The International Judge in an Age of Multiple International Courts and Tribunals

Abstract

International law, although still unsophisticated in comparison to domestic law, is increasingly showing signs of becoming a developed legal system. While there remains no central legislator or enforcer, substantive international law has come to be identified and codified in many areas, thanks in part to the work of the International Law Commission ("ILC") and the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly. As international law has developed, the number of participants in the international legal system has grown. Within this evolving international system, legal disputes are increasingly brought for resolution before judicial or quasi-judicial institutions. The 1990s saw a marked quantitative and qualitative expansion of international courts and tribunals. This Article focuses on two fruits of the increasing fecundity of the international judicial system. First, what is the international judge to do when there are several fora that could deal with a dispute, apart from his or her own? Second, what is an international judge to do when the jurisprudence on an issue is inconsistent between international courts and tribunals? The contribution the Article seeks to make is to provide, in line with the precedent set by the Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary, a blueprint to aid the international judge in dealing with two of the more common ramifications of an ever expanding family of international law.