国际法院:从查戈斯群岛解构司法礼制语境中的同意作用

Ksenia Polonskaya
{"title":"国际法院:从查戈斯群岛解构司法礼制语境中的同意作用","authors":"Ksenia Polonskaya","doi":"10.1163/15718034-12341400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article examines the notion of consent as an element of judicial propriety as defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of its advisory function. The article situates the issue of judicial propriety within a broader conversation on the Court’s normative outlooks in international law, and examines the most recent advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago to understand how the Court itself views its role in international law. The article concludes that the Court’s advisory opinions do not provide much clarity as to the circumstances in which a lack of consent will become a compelling enough reason to justify a refusal to give an advisory opinion. The Court appears to ritually recite consent as a relevant element in its assessment of judicial propriety, however, it continues to limit such relevance.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":"30 2 1","pages":"189-218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Court of Justice: The Role of Consent in the Context of Judicial Propriety Deconstructed in Light of Chagos Archipelago\",\"authors\":\"Ksenia Polonskaya\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-12341400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article examines the notion of consent as an element of judicial propriety as defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of its advisory function. The article situates the issue of judicial propriety within a broader conversation on the Court’s normative outlooks in international law, and examines the most recent advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago to understand how the Court itself views its role in international law. The article concludes that the Court’s advisory opinions do not provide much clarity as to the circumstances in which a lack of consent will become a compelling enough reason to justify a refusal to give an advisory opinion. The Court appears to ritually recite consent as a relevant element in its assessment of judicial propriety, however, it continues to limit such relevance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"volume\":\"30 2 1\",\"pages\":\"189-218\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341400\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从国际法院的咨询职能出发,探讨作为司法适当性要素的同意概念。本文将司法适当性问题置于关于法院在国际法中的规范性前景的更广泛对话中,并审查了最近关于查戈斯群岛的咨询意见,以了解法院本身如何看待其在国际法中的作用。该条的结论是,法院的咨询意见没有很清楚地说明,在何种情况下,不同意将成为拒绝提供咨询意见的充分理由。法院似乎习惯性地将同意作为其评估司法适当性的一个相关因素,然而,它继续限制这种相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
International Court of Justice: The Role of Consent in the Context of Judicial Propriety Deconstructed in Light of Chagos Archipelago
This article examines the notion of consent as an element of judicial propriety as defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of its advisory function. The article situates the issue of judicial propriety within a broader conversation on the Court’s normative outlooks in international law, and examines the most recent advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago to understand how the Court itself views its role in international law. The article concludes that the Court’s advisory opinions do not provide much clarity as to the circumstances in which a lack of consent will become a compelling enough reason to justify a refusal to give an advisory opinion. The Court appears to ritually recite consent as a relevant element in its assessment of judicial propriety, however, it continues to limit such relevance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.
期刊最新文献
Situating “Deformalization” within the International Court of Justice: Understanding Institutionalised Informality The World Is Burning, Urgently and Irreparably – a Plea for Interim Protection against Climatic Change at the ICJ “Cross Treaty Interpretation” en bloc or How CAFTA-DR Tribunals Are Systematically Interpreting the FET Standard Based on NAFTA Case Law The Asian Turn in Foreign Investment, edited by Mahdev Mohan and Chester Brown Not Just a Participation Trophy? Advancing Public Interests through Advisory Opinions at the International Court of Justice
×
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