The role of judges ad hoc on international permanent courts: a critical analysis
| Autor | Gustavo Luiz Von Bahten |
| Cargo | Brazilian attorney |
| Páginas | 25-80 |
25
THE ROLE OF JUDGES AD HOC
ON INTERNATIONAL PERMANENT
COURTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
El papel de los jueces ad hoc en las
cortes permanentes internacionales:
un análisis crítico
Gustavo Luiz von Bahten*
ABSTRACT: The scope of this study is analyzing the institution of jud-
ges ad hoc, since its origin on the Permanente Court of International
Justice (PCIJ) until its treatment on the most important present inter-
national permanent courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights (ICHR) and the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR), among others. Furthermore, this work brings
up considerations about the necessity and importance of judges ad
hoc on the contemporary international legal system, and their rela-
tion with essential topics such as legitimacy, nationality, the States´
consent and the principle of the juge naturel. Moreover, the present
paper aims to clarify that justications presented to include this old
rule on the current legal system are not valid on a globalized multi-
lateral society, being absolutely essential abolishing the gure of the
* Brazilian attorney. PhD in Labour Studies (University of Milan). LLM in International
Law, Trade, Investments and Arbitration (University of Chile - University of Heidelberg).
Artículo recibido el 30 de abril y aprobado el 26 de mayo de 2012.
2626
VON BAHTEN, GUSTAVO L. (2012): "EL PAPEL DE LOS JUECES AD HOC EN LAS CORTES
PERMANENTES INTERNACIONALES: UN ANÁLISIS CRÍTICO"
judges ad hoc and to innovate the international order, adequating it
to the dramatic changes occurred on the last 50 years, and inserting
it on a post-habermasian paradigm.
KEY WORDS: judges ad hoc – international courts – consultive com-
petences – legal judge
RESUMEN: El objetivo de este estudio es el análisis de la institución de
los jueces ad hoc, desde sus orígenes en la Corte Permanente de Justicia
Internacional hasta su tratamiento en los más importantes tribunales inter-
nacionales permanentes de la contemporaneidad: la Corte Internacional
de Justicia, el Tribunal Internacional para el Derecho del Mar, la Corte
Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Corte Europea de Derechos
Humanos, entre otros. Por otro lado, este trabajo nos lleva a considera-
ciones sobre la necesidad e importancia de los jueces ad hoc en el actual
ordenamiento jurídico internacional, y su relación con temas esenciales
como la legitimidad, la nacionalidad, el consentimiento y el principio
del juez natural. Más, el presente trabajo tiene por objeto aclarar que las
justicaciones presentadas para incluir esta regla anacrónica en el sistema
legal actual
no son válidas en
una sociedad
multilateral y
globalizada. Así,
es imprescindible la abolición de la gura de los jueces ad hoc, de modo
a adecuar el orden internacional a los dramáticos cambios ocurridos en
los últimos 50 años, insertándole en un paradigma post-habermasiano.
PALABRAS CLAVE: jueces ad hoc – tribunales internacionales – compe-
tencia consultiva – juez natural
OVERVIEW
In the last few years it is undeniable that the increment on the globali-
zation process, for better or not, brought signicant epistemic changes1 and
challenges2, particularly on elds related to International Law. In this current
“multilateralized” world, the internationalization of many subjects - which were
before exclusive competences of internal law - and the relativization of the
concept of sovereignty3 were still not able to bring up a general international
jurisdiction4, but, in spite of that, the contemporary society is marked by the
1 soros (2002).
2 stiglitZ (2003).
3 seidl-hohenveldern (1992).
4 MérignhaC (1905) p. 78.
27
ARS BONI ET AEQUI (AÑO 8 NO 2): PP. 25 - 80
27
strengthening of an international order, with a relevant increase in the number
of international institutions, many of them with jurisdictional scope.
Therefore, this present international jurisdictional panorama –characterized
by the emergence of new subjects and a brand new structure on international
relationships– deserves an appropriate reection, capable to overcome an
archaic conception of International Law based on the concept of absolute
sovereignty, incompatible with the principles of interdependence, harmonic
mutual growth, sustainable development and cooperation.5
If the judges´ role on international courts is not anymore being merely
bouches de la loi –in accordance to the classic Montesquieu´s lesson–, in a
world where there is an increasing active posture from the magistracy on the
construction of an International Law with a real effet utile, on a dworkinian
attitude6, all questions related to who our judges are and what do we wish on
that subject assume greater relevance.
Following this premise, the scope of this paper is presenting the institu-
tion of judges ad hoc on the main international Tribunals, and analyzing their
compatibility with the most recent developments on International Law.7
On the rst part of this study, it will be constructed an objective analysis
of the theme of judges ad hoc. This work begins with a historical background,
looking for the roots of the institution of judges ad hoc on the PCIJ Statute, and
its inuence on the main contemporary international permanent Courts, such
as the ICJ, the ITLOS, the ICHR and the IEHR, besides of an analysis en passant
about the main rules concerning the nationality of the adjudicators in other
decisory organs, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the Panel’s structure
on the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Criminal Court and
also on arbitration rules, such as the ones stated by the International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC), the United Nations Commission on International Trade
Law (UNCITRAL) and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment
Disputes (ICSID).
Moreover, it will be laid out a presentation of some important issues
concerning to the present treatment of this matter, as the role of judges ad hoc
in consultive proceedings (Namibia case), their nomination as a faculty of the
parties (Aegean Sea case) and the main rights and duties of those members,
5 delos (1950) p. 305.
6 MurPhy and PritChett (1961) p. 107, Cordero (1987) p. 255.
7 JiMeneZ de aréChaga (1980) p. 180.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba