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

本研究审查了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的问题。这一重要问题已在洛克比案中向法院提出，该案仍有待法院审理，国际律师和法院个别法官的意见自然各不相同。《宪章》和《规约》都没有关于司法审查问题的任何明确规定。目前的争议在某种程度上是组成文书中这种沉默的自然结果，为了研究所争议的问题，首先应区分“司法审查权”的含义，即宪法制度化意义上的司法审查权与（机构审查权）和法院适当行使司法职能的附带权利（附带审查权）。 ...更多信息 视图功率）。虽然有些国家的宪法法院熟悉前者，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类审查职能，即附带审查权。如果法院认为，在正式提交给它的特定案件中，不审查联合国具体决议的有效性就不能作出正确的裁决，它可以而且应该这样做，因为这属于其司法职能的适当范围。没有明确的复审权并不是决定性的。更重要的是，没有明确禁止行使后一种审查职能，这似乎是法院实际采取的立场，正如法院在“某些费用”案和“纳米比亚”案的意见中所表明的那样。的确，法院的这些意见是在安全理事会和大会分别向其请求的咨询案件中表达的。但是，没有理由认为，如果发生类似洛克比案的情况，法院在诉讼程序中应采取不同的做法。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，作为法院在诉讼程序中的初步印象，这无疑将是促进整个国际社会法治进程中的一个重要里程碑。少

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