O diálogo entre a Corte Internacional de Justiça e outros Orgãos Judiciais Internacionais sobre questões processuais
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46699/rduno.v1i2.4389Resumo
Este trabalho analisa e discute o diálogo judicial relacionado a questões processuais e, em particular, evidencia o essencial papel desempenhado pela Corte Internacional de Justiça (CIJ) na determinação e no desenvolvimento de princípios e regras de processo judicial internacional. A primeira parte deste trabalho irá afrontar alguns aspectos gerais relativos à prática de “diálogo judicial” no contencioso internacional e as fontes do direito processual internacional. A segunda parte é uma análise da práxis de diversos órgãos judiciais internacionais que “dialogaram” com a CIJ em questões processuais. A terceira e última parte focará no posicionamento tomado pela CIJ em relação à determinação e interpretação de princípios processuais e, à luz da abordagem adotada pela Corte na Opinião Consultiva IFAD, traçar os possíveis desenvolvimentos emergentes deste tipo de abordagem.Referências
AGNELLO, F. The dialogue between the International Court of Justice and specialized judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in matters relating to the protection of human rights in ARCARI, M.; BALMOND, L. LE DIALOGUE DES JURIDICTIONS DANS L’ORDRE JURIDIQUE INTERNATIONAL: ENTRE PLURALISME ET SECURITE JURIDIQUE. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 2014.
AMOROSO, The Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice in 2012: A Year of Human Rights Cases, in Italian Yearbook of International Law, 2012, p. 223 ss.
Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal,
Advisory Opinion of 12 July 1973, in ICJ Reports, 1973.
Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal,
Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982, in ICJ Reports, 1982.
Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of 27 May 1987, in ICJ Reports, 1987.
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 3 February 2006, in ICJ Reports, 2006.
BARTHOLOMEUSZ, The amicus curiae before International Courts and Tribunals, in BIANCHI (ed.), Non-State Actors and International Law, Dartmouth, 2009.
ASCENSIO, L'amicus curiae devant les juridictions internationales, in Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 2001.
BEDI, The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International Court of Justice, Oxford, 2007.
BLAKE, Normative Instruments in International Human Rights Law: Locating the General Comment, Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper, 2008.
BROWN, The Cross-Fertilization of Principles Relating to Procedure and Remedies in the Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals, in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 2008.
CANNIZZARO, Il rilievo degli accordi esterni nell’interpretazione degliaccordi OMC, in LIGUSTRO, SACERDOTI (eds.), Problemi e tendenze del diritto internazionale dell’economia. Liber amicorum in onore di Paolo Picone, Napoli, 2011, p. 513 ss.
Case IT-94-1-A-R77, 31 January 2000.
Certain Norwegian Loans, Judgment of 6 July 1957, in ICJ Reports, 1957.
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 June 1992, in ICJ Reports, 1992.
CHENG, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, London, 1953, p. 257 ss.;
Corte Internacional de Justiça, Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2012, in ICJ Reports, 2012.
CRAWFORD, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, Oxford, 2012, p. 38.
(Resoluções da Assembléia Geral relativas: A/RES/61/261 of 4 April 2007, A/RES/62/228 of 22 December 2007 and A/RES/63/253 of 24 December 2008).
DE BRABANDERE, Individuals in Advisory Proceedings before the International Court of Justice: Equality of the Parties and the Court’s Discretionary Authority, in The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2012.
DUPUY, VIÑUALES, The Challenge of “Proliferation”: AnAnatomy of the Debate, in ROMANO, ALTER, SHANY (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford, 2013.
PUMA, Human rights and investment law: Attempts at harmonization through a difficult dialogue between arbitrators and human rights Tribunals, in ARCARI, BALMOND.
ECtHR, Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v. Turkey, Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, Judgment of 6 February 2003.
ECtHR, paras. 102-105, citando LaGrand (Germany v. United States), Judgment of 27 June 2001, in ICJ Reports, 2001.
EISUKE, The Review and Repudiation of Judgments of International Administrative Tribunals, in Asian Yearbook of International Law, 1997.
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 4 December 1998, in ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 432, at p. 447.
FITZMAURICE (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice. Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge, 1996, p. 389;
GAFFNEY, Due Process in the World Trade Organization: The Need for Procedural Justice in the Dispute Settlement System, in American University International Law Review, 1999, p. 1179-1180;
GOMULA, The International Court of Justice and Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations, in Michigan Journal of International Law, 1991-1992.
GUILLAUME, The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators, in Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2011, p. 9 ss.; Shaw, International Law, Cambridge, 2008.
Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. upon complaints made against theU.N.E.S.C.O., Advisory Opinion of 23 October 1956, in ICJ Reports, 1956.
KAIKOBAD, The International Court of Justice and Judicial Review. A Study of the Court Powers with Respect to Judgments of the ILO and UN Administrative Tribunals, The Hague, 2000;
KOLB, General Principles of Procedural Law in ZIMMERMANN, TOMUSCHAT, and OELLERS-FRAHM (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford, 2012, p. 871 ss.
KOLB, La maxime de la “bonne administration de la justice” dans la jurisprudence internationale, in L’observateur des Nations Unies, 2009, pp. 7-8.
LOWE, FITZMAURICE (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice. Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge, 1996.
LOWE, FITZMAURICE., The Normalization of International Adjudication: Convergence and Divergences, in International Law and Politics, 2010.
MANI, International Adjudication: Procedural Aspects, The Hague, 1980, p. 12;
MATSCHER, Standing Before International Courts and Tribunals, in EPIL, 1981 p.191;
MILLER, An International Jurisprudence? The Operation of “Precedent” Across International Tribunals, in Leiden Journal of International Law, 2002, p. 488
NEGRI, I principi generali del processo internazionale nella giurisprudenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia, Napoli, 2002, pp. 32-33;
Nottebohm Case (Preliminary Objection), Judgment of 18 November 1953, in ICJ Report, 1953.
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment of 12 December 1996, in ICJ Reports, 1996, p. 803, p. 810.
PALCHETTI, Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States: Intervention and Beyond, in Max Planck Yearbook on United Nations Law, 2002, pp. 167-168.
PALOMBINO, Judicial Economy and the Limitation of the Scope of the Decision in International Adjudication, in Leiden Journal of International Law, 2010, p. 910 ss.
Polish Postal Service in Danzig, PCIJ Ser. B – No. 11, 16 May 1925.,
Prince von Pless Administration, Order of 4February 1933, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 52.
REINISCH, The Proliferation of International Dispute Settlement Mechanism: The Threat of Fragmentation vs. the Promise of a More Effective System? Some Reflections From the Perspective of Investment Arbitration, in BUFFARD, CRAWFORD, PELLET, WITTICH (eds.), International Law Between Universalism and Fragmentation. Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner, Leiden/Boston, 2008, p. 123. Ver igualmente ROSENNE, The Perplexities of Modern International Law, Leiden, 2004.
Report of the Appellate Body, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff
Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, 7 April 2004.
Report of the Appellate Body, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R – WT/DS162/AB/R, 28 August 2000, para. 54, nota 30.
ROMANO, Deciphering the Grammar of the International Jurisprudential Dialogue, in International Law and Politics, 2009, pp. 759-760
SCHLESINGER, Research on the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations, in American Journal of International Law, 1957, p. 736;
SERENI, Principi generali di diritto e processo internazionale, Milano, 1955, passim;
SHAHABUDDEN, Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge, 1996.
SHAHABUDDEN, Precedent in the World Court, cit., p. 2, grifo adicionado.
Société commerciale de Belgique, Judgment, 1939, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 78.
TARUFFO, Precedente e giurisprudenza, Napoli, 2007, p. 32 (Tradução em inglês realizada pelo autor).
TERRIS, ROMANO AND SWIGART, The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and the Women Who Decide the World’s Cases, Oxford, 2007.
The “Grand Prince” Case (Belize v. France), Application for Prompt Release, Judgment of 20 April 2001, paras. 78-79.
The M/V “Louisa” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain), Judgment of 28 May 2013.
THIRLWAY, Procedural Law and the International Court of Justice, in LOWE.
VARGIU, From Advisory Opinions to Binding Decisions: The New Appeal Mechanism of the UN System of Administration of Justice, in International Organization Law Review, 2010, p. 261 ss.
Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (merits), Judgment of 29 July 1988.
WEINIGER and SCHREUER, Conversations across Cases: Is there a Doctrine of Precedent in Investment Arbitration?, in Transnational Dispute Management, 2008;
ZAMMIT BORDA, Precedent in International Criminal Courts and Tribunals, in Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2013, p. 288.
