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

本研究涉及国际法院对联合国各机关或其成员国所作决定的合法性的审查职能。法院的审查职能模式可分为以下三种类型。(1)对联合国机关（安全理事会和其他机关）在有争议的程序中所作决定的合法性进行审查的职能。(2)对争议案件中国家行动的审查职能。(3)在咨询意见程序中审查国家行动或国际组织决定合法性的职能。第一种职能实际上出现在1992年提交法院审理的洛克比案（利比亚诉英国）中。在这种情况下，利比亚质疑安全理事会第748号决议的有效性，该决议的通过是为了对利比亚实施某些强制措施。利比亚声称，该决议不具有任何法律效力，因此不反对利比亚，因为它是在……但是，对于法院是否能够根据《宪章》制度合法地行使对安全理事会决定的司法审查权力，存在着深刻的意见分歧。第二种审查职能见于国家间的一般争议案件。但是，南斯拉夫分别向法院提出的针对10个北约成员国使用武力合法性的案件在法律方面有些不同寻常，因为它们涉及所谓人道主义干预学说的合法性问题，而这种学说的有效性在国际法上已争论了几个世纪。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。根据包括禁止使用武力在内的联合国宪章原则，英国议会委员会的报告（2000）指出，该学说的合法性具有双重合法性。但是，由于缺乏受理南斯拉夫索赔要求的管辖权，法院在没有表明任何人道主义干预的法律地位的情况下关闭了对这些案件的审理。对于第三类review功能，目前本项目的研究尚未完成。少

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