Exploring International Courts’ Exercise of Incidental Jurisdiction: Towards Coherent Approaches Through Res Judicata
Abstract
This article is devoted to the study of the exercise of incidental jurisdiction by international courts and tribunals. It may be concluded from the existing case law where international courts and tribunals have exercised incidental jurisdiction that there are no consistent and coherent approaches to the exercise of incidental jurisdiction now. The article also analyses alternative techniques that may be used to avoid the necessity to exercise incidental jurisdiction. It is noted that international courts and tribunals may “escape” the exercise of incidental jurisdiction due to legitimacy concerns since making determinations on incidental issues may lead to the violation of the parties’ consent to the dispute settlement procedure. The article concludes that the existence of different approaches to the issue of the exercise of incidental jurisdiction could itself result in judicial fragmentation, which, in turn, reduces the legitimacy of international courts and tribunals. In this regard, it is concluded that it is necessary to develop a coherent approach to the exercise of incidental jurisdiction by international courts and tribunals. The author concludes that a consistent approach can be developed by applying the concept of res judicata, whereby the decision of an international court or tribunal is not binding except on the parties to a case within the framework of a particular dispute. It is also concluded that decisions on incidental issues lack the force of res judicata. Therefore, it is also resumed that international courts and tribunals can exercise incidental jurisdiction without overstepping states’ consent to dispute settlement. However, res judicata may not serve as a sufficient ground for the exercise of incidental jurisdiction on its own since the role of res judicata is limited in that regard.
Downloads
References
Berman F. (2004) Treaty “Interpretation” in a Judicial Context. Yale Journal of International Law, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 315–322.
Cannizzaro E., Bonafé B. (2005) Fragmenting International Law through Compromissory Clauses? Some Remarks on the Decision of the ICJ in the Oil Platforms Case. European Journal of International Law, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 481–497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi127
Chase O., Hershkoff H., Silberman L., Sorabji J., Stürner R., Taniguchi Y., Varano V. (2017) Civil Litigation in Comparative Context, St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.
Cheng B. (2006) General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
d’Argent P. (2021) The Monetary Gold Principle: A Matter of Submissions. American Journal of International Law Unbound, vol. 115, pp. 149–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2021.13
Dodge W. S. (2006) Res iudicata. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1670?prd=MPIL (accessed: 17.07.2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e1670
Gulati R. (2021) Judicial Independence at International Courts and Tribunals. In: Brabandere E. de (ed.) International Procedure in Interstate Litigation and Arbitration: A Comparative Approach, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108961387.004
Grossman N., Cohen H.G., Follesdal A., Ulfstein G. (2018) Legitimacy and International Courts — A Framework. In: Grossman N., Cohen H. G., Follesdal A., Ulfstein G. (eds.) Legitimacy and International Courts, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108529570.001
Grossman N. (2018) Solomonic Judgments and the Legitimacy of the International Court of Justice. In: Grossman N., Cohen H. G., Follesdal A., Ulfstein G. (eds.) Legitimacy and International Courts, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108529570.002
Harris C. (2020) Claims with an Ulterior Purpose: Characterising Disputes Concerning the “Interpretation or Application” of a Treaty. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 279–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341405
Harris C. (2021) Incidental Determinations in Proceedings under Compromissory Clauses. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 417–447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589321000075
Herdt S. W. de. (2022) Mixed Disputes. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 358–367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-bja10082
Kammerhofer J. (2004) Oil’s Well That Ends Well? Critical Comments on the Merits Judgement in the Oil Platforms Case. Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 695–718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156504002195
Klabbers J., Peters A., Ulfstein G. (2009) The Constitutionalization of International Law, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543427.001.0001
Kolb R. (2013) The International Court of Justice, Oxford: Hart Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509922109
Marotti L. (2019) Between Consent and Effectiveness: Incidental Determinations and the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Tribunals. In: Del Vecchio A., Virzo R. (eds.) Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 383–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10773-4_19
McDermott Y., Wedad E. (2017) Legitimacy. In: Schabas W. A., Murphy S. (eds.) Research Handbook on International Courts and Tribunals, Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 229–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781005026.00018
Oellers-Frahm K. (2019) Judicial and Arbitral Decisions, Validity and Nullity. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e53
Orakhelashvili A. (2008) The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546220.001.0001
Peters A. (2009) The Merits of Global Constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 397–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2979/gls.2009.16.2.397
Peters A. (2017) The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 671–704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox056
Quintana J. J. (2015) Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure, Leiden; Boston: Brill Nijhoff. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004297517
Radović R. (2022) Incidental Jurisdiction in Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Question of Party Consent. American Journal of International Law Unbound, vol. 116, pp. 181–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.29
Raible L. (2022) Incidental Jurisdiction in Human Rights Litigation: Surprising Absence and Rival Techniques. American Journal of International Law Unbound, vol. 116, pp. 176–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.28
Salles L.E. (2017) Jurisdiction. In: Schabas W. A., Murphy S. (eds.) Research Handbook on International Courts and Tribunals, Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 246–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781005026.00019
Schaffstein S. (2012) The Doctrine of Res Judicata before International Arbitral Tribunals: PHD Thesis. Centre for Commercial Law Studies Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London and at the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198715610.001.0001
Shany Y. (2014) Jurisdiction and Admissibility. In: Romano C. P. R., Alter K. J., Shany Y. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199660681.003.0036
Shaw M. N. (2017) The Expression of Consent. Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920–2015. Available at: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/Rosenne-s-law-and-practice-of-the-international-court-1920-2015 (accessed: 17.07.2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/2468-5992_rose_com_0155
Tzeng P. (2016) The Doctrine of Indispensable Issues: Mauritius v. United Kingdom, Philippines v. China, Ukraine v. Russia, and Beyond. EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-doctrine-of-indispensable-issues-mauritius-v-united-kingdom-philippines-v-china-ukraine-v-russia-and-beyond/ (accessed: 17.07.2024).
Tzeng P. (2017) Investments on Disputed Territory: Indispensable Parties and Indispensable Issues. Revista de Direito Internacional, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 121–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi/bjil.v14i2.4658
Tzeng P. (2018) The Implicated Issue Problem: Indispensable Issues and Incidental Jurisdiction. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 447–507.
Tzeng P. (2020) Conditional Decisions: A Solution for Ukraine v. Russia and Other Similar Cases? EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/conditional-decisions-a-solution-for-ukraine-v-russia-and-other-similar-cases/ (accessed: 17.07.2024).
Tzeng P. (2022) Incidental Jurisdiction. Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e1631.013.1631/law-mpeipro-e1631 (accessed: 17.07.2024).
Webb P. (2013) International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199671151.001.0001
Wolfrum R. (2008) Legitimacy in International Law from a Legal Perspective: Some Introductory Considerations. In: Wolfrum R., Volker R. (eds.) Legitimacy in International Law, Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77764-9_1
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
