Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  advisory opinions
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
The concept of ius cogens norms is one of the most controversial issue in the international law. These norms were definied in the art. 53 of Vienna Convention on the law of treaties of 1969, according to which ius cogens norm it is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of the international law having the same character. This definition indicates that these norms limit the ability of States of creation or change the norms of the international law. However, the indicated definition does not include examples, scope and substance of ius cogens norms. In the commentary to the art. 50 of the draft articles on the law of treaties the International Law Commission stated that substance of these norms will be worked out in the States’ practice and in the judicial decisions of international courts . Contrary to International Court of Justice Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in its judicial decisions in great measure widened the scope and the substance of ius cogens norms. Consequently, IACtHR has developed a progressive case law in this realm. In separate opinion, in the case Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago from 2005, judge A.A. Conçado Trindade concluded that the IACtHR, in identification of ius cogens norms, have done more than any other international court. In its judgements and advisory opinions IACtHR recognized that e.g. forced going missing, tortures, discriminations, extrajudicial executions are the infringements of ius cogens norms. Taking into consideration jurisprudence of the IACtHR it is hard to say on what grounds it was prescribed that a given norm is forming a part of ius cogens. This article analyses the way the IACtHR identified ius cogens norms. Therefore it was indispensable to define its competence ratione materiae. Next, taking into consideration the gravity and the nature of infringement and the fact that all infringements of human rights which have been described simultaneously constitute violation of other human rights, this paper is limited only to three of them. It also outlines what functions, in the jurisprudence of IACtHR, fulfil the attribution to the norms the status of ius cogens norms.
EN
This paper argues that by delivering judgement and giving an advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice contributes to enhancement and promotion of the rule of law. First of all, it was necessary to explain the term ‘rule of law’ and its formal and substantive theories. It argues that the notion of rule of law in national legal systems should be distinguished from this concept in international law. Then it analyzes some judgements and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice with regard to peaceful settlement of disputes, interpretation, uniform application and development of international law, as well as equality before the law. It was established that through peaceful settlement of disputes between States, the International Court of Justice helped maintain peace, friendly relations and prevent violent conflicts. Furthermore, the World Court consistently and impartially applies, clarifies and contributes to the development of international law. Unfortunately, individuals are not on equal footing in the advisory proceedings concerning revision of judgements of administrative tribunals. According to Article 34 paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Court, only States are entitled to appear before the International Court of Justice. What is more, there is also absence of equality of the parties in advisory proceedings because individuals are deprived of any access to the Court. But in the last advisory opinion rendered on 1 February 2012, the Court argued that it is obliged to ensure that this principle is adhered to as far as it possible.
PL
W artykule wykazano, że Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości, wydając orzeczenia i opinie doradcze, przyczynia się do wzmocnienia i promocji koncepcji rządów prawa. W związku z tym, po pierwsze, wyjaśniono pojęcie „rządów prawa” oraz przedstawiono teorie formalne i materialne koncepcji rządów prawa. Ustalono, że idei rządów prawa w krajowych porządkach prawnych nie należy utożsamiać z koncepcją rządów prawa w prawie międzynarodowym. Następnie dokonano analizy wybranych orzeczeń i opinii doradczych Trybunału w odniesieniu zarówno do pokojowego rozstrzygania sporów międzynarodowych, interpretacji, jednolitości stosowania, rozwoju prawa międzynarodowego, jak i zachowania zasady równości wobec prawa. Stwierdzono, że poprzez pokojowe rozstrzyganie sporów międzynarodowych pomiędzy państwami Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości przyczynia się do utrzymania międzynarodowego pokoju, przyjaznych stosunków oraz zapobiega wybuchowi konfliktów zbrojnych. Ponadto Trybunał w sposób jednolity, bezstronny stosuje, wyjaśnia i przyczynia się do rozwoju prawa międzynarodowego. Niestety, w postępowaniu doradczym dotyczącym rewizji orzeczeń trybunałów administracyjnych nie zagwarantowano jednostkom zasady równości stron. Zgodnie z art. 34 ust. 1 Statutu Trybunału jedynymi podmiotami uprawnionymi do bycia stroną w postępowaniu przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Sprawiedliwości są państwa. Jednostki nie mogą także uczestniczyć w postępowaniu doradczym. Jednakże w ostatniej opinii doradczej z dnia 1 lutego 2012 r. Trybunał stwierdził, że jest zobowiązany do zagwarantowania równości stron tak dalece, jak jest to możliwe.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.