法律的守护者?

Q2 Social Sciences
Sarah Thin
{"title":"法律的守护者?","authors":"Sarah Thin","doi":"10.1163/15718107-bja10064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThere is an essential conflict at the heart of the international judicial function. On the one hand, interstate courts and tribunals (ict s) are viewed as guardians of international legality; organs of the international community itself. On the other, they are the tools of their creator states. Accordingly, traditional conceptions of the international judicial function frame ict s as dispute settlors pure and simple, a perspective which comes into conflict with a more community-oriented role for ict s. This article explores these different approaches to the international judicial function, presenting them as two opposing perspectives: one bilateralist, one based on the community interest in legality and the international rule of law. It then assesses the practice and procedure of the icj, itlos, and the wto dsm in relation to jurisdiction and admissibility against these differing views of the international judicial function. It concludes that, although the bilateralist perspective still holds considerable sway, a more systemic, community interest-oriented international judicial function is clearly emerging in the field of international adjudication.","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guardians of Legality?\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Thin\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718107-bja10064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThere is an essential conflict at the heart of the international judicial function. On the one hand, interstate courts and tribunals (ict s) are viewed as guardians of international legality; organs of the international community itself. On the other, they are the tools of their creator states. Accordingly, traditional conceptions of the international judicial function frame ict s as dispute settlors pure and simple, a perspective which comes into conflict with a more community-oriented role for ict s. This article explores these different approaches to the international judicial function, presenting them as two opposing perspectives: one bilateralist, one based on the community interest in legality and the international rule of law. It then assesses the practice and procedure of the icj, itlos, and the wto dsm in relation to jurisdiction and admissibility against these differing views of the international judicial function. It concludes that, although the bilateralist perspective still holds considerable sway, a more systemic, community interest-oriented international judicial function is clearly emerging in the field of international adjudication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-bja10064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-bja10064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在国际司法职能的核心存在着一种根本的冲突。一方面,州际法院和法庭(ict)被视为国际合法性的守护者;国际社会本身的机构。另一方面,他们是他们的创造者国家的工具。因此,国际司法职能的传统概念将信息和通信技术单纯地视为争端解决者,这一观点与信息和通信技术更面向社区的作用发生冲突。本文探讨了国际司法职能的这些不同途径,并将它们作为两种对立的视角呈现:一种是双边主义的,一种是基于合法性和国际法治的社会利益。然后,针对国际司法职能的这些不同观点,评估国际法院、国际海洋法法庭和世界贸易组织在管辖权和可受理性方面的做法和程序。它的结论是,尽管双边主义观点仍然具有相当大的影响力,但在国际审判领域,一种更加系统化、以社区利益为导向的国际司法职能显然正在出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Guardians of Legality?
There is an essential conflict at the heart of the international judicial function. On the one hand, interstate courts and tribunals (ict s) are viewed as guardians of international legality; organs of the international community itself. On the other, they are the tools of their creator states. Accordingly, traditional conceptions of the international judicial function frame ict s as dispute settlors pure and simple, a perspective which comes into conflict with a more community-oriented role for ict s. This article explores these different approaches to the international judicial function, presenting them as two opposing perspectives: one bilateralist, one based on the community interest in legality and the international rule of law. It then assesses the practice and procedure of the icj, itlos, and the wto dsm in relation to jurisdiction and admissibility against these differing views of the international judicial function. It concludes that, although the bilateralist perspective still holds considerable sway, a more systemic, community interest-oriented international judicial function is clearly emerging in the field of international adjudication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Established in 1930, the Nordic Journal of International Law has remained the principal forum in the Nordic countries for the scholarly exchange on legal developments in the international and European domains. Combining broad thematic coverage with rigorous quality demands, it aims to present current practice and its theoretical reflection within the different branches of international law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信