Observations and Final Remarks

  • Katrin Fenrich


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.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Alter, K. J. (2008). Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brownlie, I. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Higgins, R. (1995). Problems and process. International law and how we use it. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin and current meanings of judicial activism. California Law Review, 92, 1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolb, R. (2013). The International Court of Justice. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Lauterpacht, H. (1950 reprint 1968). International law and human rights. Cambridge: Shoe String Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lauterpacht, H. (1975). International law. Volume 2, The law of peace, Part 1 collected papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lindquist, S. A., & Cross, F. B. (2009). Measuring judicial activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Parlett, K. (2011). The individual in the international legal system. Continuity and change in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Peters, A. (2016). Beyond human rights. The legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Portmann, R. (2010). Legal personality in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, S. F. (2002). Activism as restraint: lessons from criminal procedure. Texas Law Review, 80, 1057.Google Scholar
  19. von Bogdandy, A., & Venzke, I. (2014). In wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten globalen Regierens. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Young, E. A. (2002). Judicial activism and conservative politics. University of Colorado Law Review, 73, 1139.Google Scholar
  21. Zarbiyev, F. (2012). Judicial activism in international law - a conceptual framework for analysis. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3, 247.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