In The Nature of International Law, Miodrag Jovanović, generally speaking, tries to explain the concept of international law. He analyzes few typical characteristics of the prototype concept of law (institutionality, normativity, coercion and justice-aptness), and then he looks at contemporary international law through "the lenses" of these characteristics. The article pays special attention to his analysis of the normativity of (international) law. The main intention is not to criticize Jovanović's theses about the normativity of law, as such, but to point out that they are not the best possible framework for explaining the normativity of international law. Therefore, a different and more appropriate conceptual framework is presented than the one he offered in the key of Raz's idea of legal norms as exclusionary reasons for action and practical rationality. This framework is grounded on Hart's well-known idea of an internal point of view. The presented argumentation shows that within such a framework, the normativity of international law could be better explained and understood, and also it seems that certain ingrained intuitions about international law fit well into it.
Pravo na obrazloženu presudu koje je Evropski sud za ljudska prava stvorio u sopstvenoj praksi, zasnivajući ga na pravu na pravično suđenje, u nekim slučajevima služi strazburškom Sudu da se upusti u instanciono odlučivanje povodom predstavki u vezi s članom 6 Konvencije. To pitanje je i praktično i teorijski relevantno jer taj Sud, u skladu s doktrinom "četvrte instance" po pravilu ne postupa kao instancioni sud. U analizi nekoliko temeljnih slučajeva, autori u članku pokazuju pod kojim uslovima i na koji način se Sud u Strazburu upušta u meritorno rešavanje sporova između građana i država članica. Zaključak je da nije reč o tome da ESLJP, kada utvrđuje da li je došlo do povrede prava na obrazloženu presudu, slučajno ili nesmotreno odstupi od doktrine "četvrte instance" već o tome da je u nizu presuda ESLJP sâmo pravo na obrazloženu presudu formulisao tako da ono po sebi odstupa od te doktrine. Ključne reči: Evropski sud za ljudska prava.-Doktrina četvrte instance.-Pravo na pravično suđenje.-Pravo na obrazloženu presudu.
The article presents two theses. The first is that previous court judgments can be „sources“ of general rules and standards that will constraint the courts, as decision-makers, even if they are not formally established as legally binding. The second is that it should be so for several reasons – the most important being predictability and equality. In this part of the article the concepts of separation of powers, types of state functions, and judicial power are explained. The reasons why the judicial power can perform the law-making function in a legal system in which it is not formally established are presented. As an illustration of how the system in which courts perform a law-making function works, the application of the doctrine of stare decisis in the USA is described. Finally, several decisions of the Constitutional Court of Serbia that indicate similar practice in Serbian legal system are analyzed.
The article presents the follow–up to a previous article which expounds the thesis that in all developed legal systems court judgments can be sources of general rules and standards that will constraint the courts, as decision–makers, and then, consequently, other legal subjects, even if they are not formally recognized as sources of law. In this article, the normative reasons in favor of performing the regulative function of the judiciary are first presented, with the most important ones being predictability and equality. It is then shown in which direction the regulative function could be performed by the judicial power of a typical continental system, if the judiciary, as a whole, accepts to perform it.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.