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

本研究探讨了国际法院是否可以审查根据《联合国宪章》第七章通过的安理会决议的合法性或有效性这一问题，这一重要问题已在洛克比案件中向法院提出。国际律师和法院法官的意见自然没有对司法审查问题作出明确规定。组成文书中的这种沉默。为了研究这个问题，首先应该区分“司法审查权”的含义，即宪法制度意义上的司法审查权（机构审查权）与正当程序所附带的司法审查权之间的区别。行使法院的司法职能（附带审查权）虽然一些国家宪法法院熟悉前者，但国际法院并不了解这一事实，但这并不一定妨碍法院行使。第二种审查功能，附带审查如果法院认为在适当提交给它的特定案件中，如果不审查联合国具体决议的有效性，就无法作出正确的裁决，那么它可以而且应该这样做，因为这属于范围之内。缺乏明确的审查权并不是决定性的，更重要的是没有明确禁止其参与后一种审查职能。这似乎是法院实际采取的立场。法院，如其在某些案件中的意见所示确实，法院分别在安全理事会和大会向其提出的咨询案件中表达了这些意见，但没有理由认为法院应该采取不同的意见。如果出现与洛克比案件类似的情况，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，作为法院在诉讼程序中的第一印象案件，在推广过程中标志着一个伟大的里程碑对于整个国际社会的法治来说。