Abstract
There are some few, land-mark decisions that stand out in the history of any tribunal, as either marking the end of an historical era in Court jurisprudence, or else presaging new and radically different trends in judicial policies for the future. This is understandable enough in the case of a Common Law or Common Law-influenced court, since the Common Law doctrine of precedent admits of the existence of locus classicus decisions; but it is also true with Civil Law courts where the authoritative text-writers seem very readily, and quickly, to establish their own consensus as to which Court decisions are worthy of notation and analysis in depth, in the learned doctrines, as heralding significant change to the jurisprudence constante. With Common Law-influenced tribunals, it may well be the public reaction to a judgment and the public perception of its political impact, rather than the opinio iuris, that supplies the dynamic, dialectical, law-in-the-making element. Charles Evans Hughes, a sometime Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and then, briefly, a Judge of the old Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague, before his resignation to take up the Chief Justiceship of the U.S. Supreme Court, identified certain land-mark decisions in the work of the U.S. Supreme Court, on the basis of their negative public impact at the time of their first publication, and then the immense political reaction that they brought in their wake.
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.
Notes
Hughes, The Supreme Court of the United States (1928), pp. 50–1.
Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard 393 (1857).
I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.
South West Africa, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 319.
I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 24:... “(2) If the President considers that for some special reason one of the members of the Court should not sit in a particular case, he shall give him notice accordingly. “(3) If in any such case the member of the Court and the President disagree, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.”
Court Statute, Article 55:... “(2) In the event of an equality of votes, the President or the judge who acts in his place shall have a casting vote.”
Nicaragua v. United States of America, Provisional Measures, Order of 10 May 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 169; Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392; Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6, at p. 323.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (1905), (Holmes J., Dissenting Opinion).
Stone, The Province and Function of Law (1946);
and see also Stone, Precedent and Law. Dynamics of Common Law Growth (1985).
See, generally, “Le problème dit du droit intertemporel dans l’ordre international”, Institut de Droit International. Report of Eleventh Commission (Sorensen, rapporteur), Annuaire, (1973), p. 1; and see the present author’s study, “The Time Dimension in International Law. Historical Relativism and Intertemporal Law,” in Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, (Makarczyk, ed.), (1984), p. 179;
and see, also, Doehring, “Die Wirkung des Zeitablaufs auf den Bestand völkerrechtlicher Regeln”, [1964] Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 70;
Krause-Ablass, Intertemporales Völkerrecht. Der zeitliche Anwendungsbereich von Völkerrechtsnormen (1970), at p. 31.
I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6, at p. 441.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.
Ibid., pp. 31–2.
Ibid., p. 303. And see also Merrills, “Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice’s contribution to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice”, [1975] British Yearbook of International Law 183.
Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, at p. 511.
As to the Judicial Activism/Judicial Self-Restraint continuum, see generally the present author’s The World Court and the Contemporary International Law-Making Process, (1979), p. 17 et seq.; The International Court of Justice and the Western Tradition of International Law (1987). And see also Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958), p. 75 et seq.;
De Visscher, Problèmes d’interprétation judiciaire en Droit International Public (1963), p. 14 et seq.;
De Visscher, Aspects récents du Droit procédural de la Cour internationale de justice (1966).
Compare the comment by the then Professor Mosler:
“The question of impartiality, which at the time of the Permanent Court of International Justice was regarded as simply a problem of personal integrity, has become more complicated in recent years because of uncertainty over the law applicable. When there no longer exists common agreement on the substantive rules,... the subjective attitudes of the individual judge assume increased importance.”
Mosler, “Problems and Tasks of International Judicial and Arbitral Settlement of Disputes Fifty Years after the founding of the World Court”, in Judicial Settlement of International Disputes (Mosler and Bernhardt, eds.) (1974), p. 3, at p. 10.
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 99; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.
Discussed in detail in the present author’s The International Law of Détente. Arms Control, European Security, and East-West Cooperation (1978); Nagendra Singh and McWhinney, Nuclear Weapons and Contemporary International Law (1988).
See, generally, Politis, “Le problème des limitations de la souveraineté et la théorie de l’abus des droits dans les rapports internationaux”, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de la Haye, vol. 6, (1925), (I), p. 1;
Leibholz, “Das Verbot der Willkür und des Ermes-sensmissbrauchs im völkerrechtlichen Verkehr der Staaten”, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 1, (1929), p. 77;
Schlochauer, “Die theorie des abus de droit im Völkerrecht”, Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, vol. 17, (1933), p. 373;
Andrassy, “Les relations internationales de voisinage”, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de la Haye, vol. 79, (1951), (II), p. 77.
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3, at pp. 228–9 (Lachs J., Dissenting Opinion).
Livre Blanc sur les expériences nucléaires (Comité interministériel pour l’information, Paris), (June, 1973).
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 99.
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.
Ibid., pp. 264–6.
The Court here cited Northern Cameroons. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1963, p. 38.
I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 271–2.
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346–8 (1936), (Brandeis J., Concurring Opinion).
I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 267.
Ibid., pp. 267–8.
Freund, “A Supreme Court in a Federation: some lessons from Legal History”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 53 (1953), p. 597, pp. 617–8.
McWhinney, Constitutionalism in Germany and the Federal Constitutional Court (1962), pp. 34–40.
Ibid., pp. 26–7.
Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12.
Status of Eastern Carelia. Advisory Opinion of 23 July 1923, P.C.I.J. Series B, No. 5, p. 7.
I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 24.
I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 65.
I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 65, at p. 71; adopted by the Court in Western Sahara, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12, at p. 24.
I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12, at p. 19.
I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16, at p. 27.
I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12, at p. 19.
I.C.J. Reports 1947–1948, p. 61.
I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12, at p. 19.
Ibid., pp. 20–1.
Ibid., p. 20.
Ibid., p. 29.
Ibid., p. 30.
Ibid., p. 32.
Ibid., p. 37.
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order of 11 September 1976, I.C.J. Reports 1976, p. 3.
Turkey, pursuant to its denial of Court jurisdiction, declined, unlike Greece, to exercise the right, under Article 31(3) of the Court Statute, to choose an ad hoc judge; and it also, on the model of France in the Nuclear Tests litigation, was not represented at the subsequent Court hearings, confining itself, again on the French model, to a written memorandum addressed to the Court by letter of 26 August 1976 under the title “Observations of the Turkish Government on the request of the Government of Greece for provisional measures, dated 10 August 1976.” I.C.J. Reports 1976, p. 3, at p. 5.
Ibid.
I.C.J. Reports 1976, p. 3, at p. 15.
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253, pp. 259–60.
Ibid., citing Northern Cameroons, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1963, at p. 29.
I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 69, at p. 108.
Ibid.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 10 May 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 169. And see, generally, Wengler, “Gerichtszuständigkeit und Klagezulässigkeit im Verfahren Nicaragua/Vereinigte Staaten vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, (1985), p. 1266;
Verhoeven, “Le droit, le juge, et la violence. Les arrêts Nicaragua c Etats-Unis”, Revue Générale de Droit International Public, vol. 91 (1987) p. 1159.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392.
“Statement of Department of State on U.S. Withdrawal from Nicaragua Proceedings, 18 January 1985”; reprinted, in part, in “Contemporary Practice of the United States”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 79, (1985), p. 438, p. 441; International Legal Materials, vol. 24 (1985), p. 246.
International Legal Materials, vol. 24 (1985), p. 1742.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
“Statement of Department of State on U.S. Withdrawal from Nicaragua Proceedings, 18 January 1985”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 79, (1985), p. 438, p. 441.
Ibid.
Rostow, “Disputes involving the Inherent Right of Self-Defence”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 81, (1987), p. 264.
Acheson, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, (1963), p. 13, at p. 14.
And see, also, Chayes, “Law and the Quarantine of Cuba”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 41, (1963), p. 550;
Chayes, “A Common Lawyer looks at International Law”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 78, (1965), p. 1396.
See, generally, the present author’s Supreme Courts and Judicial Law-Making. Constitutional Tribunals and Constitutional Review (1986), p. 287 et seq.
Ibid., p. 187 et seq.
I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 29.
However, Judge Oda, in his Dissenting Opinion in Merits, Judgment, (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, at p. 212), though acknowledging, and citing, the Court judgment in Merits to the effect that — “the party which declines to appear cannot be permitted to profit from its absence, since this would amount to placing the party appearing at a disadvantage”,(ibid., p. 26), still expresses concern at the fact-finding difficulties created by the U.S. walk-out from the Nicaragua proceedings. Ibid., p. 245.
Supreme Courts and Judicial Law-Making (1986), p. 151, pp. 287–8.
Mosler, “Political and Justiciable Legal Disputes: revival of an old controversy”, in Contemporary Problems of International Law: Essays in honour of Georg Schwarzen-berger (Bin Cheng and Brown, eds.) (1986), p. 216, at p. 228.
Supreme Courts and Judicial Law-Making (1986), pp. 288–90.
Mosler, “Problems and Tasks of International Judicial and Arbitral Settlement...”, in Judicial Settlement of International Disputes (Mosler and Bernhardt, eds.) (1974), p. 3, at p. 10.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 11, citing Bruns, “Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung”, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol. 3, (1933), p. 432.
Mosler, “Political and Justiciable Legal Disputes: revival of an old controversy”, in Contemporary Problems of International Law: Essays in Honour of Georg Schwarzen-berger (Bin Cheng and Brown, eds.) (1986), p. 216, at p. 229. As Mosler further remarked concerning the “legal”/“political” disputes dichotomy -
“This distinction is more a pragmatic one than a logical one: legal disputes always have a greater or smaller political dimension”. (Mosler, “The Area of Justiciability”, in Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs (Makarczyk, ed.) (1984), p. 409, p. 415).
Mosler also invoked the late Professor Wolfgang Friedmann (in Archiv des Völkerrechts, vol. 14, pp. 305–9), in order to deny any theoretical distinction between legal and political disputes:
“The reason why none of the politically critical issues of the post-World War II eradivided Berlin and divided Germany, the International Status of the Suez Canal, ... and the Vietnam War — were brought before the Court or can be expected in the future ‘is not that they are inherently ‘legal’ or incapable of judicial settlement, but that, in the present condition of international society, the states are not willing, either directly, or through the intermediary of the United Nations, to submit politically critical issues to judicial settlement. This is a question not of any theoretical distinction between legal and political disputes but of approach’”.
(Mosler, “Eine allgemeine, umfassende, obligatorische, internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit”, in Staat und Völkerrechtsordnung. Festschrift für Karl Doehring (Hailbronner, Ress, Stein, (eds.)) (1989), p. 607, p. 614.
von Mangoldt, “Arbitration and Conciliation”, in Judicial Settlement of International Disputes (Mosler and Bernhardt, eds.) (1974), p. 431, at p. 501.
Ibid., pp. 433–4. And see also Strupp, Die wichtigsten Arten der völkerrechtlichen Schiedsverträge (1917), p. 76.
Mosler, “Political and Justiciable Legal Disputes...”, op. cit., (1986), p. 216, p. 223,
citing Schindler, “Werdende Rechte”, in Festschrift für Fritz Fleiner (1925), pp. 400–4.
Ibid.
Customs Régime between Germany and Austria, Series A./B., No. 41 (1931), p. 42.
Bloomfield, Law, Politics and International Disputes (1958), pp. 293–6.
Cited in Sturgess and Chubb, Judging the World: Law and Politics in the Worlds Leading Courts (1988), at p. 473.
Mosler, “Problems and Tasks of International Judicial and Political Settlement...”, in Judicial Settlement of International Disputes (Mosler and Bernhardt, eds.) (1974), p. 3, at p. 10.
Stone, The International Court and World Crisis (1962), pp. 7–9.
Schachter, [1986] Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, p. 210, at pp. 212–3.
Sofaer, “The United States and the World Court”, [1986] Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, p. 204.
For analysis of this issue in the context of the Court’s Advisory Opinion jurisdiction, see Judge Elias’ study, “How the International Court of Justice deals with requests for Advisory Opinions”, in Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs, (Makarczyk, (ed.)) (1984), pp. 355, 362, 373. A final legal regulation of the Berlin question was achieved, belatedly — but painlessly and easily, with the Treaty of 31 August 1990 between the two Germanies, West and East (Vertrag über die Herstellung der Einheit Deutschlands), and the complementary “Two-plus-Four” Treaty of 12 September 1990 (involving the two Germanies and the Four Former victor-states from World War II) (Vertrag über die abschliessende Regelung in bezug auf Deutschland).
New York Times, 15 August 1989.
Ibid.
Case concerning the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Order of 13 December 1989, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 132.
vol. 67, p.1, at p. 19.
Rosenne, Procedure in the International Court. A Commentary on the 1978 Rules of the International Court of Justice (1983), p. 161;
Guyomar, Commentaires du Règlement de la Cour internationale de justice (1983), p. 508; and also Paul Guggenheim, as counsel in Interhandel, I.C.J. Pleadings 1959, p. 449).
I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 181, at p. 185.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McWhinney, E. (1991). The Contemporary International Judicial Process. Law and Logic, and the “Law” / “Politics” Dichotomy. In: Judicial Settlement of International Disputes. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6796-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6796-5_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6716-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6796-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive