Limits of Freedom in the Decisions of the International Court of Justice: Its Admissibility and Legitimacy

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:

The limits of freedom of the international court’s decision-making are mainly studied in Western doctrine. Understanding the role of this source of international law is an important prerequisite for the Russian Federation’s effective execution adopted international obligations, participation of justice. The increasing role of the international acts in the Russian legal system requires their study for their proper implementation.

This study aims to determine the limits (boundaries), within which the judges can conduct their law-making activities. Doctrinally, they are defined through the criteria of judicial legitimacy and normative acceptability, which include a dynamic element.

The author concludes that they are established through the categories of certainty of norms and clarity of formulations, the way of influence and interdependence. The decision of the international court of justice is legitimate when it corresponds to an international treaty, the procedure of adoption, interpretation of the law, adopted independently. The author concludes that admissibility and legitimacy are the identical features of court’s decisions, which are reduced to its approval.

References:

1. Biryukov P. N. 2018. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Uchebnik [Handbook of the International Law] in 2 vols. Vol. 2, pp. 22-23. 10th edition, revised.
2. Biryukov P. N. 2017. “Status ‘zhertvy’ v praktike ESPCH” [The State of “victim” in the ECHR’s Practice]. Sovremennye problemy mezhdunarodnogo i evraziyskogo pravosudiya. Seriya “Yubilei, konferentsii, forumy”, pp. 65-66. Voronezh.
3. Marochkin S. Yu. 2014. “Vzaimodeystvie pravovykh sistem kak obshchiy vektor razvitiya (otnoshenie mezhdunarodnogo soobshchestva k printsipu verkhovenstva prava: namereniya i real'nost')” [Interaction between Legal Systems as a Common Vector of Development (The Attitude of the International Community to the Principle of the Rule of Law: Intentions and Reality)]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no 5, pp. 15-25.
4. German Federal Constitutional Court’ Decision on Görgülü case of 6 July 2010, 2 BvR 2661/06. Digest für öffentliches Recht, 2015, no 2.
5. US Supreme Court of 24 February 1803 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
6. Shchukina T. V., Brusentseva V. A. 2015. Rossiyskaya gosudarstvennaya grazhdanskaya sluzhba: problemy modernizatsii sistemy material'nogo stimulirovaniya i motivatsii v sub"ektakh Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Russian State Civil Service: Challenges of Modernization of the System of Material Incentives and Motivation in the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation], pp. 12-13. Voronezh.
7. Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm [2005] ECR I–9981.
8. The International Court of Justice Reports. 2003. Case Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America): decision of the Court, p. 161.
9. Franck T. 2008. “Aspects of Legitimacy of Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals: Comments”. Legitimacy in International Law, p. 169. Berlin.
10. Franck T. 1988. “The Power of Legitimacy among Nations”. American Journal of International Law, vol. 82, p. 706.
11. The International Court of Justice Reports. 2003. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Israeli Wall advisory opinion): decision of the Court, p. 131.
12. Müllerson R. 2008. “Aspects of Legitimacy of Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals: Comments”. Legitimacy in International Law, p. 191. Berlin.
13. Venzke I., von Bogdandy A. 2011. “On the Democratic Legitimation of International Judicial Lawmaking, Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers”. German Law Journal, vol. 12, no 5, p. 1343.