The main approaches to the definition of the international courts’ competence

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


Release:

2019, Vol. 5. №3(19)

Title: 
The main approaches to the definition of the international courts’ competence


For citation: Klyuchnikov A. Yu. 2019. “The main approaches to the definition of the international courts’ competence”. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, vol. 5, no 3 (19), pp. 128-143. DOI: 10.21684/2411-7897-2019-5-3-128-143

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:

The rules on the competence of international courts determine the nature of the cases they resolve and the conditions for their admission to proceedings. The possibility composition of the court considers each case individually following the principle of jurisdiction to decide the jurisdiction due to the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Each international court of justice, relying on the international law, is solely competent to resolve doubts as to its own jurisdiction.
This study aims to identify the approach of courts to solving jurisdictional problems in practice. The material for the study includes the cases of international courts, doctrinal comments, and legal positions of prominent researchers of international justice.
The author describes the basic interpretative framework procedure, restraint, activism in the justification, and the lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, if the international court of justice has no confidence in the existence of competence on the subject of the dispute, it will not take measures to justify it. The brevity of the position on the issue will be due to interpretative restraint. Activism arises when the international court of justice seeks to achieve a procedural result, substantiate the rationality of the result of interpretation or the impossibility of achieving it. Science has not resolved the issue of factors that may affect the limits of interpretation by international courts of their own competence.

References:

  1. Klyuchnikov A. Yu. 2017. “Quasi-judicial bodies of the EU member states as subjects of a prejudicial request to the EU court: concept, qualification criteria”. Legal Concept, vol. 16, no 1, pp. 165-171. [In Russian]

  2. Oganesyan T. D. 2017. “Procedure of the pilot judgment of the European Court of Human Rights: legal essence and content”. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatelstva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedeniya, no 3 (64), pp. 128-135. [In Russian]

  3. Perchatkina S. A. 2011. “Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the practice of constitutional courts: current trends and prospects”. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no 10 (178), pp. 97-108. [In Russian]

  4. European Court of Human Rights Judgment of 28 September 2005, Broniowski v. Poland (application No 31443/96). Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights, 2006, no 4. [In Russian]

  5. European Court of Human Rights Judgment of 18 December 1996, Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (application No 15318/89). In: European Court of Human Rights. 2000. Selected Resolutions. Vol. 2, pp. 362-390. Moscow. [In Russian]

  6. European Court of Human Rights Judgment of 9 April 2009, Case of Šilih v. Slovenia (application no 71463/01). Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights, 2009, no 9. [In Russian]

  7. Ushakov S. V. 2009. “Bodies of international justice and problems of ethnic nationalism”. Moscow Journal of International Law, no 2 (74), pp. 101-118. [In Russian]

  8. Hoss K. 2016. “When silence is gold: on the merits of a judicial restriction in the light of the jurisprudence of an international court with regard to the concept of ‘interest of a legal nature’”. International Justice, no 1 (17), pp. 3-15. [In Russian]

  9. Chernichenko S. V. 2018. “European Court of Human Rights: the problem of non-execution of judgments”. Moscow Journal of International Law, no 3, pp. 6-17. [In Russian]

  10. Yumashev Yu. M. 2015. “European idea and its development from the ‘Christian Republic’ to the European Union”. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, no 3, pp. 5-46. [In Russian]

  11. United Nations. 2001. “Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of the Proceedings between Eritrea and Yemen (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute) dated 9 October 1998”. Reports of International Arbitral Awards. Vol. 12, p. 4. USA: United Nations Publication.

  12. Case 14/86 Pretore di Salò v. Persons Unknown [1987] ECR 2545.

  13. Case 61/65 Vaassen-Göbbels v. Beambtenfonds voor het Mijnbedrijf [1966] ECR 377.

  14. Case 184/95 Dorsch Consult IngenieurgesellschaftmbH v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [1998] ECR T-184/95.

  15. Case 338/85 Fratelli Pardini SpA v. Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero and Banca Toscana (Lucca branch) [1988] ECR 495.

  16. Case C-17/00 François De Coster v. Watermaal-Bosvoorde [2001] ECR I-9445.

  17. Case C-239/07 Julius Sabatauskas and Others [2008] ECR I-7523.

  18. Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior SA v. Evora BV [1997] ECR I-6013.

  19. Case S-465/00, S-138/01, S-139/01 Rechnungshof v. Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and Christa Neukomm and Joseph Lauermann v. Österreichischer Rundfunk [2003] ECR 294.

  20. Case C-506/04 Wilson v. Ordre des avocats du barreau [2006] ECR I-1137. P. 557.

  21. Drexl J. 2014. “Designing competitive markets for industrial data — between propertisation and access”. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, no 8, pp. 257-292.

  22. Fitzmaurice G. 1961. “Hersh Lauterpacht — the scholar as judge”. British Yearbook of International Law, no 37, pp. 1-71.

  23. Fokas E. 2018. “The legal status of religious minorities: exploring the impact of the European Court of Human Rights”. Social Compass, no 65 (1), pp. 25-42.

  24. Łazowski A., Wessel R. A. 2015. “When caveats turn into locks: opinion 2/13 on accession of the European Union to the ECHR”. German Law Journal, no 1, pp. 180-212.

  25. Mark P. H. The 2018. “Substantive/Procedural Distinction: Law’s Solution to the Problem of Jus Cogens in a World of Sovereign States”. German Law Journal, vol. 19, no 1, pp. 21-42.

  26. World Trade Organization Panel Report of 1998 “European Communities — Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment (USA v. European Communities)”. No WT/DS62/R, No WT/DS67/R, No WT/DS68/R. ITL 142.

  27. Shahabuddeen M. 2001. “The competence of a tribunal to deny its existence”. In: Yee S., Tieya W. (eds.). International Law in the Post-Cold War World: Essays in Memory of Li Haopei. London.

  28. Shane D. 2014. “Assistance, direction and control: Untangling international judicial opinion on individual and State responsibility for war crimes by non-State actors”. International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 96, no 893, pp. 243-273.

  29. Siqing L. 2018. “Convergence of WTO dispute settlement and investor-state arbitration: a closer look at umbrella clauses”. Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 19, pp. 5-17.

  30. Swart M. 2011. “Tadic revisited: some critical comments on the legacy and the legitimacy of the ICTY”. Goettingen Journal of International Law, vol. 3, pp. 986-1009.

  31. Thirlway H. 2002. “Judicial activism and the International Court of Justice”. In: Ando N., McWhinney E., Wolfrum R. Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, pp. 37-181. Leiden.