Везде
Law in the Grip of Politics (on Some Trends in the Practice of International Courts)
Table of contents
Abstract Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Law in the Grip of Politics (on Some Trends in the Practice of International Courts)
Abstract
PII
S1991-32220000622-3-1
DOI
10.12737/jzsp.2023.024
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Anatoly I. Kovler 
Occupation: Head of the Center of International Law and Comparative Legal Studies
Affiliation: Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Moscow, Russia
Edition
Volume 19 No. 2
Pages
78-90
Abstract

The growing number of international courts, both universal and specialized, regional courts, courts of integration associations, human rights courts, ad hoc courts, “hybrid” courts generates many problems, and above all the problem of fragmentation of international law under the influence of the rulemaking of these courts, conflicts of interpretation of the principles and norms of international law, manifestations of the so-called judicial activism. Another serious problem in the activities of international courts has become the problem of their politicization. By virtue of the competence given to them, international courts are forced to consider cases often generated by conflicts between States, or to state violations of human rights and freedoms by the authorities of States. In both cases, the boundaries between law and politics are often blurred.

In most situations, international courts tend to take a flexible position, deliberately avoiding political assessments. Thus, in the case of the Declaration of independence of Kosovo, the International Court of Justice of the United Nations tried not to go beyond the scope of a specific case and concluded by a majority of its judges that the declaration of independence in this situation does not violate the principles of international law with its recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. The International Criminal Court interprets the judicial immunity of States in the person of the leaders of these States in an original way and tries to avoid conflicts with major powers. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has gone down in history as an “anti-Serbian” tribunal. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly become a hostage of big politics in cases related to armed conflicts, as well as on so-called interstate complaints. The revision of a number of well-established legal positions as a consequence of judicial activism, clearly dictated by the predilections of judges, is becoming dangerous for his reputation.

In this regard, the question arises of clearing international courts of political layers and returning them to a purely legal mainstream.

Keywords
international law, international courts, conflicts of interpretation, judicial activism, politicization of justice
Date of publication
17.05.2023
Number of purchasers
12
Views
133
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf
1

References



Additional sources and materials

1.	Bjereld U. Moral and International Law: NATO and the Kosovo War. Paper for presentation at the XVIII World Congress of the International Political Science Association. Quebec, 2000.
2.	Buergenthal T. Proliferating of International Courts and Tribunals: is it good or bad? Leiden Journal of International Law, 2001, vol. 14.
3.	Callewaert J. The accession of the European Union to the European convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg, 2014.
4.	Cassese A. Balancing the Prosecution of Crimes Against Humanity and Non-Retroactivity of Criminal Law: the Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia Case Before the ECHR. Journal of International Justice, 2006, no. 4.
5.	Christoffersen J., Madsen M. R. (eds). The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics. Oxford, 2011.
6.	Dick Marty. L’indépendance du Kosovo n’a pas été décidée à Pristina. AlterInfo/France. 13.03.2008.
7.	Doumbé-Billé S. Nouveaux droits de l’homme et internationalization du droit. Bruxelles, 2012.
8.	Entin K. V. Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: analysis of the Opinion of the EU Court of Justice 2/13. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, 2015, no. 3, pp. 82—91.
9.	Golubok S. Compliance of Unil Ateral Decl Aration of Independence of Kosovo with International Law. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 22 July 2010. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2011, no. 1, pp. 21—30. (In Russ.)
10.	Harris D., O’Boyle M. et al. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 4th ed. Ed. by A. I. Kovler. Moscow, 2021.
11.	Ispolinov A. S. In search of a new paradigm: the European court of justice and the European court of human rights three years after opinion no. 2/13. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2018, no. 2, pp. 16—27. (In Russ.)
12.	Kamarovskiy L. A. About the International Court. Moscow, 2007.
13.	Khabrieva T. Y., Kovler A. I. (eds). International Justice as a Factor of Integration. Moscow, 2019. 192 p. (In Russ.)
14.	Khartmann F. Peace and punishment. Secret wars of international politics and justice. Khar’kov, 2018.
15.	Korolyev G. A. Universal Jurisdiction: Definition and Bases of Application. Journal of Russian Law, 2009, no. 3, pp. 107—115. (In Russ.)
16.	Kovler A. I. European Convention: Problems of Interpretation and Implementation. Moscow, 2019. 400 p. (In Russ.)
17.	Kovler A. I. Evolutive interpretation of the european convention on human rights: possibilities and limits. The European Court of Human Rights as a subject of interpretation of law. Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law, 2016, no. 3, pp. 92—100. (In Russ.)
18.	Kovler A. La Cour devant l’Histore, l’Histore devant la Cour ou comment la Cour européenne “juge” l’Histore. La Conscience des droits. Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Paul Costa. Paris, 2011. Pp. 337—352.
19.	Kozlikhin I. Yu. Law and politics. St. Petersburg, 1996.
20.	Lebedev V. M., Khabrieva T. Y. (eds). Justice in the Modern World. 2nd ed. Moscow, 2017. 784 p. (In Russ.)
21.	Macedo S. (ed.). Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law. Philadelphia, 2003.
22.	Melissa G. Justice on Trial: The Efficacy of the International Tribunal for Rwanda. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1995, vol. 1.
23.	Mikhaylov N. G. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: competence, sources of law, basic principles of activity. Moscow, 2006.
24.	Naumov A. V. Modern problems of international criminal law and criminal justice. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravosudie.
25.	Sovremennye problemy. Moscow, 2009.
26.	Oppenheim L. International Law: A Treatise. Vol. 1: Peace. London; New York; Bombay, 1905.
27.	Polaskiewicz J. Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights — an insider’s view addressing one by one the CJEU’s objections in Opinion 2/13. Human Rights Law Journal, 2015, vol. 36, no. 1-6, pp. 10—22.
28.	Poltorak A. I. The Nuremberg Trials and the question of responsibility for aggression. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1965, no. 6.
29.	Reydams L. Universal Jurisdiction over Authorities in Rwanda: Theory and Practice. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 1996, vol. 2.
30.	Rusinova V. N. Hassan v. the United Kingdom: from Convention to the International Humanitarian Law and a Little Bit Back. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2015, no. 3, pp. 27—33. (In Russ.)
31.	Russkikh K. B. “A bitter aftertaste”: a commentary to the ICC decisions on the situation in Afghanistan of April 12, 2019 and March 5, 2020. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2020, no. 2, pp. 47—65. (In Russ.)
32.	Ryngaert C. The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion in Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: a Missed Opportunity? Netherlands International Law Review, 2010, vol. 57.
33.	Savenkov A. N. Nuremberg: a verdict in the name of peace. Moscow, 2022.
34.	Schabas W. A. Realizing Utopia. The Future of International Law. Oxford, 2012.
35.	Schabas W. The International Criminal Court at Ten. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2012, no. 2, pp. 5—16. (In Russ.)
36.	Shinkaretskaya G. G. Legality of the establishment and operation of international criminal courts. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnye organizatsii, 2014, no. 1, pp. 564—570.
37.	Sicilianos L.-A. L’Articulation entre droit international humanitarire et droits de l’homme dans la jurisprudence de la cour Européenne des droits de l’homme. Swiss Review of International and European Law, 2017, vol. 27, no. 1.
38.	Sudre F. Les opinions séparées du juge Anatole Kovler jointes aux arrêts de la Grande Chambre de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: A Decade of Change. Osterwijk. The Netherlands, 2013. Pp. 9—23.
39.	Tancredi A. Il parere della Corte internazionale di giustizia sulla dichiarazione d’indipendenzia del Kosovo. Rivista di Dritto Internationale, 2010, vol. 93.
40.	Tolstykh V. L. (ed.). Institutions of international justice. Moscow, 2014.
41.	Tolstykh V. L. Proliferation of international courts and its consequences. Rossiyskoe pravosudie, 2010, no. 5, pp. 54—63.
42.	Trikoz E. N. Kampala Conference on International Criminal Justice. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya, 2011, no. 1, pp. 20—24.
43.	Van Steenberghe R., Claeys Bonnaert A. L’Avis de la Cour İnternationale de Justice sur la declaration d’indépendance du Kosovo: audace et retenue de la Cour au sujet d’une question controversée. Revue de droit international et de droit comparé, 2011, no. 2.
44.	Vasyanina E. V. Evolution of international criminal tribunals (1945—1994). Moscow, 2018.
45.	Voynikov V. V. The Law of European Union in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2020, no. 1, pp. 50—66. (In Russ.)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate