确定同意管辖权的模棱两可或明确的障碍

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Journal of International Dispute Settlement Pub Date : 2021-09-25 DOI:10.1093/jnlids/idab021
Bjørn Kunoy
{"title":"确定同意管辖权的模棱两可或明确的障碍","authors":"Bjørn Kunoy","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Equivocal or Unequivocal Bar for Determining Consent to Jurisdiction\",\"authors\":\"Bjørn Kunoy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnlids/idab021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Dispute Settlement\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Dispute Settlement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab021\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主权平等原则的法律后果是,国际法院和法庭对国家间争端的管辖权取决于争端国的同意。对管辖权的同意可以以不同的形式表示,但在每一种情况下都需要表明明确接受同意。判例法中有很多关于同意可以被视为存在的情况。有趣的是,判例法中提出的标准似乎提出了两种不同的标准来确定是否表达了对管辖权的同意。这一点在有关司法决定的英文和法文案文中明确地体现出来。
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
An Equivocal or Unequivocal Bar for Determining Consent to Jurisdiction
The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.
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
12.50%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Unveiling the ‘author’ of international law — The ‘legal effect’ of ICJ’s advisory opinions Continental shelf delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles: Mauritius/Maldives and the forking paths in the jurisprudence The legitimation of international adjudication Reflecting on the rule of law contestations narratives in the world trading system When the Dragon comes Home to Roost: Chinese Investments in the EU, National Security, and Investor–State Arbitration
×
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