scholarly journals Specyfika odpowiedzialności za naruszenia Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka związane z działalnością nieuznawanych reżimów – analiza orzecznictwa

2020 ◽  
pp. 27-66
Author(s):  
Szymon Zaręba
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Responsibility

The aim of the article is to compare the way in which the issue of responsibility for violations related to the acts of unrecognized authorities claiming to be States is treated by the European Court of Human Rights and other international courts, particularly the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The article considers in detail the relations between jurisdiction and responsibility, responsibility of parent States (including the concept of “positive obligations”) and responsibility of States which provide assistance to unrecognized regimes (with emphasis put on the concept of “effective control”). The results of the study indicate that the jurisprudence of the European Court differs in several important aspects from decisions of other international courts. These differences, while undoubtedly enhancing the protection of human rights in Europe, contribute to the process of fragmentation of the law of international responsibility.

Crimea in International Courts and Tribunals: Matters of Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 378-403
Author(s):  
Gaiane Nuridzhanian
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Inter State

The events taking place in Crimea since early 2014 have given rise to a number of international disputes currently pending before international courts and tribunals. Ukraine instituted inter-State proceedings against Russia before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and an unclos Annex vii Tribunal. Seven investor-State cases have been commenced against Russia. The Prosecutor of the icc is conducting preliminary examination into the crimes allegedly committed in Crimea in 2014 and afterwards. Foreign courts have also had to deal with cases related to the annexation of Crimea. This article provides an overview of cases pending before international courts and tribunals in relation to events in Crimea. The focus is on the questions related to jurisdiction of the international courts and tribunals seized in Crimea-related cases. The study explores the limits of the jurisdiction of international courts to adjudicate disputes concerning the interpretation and application of a treaty arising in connection with a larger dispute regarding the use of force, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The article also discusses novel and debated jurisdiction-related matters that arise in cases brought in relation to events in Crimea. A brief description of cases heard in foreign courts is provided as well.

The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah Shelton
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Nongovernmental Organizations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Do So

Nongovernmental organizations are playing an increasingly important role in international litigation. This study will analyze the participation of nongovernmental organizations, primarily as amici curiae, in the proceedings of four permanent international courts: the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. After discussing the impact of amici in national and regional courts, it recommends that the International Court of Justice expand its acceptance of submissions from nongovernmental organizations in appropriate cases. The Court has a jurisdictional basis to do so and amici have usefully contributed to cases before other courts.

Bosnia-Hercegovina and International Justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Attila Hoare
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Bosnian War ◽  
The Icj

Three different international courts have determined that genocide took place in Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1992-1995: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Yet paradoxically, there has been virtually no punishment of this genocide, while the punishment of lesser war crimes of the Bosnian war has been very limited. The ICTY has convicted only one individual, a lowly deputy corps commander, of a genocide-related offence. The ICJ acquitted Serbia, the state that planned and launched the assault upon Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1992, of genocide and related offences, finding it guilty only of failure to prevent and punish genocide. Although Serb forces were responsible for the overwhelming majority of war crimes, the ICTY prosecution has disproportionately targeted non-Serbs in its indictments and, among Serbs, has disproportionately targeted Bosnian Serbs, with no official of Serbia or Yugoslavia yet convicted of war crimes in Bosnia. This article argues that the meagre results of the international judicial processes vis-à-vis the crimes of the Bosnian war must be sought in the structural failings, poor decision making, and political influences that affected the international courts. It argues that the international courts have failed either to deliver justice to the victims of the war crimes or to promote reconciliation among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia and suggests measures that could be taken to rectify the situation.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUTSIDE POWERS FOR ACTS OF SECESSIONIST ENTITIES

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Talmon
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

AbstractIn August 2008, Georgia instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to establish its international responsibility for alleged acts of racial discrimination against the ethnic Georgian population in South Ossetia and Abkhazia by ‘the de facto South Ossetian and Abkhaz separatist authorities […] supported by the Russian Federation’. In order to establish the international responsibility of an outside power for the internationally wrongful conduct of a secessionist entity, it must be shown, inter alia, that the acts or omissions of the secessionist entity are attributable to the outside power. International tribunals usually determine the question of attribution on the basis of whether the authorities of the secessionist entity were ‘controlled’ by the outside power when performing the internationally wrongful conduct. Attribution thus becomes a question of how one defines ‘control’. The test of control of authorities and military forces of secessionist entities has become perhaps the most cited example of the fragmentation of international law. The ICJ, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the European Court of Human Rights have all developed and applied their own tests in order to establish whether a secessionist entity has been ‘controlled’ by an outside power. There is a lot of confusion about the various tests, usually referred to as the ‘effective control’, ‘overall control’ and ‘effective overall control’ tests. This article sets out the various control tests, their requirements and areas of application, and asks which test or tests should be applied to attribute the internationally wrongful conduct of a secessionist entity to an outside power.

Unilateral Diplomatic Assurances as an Alternative to Provisional Measures

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Thomas Worster
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Dual Nature ◽  
Usual Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court

During litigation on the international plane, states sometimes will issue assurances either to the other litigant or to the international court directly. This article explores how those assurances interact with applications for provisional measures. The practice of courts varies with regard to how to react to these assurances, though the usual approach is that assurances issued to another state or individual are generally non-binding, while assurances issued to the court directly are binding. At the same time, litigants can apply to the court for provisional measures to prevent actions that would disturb the dispute. When the assurances are considered non-binding, they are treated as questions of fact and can be assessed for credibility and reliability, as a part of the provisional measures analysis. But when the assurances are considered binding, they are treated as questions of law, and the undertaken legal obligation disposes of the request for a provisional measures order. This article will examine the practices of the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on this issue, identifying where their practices diverge and converge, and recommending that the dual nature of assurances, as both factual and legal, be considered in assessing their value.

The End of the Road for the Prince? Sixty Years after the Czechoslovak Confiscation of Liechtenstein Property

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-458
Author(s):  
BART DELMARTINO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Road ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Obligations

In 1945 Czechoslovakia confiscated Liechtenstein property as reparation for the damage done by Nazi Germany. Private claims failed before the courts of Czechoslovakia, and international law did not provide Liechtenstein with a means of action against Czechoslovakia. When the property was on loan in Germany, a private case for recovery was declared inadmissible by the German courts, in line with Germany's international obligations. The European Court of Human Rights accepted these decisions. Liechtenstein, on the other hand, considered them to violate its sovereignty. In 2005, the International Court of Justice decided that it lacked temporal jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

The Prohibition of Amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1203-1230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Binder
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Undocumented Migrants ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Regional Community ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
Extrajudicial Killings

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has proven a particularly active defender of human rights in Latin America. The Court has developed an innovative and creative jurisprudence with respect to all kinds of human rights violations, including forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, violations of indigenous peoples' rights or those of undocumented migrants. Legal scholars have praised the Inter-American Court for its effective protection of human rights and even the International Court of Justice has drawn on the judgments of the Inter-American Court. The Inter-American Court has, however, also been criticized for adopting an overly broad standard of review, exceeding the competences conferred on it in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR, Convention) and for its detailed reparation orders which encroached on the states' internal domestic affairs. Put differently, the Court was blamed for being a too active judicial lawmaker. It has therefore been suggested that the Inter-American Court would be well advised to pay more attention to national sovereignty and the consent of the regional community of states when exercising its adjudicative function.

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 Proof in international court proceedings: articulation of the problem

2020 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Galina Georgievna Shinkaretskaya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Information Materials

One of the important elements of international court proceedings is the acquisition of information materials upon which the court makes its decisions. Such information, same as in the context of domestic courts, is called judicial evidence. The constituent documents of international courts contain very meager regulation of acquisition and evaluation of the evidence. The parties to international legal proceeding are the sovereign states, which makes it primarily adversarial. This implies that the parties represent the facts that confirm their positions. However, international courts rely on the principle of jura novit curia (“the court knows the law”), i.e. the parties to legal dispute do not need to plead or prove the law that applies to their case. This problem gains special importance due to the growing number and variety of international courts, as well as the emergence of a number of quasi-judicial institutions; in this sphere, all of them rely on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Certain new trends are traced in the practice of courts and even categories of cases that pertain to human rights.

The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominika Švarc Pipan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Individual Human ◽  
Peace Treaties

Dominika Švarc explores the way in which the interstate International Court of Justice (ICJ) deals with individual human rights and international humanitarian law. She argues that ever since the Interpretation of Peace Treaties case in 1950, the ICJ has taken an increasingly strong role in recognizing, interpreting, and developing these two disciplines. The Court relies on the cooperation with regional human rights courts and global human rights treaty bodies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document