods of dispute settlement. Yet another method is “Optional Clause” jurisdiction, which states that parties must agree to ICJ’s jurisdiction at all times. However, this may be signed for a definite or indefinite time period, unconditionally or based on reciprocity. Reservations may also be made, relating to certain states, time frame or subject-matter, sometimes defeating the purpose of t he clause. Besides dispute settlement, the ICJ also provides advisor y opinion on legal issues on request. Although it does not technically create international law, it affects it because its opinion carries significant influence, and its verdicts will influence norms. The Role of National Courts in the International Legal Process The relationship between national and international law may be explained through monism and dualism. The first believes that both exist in the single system of law, whereas the other believes that they are two different, independent systems. The legal culture of a country hence depends on which theory they support. Some countries train their lawyers to be familiar with both, while others may not address international law at all. The product is lawyers that know nothing about it and avoid it at all costs. Hence, cases with obvious relation to international law, may instead be solved by national law. Furthermore, national law may always take precedence over international law. Even if it is incorporated into domestic law, another preexisting domestic law might still overrule it if there is contradiction. Such is the attitude dualist countries, such as the UK, have. Monist countries are the opposite. France, for instance, gives all treaties precedence over domestic statues. However, should domestic atrocities get too out of hand, international organisations would still have to step in to enforce international law.

Courts in International Law

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

 

Dispute Settlement and the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The effectiveness of international tribunals depends on the willingness of each state

to cooperate. Over the years, courts have been established as a result of treaties,

such as the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. However, they are constrained

by the treaty, which dictates the subject-matter and the parties to which they may

have jurisdiction over. Only states that are members of the treaties may bring a case

to the respective courts. This may imply that for smaller treaties, the courts may be

limited in power, but for large treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, its court,

the ICJ, has jurisdiction over 193 of its member states. Furthermore, the court may

deal with anything related to international law. Member states may bring to the

court any legal dispute pertaining to the Charter, or any other treaties in force, and

this may be done on an ad hoc basis, with the consent of the other involved party.

Since 1983, there has been a slow increase in the number of cases referred to the

ICJ, indicating an increase in confidence in not only the ICJ, but international law as

well. Thus far, the ICJ has been used mainly for territorial disputes, or conflicts

involving the use of force.

Treaties may also refer disputes to the courts. A clause may indicate that courts may

have judicial power to settle disputes should they arise between parties. Currently,

there are over 260 treaties that fit the bill. However, this strategy is less observed

within African and Asian countries. Overall, the trend for such clauses has been

declining, possibly due to newer methods of dispute settlement. Yet another method

is “Optional Clause” jurisdiction, which states that parties must agree to ICJ’s

jurisdiction at all times. However, this may be signed for a definite or indefinite time

period, unconditionally or based on reciprocity. Reservations may also be made,

relating to certain states, time frame or subject-matter, sometimes defeating the

purpose of the clause. Besides dispute settlement, the ICJ also provides advisory

opinion on legal issues on request. Although it does not technically create

international law, it affects it because its opinion carries significant influence, and its

verdicts will influence norms.

The Role of National Courts in the International Legal Process

The relationship between national and international law may be explained through

monism and dualism. The first believes that both exist in the single system of law,

whereas the other believes that they are two different, independent systems. The

legal culture of a country hence depends on which theory they support. Some

countries train their lawyers to be familiar with both, while others may not address

international law at all. The product is lawyers that know nothing about it and avoid

it at all costs. Hence, cases with obvious relation to international law, may instead be

solved by national law. Furthermore, national law may always take precedence over

international law. Even if it is incorporated into domestic law, another preexisting

domestic law might still overrule it if there is contradiction. Such is the attitude

dualist countries, such as the UK, have. Monist countries are the opposite. France,

for instance, gives all treaties precedence over domestic statues. However, should

domestic atrocities get too out of hand, international organisations would still have

to step in to enforce international law.