COFOLA International 2022. Current Challenges of Resolution of International (Cross-Border) Disputes
KapitolaDid the Preliminary Objections Judgment Resolve the Chagos Archipelago Sovereignty Dispute?
Rok vydání: 2022https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P280-0231-2022-5
Abstrakt
Noticing the conclusion of the Preliminary Objections Judgment in the case of Mauritius vs. Maldives Maritime Delimitation, this paper asks whether the Special Chamber’s decision has resolved the sovereignty dispute over the Chagos Archipelago. It re-examines the conclusion that the continued claim of the United Kingdom to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is a mere assertion and the UK has no legal interest in it. This paper argues that the legal system has a self-reproducing nature by which the Special Chamber regenerates decisions already established in the legal system as the distinction between lawful and unlawful is the most fundamental determination of this system. In this sense, the confirmation of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice by the Special Chamber should be regarded as a consequence of its subjectivity and the fact that it almost distinguishes the legal system from other systems outside the law. From a perspective outside the legal system, the claim of courts that its role of “dispute settlement” is more like “case settlement”, since courts are resolving disputes after legalization, not the disputes themselves. The de facto settlement of disputes should be based on the elimination of the interests or claims of the disputing parties. In this sense, dispute settlement depends on how the legal and political systems work together in a coupling relationship.
Klíčová slova
Dispute Settlement; Dispute Disappearance; Legal System; Preliminary Objections in the Mauritius/Maldives Case; Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion.
Reference
BAXTER, R. The International Court of Justice: Introduction. Virginia Journal of International Law. 1971, Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 291–294.
BOWETT, D. W. Contemporary Developments in Legal Techniques in the Settlement of Disputes. In: Recueil des cours 1983. The Hague, Boston, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984, Vol. 180, pp. 169–236.
BRUS, M., MULLER, S., WIEMERS, S. (eds.). The UN Decade of International Law: Reflections on International Dispute Settlement. Dordrecht: Springer, 1991, 168 p.
CAMPBELL BLACK, H. Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1968, 1882 p.
Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad). International Law Reports. 1995, Vol. 100, pp. 1–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316152294.001
COLLIER, J. G., LOWE, V. The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, 395 p.
CONFORTI, B., FOCARELLI, C. The Law and Practice of the United Nations. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010, 449 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004186293.i-449
DAILLIER, P., PELLET, A., QUOC DINH, N. Droit International Public. Paris: LGDJ, 2002, 1510 p.
DELABARRE, M. Interdependence Between States and Economies: The International Response. SSRN [online]. 6. 10. 2021 [cit. 19. 5. 2022]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3917586
ECONOMIDÈS, C. P. L’Obligation de Reglement Pacifique des Differends Internationaux. In: Boutros Boutros-Ghali Amicorum Discipulorumque Liber. Brussels: Bruylant, 1999, 2484 p.
EICHBERGER, F. S. The Legal Effect of ICJ Advisory Opinions Redefined? The Mauritius/Maldives Delimitation Case-Judgment on Preliminary Objections. Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2021, Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 383–402.
Federal Republic of Germany-Iceland: Fisheries on the Extension of the Icelandic Fishery Limits to 200 Miles. International Legal Materials. 1976, Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 43–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900032034
FRY, J. D. Legal Resolution of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Disputes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 514 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649513
GALTUNG, J. Institutionalized Conflict Resolution: A Theoretical Paradigm. Journal of Peace Research. 1965, Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 348–397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200404
GAVER, C. D. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives). American Journal of International Law. 2021, Vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 519–526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.24
HENKIN, L. International Law cases and Materials. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1993, 1596 p.
HIGGINS, R. Policy Considerations and the International Judicial Process. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1968, Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 58–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/17.1.58
Iceland-United Kingdom: Agreement Concerning British Fishing in the Icelandic Waters. International Legal Materials. 1976, Vol. 15, no. 4, p. 878–890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900033167
IWASAWA, Y. WTO Dispute Settlement as Judicial Supervision. Journal of International Economic Law. 2002, Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 287–305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/5.2.287
JENNINGS, R. Y. The Proper Work and Purposes of the International Court of Justice. In: SMITH, R. M. Cambodia’s Foreign Policy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1965, 273 p.
Joint declaration of Vice-President Ranjeva, Judges Guillaume, Higgins, Kooijmans, Al Khasawneh, Buergenthal and Elaraby. Serbia and Montenegro vs. United Kingdom (Legality of Use of Force). In: International Court of Justice [online]. Pp. 52–56 [cit. 19. 5. 2022]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/111/111-20041215-JUD-01-01-EN.pdf
KELSEN. H. Principles of International Law. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966, 602 p.
Kingdom of Greece v. Federal Republic of Germany. International Law Reports. 1974, Vol. 47, pp. 418–462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316151747.110
LAUTERPACHT, H. The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1933, 469 p.
LUHMANN, N. The Unity of the Legal System. In: TEUBNER, G. (ed.). Autopoietic Law – A New Approach to Law and Society. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987, pp. 12–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110876451.12
MERRILLS, J. G. International Dispute Settlement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 354 p.
MILLS, C., BUTCHARD, P. Disputes over the British Indian Ocean Territory: February 2021 update. UK Parliament [online]. 8. 2. 2021 [cit. 30. 5. 2022]. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9134/
MULLER, A. S., RAIČ, D., THURÁNSZKY, J. M. (eds.). The International Court of Justice: Its Future Role after Fifty Years. The Hague, Boston: Brill, Martinus Nijhoff, 1997, 433 p.
MURTY, B. S. Settlement of Disputes. In: SØRENSEN, M. (ed.). Manual of Public International Law. London: Macmillan, 1968, 930 p.
OELLERS-FRAHM, K., ZIMMERMANN, A. Dispute Settlement in Public International Law. Berlin: Springer, 2001, 2253 p.
PAZARTZIS, P. Les engagements internationaux en matière de règlement pacifique des différends entre Etats. Paris: LGDJ, 1992, 374 p.
RICCIARDI, M. Title to the Aouzou Strip: A Legal and Historical Analysis. The Yale Journal of International Law. 1992, Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 301–487.
ROSENNE, S. The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920–2005. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006, 1873 p.
ROSENNE, S. The Law and Practice of the International Court. Leyden: Sijthoff, 1965, 988 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004139589.i-1892
SCHULTE, C. Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 485 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276721.001.0001
SHAW, M. M. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 1708 p.
TUMONIS, V. Judicial Decision-Making: Interdisciplinary Analysis with Special Reference to International Courts. Doctoral thesis. Mykolas Romeris University, 2012, 187 p.
UNITED NATIONS. Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Dispute Between States. New York: United Nations, 1992, 229 p.
ZIMMERMANN, A. et al. The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 1808 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199692996.001.0001