Let 1

This causes int litigation too differ in a number of ways than domestic. Should bear in mind there is
no hierarchy among intel courts ora treats no former one . Have been suggestions n occasion iCJ
should be seen as the most authoritative these arguments have never really taken root. 80s 90s
Judges Dion and Schartaver they as presents of INtl court argued that the ICJ should be seen as
supreme . And they came up with a bad argument that if a question of int law arose in another into
court or tribunal it should be referred to the ICJ for referral to give a authoritative ruling . Impractical
argument : 1) delay iy could cause to int proceedings 2) increased costs involved .Take a critical
approach to suggestions like this look into it by practicality had the refereeing been introduced
there would have been a drying up of int Litigation . Int courts and tribunals don't operate on a
constitutional structure .
Arguments you will hear from continental lawyers that the UN charter is a equivalent of a
constitutional order . Scobbie not convinced . It would be A VERY underdeveloped
constitutional structure, One way in which th into justice rules is undefined . It was spelling
out the courts relation with Gen axsemnbly or security council . Sketchy .
Other problem : Most int courts ar not connected with the UN . Int criminal court no relation
with UN charter . Theres an agreement about how the relation should be handled but ICC is
a completely independent body truth for most int courts . ECHR or IACHR have in
common ? AD hoc arbiter tribunals which the parties send off to deal with cases . This
ousts the constitutional structure . Domestic courts are located in a complicited
constitutional structure . That don't be in int courts .
These consideration we should expect from Int Courts and tribunals can we really expect or
translate transfer expectation we have about domestic courts and int disputes .The extent
which we can expect Int courts to operate in the same way as domestic courts one of the
key issues here is to what extent should we expect int courts and tribunals to develop more
and lay out precedents .Problematic in absence of court hierarchy . In lit of int law there is
an expectation that Int courts and tribunals have sth to say of content o int law or at times
can develop int law .
Look at those assumption and try pick it an get a clear understanding of int courts . Int
courts have a law developing function particularly evident in the writing of people who
come form common law backgrounds .What should I expect Int Courts to do ? Expectation
of international courts .
Its straight forward . Few things which seem odd when we consider . Next we consider the
precedence of the case on dispute . Can judicial proceedings really examine all aspects of a
dispute ? If they can do they have consequences we should bear in mind .Where do these
international judges come form ?We can say if we take permanent institutions such as ICJ ,
ECHR, ITLOS, they all got judges .BUt that isn't true for all int tribunals . if we consider
states what does a tribunal that deals with a specific dispute how are the judges chosen?
The states themselves decide who will sit on the case . That seems a bit odd . The ida that

the litigant parties decide their dispute/ case . Feature which runs through much of int
litigation in particular if u look at ICJ under certain circumstances wheates which are
parties to a case under the ICJ can choose a judge adhoc .