Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:47:36.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks By David D. Caron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2018

David D. Caron
David D. Caron*
Affiliation:
King's College London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In my lecture, I address an issue that is underappreciated, certainly not addressed, yet critically important to what international law values—the theme of this year's ASIL Annual Meeting. To put the topic in dramatic terms, it is that scene at a dinner party where all appears serene but then a seemingly minor comment gives rise to a harsh response; it is that moment when there is a glimpse of a serious disagreement beneath the surface that has bubbled up unexpectedly.

Type
Fifth Annual Charles N. Brower Lecture on International Dispute Resolution: The Multiple Functions of International Courts and the Singular Task of the Adjudicator
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 111 , 2017 , pp. 231 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © by The American Society of International Law 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The Charles N. Brower Lecture on International Dispute Resolution was given at 3:00 p.m., Friday, April 14, 2017. The speaker was Professor David D. Caron of King's College London and the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal.

References

1 For a broad overview, see The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Romano, Cesare P.R., Alter, Karen J. & Shany, Yuval eds., 2014)Google Scholar.

2 See, e.g., Sussman, Edna, Arbitrator Decision Making: Unconscious Psychological Influences and What You Can Do About Them, 4 Yearbook on International Arbitration 70–96 (2014)Google Scholar; Christopher R. Drahozal, A Behavioral Analysis of Private Judging, Law & Contemp. Probs. (2004).

3 See, e.g., Helfer, Laurence R. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 Yale L.J. 273 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See Alter, Karen J., The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights 11 (2014)Google Scholar.

5 Álvarez, José E., What Are International Judges For? The Main Functions of International Adjudication, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 158, 160 (Romano, Cesare P.R., Alter, Karen J. & Shany, Yuval eds., 2014)Google Scholar.

6 Yuval Shany asserts that in addition to the resolution of disputes, courts undertake functions of norm support, regime support, and legitimation. Yuval Shany, Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts ch. 3 (2012). Diane Shelton explains that the functions states have delegated to courts are dispute settlement, compliance assessment, enforcement, and legal advice through advisory opinions. Shelton, Dinah, Form, Function, and the Powers of International Courts, 9 Chi. J. Int'l L. 537, 539 (2009)Google Scholar. From a different perspective, Armin von Bogandy and Ingo Venzke consider that in addition to the traditional understanding of the function of judicial institutions as dispute settlement, international courts and tribunals also stabilize normative expectations, develop normative expectations, and control and legitimate the authority exercised by others. von Bogdandy, Armin & Venzke, Ingo, On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority, 26 Leiden J. Int. Law 49, 49–50 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Alter lists the functions as dispute settlement, administrative review, enforcement, and constitutional review. Karen J. Alter, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (2014). José E. Alvarez enumerates the functions as dispute settlement, fact-finding, lawmaking, and governance. Álvarez, José E., What Are International Judges For? The Main Functions of International Adjudication, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 158 (Romano, Cesare P.R., Alter, Karen J. & Shany, Yuval eds., 2014)Google Scholar. Benedict Kingsbury, acknowledging that functions “are linked to the perceptions of participants and the expectations of their constituencies,” enumerates the functions of international courts as third-party settlers of bilateral disputes, a way to make promises credible, the governance regime for particular issue areas, producers of legal knowledge, and promoters of justice and the rule of law. Kingsbury, Benedict, International Courts: Uneven Judicialization in Global Order, in The Cambridge Companion to International Law 203 (Crawford, James & Koskenniemi, Martti eds., 2012)Google Scholar. In a similar vein, Anna Spain assesses the traditional functions of judicial institutions as a dichotomy between the “conservative” function of dispute settlement and the normative function of promoting global peace and security. Spain, Anna, Examining the International Judicial Function: International Courts as Dispute Resolvers, 34 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 5 (2011)Google Scholar. Finally, Charles H. Brower II delineates the functions of arbitration and those of judicial settlement. Brower, Charles H. II, The Functions and Limits of Arbitration and Judicial Settlement Under Private and Public International Law, 18 Duke J. Int'l & Comp. L. 259 (2008)Google Scholar.

7 Kingsbury, supra note 6, at 221.

8 Spain, supra note 6, at 5.

9 Shany, supra note 6.

10 Besson, Samantha, Legal Philosophical Issues of International Adjudication, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 413 (Romano, Cesare P.R., Alter, Karen J. & Shany, Yuval eds., 2014)Google Scholar.

11 Martin M. Shapiro, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (1986).

12 Id. at 17.

13 Id. at 1.

14 Id. at 27.

15 The Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Case No. 17, Advisory Opinion, para. 26, Seabed Disp. Chamber (2011).

16 Caron, David D., War and International Adjudication: Reflections on the 1899 Peace Conference, 94 AJIL 4, 6–7 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Katz, Milton, The Relevance of International Adjudication 147 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Shany, Yuval, No Longer a Weak Department of Power? Reflections on the Emergence of a New International Judiciary, 20 Eur. J. Int'l L. 73, 74 (2009)Google Scholar.

19 Id. at 80.

20 UN Charter, Art. 24(1) (“In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.”).

21 See, e.g., Hans Kelsen, Law and Peace in International Relations: The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures 1940–41, 149 (1942) (“the first organized communities of international law … are organizations the function of which is to settle conflicts”).

22 Caron, David D., International Courts and Tribunals: Their Roles Amidst a World of Courts, 26 ICSID Rev. 1, 7 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See, e.g., von Bogdandy, Armin & Venzke, Ingo, On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority, 26 Leiden J. Int'l L. 49–72 (2013)Google Scholar; Álvarez, supra note 5.

24 Hersch Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community 423–25 (2012); Scobbie, Iain G.M., The Theorist as Judge: Hersch Lauterpacht's Concept of the International Judicial Function, 8 Eur. J. Int'l L. 264 (1997)Google Scholar.

25 Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 6–7 (2010).

26 See, e.g., Cassese, Antonio, The International Court of Justice: It Is High Time to Restyle the Respected Old Lady, in Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law 239–49 (Cassese, Antonio ed., 2012)Google Scholar; Kooijmans, Pieter, The ICJ in the 21st Century: Judicial Restraint, Judicial Activism, or Proactive Judicial Policy, 56 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 741 (2007)Google Scholar.

27 Helfer, Laurence R., The Effectiveness of International Adjudicators, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 464 (Romano, Cesare P.R., Alter, Karen J. & Shany, Yuval eds., 2014)Google Scholar.

28 See Shany, supra note 6, at 20–21.

29 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi), Order, ICJ Rep. 2002, pp. 240–41.

30 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Declaration of Judge Buergenthal to the Order of the Court, ICJ Rep. 2002, p. 257.

31 Id.

32 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma to the Order of the Court, ICJ Rep. 2002, p. 255.

33 See, e.g., Ginsburg, Tom, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking, 45 Va. J. Int'l L. 631 (2005)Google Scholar; Caron, David D., Towards a Political Theory of International Courts and Tribunals, 24 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 401 (2006)Google Scholar.

34 See, e.g., Álvarez, supra note 5, at 166; Mbengue, Makane Moïse, International Courts and Tribunals as Fact-Finders: The Case of Scientific Fact Finding in International Adjudication, 34 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 53 (2011)Google Scholar.

35 Meron, Theodor, On Being an International Criminal Judge, 69 Bulletin / American Academy of Arts and Sciences 74, 75 (2015)Google Scholar.

36 Moshe Hirsch, The Role of International Tribunals in the Development of Historical Narratives (2017) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author).

37 Shany, supra note 6, at 37.

38 See, e.g., id. at 29.