Advertisement

Substance of Relief

  • Katrin Fenrich
Chapter

Abstract

The third and final chapter will analyze the substance of relief and thus the legal outcome of each of the three proceedings. It will examine first, the remedial options of the individual (Sect. 4.1), second, the legal nature of the granted remedial awards (Sect. 4.2), and third, the possibilities to enforce these remedial awards (Sect. 4.3).

References

  1. Aceves, J. W. (2002). LaGrand (Germany v. United States). American Journal of International Law, 96, 210.Google Scholar
  2. Ambos, K. (2016). Treatise on international criminal law. Volume III: International criminal procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amerasinghe, C. F. (2003). Jurisdiction of international tribunals. The Hague/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, G. P. (2011). The International Criminal Court’s ineffective enforcement mechanisms: The indictment of president Omar Al Bashir. Fordham International Law Journal, 34, 1584.Google Scholar
  5. Bernhardt, R. (Ed.). (1994). Interim measures indicated by international courts. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bjørge, E. (2014). The evolutionary interpretation of treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blokker, N. M. (2019). International organizations or institutions, implied powers. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.Google Scholar
  8. Boerefijn, I. (1999). Follow-up of the views of the United Nations treaty bodies. In T. Barkhuysen, M. L. van Emmerik, & P. H. P. H. M. C. van Kempen, (Eds.), The execution of Strasbourg and Geneva human rights decisions in the national legal order. The Hague/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  9. Bossuyt, M. J. (1987). Guide to the “travaux préparatoires” of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Dordrecht/Boston/Hingham: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bradford, A., & Ben-Shahar, O. (2012). Efficient enforcement in international law. Chicago Journal of International Law, 12, 375.Google Scholar
  11. Brierly, J. -L. (1958). Sanctions. In H. Waldock & H. Lauterpacht (Eds.), International law. The basis of obligation in international law and other papers by the late James Leslie Brierly. Oxford: Scientia Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, C. (2007). A common law of international adjudicatioṇ Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brunnée, J. (2006). Enforcement mechanisms in international law and international environmental law. In U. Beyerlin (Ed.), Ensuring compliance with multilateral environmental agreements. A dialogue between practitioners and Academia. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  14. Cassese, A. (1998). On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law. European Journal of International Law, 9, 2.Google Scholar
  15. Cassese, A. (1999). The statute of the International Criminal Court: Some preliminary reflections. European Journal of International Law, 10, 144.Google Scholar
  16. Chimimba, T. P. (2002). Establishing an enforcement Regime. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The International Criminal Court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Ciampi, A. (2002). The obligation to cooperate. In A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, & J. R. W. D. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Volume II. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ciampi, A. (2016). Legal rules, policy choices and political realities in the functioning of the cooperation regime of the International Criminal Court. In O. Bekou & D. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court. Perspectives from theory and practice. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, L. (1992). Provisional and protective measures in international litigation. Receuil de Cours de l'Académie de droit international de La Haye, Volume III.Google Scholar
  20. Crawford, J. (2013). State responsibility. The general part. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dai, X. (2013). The “Compliance Gap” and the efficacy of international human rights institutions. In T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights. From commitment to compliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. A commentary. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Dugard, J. R. (2000). First report on diplomatic protection by the special rapporteur Mr. John R. Dugard. UN Doc. A/CN.4/506 and Add. 1.Google Scholar
  24. Dwertmann, E. (2010). The reparation system of the International Criminal Court. Its implementation, possibilities and limitations. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  25. Elkind, J. B. (1981). Interim protection. A functional approach. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Engström, V. (2009). Understanding powers of international organizations. A study of the doctrines of attributed powers, implied powers and constitutionalism: with a special Focus on the Human Rights Committee. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Eser, A., & Walther, S. (1996). Wiedergutmachung im Kriminalrecht; Reparation in Criminal Law Volume I. Internationale Perspektiven; International Perspectives. Freiburg im Breisgau: Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Ferstman, C. (2002). The reparation regime of the International Criminal Court: Practical considerations. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15, 667.Google Scholar
  29. Ferstman, C. (2016). Cooperation and the International Criminal Court: The freezing, seizing and transfer of assets for the purpose of reparations. In O. Bekou & D. J. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court: Perspectives from theory and practice. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  30. Garcia-Amador, F. V., Sohn, L. B., & Baxter, R. R. (1974) Recent codification of the law of state responsibility for injuries to aliens. Dobbs Ferry/Leiden: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Gardiner, R. K. (2008). Treaty interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ghandhi, S. (2007). The human rights committee and interim measures of relief. Canterbury Law Review, 13, 203.Google Scholar
  33. Gopalan, S., & Fuller, R. (2014). Enforcing international law: States, IOs and courts as shaming reference groups. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 39, 73.Google Scholar
  34. Graefrath, B. (1988). Menschenrechte und internationale Kooperation. 10 Jahre Praxis des Internationalen Menschenrechtskomitees. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Gray, C. D. (1987). Judicial remedies in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Guzman, A. T. (2008). International tribunals: A rational choice analysis. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157, 171.Google Scholar
  37. Guzman, A. T. (2010). How international law works. A rational choice theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2008). Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization, 62, 689.Google Scholar
  39. Harrington, J. (2003). Punting terrorists, assassins and other undesirables: Canada, the human rights committee and requests for interim measures of protection. Mc Gill Law Journal, 48, 55.Google Scholar
  40. Helfer, L. R., & Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107, 273.Google Scholar
  41. Higgins, R. (1998). Remedies and the International Court of Justice: An introduction. In M. D. Evans (Ed.), Remedies in international law. The institutional Dilemma. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Hirsch, M. (2017). Invitation to the sociology of international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Iwamoto (Lee), Y. (2002). The protection of human life through provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15, 345.Google Scholar
  44. Jennings, R. Y., & Watts, A. (2008). Oppenheim’s international law volume I peace. Parts 2 to 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Jones, A. (2016). Non-cooperation and the efficiency of the International Criminal Court. In O. Bekou & D. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court. Perspectives from theory and practice. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  46. Joseph, S., Benninger-Budel, C., Gyorki, L., & Mitchell, K. (2006). Seeking remedies for torture victims. A handbook on the individual complaints procedures of the UN treaty bodies. Geneva: World Organisation against Torture.Google Scholar
  47. Keller, H., & Marti, C. (2013). Interim relief compared: Use of interim measures by the UN human rights committee and the European Court of Human Rights. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 73, 325.Google Scholar
  48. Kelley, J. (2007). Who keeps international commitments and why?: The International Criminal Court and bilateral nonsurrender agreements. American Political Science Review, 101, 573.Google Scholar
  49. Kentsa, E. (2016). The enforcement of fines and forfeiture measures ordered by the International Criminal Court: the critical role of states. Judicial Tribune, 6, 77.Google Scholar
  50. Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., & Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54, 457.Google Scholar
  51. Klabbers, J. (2009). An introduction to international institutional law. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kolb, R. (2013). The International Court of Justicẹ Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Koldo, C. (2018, August 1). Supreme Court of Spain: UN treaty body individual decisions are legally binding. https://www.ejiltalk.org/supreme-court-of-spain-un-treaty-body-individual-decisions-are-legally-binding/
  54. Kress, C., & Sluiter, G. (2002). Fines and forfeiture orders. In A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, & J. R. W. D. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Volume II. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Krommendijk, J. (2015). The domestic effectiveness of international human rights monitoring in established democracies: The case of the UN human rights treaty bodies. The Review of International Organizations, 10, 489.Google Scholar
  56. Lando, M. (2017). Compliance with provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 8, 22.Google Scholar
  57. Lauterpacht, H. (1958). The development of international law by the international court. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. League of Nations. (1920). Procès-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the (Advisory) Committee (of Jurists), July 16th - July 24th 1920. With Annexes. Hague.Google Scholar
  59. Llamzon, A. P. (2007). Jurisdiction and compliance in recent decisions of the International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law, 18, 815.Google Scholar
  60. Lobba, P. (2015). Lubanga decision on victim’s reparations: Handing off the Hot Potato. In T. Mariniello (Ed.), The International Criminal Court in search of its purpose and identity. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Magid, P. (1997). The post-adjudicating phase - presentation by professor per Magid. In C. Peck & R. S. K. Lee (Eds.), Increasing the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court The Hague/Boston/Cambridge, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
  62. Mazzeschi, R. P. (2009). Impact on the law of diplomatic protection. In M. T. Kamminga & M. Scheinin (Eds.), The impact of human rights law on general international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. McCarthy, C. (2012). Reparations and victim support in the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. McCarthy, C. (2015). The Rome Statute’s regime of victim redress: Challenges and prospects. In C. Stahn (Ed.), Law and practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. McGoldrick, D. (1994). The human rights committee. Its role in the development of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  66. McQuigg, R. (2011). How effective is the United Nations committee against torture? European Journal of International Law, 22, 813.Google Scholar
  67. Meernik, J., Aloisi, R., Sowell, M., & Nichols, A. (2012). The impact of human rights organizations on naming and shaming campaigns. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56, 233.Google Scholar
  68. Mendelson, M. (2004). State responsibility for breach of interim protection orders of the International Court of Justice. In M. Fitzmaurice & D. Sarooshi (Eds.), Issues of state responsibility before international judicial institutions. Oxford, Portland: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/.
  70. Merrills, J. (1995). Interim measures of protection in the recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 44, 90.Google Scholar
  71. Merrills, J. (1998). Reflections on the incidental jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In M. D. Evans (Ed.), Remedies in international law. The institutional Dilemma. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. Miles, C. A. (2017). Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Mochochoko, P. (2002). International cooperation and judicial assistance. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The International Criminal Court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Muttukumaru, C. (2002). Reparation to victims. In R. S. Lee (Ed.), The International Criminal Court. The making of the Rome Statute: Issues, negotiations and results. The Hague: Springer.Google Scholar
  75. Naldi, G. (2004). Interim measures in the UN human rights committee. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53, 445.Google Scholar
  76. Nowak, M. (2005). U.N. Covenant on civil and political rights. CCPR commentary. Kehl/Arlington: N. P. Engel.Google Scholar
  77. Nowak, M., McArthur, E., Buchinger, K. (2008). The United Nations Convention against torture. A commentary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Oellers-Frahm, K. (1976). Zur Vollstreckung der Entscheidungen internationaler Gerichte im Völkerrecht. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV), 36, 654.Google Scholar
  79. Oellers-Frahm, K. (2001). Die Entscheidung des IGH im Fall LaGrand – Eine Stärkung der internationalen Gerichtsbarkeit und der Rolle des Individuums im Völkerrecht: Zum Urteil des IGH vom 27. Juni 2001 in der Rechtssache Deutschland gegen die USA im Fall LaGrand. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift, 28, 265.Google Scholar
  80. Oellers-Frahm, K. (2003). Souveräne Gleichheit der Staaten in der internationalen gerichtlichen Streitbeilegung? Überlegungen zu Art. 94 Abs. 2 und Art. 27 UN Charta. In T. Eitel & J. A. Frowein (Eds.), Verhandeln für den Frieden. Negotiating for Peace: liber amicorum Tono Eitel. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. Opsahl, T. (1992). The Human Rights Committee. In F. Megret & P. Alston (Eds.), United Nations and human rights. A critical appraisal. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  82. Orakhelashvili, A. (1999). Judicial competence and judicial remedies in the Avena Case. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, 31.Google Scholar
  83. Pasqualucci, J. M. (2013). The practice and procedure of the Inter-American court of human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Pasqualucci, J. M. (2005). Interim measures in international human rights: Evolution and harmonization. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 38, 1.Google Scholar
  85. Peters, A. (2017, May 5). “Vulnerability” versus “Plausibility”: Righting or wronging the regime of provisional measures? Reflections on ICJ, Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Order of 19 April 2017. EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/vulnerability-versus-plausibility-righting-or-wronging-the-regime-of-provisional-measures-reflections-on-icj-ukraine-v-russian-federation-order-of-19-apr/
  86. Reisman, W. M. (1969). The enforcement of international judgments. American Journal of International Law, 63, 1.Google Scholar
  87. Report of the Inter-Allied Committee on the Future of the Permanent Court of International Justice. (1945). American Journal of International Law, 39, 1.Google Scholar
  88. Rieter, E. (2010). Preventing irreparable harm. Provisional measures in international human rights adjudication. Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  89. Rosenne, S. (2006a). The law and practice of the international court 1920–2005. Volume I. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  90. Rosenne, S. (2006b). The law and practice of the international court 1920–2005. Volume III. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  91. Rudolf, B., Freeman, M. A., & Chinkin, C. M. (Eds.). (2012). The UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. A commentary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Rylatt, J. W. (2013). Provisional measures and the authority of the International Court of Justice: Sovereignty vs. Efficiency. Leeds Journal of Law and Criminology, 1, 45.Google Scholar
  93. Schabas, W. (2016). The International Criminal Court. A commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Schachter, O. (1960). The enforcement of international judicial and arbitral decisions. American Journal of International Law, 54, 1.Google Scholar
  95. Scheinin, M. (2004). The Human Rights Committee’s pronouncement on the right to an effective remedy - An illustration of the legal nature of the committee’s work under the optional protocol. In N. Andō (Ed.), Towards implementing universal human rights. Festschrift for the twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Human Rights Committee. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  96. Schulte, C. (2004). Compliance with decisions of the International Court of Justice. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Schwelb, E. (1968). Civil and political rights: The international measures of implementation. American Journal of International Law, 62, 827.Google Scholar
  98. Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of international courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Shelton, D. (2006). Remedies in international human rights law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Simma, B., Kahn, D.-E., Nolte, G., & Paulus, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Charter of the United Nations - Volume II. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Simmons, B. A. (2013). From ratification to compliance: Quantative evidence on the spiral model. In T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights. From commitment to compliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Sloss, D. (2006). Using international law to enhance democracy. Vanderbilt Journal of International Law, 47, 2.Google Scholar
  103. Sluiter, G., & Talontsi, S. (2016). Credible and authoritative enforcement of state cooperation with the International Criminal Court. In O. Bekou & D. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court. Perspectives from theory and practice. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  104. Smith-van Lin, L. (2016). Non-compliance and the law and politics of state cooperation: Lessons from the Al Bashir and Kenyatta Cases. In O. Bekou & D. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court. Perspectives from theory and practice. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  105. Stahn, C. (2015). Reparative justice after the Lubanga appeal judgment: New prospects for expressivism and participatory justice or ‘juridified victimhood’ by other means? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 13, 801.Google Scholar
  106. Swart, B., & Sluiter, G. (1999). The International Criminal Court and international criminal co-operation. In H. A. M. von Hebel, J. Lammers, & J. Schukking (Eds.), Reflections on the International Criminal Court. Essays in honour of Adriaan Bos. The Hague.Google Scholar
  107. Tanzi, A. (1995). Problems of enforcement of decisions of the International Court of Justice and the law of the United Nations. European Journal of International Law, 6, 539.Google Scholar
  108. Tardu, M. E. (1976). The protocol to the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights and the inter-American system: A study of co-existing procedures. American Journal of International Law, 70, 778.Google Scholar
  109. The Law Dictionary. http://thelawdictionary.org/.
  110. Thirlway, H. (1994). The indication of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Interim measures indicated by international courts. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  111. Thompson, A. (2013). Coercive enforcement of international law. In J. L. Dunoff & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations. The State of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Timm, B. (2001). The legal position of victims in the rules of procedure and evidence. In H. Fischer, S. R. Lüder, & C. Kress (Eds.), International and national prosecution of crimes under international law. Current developments. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts.Google Scholar
  113. Tomuschat, C. (1995). Making individual communications an effective to for the protection of human rights. In U. Beyerlin, M. Bothe, R. Hofmann, & E.-U. Petersmann (Eds.), Recht zwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung. Völkerrecht Europarecht Staatsrecht Festschrift für Rudolf Bernhardt. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  114. Triffterer, O. (2016). Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Observers’ Notes, Article by Article. München/Portland/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  115. Turlan, P. (2016). The International Criminal Court cooperation regime - a practical perspective from the office of the prosecutor. In O. Bekou & D. Birkett (Eds.), Cooperation and the International Criminal Court. Perspectives from theory and practice. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  116. Vandenhole, W. (2004). The procedures before the UN human rights treaty bodies. Divergence or convergence? Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  117. Warioba, J. S. (2001). Monitoring compliance with and enforcement of binding decisions of international courts. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 5, 41.Google Scholar
  118. Wiersing, A. (2012). Lubanga and its implications for victims seeking reparations at the International Criminal Court. Amsterdam Law Forum, 4, 21.Google Scholar
  119. Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C., & Oellers-Frahm, K., (Eds.). (2012). The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrin Fenrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed ConflictRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations