Prześlij tekst
Nr 1 (205) (2016)
Artykuły

Wpływ opinii doradczych Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na postępowanie przed Trybunałami Administracyjnymi w systemie ONZ

[The influence of advisory opinions of International Court of Justice on the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunals in the UN System]

PDF
  • Edyta Lis
Edyta Lis
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie

Opublikowane 2016-03-31

Słowa kluczowe

  • Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości,
  • MTS,
  • opinie doradcze,
  • ONZ,
  • Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych,
  • trybunały administracyjne,
  • kompetencje,
  • równość wobec prawa,
  • orzeczenie,
  • International Court of Justice,
  • ICJ,
  • consultative opinion,
  • administrative tribunal,
  • equality before the law,
  • competences,
  • decision,
  • United Nations,
  • UN
    • ...Więcej
    Less

Prawa autorskie (c) 2016 ILS PAS

Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Jak cytować

Wpływ opinii doradczych Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na postępowanie przed Trybunałami Administracyjnymi w systemie ONZ: [The influence of advisory opinions of International Court of Justice on the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunals in the UN System]. (2016). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 1 (205), 5-37. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2016.1.1

Abstrakt

Trybunały administracyjne powoływane przez organizacje międzynarodowe rozstrzygają spory pomiędzy organizacją a jej pracownikami. Zgodnie z art. 11 Statutu Trybunału Administracyjnego Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych (TAONZ) Komitet ds. Wniosków o Rewizję Orzeczeń TAONZ oraz zgodnie z art. XII Statutu i art. XII Aneksu do Statutu Trybunału Administracyjnego Międzynarodowej Organizacji Pracy (TAMOP) Rada Zarządzająca lub Rada Administracyjna Funduszu Emerytalnego mogły, w określonych w ich statutach przypadkach, zwrócić się do MTS o wydanie opinii doradczych. Opinie te miały wiążący charakter dla organizacji, które o nie wystąpiły.

Od momentu utworzenia w 1927 r. pierwszego trybunału administracyjnego w ramach Ligi Narodów aż do 1 lipca 2009 r. rozwój trybunałów administracyjnych był determinowany zmianami w dziedzinie międzynarodowego systemu ochrony praw człowieka. Zmierzał w kierunku wyposażania tych trybunałów w środki gwarantujące, na równych zasadach dla wszystkich, prawo do sądu oraz sprawiedliwego procesu. Tylko bowiem w ten sposób można skutecz-nie zagwarantować ochronę praw jednostki także w sprawach pracowniczych. 

 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The main task of ICJ is to settle disputes submitted to it by the states and is also entitled to give advisory opinions which are given on the motion of some United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The expression that ICJ is a “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” doesn’t mean that it is the only one judicial organ within the framework of the United Nations. The United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) was established by the legal force of the General Assembly resolution 351 A(IV) of 9 December 1949 r. The main purpose of the UNAT was to decide legal employment disputes between United Nations staff and the Organization. In 1955 the Statute of UNAT was amended and the Committee on Application for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgement was competent to seek advisory opinion form ICJ and this opinion was binding. However Committee only in three cases requested the ICJ to give advisory opinion. Those opinions concerned inter alia the competence of ICJ to respond to the question, the right of Committee to submit such motion, the principle of equality of arms. In spite of that since of the 1st of July 2009 the new system of administration of internal justice was established – the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeal Tribunal, which consider the appeals against judgments rendered by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, the issues discussed in advisory opinions of ICJ on the matters of appealing against a judicial decision of UNAT are still highly topical, especially in the context of the maintained in force competence of ICJ to review judgement of The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation.

PDF

Bibliografia

  1. Abi-Saab G., The International Court as a World Court [w:] V . Lowe, M. Fitzmaurice (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge 1996.
  2. Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion), Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010.
  3. Ago R., “Binding” Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice, „American Journal of International Law” 1991, vol. 85, no. 3.
  4. Aljaghoub M. M., The Advisory Function of the International Court of Justice 1946–2005, Berlin 2006.
  5. Amerasinghe Ch. F., And What About International Civil Servants?, UN Chronicle, 02517329, Winter 1998, vol. 25, no. 4.
  6. Amerasinghe Ch. F., International Administrative Tribunals [w:] C. Romano, K. Alter, Y. Shany (eds.), The Oxford Handbook for International Adjudication, Oxford 2014.
  7. Amerasinghe Ch. F., Jurisdiction of Specific International Tribunals, Boston 2009.
  8. Amerasinghe Ch. F., The World Bank Administrative Tribunal, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1982, vol. 31, no. 4.
  9. Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 12 July 1973, ICJ Reports 1973.
  10. Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982, ICJ Reports 1982.
  11. Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 27 May 1987, ICJ Reports 1987.
  12. Aréchaga E.J, The Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice, „American Journal of International Law” 1973, vol. 67, no. 1.
  13. Berman S., The International Court of Justice as an ‘Agent’ of Legal Development? [w:] Ch. J. Tams, J. Sloan (eds.), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Oxford 2013.
  14. Bordin F. L., Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice, „The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2012, vol. 11, no. 2.
  15. Boryslawska R., Lopez L. M., Scoric V., Identifying the Actors Responsible for Human Rights Violations Committed against Staff members of International Organizations: An Impossible Quest for Justice, „Human Rights and International Legal Discourse” 2007, vol. 1, no. 2.
  16. Brabandere de E., Individuals in Advisory Proceedings before the International Court of Justice: Equality of the Parties and the Court’s Discretionary Authority, „The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2012, vol. 11.
  17. Brower Ch. N., Bekke P.H.F. r, Understanding “Binding” Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice [w:] N. Ando, E. McWhinney, R. Wolfrüm (eds.), Judge Shigeru Oda: Liber Amicorum, vol. I., Boston 2002.
  18. Brownlie I., The Individual Before Tribunals Exercising International Jurisdiction, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1962, vol. 7, no. 3.
  19. Certain expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962, ICJ Reports 1962.
  20. Consistency of Certain Danzig Legislative Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City, Advisory Opinion of 4 December 1935, PCIJ 1935, Series A/B, No. 65.
  21. Dallari P., Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations and the World Constitutionalism [w:] O. Elias, The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law: On the Occasion of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal, Leiden 2012.
  22. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion of 29 April 1999, ICJ Reports 1999.
  23. Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 13 July 1954, ICJ Reports 1954.
  24. Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Oral Statements, Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from June 10th to 14th, and July 13th, 1954, the President, Sir Arnold McNair, presiding, CR 1954.
  25. Eisuke S., Review and Repudiation of Judgments of International Administrative Tribunals, „Asian Yearbook of International Law” 1997, vol. 7.
  26. Elias O., M. Thomas M., Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations [w:] Ch. Giorgetti (ed.), The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals, Leiden, Boston 2012.
  27. Elias T. O., How the International Court of Justice Deals with Requests for Advisory Opinions [w:] J. Makarczyk (ed.), Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, Dordrecht 1984.
  28. European Court of Human Rights, Waite and Kennedy vs. Germany, Application no. 26083/94, Judgment of 18 February 1999.
  29. Evans A. E., Judicial Decisions: Request for Advisory Opinion by Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments-”failure to exercise jurisdiction-” fundamental error in procedure. Applications for Review Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 166, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion of 12 July, 1973, „American Journal of International Law” 1974, vol. 68, no. 2.
  30. Flaherty E. P., Legal Protection in International Organizations for Staff – A Practitioner’s View, http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/user/suetheungmailcom/download/March%20paper.doc.
  31. Foriati S., The International Court of Justice: An Arbitral Tribunal Or a Judicial Body?, Springer 2014.
  32. Frowein J. A., Oellers-Frahm K., Article 65 [w:] A. Zimmermann, Ch. Tomuschat, K. Oellers-Frahm (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, Oxford 2006.
  33. Gallo D., The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Right of Access to Justice for the Staff of International Organizations: The Need for a Reform in Light of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012, LUISS Guido Carli Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Working paper no 02-2014.
  34. General Comment No. 32 Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007.
  35. Gomula J., The International Court of Justice and Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations, „Michigan Journal of International Law” 1991, vol. 13, no. 1.
  36. Gomula J., The Review Decisions of International Administrative Tribunals by the International Court of Justice [w:] O. Elias (ed.), The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law: On the Occasion of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal, Leiden 2012.
  37. Goodrich L. M., The Nature of the Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice, „American Journal of International Law” 1938, vol. 32, no. 4.
  38. Greig D. W., The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court and the Settlement of Disputes between States, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1966, vol. 15, no. 2.
  39. Gross L., Participation of Individuals in Advisory Proceedings before the International Court of Justice: Question of Equality between the Parties, „American Journal of International Law” 1958, vol. 52, no. 1.
  40. Gross L., Some Observation on the International Court of Justice, „American Journal of International Law” 1962, vol. 56, no. 1.
  41. Gulati R., The Internal Dispute Resolution Regime of the United Nations: Has the Creations of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and United Nations Appeals Tribunal Remedied the Flaws of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, „Max Planck Yearbook of the United Nations” 2011, vol. 15.
  42. Hambro E. I., Individuals before International Tribunals, „American Society of International Law Proceedings” 1941, vol. 35.
  43. Hambro E., The Authority of the Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1954, vol. 3, no. 1.
  44. Hernández G. I., The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function, Oxford 2014.
  45. Hudson M. O., Advisory Opinions of the Nationals and Internationals Courts, „Harvard Law Review” 1924, vol. 37, no. 8.
  46. Hwang P., Reform of the Administration of Justice System at the United Nations, „Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2009, vol. 8, no. 2.
  47. International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal Judgement No. 122 of 10 October 1968, Case Chadsey.
  48. International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal Judgement No. 1644 of 10 July 1997, Case Rubio.
  49. Jennings R. Y., United Nations at Fifty: The International Court of Justice after Fifty Years, „American Journal of International Law” 1995, vol. 89, no. 3.
  50. Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development – Request for Advisory Opinion, Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012, ICJ Reports 2012.
  51. Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints Made against Unesco, Advisory Opinion of 23 October 1956 (including the text of the declaration of Judge Kojevnikov), ICJ Reports 1956.
  52. Kaikobad K. H., The International Court of Justice and Judicial Review: A Study of the Court’s Power with Respect to Judgements of the ILO and UN Administrative Tribunal, The Hague 2000.
  53. Kelsen H., The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems, The Lawbook Exchange, LTI Union, New Jersey 2000.
  54. Klabbers J., An Introduction to International Organizations Law, Cambridge 2015.
  55. Kolb R., International Court of Justice, The Hague 2013.
  56. Kolb R., The Elgar Companion to the International Court of Justice, Northampton 2014.
  57. Konwencja o przywilejach i immunitetach organizacji wyspecjalizowanych z 21 listopada 1947 r., UN Treaty Series, vol. 133, no. 521.
  58. Koroma A. G., (introduction), Strengthening the Role of the Courts as the Principal Judicial Organ of the UN [w:] C. Peck, R. S. K. Lee, R. S. Lee (eds.), Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice: Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court, the Peace Palace, 16–18 April 1996, The Hague, Boston 1997.
  59. Lachs M., Some Refl ections on the Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Law, „Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce” 1983, vol. 10, no. 2.
  60. Lang A., The Role of the ICJ in a Context of Fragmentation, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 2013, vol. 62, no. 4.
  61. Lauterpacht E., Aspects of the Administration of International Justice, Cambridge 1991.
  62. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia – South West Africa notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 Jun 1971, ICJ Reports 1971.
  63. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory), Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004.
  64. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996.
  65. Lissitzyn O. J., The International Court of Justice: Its Role in the Maintenance of Justice: Its Role in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Clark New Jersey 2006.
  66. Megzari A., The Internal Justice of the United Nations: A Critical History 1945– 2015, Leiden, Boston 2015.
  67. Mercouris P., The Advisory Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice in Practice: A Tale of Two Scopes [w:] Ch. J. Tams, M. Fitzmaurice M.(eds.), Legacies of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Leiden 2013.
  68. Morgenstern F., Law Applicable to International Officials, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1969, vol. 18, no. 3.
  69. Mosler H., Ollers-Frahm K., Article 96 [w:] B. Simma (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, vol. II, Oxford 2002.
  70. Ostrihansky R., Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice as Reviews of Judgments of International Administrative Tribunals, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 1988, vol. XVII.
  71. Otis L., The Reform of the United Nations Administration of Justice System: The United Nations Appeals Tribunal after One Year, „Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2011, vol. 10, no. 3.
  72. Pellet A., Strengthening the Role of the Courts as the Principal Judicial Organ of the UN [w:] C. Peck, R. S. K. Lee, R. S. Lee (eds.), Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice: Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court, the Peace Palace, 16-18 April 1996, The Hague, Boston 1997.
  73. Pomerance M., The Advisory Function of the International Court in the League and U.N. Eras, Baltimore and London 1973.
  74. Pomerance M., The Advisory Role of the International Court of Justice and its ‘Judical’ Character: Past and Future Prism [w:] A.S. Muller, S. Muller, D. Raič, J. Thuránszky (eds.), The International Court of Justice: Its Future Role After Fifty Years, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997.
  75. Porozumienie w sprawie siedziby Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych z 26 czerwca 1947 r., UN Treaty Series, vol. 11, no. 147.
  76. Pratap D., The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court, Oxford 1972.
  77. Przyborowska-Klimczak A. (oprac.), Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Wybór dokumentów, Lublin 2005.
  78. Quintana J. José, Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure, Leiden 2015.
  79. Reinisch A., Knahr Ch., From the United Nations Administrative Tribunal to the United Nations Appeals Tribunal – Reform of the Administration of Justice System within United Nations, „Max Planck Yearbook of the United Nations” 2008, vol. 12.
  80. Reinisch A., The Immunity of International Organizations and the Jurisdiction of their Administrative Tribunals, „Chinese Journal of International Law” 2008, vol. 7, no. 2.
  81. Reinisch A., Weber U. A., In the Shadow of Waite and Kennedy – The Jurisdictional Immunity of International Organizations, the Individual’s Right of Access to the Courts and Administrative Tribunals as Alternative Means of Dispute Settlement, „International Organization Law Review” 2004, vol. 1, no. 1.
  82. Reparation for Injuries Suff ered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949.
  83. Report of the Redesign Panel on the United Nations System of Administration of Justice, A/61/205 of 28 July 2006.
  84. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention und Punishment of the Crime of’ Genocide, Advisory Opinion 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951.
  85. Rezolucja 351 A(IV) of 9 December 1949, Establishment of a United Nations Administrative Tribunal.
  86. Rezolucja A/RES/50/54 of 11 December 1995, Review of the procedure provided for under article 11 of the statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations.
  87. Rezolucja A/RES/61/261 of 4 April 2007, Administration of justice at the United Nations.
  88. Rezolucja A/RES/62/228 of 22 December 2007, Administration of justice at the United Nations.
  89. Rezolucja A/RES/63/253 of 24 December 2008, Administration of justice at the United Nations.
  90. Rosenne S., Interpretation, Revision, and Other Recourse from International Judgments and Awards, Leiden 2007.
  91. Rosenne S., Ronen Y. (eds.), The Law And Practice Of The International Court, 1920–2005, Leiden 2005.
  92. Sameh M. M. Amr., The Role of the International Court of Justice As the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations, Leiden 2003.
  93. Seyersted F., Settlement of Internal Disputes of Intergovernmental Organizations by Internal and External Courts, „Zeitschrift für ausländisches öff entliches Recht und Völkerrecht” 1964, vol. 25.
  94. Shaw M. N., International Law, Cambridge 2008.
  95. Shockley T. A., The Evolution of a New International System of Justice in the United Nations: The First Session of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, „Saint Diego International Law Journal” 2012, vol. 13, no. 2.
  96. Sloan F. B., Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, „California Law Review” 1950, vol. 38, no. 5.
  97. Spiermann O., Introduction [w:] A. Zimmermann, Ch. Tomuschat, K. Oellers- Frahm (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, Oxford 2006.
  98. Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion of 23 July 1923, PCIJ 1923, Series B, No. 4.
  99. Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization adopted by the International Labour Conference on 9 October 1946 and amended by the Conference on 29 June 1949, 17 June 1986, 19 June 1992, 16 June 1998 and 11 June 2008, tekst dostępny na: http://www.ilo.org/tribunal/about-us/WCMS_249194/lang--en/index.htm.
  100. Thirlway H., The Law and the Procedure of the International Court of Justice. Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Volume I, Oxford 2013.
  101. Traktat pokoju między mocarstwami sprzymierzonemi i skojarzonemi i Niemcami, podpisany w Wersalu dnia 28 czerwca 1919 r., Dz. U. z 1920 r. Nr 35, poz. 200.
  102. Tunkin G. I., Theory of International Law, Harvard University Press 1974.
  103. United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgement No. 158 of 28 April 1972, Case No. 144 (Falsa), Judgement No. 273 of 15 May 1982, Case No. 257 (Mortished).
  104. United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgement No. 158 of 28 April 1972, Case No. 144 (Falsa), Judgement No. 333 of 8 June 1984, Case No. 322 (Yakimetz).
  105. United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgement No. 158 of 28 April 1972, Case No. 144 (Falsa), http://untreaty.un.org/UNAT/Judgements_English_By_Number.htm.
  106. Vargiu P., From Advisory Opinions to Binding Decisions: The New Appeal Mechanism of the UN System of Administration of Justice, „International Organizations Law Review” 2010, vol. 7, no. 2.
  107. Vidal-León Ch., Inequality of the Parties before the International Court of Justice: Reflections on the Appellate Jurisdiction over ILOAT Judgments, „Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2014, vol. 5, no. 2.
  108. Waldock H., General Course on Public International Law, „Recueil des Cours” 1962 – II, vol. 106.
  109. Wet de E., The Direct Administration of Territories by the United Nations and its Member States in the Post Cold War Era: Legal Bases and Implications for National Law, „Max Planck Yearbook of the United Nations” 2004, vol. 8.