Introduction: Sociological Perspectives on International Tribunals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Hirsch
Keyword(s):  
International Tribunals

Contemporary International Tribunals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade Trindade
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Tribunals

In the course of 2016, international human rights tribunals (ECtHR, IACtHR and ACtHPR) kept on making cross-references to each other’s case-law, as well as to that of other international tribunals. The same has taken place on the part of international criminal tribunals (ICC and ICTFY), at a time of special attention to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc tribunals (ICTFY and ICTR). One could have expected the same from the ICJ, as to the case-law of other international tribunals, in its recent decisions in the cases concerning the Obligation of Nuclear Disarmament (2016), keeping in mind the common mission (of realization of justice) of contemporary international tribunals from an essentially humanist outlook.

Contemporary International Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antônio Augusto ◽  
Cançado Trindade
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Cross Fertilization

More recently, jurisprudential cross-fertilization has kept on being pursued in particular by international human rights tribunals and international criminal tribunals. This is reassuring, as, despite their distinct jurisdictions, their work is complementary, in their common mission of imparting justice, in distinct domains of international law. Jurisprudential cross-fertilization fosters cohesion and the unity of law. Particularly attention is currently devoted to the preservation of the legacy of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.

Improving the Operation and Functioning of the International Criminal Tribunals

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The United Nations

Since the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, both International Tribunals have grown tremendously in terms of resources. Despite this growth, the International Tribunals have rendered judgments in only fifteen cases and conducted inordinately long trials—a fault for which, perhaps more than any other, they can be justly criticized. The Secretary- General of the United Nations recently appointed an expert group to review the efficiency of the operation of the International Tribunals and make recommendations for improvement. Following the release of the group's report, the General Assembly requested that the Secretary-General obtain comments from the International Tribunals on the experts’ recommendations. The ICTYjudges, for their part, considered these recommendations in a report to the United Nations setting forth a long-term strategy for improving the operation of the Tribunal.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL UNCERTAINTIES CONCERNING TERRITORIAL SEA DELIMITATION UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 589-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Lando
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
History Of ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Circumstances

AbstractRecent international jurisprudence has shown considerable uncertainty with regard to the delimitation of the territorial sea. While international tribunals endorse a two-stage approach to territorial sea delimitation, there is a lack of judicial consensus on the practical implementation of such an approach. This article argues that the rule-exception relationship between equidistance and special circumstances, as reflected in the drafting history of LOSC Article 15 and in jurisprudence prior to 2007, should inform the delimitation of the territorial sea. Cases since 2007 which have strayed from the earlier jurisprudence on LOSC Article 15, should be seen as a misconstruction of the law applicable to territorial sea delimitation.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunalin Philippines V.China Under UNCLOS and in the absence of China

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 266-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Parlett
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South China ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
China Sea ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Law

It is not uncommon for decisions of international tribunals to be reported in the pages of the Washington Post or feature on the BBC News website. It is rather less common for awards to feature on the giant screens of New York’s Times Square. But less than two weeks after the Arbitral Tribuna lunder Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its Awardin Philippines v.China, a three-minute video featuring China’s position was broadcast repeatedly on the screen better known forbroadcasting New Year’s Eve festivities than argumentation on the competence of international tribunals. The video asserted that China’s “indisputable sovereignty over [the South China Sea islands] has sufficient historic and legal basis” and that “the Arbitral Tribunalvainly attempted to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.” It further stated that “China did not participate in the illegal South China Sea arbitration, nor accepts the Awardso as to defend the solemnity of international law.” This latter statement goes to the very heart of the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) and its competence to decide the case despite China’s nonparticipation in the proceedings.

scholarly journals ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional

IUSTA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (37) ◽  
Author(s):  
SANDRA ROCIO GAMBOA RUBIANO
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Neoliberal Globalization ◽  
The Past ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
International Tribunals

<p>Se ha aludido que la jurisdicción complementaria que define a la Corte Penal Internacional vulnera elejercicio de la soberanía estatal. No obstante, tratándose de crímenes de Estado en tanto crímenes contrala humanidad, bien puede sostenerse que la jurisdicción complementaria podría llegar a constituir unretroceso. Esto, entre otras razones, por no ser coherente con la lógica de protección eficaz de bienesjurídicos de especial valía para la humanidad, en cuya congruencia en el pasado se estableció la jurisdicciónconcurrente que definió los tribunales internacionales de Yugoslavia y Ruanda.</p><p>En dichas condiciones resulta interesante revisar este fenómeno a partir de la constitución contrahegemónicade los derechos humanos, reconociéndose, como lo hace Sousa Santos, la existencia, vinculacionese implicaciones de las formas de poder en las sociedades capitalistas, al igual que sus profundosmensajes en relación con los crímenes de Estado. Ello, con mayor razón, cuando se ha establecido que ladiscusión de la contrahegemonía –que inicia con Gramsci y que en parte desarrolla Sousa Santos desdela perspectiva de la dominación de la globalización neoliberal– propugna, como lo señala Bonet (2010),por un “nuevo contrato social global más solidario e incluyente que el hoy en crisis contrato social de lamodernidad occidental”.</p><p>AbstractIt has been mentioned that the complementary jurisdiction which defines the ICC prevents the exercise ofstate sovereignty. However, for state crimes as crimes against humanity, it can be argued that supplementaljurisdiction could eventually form a setback. This, among other reasons, because it is not consistent withthe logic of effective protection of legal interests of particular value to humanity, whose congruency wasestablished in the past, defining the concurrent jurisdiction of the international tribunals in Yugoslaviaand Rwanda.In these conditions it is interesting to check this phenomenon from the counter-establishment of humanrights, recognizing as Boaventura de Sousa Santos does, existence, linkages and implications of theforms of power in capitalist societies, like their deep messages concerning state crimes. This, even moreso when it has been established that the discussion of counter-hegemony, beginning with Gramsci andpartly developed by Sousa Santos under the perspective of domination of neoliberal globalization, callsfor a “new global social contract more caring and inclusive than today social contract crisis of Westernmodernity “(Bonet, 2010).</p><p>Resumo:Foi mencionado que a jurisdição complementar define o ICC impede o exercício da soberania do Estado.No entanto, para crimes de estado como crimes contra a humanidade, pode-se argumentar que a competênciasuplementar poderia, eventualmente, formar um revés. Isto, entre outras razões, porque não écoerente com a lógica de protecção eficaz dos interesses jurídicos de especial valor para a humanidade,cuja congruência foi estabelecido no passado, que define a competência concorrente dos tribunais internacionaisna Iugoslávia e Ruanda.Nessas condições, é interessante verificar esse fenômeno a partir do contador-estabelecimento dos direitoshumanos, reconhecendo como faz Boaventura de Sousa Santos, a existência, as ligações e as implicaçõesdas formas de poder nas sociedades capitalistas, como suas mensagens profundas sobre crimesde Estado. Isto, ainda mais quando foi estabelecido que a discussão da contra-hegemonia, começando com Gramsci e Boaventura desenvolve em parte sob o domínio da globalização neoliberal, apela para um“contrato social nova crise global de contrato de mais carinho e inclusiva do que hoje social modernidadeocidental “(Bonet, 2010).</p><p> </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document