Conflict of Norms - Conflict of Laws - Conflict of Systems? On the Conditions of Normative Conflict in International Law

规范冲突 - 法律冲突 - 制度冲突？

• 批准号: 322991018
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Christoph Möllers
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Lehrstuhl für ÖR und Rechtsphilosophie
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Units
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2016-12-31 至 2021-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/322991018?language=en
• 关键词: Conflict; Norms; Laws; Systems; Conditions

When talking of normative conflicts or interface conflicts, much legal literature focuses on possible solutions, i.e., how conflicts between different norms and/or regimes ought to be resolved. A range of options exists to address this question: some claim that a maximum of harmonization through interpretation ought to be achieved; others argue that there is a need to develop secondary norms that tell us how a conflict might be resolved; still others believe that any attempt to conceive of international law as a unitary system is futile and advocate for either loose coordination or explicit political contestation. Our project is not primarily concerned with normative solutions to interface conflicts. Rather, it takes a step back and looks at how normative conflicts are constructed by independent third-party actors. Our guiding intuition is that there is no necessity in understanding a certain coincidence of norms as a normative or interface conflict. Perhaps the same constellation is sometimes seen as a conflict and sometimes not. Throughout the project, we intend to examine a wide range of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions with a view to better understanding under which conditions a latent interface conflict in a given situation materializes into a manifest interface conflict. Put differently, we ask: Under which conditions do third-party actors address latent interface conflicts, and what are their argumentative strategies in either solving or avoiding them? We intend to scrutinize the rationale provided by various third-party actors in establishing or rejecting the existence of an interface conflict. Through this approach, the project seeks to establish a typology of possible interface conflicts in international law that accounts for its contingency. We will limit our inquiry to interface conflicts on the horizontal level, i.e., between legal regimes that claim potential global applicability (e.g., multilateral treaty regimes and customary international law), and we will examine third-party involvement, courts and quasi-judicial bodies, in the identification and resolution of such conflicts.

在谈到规范冲突或界面冲突时，许多法律的文献都侧重于可能的解决办法，即，如何解决不同规范和/或制度之间的冲突。解决这个问题有一系列备选办法：有些人主张，应通过解释实现最大限度的协调;另一些人认为，有必要制定次级规范，告诉我们如何解决冲突;还有一些人认为，任何将国际法设想为单一制度的企图都是徒劳的，主张要么松散协调，要么明确政治解释。我们的项目并不主要关注界面冲突的规范性解决方案。相反，它后退一步，审视独立的第三方行为者如何构建规范冲突。我们的指导直觉是，没有必要将规范的某种重合理解为规范冲突或界面冲突。也许同一个星座有时被视为冲突，有时则不然。在整个项目中，我们打算检查范围广泛的司法和准司法的决定，以期更好地了解在何种条件下，潜在的接口冲突在特定的情况下，实现到一个明显的接口冲突。换句话说，我们问：在什么条件下第三方行动者处理潜在的界面冲突，他们在解决或避免这些冲突时的论证策略是什么？我们打算仔细审查各种第三方行为者在确定或拒绝界面冲突存在时提供的理由。通过这一方法，该项目试图建立一个国际法中可能的界面冲突的类型，说明其偶然性。我们将把我们的调查限制在水平层面上的接口冲突，即，在声称具有潜在全球适用性的法律的制度之间（例如，多边条约制度和习惯国际法），我们将审查第三方、法院和准司法机构参与查明和解决此类冲突的情况。