Hierarchy between Domestic and International Tribunals: Utopia or Near Future?

Virdzhiniya Petrova Georgieva

doi:10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/acdi/a.10114

##plugins.block.makeSubmission.linkLabel##

Hierarchy between Domestic and International Tribunals: Utopia or Near Future?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/acdi/a.10114

PDF (English) HTML Lector Inteligente ePub

Publicado: ene 12, 2021

Número: Vol. 14 (2021): ACDI

Sección Artículos

Palabras clave: tribunales internos e internacionales relaciones jerárquicas precedentes verticales mecanismos de ejecución apelaciones

Autores/as

Virdzhiniya Petrova Georgieva
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (unam)

Resumen

The establishment of a formal hierarchy between domestic and international tribunals has traditionally been a “taboo” for international legal scholars and operators of the domestic and international legal systems. However, it is possible and desirable to envisage hierarchy between domestic and international tribunals. Hierarchy is a strong mechanism that permits the efficient enforcement of judicial decisions and the avoidance of all types of conflicts between the judicial organs operating within a legal order. It also fosters the uniformity and predictability in the application and interpretation of the same body of legal rules by many different tribunals. Finally, hierarchy is a strong incentive for the observance of equality before the law of the actors in judicial proceedings. Both domestic and international tribunals have already used hierarchical tools when faced with the regulation of their relationships. Consequently, it appears that the establishment of a hierarchy between domestic and international tribunals is not utopic but an ongoing trend in their judicial practice.

Cómo citar

Petrova Georgieva, V. (2021). Hierarchy between Domestic and International Tribunals: Utopia or Near Future?. ACDI - Anuario Colombiano De Derecho Internacional, 14, 21–71. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/acdi/a.10114

Referencias bibliográfica

Abi-Saab, Georges. “Fragmentation or Unification: Some Concluding Remarks.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 31(4) (1999): 919-933.

Abi Saab, Georges. “The Normalization of International Adjudica-tion: Convergence and Divergence.” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 43(1) (2010): 1-14. https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/43.1-Abi-Saab.pdf

Ahdieh, Robert B. “Between Dialogue and Decree: International Review of National Courts” New York University Law Review, 79(5) 2004): 2029-2163. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-79-6-Ahdieh.pdf

Alford, Roger. “The Proliferation of International Courts and Tribu-nals: International Adjudication in Ascendance.” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, 94(2000): 160-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027250370005549X

Alford, Roger P. “Federal Courts, International Tribunals, and the Continuum of Deference.” Virginia Journal of International Law, 43(2003): 675-796.

Allard, Jullie, & Garapon, Antoine. Les juges dans la mondialisation – la nouvelle révolution du droit. Paris: Le Seuil, 2005.

Almeida, Paula Wojcikiewicz. “Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy): The International Court of Justice against the Evolution of InternationalLaw.” Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional (acdi),11 (2018): 21-70. https://doi.org/10.12804/revis-tas.urosario.edu.co/acdi/a.6538

Alvarez, Jose E. “The New Dispute Settlers: (Half ) Truths and Con-sequences.” Texas International Law Journal, 38(3) (2003): 405-455.Mexico, Suprema Corte de Justicia. Amparo Directo 517/2011. https://www.scjn.gob.mx/sites/default/files/proyectos_resolucion_scjn/documento/2016-10/ADR-517_2011_1.pdf

Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice. Esposito, Miguel Angel s/ motion of statute of limitation of the criminal proceeding brought by his defense, 23 December 2004, (Case file 224.XXXIX).

D’Aspremont, Jean. “The Systemic Integration of International Law by Domestic Courts: Domestic Judges as Architects of the Consis-tency of the International Legal Order”. In The Practice of Interna-tional and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of International Law, edited by Ole Kristian Fauchald and André Nollkaemper, 141-165. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012.

du Bois de Gaudusson, Jean. “La complexité de la participation des Cours suprêmes des pays en voie de développement au dialogue des juges.” Petites affiches, (112), June 4, 2008, 22.Burke-White, William W. “A Community of Courts: Toward a System of International Criminal Law Enforcement.” Michigan Journal of International Law, 24(1) (2002): 1-104. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol24/iss1/1/

Caminker, Evan. “Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?”. Stanford Law Review, 46(4) (1994): 817-873. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229094

Cançado Trindade, Antonio Augusto. La expansión de la jurisdicción inter-nacional y su importancia para la realización de la justicia. http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Cancado-Trindade_HR_video_2.html

Cassese, Antonio. “Remarks on Scelle’s Theory of “Role Splitting” (dédoublement fonctionnel) in International Law.” European Jour-nal of International Law, 1 (1990): 210-231. http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/1/1/1126.pdf

European Court of Human Rights. Johnston and others v. Ireland, Application 9697/82, December 18, 1986. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57508

Article 1904 Binational Panel Review Pursuant of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the Matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Determinative Antidumping Determination, June 9, 2005. http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/nafta/english/UC02190402Ce.pdf

Chanet, Christine. “Les influences croisées entre les juridictions natio-nales et les juridictions internationales.” Les Cahiers de Droit, 51(1) (2010): 223-232. https://doi.org/10.7202/044141ar

Claes, Monica y de Visser, Maartje. “Are You Networked Yet? On Dia-logues in European Judicial Networks.” Utrecht Law Review, 8(2) (2012): 100-114. http://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.197

Conseil d’Etat, décision, 18/06/2008, Gestas.Costa Rica, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Constitutional Motion, Opinion 2313-95 (Case File 0421-S-90), 9 May 1995.

Dickinson, Laura A. “Using Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Deten-tions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals, and the Rule of Law.” South Carolina Law Review, 75 (2002): 1407-1492 . https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/75_1407.pdf

Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic, Resolution N° 1920-2003, 13 November 2003.

Dupuy, Pierre Marie. “Unité d ́application du droit international à l ́échelle mondiale et responsabilité des juges.” European Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2) (2003): 1-27. https://ejls.eui.eu/w p-content/uploads/sites/32/pdfs/Autumn _Winter2007/Unité_d’Application_du_Droit_International_à_l’Echelle_Glo-bale_et_%20Responsabilité_des_Juges_.pdf

de Dycker, Stephanie. “Private International Law Disputes Before the International Court of Justice.” Journal of International Dispute Settle-ment, 1(2) (2010): 475-498. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idq006

ecj, Köbler vs. Austria (2003) C-224/01.

Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo. “Interpretación conforme y control difuso de convencionalidad. El nuevo paradigma para el juez mexicano”. In La reforma constitucional de derechos humanos. Un nuevo paradigmaedited by Miguel Carbonell y Pedro Salazar, 339-349. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2012.

Frydman, Benoît. “Le dialogue international des juges et la perspective idéale d ́une justice universelle.” In Le dialogue des juges, Actes du colloque du 28 avril 2006, Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2007.

Fuenzalida Bascuñán, Sergio. “La jurisprudencia de la Corte Intera-mericana de Derechos Humanos como fuente de derecho. Una revisión de la doctrina del “examen de convencionalidad”. Revista de Derecho (Valdivia), 28(1) (2015): 171-192. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09502015000100008

Gattini, Andrea. “Domestic Judicial Compliance with International Judicial Decisions: Some Paradoxes.” From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma, edited by Ulrich Fastenrath, Rudolf Geiger, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Andreas Paulus, Sabine von Schorlemer, and Christoph Vedder, 1168-1188. Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2011.

Guillaume, Gilbert. “The Future of International Judicial Institutions.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 44(4) (1995): 848-862.

Guillaume, Gilbert. “Advantages and Risks of Proliferation, A Blueprint for Action.” Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2(2) (2004): 300-303. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/2.2.300

Graewert, Tim. “Conflicting Laws and Jurisdiction in the Dispute Settlement Process of Regional Trade Agreements and the wto.” Contemporary Asia ArbitrationJournal, 1(2) (2008): 287-334. https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup2020/Basic%20Materi-als/Graewart%2C%201%282%29%20Contemp.%20Asia%20Arb.%20J.%20287.pdf

Heifer, Laurence R., & Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication.” The Yale Law Journal, 107(2) (1997 ): 273 -391.

Helfer, Laurence R. “Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Rela-tions Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes.” Columbia Law Review, 102(7)(2002): 1832-1911.

l’Heureux-Dubré, Claire. «The Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of Rehnquist Court». Tulsa Law Journal, 34(1) (1998): 15-40.

Huneeus, Alexandra. “Courts resisting Courts: Lessons from the Inter-American Court ́s struggle to enforce Human Rights”, Cornell International Law Journal, 44 no. 3 (2011): 493-533. https://scholar-ship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol44/iss3/2

iachr, Opinión consultiva OC-16/99, “El derecho a la información sobre la asistencia consular en el marco de las garantías del debido proceso legal”, 1st of November 1999, http://www.cidh.org/migrantes/Opini%C3%B3n%20Consultiva%2016.htm

iachr, Apitz-Barbera et al. vs. Venezuela, 5 August 2008.

iachr, Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile, 26 September 2006 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs).

iachr, Gelman Vs. Uruguay, 24 February 2011, 2006 (Preliminary Objec-tions, Merits, Reparations and Costs).

iachr, Cabrera García y Montiel Flores Vs. México, 26 November 2010.

icj, Case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punish-ment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia and Montenegro, February 26, 2007, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/91/13685.pdf

icj, Military and Paramilitary Activities in Nicaragua, June 27, 1986, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5

icj, Avena, México vs. United States, March 31, 2004, en http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/128/8188.pdf

icj, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, (Germany v Italy), 3rd February 2012.

icj, Fisheries Jurisdiction, United Kingdom v Iceland, Merits, Judgment, 25 July 1974.

icj, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996.

icj, Asylum, Colombia v Peru, Merits, Judgment, 20 November 1950.

icj, Haya de la Torre Case, Colombia v Peru, Merits, 13th June 1951.

icj, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, (Advisory Opinion), 29th April 1999.

icj, LaGrand, Germany v United States, Judgment, Jurisdiction, Admis-sibility, Merits, 27th June 2001.

icj, Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium) Judgment, Merits, Preliminary Objections, 14th Febru-ary 2002, para 78.

icj, Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France). Overview of the case, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/129

icj, Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters(Belgium v. Switzerland), Overview of the Case, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/145

icj, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Sen-egal), Overview of the Case, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/144

icty, Prosecutor vs. Radovan Karadzic, indictment “Srebrenica”, November 24, 1995; indictment “Bosnia and Herzegovina”, July 24, 1995, http://www.icty.org/case/karadzic/4

icty, Prosecutor vs. Tadic, May 7, 1997, http://w w w.ict y.org/x/cases/tadic/tjug/en/tad-tsj70507JT2-e.pdf; Appeal Chamber Decisions, July 15, 1999, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acjug/en/tad-aj990715e.pdf

icty, Kupreskic et. al., 14 January 2000.Italian Constitutional, Court No. 238, 22 October 2014.

Italian Supreme Court, Case number 5044, Luigi Ferrini vs. Germany, 11 march 2004.

itlos, Case 7: Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile/European Union), order 2/2003, December 20, 2000.

itlos, United States-Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada, Recourse by Article 25.1 of the DSU by Canada-Report by Panel, May 9, 2006; Re Matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (opinion and Order), nafta, Extraaor-dinary Challenge Committee, August, 10, 2005.

itlos, Mox Plant Case, Irlanda c. el Reino Unido, 13 de noviembre de 2001, cje, Mox Plant Case, Commission vs. Irland, case C-459/03, May 30, 2006.

Jennings, Robert. “The Proliferation of Adjudicatory Bodies: Dangers and Possible Answers in Implications of the Proliferation of Inter-national Adjudicatory Bodies for Dispute Resolution.” American Society of International Law Bulletin, 7(1995).

Kastellec, Jonathan. The Judicial Hierarchy: A Review Essay. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acre-fore/9780190228637.013.99

Kelsen, Hans. Pure theory of law. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.

Koskenniemi, Martti. “Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch.” Euro-pean Journal of International Law, 8 (1997): 566-582. http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/8/4/785.pdf

Ku, Julian G. “International Delegations and the New World Court Order.” Washington Law Review, 81 no. 1 (2006): 1-70. https ://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol81/iss1/2

Leathely, Christian. “An institutional hierarchy to combat the fragmen-tation of international law: has the ILC missed an opportunity?” International Law and Politics, 40 (2007): 259-306. http://reposito-riocdpd.net:8080/handle/123456789/640

Martínez, Jenny. “Towards and International Judicial System.” Standford Law Review, 56 no. 2 (2003): 429-529.

Martinico, Giuseppe, & Carrozza, Paolo (Eds.). Shaping Rule of Law through Dialogue. International and Supranational Experiences. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2010.Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, Contradicción de tesis 293/2011

Nollkaemper, André. “Conversations Among Courts, Domestic and International Adjudicators.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, edited by Cesare Romare, Karen Alter and Yuval Shany. Oxford University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199660681.003.0024

Nollkaemper, André. “The Role of Domestic Courts in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice.”, Chinese Journal of International Law, 5 no. 2 (2006): 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jml027

Oellers-Frahm, Karin. “Multiplication of International Courts and Tri-bunals and Conflicting Jurisdiction- Problems and Possible Solu-tions.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 5 (2001): 67-104. https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf1/mpunyb_oellers_frahm_5.pdf

Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, & Pinto, Christopher. The Peaceful Settlement of Disputes: Prospects for the Twenty First Century, Preliminary Report Pre-pared for the 1999 Centennial of the First Peace Conference. cahdi, 1998.

Orrù, Romano. Informal Judicial Cross-Fertilization and the System of Confer-ences Between Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies. http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/wccl/ponencias/12/206.pdfF

ulvio, Maria Palombino. “Compliance with International Judgments: Between Supremacy of International Law and National Fun-damental Principles.” ZaöRV, 75 (2015): 503-529. https://www.zaoerv.de/75_2015/75_2015_3_a_503_530.pdf

pca, Mox Plant Case, Ireland vs. UK, June 23, 2003.Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, (case file N° 2730- 2006-PA/TC), 21 July 2006.Petrova Georgieva, Virginia. “La ‘judicialización’: una nueva caracter-ística del orden jurídico internacional”. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 15 no. 1 (2015): 3-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amdi.2015.06.001

Reinisch, August. “The Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting Dispute Settlement Outcomes.” Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 3no. 1 (2004): 37-77. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180301773732627

Romano, Cesare. “Deciphering the Grammar of the International Juris-prudential Dialogu.” New York University Journal ofInternational Law and Politics, 41 no. 4 (2010): 755-787. http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Romano-Dechiphering-Grammar-of-the-Jurisprudential-International-Dialogue.pdf

Romano, Cesare, Alter, Karen, & Shany, Yuval. The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication. Oxford University Press, 2015.Shany, Yuval. Regulating Jurisdictional Relations Between National and Inter-national Tribunals. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Silva Abbot, Max. “Control de convencionalidad interno y jueces locales: un planteamiento defectuoso”. Estudios Constituciona-les, 14 no. 2 (2016): 101-142. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-52002016000200004

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “A Typology of Transjudicial Communication.” University of Richmond Law Review, 29 no. 1 (1995): 99-137. h t t p s : //scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2120&context=lawreview

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Judicial Globalization.” Virginia Journal of Inter-national Law, 40 no. (1999): 1103-1124. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/slaughter/files/vjil.pdf

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. A New World Order. Princeton University Press, 2005.Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Sovereignty and Power in a Networked World Order.” Standford Journal of International Law, 40 (2004): 283-327. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/slaughter/files/stanford.pdf

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “A Brave New Judicial World.” In American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, edited by Ignatieff, Michael, 277-303. Princeton University Press, 2005. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ct t7sk x6.12

Sloss, David, & Van Alstine, Michael. International Law in Domestic Courts.2015. http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/889

Tsanakopoulos, Antonios. “Domestic Courts in International Law: The International Judicial Function of National Courts.” Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, 34 (2 011): 133 -168 . https://ssrn.com/abstract=1861067

US Supreme Court, Medellín vs. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008).

US Supreme Court, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006).

Venezuelan Supreme Court , decisión No. 1939 del 18 de diciembre de 2008.

Waters, Melissa. “Mediating Norms and Identity: The Role of Transna-tional Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law.” Georgetown Law Journal, 93 no. 2 (2005): 487-574. https://ssrn.com/abstract=794767Webb, Philippa. International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation. Oxford University Press, 2013.

wto, Chile–Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish, Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities, November 7, 2000.2 BvR 2115/01, Judgment, 19 September, 2006.Ziccardi Capaldo, Giuliana. The Pillars of Global Law. New York: Ash-gatePublishing, 2008.

Estadísticas de consulta

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Métricas de publicación

600 125

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Attribution License que permite a otros compartir el trabajo con un reconocimiento de la autoría del trabajo y la publicación inicial en esta revista.

Barra lateral del artículo

Contenido principal del artículo

Autores/as

Resumen

Descargas

Artículos similares