A common mistake made by those commencing to study international Justice is comparing it to the domestic judiciary organisation of the States. Such a comparison must be avoided because similarities between them are truly scarce.
International Justice is composed of standing (or permanent) adjudicatory institutions, such as the International Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights, and even of organised adjudicatory systems, such as the WTO-DSB (Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation) or the UNCLOS Settlement System (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). There are also adjudicatory institutions encapsulated in organisations that connect to exterior adjudicatory organisations. However, they are isolated situations that cannot be deemed to constitute an organisational judicial structure in International Law, both Public and Private.
Most of the International Justice is constituted of ad hoc bodies.
Indeed, it would not be appropriate to conclude that International Justice (taken in its broadest sense) is “disorganised.” That is because disorganisation presupposes that there is a system whose parts, pieces or components are in disarrange, contradicting the system’s logical principle. Looking at the International Courts, Tribunals and Arbitral Organisations (usually known as Commercial Arbitral Tribunals) de per si, some principles logically organise them under a Jurisprudence umbrella of International Law, precisely, the International Justice lato sensu.
Nevertheless, that organisation is not tantamount to arranging or building the international organisations or organs (charged with legal or adjudicatory mandate) under a domed judicial roof whose structure lays out a hierarchy in which a supreme international court is on the pinnacle, keeping international law coherent and integrate. The legal and judicial international units are autonomous (self-contained), disconnected from each other, and not inserted hierarchically within a normative or customary system. Int´l Justice is not arranged as an international organisation charged with dispute resolution mandate, with instances or organs subjected to a judicial hierarchy.
Some scholars see the absence of an international judicial system organised under a hierarchy, with an appeal system assuring the integrity of international law, and the rapid multiplication of international organisations with dispute settlement incumbency as problems. They point out the MOX Plant Case as a clear illustration of how chaotic International Justice may be.
To conclude, bear in mind that international Justice and domestic Justice are not alike, although they serve the same function as the rule of law mechanisms bound to prevent disruption of peace, economic disarrangements and human setbacks.
Last but not least, the guidelines for comprehending the pivotal difference between Domestic and International Justice lie in the fact that the former’s essence is the Principle of Sovereignty, whereas the latter’s is the Principle of Consent.
