Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:15:04.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Rosalyn Higgins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This Keynote speech examines the implications of the multiplying of judicial institutions and the deepening of international law. Overlapping jurisdiction issues already exist among international courts and tribunals. This raises the question of ‘Whose view prevails?’ But the deepening of international law also requires any given court to ask itself, ‘Which of the many norms now developed are applicable?’ Alternative plausible applicable norms could lead to different solutions. It is ever more apparent that that law is more than ‘bright rules’ that simply need to be applied. This speech discusses potential solutions that have been proposed, such as instituting a judicial hierarchy, using certain provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and invoking a hierarchy of norms. It closes with a call for international judges to regard the multiplication of institutions and applicable norms as an opportunity rather than a problem, to read each other's judgments, respect each other's work and try to preserve unity unless context dictates otherwise.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 791 - 804
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro).

2 Prosecutor v Radislav Krstić Case No IT–98–33–A, Appeals Chamber, judgment of 19 04 2004.Google Scholar

3 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (judgment of 19 12 2005).Google Scholar

4 Legality on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion [1996] ICJ Rep 1996 226.Google Scholar

5 Ibid[1996] ICJ Rep 1996 240, para 25.Google Scholar

6 Ibid 243, para 33.

7 See, eg, Art 27 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

8 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 2002, 3 (in particular, paras 45 et seq).Google Scholar

9 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom No 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI.

10 Ibid para 56.

11 Waite and Kennedy v Germany No 26083/94, ECHR 1999-I, paras 72–4 and Beer and Regan v Germany [GC] No 26083/94, ECHR 1999-I, paras 62–4.

12 Prosecutor v Tadic Case No IT–94–1–A, Appeals Chamber, judgment of 15 07 1999.Google Scholar

13 Ibid para 137.

14 Ibid para 90.

15 Ibid para 92.

16 Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (judgment of 19 12 2005).Google Scholar

17 ibid para 160.

18 Banković v Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States [GC] No 52207/99, ECHR.

19 See General Comment No 31 [80], Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant CCPR/C/21/Revl/Add 13, 26 05 2004.Google Scholar

20 LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), Judgment, 2001 ICJ Rep 2001 466.Google Scholar

21 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) (Judgment) [2004] ICJ Rep 2004 12.Google Scholar

22 LaGrand (n) [2001] ICJ Rep 2001 494, para 78.Google Scholar

23 See The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of 1 10 1999, Inter-American Court of Human Rights.Google Scholar

24 ibid para 141(2).

25 LaGrand (n) [2001] ICJ Rep 2001 494, paras 77–8.Google Scholar

26 Avena (n) [2004] ICJ Rep 2004 31–2, para 30.Google Scholar

27 ibid 60–1, para 124.

28 Rosalyn, Higgins ‘The ICJ, the ECJ and the Integrity of International Law’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 1 (The text of the 2002 Lord Slynn European Law Foundation Lecture, given on 10 April 2002).Google Scholar

29 See, eg, Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v Turkey [GC] Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99, 2005, 4 02, paras 116–17.Google Scholar

30 Beate, Rudolf ‘Unity and Diversity of International Law in the Settlement of International Disputes’ in Andreas, Zimmermann and Rainer, Hoffman (eds) Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Kiel Walther Schucking Institute of International Law, November 4–7, 2004 (Duncker and Humblot Berlin 2006) 396.Google Scholar

31 See, eg, Matthews v United Kingdom [GC] No 24833/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-I.

32 In the Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rijn’) Railway (Belgium v Netherlands), Arbitral Award of 24 05 2005, available at <www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/BENL/BE-NL%20Award%20corrected%20200905.pdf> (last visited 28 Mar 2006) paras 80–5.+(last+visited+28+Mar+2006)+paras+80–5.>Google Scholar

33 Case of Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago No 123, Series C, I/A Court H.R., judgment of 11 03 2005, Separate Opinion of Judge Can9ado-Trindade, para 7.Google Scholar

34 See, eg, 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 10 2000, available at <www.icjcij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/SPEECHES/iSpeechPresident_Gumaume_SixthCommittee_20001027.htm> (last visited 28 Mar 2006)+(last+visited+28+Mar+2006)>Google Scholar; see also Gilbert Guillaume ‘The Future of International Judicial Institutions’ (1995) 44 ICLQ 848Google Scholar and ‘Advantages and Risks of Proliferation: A Blueprint for Action’ (2004) 2 Journal of Intl Criminal Justice 300.Google Scholar

35 See, eg Rosalyn, Higgins ‘The ICJ, the ECJ and the Integrity of International Law’ (n 28) 17–20.Google Scholar

36 Chapter XI, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ in Report of the fifty-seventh session of the International Law Commission (2005) GA Official Records, 60th Sess, Supp No 10 (A/60/10) 223, para 487.Google Scholar

37 Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), Judgment on Jurisdiction of the Court ami Admissibility of the Application [2006] ICJ Rep 2006 para 64.Google Scholar

38 ibid para 69.

39 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission Case T-306/01, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 09 2005, para 228.Google Scholar

40 ibid para 232.

41 ibid para 233.

42 ibid para 234.

43 ibid para 239.

44 ibid para 277.

45 Kadi v Council and Commission Case T-315/01, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 09 2005.Google Scholar

46 Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) (Judgment) [2003] ICJ Rep 2003 161.Google Scholar

47 Ibid 218, para 125(1).

48 Ibid 182, para 41.

49 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Antonim Şirketi (Bosphorus Airways) v Ireland [GC] No 45036/98, ECHR 2005.Google Scholar

50 ibid para 100.

51 ibid para 150.

52 Chapter X, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ in Report of the Fifty-sixth Session of the International Law Commission, GA Official Records, 59th Sess, Supp No 10 (A/59/10), p 290, para 318.Google Scholar