Search results

1

Advisory Opinion or Judgment? The Case of the Chagos Archipelago

100%

Kuźniak B., Kabat-Rudnicka D.

Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review

|

2021

|

vol. 13

45-75

EN

The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the ICJ’s advisory opinion of 25 February 2019 on the Chagos Archipelago. It will endeavour to answer the following questions: (i) is it consistent with the letter and the spirit of international law for the ICJ to issue advisory opinions in cases involving a dispute between states, which, due to the lack of consent from one of the states, cannot be brought before the ICJ and be settled by a judgment of that judicial body?; (ii) is such a ruling the right way to settle the issue of decolonization?; and (iii) did Brexit play any role in the case under discussion? The article begins by describing the background to the dispute between the UK and Mauritius. The focus of the analysis then shifts to the nature of advisory opinions and the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago. Next, the authors discuss the possible impact of Brexit on the dispute between the UK and Mauritius itself, as well as on the UK’s international standing in general. The article concludes with reflections on voluntarism in international law. The authors conclude that de lege lata an authorized body or organization may ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion in situations where it believes that such an opinion would be useful for its work. However, such advisory opinions should not have the character of authoritative court statements made in pending disputes between sovereign states. As a consequence, such opinions should refer only to abstract legal problems, which means that in some cases the ICJ should refrain from issuing them.

2

Jurisdiction of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union and Its Role in the Development of the Eurasian Legal Order: One Step Back and Two Steps Forward

72%

Mikhaliova T.

Polish Yearbook of International Law

|

2019

|

vol. 39

251-264

EN

The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union was created in 2015 as a judicial organ with jurisdiction over a range of subject matters within the Eurasian Economic Union. It replaced the Court of the Eurasian Economic Community, which operated within the Eurasian Economic Community and its Customs Union (2012-2014). Though the Union become the next step in the integration process of the post-Soviet area, the newly created Court has not been given de jure a successor status. The Court of the Union was set up anew as one of the four institutional bodies in the structure of the Union. It was empowered to settle disputes between the Member States, as well as to consider different types of actions brought by private actors (economic entities only). The interpretative function of the Court was enshrined as “competence on clarification.” Moreover, the Commission, the main executive and regulative organ, was not given locus standi in actions against the Member States to enhance their compliance with the obligations of EAEU law. Preliminary jurisdiction was also cut down as compared to the Court of the Community or other regional integration courts. However, some new functions were given to the Court, and its five years long practice shows a clear tendency to substitute missing powers with those given but in a broader context, as well as its aspirations to play a consolidating role for the legal order of the Union.

3

The Advisory Jurisdiction of the Permanent Review Tribunal of the Southern Common Market

72%

Lis E.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

|

2022

|

vol. 31

|

issue 2

181-205

PL

W dniu 26 marca 2021 r. minęła 30. rocznica podpisania Traktatu z Asunción, który stanowił podstawę utworzenia Wspólnego Rynku Południa (Mercosur). Jest to proces integrowania wszystkich rynków Ameryki Południowej i stanowi on piątą gospodarkę światową. W ciągu tego okresu zarówno w państwach członkowskich, jak i w Mercosur nastąpiły znaczne zmiany. Wraz z pogłębianiem się procesów integracyjnych miała miejsce ewolucja mechanizmu załatwiania sporów. Jedną z istotnych zmian było powołanie Stałego Trybunału Rewizyjnego, który posiada kompetencję do rozstrzygania sporów oraz do wydawania opinii doradczych. Opinie doradcze stanowią jednak niedoceniane narzędzie rozwiązywania kwestii prawnych. Przedstawiciele nauki prawa międzynarodowego w swoich badaniach skupiają się głównie na jurysdykcji trybunałów międzynarodowych w sprawach spornych, pomijając lub ignorując znaczenie postępowania doradczego. Opinie doradcze wydawane przez trybunały międzynarodowe, mimo że co do zasady stanowią poradę prawną w kwestiach prawa, niekiedy uznaje się za jeden ze środków służących do pogłębiania procesów integracyjnych. W artykule stwierdzono, że ze względu na niewiążący charakter opinii doradczych stanowią one dogodny instrument standaryzacji prawa Mercosur, wzmacniają procesy integracyjne w regionie i umożliwiają realizację celów określonych w Traktacie z Asunción. Zakres ich oddziaływania zależy nie tylko od samego Trybunału, lecz także od tego, czy podmiot, który zwrócił się o opinię doradczą, w szczególności jeżeli jest to sąd najwyższy, będzie skłonny do stosowania się do wskazówek Trybunału. Artykuł stanowi wkład do trwającej dyskusji na temat wpływu opinii doradczych na rozwój procesów integracyjnych.

EN

The 30th anniversary of the signing of the Asunción Treaty which provided the basis for the creation of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), was 26 March 2021. It is an economic integration process of all the markets in South America and the fifth economy in the world. The main goals of Mercosur include ensuring free trade and movement of goods, capital, services and people by eliminating custom duties, tariffs and other restrictions and establishing common external tariffs. During this time, the Member States as well as Mercosur itself undergone some significant changes. The evolution of integration processes has also been accompanied by development in the Mercosur dispute settlement mechanism. One significant modification was the establishment of the Permanent Review Tribunal (the PRT), which has contentious and advisory jurisdiction. Advisory opinions are still an underestimated tool in solving legal issues. Scholars primary focus on contentious jurisdiction of international tribunals, omitting or underestimating the value of advisory jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, advisory opinions issued by international tribunals are usually legal advice on a point of law, it is sometimes noted that they may be even seen as an integration instrument. This article argues that due to the non-binding character of advisory opinions they are a useful instrument of standardization of Mercosur law, strengthening integration processes and enabling the fulfillment of objectives set forth in the Asunción Treaty. The extent of their impact depends not only on the PRT itself, but also on whether the entity that has requested the advisory opinion, in particular the supreme national courts, is willing to follow the PRT guidance. This article contributes to the discussion on the impact of advisory opinions on the development of integration processes.

Refine search results

1 Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review

1 Polish Yearbook of International Law

1 Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

1 Kabat-Rudnicka D.

1 Kuźniak B.

1 Lis E.

1 Mikhaliova T.

1 2022

1 2021

1 2020

Advisory Opinion or Judgment? The Case of the Chagos Archipelago

Jurisdiction of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union and Its Role in the Development of the Eurasian Legal Order: One Step Back and Two Steps Forward

The Advisory Jurisdiction of the Permanent Review Tribunal of the Southern Common Market