Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:56:50.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of avoidance: political questions before international courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2018

Jed Odermatt
Jed Odermatt*
Affiliation:
Post-doc at iCourts, the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International courts (ICs) have found themselves dealing with issues that are ‘political’ in nature. This paper discusses the techniques of avoidance ICs have developed to navigate such highly political or sensitive issues. The first part discusses some of the key rationales for avoidance. Drawing on the discussion of the political question doctrine in US constitutional law, it shows how ICs may justify avoidance on both principled and pragmatic grounds. It then discusses the different types of avoidance strategies employed by ICs, based on examples from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the International Court of Justice and the East African Court of Justice. ICs are rarely upfront about avoidance strategies. Rather, ICs tend to avoid cases in a more subtle fashion, relying on procedural rules to exclude a case, or by resolving the dispute in a way that avoids the most politically sensitive questions and controversies.

Keywords

trade policyfree-trade agreementsWorld Trade OrganisationsuccessionGlobal BritainUK politicsEU law
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 14 , Special Issue 2: Resistance to International Courts , June 2018 , pp. 221 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

References

Alter, KJ (2014) The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Anghie, AT (2017) Politic, cautious, and meticulous: an introduction to the symposium on the Marshall Islands case. AJIL Unbound 111, 62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, E (1993) Judicial misgivings regarding the application of international norms: an analysis of attitudes of national courts. European Journal of International Law 4, 169–183.Google Scholar
Bianchi, A (2017) Choice and (the awareness of) its consequences: the ICJ's ‘structural bias’ strikes again in the Marshall Islands case. AJIL Unbound 111, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, A (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Bickel, AM (1961) The supreme court 1960 term foreword: the passive virtues. Harvard Law Review 75, 40–79.Google Scholar
Bobbitt, P (1982) Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bodansky, DM (1999) The legitimacy of international governance: a coming challenge for international environmental law? American Journal of International Law 93, 596–624.Google Scholar
Carrubba, CJ, Gabel, M and Hankla, C (2008) Judicial behaviour under political constraints: evidence from the European Court of Justice, American Political Science Review 102, 435–452.Google Scholar
Caserta, S (2017) Regional International courts in search of relevance – adjudicating politically sensitive disputes in Central America and the Caribbean. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Clayton, CW (1999) The Supreme Court and political jurisprudence: new and old institutionalisms. In Clayton, CW and Gillman, H (eds), Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cole, JP (2014) The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Coleman, A (2003) The international court of justice and highly political matters. Melbourne Journal of International Law 4, 29–75.Google Scholar
Crawford, J (2012) Brownlie's Principles of International Law, 8th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, M, De Witte, B and Muir, E (2013) Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Baere, G (2012) European integration and the rule of law in foreign policy. In Dickson, J and Eleftheriadis, P (eds), Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Wet, E (2004) The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council. Hart: Oxford.Google Scholar
Delaney, EF (2016) Analyzing avoidance: judicial strategy in comparative perspective. Duke Law Journal 66, 1–67.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J (2002) Judicializing politics, politicizing law. Law and Contemporary Problems 61, 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, TM (1992) Political Questions Judicial Answers: Does the Rule of Law Apply to Foreign Affairs? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, T (2014) Political constraints on international courts. In Romano, CPR, Alter, KJ and Shany, Y (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, JL (1999) The new formalism in United States foreign relations law. University of Colorado Law Review 70, 1395–1438.Google Scholar
Hellman, D (1995) The importance of appearing principled. Arizona Law Review 37, 1107–1151.Google Scholar
Henkin, L (1976) Is there a ‘political question’ doctrine? Yale Law Journal 85, 597–625.Google Scholar
Hirschl, R (2008) The judicialization of politics. In Whittington, KE, Kelemen, RD and Caldeira, GA (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, JF (1962) Peace-keeping costs and charter obligations – implications of the international court of justice decision on certain expenses of the United Nations. Columbia Law Review 62, 1230–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huq, AZ (2014) The negotiated structural constitution. Columbia Law Review 114, 1595–1686.Google Scholar
Krisch, N (2017) ‘Capitulation in The Hague: The Marshall Islands Cases’, EJIL Talk! Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/capitulation-in-the-hague-the-marshall-islands-cases/ (accessed 1 March 2018).Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, H (1933) The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Letsas, G (2006) Two concepts of the margin of appreciation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26, 705–732.Google Scholar
Lonardo, L (2017) The political question doctrine as applied to common foreign and security policy. European Foreign Affairs Review 22, 571–587.Google Scholar
Madsen, MR (2017) Rebalancing European human rights: has the Brighton Declaration engendered a new deal on human rights in Europe? Journal of International Dispute Settlement, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Madsen, MR, Cebulak, P and Wiebusch, M (2018) Backlash against international courts: explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts. International Journal of Law in Context 14, 5–28.Google Scholar
McGoldrick, D (2016) A defence of the margin of appreciation and an argument for its application by the human rights committee. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 65, 21–60.Google Scholar
McWhinney, E (1991) Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: Jurisdiction, Justiciability and Judicial Law-Making on the International Court. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Mulhern, P (1988) In defence of the political question doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137, 97–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odermatt, J (2017) Council of the European Union v Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) – Case C-104/16 P. American Journal of International Law 111, 731–738.Google Scholar
Pettinato, JS (2006) Executing the political question doctrine. Northern Kentucky Law Review 33, 61–81.Google Scholar
Ranganathan, S (2017) Nuclear weapons and the court. AJIL Unbound 111, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, FW (1966) Judicial review and the political question: a functional analysis. Yale Law Journal 75, 517–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, JK and Moore, WH (2011) Judicial power in domestic and international politics. International Organization 65, 553–587.Google Scholar
Thirlway, H (2002) Judicial activism and the international court of justice. In Andō, N (ed.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Voeten, E (2013) Public opinion and the legitimacy of international courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14, 411–436.Google Scholar
Wasserfallen, F (2010) The judiciary as legislator? How the European court of justice shapes policy-making in the European union. Journal of European Public Policy 17, 1128–1146.Google Scholar
Waters, TW (2013) Misplaced boldness: the avoidance of substance in the International Court of Justice's Kosovo opinion. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 23, 267–334.Google Scholar
Wechsler, H (1959) Toward neutral principles of constitutional law. Harvard Law Review 73, 1–35.Google Scholar
Weiler, JH (2001) The rule of lawyers and the ethos of diplomats: reflections on the internal and external legitimacy of WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade 35, 191–207.Google Scholar
Wouters, J and Odermatt, J (2016) Certain expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Charter): advisory opinion, [1962] ICJ Reports 151. In C Ryngaert, C, Dekker, IF, Wessel, RA and Wouters, J (eds), Judicial Decisions on the Law of International Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yoo, JC (1996) The continuation of politics by other means: the original understanding of war powers. California Law Review 84, 167–305.Google Scholar
Zarbiyev, F (2012) Judicial activism in international law – a conceptual framework for analysis. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3, 247–278.Google Scholar

Judgments

Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F.Supp.2d 1, 52 (D.D.C. 2010).Google Scholar
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation) (Preliminary Objections) [2011] ICJ Rep 70.Google Scholar
East African Court of Justice, Democratic Party v Secretary General of the East African Community and Others (Reference No.2 of 2012), 29 November 2013.Google Scholar
East African Court of Justice, Samuel Mukira Mohochi v. Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (Reference No. 5 of 2011) 17 May 2013 Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 803 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016, Council of the European Union v. Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), Case C-104/16 P, EU:C:2016:973.Google Scholar
Opinion of Advocate General delivered on 13 September 2016 in Council of the European Union v. Front populaire pour la libération de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario), Case C-104/16 P, EU:C:2016:677.Google Scholar