Advertisement

Procedural Embedding

  • Katrin Fenrich
Chapter

Abstract

The second chapter will focus on the procedural embedding of the three procedures. It will examine first, the individual’s power to initiate proceedings (Sect. 3.1), second, the existence and scope of a local remedies rule (Sect. 3.2) and third, the consequences of parallel international proceedings (Sect. 3.3).

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidel, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aceves, J. W. (2003). Actio popularis? The class action in international law. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2003, 353.Google Scholar
  3. Adler, M. A. (1990). The exhaustion of the local remedies rule after the international court of justice’s decision in ELSI. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 39, 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albornoz, M. S. (2006). Legal nature and legal consequences of diplomatic protection: Contemporary challenges. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, VI, 377.Google Scholar
  5. Ambos, K. (2016). Treatise on international criminal law. Volume III: International criminal procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Amerasinghe, C. F. (2003). Jurisdiction of international tribunals. The Hague/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Amerasinghe, C. F. (2006). Local remedies in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Amerasinghe, C. F. (2008). Diplomatic protection. Oxford, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Backhaus, J., Cassone, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2011). The law and economics of class actions. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnidge, R. P. (2015). The contribution of Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade to the adjudication of international human rights at the international court of justice. In J. A. Green, C. P. M. Waters, & P. R. Ghandhi (Eds.), Adjudicating international human rights. Essays in Honour of Sandy Ghandhi. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  11. Baumgartner, E. (2008). Aspects of victim participation in the proceedings of the international criminal court. International Review of the Red Cross, 90, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bayefsky, A. F. (2002). How to complain to the UN human rights treaty system. Leiden: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  13. Benzing, M., & Bergsmo, M. (2004). Some tentative remarks on the relationship between internationalized criminal jurisdictions and the international criminal courts. In C. Romano, A. Nollkaemper, & J. K. Kleffner (Eds.), Internationalized criminal courts. Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo and Cambodia. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Benzing, M. (2003). The complementarity regime of the international criminal court: International criminal justice between state sovereignty and the fight against impunity. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 7, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bergsmo, M. (1998). The jurisdictional régime of the international criminal court (Part II, Articles 11–19). European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 6, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blandford, A. C. (2010). Reputational costs beyond treaty exclusion: International law violations as security threat focal points. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 10, 669.Google Scholar
  17. Bohlander, M. (2002). Possible conflicts of jurisdiction with the Ad Hoc international tribunals. In A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, & J. R. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the international criminal court, Volume I. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Borchard, E. M. (1916). The diplomatic protection of citizens abroad. International contractual claims and their settlement. New York: Nabu Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bossuyt, M. J. (1987). Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Dordrecht/Boston/Hingham: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Bray, W. (1989). Locus Standi in environmental law. The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 22, 33.Google Scholar
  21. Brown, C. (2007). A common law of international adjudication. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Brubacher, M. R. (2004). Prosecutorial discretion within the international criminal court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cabrillo, F., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2008). The economics of courts and litigation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Cassese, A. (1999). The statute of the international criminal court: Some preliminary reflections. European Journal of International Law, 10, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cassone, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2011). The simple economics of class action: Private provision of club and public goods. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cenini, M., Luppi, B., & Parisi, F. (2011). Incentive effects of class actions and punitive damages under alternative procedural regimes. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Charney, J. (1999). The impact on the international legal system of the growth of international courts and tribunals. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 31, 697.Google Scholar
  28. Colangelo, A. J. (2009). Double Jeopardy and multiple sovereigns: A jurisdictional theory. Washington University Law Review, 86, 769.Google Scholar
  29. Conway, G. (2003). Ne bis in idem in international law. International Criminal Law Review, 3, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crook, J. R. (2003). The international court of justice and human rights. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 1, 2.Google Scholar
  31. Czarnetzky, J. M., & Rychlak, R. J. (2003). An empire of law: Legalism and the international criminal court. Notre Dame Law Review, 79, 55.Google Scholar
  32. D’Ascoli, S., & Scherr, K. M. (2007). The rule of prior exhaustion of local remedies in the international law doctrine and its application in the specific context of human rights protection (EUI Working Paper Law).Google Scholar
  33. Danner, A. M. (2003). Enhancing the legitimacy and accountability of prosecutorial discretion at the international criminal court. The American Journal of International Law, 97, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. de Gurmendi Férnandez, S. A. (2002). The role of the prosecutor. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The international criminal court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. de Swardt, T. (2009). Trigger mechanisms of the international criminal court. Journal of Politics & Society, 20, 117.Google Scholar
  36. de Visscher, C. (1968). Theory and reality in public international law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Del Vecchio, A. (2019). International courts and tribunals, standing. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  38. Drumbl, M. A. (2011). Policy through complementarity: The atrocity trial as justice. In C. Stahn & M. M. El Zeidy (Eds.), The international criminal court and complementarity. From theory to practice (Vol. I). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Dumberry, P. (2007). Obsolete and unjust: The rule of continuous nationality in the context of state succession. Nordic Journal of International Law, 76, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Duruigbo, E. (2006). Exhaustion of local remedies in Alien Tort Litigation: Implication for international human rights protection. Fordham International Law Journal, 29, 1245.Google Scholar
  41. Dwertmann, E. (2010). The reparation system of the international criminal court. Its implementation, possibilities and limitations. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  42. Evans, E. C. (2012). The right to reparation in international law for victims of armed conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fairlie, M. A. (2005). Establishing admissibility at the international criminal court: Does the buck stop with the prosecutor, full stop? The International Lawyer, 39, 817.Google Scholar
  44. Freeman, M. A., Rudolf, B., & Chinkin, C. (Eds.). (2012). The UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. A commentary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Gaja, G. (2012). Relationship of the ICJ with other international courts and tribunals. In A. Zimmermann, C. Tomuschat, & K. Oellers-Frahm (Eds.), The statute of the international court of justice. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Geiß, R. (2019). Ne bis in idem. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.Google Scholar
  47. Ghandhi, S. (2011). Human rights and the international court of justice: The Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Case. Human Rights Law Review, 11, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ginsburg, T., & McAdams, R. H. (2003). Adjudicating in Anarchy: An expressive theory of international dispute resolution (Working Paper No. LE03-013, Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 291). University of Illinois, College of Law, Law and Economics Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  49. Guariglia, F. (2014). Proprio Muto powers of the prosecutor to commence investigations. In O. Bekou & A. Zidar (Eds.), Contemporary challenges for the international criminal court. London: British Institute for International and Comparative Law.Google Scholar
  50. Guariglia, F., & Rogier, E. (2015). The selection of situations and cases by the OTP of the ICC. In C. Stahn (Ed.), Law and practice of the international criminal court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Guillaume, G. (1995). The future of international judicial institutions. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 44, 848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Guzman, A. T. (2010). How international law works. A rational choice theory. New York.Google Scholar
  53. Guzman, A. T. (2008). International tribunals: A rational choice analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 171.Google Scholar
  54. Haesler, T. (1968). The exhaustion of local remedies in the case law of international courts and tribunals. Leyden: A. W. Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  55. Higgins, R. (2007). Human rights in the international court of justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 20, 745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hildebrandt, M. (2006). Trial and ‘Fair Trial’: From peer to subject to citizen. In A. Duff, L. Farmer, & S. Marshall (Eds.), The trial on trial volume II. Judgment and calling to account. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Holmes, J. T. (2002). The principle of complementarity. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The international criminal court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Jennings, R. Y., & Watts, A. (2008). Oppenheim’s international law volume I peace. Introduction and Part I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Jorda, C., & de Hemptinne, J. (2002). The status and role of the victim. In A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, & J. R. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the international criminal court, Volume II. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., & Slaughter, A. M. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kleffner, J. K. (2008). Complementarity in the Rome Statute and national criminal jurisdictions. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Kolb, R. (2013). The international court of justice. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Lippman, M. (1979). Human rights revisited: The protection of human rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights. Netherlands International Law Review, 26, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Matscher, F. (1992). Standing before international courts and tribunals. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public international law (Vol. IV). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  65. Milano, E. (2004). Diplomatic protection and human rights before the international court of justice: Re-fashioning tradition? Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 35, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mose, E., & Opsahl, T. (1981). The optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. Santa Clara Law Review, 21, 271.Google Scholar
  67. Muttukumaru, C. (2002). Reparation to victims. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The international criminal court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Nerlich, V. (2009). ICC (Complementarity). In A. Cassese (Ed.), The Oxford companion to international criminal justice. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. Covenant on civil and political rights. CCPR commentary. Kehl/Arlington: N. P. Engel.Google Scholar
  70. Nowak, M., McArthur, E., & Buchinger, K. (2008). The United Nations convention against torture. A commentary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Oellers-Frahm, K. (2001). Multiplication of international courts and tribunals and conflicting jurisdiction: Problems and possible solutions. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 5, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Olásolo, H. (2005a). The triggering procedure of the international criminal court. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  73. Olásolo, H. (2005b). The triggering procedure of the international criminal court, procedural treatment of the principle of complementarity, and the role of office of the prosecutor. International Criminal Law Review, 5, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pace, W. R., & Schense, J. (2002). The role of non-governmental organizations. In A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, & J. R. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the international criminal court, Volume I. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford Universtity Press.Google Scholar
  75. Pesch, S. (2015). The influence of human rights on diplomatic protection: Reviving an old instrument of public international law. In N. Weiß & J. M. Thouvenin (Eds.), The influence of human rights on international law. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. Peters, A. (2016). Beyond human rights. The legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Phuong, C. (2007). The relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee: Has the ‘Same Matter’ already been ‘Examined’? Human Rights Law Review, 7, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reinisch, A. (2019). International courts and tribunals, multiple jurisdiction. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Google Scholar
  79. Rosenne, S. (2006a). The law and practice of the international court 1920–2005 (Vol. II). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  80. Rosenne, S. (2006b). The law and practice of the international court 1920–2005 (Vol. III). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  81. Safferling, C. J. M., & Büngener, L. (2012). International criminal procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Salles, L. E. R. (2014). Forum shopping in international adjudication. The role of preliminary objections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Schabas, W. (2016). The international criminal court. A commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Scheinin, M. (2007). Access to justice before international human rights bodies: Reflections on the practice of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights. In F. Francioni (Ed.), Access to justice as a human right. Oxford: Hart Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schwelb, E. (1968). Civil and political rights: The international measures of implementation. American Journal of International Law, 62, 827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schwelb, E. (1977). The international measures of implementation of the international covenant on civil and political rights and of the optional protocol. Texas Journal of International Law, 12, 141.Google Scholar
  87. Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of international courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Shelton, D. (2013). The Oxford handbook of international human rights law. Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Sloan, R. D. (2009). Breaking the genuine link: The contemporary international legal regulation of nationality. Harvard International Law Journal, 50, 1.Google Scholar
  90. Sotomayor, A. P. (2009). The rule of the duplication of procedures in the regional systems of human rights protection. Revista Panamena de Politica, 8, 75.Google Scholar
  91. Stigen, J. (2008). The relationship between the international criminal court and national jurisdictions. The principle of complementarity. Leiden/Biggleswade: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  92. The Law Dictionary, http://thelawdictionary.org/
  93. Thio, S. M. (1971). Locus Standi and judicial review. Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Timm, B. (2001). The legal position of victims in the rules of procedure and evidence. In H. Fischer, S. R. Lüder, & C. Kress (Eds.), International and national prosecution of crimes under international law. Current developments. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts.Google Scholar
  95. Triffterer, O. (2016). Commentary on the Rome Statute of the international criminal court. Observers’ Notes, Article by Article. München/Portland/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  96. Trindade, C. (1979). Exhaustion of local remedies under the UN covenant on civil and political rights and its optional protocol. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 28, 734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ulen, T. S. (2011). An introduction to the law and economics of class action litigation. European Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. van Aaken, A. (2005). Making international human rights protection more effective: A rational-choice approach to the effectiveness of Ius Standi Provisions. Reprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, 16, 1.Google Scholar
  99. van der Wilt, H. (2015). Self-referrals as an indication of the inability of states to cope with non-state actors. In C. Stahn (Ed.), Law and practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Vermeer-Künzli, A. (2007b). The protection of individuals by means of diplomatic protection. Diplomatic protection as a Human Rights Instrument. Leiden: Department of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, Leiden University.Google Scholar
  101. Vermeer-Künzli, A. (2007a). A matter of interest: Diplomatic protection and state responsibility Erga Omnes. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56, 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Vicuna, F. O. (2001). Individuals and non-state entities before international courts and tribunals. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 5, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrin Fenrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed ConflictRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations