Wiik Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals

1. Auflage 2018
ISBN: 978-3-8452-7592-5
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, Band 4, 734 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm

Reihe: Successful Dispute Resolution

Amicus curiae participation in international courts is steadily growing since the late 1990 despite lack of clarity on the concept’s nature, function and utility in international dispute settlement. Does amicus curiae infuse international judicial proceedings with alternative views, including the public interest in a case, as often advocated by NGOs? Does it increase the legitimacy and transparency of international dispute settlement, or the coherence of international law? Or is it an unhelpful impostor that impedes negotiated solutions and derails the proceedings at the expense of the parties to advance its own agenda?

By way of an empirical-comparative analysis of the laws and practices of the ICJ, the ITLOS, the ECtHR, the IACtHR, the IACtHPR, WTO panels and the Appellate Body, and investment arbitration the dissertation examines the status quo of amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals to determine if the current amicus curiae practice is of added value to international proceedings and international dispute settlement in general.

The dissertation shows that there is no common concept of international amicus curiae, but that amicus curiae before the international courts examined share a few characteristics. A proposed functional systematization highlights overlaps and diverging uses of the concept before international courts and helps scholars and practitioners to assess the opportunities and limits of the concept. Analysis of the concept’s current regulatory framework and its substantive effectiveness reveals a hesitation in particular by courts with a strong adversarial tradition to take into account the views of a non-party despite the positive experience with the concept in regional human rights courts. The dissertation concludes that neither the expectations nor the concerns attached to amicus curiae participation in international proceedings have materialized. It argues that the concept can contribute to improved decisions and decision-making in international dispute settlement if regulated and used properly.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Wiik, Astrid

Fachgebiete

• Rechtswissenschaften Internationales Recht und Europarecht Internationales Recht Internationales Zivilprozess- und Schiedsverfahrensrecht

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Cover;1
2; Chapter § 1 Introduction;25
2.1; A. Structure;29
2.2; B. Methodology;30
2.3; C. Scope of the study;34
3; Part I The ‘international’ amicus curiae;41
3.1; Chapter § 2 Great expectations? Presumed functions and drawbacks of amicus curiae participation;43
3.1.1; A. Presumed functions of amicus curiae;43
3.1.1.1; I. Broader access to information;43
3.1.1.2; II. Representation of ‘the’ public interest;47
3.1.1.3; III. Legitimacy and democratization;53
3.1.1.4; IV. Contribution to the coherence of international law;59
3.1.1.5; V. Increased transparency;62
3.1.2; B. Presumed drawbacks;64
3.1.2.1; I. Practical burdens;65
3.1.2.2; II. Compromising the parties’ rights;65
3.1.2.3; III. Politicization of disputes, de-legitimization and lobbyism;67
3.1.2.4; IV. Overwhelming developing countries;70
3.1.2.5; V. Unmanageable quantities of submissions;71
3.1.2.6; VI. Denaturing of the judicial function;72
3.1.3; C. Conclusion;72
3.2; Chapter § 3 An international instrument;73
3.2.1; A. Amicus curiae before national courts;74
3.2.1.1; I. The origins of amicus curiae;74
3.2.1.2; II. Amicus curiae before the English courts;76
3.2.1.3; III. Amicus curiae before the United States Federal Courts and the Supreme Court;81
3.2.1.4; IV. Internationalization: amicus curiae in civil law systems and in inter- and supranational legal instruments;86
3.2.1.5; V. Comparative analysis;90
3.2.2; B. Emergence and rise of amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals;91
3.2.2.1; I. International Court of Justice;91
3.2.2.2; II. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;100
3.2.2.3; III. European Court of Human Rights;103
3.2.2.4; IV. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;106
3.2.2.5; V. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;108
3.2.2.6; VI. WTO Appellate Body and panels;109
3.2.2.7; VII. Investor-state arbitration;115
3.2.3; C. Conclusion;121
3.3; Chapter § 4 Characteristics, status and function of amicus curiae before international courts;123
3.3.1; A. Characteristics of the international amicus curiae;123
3.3.1.1; I. A procedural instrument;124
3.3.1.2; II. A non-party and a non-party instrument;126
3.3.1.3; III. Transmission of information;129
3.3.1.4; IV. An interested participant;130
3.3.1.5; V. An instrument of non-state actors?;132
3.3.2; B. Functions of the international amicus curiae;132
3.3.2.1; I. Information-based amicus curiae;133
3.3.2.2; II. Interest-based amicus curiae;138
3.3.2.2.1; 1. International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;139
3.3.2.2.2; 2. European Court of Human Rights;140
3.3.2.2.3; 3. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;144
3.3.2.2.4; 4. WTO Appellate Body and panels;146
3.3.2.2.5; 5. Investor-state arbitration;148
3.3.2.2.6; 6. Comparative analysis;152
3.3.2.3; III. Systemic amicus curiae;152
3.3.2.4; IV. Analysis;154
3.3.2.4.1; 1. The myth of ‘the’ international amicus curiae;155
3.3.2.4.2; 2. An evolving concept;156
3.3.2.4.3; 3. Are there limits to the functions amici curiae may assume?;156
3.3.3; C. Amicus curiae and other forms of non-party participation;157
3.3.3.1; I. International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;159
3.3.3.2; II. WTO Appellate Body and panels;164
3.3.3.3; III. Investor-state arbitration;168
3.3.3.4; IV. Comparative analysis;171
3.3.4; D. Conclusion;172
4; Part II Commonalities and divergences: the procedural laws of amicus curiae participation;175
4.1; Chapter § 5 Admission of amicus curiae to the proceedings;177
4.1.1; A. Legal bases for amicus curiae participation;177
4.1.1.1; I. International Court of Justice;180
4.1.1.2; II. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;191
4.1.1.3; III. European Court of Human Rights;195
4.1.1.4; IV. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;197
4.1.1.5; V. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;200
4.1.1.6; VI. WTO Appellate Body and panels;202
4.1.1.6.1; 1. Panels;202
4.1.1.6.2; 2. Appellate Body;207
4.1.1.7; VII. Investor-state arbitration;213
4.1.1.7.1; 1. Clauses in investment treaties;213
4.1.1.7.2; 2. Clauses in institutional procedural rules;215
4.1.1.7.3; 3. Implied powers;222
4.1.1.7.4; 4. Ad hoc agreements;224
4.1.1.8; VIII. Comparative analysis;225
4.1.1.8.1; 1. Codification and informal doctrine precedent?;226
4.1.1.8.2; 2. Common regulatory approaches;227
4.1.2; B. Conditions concerning the person of amicus curiae;228
4.1.2.1; I. International Court of Justice;229
4.1.2.2; II. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;231
4.1.2.3; III. European Court of Human Rights;235
4.1.2.4; IV. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;241
4.1.2.5; V. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;246
4.1.2.6; VI. WTO Appellate Body and panels;247
4.1.2.7; VII. Investor-state arbitration;250
4.1.2.7.1; 1. Legal standards;250
4.1.2.7.2; 2. Application;253
4.1.2.8; VIII. Comparative analysis;261
4.1.3; C. Request for leave procedures;266
4.1.3.1; I. Formal requirements;269
4.1.3.1.1; 1. Timing;269
4.1.3.1.2; 2. Form and length;283
4.1.3.2; II. Substantive requirements concerning the application;284
4.1.3.2.1; 1. International Court of Justice;284
4.1.3.2.2; 2. European Court on Human Rights;284
4.1.3.2.3; 3. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;286
4.1.3.2.4; 4. WTO Appellate Body and panels;286
4.1.3.2.5; 5. Investor-state arbitration;287
4.1.3.2.5.1; a) Legal standards;287
4.1.3.2.5.2; b) Application;288
4.1.3.2.5.2.1; aa) Special knowledge or insight;289
4.1.3.2.5.2.2; bb) Within the scope of the dispute;292
4.1.3.2.5.2.3; cc) Significant interest in the arbitration;294
4.1.3.2.5.2.4; dd) Public interest in the subject matter of the arbitration;300
4.1.3.2.5.3; c) Assessment;303
4.1.3.3; III. Full discretion: decision on admissibility;304
4.1.3.4; IV. Comparative analysis;312
4.1.4; D. Conclusion;314
4.2; Chapter § 6 Amici curiae in the proceedings;317
4.2.1; A. Oral and written participation;318
4.2.1.1; I. International Court of Justice;318
4.2.1.2; II. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;319
4.2.1.3; III. European Court of Human Rights;320
4.2.1.4; IV. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;323
4.2.1.5; V. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;325
4.2.1.6; VI. WTO Appellate Body and panels;326
4.2.1.7; VII. Investor-state arbitration;328
4.2.1.8; VIII. Comparative Analysis;330
4.2.1.8.1; 1. Confidential and/or private nature of the dispute settlement mechanism;331
4.2.1.8.2; 2. Regulatory reasons;332
4.2.1.8.3; 3. Efficiency, costs and control;332
4.2.1.8.4; 4. Personal views of judges;332
4.2.2; B. Recorded participation;332
4.2.3; C. Formalization of participation;334
4.2.3.1; I. Form of written submissions;335
4.2.3.1.1; 1. Length;335
4.2.3.1.2; 2. Language;336
4.2.3.1.3; 3. Authentification;339
4.2.3.1.4; 4. Failure to comply;342
4.2.3.2; II. Comparative analysis;343
4.2.4; D. Substantive requirements and the content of submissions;345
4.2.4.1; I. International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;346
4.2.4.2; II. European Court of Human Rights;350
4.2.4.3; III. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;362
4.2.4.4; IV. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;369
4.2.4.5; V. WTO Appellate Body and panels;370
4.2.4.6; VI. Investor-state arbitration;381
4.2.4.6.1; 1. Legal standards;381
4.2.4.6.2; 2. Particular knowledge or perspective: human rights and EU law?;382
4.2.4.6.3; 3. Within the scope of the dispute;388
4.2.4.6.4; 4. Applicable law and its limits;393
4.2.4.7; VII. Comparative analysis;401
4.2.5; E. Submission of evidence;404
4.2.6; F. Access to documents;408
4.2.6.1; I. International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;409
4.2.6.2; II. European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;411
4.2.6.3; III. WTO Appellate Body and panels;412
4.2.6.4; IV. Investor-state arbitration;417
4.2.6.5; V. Comparative analysis;425
4.2.7; G. Conclusion;425
5; Part III The added value of the international amicus curiae;429
5.1; Chapter § 7 Does content matter? Substantive effectiveness of amicus curiae submissions;431
5.1.1; A. An obligation to consider?;433
5.1.2; B. International Court of Justice;435
5.1.3; C. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;440
5.1.4; D. European Court of Human Rights;443
5.1.5; E. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;450
5.1.6; F. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;459
5.1.7; G. WTO Appellate Body and panels;459
5.1.8; H. Investor-state arbitration;469
5.1.9; I. Comparative analysis;479
5.1.9.1; I. Why the hesitation?;482
5.1.9.2; II. Elements of successful briefs;484
5.1.9.3; III. Limits to the consideration of briefs;484
5.1.10; J. Conclusion;487
5.2; Chapter § 8 Effects on the international dispute settlement system;489
5.2.1; A. Effect on the relationship between the court, the disputing parties and the member states: amici curiae as evidence of an assertive international judiciary?;490
5.2.1.1; I. International Court of Justice;491
5.2.1.2; II. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;493
5.2.1.3; III. European Court of Human Rights and African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights;493
5.2.1.4; IV. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;493
5.2.1.5; V. WTO Appellate Body and panels;494
5.2.1.6; VI. Investor-state arbitration;499
5.2.1.7; VII. Comparative analysis;504
5.2.2; B. Public interest: amicus curiae as motor and evidence of an expanding judicial function?;504
5.2.2.1; I. International Court of Justice;507
5.2.2.2; II. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea;510
5.2.2.3; III. European Court of Human Rights;511
5.2.2.4; IV. Inter-American Court of Human Rights;512
5.2.2.5; V. WTO Appellate Body and panels;513
5.2.2.6; VI. Investor-state arbitration;517
5.2.2.7; VII. Comparative Analysis;521
5.2.2.7.1; 1. The right agent?;522
5.2.2.7.2; 2. Denaturation of judicial proceedings?;523
5.2.3; C. Amicus curiae as a tool to increase the legitimacy of international adjudication?;525
5.2.3.1; I. Procedural legitimacy;526
5.2.3.2; II. Substantive legitimacy;529
5.2.3.3; III. Conditions: representativity and accountability;531
5.2.4; D. Increased coherence? Impact on international law;535
5.2.5; E. Transparency: demise of confidentiality and access to the proceedings and case documents?;538
5.2.6; F. Impact on locus standi: amicus curiae as a precursor to international legal standing?;542
5.2.7; G. And the drawbacks?;546
5.2.7.1; I. Parties’ rights;547
5.2.7.1.1; 1. Due process;548
5.2.7.1.2; 2. Procedural fairness and equality between the parties;557
5.2.7.2; II. Practical burdens;561
5.2.7.2.1; 1. Right to a speedy trial and undue delay?;561
5.2.7.2.2; 2. Exploding costs?;562
5.2.8; H. Conclusion;567
5.3; Chapter § 9 Conclusion;569
5.3.1; A. What is it?;569
5.3.2; B. Added value of amicus curiae participation in international dispute settlement;571
6; Annex I: Cases with amicus curiae involvement;575
6.1; Methodology;575
7; Annex II;705
8; Bibliography;707