O presente trabalho irá avaliar se, e em qual medida, o trabalho do Comitê Jurídico Interamericano pode favorecer uma certa regionalização do direito internacional. Mais precisamente, o foco é na questão de saber se, e em qual medida, o trabalho do Comitê pode favorecer a emergência de regras regionais, não escritas, de caráter costumeiro. O trabalho será dividido em três partes. Primeiramente, será contextualizada a ideia de codificação na América Latina e, em particular, a noção de codificação no Continente Americano. Embora exista significante trabalho acadêmico na questão, revisitar este debate prova-se importante vez que é no interior dele que o primeiro comitê foi criado com a função de codificar o direito internacional. Na segunda parte, será examinado o método de trabalho do Comitê Jurídico Interamericano. Sobre a questão, será examinada se o Comitê favorece a promoção ou contribui para a ideia de regras de direito internacional aplicáveis apenas na relação entre Estados Americanos. O último problema analisado será aquele das interações entre o trabalho de codificação do Comitê Jurídico Interamericano e o da Comissão de Direito Internacional. O objetivo aqui será o de investigar e avaliar a relação entre a perspectiva regional e a perspectiva universal no processo de codificação, especialmente quando um determinado tópico é coberto por dois órgãos e potenciais conflitos podem emergir. O principal argumento sustentado é que, direta e indiretamente, o CJI favorece uma certa regionalização do direito internacional ao focar-se, particularmente em seus trabalhos recentes, na prática e na opinio juris dos Estados Americanos. Isto ocorre apesar da coordenação entre CJI e CDI.
International Law and the Cold War is an invitation to study some of the forgotten discourses related to this period, many times unfairly associated with the idea of decay. The historical experience is often summarized with the assertion that “the Cold War period saw a decline in the commitment to international adjudication”. An examination of the judicial practice in the period is carried out, namely arbitration and decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). We shall also briefly scrutinize the appearance of jurisdictional clauses in international treaties signed between 1947 and 1990. The second part of the article presents a specific instance of judicial settlement of disputes, outlining the American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and the fundamental choices of the “Pact of Bogota” in relation to judicial settlement. In the third part, we zoom in on some ideas regarding international adjudication in Latin America and on the writings of some Brazilian authors – such as Haroldo Valladão – to demonstrate their perception of the phenomenon. The present analysis proves that the judicial settlement of international disputes did not depend on the collapse of the Soviet Union for coming into operation. Interstate arbitrations were very much present during the Cold War years. Jurisdictional clauses remained in vogue, a great number of treaties still being adopted that referred their disputes to the International Court of Justice. The Pact of Bogota was a groundbreaking initiative to support the jurisdiction of an international court through collective recognition, consolidating regional practice on compulsory adjudication. KEYWORDS: Cold War; settlement of disputes; interstate arbitration; International Court of Justice; Pact of Bogota.
In the advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had its advisory jurisdiction contested by the fact that it had existed a pending dispute between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius. The present work analyzes the arguments employed by the Court in order to overcome this objection and to substantiate its advisory jurisdiction. The Court made recourse to two main arguments. The Court has broadened the scope of its jurisdiction with the aim of accommodating its answer within the broader frame of decolonization, previously tackled by the General Assembly. Another argument employed by the Court was the fact that a pronounce of this kind would not touch the issues of a dispute. The work performs an examination of the rules that underlie the Court's advisory function and also the relevant case law. I argue that the application of the criteria previously developed in the Court's case law in the present case has as a consequence a subtle enlargement of the scope of the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
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.