Does the Monetary Gold Principle Apply to International Courts and Tribunals Generally?

Pomson, Ori

doi:10.1093/jnlids/idz001

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Advocates of the analogy are not aided by the fact that the status of the Monetary Gold doctrine is itself contested. 71 If the doctrine embodies a customary rule resulting from the practice of States before international courts and tribunals, 72 it is of little aid in establishing the competence of domestic courts. If the doctrine is the corollary of general principles of international adjudication 73 -about which some doubts remain 74 -one must be satisfied that the same considerations that determine the application of the doctrine before international courts and tribunals exist with respect to the exercise of jurisdiction by domestic courts.…”

Section: A the Inapplicability Of The Monetary Gold Doctrine To Domes...mentioning

confidence: 99%

State Immunity and Third-Party Limits on the Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts

Franchini

2023

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.

show abstract

Section: A the Inapplicability Of The Monetary Gold Doctrine To Domes...mentioning

confidence: 99%

State Immunity and Third-Party Limits on the Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts

Franchini

2023

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Monetary Gold principle is created by the jurisprudence of the international legal system, 8 and inspires and finds reflection in various international instruments and has often been referred to in case law. 3,[8][9][10][11][12] The core implication of the Monetary Gold principle is that, the jurisdiction of international judicial institutions must be subject to the consent of the contesting parties, which include not only the plaintiff and the defendant but also the third party whose legal interests would form the 'very subject-matter' of decisions. [8][9][10]13 In Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case, the Permanent Court had considered that it operated 'bearing in mind the fact that its jurisdiction is limited, that it is invariably based on the consent of the respondent and only exists in so far as this consent has been given'.…”

Section: What Is Mixed Maritime Disputementioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of the monetary gold principle on the determination of jurisdiction in the mixed maritime disputes

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed maritime disputes are maritime disputes that involve the concurrent consideration of any dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory, which according to Article 298(1)(a)(i) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should be excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal referred to in Article 287. However, by means of treaty interpretation or consensus of two parties, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and other Annex VII tribunals have increasingly broken through the limits to actively exercise jurisdiction. Judgements under the influence of this tendency will be firmly resisted by states whose sovereign interests are damaged. Moreover, these judgements will not only fail to resolve disputes, but will create more serious international law and international political disputes, such as the judgement on preliminary objections of Mauritius v. Maldives delimitation case. In this judgement, the Special Chamber of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea circumvented the Monetary Gold principle by citing the International Court of Justice advisory opinion and United Nations General Assembly resolution, which had no legally binding force. It is proposed that this judgement could open Pandora's box of challenges to general principles of international law and jurisdiction over sovereignty disputes. For States with mixed maritime disputes to resolve the issues mentioned above, it is necessary to respond to lawsuits actively, avoid adverse consequences caused by default judgements and reach regional consensus, and avoid unfavourable International Court of Justice advisory opinions and United Nations General Assembly resolutions.

show abstract

Legal Challenges for Foreign Adjudicative Jurisdiction

Hartig¹

2023

International Criminal Justice Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does the Monetary Gold Principle Apply to International Courts and Tribunals Generally?

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

State Immunity and Third-Party Limits on the Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts

State Immunity and Third-Party Limits on the Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts

The impact of the monetary gold principle on the determination of jurisdiction in the mixed maritime disputes

Legal Challenges for Foreign Adjudicative Jurisdiction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About