Abstract
This article looks beyond customary international law and asks whether the source of international law listed in Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the ICJ Statute ('the general principles of law ...recognized by civilized nations') might join the dance. Is there a risk that general principles of law may be too easily invoked where no applicable treaty or rule of customary international law can be identified? In emphasizing the distinction between customary international law and general principles of law, the article first recalls relevant recent work of the International Law Commission. It then addresses the term 'general international law' and certain problems related to it, and raises questions concerning the relationship between customary international law and general principles of law. Before drawing some conclusions, reference is also made to the place of general principles of law within the international legal system.
Aan de hand van een negental voorbeelden wordt in deze bijdrage onderzocht hoe rechtswetenschap en religiewetenschap, en met name Bijbelwetenschap, tot een bredere interactie kunnen komen, zoals ...reeds het geval is in de sfeer van recht en literatuur. Daarbij wordt in het bijzonder geprobeerd recente en minder recente debatten uit de Bijbelwetenschap in verband te brengen met pijnpunten in de juridische interpretatieleer. Zo wordt onder meer ingegaan op vraagstukken van het auteurschap, de canonisering, de beoogde lezer, achterliggende polemieken en de aanwezigheid van fictionaliteit in juridische teksten. De stelling van de auteur is dat vooral methodologische vragen aanleiding kunnen geven tot een vruchtbare dialoog tussen recht en religie.
The fundamental elements of the international legal system remain subject to debate. Constitutionalism is merely the latest instalment of this continuing conversation on the very nature of ...international law. In this context certain foundational aspects may be labelled as the system’s ‘constitutional processes’. The primary argument presented in this article is that principles and ‘general principles of law’, two frequently overlooked categories of norms, are particularly useful tools for the enhancement of these constitutional processes. While often conflated, principles and general principles are distinct, performing different roles in the architecture of the international legal system. Renewed attention and debate on the norms beyond treaties and custom is critical for the enhancement of international law’s systemic features. Two broad examples are given in support of this claim. First, general principles of law have the potential to add substance to the notion of an
international community
and the role of this community in the creation of international norms. Second, the legal framework for the judicial settlement of international disputes can be rendered more robust through the use of principles and general principles of law. While attempting to redesign or reconceptualise the system, constitutionalists have failed to actually engage with the system. Yet, the popularity of the constitutionalism debate presents an opportunity to re-examine the system’s constituent norms and consider their potential to strengthen international law’s constitutional processes.
When the relevance or, practice of international tribunals is impugned their tendency often is to resort to 'vivere-existential reflexes'. This habit can incubate conflict between the particular ...tribunal and the requirements of General Principles of Law recognized by civilized nations. This risks disunity between international law, supranational law and domestic law. This article examines the International Criminal Court's (icc) application and interpretation of Article 87 of the Rome Statute (1998) under the light of nemo judex in parte sua - a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations. The article recommends that an observatory for monitoring International Tribunals' compliance with general principles of law recognized by civilized nations should be established and a database on non-compliance should be developed and maintained. This should check practice of international tribunals for consistency with general principles of law recognized by civilized nations in a manner that promotes the integrity of international law.
The issues of the status of good faith of participants in civil proceedings as an independent principle are investigated, taking into account the degree of its legal regulation and the existence of a ...legislative prohibition to abuse civil procedural rights. An outline is given of the state of development of the problem in the scientific literature, as well as legislative regulation in procedural legislation.It has been argued that the modernization of civil procedural law in some way influenced the modification of a competitive model of civil justice, based on its tasks - fair, impartial and timely consideration and resolution of civil cases with the aim of effective protection of violated, unrecognized or challenged rights, freedoms or interests of individuals, rights and the interests of legal entities, the interests of the state. This factor has led to a rethinking of the principles of civil justice as a cornerstone of the legal regulation of civil procedural legal relations, Considering that in the competitive model of civil justice, the implementation of the procedural rights and procedural obligations by participants in civil proceedings is essential in the presence of the provision contained in part 1 article 44 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides that participants in the trial and their representatives should use procedural rights in good faith and abuse of procedural rights is prohibited.The author proves that the analysis of procedural legislation and scientific literature on the outlined problem gives grounds to assert that in the system of principles of civil justice the principle of good faith of participants in civil justice has independent status, structural content and defines: 1) the prohibition of abuse of procedural rights; 2) the requirement of honest performance of procedural duties; 3) the prohibition of contradictory behavior of the parties, or the rule of procedural estoppel; 4) the prohibition of other illegal impediments to the administration of justice (for example, the prohibition of misleading the court, the prohibition of the use of lost procedural powers, etc.).
El Principio de concentración constituye, sin lugar a duda, uno de los principios procesales de mayor relevancia en cualquier ordenamiento jurídico. Aporta rapidez, agilidad a los procesos, sin ...perder eficacia y validez en los actos procesales, que se logran reunir en un solo momento. En Ecuador, aunque la Constitución de 2008 prevé este principio, el vigente Código Orgánico General de Procesos (COGEP) no lo establece de forma expresa, contrario a la legislación procesal uruguaya, que si lo define formalmente en su normativa. Este es el punto central sobre el que se centró el presente estudio, delimitar la insuficiencia del COGEP en materia de regulación de este principio, teniendo como referente la legislación uruguaya, y en base a ello se propuso una reforma pertinente.
The ‘lawmaking’ of arbitral institutions has been a recurring issue in international arbitration. It is widely accepted that international arbitral tribunals do not have a
forum
, thus are relatively ...autonomous from the legal orders constituted by the states. Nevertheless, their adjudicative powers are always limited by the concept of international (transnational) public policy. Due to that arbitral institutions often aim at the creation of a consistent jurisprudence based on the universally accepted general principles of law. This has also been true for sport arbitration, where the ‘supreme court’ for sport CAS developed a set of principles called
lex sportiva,
governing transnational sport competition. Nonetheless, in sport, also BAT—established to solve contractual disputes in basketball—has become a true ‘lawmaker’. The uniqueness of BAT arbitration creates vast opportunities to unveil the general principles of law governing contractual relations in basketball. At the heart of it lies the default decisional standard
ex aequo et bono
that allows arbitrators for a certain degree of flexibility in their decision-making. In addition, a simple and flexible procedure equips them with a unique power over arbitration process. Finally, the voluntary character of BAT arbitration (unparalleled in sport arbitration) and its popularity within the basketball community reinforces arbitrators’ mandate to decide what is just and fair in basketball contracts. Due to that BAT established a significant presence in the landscape of sport arbitration and contributed to the development of contractual standards that global basketball relies on.
PDF
