Make a Submission
No. 2 (214) (2018)
Artykuły

The rule of law w opiniach doradczych i wyrokach Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości

[The rule of law in judgments and advisory opinions of the international court of justice]

PDF (Polish)
  • Edyta Lis
Edyta Lis
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin

Published 2018-06-29

Keywords

  • rule of law,
  • International Court of Justice,
  • advisory opinions,
  • judgement,
  • dispute settlement,
  • clarity of law,
  • equality before the law
    • ...More
    Less
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The rule of law w opiniach doradczych i wyrokach Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości: [The rule of law in judgments and advisory opinions of the international court of justice]. (2018). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 2 (214), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2018.2.1

Abstract

This paper argues that by delivering judgement and giving an advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice contributes to enhancement and promotion of the rule of law. First of all, it was necessary to explain the term ‘rule of law’ and its formal and substantive theories. It argues that the notion of rule of law in national legal systems should be distinguished from this concept in international law. Then it analyzes some judgements and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice with regard to peaceful settlement of disputes, interpretation, uniform application and development of international law, as well as equality before the law. It was established that through peaceful settlement of disputes between States, the International Court of Justice helped maintain peace, friendly relations and prevent violent conflicts. Furthermore, the World Court consistently and impartially applies, clarifies and contributes to the development of international law. Unfortunately, individuals are not on equal footing in the advisory proceedings concerning revision of judgements of administrative tribunals. According to Article 34 paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court, only States are entitled to appear before the International Court of Justice. What is more, there is also absence of equality of the parties in advisory proceedings because individuals are deprived of any access to the Court. But in the last advisory opinion rendered on 1 February 2012, the Court argued that it is obliged to ensure that this principle is adhered to as far as it possible.

PDF (Polish)

References

  1. Abraham R., Presentation of the International Court of Justice over the Last Ten Years, „Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2016, vol. 7, no. 2.
  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.
  3. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010.
  4. Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 12 July 1973.
  5. Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982.
  6. Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 27 May 1987.
  7. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgement of 18 November 2008, Preliminary Objections.
  8. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, Merits.
  9. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Judgment of 1 April 2011.
  10. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment of 3 February 2006.
  11. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002.
  12. Barber N.W., The Rechtsstaat and the Rule of Law, „University of Toronto Law Journal” 2003, vol. 53, no. 4.
  13. Bennett M., The Rule of Law Means Literally What It Says: The Rule of the Law: Fuller and Raz on Formal Legality and the Concept of Law, „Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy” 2007, vol. 32.
  14. Berman F., The International Court of Justice as an ‚Agent’ of Legal Development? [w:] The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, red. Ch.J. Tams, J. Sloan, Oxford 2013.
  15. Bhat G.N., Recovering the Historical Rechtsstaat, „Review of Central and East European Law” 2007, vol. 32, no. 1.
  16. Binachi A., Gazing at the Crystal Ball (again): State Immunity and Jus Cogens beyond Germany v Italy, „Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2013, vol. 4, no. 3.
  17. Bishop W.W., The International Rule of Law, „Michigan Law Review” 1960, vol. 59, no. 4.
  18. CCPR General Comment No. 13: Article 14 (Administration of Justice), Equality before the Courts and the Right to a Fair and Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law, 13 April 1984.
  19. Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962.
  20. Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948.
  21. Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Proceedings joined with Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) on 17 April 2013, Judgement of 16 December 2015.
  22. Couvreur P., The International Court of Justice [w:] The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law, red. G. de Baere, J. Wouters, Cheltenham–Northampton 2015.
  23. Crawford J., International Law and the Rule of Law, „Adelaide Law Review” 2003, vol. 24, no. 1.
  24. de Baere G., Chané A.L., Wouters J., The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law: A Framework for Analysis [w:] The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law, red. G. de Baere, J. Wouters, Cheltenham–Northampton 2015.
  25. de Brabandere E., Individuals in Advisory Proceeding before the International Court of Justice: Equality of the Parties and the Court’s Discretionary Authority, „Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2012, vol. 11, no. 2.
  26. de Brabandere E., The Use of Precedent and External Case-Law by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Grotius Centre Working Paper, 2016/057-PIL, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =2846999 [dostęp 31.07.2018], s. 18–20.
  27. Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels, A/RES/67/1 of 24 September 2012.
  28. Dicey A.V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Liberty Classics, Indianapolis, reprint, originally published: 8th ed. London 1915.
  29. Di Ciaccio P., A Tort Manifesto – Impunity through Immunity in Jones v. the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, „Sydney Law Review” 2008, vol. 30, no. 3.
  30. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion of 29 April 1999.
  31. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire), Judgment of 23 September 2017.
  32. Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgement of 13 July 2009.
  33. Dupy P.M., Article 34 [w]: The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, red. A. Zimmermann, Ch. Tomuschat Ch., K. Oellers-Frahm, Oxford 2006.
  34. Dworkin R., A Matter of Principle, Oxford 1985.
  35. Fuller L.L., Moralność prawa, przeł. S. Amsterdamski, Warszawa 1978.
  36. Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997.
  37. 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 F ebruary 2012, LUISS Guido Carli Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Working Paper No 02-2014.
  38. General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial: Right to Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007.
  39. Gomula J., The Review Decisions of International Administrative Tribunals by the International Court of Justice [w:] The Development and Effectiveness of International Administrative Law: On the Occasion of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal, red. O. Elias, Leiden–Boston 2012.
  40. Greenwood Ch., Judicial Integrity and the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice [w:] Enhancing the Rule of Law through the International Court of Justice, red. G. Gaja, J.G. Stoutenburg, Leiden–Boston 2014.
  41. 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.
  42. Hathaway O.A., Crootof R., Levitz P., Nix H., Which Law Governs During Armed Conflict – Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law, „Minnesota Law Review” 2012, vol. 96, no. 6.
  43. Higgins R., The Rule of Law: Some Sceptical Thoughts. Lecture Given at the British Institute for International and Comparative Law 16 October 2007, [w:] tenże, Themes and Theories: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Writings in International Law, vol. II, Oxford 2009.
  44. de Hoogh A., The ‘Armed Activities’ Case: Unasked Questions, Proper Answers, „Hague Justice Journal” 2006, vol. 1, no. 1.
  45. House of Lords, Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause, Jones v Saudi Arabia, [2006] UKHL 26.
  46. Inaugural Hilding Eek Memorial Lecture by H.E. Judge Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, at the Stockholm Centre for International Law and Justice, The Rule of Law and the Role of the International Court of Justice in World Affairs, Monday 2 December 2013, s. 5–6, www.icj-cij.org/files/press-releases/9/17849.pdf [dostęp: 31.07.2018].
  47. Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012.
  48. Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints Made against Unesco, Advisory Opinion of 23 October 1956.
  49. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgement of 3 February 2012.
  50. 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, Hague 2000.
  51. Katz Cogan J., The 2012 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice, „American Journal of International Law” 2013, vol. 107, no. 3.
  52. Kałduński M., The Law of State Immunity in the Case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), „The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals” 2014, vol. 13, no. 1.
  53. Karta Narodów Zjednoczonych, Statut Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, podpisane 26 czerwca 1945 r. w San Francisco [w:] Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Wybór dokumentów, oprac. A. Przyborowska-Klimczak, Lublin 2005.
  54. Keith K.J., The International Rule of Law, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2015, vol. 28, no. 4.
  55. Kingsbury B., Weiler J.H.H., Preface: Studying the Armed Activities Decision, „New York University Journal of International Law and Politics” 2008, vol. 40, special issue.
  56. Kolb R., The Elgar Companion to the International Court of Justice, Cheltenham–Northampton 2014.
  57. Konwencja w sprawie zakazu stosowania tortur oraz innego okrutnego, nieludzkiego lub poniżającego traktowania albo karania z 10 grudnia 1984 r., Dz.U z 1989 r. Nr 63, poz. 378, załącznik.
  58. Kumm M., International Law in National Courts: The International Rule of Law and the Limits of the Internationalist Model, „Virginia Journal of International Law” 2003, vol. 44, no. 1.
  59. Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial; joinder of proceedings, Order of 2 February 2017.
  60. Langley Hardy M.J., Notes: Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of October 23, 1956, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 1957, vol. 6, no. 2.
  61. Lauterpacht H., The Development of International Law by the International Court, London 1958, reprinted Cambridge 1982.
  62. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004.
  63. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996.
  64. Linderfalk U., International Legal Hierarchy Revisited – The Status of Obligations Erga Omnes, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 2011, vol. 80, no. 1
  65. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Appointment of experts, Order of 16 June 2016.
  66. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgement of 2 February 2018.
  67. Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment of 27 January 2014.
  68. Mayr T.F., Mayr-Singer J., Keep the Wheels Spinning: The Contributions of Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Law, „Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht” 2016, vol. 76, no. 2.
  69. McCorquodale R., Defining the International Rule of Law: Defying Gravity?, „International and Comparative Law Quarterly” 2016, vol. 65, no. 2.
  70. Murphy C., Lon Fuller and the Moral Value of the Rule of Law, „Law and Philosophy” 2005, vol. 24, no. 3.
  71. Murphy S.D., What a Difference a Year Makes: The International Court of Justice’s 2012 Jurisprudence, „Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2013, vol. 4, no. 3.
  72. Müller D., The Saga of the 1858 Treaty of Limits: The Cases Against Costa Rica, [w:] Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice: Impacts on International Law, red. E. Sobenes Obregon, B. Samson, Cham 2018.
  73. Nollkaemper A., National Courts and the International Rule of Law, Oxford 2011.
  74. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Judgement of 5 October 2016.
  75. Oellers-Frahm K., A Never-Ending Story: The International Court of Justice – The Italian Constitutional Court – Italian Tribunals and the Question of Immunity, „Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht” 2016, vol. 76, no. 1.
  76. Orakhelashvili A., State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms: Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong, „European Journal of International Law” 2007, vol. 18, no. 5.
  77. Proulx V.J., Institutionalizing State Responsibility, Oxford 2016.
  78. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010.
  79. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012.
  80. Quintana J.J., Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure, Leiden 2015.
  81. Raz J., Autorytet prawa: eseje o prawie i moralności, tł. P. Maciejko, Warszawa 2000.
  82. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949.
  83. Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 2016 – 31 July 2017, General Assembly Official Records Seventy-second Session Supplement No. 4, A/72/4.
  84. Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August 2015 – 31 July 2016, A/71/4.
  85. Report of the Secretary-General, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-conflict Societies, S/2004/616 of 3 August 2004.
  86. Report of the Secretary-General, The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels: Comments and Information Received from Governments, A/62/121.
  87. Report of the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, A/RES/71/146 of 13 December 2016.
  88. Sakai H., Bonne Administration de la Justice in the Incidental Proceedings of the International Court of Justice, „Japanese Yearbook of International Law” 2012, vol. 55.
  89. Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice, Report of the Secretary-General, A/72/345 of 17 August 2017.
  90. Sicilianos L.A., The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility, „European Journal of International Law” 2002, vol. 13, no. 5.
  91. Sobenes Obregon E., Joinder of Cases: Strengthening the Sound Administration of Justice and the Judicial Economy [w:] Nicaragua Before the International Court of Justice: Impacts on International Law, red. E. Sobenes Obregon, B. Samson, Cham 2018.
  92. Talamon S., Jus Cogens after Germany v. Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 25, no. 4.
  93. Tamanaha B.Z., On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory, Cambridge 2004.
  94. Tams Ch.J., The World Court’s Role in the International Law-making Process, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733344 [dostęp 31.07.2018].
  95. Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007.
  96. The Rule of Law at the National and International Levels, A/RES/71/148 of 13 December 2016.
  97. Thirlway H., The International Court of Justice: Cruising Ahead at 70, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2016, vol. 29, no. 4.
  98. Villalpando S., On the International Court of Justice and the Determination of Rules of Law, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2013, vol. 26, no. 2.
  99. Watts A., The International Rule of Law, „German Yearbook of International Law” 1993, vol. 36.
  100. Wellens K., The International Court of Justice, Back to the Future: Keeping the Dream Alive, „Netherlands International Law Review” 2017, vol. 64, no. 2.
  101. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 March 2014.
  102. World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1 of 16 September 2005.