Abstract
The foregoing study examined and evaluated the individual’s options to obtain judicial relief before the UN Committees, the ICJ and the ICC. It focused on the judicial means by which individuals may prevent or redress the abuse of their rights. These means ranged from the possibility to avert the commission of a violative act, over that to have the violation of an individual right acknowledged to the possibility to be compensated for that violation. In order to assess the procedural strength of the individual within these three procedural mechanisms, the study shed light on States’ degree of conventional commitment to the constitutive treaties establishing the procedural mechanisms, the procedural embedding of the mechanisms and their substance of relief. With a view to conclusively assessing the procedural status of individuals in international adjudication and thus their international procedural capacity, the following section will briefly outline the main findings for each of the three enforcement mechanisms. It will furthermore interpret these findings against the backdrop of the object and purpose of each procedure.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Shany (2009), p. 80.
- 2.
Higgins (1995), p. 51.
- 3.
Lauterpacht (1975), p. 510.
- 4.
Cowles (1952), pp. 78 f.
- 5.
Peters (2016), p. 480.
- 6.
Peters (2016), p. 493.
- 7.
See e.g. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (18 March 1965) 757 UNTS 8359.
- 8.
See e.g. Article 34 European Convention of Human Rights.
- 9.
International Court of Justice, ‘Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite : (Belgium v. Senegal)’ (20 July 2012) ICJ Reports 2012 422.
- 10.
Ibid, 450 para. 69.
- 11.
Uchkunova (2012).
- 12.
Brownlie (2012), p. 115.
- 13.
Lauterpacht (1950 reprint 1968), p. 61.
- 14.
- 15.
Parlett (2011), p. 367.
- 16.
Parlett (2011), p. 370.
- 17.
On the responsiveness of international law and the role of international courts see generally Ackermann and Fenrich (2017).
- 18.
- 19.
Young (2002), p. 1144.
- 20.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ‘Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction’ (Decision of 2 October 1995), para. 97.
- 21.
- 22.
Shany (2009), p. 81.
- 23.
See above at Sect. 4.2.
- 24.
See above at Sect. 4.3.
- 25.
See above at Sect. 3.2.
- 26.
See above Sect. 3.3.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
See above at Sect. 4.2.2.
- 30.
- 31.
On normative adaption see Ackermann and Fenrich (2017), pp. 776 ff.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
On the strengthened role of international courts see von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 1 f.
- 35.
Young (2002), p. 1145.
- 36.
Zarbiyev (2012), p. 248.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
Smith (2002), p. 1080.
- 41.
- 42.
Lindquist and Cross (2009), pp. 29 f.
- 43.
International Court of Justice, ‘Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’ (Advisory Opinion from 8 July) 1996 ICJ Reports 226, 237 para. 18.
- 44.
- 45.
Young (2002), p. 1147.
- 46.
Kmiec (2004), p. 1473.
- 47.
Kmiec (2004), p. 1444.
- 48.
Zarbiyev (2012), pp. 254 and 256.
- 49.
Zarbiyev (2012), p. 269.
- 50.
Zarbiyev (2012), p. 269.
- 51.
Kolb (2013), p. 1180.
- 52.
von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 148 f.
- 53.
On the control function of international courts see von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 25 ff.
- 54.
Peters (2016), p. 8.
- 55.
As suggested by Parlett (2011), p. 367.
References
Ackermann, T., & Fenrich, K. (2017). Motion and rest: International law’s responsiveness towards terrorism, mass surveillance, and self-defence. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 77, 745.
Alter, K. J. (2013). The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. In J. L. Dunoff & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alter, K. J. (2008). Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 33.
Brownlie, I. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cowles, W. B. (1952). The impact of international law on the individual. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting, 46, 71.
Dawson, M. (2013). The political face of judicial activism: Europe’s law-politics imbalance. In B. D. Witte, E. Muir, & M. Dawson (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European court of justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Higgins, R. (1995). Problems and process. International law and how we use it. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press.
Kelsen, H. (1929). Wesen und Entwicklung der Staatsgerichtsbarkeit. In H. Triepel, H. Kelsen, M. Layer, & E. V. Hippel (Eds.), Veröffentlichunge der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtsleherer. Heft 5. Berlin [etc.].
Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin and current meanings of judicial activism. California Law Review, 92, 1441.
Kolb, R. (2013). The International Court of Justice. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Lauterpacht, H. (1950 reprint 1968). International law and human rights. Cambridge: Shoe String Press.
Lauterpacht, H. (1975). International law. Volume 2, The law of peace, Part 1 collected papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindquist, S. A., & Cross, F. B. (2009). Measuring judicial activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parlett, K. (2011). The individual in the international legal system. Continuity and change in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, A. (2016). Beyond human rights. The legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Portmann, R. (2010). Legal personality in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shany, Y. (2009). No longer a weak department of power? Reflections on the emergence of a new international judiciary. European Journal of International Law, 20, 73.
Smith, S. F. (2002). Activism as restraint: lessons from criminal procedure. Texas Law Review, 80, 1057.
Uchkunova, I. (2012). Belgium v. Senegal. https://www.ejiltalk.org/belgium-v-senegal-did-the-court-end-the-dispute-between-the-parties/.
von Bogdandy, A., & Venzke, I. (2014). In wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten globalen Regierens. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Young, E. A. (2002). Judicial activism and conservative politics. University of Colorado Law Review, 73, 1139.
Zarbiyev, F. (2012). Judicial activism in international law - a conceptual framework for analysis. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3, 247.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fenrich, K. (2019). Observations and Final Remarks. In: The Evolving International Procedural Capacity of Individuals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19281-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19281-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19280-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19281-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)