Available in Russian
Author: Olga Magomedova
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2022-4-108-132
Keywords: international legal policy; international justice; international courts; optional clauses; recognition of jurisdiction; preliminary objections; doctrine of political question; enforcement of judgment
Although States’ conduct in international court proceedings may vary, some theories suggest there is a common rational basis behind these different practices. The article suggests considering the international legal policy of a State as this assumed rational basis. The concept of the international legal policy of a State considers international law to be the result of active coordination of States’ sovereign wills. According to this concept, States participate in the development of international law strategically, creating special policies in relation to international law. The conduct of these policies is subject to the strict principles of the process for legitimizing the positions asserted by a State in international law. By pursuing its international legal policy, a State influences the content of international law by initiating the adoption of new norms, agreeing to or rejecting proposals of other States, and offering its own interpretation of international legal norms and law enforcement practice. In reliance on the identified general patterns of the international legal policy of a State, the article develops the idea of international legal policy in relation to international justice. The problem with this policy is that the submission of an international dispute to international judges limits the active role of the State on the relevant issue. Without wishing to receive a negative opinion from international judges about the outcome of their efforts to uphold their legal position, States are wary of judicial settlement of their international disputes. A State can use legal instruments to limit involvement of independent, qualified lawyers and international adjudicators in dispute settlement. The decisive factor in a State’s attitude to international justice in a particular case is how international litigation and its outcome might affect the State’s ability to assert its legal policies in international law. Thus, various decisions and actions of States in relation to international justice are subject to the specific logic of their international legal policies. Therefore the actual problems of international justice, such as incidents of “backlash” against international courts, should not be seen as autonomous, but as part of a system of factors, including the principles of a State’s international legal policy.
About the author: Olga Magomedova – Ph.D. Student, Department of International Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (MGIMO University); Research Associate, Institute of International Economics and Finance, Russian Academy of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Magomedova O. (2022) Ne poslednyaya instantsiya: zakonomernosti mezhdunarodno-pravovoy politiki gosudarstv v otnoshenii mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [Not final authority: principles of international legal policy of State regarding international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 108–132. (In Russian).
References
Alter K.J., Helfer L.R., Madsen M.R. (2016) How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts. Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 1–36.
Anzilotti D. (1929) Cours de droit international, Paris: Recueil Sirey.
Berkman P.A., Vylegzhanin A.N., Young O.R. (2019) Baseline of Russian Arctic Laws, Cham: Springer.
Brownlie J. (2008) Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chan-Tung L. (2007) Les exceptions préliminaires devant la CIJ: les clairs obscurs d’une théorie? Revue belge de droit international, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 437–473.
Charney J.I. (1987) Disputes Implicating the Institutional Credibility of the Court: Problems of Non-Appearance, Non-Participation, and Non-Performance. In: Damrosch L.F. (ed.). The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, New York: Transnational Pub. Inc., pp. 288–319.
Chayes A., Chayes A.H. (1993) On Compliance. International Organization, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 175–205.
Downs G.W., Rocke D.M., Barsoom P.N. (1996) Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation? International Organization, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 379–406.
Fauchille P. (1926) Traite de droit international public. vol. 1, Paris: Rousseau.
Follesdal A. (2020) The Legitimacy of International Courts. The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 476–499.
Gal’perin M. (2020) Politizatsiya prava ili legalizatsiya politiki? O justiciability i doktrine “politicheskogo voprosa” na primere mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [Politicising law or legalising politics? Justiciability and the “political question” on the examples from international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 45–58. (In Russian).
Ginsburg T., McAdams R.H. (2004) Adjudicating in Anarchy: An Expressive Theory of International Dispute Resolution. William & Mary Law Review, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1229–1339.
Gross L. (1987) Compulsory Jurisdiction under the Optional Clause: History and Practice. In: Damrosch L.F. (ed.). The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, New York: Transnational Pub. Inc., pp. 19–57.
Hughes D. (2019) How States Persuade: An Account of International Legal Argument Upon the Use of Force. Georgetown Journal of International Law, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 839–946.
Huneeus A.V. (2014) Compliance with International Court Judgments and Decisions. In: Alter K.J., Romano C., Shany Y. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 437–463.
Hwang M. (2018) Selected Essays on Dispute Resolution, Singapore: Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
Jones H.L. (2012) Why Comply? An Analysis of Trends in Compliance with Judgments of the International Court of Justice since Nicaragua. Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 57–98.
Kebbon N. (1989) The World Court’s Compulsory Jurisdiction under the Optional Clause – Past, Present and Future. Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 58, no. 3–4, pp. 257–286.
Kolb R. (2014) International Court of Justice, Oxford; Portland, OR: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Korab-Karpowicz W.J. (2018) Political Realism in International Relations. In: Zalta E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/realism-intl-relations/ (accessed: 03.11.2022).
Koskenniemi M. (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Lacharrière G.L. (1983) La politique juridique extérieure, Paris: Economica.
Lakhtin V.L. (1928) Prava na severnye polyarnye prostranstva: analiz politicheskogo, ekonomicheskogo i pravovogo polozheniya severnykh polyarnykh prostranstv v svyazi s razvitiem vozdushnogo peredvizheniya i transarkticheskimi pereletami [Rights over the Arctic regions: analysis of the political, economical and legal status of the Arctic regions in connection with the development of aeronavigation and transarctic flights], Moscow: Litizdat Narodnogo Komissariata po inostrannym delam. (In Russian).
Lauterpacht H. (2011) The Function of International Law in the International Community, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Llamzon A.P. (2007) Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 815–852.
Madsen M.R. (2018) Rebalancing European Human Rights: Has the Brighton Declaration Engendered a New Deal on Human Rights in Europe? Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 199–222.
Madsen M.R., Cebulak P., Wiebusch M. (2018) Backlash against International Courts: Explaining the Forms and Patterns of Resistance to International Courts. International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 197–220.
Merrills J.G. (1979) The Optional Clause Today. British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 87–116.
Mitchell S.M., Hensel P.R. (2007) International Institutions and Compliance with Agreements. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 721–737.
Morgenthau H.J. (1949) The Primacy of the National Interest. The American Scholar, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 207–212.
Nippold O. (1907) Die Fortbildung des Verfahrens in völkerrechtlichen Streitigkeiten, Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt.
Nucup N.B. (2019) Infallible or Final?: Revisiting the Legitimacy of the International Court of Justice as the “Invisible” International Supreme Court. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 145–162.
Oda S. (2000) The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: A Myth?: A Statistical Analysis of Contentious Cases. International & Comparative Law
Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 251–277.
Odermatt J. (2018) Patterns of Avoidance: Political Questions before International Courts. International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 221–236.
Paulson C. (2004) Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987. American Journal of International Law, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 434–461.
Paulsson J. (2005) Jurisdiction and Admissibility. In: Aksen G. et al. (eds.) Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Robert Briner, Paris: ICC Publishing, pp. 601–617.
Pellet A. (1985) Le Sage, le Prince et le Savant (A propos de “La politique juridique extérieure” de Guy de Lacharrière). Journal du Droit International, vol. 112, pp. 407–414.
Posner E., Yoo J.C. (2005) Judicial Independence in International Tribunals. California Law Review, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 1–74.
Punzhin S.M. (2011) Protsessual’noe pravo Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON: predvaritel’nye vozrazheniya (obshchaya chast’) [Procedural law of the International Court of Justice: preliminary objections (general part)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–77. (In Russian).
Rosenne Sh. (1993) An International Law Miscellany, Leiden; Boston, MA : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Rosenne Sh. (2006) The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005, Leiden; Boston, MA : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Ruggie J.G. (1998) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, London: Routledge.
Schreuer Ch. (2008) What Is a Legal Dispute? In: Buffard I., Crawford J., Pellet A., Wittich S. (eds.) International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, pp. 959–980.
Schulte C. (2004) Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott G.L., Carr C.L. (1987) The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause. American Journal of International Law, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 57–76.
Shany Y. (2014) Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shany Y. (2015) Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility before International Courts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szabó M. (2009) The Implementation of the Judgment of the ICJ in the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Dispute. Iustum Aequum Salutare, vol. 1, pp. 15–25.
Talmon S. (2016) Objections Not Possessing an “Exclusively Preliminary Character” in the South China Sea Arbitration. The Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 88–111.
Vylegzhanin A.N., Dudykina I.P. (2016) Ponyatie “mezhdunarodno-pravovaya politika gosudarstva” [The politics of international law as a concept]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no. 4, pp. 21–37. (In Russian).
Vylegzhanin A.N., Zinchenko O.I. (2018) Yurisdiktsiya Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON: nekotorye teoreticheskie voprosy [The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: some theoretical issues]. Moscovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no. 4, pp. 6–32. (In Russian).
Waters T.W. (2013) Misplaced Boldness: The Avoidance of Substance in the International Court of Justice’s Kosovo Opinion. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 267–334.