General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. By Bin Cheng. London: Stevens & Sons Ltd.; Toronto: Carswell Co., 1953. pp. lii, 495. Appendices. Index. $13.45.

1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 696-697
Author(s):  
L. H. Woolsey
Keyword(s):  
International Courts ◽  
General Principles Of Law

Aspects of Evidence in International Adjudication

2007 ◽  
pp. 83-118
Author(s):  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
International Adjudication

This chapter examines whether commonalities exist in the rules of evidence applied by different international courts and tribunals. It begins by considering the sources of rules of evidence in international law. These are the constitutive instruments of international courts, rules of procedure, general principles of law, and inherent powers. It then selects a number of evidential issues, being the admission of evidence, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof, and reviews whether international courts adopt similar approaches. The chapter then turns to an examination of the evidence-gathering powers of international courts, such as taking judicial notice of facts, ordering the production of evidence, making site visits, and ordering expert reports. The practice of international courts generally indicates a common approach to these issues, although the application of the rules is not completely consistent.

Part II Historical and Legal Sources, Ch.8 General Principles and Constitutions as Sources of Human Rights Law

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
O’Boyle Michael ◽  
Lafferty Michelle
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Human Rights Standards

This article examines influence of general principles of law and constitutions in the formulation of human rights standards and in their interpretation and application by international courts, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It describes and compares the application and interpretation of human rights by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This article also highlights the fact that majority of human rights instruments and provisions subsequently adopted at the national and international levels have built upon the guarantees elaborated by the UDHR.

scholarly journals The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before International Courts and Tribunals

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-176
Author(s):  
Sara Mansour Fallah
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Important Case ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
National Practice ◽  
Unlawfully Obtained Evidence

Abstract 70 years ago, the International Court of Justice decided its first and potentially most important case involving unlawfully obtained evidence. Despite clearly rejecting ‘discovery by intervention’, the judgment left many guessing as to the consequences for evidence obtained through such violations. As parties to international disputes have certainly not become less inclined to obtain evidence by unlawful means, the question arises: Was this old confusion ever unraveled? This article discusses whether today, there are international rules or principles governing the admissibility of unlawfully acquired evidence and applies a two-fold approach. First, it examines traditional sources of international law, including international jurisprudence, and second, it scrutinizes the frequently drawn analogy to national jurisdictions by surveying their treatment of illegally obtained evidence. Although a generally binding “inadmissibility rule” does not yet exist, practice demonstrates a tendency to consider such evidence in light of general principles of law. This article proposes handling unlawfully acquired evidence by applying a defined, yet flexible balancing test using criteria commonly applied in international and national practice.

An oriental face in international law scholarship: Contemporary value of Bin Cheng’s General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Shuo Feng ◽  
Wei Shen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Chinese Scholar ◽  
Space Law ◽  
Air Space ◽  
General Principles Of Law

AbstractThis article reviews the major contribution made by Professor Bin Cheng, a leading scholar in international law and air space law in our time. The uniqueness of Professor Bin Cheng was his deep engagement with the international law scholarship as a Chinese scholar in his generation and his tremendous academic contribution in the field. This article revisits his major book – General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, and connects his book with the time of crisis and anti-globalization faced by us right now. This book is highly relevant to international law scholarship, not only because of its relevance to the application of international law but also because of its methodology.

scholarly journals Russia and International Law in 2000–2020: 100 Theses About Facts and Trends

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-32
Author(s):  
Vladislav Tolstykh ◽  
Aleksey Kudinov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
The Status ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
Bilateral Treaties

The paper is an overview of the international legal stances of Russia, which were formed in the period from 2000 to 2020. The application of international law within the legal order of Russia is complicated by inconsistency of the Russian monistic concept, unclear status of customary law and general principles of law; lack of a developed judicial tradition. The Russia’s treaty policy comprises wide participation in general U.N. treaties, as well as bilateral treaties in the field of economic cooperation and legal assistance; unwillingness to participate in treaties, if this may entail negative political consequences. Russia backs down from some minor territorial claims in order to ensure stability; in some cases, she does not formulate a clear legal stance, limiting herself to political statements; she refuses to use judicial mechanisms, preferring bilateral negotiations and/or maintaining the status quo, and does not make efforts to create coalitions that support its claims. Russia uses international organizations rather as political fora, and not as a mechanism to create new legal order; she often takes a passive position when considering issues that do not affect its interests; she makes efforts to use the U.N. mechanisms, but sometimes lacks allies and trust from other members of international community. Russia recognizes the jurisdiction of international courts, but takes a passive position by rarely filing suits, objecting to jurisdiction and refusing to participate in the proceedings. The postSoviet international courts are politicized and do not make a serious contribution to the development of integration law. Russian doctrine is experiencing a serious crisis, which is caused by various reasons and can hardly be overcome by the efforts of the corporation itself

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document