Continuing with the definition of international dispute resolution

Let us remember the definition given by Boczek:

“settlement of international disputes by international tribunals, implies the existence of a standing court of general or specialized jurisdiction, established pursuant to a multilateral, global or regional, treaty, in which independent and impartial judges render legally binding which independent and impartial judges render legally binding decisions on the basis of international law according to previously set rules and procedures, usually spelled out in the court’s statute, which guarantee the parties’ right to submit their views on the basis of full equality.”

The issue is regarding the first part, which is international tribunals, what is and who creates an international tribunal and whether a tribunal can be equated to an international court.

My point of view, and I guess it is shared with other scholars, is that tribunals and courts are created in order to resolve disputes and also to maintain the legal order, on a general view, the definition given embraces international tribunals as well as courts, but some nuances are between those two. Such will be covered on a next entry.

So keep up questioning what are those Courts and Tribunals on the international field.

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s