On State Verification of the International Courts’ Decisions

Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research


Release:

2018, Vol. 4. №4

Title: 
On State Verification of the International Courts’ Decisions


For citation: Klyuchnikov A. Yu. 2018. “On State Verification of the International Courts’ Decisions”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, vol. 4, no 4, pp. 169-176. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2018-4-4-169-176

About the author:

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

Abstract:

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.

References:

  1. Valeyev A. T. 2017. “Obzhalovaniye sudebnykh resheniy po ugolovnym delam v praktike Evropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka i Komiteta po pravam cheloveka OON” [Appeal of Court Decisions on Criminal Cases in the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee]. Lex Russica, no 3, pp. 154-166.
  2. Ershov V. V. 2016. “‘Printsip pravovoy opredelennosti’ ili pravovaya kategoriya ‘opredelennost’ prava’?” [“The Principle of Legal Certainty” or the Legal Category “Certainty of Law”]. Rossiyskoye pravosudiye, no S1, pp. 80-100.
  3. Klemin A. V. 2017. “FRG: sootnosheniye mezhdunarodnogo i natsional’nogo prava” [Germany: The Relationship between International and National Law]. Sovremennaya Evropa, no 2 (74), pp. 77-89.
  4. Koneva A. E., Solntsev A. M. 2015. “Integratsiya gosudarstv yuga Afriki” [Integration of Southern African States]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no 8 (87), pp. 43-46.
  5. Lautsi and others v. Italy. 2011. European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber Judgment of 18 March 2011 case No 30814/06 “Lautsi protiv Italii” [Lautsi v. Italy]. Byulleten’ Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka, no 6.
  6. Lautsi and others v. Italy. 2010. European Court of Human Rights Judgment of 3 November 2009 case No 30814/06. “Lautsi protiv Italii” [Lautsi v. Italy]. Byulleten’ Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka, no 9.
  7. Khlestov O. N. 2009. “Kodifikatsiya i progressivnoye razvitiye prava mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov (k 40-letiyu Venskoy Konventsii)” [Codification and Progressive Development of the Law of International Treaties (On the 40th Anniversary of the Vienna Convention)]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no 1 (73), pp. 5-16.
  8. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey). 1978. Decision of the Court. 
  9. Avena and Others Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America). 2004. Decision of the Court. The International Court of Justice Reports. 
  10. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). 1986. Decision of the Court. The International Court of Justice Reports.
  11. Department of State Press Statement of 7 October 1985. International Legal Materials, vol. 24, p. 174.
  12. WTO Appellate Body Report. 2001. European Communities — Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos — Containing Products. WT/DS135/AB/R.
  13. Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project. 1993. Decision of the Court. The International Court of Justice Reports. 
  14. Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v. Fick and Others. 2012. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa No 657/11. ZASCA 122.
  15. Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v. Fick and Others. 2013. Judgment Dismissing an Appeal against a Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa No 101/12. ZACC 22. 
  16. Land, Island, and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras). 1992. Decision of the Court. The International Court of Justice Reports. 
  17. Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v. The Republic of Zimbabwe. 2008. The Southern African Development Community Tribunal judgement. Case No 2/2007.
  18. NAFTA. 2001. NAFTA Free Trade Commission Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions, art. B (2).
  19. Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad). 1994. Decision of the Court. The International Court of Justice Reports.
  20. The Case of the S. S. “Lotus” (France v. Turkey). 1927. Decision of the Court of Permanent Court of International Justice. File E. c. Docket XI.
  21. The Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America. 2006. ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/98/3.