Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Evolving International Procedural Capacity of Individuals pp 257–281Cite as

Observations and Final Remarks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 125 Accesses

Abstract

The foregoing study examined and evaluated the individual’s options to obtain judicial relief before the UN Committees, the ICJ and the ICC. It focused on the judicial means by which individuals may prevent or redress the abuse of their rights. These means ranged from the possibility to avert the commission of a violative act, over that to have the violation of an individual right acknowledged to the possibility to be compensated for that violation. In order to assess the procedural strength of the individual within these three procedural mechanisms, the study shed light on States’ degree of conventional commitment to the constitutive treaties establishing the procedural mechanisms, the procedural embedding of the mechanisms and their substance of relief. With a view to conclusively assessing the procedural status of individuals in international adjudication and thus their international procedural capacity, the following section will briefly outline the main findings for each of the three enforcement mechanisms. It will furthermore interpret these findings against the backdrop of the object and purpose of each procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Shany (2009), p. 80.

  2. 2.

    Higgins (1995), p. 51.

  3. 3.

    Lauterpacht (1975), p. 510.

  4. 4.

    Cowles (1952), pp. 78 f.

  5. 5.

    Peters (2016), p. 480.

  6. 6.

    Peters (2016), p. 493.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (18 March 1965) 757 UNTS 8359.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Article 34 European Convention of Human Rights.

  9. 9.

    International Court of Justice, ‘Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite : (Belgium v. Senegal)’ (20 July 2012) ICJ Reports 2012 422.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, 450 para. 69.

  11. 11.

    Uchkunova (2012).

  12. 12.

    Brownlie (2012), p. 115.

  13. 13.

    Lauterpacht (1950 reprint 1968), p. 61.

  14. 14.

    On the object theory see generally Portmann (2010), pp. 42 ff.; on the actor conception theory see Portmann (2010), pp. 208 ff.

  15. 15.

    Parlett (2011), p. 367.

  16. 16.

    Parlett (2011), p. 370.

  17. 17.

    On the responsiveness of international law and the role of international courts see generally Ackermann and Fenrich (2017).

  18. 18.

    On the contribution of international courts on norm-advancement see Shany (2009), p. 80; von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 23–25 and 136 ff.

  19. 19.

    Young (2002), p. 1144.

  20. 20.

    International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ‘Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction’ (Decision of 2 October 1995), para. 97.

  21. 21.

    On the role of courts as trustees of the law see Alter (2013), pp. 357 f.; Alter (2008), pp. 38–44.

  22. 22.

    Shany (2009), p. 81.

  23. 23.

    See above at Sect. 4.2.

  24. 24.

    See above at Sect. 4.3.

  25. 25.

    See above at Sect. 3.2.

  26. 26.

    See above Sect. 3.3.

  27. 27.

    See above at Sects. 4.2.1.2 and at 4.2.2.

  28. 28.

    See above at Sects. 2.2.1 and at 2.3.1.

  29. 29.

    See above at Sect. 4.2.2.

  30. 30.

    See above at Sects. 2.2.1, at 4.1.1 and at 4.1.3.1.

  31. 31.

    On normative adaption see Ackermann and Fenrich (2017), pp. 776 ff.

  32. 32.

    See above at Sects. 2.3.1 and at 4.3.1.2.

  33. 33.

    See above at Sects. 4.2.2 and at 4.2.3.1.

  34. 34.

    On the strengthened role of international courts see von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 1 f.

  35. 35.

    Young (2002), p. 1145.

  36. 36.

    Zarbiyev (2012), p. 248.

  37. 37.

    Lindquist and Cross (2009), p. 39; Kmiec (2004), p. 1471.

  38. 38.

    Lindquist and Cross (2009), p. 1; see also Dawson (2013), p. 12.

  39. 39.

    Zarbiyev (2012), p. 252; Kmiec (2004), p. 1444; Smith (2002), p. 1077.

  40. 40.

    Smith (2002), p. 1080.

  41. 41.

    Smith (2002), p. 1078; Zarbiyev (2012), p. 252.

  42. 42.

    Lindquist and Cross (2009), pp. 29 f.

  43. 43.

    International Court of Justice, ‘Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’ (Advisory Opinion from 8 July) 1996 ICJ Reports 226, 237 para. 18.

  44. 44.

    Kelsen (1929), p. 31; Armin von Bogandy and Ingo Venzke second Kelsen’s finding in von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), p. 145: “die Konkretisierung einer abstrakten Norm [ist] ein rechtserzeugender Vorgang…” [the concretization of an abstract norm amounts to a law-generating act].

  45. 45.

    Young (2002), p. 1147.

  46. 46.

    Kmiec (2004), p. 1473.

  47. 47.

    Kmiec (2004), p. 1444.

  48. 48.

    Zarbiyev (2012), pp. 254 and 256.

  49. 49.

    Zarbiyev (2012), p. 269.

  50. 50.

    Zarbiyev (2012), p. 269.

  51. 51.

    Kolb (2013), p. 1180.

  52. 52.

    von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 148 f.

  53. 53.

    On the control function of international courts see von Bogdandy and Venzke (2014), pp. 25 ff.

  54. 54.

    Peters (2016), p. 8.

  55. 55.

    As suggested by Parlett (2011), p. 367.

References

  • Ackermann, T., & Fenrich, K. (2017). Motion and rest: International law’s responsiveness towards terrorism, mass surveillance, and self-defence. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 77, 745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, K. J. (2013). The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. In J. L. Dunoff & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, K. J. (2008). Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, I. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowles, W. B. (1952). The impact of international law on the individual. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting, 46, 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, M. (2013). The political face of judicial activism: Europe’s law-politics imbalance. In B. D. Witte, E. Muir, & M. Dawson (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European court of justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R. (1995). Problems and process. International law and how we use it. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. (1929). Wesen und Entwicklung der Staatsgerichtsbarkeit. In H. Triepel, H. Kelsen, M. Layer, & E. V. Hippel (Eds.), Veröffentlichunge der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtsleherer. Heft 5. Berlin [etc.].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin and current meanings of judicial activism. California Law Review, 92, 1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, R. (2013). The International Court of Justice. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, H. (1950 reprint 1968). International law and human rights. Cambridge: Shoe String Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, H. (1975). International law. Volume 2, The law of peace, Part 1 collected papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, S. A., & Cross, F. B. (2009). Measuring judicial activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlett, K. (2011). The individual in the international legal system. Continuity and change in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A. (2016). Beyond human rights. The legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portmann, R. (2010). Legal personality in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany, Y. (2009). No longer a weak department of power? Reflections on the emergence of a new international judiciary. European Journal of International Law, 20, 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. F. (2002). Activism as restraint: lessons from criminal procedure. Texas Law Review, 80, 1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uchkunova, I. (2012). Belgium v. Senegal. https://www.ejiltalk.org/belgium-v-senegal-did-the-court-end-the-dispute-between-the-parties/.

  • von Bogdandy, A., & Venzke, I. (2014). In wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten globalen Regierens. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, E. A. (2002). Judicial activism and conservative politics. University of Colorado Law Review, 73, 1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarbiyev, F. (2012). Judicial activism in international law - a conceptual framework for analysis. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3, 247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Katrin Fenrich

Authors
  1. Katrin Fenrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fenrich, K. (2019). Observations and Final Remarks. In: The Evolving International Procedural Capacity of Individuals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19281-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19281-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19280-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19281-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation