Comparative Reasoning in International Courts and Tribunals

Peat, Daniel

doi:10.1017/9781108233828

Cited by 55 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 173 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Effects also arise due to the inertia of the States when the interpretative criterion of an external nature involves the development of an application or provisions of a treaty (subsequent practice) (Buga, 2018;Peat 2019) (Abi-Saab, Keith, Marleau, Marquet, 2019) accepts the practice 135G. Nolte, Seecond Report, op.…”

Section: American Yearbook Of Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset v. quo tacet neque negat neque utique fatetur (he who remains silent is considered to consent, if he must and can speak v. he who remains silent neither rejects nor accepts-affirms)

Liakopoulos¹

2023

AYIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present work aims to analyze silence/acquiescence as a legal fact that constitutes a passive conduct and produces legal effects. The paper is divided into three parts. The first analyzes silence as a legal act in international law, translates the phenomenon of acquiescence and elaborates the relative doctrine and jurisprudence as well as the limits that this term presents. We continue with the acquisitive prescription and the silence in the formation of the treaties. It compares acquiescence in dispute resolution as well as the establishment of jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals. The waiver applies to the area of international responsibility of a State and the decision-making mechanisms within the opting-out procedure. Silence as a legal fact in stricto sensu integrates a qualified conduct to which the production of legal effects compose an institution of international law. The production of their legal effects contemplate the existence of an involuntary silence such as l'estoppel by silence and the extinguishing prescription. The jurisprudence from the ICJ and from arbitral awards is extensive and helps to better know and understand the institution of acquiescence and the importance that the silence of States has in contemporary international law.

show abstract

Section: American Yearbook Of Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset v. quo tacet neque negat neque utique fatetur (he who remains silent is considered to consent, if he must and can speak v. he who remains silent neither rejects nor accepts-affirms)

Liakopoulos¹

2023

AYIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31, paragraph, lett. c) of the Convention of Vienna on the law of treaties, interpreting: any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relation between the parties (…)" (Peat, 2019;Chang.Tung, 2019;Hollis, 2020;Fitzmaurice, Merkouris, 2020).…”

Section: American Yearbook Of Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ukraine crisis: Types of interventions, punishment of crimes and international law

Hill¹

2023

AYIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present work tries to analyze the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Ukrainian crisis. What kind of intervention can be done to the crime of genocide based as a precautionary appeal and with the aim of avoiding litigation? The practice already from the first months has shown that the dispute did not stop with a question to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a body not competent to resolve the dispute. Already the speed of the ICJ shows perhaps for the first time the commitment of the international community to be close to peoples who need their help. The jurisprudential history of the ICJ will shed light on the positions held by the first steps of the ICJ in relation to the controversy.

show abstract

“…1596 Differently put, it the words of Daniel Peat, "consensus may shield the Court from criticisms of subjectivity". 1597 I have been arguing against the conceptualisation of consensus as an "objective" argument throughout, but the point here is subtly different: the point is not (necessarily) that consensus is objective, but that it gives off an impression of objectivity. This is complicated terrain, for much nuance depends on how one understands the basic terms of debate such as "objective", 1598 "political", "strategic", and so on.…”

Section: Consensus and An Impression Of Objectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

European Consensus between Strategy and Principle

Theilen¹

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study offers a critical account of the reasoning employed by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly its references to European consensus. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Court’s case-law against the backdrop of human rights theory, it will be of interest to both practitioners and theorists. While European consensus is often understood as providing an objective benchmark within the Court’s reasoning, this study argues to the contrary that it forms part of the very structures of argument that render human rights law indeterminate. It suggests that foregrounding consensus and the Court’s legitimacy serves to entrench the status quo and puts forward novel ways of approaching human rights to enable social transformation.

show abstract

Comparative Reasoning in International Courts and Tribunals

Cited by 55 publications

References 173 publications

Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset v. quo tacet neque negat neque utique fatetur (he who remains silent is considered to consent, if he must and can speak v. he who remains silent neither rejects nor accepts-affirms)

Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset v. quo tacet neque negat neque utique fatetur (he who remains silent is considered to consent, if he must and can speak v. he who remains silent neither rejects nor accepts-affirms)

Ukraine crisis: Types of interventions, punishment of crimes and international law

European Consensus between Strategy and Principle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About