INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE:

Courts, Tribunals, and Other Adjudicative Bodies vis-à-vis

Questions of International Law

A report presented to
Prof. JULIO AMADOR III
Instructor
College of Law
San Sebastian College-Recoletos

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Special Issues in International Law

Submitted by:
Don Jon ALANO
Alzen CAGA
Renz Christian DE ROSAS
Calvin FERNANDEZ
Gregg HERMOSA
Celine MENDOZA
Noel MANALIGOD
Nelson MANALON, Jr.
Mohammad Ajirin SATAR
The following piece offers a brief glimpse into the institutions
specially set up by sovereign states to which recourse may be made
in matters of law.

As this semester has proceeded, this class has learned to disabuse

itself of a strongly held notion of what the Law is insofar as municipal
or domestic law is concerned. The State, through its Government,
provides for laws which its citizens or subjects must obey and
observe. In the supranational sphere, there is a phenomenon wherein
the subject of the Law is also its source, complicated by arrangements
in exercise of sovereign capacity whereby one subject can opt out of
certain provisions of law. Such a thing is unthinkable in domestic or
municipal law.

Nevertheless, with relations between (or among) states being

governed by treaties (however they are called), there has arisen a
need for some mechanism by which these agreements are understood
for the benefit of the contracting parties. Here, recourse needs to be
made to bodies which address questions of international law.

What questions?

Put another way, States and other entities that deal with them do
not always see each other eye to eye. In the spectrum of relations,
there will be parties seeking to assert dominance over the other, or
weaker ones seeking to strike a balance with the strong. These are the
subjects of disputes. More than just a mere disagreement, a dispute
is, per Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, “a disagreement on a point of law or
fact, a conflict of legal views or interests between two persons.”1

1 Bernas, Introduction to Public International Law (Manila: REX Bookstore, Inc., 2009), p. 267.
 Forasmuch as international relations are conducted through
treaties, it is helpful to think of “questions of international law” as
hinging on the proper interpretation and application of treaties
between any two states, and how such states are to behave towards
their neighbors, as well as toward their own subjects/citizens and
those of their neighbors. Hence, a resolution of such dispute will be
beneficial for those concerned as well as for the world entire.

It is strange to think, then, that States will be willing to enter into

agreements only to bicker with each other on what had been agreed
upon a priori. It is stranger still to build system of courts or other
mechanisms based on treaties. Yet the courts, tribunals, and other
adjudicative bodies listed in the table that follows are such creatures.

It can be observed that some bodies are designed to have

worldwide jurisdiction, whether the dispute may be general or
special in nature. At the same time, there are general and special
tribunals that cover a smaller geographic base (such as a regional
court covering several neighboring countries). Lastly, there are
international tribunals of limited subject matter jurisdiction that
adjudicate on just one state (e.g., the International Criminal Tribunals
for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda).

Furthermore, most of these courts are first-instance courts, from

which no appeal is normally taken. There are exceptions, wherein
they serve as the appellate court of a certain issue or are subject to
review by a higher body.

Again, this is not an exhaustive listing, but one that is more

germane to the discussion of questions of international law.
TABLE 1.0
ADJUDICATIVE HQ Charter Jurisdiction
BODY [Years Active]
Covenant of the
League of
Nations; Statute
of the
Permanent Court of The Hague, Worldwide: General
Permanent
International Justice Netherlands disputes
Court of
International
Justice
[1922-1946]
Charter of the
United Nations;
International Court The Hague, Statute of the Worldwide; General
of Justice Netherlands International disputes
Court of Justice
[1945-present]
Worldwide: Criminal
prosecutions over cases of
genocide, crimes against
International The Hague, humanity, war crimes,
Rome Statute
Criminal Court Netherlands crimes of aggression, and
offences against the
administration of justice.

United Nations
International
Hamburg, Convention on Worldwide: Maritime
Tribunal on the Law
Germany the Law of the disputes
of the Sea
Sea
Crimes committed from
1991 to 2001 against
UN Security members of various ethnic
International
The Hague, Council groups in Croatia, Bosnia
Tribunal for the
Netherlands Resolution 827 and Herzegovina, Serbia,
former Yugoslavia
[1993-2017] Kosovo and the Former
Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia.
 ADJUDICATIVE HQ Charter Jurisdiction
BODY [Years Active]
Persons responsible for
genocide and other serious
United Nations violations of international
International Security humanitarian law
Arusha,
Criminal Tribunal Council committed in the territory
Tanzania
for Rwanda Resolution 955 of Rwanda and
[1994-2015] neighboring States,
between 1 January 1994
and 31 December 1994
United Nations
International The Hague,
Security
Residual Mechanism Netherlands Successor court to the ICTY
Council
for Criminal and Arusha, and ICTR supra
Resolution 1966
Tribunals Tanzania
[2010-present]
Article 17, Appeals taken from WTO
Appellate Body of Annex 2 of the panels set up under the
Geneva,
the World Trade Marrakesh auspices of the Dispute
Switzerland
Organization Agreement Settlement Body of the
[1994-present] WTO.
Relations between states,
Article 19, and between citizens and
European contracting states, on the
European Court of Strasbourg,
Convention on enforcement of the
Human Rights France
Human Rights Convention among the
[1959-present] member states of the
Council of Europe.
Interpretation and due
application of Treaties of
the European Union and of
the competent Community
Kirchberg, institution. Has jurisdiction
European Court of Luxembourg Treaty of Paris on disputes between
Justice City, [1952-present] member states and EU
Luxembourg institutions, and between
member states themselves.
Also, referrals on EU law
from the Constitutional
courts of member states