The Review Function of Legality in Contentious and Advisory Proceedings of the International Court of Justice

国际法院诉讼和咨询程序的合法性审查职能

• 批准号: 17530036
• 负责人: SUGIHARA Takane
• 金额: $ 1.86万
• 依托单位: Kinki University
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 2005
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 2005 至 2007
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-17530036/
• 关键词: International Court of Justice; United Nations; Security Council; judicial review; legality of UN decisions; advisory opinion; Lockerbie case; 人道的干渉

The present research has dealt with review function of the International Court of Justice on legality of decision taken by United Nations organs or its member States. The mode of review functions of the Court can be divided into the following three types. (1) The review function of legality on decisions made by UN organs (the Security Council and other organs) in contentious proceedings. (2) The review function with regard to State actions in contentious cases. (3) The review function of legality on States action or on decisions of international organizations in advisory opinion proceedings.The first type of function had actually appeared in the Lockerbie case (Libya v. U.K) which was brought before the Court in 1992. In this case, Libya contested the validity of Security Council resolution 748 which was adopted to impose certain measures of coercion upon Libya. Libya asserted that the resolution could not have any legal effect and hence not opposable to Libya, because it was adopted i … More n contradiction with provisions of the UN Charter. However, there is a deep division of opinion as to whether the Court can, under the Charter system, legally exercise judicial review power with regard to Security Council decisions. The second type of review function is seen in ordinary contentious cases between States. However, the Cases concerning Legality of Use of Force brought before the Court by Yugoslavia against ten NATO member States separately had a somewhat extraordinary aspect in legal context, in that they involved on issue of legitimacy of doctrine of so-called humanitarian intervention, validity of which has been controverted in international law for centuries. In these cases, lawfulness of military actions by NATO States depended solely upon the validity of the controvential doctrine. Under the UN Charter principles including the prohibition on the use of force, legitimacy of the doctrine is of doubious legality as was pointed out by the report of UK Parliament Committee (2000). But, due to lack jurisdiction to entertain the Yugoslav claims, the Court closed its bench with regard to these cases without expressing any legal status of humanitarian intervention. As to the third type of review function, researches in the present project have not completed at this moment. Less

本研究涉及国际法院对联合国机构或其成员国所作决定的合法性的审查职能。法院行使审查职能的方式可分为以下三种。(1)对联合国机构（安全理事会和其他机构）在诉讼程序中所作决定的合法性进行审查。(2)对国家在诉讼案件中的行动的审查职能。(3)在咨询意见程序中对国家行动或国际组织决定的合法性的审查职能：第一类职能实际上出现在1992年提交法院的洛克比案（利比亚诉联合王国）中。在这一案件中，利比亚对安全理事会第748号决议的有效性提出质疑，该决议的通过是为了对利比亚实行某些胁迫措施。利比亚声称，该决议不可能具有任何法律的效力，因此不能对利比亚提出反对，因为它是在联合国大会通过的。 ...更多信息 这与《联合国宪章》的规定相抵触。然而，对于法院是否能够根据《宪章》制度合法地对安全理事会的决定行使司法审查权，存在着深刻的意见分歧。第二类审查职能见于国家间的普通诉讼案件。然而，南斯拉夫分别向法院提起的针对十个北约成员国的使用武力合法性案件在法律的背景下有一个有些特别的方面，因为它们涉及所谓人道主义干预学说的合法性问题，其有效性在国际法上已经受到质疑了几个世纪。在这些情况下，北约国家军事行动的合法性完全取决于有争议的理论的有效性。正如联合王国议会委员会的报告（2000年）所指出的，根据《联合国宪章》禁止使用武力的原则，这一理论的合法性令人怀疑。但是，由于缺乏受理南斯拉夫索赔的管辖权，法院在没有表明人道主义干预的任何法律的地位的情况下结束了对这些案件的审理。至于第三类检讨功能，本研究计划的研究尚未完成。少