An International Jurisprudence? The Operation of “Precedent” Across International Tribunals

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 483-526

  Miller, Nathan ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

international courts and tribunals; international judicial decisions; precedent

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011497572     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156502000249     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. See The Project On International Courts and Tribunals, The International Judiciary in Context, available at http://www.pict-pcti.org/publications/PICT.Synoptic.Chart.2.0.pdf (last visited 15 April 2002).
2. The effects of the Pinochet decision were quickly felt. Shortly thereafter, a Senegalese court indicted Hissein Habre on charges of torture. See, e.g., Ex-Chad Dictator Indicted in Senegal, available at http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/hab023.htm (last visited 15 April 2002).
3. T.M. Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions 6 (1995).
4. B. Kingsbury, Foreword: Is the Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 679, at 680 (1999).
5. J.I. Charney, The Impact on the International Legal System of the Growth of International Courts and Tribunals, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 697 (1999) (arguing that a vast array of international tribunals have arrived at similar understandings of several areas of international law); see also J.I. Charney, Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?, 271 Recueil des cours 101 (1998).
6. P.-M. Dupuy, The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the international Legal System and the International Court of Justice, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 791 (1999) (arguing that there is a unified international legal system, as “legal system” was understood by H.L.A. Hart, and calling for the International Court of Justice ('ICJ') to take a greater role in defining and managing international jurisprudence).
7. G. Abi-Saab, Fragmentation or Unification: Some Concluding Remarks, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 919 (1999) (arguing that, even without a central organizing principle, unity may be found in diversity).
8. M. Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court 67 (1996). Jonathan Charney also noted the prevalence of this view, though he too is against it: It is suggested that the development of a multitude of separate forums without a supreme international court to provide definitive interpretations of international law may place the entire system at risk. A wide diversity of opinions on international law by international dispute resolution panels would damage the credibility and legitimacy of this system of law.
9. See Report of the International Law Commission on its Fifty-second Session, UN Doc. A/55/10 (1 May-9 June and 10 July-18 August 2000), at 321.
10. See G. Guillaume, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order, Speech by His Excellency Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations (27 October 2000), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ ipresscom/SPEECHES/iSpeechPresident_Guillaume_SixthCommittee _20001027.htm (last visited 15 April 2002).
11. Charney, Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order note 7.
12. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/90 of 14 July 1989, 1989 Inter-Am.Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 10.
13. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, 1970 ICJ Rep. 3.
14. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran), Judgment of 28 May 1980, 1980 ICJ Rep. 3.
15. Interpretation of the American Declaration, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran note 16, at 38.
16. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, 1971 ICJ Rep. 16.
17. See Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 59.
18. See Shahabuddeen, Statute of the International Court of Justice note 10.
19. See infra Appendix A, Table 3.1, at p. 500.
20. Including advisory opinions as well as judgments on preliminary objections, merits and reparations.
21. See infra Appendix A, Table 3.4, at p. 504.
22. If the decisions-as opposed to the judgments-are included, the numbers shift somewhat. An incomplete survey of those decisions adds another 18 instances of reference, 15 to the ECHR and 3 to the ICJ.
23. For the ICTR alone, the author relied on a commercial database; it is therefore impossible to guarantee the completeness of the data.
24. Instances of the two international criminal tribunals’ referring to one another were not counted, given their unified structure.
25. See infra Appendix A, Table 3.6, at p. 516.
26. See Case C-432/92, The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd. and others, 1994 ECR I-3807.
27. Fisheries and Food note 20.
28. The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food note note 36, at para. 49.
29. Prosecutor v. Tadíc, Opinion and Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-T, T.Ch. II, 7 May 1997.
30. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14.
31. Prosecutor v. Tadíc, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua note 39, at para. 585.
32. See Prosecutor v. Tadíc, Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A, A.Ch., 15 July 1999.
33. See Appellate Report European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, 1997 WL 577784 (W.T.O.) (citing Case C-280/93, 1994 ECR I-4973, at para. 101).
34. See Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ports and Shipping, Award No. 135-33-1, 22 June 184 (citing Oscar Chinn Case, 1934 PCIJ (Ser. A/B) No. 63, at 88).
35. See Amoco International Finance Corporation v. Iran, Partial Award, Award No. 310-56-3, 14 July 1987, 15 IRAN-U.S.C.T.R. 189 (1987).
36. See Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 11 September 1992, 1992 ICJ Rep. 351, at paras. 386-387.
37. Other Treaties Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion of 24 September 1982, 1982 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. A) No. 1, at para. 28.
38. See Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion of 8 September 1983, 1983 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. A) No. 3, at paras. 25 and 40.
39. Prosecutor v. Tadíc, Restrictions to the Death Penalty note 43, at para. 127 (followed by a note citing several other cases of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal).
40. See Territorial Dispute Case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad), Merits, Judgment of 3 February 1994, 1994 ICJ Rep. 6.
41. See Appellate Report United States-Standard for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, 1996 WL 227476 (W.T.O.) 11, n. 34.
42. See Appellate Report EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 1998 WL 25520 (W.T.O.).
43. See Prosecutor v. KupreBkíc et al., Judgement, Case No. IT-95-16-T, T.Ch. II, 14 January 2000.
44. Erkner and Hofauer, Decision of 23 April 1987, 1987 ECHR (Ser. A) No. 117, at para. 76; Poiss, Judgement of 23 April 1987, 1987 ECHR (Ser. A) No. 117, at para. 66; Venditelli v. Italy, Judgement of 18 July 1994, 1994 ECHR (Ser. A) No. 293-A, at para. 34.
45. Lily Mythra Fallah Lawrence v. Iran, Award No. ITL 77-390/391/392-1, 5 October 1990.
46. Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, Request for Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Cases Nos. 3 and 4, 27 August 1999, reprinted in 38 ILM 1624, at para. 44 (1999) (quoting, respectively, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, 1924 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 2, at 11; and South West Africa, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1962 ICJ Rep. 328).
47. Prosecutor v. FurundCija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, T.Ch. II, 10 December 1998, at para. 163 (citing IACHR Meijia).
48. Rouhollah Karubian v. Iran, Award No. 569-419-2 of 6 March 1996, at para. 136.
49. Case T-12/89, Solvay & Cie SA v. Commission of the European Communities, 1992 ECJ CELEX LEXIS 1882, at para. 280.
50. Prosecutor v. KupreBkíc et al., Commission of the European Communities note 68, at para. 524.
51. Id. (citing Corfu Channel, 1949 ICJ Rep., at 22, Nicaragua (Commission of the European Communities note 40, at 112) and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 ICJ Rep., at 257).