International Courts and Tribunals Series – serie

The last decade has seen the unexpected re-emergence of hybrid and internationalised courts - institutions which operate with varying combinations of national and international law, procedure, and staff. Whilst the establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court should have made hybrid mechanisms largely obsolete, hybrids have recently been established or proposed for atrocity crimes committed in Chad, South Sudan, Israel/Palestine, the Central African Republic, Kosovo, Syria, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, The Gambia, Liberia, and Ukraine. Hybrid Justice critically examines the resurgent promise of hybrid courts. Focusing on the fields, practices, innovations, and of hybrid courts, the contributors evaluate hybrids' success, and in doing so, help to clarify the conditions and mechanisms that makes hybrids likely to succeed in their mandates and impacts. The authors focus on hybrid courts and resilience: the resilience of hybrid mechanisms to withstand political and other pressures to deliver justice and accountability, and the potential contribution of hybrids to the resilience of affected communities. Borne out of a collaboration between lawyers, academics, and activists, this edited volume provides a uniquely comparative account of the development of hybrid courts in recent years.

The vast majority of all international judicial decisions have been issued since 1990. This increasing activity of international courts over the past two decades is one of the most significant developments within the international law. It has repercussions on all levels of governance and has challenged received understandings of the nature and legitimacy of international courts. It was previously held that international courts are simply instruments of dispute settlement, whose activities are justified by the consent of the states that created them, and in whose name they decide. However, this understanding ignores other important judicial functions, underrates problems of legitimacy, and prevents a full assessment of how international adjudication functions, and the impact that it has demonstrably had. This book proposes a public law theory of international adjudication, which argues that international courts are multifunctional actors who exercise public authority and therefore require democratic legitimacy. It establishes this theory on the basis of three main building blocks: multifunctionality, the notion of an international public authority, and democracy. The book aims to answer the core question of the legitimacy of international adjudication: in whose name do international courts decide? It lays out the specific problem of the legitimacy of international adjudication, and reconstructs the common critiques of international courts. It develops a concept of democracy for international courts that makes it possible to constructively show how their legitimacy is derived. It argues that ultimately international courts make their decisions, even if they do not know it, in the name of the peoples and the citizens of the international community.

Fragmentation is one of the major debates within international law, but no detailed case studies have been made to show the problems that it creates, and how they can be addressed. This book asks whether the growing number of international judicial bodies render decisions that are largely consistent with one another, which factors influence this (in)consistency, and what this tells us about the development of international law by international courts and tribunals. It answers these questions by focusing on three areas of law: genocide, immunities, and the use of force, as in each of these areas different international judicial entities have dealt with cases stemming from the same situation and set of facts.The work focuses on four main courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which often interpret, apply, and develop the same legal principles, despite their different mandates and functions. It argues that judicial fragmentation is damaging to the international legal system, as coherent and compatible pronouncements on the law by international courts are vital to retaining the confidence of the international community. Ultimately, the book makes a plea for the importance of judicial integration for the stability and reliability of the international legal system.

The vast majority of all international judicial decisions have been issued since 1990. This increasing activity of international courts over the past two decades is one of the most significant developments within the international law. It has repercussions on all levels of governance and has challenged received understandings of the nature and legitimacy of international courts. It was previously held that international courts are simply instruments of dispute settlement, whose activities are justified by the consent of the states that created them, and in whose name they decide. However, this understanding ignores other important judicial functions, underrates problems of legitimacy, and prevents a full assessment of how international adjudication functions, and the impact that it has demonstrably had. This book proposes a public law theory of international adjudication, which argues that international courts are multifunctional actors who exercise public authority and therefore require democratic legitimacy. It establishes this theory on the basis of three main building blocks: multifunctionality, the notion of an international public authority, and democracy. The book aims to answer the core question of the legitimacy of international adjudication: in whose name do international courts decide? It lays out the specific problem of the legitimacy of international adjudication, and reconstructs the common critiques of international courts. It develops a concept of democracy for international courts that makes it possible to constructively show how their legitimacy is derived. It argues that ultimately international courts make their decisions, even if they do not know it, in the name of the peoples and the citizens of the international community.

Are international courts effective tools for international governance? Do they fulfill the expectations that led to their creation and empowerment? Why do some courts appear to be more effective than others, and do so such appearances reflect reality? Could their results have been produced by other mechanisms? This book evaluates the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals by comparing their stated goals to the actual outcomes they achieve. Using a theoretical model borrowed from social science, the book assesses their effectiveness by analysing key empirical data.Its first part is dedicated to theory and methodology, laying out the effectiveness model, explaining its different components, its promise and limits, and discussing the measurement challenges it faces. The second part analyses the role that indicators such as jurisdiction, judicial independence, legitimacy, and compliance play in achieving effectiveness. Part three applies the effectiveness model to the International Court of Justice, the WTO dispute settlement mechanisms (panels and Appellate Body), the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, reflecting the diversity of the field of international adjudication. Given the recent proliferation of international courts and tribunals, this book makes an important contribution towards understanding and measuring the value that these institutions provide.

An innovative, interdisciplinary and far-reaching examination of the actual reality of international courts, International Court Authority challenges fundamental preconceptions about when, why, and how international courts become important and authoritative actors in national, regional, and international politics. A stellar group of scholars investigate the challenges that international courts face in transforming the formal legal authority conferred by states into an actual authority in fact that is respected by potential litigants, national actors, legal communities, and publics. Alter, Helfer, and Madsen provide a novel framework for conceptualizing international court authority that focuses on the reactions and practices of these key audiences. Eighteen scholars from the disciplines of law, political science and sociology apply this framework to study thirteen international courts operating in Africa, Latin America, and Europe, as well as on a global level. Together the contributors document and explore important and interesting variations in whether the audiences that interact with international courts around the world embrace or reject the rulings of these judicial institutions. Alter, Helfer, and Madsen's authority framework recognizes that international judges can and often do everything they 'should' do to ensure that their rulings possess the gravitas and stature that national courts enjoy. Yet even when imbued with these characteristics, the parties to the dispute, potential future litigants, and the broader set of actors that monitor and respond to the court's activities may fail to acknowledge the rulings as binding or take meaningful steps to modify their behaviour in response to them. For both specific judicial institutions, and more generally, the book documents and explains why most international courts possess de facto authority that is partial, variable, and highly dependent on a range of different audiences and contexts - and thus is highly fragile. An introduction situates the book's unique approach to conceptualizing international court authority within theoretical debates about the authority of global institutions. International Court Authority also includes critical reflections on the authority framework from legal theorists, international relations scholars, a philosopher, and an anthropologist. The book's conclusion questions a number of widely shared assumptions about how social and political contexts facilitate or undermine international courts in developing de facto authority and political power.

An innovative, interdisciplinary and far-reaching examination of the actual reality of international courts, International Court Authority challenges fundamental preconceptions about when, why, and how international courts become important and authoritative actors in national, regional, and international politics. A stellar group of scholars investigate the challenges that international courts face in transforming the formal legal authority conferred by states into an actual authority in fact that is respected by potential litigants, national actors, legal communities, and publics. Alter, Helfer, and Madsen provide a novel framework for conceptualizing international court authority that focuses on the reactions and practices of these key audiences. Eighteen scholars from the disciplines of law, political science and sociology apply this framework to study thirteen international courts operating in Africa, Latin America, and Europe, as well as on a global level. Together the contributors document and explore important and interesting variations in whether the audiences that interact with international courts around the world embrace or reject the rulings of these judicial institutions. Alter, Helfer, and Madsen's authority framework recognizes that international judges can and often do everything they 'should' do to ensure that their rulings possess the gravitas and stature that national courts enjoy. Yet even when imbued with these characteristics, the parties to the dispute, potential future litigants, and the broader set of actors that monitor and respond to the court's activities may fail to acknowledge the rulings as binding or take meaningful steps to modify their behaviour in response to them. For both specific judicial institutions, and more generally, the book documents and explains why most international courts possess de facto authority that is partial, variable, and highly dependent on a range of different audiences and contexts - and thus is highly fragile. An introduction situates the book's unique approach to conceptualizing international court authority within theoretical debates about the authority of global institutions. International Court Authority also includes critical reflections on the authority framework from legal theorists, international relations scholars, a philosopher, and an anthropologist. The book's conclusion questions a number of widely shared assumptions about how social and political contexts facilitate or undermine international courts in developing de facto authority and political power.

Transplanting International Courts provides a deep, systematic investigation of the most active and successful transplant of the European Court of Justice. The Andean Tribunal is effective by any plausible definition of the term, but only in the domain of intellectual property law. Alter and Helfer explain how the Andean Tribunal established its legal authority within and beyond this intellectual property island, and how Andean judges have navigated moments of both transnational political consensus and political contestation over the goals and objectives of regional economic integration. By letting member states set the pace and scope of Andean integration, by condemning unequivocal violations of Andean rules, and by allowing for the coexistence of national legislation and supranational authority, the Tribunal has retained its fidelity to Andean law while building relationships with nationally-based administrative agencies, lawyers, and judges. Yet the Tribunal's circumspect and formalist approach means that, unlike in Europe, Community law is not an engine of integration. The Tribunal's strategy has also limited its influence within the Andean legal system. Transplanting International Courts also revists the authors' path-breaking scholarship on the effectiveness of international adjudication. Alter and Helfer argue that the European Court of Justice benefitted in underappreciated ways from the support of jurist advocacy movements that are absent or poorly organized in the Andes and elsewhere in the world. The Andean Tribunal's longevity despite these and other challenges offers guidance for international courts in other developing country contexts. Moreover, given that the Andean Community has weathered member state withdrawals and threats of exit, major economic and political crises, and the retrenchment of core policies such as the common external tariff, the Andean experience offers timely and important lessons for Europe's international courts.

Regional courts increasingly shape domestic law and policy, raising pressing questions about their democratic legitimacy. Balancing International Judicial Independence offers a groundbreaking framework for reconciling judicial independence with legitimate checks on judicial power. While independence is essential for courts to function, unchecked authority can be equally problematic. This book advances a nuanced approach that incorporates accountability and oversight without compromising independence.Part One introduces a conceptual framework for international judicial independence, tailored to the unique institutional and political contexts of regional courts and avoiding the uncritical application of domestic models. It draws on comparative analysis of courts in Europe and the Americas, including the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Andean Tribunal of Justice.Part Two explores the normative foundations for constraining judicial power, examining legal accountability mechanisms and adapting the principle of checks and balances to the international sphere. Political constraints are reconceptualized as forms of institutional interdependence within a refined checks and balances framework.Part Three tackles the implications of using checks and balances as a normative guiding principle and critically analyses national and regional institutional sources of constraint on selected courts, as well as specific mechanisms like judicial selection, political override, and non-compliance.Filling a critical gap in the literature, this book provides a principled framework for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to assess existing arrangements and guide institutional design in international adjudication.

This book provides the first in-depth and empirically grounded analysis of the foundations and evolution of the four Latin American and Caribbean regional economic courts: the Central American Court of Justice (CACJ), the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ), and the Mercosur Permanent Review Court (MPRC). While these Courts were established to build common markets and to enforce trade liberalisation, they have often developed bodies of jurisprudence in domains not directly associated with regional economic integration. The CCJ has been most successful in the area of human and fundamental rights; the CACJ has addressed issues related to the enforcement of the rule of law in national legal arenas and longstanding border disputes between the countries of the region; and the ATJ is an island of effective adjudication on intellectual property issues. The particular trajectories of these four Courts suggest that there is no universal formula for success. Challenging the mainstream account, this book argues that the Courts' operational path is not necessarily a function of their formally delegated competences or the will of the Member States. Rather, local socio-political contextual factors play a far more decisive role in influencing the direction of regional economic courts during and after their establishment.

The performance of international courts has traditionally been judged against criteria of compliance and effectiveness. Whilst these are clearly desirable objectives for litigants before Africa's international courts, this book shows that we must look beyond these criteria to fully appreciate the impact of these courts. This book shows how litigants use their participation in international litigation to achieve other objectives: to amplify political disputes with their governments, to build their movement, to educate the public about their cause, and to challenge the status quo. Chapters in this collection show how these courts act as coordination points for opposition political parties to name and shame dominant parties for violation of their organizational rights. Others demonstrate how Africa's international courts serve as transitional justice mechanisms in which truth telling about ongoing conflict and authoritarian governance receives significant attention. This attention serves as a platform to galvanize resistance against continued authoritarian rule, especially from outside the conflict countries. Ultimately, the book shows that these courts must be judged against new and broader criteria, and understood as increasingly important venues for waging political, social, environmental, and legal struggles.

International courts and tribunals hold the power to decide on questions involving sovereignty over territory, grave human rights violations, international crimes, or millions of euros' worth of economic interests. Judges and arbitrators are the 'faces' and arguably the drivers of international adjudication. Yet certain groups tend to be overrepresented on international benches, while others remain underrepresented. Although international courts and tribunals differ in their institutional make-up and functions, they all rely in essence on the judgement of a group of individuals, each with their own background and experience. Even if adjudicators' identity is not the only, and may not be the decisive, influence on their decision-making, the relative lack of diversity has an effect on the judicial process and its outcomes, which in turn entails broader implications for the legitimacy of international law. This book analyses the implications of identity and diversity across numerous international adjudicatory bodies, focusing on a wide range of factors. Lack of diversity within the judiciary has been identified as a legitimacy concern in domestic settings, and the last few years have seen increasing attention to this question at the international level as well, making the book both timely and topical.

Often accused of illegitimate interference with its member states' political choices, the European Court of Human Rights, like other international institutions operating outside of any democratic polity, faces serious concerns about its democratic legitimacy. The subsidiarity principle - enshrined in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights like in many other international treaties - thus emerged in response to calls for the Court to be markedly subsidiary to its member states and their democratic authorities. Exploring the subsidiarity principle as underpinning the entire European Convention on Human Rights system, Subsidiarity, Legitimacy, and the European Court of Human Rights sketches out the historical, political, and legal contestations through which this principle gained prominence. It presents two key arguments: first, that the Court's subsidiary role is justified as it brings democratic politics into the Convention system; and second, that this role explains and justifies the relative lack of principled - and highly casuistic - jurisprudence. The Court's casuistry is a prerequisite of the two-way process that allows a democratic bottom-up development of a Convention law that the Court may, hence legitimately, reimpose on the states.Subsidiarity, Legitimacy, and the European Court of Human Rights is the first book-length analysis of the ECHR from a separation-of-powers perspective, offering a compelling defence of subsidiarity as crucial to the democratic legitimacy of the ECHR, which contains insights relevant to many international treaty systems. This is an open access title available under the terms of a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. licence. It is free to read on the Oxford Academic platform and offered as a free PDF download from OUP and selected open access locations.

Governance of International Courts and Tribunals presents the first systematic examination of the institutions, practices, and norms that constitute international judicial governance—the oversight exercised by states and international organisations over international courts and tribunals to ensure their independent, accountable, and effective functioning.Departing from the traditional focus on courts' mandates, jurisprudence, and procedures, the book turns attention to international judicial governance institutions (what the book terms 'injugovins')—the political and executive bodies, such as organs of international organisations or dedicated governance bodies, responsible for overseeing courts. It explores their practices and the normative frameworks that guide them.Injugovins are revealed as crucial yet long-overlooked actors in the international adjudicative landscape. Their performance shapes the entire life cycle of courts—from the adoption of constituent instruments to budgeting, appointments, accountability mechanisms, institutional reform, enforcement, and closure. Many of the challenges faced by courts, including legitimacy crises, limited effectiveness, and political backlash, often stem from, or are worsened by, governance shortcomings.Addressing a long-standing gap in the literature, the volume develops a shared vocabulary and conceptual framework for understanding international judicial governance as a distinct domain of international institutional law and practice. Comprising 24 contributions, it combines conceptual analysis, regime-specific studies, and cross-cutting functional perspectives. It maps historical and contemporary governance models—including those of the PCIJ, ICJ, CJEU, ICC, and African regional courts—and examines key functions such as judicial elections, financial oversight, and enforcement. With empirical depth and analytical clarity, this volume lays the foundations for future research on the legitimacy, oversight, and effectiveness of international courts.

The proliferation of international courts and tribunals has given rise to several new issues affecting the administration of international justice. This book makes a significant contribution to understanding the impact of this proliferation by addressing one important question: namely, whether international courts and tribunals are increasingly adopting common approaches to issues of procedure and remedies. This book's central argument is that there is an increasing commonality in the practice of international courts to the application of rules concerning these issues, and that this represents the emergence of a common law of international adjudication.This book examines this question by considering several key issues relating to procedure and remedies, and analyses relevant international jurisprudence to demonstrate that there is substantial commonality. It goes on to look at why international courts are increasingly adopting common approaches to such questions, and why a greater degree of commonality may be found with respect to some issues rather than others. In doing so, light is shed on the methods adopted by international courts to engage in the cross-fertilization of legal principles.The emergence of a common law of international adjudication has important practical and theoretical implications, as it suggests that international courts can also devise common approaches to the challenges that they face in the age of proliferation. It also suggests that international courts do not generally operate as self-contained regimes, but rather that they regard themselves as forming part of a community of international courts, therefore having positive implications for the development of the international legal system.

This book seeks to investigate the growing jurisdictional interaction between national and international courts ie: their parallel involvement in the same or related disputes in the light of competing theoretical, ideological and methodological discourses on the nature of the relationship and the means to regulate it. In particular, it aims to explore what, if any, rules of international law could, or perhaps should govern such interactions, and regulate forum selection or multiple proceedings involving national and international courts. In addition, the book explores the standards of review employed by international courts vis-à-vis the decisions of their domestic counterparts and vice versa. It posits that the regulation of such interactions ultimately depends on the selection of the overarching paradigm that governs the relations between national and international courts (hierarchical as opposed to non-hierarchical and disintegrative or integrative conceptual frameworks). Following academic discussion of the problems and solutions pertaining to the interaction between national and international courts, the book considers the potential applicability of several jurisdiction-regulating measures to jurisdictional interactions between national and international courts. These include rules on forum selection and rules designed to regulate multiple proceedings (e.g. lis alibi pendens and res judicata), utilization of comity- based measures and doctrines, such as discretionary stay or dismissal of proceedings and margin of appreciation judicial review, and examination of the prohibition against abuse of rights. This segment of the book strives to provide lawyers and academics with a 'tool kit' of measures which could be employed in cases involving jurisdictional interactions between national and international courts.

This book provides an in depth-examination of the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the implications of that principle for the suppression of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on the domestic level. The book is set against the general background of the suppression of these crimes on the domestic level, its potential and pitfalls. It traces the evolution of complementarity and provides a critical and comprehensive analysis of the provisions in the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence relevant to complementarity. In so doing, it addresses both substantive and procedural aspects of admissibility, while taking account of the early practice of the ICC. Further attention is devoted to the question whether and to what extent the Rome Statute imposes on States Parties an obligation to investigate and prosecute core crimes domestically. Finally, the book examines the potential of the complementary regime to function as a catalyst for States to conduct domestic criminal proceedings vis-à-vis core crimes.

Over the last century, international courts, once reserved for arcane matters of diplomacy and trade, have begun to address a broad range of human experience and activity. This volume corrects some of the common misperceptions about international judges, while providing a balanced introduction to both the strengths and shortcomings of their work. As they rule on crucial issues of war and peace, human rights, and trade, in addition to high-profile criminal trials, international judges are playing a critical role in developments that will affect world affairs for years to come. Based on interviews with more than 30 international judges, this volume is the first comprehensive portrait of the men and women in this new global profession. The working environment of international judges is closely examined in courts around the world, highlighting the challenge of carrying out work in multiple languages, in the context of intricate bureaucratic hierarchies, and with a necessary interdependence between judges and their courts' administration. Arguing that international judges have to balance their responsibilities as interpreters of the law and as global professionals, the authors discuss the challenges of working in the fluid circumstances of international courts. Profiles of five individual judges provide insight into the experience and dilemmas of the men and women on the international bench.

Provisional measures of protection, the international equivalent of an interim injunction, are assuming growing importance in international law. These measures are designed to protect the rights of the parties pending the final decision in a dispute. Since the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1921 through its replacement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1945, the Court's power to indicate provisional measures has been controversial because it has been unclear whether such orders are binding. In 2001 the ICJ set that controversy at rest by deciding that it imposes binding obligations on the parties, and that non-compliance could give rise to an instance of state responsibility and a cause of action. This rule has also been incorporated into the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, one of the most important law-making conventions adopted in the last 50 years. These changes make a comprehensive re-examination of the law and practice of the ICJ and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) necesary, both from an academic perspective and as a matter of practice and procedure.Rosenne concludes that its work with provisional measures of protection may be the most significant of the ICJ's activities for the settlement of international disputes and the maintenance of international peace and securit,: the prime objective of the United Nations of which the ICJ is a principal organ.

This book examines the compliance record of states parties to proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the United Nations. It undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the follow-up of the ICJ's judgments and interim measures from the Court's creation in 1945 until the present day. ICJ judgments and provisional measures from the Corfu Channel case in the late 1940s to the Arrest Warrant Case decided in 2002 are examined, with particular focus on state practice. After explaining the legal bases for the obligation of compliance and the enforcement of ICJ decisions, the author analyses all decisions that gave rise to an obligation of compliance. The analysis is contextual, taking into account the history of the dispute, the underlying political interests, the parties' attitudes towards involvement of the ICJ, and the substance of the applicable law. This analysis reveals that the compliance record for judgments is generally satisfactory, whereas that for provisional measures is at first sight rather poor. Yet the record for provisional measures must be understood in a more nuanced light. In several cases, the applicant gained at least a certain benefit from the decision even though it was not (or was not fully) implemented. The author examines the reasons for the difference in the track records of judgments and provisional measures and explores mechanisms that could be conducive to enhanced compliance.

In response to the weaknesses of international tribunals and domestic courts in the prosecution of crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, a new generation of "internationalized" criminal courts has been established. This book addresses three active and one putative jurisdiction of this kind in East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia.

This book examines the way international court judges are chosen. Focusing principally on the judicial selection procedures of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, it provides the first detailed examination of how the selection process works in practice at national and international levels: what factors determine whether a state will nominate a candidate? How is a candidate identified? What factors influence success or failure? What are the respective roles of merit, politics, and other considerations in the nomination and election process? The research was based on interviews, case studies and survey data in a range of different states. It concludes that although the nature and quality of nomination and election processes vary widely, a common theme indicates the powerful influence of domestic and international political considerations, and the significant role of a small group of diplomats, civil servants, lawyers, and academics, often without transparency or accountability. The processes allow overt political considerations to be introduced throughout the decision-making process in ways that may detract from the selection of the most highly qualified candidates and, ultimately, undermine independence. This is particularly evident in the election campaigning that has become a defining feature of the selection process, accompanied by widespread vote trading and reciprocal agreements between states. The effect of these practices is often to undermine the role of statutory selection criteria and to favour candidates from more politically powerful states. The book reviews new judicial selection models adopted or proposed in other international and regional courts, and considers a number of proposals for change to promote more independent, transparent, and merit-based nomination and election procedures.

The growing number of international courts and tribunals and their burgeoning case law have fuelled concerns about the fragmentation of international law. This arises as a consequence of both the specialized regimes these courts create and the multiple ways in which they may interpret international law emanating from other sources.This book considers this issue by examining the busiest and arguably most successful international court, the European Court of Human Rights. More specifically, it focuses on the jurisprudence of the Court and its predecessor, the European Commission of Human Rights, covering a range of special human rights regimes, treaty law, and the case law of the International Court of Justice.The author assesses whether the Court has been able to adopt a coherent, comprehensive approach to the interpretation and evaluation of international law and thus the extent to which it has been able to contribute to the development and coherence of international law.

Are international courts effective tools for international governance? Do they fulfill the expectations that led to their creation and empowerment? Why do some courts appear to be more effective than others, and do so such appearances reflect reality? Could their results have been produced by other mechanisms? This book evaluates the effectiveness of international courts and tribunals by comparing their stated goals to the actual outcomes they achieve. Using a theoretical model borrowed from social science, the book assesses their effectiveness by analysing key empirical data.Its first part is dedicated to theory and methodology, laying out the effectiveness model, explaining its different components, its promise and limits, and discussing the measurement challenges it faces. The second part analyses the role that indicators such as jurisdiction, judicial independence, legitimacy, and compliance play in achieving effectiveness. Part three applies the effectiveness model to the International Court of Justice, the WTO dispute settlement mechanisms (panels and Appellate Body), the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Court of Justice, reflecting the diversity of the field of international adjudication. Given the recent proliferation of international courts and tribunals, this book makes an important contribution towards understanding and measuring the value that these institutions provide.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has exclusive jurisdiction over European Union law and holds a broad interpretation of these powers. This, however, may come into conflict with the jurisdiction of other international courts and tribunals, especially in the context of so-called mixed agreements. While the CJEU considers these 'integral parts' of EU law, other international courts will also have jurisdiction in such cases. This book explores the conundrum of shared jurisdiction, analysing the international legal framework for the resolution of such conflicts, and provides a critical and comprehensive analysis of the CJEU's far-reaching jurisdiction, suggesting solutions to this dilemma. The book also addresses the special relationship between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights. The unique interaction between these two bodies raises fundamental substantive concerns about overlaps of jurisdiction and interpretation in the courts. Conflicts of interpretation manage largely to be avoided by frequent cross-referencing, which also allows for much cross-fertilization in the development of European human rights law. The link between these two courts is the subject of the final section of the book.

Fragmentation is one of the major debates within international law, but no detailed case studies have been made to show the problems that it creates, and how they can be addressed. This book asks whether the growing number of international judicial bodies render decisions that are largely consistent with one another, which factors influence this (in)consistency, and what this tells us about the development of international law by international courts and tribunals. It answers these questions by focusing on three areas of law, genocide, immunities, and the use of force, as in each of these areas different international judicial entities have dealt with cases stemming from the same situation and set of facts. The work focuses on four main courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which often interpret, apply, and develop the same legal principles, despite their different mandates and functions. It argues that judicial fragmentation is damaging to the international legal system, as coherent and compatible pronouncements on the law by international courts are vital to retaining the confidence of the international community. Ultimately, the book makes a plea for the importance of judicial integration for the stability and reliability of the international legal system.

Over the past twenty years, the volume of international litigation and arbitration has increased exponentially. As the number of new international courts and tribunals has proliferated, the diversity and volume of advocates appearing before the international courts has also increased. With this increase, the ethical standards that apply to counsel have become a growing field of interest to practitioners of public international law. Problems threatening the integrity of the international judicial process and concerns about divergent ethical standards amongst counsel have multiplied in the international judicial system, prompting early attempts by senior members of the 'international bar' to articulate common ethical standards.Professional Ethics at the International Bar examines the question of how to articulate common ethical standards for counsel appearing before international courts and tribunals, and the legal powers and practical ability of international courts to prescribe and enforce such standards. It conducts original research into both the theory and practice of the issues arising from this nascent process of professionalization. Using various sources, including interviews with judges, registrars, and senior practitioners, it argues that the professionalization of advocacy through the articulation of common ethical standards is both desirable and feasible in order to protect the integrity and fairness of the international judicial process.