Mihajlo Vučić
10.5937/AnaliPFB1804127V
Inherent powers of international courts and tribunals are a necessary consequence of exercising properly judicial functions in the context of a legal system lacking a central legislative power setting the limits of these functions through firm legal rules. Power to grant binding provisional measures is the most extreme example of international judiciary reaching for inherent powers, since this process disregards ordinary textual interpretations of judicial statutes. At the same time, this process is an example of cross-fertilization between various judicial regimes in international law, where tribunals for the law of the sea influence general international courts, while they in turn influence investment and human rights tribunals. Limits to these inherent powers must provide that state consent, as the central tenet of international legal order remains unaffected. The fact that this practice has not met with resistance from states indicates that international courts and tribunals have assumed this inherent power with propriety and logic.
- Brown, C., A Common Law of International Adjudication, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.
- Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
- Donovan, D. F., “Provisional Measures in the ICJ and ICSID: Further Dialogue and Development”, Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2012 (ed. A.W. Rovine), Martinus Nijhoff, Brill 2013.
- Fitzmaurice, G., The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1986.
- Gaeta, P., “Inherent powers of International Courts and Tribunals”, Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese (eds. L. C. Vohrar et al), 2003.
- ICSID, History of the ICSID Convention: Document Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, ICSID Publication, Washington, D. C. 1968.
- Jacob, I. H., “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court”, Current Legal Problems 23(1)/1970, 23–52.
- Lauterpacht, H., The Development of International Law by the International Court, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1982.
- Mitchell, A. D., D. Heaton, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of WTO Tribunals: The Select Application of Public International Law Required by the Judicial Function”, Michigan Journal of International Law 31/2010.
- Oellers-Frahm, K., “Expanding the Competence to Issue Provisional Measures-Strengthening the International Judicial Function”, International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance (eds. A. von Bogdandy, I. Venzke), 2017.
- Orakhelashvili, A., “Questions of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the LaGrand Case”, Leiden Journal of International Law 15/2002.
- Pasqualucci, J. M., “Interim Measures in International Human Rights: Evolution and Harmonization”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 38(1)/ 2005.
- Paulson, C., “Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987”, The American Journal of International Law 98(3)/2004.
- Romano, C., “The Southern Bluefin Tuna Dispute: Hints of a World to Come … Like It or Not”, Ocean Development and International Law 32(4)/2001.
- Sands, P., “Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law”, Yale Human Rights and Development Journal 1/1998.
- Shelton, D., “Form, Function, and the Powers of International Courts”, Chicago Journal of International Law 9/2009.
- Thirlway, H., The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
- Traviss, A. C., “Temple of Preah Vihear: Lessons on Provisional Measures”, Chicago Journal of International Law 13(1)/2012.
© 1953 - 2024 Annals of the
Comments are closed.