Comity and International Courts and Tribunals

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL Pub Date : 2017-04-24 DOI:10.31228/osf.io/9djt2
T. Schultz, N. Ridi
{"title":"Comity and International Courts and Tribunals","authors":"T. Schultz, N. Ridi","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/9djt2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study seeks to clarify the importance, current and potential, of the use of comity by international courts and tribunals. Our findings support the idea that comity might be an emerging principle of procedural law, though agreement on its exact meaning— or unequivocal choices among its many connotations— still tends to be uncommon. We submit that, as long as other solutions are not in place, the principle can be successfully employed to assist international courts and tribunals in mediating jurisdictional conflicts between themselves by balancing coordination efforts and the demands of justice in the individual cases. Comity may serve as a meta-principle of coordination between international judicial bodies, to be employed in the pursuit of the common interest to an efficient and fair system of international dispute settlement. There are strong reasons militating in favour of this proposition: international tribunals, by and large, possess the powers necessary to exercise it; international judges and arbitrators know how to use it; and its long history of applications at the domestic level suggests that it can be employed successfully for a variety of purposes. We also submit the hunch that comity may most likely be employed as a central principle for further aspects of the coordination of international adjudication, for instance informing the sound use of analogical reasoning and precedent-borrowing process. Further study will be required to assess the potential of comity in this context. We have, so far, restricted ourselves to a simpler and more crucial task, seeking to resituate the principle of comity as one on which to rely for the resolution of different types of conflicts between international jurisdictions, and to question the traditional assumption that it is just an unhelpful complication: its history and rediscovery suggest otherwise.","PeriodicalId":45714,"journal":{"name":"CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CORNELL INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/9djt2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

This study seeks to clarify the importance, current and potential, of the use of comity by international courts and tribunals. Our findings support the idea that comity might be an emerging principle of procedural law, though agreement on its exact meaning— or unequivocal choices among its many connotations— still tends to be uncommon. We submit that, as long as other solutions are not in place, the principle can be successfully employed to assist international courts and tribunals in mediating jurisdictional conflicts between themselves by balancing coordination efforts and the demands of justice in the individual cases. Comity may serve as a meta-principle of coordination between international judicial bodies, to be employed in the pursuit of the common interest to an efficient and fair system of international dispute settlement. There are strong reasons militating in favour of this proposition: international tribunals, by and large, possess the powers necessary to exercise it; international judges and arbitrators know how to use it; and its long history of applications at the domestic level suggests that it can be employed successfully for a variety of purposes. We also submit the hunch that comity may most likely be employed as a central principle for further aspects of the coordination of international adjudication, for instance informing the sound use of analogical reasoning and precedent-borrowing process. Further study will be required to assess the potential of comity in this context. We have, so far, restricted ourselves to a simpler and more crucial task, seeking to resituate the principle of comity as one on which to rely for the resolution of different types of conflicts between international jurisdictions, and to question the traditional assumption that it is just an unhelpful complication: its history and rediscovery suggest otherwise.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际法院和法庭
本研究旨在阐明国际法院和法庭使用礼让的重要性、目前的重要性和潜在的重要性。我们的研究结果支持礼让可能是一项新兴的程序法原则的观点,尽管对其确切含义达成一致——或者在其众多含义中做出明确选择——仍然很少见。我们认为,只要没有其他解决方案,就可以成功地利用这一原则,通过平衡协调努力和个别案件中的司法要求,协助国际法院和法庭调解它们之间的管辖权冲突。一致性可以作为国际司法机构之间协调的元原则,用于追求有效和公平的国际争端解决制度的共同利益。有充分的理由支持这一主张:国际法庭大体上拥有行使这一主张所必需的权力;国际法官和仲裁员知道如何使用它;其在国内的长期应用表明,它可以成功地用于各种目的。我们还认为,礼让很可能被用作国际裁决协调的进一步方面的中心原则,例如为合理使用类比推理和先例借用程序提供信息。需要进一步研究,以评估礼让在这方面的潜力。到目前为止,我们把自己限制在一项更简单、更关键的任务上,试图推翻礼让原则,将其作为解决国际法域之间不同类型冲突的依据,并质疑传统的假设,即礼让只是一种无益的复杂情况:其历史和重新发现表明情况并非如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1967, the Cornell International Law Journal is one of the oldest and most prominent international law journals in the country. Three times a year, the Journal publishes scholarship that reflects the sweeping changes that are taking place in public and private international law. Two of the issues feature articles by legal scholars, practitioners, and participants in international politics as well as student-written notes. The third issue is dedicated to publishing papers generated by the Journal"s annual Symposium, held every spring in Ithaca, New York.
期刊最新文献
Plotting the Next "Revolution" in Choice of Law: A Proposed Approach The Choice-of-Law Revolution in the United States: Notes on Rereading von Mehren Sustainable Finance & China's Green Credit Reforms: A Test Case for Bank Monitoring of Environmental Risk Objective or Perception-Based: A Debate on the Ideal Measure of Corruption Legalized rent-seeking: Eminent domain in Kazakhstan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1