权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Review of Security Council Decisions

国际法院和安理会决定的司法审查

基本信息

批准号：
12620035
负责人：
SUGIHARA Takane
金额：
$ 1.28万
依托单位：
Kyoto University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
2000
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2000 至 2001
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-12620035/
关键词：
International Court of Justice judicial review Security Council judicial control legality of UN decisions Lockerbie case Charter of the United Nations 国連憲章

项目摘要

The present research has examined a question of whether the International Court of Justice may examine the legality or validity of Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. This important question has been raised before the Court in the Lockerbie cases which are still pending before it. Opinions expressed by international lawyers and individual judges of the Court naturally differ. Neither the Charter nor the Statute has any explicit provision concerning the question of judicial review. The current controversy is, to a certain extent, a natural result of this silence in the constituent instruments.In order to examine the question at issue, a distinction should first be made on the meaning of "power of judicial review", namely a distinction between a judicial review power in a constitutionally institutionalized sense (institutional review power) and the one incidental to the proper exercise of judicial function of a court (incidental re … More view power). While the former is familiar to some national constitutional courts, it is unknown to the International Court of Justice. This fact, though, does not necessarily prevent the Court from exercising the second type of review function, the incidental review power. Where the Court takes the view that its correct decision could not, in a given case duly brought before it, be rendered without examining the validity of specific resolutions of the United Nations, it could and should do so, for this would fall within the proper sphere of its judicial function. Lack of an express power of review is not determinative. What is more important is a lack of an express prohibition from engaging in the latter type of the review function.This appears to be the position actually taken by the Court, as shown in its opinions in the Certain Expenses and the Namibia cases. It is true that these opinions of the Court were expressed in the advisory cases requested to it by the Security council and the General Assembly respectively. There is, however, no reason to believe that the Court should take a different approach in case of contentious proceedings if a similar situation occurs as in the Lockerbie cases. Should the Court engage in judicial review of the Security Council decisions in these cases, it would no doubt, as a case prima impressionis of the Court in contentious proceedings, mark a great milestone in the course of promoting for the rule of law in the international community as a whole. Less

本研究审查了一个问题，即国际法院是否可以审查安全理事会根据《联合国宪章》第七章通过的决议的合法性或有效性。这一重要问题已在法院审理的洛克比案中提出。国际律师和法院个别法官所表达的意见自然不同。《宪章》和《规约》都没有关于司法审查问题的任何明确规定。目前的争论在某种程度上是构成文书中这种沉默的自然结果。为了考察这个问题，首先要区分“司法审查权力”的含义，即区分宪法上制度化意义上的司法审查权力（制度性审查权力）和法院正当行使司法职能附带的司法审查权力（附带审查权力）。虽然前者是一些国家宪法法院所熟悉的，但国际法院却不知道。然而，这一事实并不一定妨碍法院行使第二种审查职能，即附带审查权。如果本院认为，在正式提交给它的某一案件中，如果不审查联合国具体决议的有效性，它就不能作出正确的决定，那么本院可以而且应该这样做，因为这将属于本院司法职能的适当范围。缺乏明确的审查权力并不是决定性的。更重要的是，没有明确禁止从事后一种审查职能。这似乎是法院实际采取的立场，正如它对某些费用案和纳米比亚案的意见所显示的那样。的确，国际法院的这些意见是在安全理事会和大会分别要求它提出的咨询案件中表达的。但是，没有理由认为，如果发生与洛克比案类似的情况，法院就应该在有争议的诉讼中采取不同的做法。如果法院对安全理事会在这些案件中的决定进行司法审查，毫无疑问，作为法院在有争议的诉讼程序中的初步印象案件，它将成为在整个国际社会促进法治进程中的一个重要里程碑。少