This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Rosenne, “The Perplexities of Modern International Law. General Course on Public International Law”, RdC 291 (2001), 9, 23.
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; R. Wolfrum, “Purposes and Principles of International Environmental Law”, GYIL 33 (1990), 308.
A. Noll, “International Telecommunication Union”, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law II, 2,1995, 1379 (1995).
P. Malanczuk, “Globalization and the Future Role of Sovereign States”, in: F. Weiss/E. Denters/P de Waart, International Economic Law with a Human Face, 1998, 45.
W. Friedmann, The Changing Structure of International Law, 1964, 60.
Ibid. 61 et seq.
C. Tomuschat, “International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century. General Course on Public International Law”, RdC 281 (1999), 9, 306.
B. Conforti, “Unité et Fragmentation du Droit International: «Glissez, Mortels, N’Appuyez Pas!»”, RGDIP 2007, 1; B. Simma, “Fragmentation in a Positive Light”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 845; G. Hafner, “Pros and Cons Ensuing from Fragmentation of International Law”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 849; U. Petersmann, “Justice as Conflict Resolution: Proliferation, Fragmentation and Decentralization of Dispute Settlement in International Trade”, U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L. 27 (2006), 273; J. Pauwelyn, “Bridging Fragmentation and Unity: International Law as a Universe of Inter-Connected Islands”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 903; P. Sreenivasa Rao, “Multiple International Judicial Forums: A Reflection of the Growing Strength of International Law or Its Fragmentation?”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 929; A. Fischer-Lescano/G. Teubner, “Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 999; A. Fischer-Lescano/G. Teubner, Regime-Kollisionen. Zur Fragmentierung des globalen Rechts, 2006; K. Wellens, “Fragmentation of International Law and Establishing an Accountability Regime for International Organizations: The Role of the Judiciary in Closing the Gap”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 1159; P.-M. Dupuy, “The Danger of Fragmentation or Unification of the International Legal System and the International Court of Justice”, NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 31 (1999), 791; J. H. Jackson, “Fragmentation or Unification among International Institutions: The World Trade Organization”, NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 31 (1999), 823; M. Pinto, “Fragmentation or Unification among International Institutions: Human Rights Tribunals”, NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 31 (1999), 833; G. Abi-Saab, “Fragmentation or Unification: Some Concluding Remarks”, NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 31 (1999), 919.
Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006).
W. Friedmann, The Changing Structure of International Law, 1964, 141.
The Project on International Courts and Tribunals, The International Judiciary in Context, Version 3.0, 2004.
R. Wolfrum, “Konkurrierende Zuständigkeiten internationaler Streitentscheidungsinstanzen: Notwendigkeit für Lösungsmöglichkeiten und deren Grenzen”, in: N. Ando et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. Volume 1, 2002, 651; Y. Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals, 2003; G. Guillaume, “Advantages and Risks of Proliferation: A Blueprint for Action”, J. Int’l Crim. Just. 2 (2004), 300; C. P. R. Romano, “The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle”, NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 31 (1999), 709; B. Kingsbury, “Foreword: Is the Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?”, NYU J. Int’l L. & Pol. 31 (1999), 679; R. P. Alford, “The Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: International Adjudication in Ascendance”, Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 94 (2000), 160; S. Spelliscy, “The Proliferation of International Tribunals: A Chink in the Armor”, Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 40 (2001), 143.
G. Guillaume, Speech by His Excellency Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations (31 October 2001), available at http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/cijwww/icjwww/ipresscom/SPEECHES/iSpeechPresident_Guillaume_6thCommittee_2001.htm.
B. Simma, “Fragmentation in a Positive Light”, Mich. J. Int’l L. 25 (2004), 845, 846.
R. Wolfrum, “Konkurrierende Zuständigkeiten internationaler Streitentscheidungsinstanzen: Notwendigkeit für Lösungsmöglichkeiten und deren Grenzen”, in: N. Ando et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. Volume 1, 2002, 651, 659.
J. I. Charney, “Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?”, RdC 271 (1998), 115 et seq.
For this definition of regimes going back to Krasner see A. Hasenclever/P. Mayer/V. Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes, 1997, 1.
Art. 2, Agreement to Arbitrate, Special Agreement of February 14, 1989, in: K. Oellers-Frahm/A. Zimmermann, Dispute Settlement in Public International Law. Texts and Materials, 2179 (2nd ed. 2001). On the arbitration see also United Nations Secretary-General: Ruling on the Rainbow Warrior Affair Between France and New Zealand, 26 I.L.M. 1346 (1987); The Rainbow Warrior Arbitration Concerning the Treatment of the French Agents Mafart and Prieur, 40 I.C.L.Q. 446 (1991).
For an in-depth argument see H. Hestermeyer, Human Rights and the WTO. The Case of Patents and Access to Medicines, 2007, 215 et seq.
M. Böckenförde, “Zwischen Sein und Wollen — Über den Einfluss umweltvölkerrechtlicher Verträge im Rahmen eines WTO-Streitbeilegungsverfahrens”, ZaöRV 63 (2003), 971, 979; J. P. Trachtman, “The Domain of WTO Dispute Resolution”, Harv. Int’l L. J. 40 (1999), 333, 342; G. Marceau, “A Call for Coherence in International Law. Praises for the Prohibition Against “Clinical Isolation” in WTO Dispute Settlement”, J.W.T. 33 (1999), 87, 110; J. Cameron/K. R. Gray, “Principles of International Law in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body”, I.C.L.Q. 50 (2001), 248, 263.
J. Pauwelyn, “The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?”, AJIL 95 (2001), 535, 561 et seq.; L. Bartels, “Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings”, J.W.T. 35 (2001), 499, 505; citing in support Korea — Measures Affecting Government Procurement, WT/DS163/R, para. 7.101 FN 755 (2000).
United States — Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, 17 (1996).
European Communities — Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, WT/DS/68/AB/R, paras. 89 et seq.; United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, paras. 130 et seq. (1998). See also M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, para. 444 (13 April 2006).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 115.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, judgment of 15 July 1999, paras. 98, 104–105.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 116.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 124.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 131.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, judgment of 15 July 1999, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para. 17.
Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ Judgment of 26 February 2007.
J. I. Charney, “Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?”, RdC 271 (1998), 347.
R. Wolfrum, “Konkurrierende Zuständigkeiten internationaler Streitentscheidungsinstanzen: Notwendigkeit für Lösungsmöglichkeiten und deren Grenzen”, in: N. Ando et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, 2002, 651, 656; R. Higgins, “A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench”, I.C.L.Q. 55 (2006), 791.
See e.g. J. Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law, 2003; J. Neumann, Die Koordination des WTO-Rechts mit anderen völkerrechtlichen Ordnungen, 2002.
See e.g. A. Giardina, “The Economic Sanctions of the United States against Iran and Libya and the GATT Security Exception”, in: G. Hafner (ed.), Liber amicorum Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern in honour of his 80 th birthday, 1998, 219; C. M. Vázquez, “Trade Sanctions and Human Rights — Past, Present, and Future”, JIEL 6 (2003), 797; P. Stirling, “The Use of Trade Sanctions as an Enforcement Mechanism for Basic Human Rights”, Am. U. Int’l L. R. 11 (1996), 1.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. See e.g. J. Schneider, Menschenrechtlicher Schutz geistigen Eigentums, 2006, 55 et seq.; H. Hestermeyer, Human Rights and the WTO. The Case of Patents and Access to Medicines, 2007.
See e.g. C. Olivier, “Human Rights Law and the International Fight against Terrorism”, Nordic J Int’l L 73 (2004), 399; E. de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, 2004, 200 et seq.
See e.g. S. Charnovitz, “World Trade and the Environment: a Review of the New WTO Report”, Georgetown Int’l Env. L. R. 12 (2000), 523; J. H. Knox, “The Judicial Resolution of Conflicts between Trade and the Environment”, Harvard Env. L. R. 28 (2004), 1; R. H. Steinberg, “Trade-Environment Negotiations in the EU, NAFTA, and WTO”, AJIL 91 (1997), 231; E. Brown Weiss (ed.), Reconciling Environment and Trade, 2001.
R. Wolfrum, “Konkurrierende Zuständigkeiten internationaler Streitentscheidungsinstanzen: Notwendigkeit für Lösungsmöglichkeiten und deren Grenzen”, in: N. Ando et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, 2002, 651, 656.
ITLOS, The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Case No. 10, Separate Opinion of Judge Wolfrum.
Guillaume suggested a procedure allowing the ICJ to rule on preliminary questions submitted by specialized international courts, G. Guillaume, Speech by His Excellency Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations (31 October 2001), available at http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/cijwww/icjwww/ipresscom/SPEECHES/iSpeechPresident_Guillaume_6thCommittee_2001.htm.
M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006); see also ILC, Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Yearbook of the ILC, 2006, vol. II, Part Two, paras. 17 et seq.
Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, paras. 128 et seq. (12 October 1998).
BVerfGE 89, 155, 175 — Maastricht (see Leitsatz 7).
A.-M. Slaughter, A New World Order, 2004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hestermeyer, H. (2008). Where Unity Is at Risk: When International Tribunals Proliferate. In: König, D., Stoll, PT., Röben, V., Matz-Lück, N. (eds) International Law Today: New Challenges and the Need for Reform?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 193. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75205-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75205-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75204-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75205-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)