Abstract
In considering the use of force outside the parameters of the U.N. Charter, the expression “illegal, but legitimate” has been used, in particular in the Goldstone report.1 In that context, legitimacy as opposed to legality is used to indicate a judgement based on values different from those of conformity with the law. These values include moral principles such as the safeguarding of human life and dignity. “Legitimate” indicates a perception of acceptability in light of these values.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned, 2000, at 164.
T. Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions, 1995, at 30–46. In the following, I will refer to this book. Franck has, however, addressed legitimacy in a number of other works, especially The Power of Legitimacy among Nations, 1990; and, most recently, “The Power of Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Power: International Law in the Age of Power Disequilibrium”, AJIL 100 (2006), 88–106. 170
P.-M. Dupuy, “L’unité de l’ordre juridique international, Cours général de droit international public”, Recueil des cours, vol. 297, 2002, 9 at 405, ftn. 813 observes that Franck’s notion of legitimacy is closer to the notion of legality as traditionally understood in European political and legal philosophy than to the notion of legitimacy upheld by that philosophy.
See D. Bodansky, in this volume, p. 309 at 310 et seq.
Franck, Fairness, note 2, at 26.
Franck, Fairness, note 2, at 30–31.
ICJ Reports 1996, 226. Adoption with the casting vote of the President may by itself raise questions of legitimacy, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
ICJ Reports 1996, 583, para.s 7 and 9 at p. 584.
ICJ Reports 1996, 282, at p. 283.
Franck, Fairness, note 2, at 34.
Franck, Fairness, note 2, at 39.
G. Abi-Saab, “Cours général de droit international public”, Recueil des Cours 207 (1987-VII), 9, at 271.
Franck, Fairness, note 2, at 331.
Abi-Saab, note 12, at 272.
P.-M. Dupuy, note 3, at 476.
T. Treves, “Judicial Lawmaking in an Era of “Proliferation” of International Courts and Tribunals: Development or Fragmentation of International law?”, in: R. Wolfrum/ V. Röben (eds), Developments of International Law in Treaty Making, 2005, 587–620; id., “Le Tribunal international du droit de la mer dans la pléiade des juridictions internationales”, in: O. Delas, R. Côté, F. Crépeau & P. Leuprecht (eds.), Les juridictions internationales: complémentarité ou concurrence?, 2005, 9–39.
See the stimulating essay by R. Kolb, “General Principles of Procedural Law”, in: A. Zimmermann, Ch. Tomuschat & K. Oellers-Frahm (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary, 2006, 793–835.
Case concerning questions of interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the aerial incident at Lockerbie, Libya v. United Kingdom, Libya v. United States, provisional measures, Orders of 14 April 1992; ICJ Reports 1992, 114 and Judgements on preliminary objections of 27 February 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, 9. (see in particular the dissent by Judge Jennings, p. 99, espe. p. 108).
Franck, note 2, at 331.
Franck, note 2, at 41.
Appellate Chamber, Decision on the Defence motion for interlocutory appeal on Jurisdiction, the Prosecutor v. D. Tadic, 2 October 1995, 35 ILM 32 (1996).
The Political Use of Unilateral Applications and Provisional Measures Proceedings, in: Verhandeln fuer den Frieden, Negotiating for Peace, Liber Amicorum Tono Eitel, Frowein, Schariot, Winkelmann & Wolfrum, eds., 2003, 463–481.
Order of 10 July 2002, 41 ILM 1175 (2002).
Judgement of 6 November 2003, Iran v. United States, 42 ILM 1334 (2003).
Case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (new application 2002), judgement of 3 February 2006, 45 ILM 562 (2006).
41 ILM 1197 (2002) para. 16.
41 ILM 1199 (2002).
42 ILM 1429 (2003), para. 5.
42 ILM 1379(2003), para. 26.
42 ILM 1391 (2003), para. 35.
42 ILM 1404 (2003), para. 9.
42 ILM 1417 (2003), para.s 38–39.
On these cases, T. Treves, “’straddling and Highly Migratory Flags’ before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea”, in: S. Charnovitz, D. P. Steger & P. Van der Bossche (eds.), Law in the Service of Human Dignity, Essays in Honor of Florentino Feliciano, 2005, 323–335, espe. 325–331.
Emphasis added. Statement by Professor Crawford on behalf of Australia, The Volga Case, Russian Federation v. Australia, (Judgement of 23 December 2002, ITLOS Reports 2002, p. 10) Oral Proceedings, ITLO Seychelles v. France, judgement of 18 December 2000, ITLOS Reports 2000, 86.S/PV 02/ 02 12, at 21 (Dec. 12, 2002), http://ITLOS.org/cgi-bin/cases/case_detail.pl?id=11& lang=en.
Panama v. France, judgement of 7 February 200, ITLOS Reports 2000, 10, Anderson, J. & Wolfrum, J., dissenting at p. 50, 66.
Seychelles v. France, judgement of 18 December 2000, ITLOS Reports 2000, 86. at para. 79. Judge Anderson in his dissenting opinion states that: “This “factual background” is relevant in balancing the respective interests of France and the applicant”.
The Volga Case, note 34, at para 68.
Crawford, pleading for Australia. The Volga case, note 34, at 18.
The Volga case, note 34, at para 69.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea-Bissau, Judgement of 18 December 2004, ITLOS Reports 2004, 4 at para. 87.
P.-M. Dupuy, “The Judicial Policy of the International Court of Justice”, in: F. Salerno (ed.), Il ruolo del giudice internazionale nell’evoluzione del diritto internazionale e comunitario, 1995, 61–82.
Emphasis added. The resolution, adopted on 31 October 1997, can be read in ITLOS, Basic Texts/Textes de base (2005), 2005, 71.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Treves, T. (2008). Aspects of Legitimacy of Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. In: Wolfrum, R., Röben, V. (eds) Legitimacy in International Law. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 194. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77764-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77764-9_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-77763-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-77764-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)