Related Posts: Defining International Justice: Defying the States´ Practice in International Law | The Challenge of Standardizing International Law Categories | Stand-Alone and Structural. Standing and Ad Hoc. The Constitutive Instruments of Int’l Courts | Difference between Arbitral and Judicial Courts | What is International Justice: An Academic Approach | What are International Courts and Tribunals? Internal Structure of International Courts and Tribunals | A Inteligência Artificial Escrevendo sobre Justiça Internacional
International Justice is a complex legal term whose definition varies depending on the context of its use. In this initial examination, International Justice is considered academically in relation to the specializations offered by the University of London’s Law Postgraduate Programme.
Within those 32 specializations, International Justice stands out, encompassing several specific courses. These courses pertain to Public International Law and deal with relationships between States or between States and individuals, covering areas like Human Rights, Criminal Law, and the Law of the Sea.
It can be deduced that International Justice comprises a concept wherein disputes arise from Public Law relations, involving rights and duties that are inalienable and aligned with the core principles and objectives of the United Nations Charter, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security.
Browsing the term Int´l Justice on the internet, it is noticeable that the results put up on the screens match that idea as far as the searches lead to news, information, blogs, and sites of the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, UN´s institutions seized of human rights cases in general.
There is also International Dispute Resolution in those specialisations, and upon looking into the courses required for that specialisation, it becomes evident that they are similar to those provided in the Int´l Justice specialisation. However, the noticeable difference is that the former comprehends commercial arbitration and Private International Law. Again, when looking up International Dispute Resolution (IDR) online, the search results display different subject matter from those related to international Justice. For instance, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), or the United Nations (UN) do not appear because those standing Tribunals are related to Public International Law disputes. Conversely, the search shows subjects about Arbitral Commercial Tribunals.
So, the internet search results concerning International Justice and International Dispute Resolution are consistent with the academic concepts of International Justice and International Dispute in that the former has public disputes as its object, whereas the latter concerns private disputes. Nonetheless, caution is needed when employing “public” and “private” in the domain of International Law and, accordingly, of International Justice and International Dispute Resolution, namely, from those with Civil Law as their law knowledge sources. That is because, although Roman Law has had some influence upon Common Law, it was not to the same extent as the Civil Law family. Thus, the ULPIAN´s distinction between public and private law is neither constant nor consistent in the International Law field, remarkably affected by Common Law. By the way, at least in its modern form, the origins of International Law is the Common Law. So, being well-established that Public Law concerns matters of direct interest to the State and Government administration, whereas Private Law deals with issues of private individual interests, those sorts of ideas do not fit perfectly within International Law concepts. For instance, a treaty on penal law may be a matter of Private International Law rather than Public International Law as it could be drawn from the domestic law standpoint.
For example, there is no doubt that, under the preview of the domestic legal systems of the States, penal law pertains to the domain of Public Law; notwithstanding, a treaty concerning penal law might fall under Private International Law instead of Public International Law. So, the Treaty on International Penal Law of 23 January 1889, ratified by Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay, is part of the Private International Law.
Academically, International Dispute Resolution has a broader scope than International Justice as it encompasses both Private and Public Law disputes, whilst the latter is limited to Public Law disputes.
It should be noted, however, that the aforementioned concept does not enjoy unanimous agreement. For instance, Merrills uses International Dispute Settlement to designate disputes under Public International Law, not including private arbitrations. However, can the concepts of Public and Private be utilized to differentiate International Justice as it is traditionally manifested in substantive International Law? This topic will be explored in the subsequent post. By now, the post can be concluded with a general conception of International Justice in very simple terms: International Justice is the branch of the Disputes in International Law.
International Justice is the branch of both Public and Private International where the principles, rules, and customs deals with the disputes avoidance and resolution in accordance with the rule of law.
