Since the end of the Cold War, a new phenomenon in international law has surfaced: the proliferation of international judicial bodies as a consequence of the increasing number of treaties. More than just a numeral observation, there have been changes concerning the nature and competences of these entities, such as the creation of regional bodies, international criminal jurisdictions and also the creation of bodies that grant standing to non-state entities. According to Cesare, this increasing number of entities is, "the consequence of an equally tumultuous amplification of the number and ambit of institutions consecrated to ensure compliance with international legal obligations and settlement of disputes arising there from." It is interesting to wonder why this proliferation appeared after 1989. For M. Koskenniemi and P. Leino, "conflicts and special regimes could only arise after 1989, once it could be assumed that the project of a coherent system could be revived." Unfortunately, for these authors, the existence of much more important phenomena such as liberalism and globalization has prevented the creation of the ideal. Indeed, they put in relief this interesting observation: "The structure provided by the East-West confrontation was replaced by a kaleidoscopic reality in which competing actors struggled to create competing normative systems often expressly to escape from the strictures of diplomatic law- though perhaps more often in blissful ignorance about it."
[...] Secretary General to request advisory opinions from the Court on legal questions connected with the discharge of the Secretary General's responsibilities”[26]. Other propositions concern the possibility of a new function by the Court such as a contentious jurisdiction. The authors recommend also allowing the access to the Court to new actors, for instance, international organizations, Non Governmental Organisations or even individuals. They also express a need to strengthen the role of the ICJ: they suggest that the others international courts could make a referral about issues that are not within the sphere of specialized jurisdiction. [...]
[...] This should to some extent allay the fears of those concerned with the fragmentation of international law.”[28] To conclude, it is obvious that the issue of the proliferation of international courts is a discussed topic. If the several presidents of the International Court of Justice have paid attention to this phenomenon, it is in order to avoid a fragmentation and a loss effectiveness of international law. Indeed, it is proved that there is a lack of unity in the interpretation of some norms. [...]
[...] However, in 1995, a study published by the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law paid attention on the secondary rules within special regimes and tried to identify “whether they would become a potential risk, constituting a threat to the global unity and efficacy of the international legal order” It is surprising to notice that their conclusion was quite clear: balance, the relative autonomy of special fields has been used by different actors involved, as far as the secondary rules are concerned, in a way which, at the same time, promoted and guaranteed the growing effectiveness of their own particular set of primary rules, without putting in jeopardy the unity or coherence of the international legal order.”[18] Apparently, the new international courts don't represent the end of a coherent system, but the authors also put in relief that these entities “should never lead isolation from the trends and developments in general international law.” It is interesting to observe that this climate of anxiety about the new face of the international law is not shared by all the lawyers. There are numerous less dramatic views on this phenomenon of proliferation. Indeed, as observed by Koskenniemi and Leino, most commentators, proliferation is either an unavoidable minor problem in a rapidly transforming international system or even a rather positive demonstration of the responsiveness of legal imagination to social change.”[19] They use the example of Charney, an academic commentator. [...]
[...] In the Martic case judged by the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia, the court decided that armed reprisals were simply prohibited. Another example between these two judicial bodies concerning their power to review Security Council acts. The ICJ, in its case Lockerbie, established that countries were obliged to accept and carry out the decisions of the Council. It added that this obligation overrode whatever the rights they may otherwise possess. No review of the legality of that resolution was carried out. Contrary to the ICJ, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY expressly reviewed the legality of its on establishment. [...]
[...] Miller Leiden Journal of International Law pages 483-526 Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties M. Koskenniemi and P. Leino Leiden Journal of International Law pages 553-579 The impact on the International Legal System of the Growth of International Courts and Tribunals Charney NY University Journal of International Law and Politics The implications of expanding international dispute settlement systems; the 1982 Convention on the law of sea, Charney American Journal of International Law Page 709 Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties Leiden Journal of International Law, page 559 Fragmentation of international law? [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
