{"title":"在同意与一致之间:不完美世界中的偶然问题","authors":"Payam Akhavan, Eirik Bjorge","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International courts and tribunals must maintain a delicate balance between consent and coherence when they consider incidental questions as part of their dispute settlement function. There are compelling reasons, in the contemporary world of unprecedented complexity and interdependence, to instill coherence into dispute settlement procedures, so as to avoid the denial of justice. The exercise of jurisdiction over an “incidental question,” however, must not be forced to the point that it undermines the willingness of states to give their consent to such procedures.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between Consent and Coherence: Incidental Questions in an Imperfect World\",\"authors\":\"Payam Akhavan, Eirik Bjorge\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/aju.2022.26\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"International courts and tribunals must maintain a delicate balance between consent and coherence when they consider incidental questions as part of their dispute settlement function. There are compelling reasons, in the contemporary world of unprecedented complexity and interdependence, to instill coherence into dispute settlement procedures, so as to avoid the denial of justice. The exercise of jurisdiction over an “incidental question,” however, must not be forced to the point that it undermines the willingness of states to give their consent to such procedures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJIL Unbound\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJIL Unbound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.26\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJIL Unbound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Between Consent and Coherence: Incidental Questions in an Imperfect World
International courts and tribunals must maintain a delicate balance between consent and coherence when they consider incidental questions as part of their dispute settlement function. There are compelling reasons, in the contemporary world of unprecedented complexity and interdependence, to instill coherence into dispute settlement procedures, so as to avoid the denial of justice. The exercise of jurisdiction over an “incidental question,” however, must not be forced to the point that it undermines the willingness of states to give their consent to such procedures.