International Courts’ Decisions as an Instrument of Determining Existence of the International Law Rules

About the author:

Andrew Yu. Klyuchnikov, Cand. Sci. (Jur.), Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Lipetsk Branch); Judge, Lipetsk Pravoberezhniy District Court; andrew19871961@mail.ru

Abstract:

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.

References:

1. Galushko D. V. 2006. “Vstuplenije Irlandii v Evropejskije Soobschestva” [Entry of Ireland into the European Communities]. Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no 2, p. 218.
2. ECtHR Resolution of 18 February 1999 on the case no 24833/94 Matthews v. UK. ECtHR Resolution of 30 June 2005 on the case no 45036/98 Bosphorus Airways v. Germany. ECtHR Resolution of 23 October 2012 on the case no 34880/12 Ramaer and van Willigen v. the Netherlands.
3. Khoryakov S. N., Klimov А. S. 2012. “К voprosu o privlechenii k ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za piratstvo po mezhdunarodnomu i natsional’nomu ugolovnomu zakonodatel’stvu” [On the Issue of Criminal Prosecution for Piracy under International and National Criminal Legislation]. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnoja justitsia, no 1, pp. 19-21.
4. Shchukina Т. V., Brusentseva V. А. 2015. Rossijskaja gosudarstvennaya grazhdanskaya sluzhba: problemy modernizatsii sistemy material’nogo stimulirovania i motivatsii v sub’ektach Rossijskoi Federatsii [Russian State Civil Service: The Problems of Modernization of the System of Material Incentives and Motivation in the Subjects of the Russian Federation], pp. 112-114. Voronezh.
5. I. C. J. Reports. 2010. Accordance with International Law of Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo: advisory оpinion of the Court. 
6. Biryukov P. N. 2016. “The Obstruction of Justice in International and National Criminal Law”. Zhurnal grazhdanskogo i ugolovnogo prava, no 1, p. 25.
7. Brownlie I. 2008. Principles of Public International Law. Wyd. 7, p. 3. Oxford.
8. Cahier P. 1996. “Le rôle du juge dans l`élaboration du droit international”. In: Theory of International law at the Threshold of the 21st Century, p. 353. Boston.
9. Ginsburg T. 2004-2005. “Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking”. Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 45, p. 63.
10. Jennings R., Watts A. 1996. Oppenheim`s International Law. Vol. I Peace. Wyd. 9, pp. 23-24. London-New York.
11. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants: advisory оpinion OC-12/91. Compatibility of Draft Legislation with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights, (Ser. A) No. 12 (1991).
12. Trial Judgement of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of 2004, no IT-99-36-T. Prosecutor v. Brdjanin (Decision on Interlokutory Appeal).
13. Rousseau Ch. 1970. Droit international public. Tome I. Introduction et sources, s. 58. Paris.