The Uncoordinated Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals in the Context of Complexity Theory

  • Onur UrazEmail author
  • Fatima Makhzoum
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


In today’s world order, the frequency of international interactions has reached a level that was once unthinkable. As a natural consequence, international law is one of the main areas affected. Nowadays, international dispute settlement mechanisms are more vital than ever and the numbers of these mechanisms are rising sharply. However, this sudden increase has led to a phenomenon that has created concern amongst international lawyers: the so-called ‘uncoordinated proliferation of international courts and tribunals.’ This study has two complementary aims: First, using complexity theory to explain this phenomenon and arguing why it does not pose a threat to the international legal system; second, discussing why complexity theory should be referred to more to decide the future of international adjudication.


The uncoordinated proliferation of international courts and tribunals International adjudication Complexity theory Complex adaptive systems 



  1. 1.
    Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US) (Merits) ICJ rep. 14 1986. Accessed 11 Aug 2014
  2. 2.
    Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), (Judgement) 27.02.1998. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  3. 3.
    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, Decision of 23.03.1995,\#{"itemid":["001-57920"]}. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  5. 5.
    Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, Judgement, Case No. IT–94–A-1, 15.07.1999. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  6. 6.
    Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Advisory Opinion), 28.05.1951. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  7. 7.
    The Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, (Advisory Opinion) 1996 ICJ rep. 246. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  8. 8.
    The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1, A.Ch., 2 October 1995. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  9. 9.
    The Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-R61, T. Ch I, Decision on 08.03.1996. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  10. 10.
    The Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic et al. (‘Celebici Case’), (Decision), Case No. IT-96-21-A, A.Ch., 20.02.2001, Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  11. 11.
    The Prosecutor v. Zigic et al. ‘Decision on the Defence “Motion regarding Concurrent Procedures before International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Court of Justice on the Same Questions’, Case No. IT-98-30/1, T.Ch., 5 December 2000. Accessed 4 Aug 2014
  12. 12.
    United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran) (Judgement), the ICJ (1980). Accessed 11 Aug 2014


  1. 13.
    Statement of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Plenary session of the General Assembly of the UN 26.10.1999, Accessed 7 Aug 2014
  2. 14.
    Statement of Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the UN General Assembly of 26.10.2000, Accessed 7 Aug 2014

Books and Chapters

  1. 15.
    Bodansky D, Diringer E (2010) The evolution of multilateral regimes: implications for climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. 16.
    Cryer R (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 17.
    Hashm SH (1997) Introduction. In: Hashm SH (ed) State sovereignty: change and persistence in international relations. Pensilvanya State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  4. 18.
    Highfield R, Coveney P (1996) Frontiers of complexity: the search for order in a chaotic world. Ballantine Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 19.
    Holland J (1995) Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Addison-Wesley Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 20.
    Kim R, Mackney B (2013) International environmental law as a complex adaptive system. Int Environ Agreements Polit Law Econ. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
  7. 21.
    Lauterpacht H (1975) The reality of law of nations. In: Lauterpacht E (ed) International law: being the collected papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 22.
    Lauterpacht H (ed) (1982) The development of international law by the international court. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 23.
    Lemkin R (1944) Axis rule in occupied Europe: laws of occupation – analysis of government – proposals for redress. Carnegie Endowment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 24.
    Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green, White River JunctionGoogle Scholar
  11. 25.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 26.
    Mégret F (2012) International law as law. In: Crawford J, Koskenniemi M (eds) The Cambridge companion to international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 27.
    Merrills J (1993) The development of international law by the European court of human rights, 2nd edn. Manchester University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 28.
    Miller J, Page S (2007) Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. 29.
    Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 30.
    Noortmann M, Ryngaert C (eds) (2010) Non-state actor dynamics in international law: from law-takers to law-makers. Ashgate Publication, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  17. 31.
    Romano CPR, Alter K, Shany Y (2014) Mapping international adjudicative bodies, the issues, and players. In: Romano CPR, Alter K, Avgerou C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. 32.
    Spain A (2013) International dispute resolution in an era of globalization. In: Byrnes A, Hayashi M, Michaelsen C (eds) International law in the new age of globalization. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  19. 33.
    Ungern-Sternberg A (2012) Religion and religious intervention. In: Fassbender B, Peters A (eds) The Oxford handbook of the history of international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar


  1. 34.
    Abi-Saab G (1998) Fragmentation or unification: some concluding remarks. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 31(4):919–933Google Scholar
  2. 35.
    Alvarez J (2009) A BIT on custom. N Y Univ J Int Law Policy 42(1):17–18Google Scholar
  3. 36.
    Arthur B, Durlauf S, Lane D (1997) (eds) The economy as an evolving complex system II, Introduction: process and emergence in the economy. Addison-Wesley, Accessed 7 Aug 2014
  4. 37.
    Beaulac S (2004) The Westphalian model in defining international law: challenging the myth. Aust J Legal Hist 8(2):181–213Google Scholar
  5. 38.
    Belcher M, Newton J (2005) International legal development: a complex problem deserving of a complex solution and implications for the CAFTA region. Southwestern J Law Trade Am 12:189Google Scholar
  6. 39.
    Born G (2012) A new generation of international adjudication. Duke Law J 61(4):775–878Google Scholar
  7. 40.
    Brandtner B, Rosas A (1998) Human rights and the external relations of the European community: an analysis of doctrine and practice. Eur J Int Law 9(3):467–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 41.
    Buergenthal T (2001) Proliferation of international courts and tribunals: is it good or bad? Leiden J Int Law 14:267Google Scholar
  9. 42.
    Burke-White W (2004) International legal pluralism. MIJL 25:972Google Scholar
  10. 43.
    Carty A (1998) The continuing influence of kelsen on the general perception of the discipline of international law. Eur J Int Law 9(2):344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 44.
    Charney JI (1998) The impact on the international legal system of the growth of international courts and tribunals. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 31:697–708Google Scholar
  12. 45.
    Dupuy P (1998) The danger of fragmentation or unification of the international legal system and the international court of justice. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 31(4):791–807Google Scholar
  13. 46.
    Fassbender B (1998) The united nations charter as constitution of the international community. Columbia J Trans Law 36(3):529–619Google Scholar
  14. 47.
    Gross J, McAllister R, Abel N, Smith D, Maru Y (2006) Australian rangelands as complex adaptive systems: a conceptual model and preliminary results. Environ Model Software 21(9):1264–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 48.
    Guillaume G (1995) The future of international judicial institutions. Int Comp Law Q 44(4):848–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 49.
    Henkin L (1991) Law and war after the cold war. Mich J Int Law 15:147–167Google Scholar
  17. 50.
    Henkin L (1999) Kosovo and the law of “Humanitarian intervention”. Am J Int Law 93:109–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 51.
    Hornstein D (2005) Complexity theory, adaptation, and administrative law. Duke Law J 54(4):913–960Google Scholar
  19. 52.
    Kingsbury B (1999) Foreword: is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals a systemic problem? N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 31:670–697Google Scholar
  20. 53.
    Koskenniemi M, Leino P (2002) Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden J Int Law 15(3):553–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 54.
    Lansin S (2003) Complex adaptive systems. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 55.
    Morton J (1999) The end of the cold war and international law: an empirical analysis. Glob Soc 1:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 56.
    Newman M (2011) Complex systems. Am J Phys 7:800–810CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 57.
    Oellers-Frahm K (2001) Multiplication of international courts and tribunals and conflicting jurisdiction – problems and possible solutions. 5 Max Planck 68 UNYBGoogle Scholar
  25. 58.
    Osiander A (2001) Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth. Int Organ 55(2):251–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 59.
    Pauwelyn J (2004) Bridging fragmentation and unity: international law as a universe of inter-connected islands. Michigan J Int Law 25:904Google Scholar
  27. 60.
    Pauwelyn J (2014) At the edge of chaos? Foreign investment law as a complex adaptive system, how it emerged and how it can be reformed. ICSID Rev 29(2):372–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 61.
    Pronto A (2008) Some thoughts on the making of international law. Eur J Int Law 19:601–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 62.
    Reed L (2002) Great expectations: where does the proliferation of international dispute resolution tribunals leave international law. Am J Int Law 96:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 63.
    Romano CPR (1997) The proliferation of international judicial bodies: the pieces of the puzzle. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 31(4):709–751Google Scholar
  31. 64.
    Ruhl J (2005) JB Ruhl’s “law-and-society system”: burying norms and democracy under complexity theory’s foundation. William Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 29:553–631Google Scholar
  32. 65.
    Ruhl J (1997) Thinking of mediation as a complex adaptive system. Brigham Young Univ Law RevGoogle Scholar
  33. 66.
    Ruhl J (2008) Law’s complexity: a premier. Georgia State Univ Law Rev 24:885–912Google Scholar
  34. 67.
    Shany Y (2009) No longer a weak department of power? Reflections on the emergence of a new international. Eur J Int Law 20(1):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 68.
    Shany Y (2014) Assessing the effectiveness of international courts. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 69.
    Shelton D (2006) Normative hierarchy in international law. Am J Int Law 100(2):291–323MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 70.
    Sloan B (1989) The United Nations charter as a constitution. Pace Year Book Int Law 1:61–126Google Scholar
  38. 71.
    Spelliscy S (2001) The proliferation of international tribunals: a chink in the armor. Columbia J Trans Law 40(1):143–175Google Scholar
  39. 72.
    Stoll T (2002) The swordfish case: law of the sea v. trade. ZAÖRV 62(1–2):21–35Google Scholar
  40. 73.
    Tams C, Tzanakopoulos A (2010) Barcelona traction at 40: the ICJ as an agent of legal development. Leiden J Int Law 23(4):781–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Online Resources

  1. 74.
    Background Information on the Responsibility to Protect, the United Nations, at Accessed 1 Sept 2014
  2. 75.
    Cases Section, International Court Of Justice, (7.08.2014). Accessed 11 Aug 2014
  3. 76.
    Council of Europe, ‘Margin of Appreciation’, Para 1. Accessed 7 Mar 2014
  4. 77.
    Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the ICJ as Compulsory. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
  5. 78.
    The List of Cases, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (7.08.2014). Accessed 11 Aug 2014

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southampton (LL.M)SouthamptonUK
  2. 2.The University of Glasgow (LL.B)GlasgowUK
  3. 3.Gazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.The University of Glasgow (LL.M)GlasgowUK
  5. 5.The University of Reading (LL.B.)ReadingUK

Personalised recommendations