1 / 26

Vorlesung Völkerrecht II Friedliche Streitbeilegung

Vorlesung Völkerrecht II Friedliche Streitbeilegung. Prof. Dr. Andreas Zimmermann, LL.M. (Harvard). Grundsatz der friedlichen Streitbeilegung.

tknox
Download Presentation

Vorlesung Völkerrecht II Friedliche Streitbeilegung

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Vorlesung Völkerrecht IIFriedliche Streitbeilegung Prof. Dr. Andreas Zimmermann, LL.M. (Harvard)

  2. Grundsatz der friedlichen Streitbeilegung • Nach Art. 2(3) UN Charta der Vereinten Nationen legen alle Mitglieder ihre internationalen Streitigkeiten durch friedliche Mittel so bei, dass der Weltfriede, die internationale Sicherheit und die Gerechtigkeit nicht gefährdet werden • Nach Art. 33 (1) UN Charta kann dies durch Verhandlung, Untersuchung, Vermittlung, Vergleich, Schiedsspruch, gerichtliche Entscheidung, Inanspruchnahme regionaler Einrichtungen oder Abmachungen oder durch andere friedliche Mittel eigener Wahl erfolgen

  3. Friedliche Streitbeilegung vor dem IGH Obwohl Art. 33 (1) UN Charta verschiedene Maßnahmen aufzählt, wird aus Art. 33 (6) UN Charta deutlich, dass der Internationale Gerichtshof das klassische Beispiel für die friedliche Streitbeilegung ist

  4. Parteifähigkeit Nach Art. 34 IGH Statut sind nur Staaten sind berechtigt, als Parteien vor dem Gerichtshof aufzutreten.

  5. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (1) Art. 36 IGH-Statut (1) Die Zuständigkeit des Gerichtshofs erstreckt sich auf alle ihm von den Parteien unterbreiteten Rechtssachen sowie auf alle in der Charta der Vereinten Nationen oder in geltenden Verträgen und Übereinkommen besonders vorgesehenen Angelegenheiten.

  6. Zuständigkeit Die klassische Definition für eine Streitigkeit, gab der Ständige Internationale Gerichtshof (StIGH) im Mavrommatis Fall (Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. UK), 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 3 (Aug. 30)): “A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons.”

  7. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (1) Compromis: Special Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark, 2 February 1967 Article 1: The International Court of Justice is requested to decide the following question: (1) What principles and rules of international law are applicable to the delimitation as between the Parties of the areas of the continental shelf in the North Sea which appertain to each of them beyond the partial boundary determined by the above-mentioned Convention of 9 June 1965? (2) The Governments of the Kingdom of Denmark and of the Federal Republic of Germany shall delimit the continental shelf in the North Sea as between their countries by agreement in pursuance of the decision requested from the International Court of Justice.

  8. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (1) ICJ, Qatar v. Bahrain, ICJ Reports 1994, S. 121: “Accordingly, and contrary to the contentions of Bahrain, the Minutes are not a simple record of a meeting, similar to those drawn up within the framework of the Tripartite Committee; they do not merely give an account of discussions and summarize points of agreement and disagreement. They enumerate the commitments to which the Parties have consented. They thus create rights and obligations in international law for the Parties. They constitute an international agreement.”

  9. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (1) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: Article 22 “Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.”

  10. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (1) European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Article 1: “The High Contracting Parties shall submit to the judgment of the International Court of Justice all international legal disputes which may arise between them including, in particular, those concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.”

  11. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (2) Art. 36 (2) IGH Statut Die Vertragsstaaten dieses Statuts können jederzeit erklären, dass sie die Zuständigkeit des Gerichtshofs von Rechts wegen und ohne besondere Übereinkunft gegenüber jedem anderen Staat, der dieselbe Verpflichtung übernimmt, für alle Rechtsstreitigkeiten über folgende Gegenstände als obligatorisch anerkennen: a) die Auslegung eines Vertrags; b) jede Frage des Völkerrechts; c) das Bestehen jeder Tatsache, die, wäre sie bewiesen, die Verletzung einer internationalen Verpflichtung darstellt; d) Art und Umfang der wegen Verletzung einer internationalen Verpflichtung geschuldeten Wiedergutmachung.

  12. Zuständigkeit nach Art. 36 (2) Cameroon v. Nigeria, Prelimary Objections (ICJ Reports 1998, p. 291): “Any state party to the Statute, in adhering to the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with article 36, paragraph 2, accepts jurisdiction in its relations with states previously having adhered to that clause. At the same time, it makes a standing offer to the other parties to the Statute which have not yet deposited a declaration of acceptance. The day one of those states accepts that offer by depositing in its turn its declaration of acceptance, the consensual bond is established and no further condition needs to be met.”

  13. Unterwerfungserklärung Haiti Haiti: On behalf of the Republic of Haiti, I recognize the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice as compulsory. (signed) F. Addor, Consul.

  14. Vorbehalte nach Art. 36 (3) Art. 36 (3) IGH Statut: Die oben bezeichnete Erklärung kann vorbehaltlos oder vorbehaltlich einer entsprechenden Verpflichtung mehrerer oder einzelner Staaten oder für einen bestimmten Zeitabschnitt abgegeben werden.

  15. Unterwerfungserklärung Deutschland (1) Erklärung nach Artikel 36 Abs. 2 des IGH-Statuts 1. Die Regierung der BRD erkennt im Einklang mit Artikel 36 Abs. 2 des IGH Statuts die Zuständigkeit des IGH von Rechts wegen und ohne besondere Übereinkunft gegenüber jedem anderen Staat, der dieselbe Verpflichtung übernimmt, bis zu einem an den Generalsekretär der Vereinten Nationen gerichteten Widerruf, der vom Zeitpunkt der Notifikation sofortige Wirkung entfaltet, für alle Streitigkeiten, die nach dem Datum dieser Erklärung entstehen, in Bezug auf Situationen oder Tatsachen, die auf das genannte Datum folgen, an, mit Ausnahme von: (i) Streitigkeiten, hinsichtlich derer sich die Streitparteien geeinigt haben oder einigen, sie durch ein anderes Mittel der friedlichen Streitbeilegung beizulegen, oder hinsichtlich derer sie übereinstimmend ein anderes Mittel der friedlichen Streitbeilegung gewählt haben;

  16. Unterwerfungserklärung Deutschland (2) (ii) Streitigkeiten, welche a) die Verwendung von Streitkräften im Ausland, die Mitwirkung hieran oder die Entscheidung hierüber betreffen, daraus herrühren oder damit in Zusammenhang stehen oder b) die Nutzung des Hoheitsgebietes der Bundesrepublik Deutschland einschließlich des dazugehörenden Luftraumes sowie von deutschen souveränen Rechten und Hoheitsbefugnissen unterliegenden Seegebieten für militärische Zwecke betreffen, daraus herrühren oder damit in Zusammenhang stehen;

  17. Unterwerfungserklärung Deutschland (3) (iii) Streitigkeiten, bezüglich derer eine andere Streitpartei die obligatorische Gerichtsbarkeit des Internationalen Gerichtshofs nur im Zusammenhang mit oder für die Zwecke der Streitigkeit angenommen hat, oder in Fällen, in denen die Annahme der obligatorischen Gerichtsbarkeit des Gerichtshofs im Namen einer anderen Streitpartei weniger als zwölf Monate vor der Einreichung der Klageschrift, mit der die Streitigkeit beim Gerichtshof anhängig gemacht wird, hinterlegt oder ratifiziert wurde. 2. Die Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland behält sich ferner das Recht vor, einen der vorstehenden Vorbehalte oder einen späteren Vorbehalt jederzeit durch eine an den Generalsekretär der Vereinten Nationen gerichtete Notifikation mit Wirkung vom Zeitpunkt dieser Notifikation zu erweitern, zu ändern oder zu widerrufen.

  18. Unterwerfungserklärung Indien (1) Unterwerfungserklärung Indiens vom 15. September 1974: “I have the honour to declare, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of India, that they accept, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate such acceptance, as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, and on the basis and condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over all disputes other than: (1) Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method or methods of settlement; (2) Disputes with governments of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations; (3) Disputes in regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Republic of India;

  19. Unterwerfungserklärung Indien (2) (4) Disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to aggression, fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies, and other similar or related acts, measures or situations in which India is, has been or may in future be involved; (5) Disputes with regard to which any other party to a dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice exclusively for or in relation to the purpose of such dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court‘s compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of a party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than 12 months prior to the filling of the application bringing the dispute to the Court; (6) Disputes where the jurisdiction of the Court is or may be founded on the basis of a treaty concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, unless the Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction in each case;

  20. Unterwerfungserklärung Indien (3) (7) Disputes concerning the interpretation of application of a multilateral treaty unless all the parties to the treaty are also parties to the case before the Court or Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction in each case; (8) Disputes with the government of any State with which, on the date of an application to bring a dispute before the Court, the Government of India has no diplomatic relations or which has not been recognized by the Government of India; (9) Disputes with non-sovereign States or territories.

  21. Unterwerfungserklärung Indien (4) (10) Disputes with India concerning or relating to: The status of its territory or the modification or delimination of its frontiers or any other matter concerning boundaries; The territorial sea, the continental shelf and the margins; the exclusive fishery zone, the exclusive economic zone, and other zones of national maritime jurisdiction including for the regulation and control of maritime pollution and the conduct of scientific research by foreign vessels; The condition and status of its islands, bays and gulfs and that of the bays and gulfs that for historical reasons belong to it; The airspace superjacent to its land and maritime territory; and The determination and delimination of its maritime boundaries (11) Disputes prior to the date of this declaration, including any dispute the foundations, reasons, facts, causes, origins, definitions, allegations or cases of which existed prior to this date, even if they are submitted or brought to the knowledge of the Court hereafter

  22. Zuständigkeit und erga omnes/jus cogens Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo, ICJ Reports 2006, para. 64 “The Court observes, however, as it has already had occasion to emphasize, that ‘ergaomnes character of a norm and the rule of consent to jurisdiction are two different thing’ (East Timor, Portugal v. Australia, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29), and that the mere fact that rights and obligations ergaomnesmay be at issue in a dispute would not give the Court jurisdiction to entertain that dispute. The same applies to the relationship between peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) and the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction; the fact that the case with regard to the prohibition of genocide, cannot of itself provide for a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain that dispute. Under the Court’s Statute that jurisdiction is always based on the consent of the parties.”

  23. Einstweilige Maßnahmen LaGrand Fall (Germany v. United States of America), ICJ Reports 2001, p. 502-503: “The context in which article 41 has to be seen within the Statute is to prevent the Court from being hampered in the exercise of its functions because the respective rights of the parties to a dispute before the Court are not preserved. It follows from the object and purpose of the Statute, as well as from the terms of article 41 when read in the context, that the power to indicate provisional measures entails that such measures should be binding, inasmuch as the power in question is based on the necessity, when the circumstances call for it, to safeguard, and to avoid prejudice to, the right of the parties as determined by the final judgment of the Court. The contention that provisional measures indicated under article 41 might not be binding would be contrary to the object and purpose of that article”.

  24. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening, 3 February 2012 THE COURT, (1) By twelve votes to three, Finds that the Italian Republic has violated its obligation to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945; […] (2) By fourteen votes to one, Finds that the Italian Republic has violated its obligation to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni; […]

  25. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (3) By fourteen votes to one, Finds that the Italian Republic has violated its obligation to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law by declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts based on violations of international humanitarian law committed in Greece by the German Reich; […] (4) By fourteen votes to one, Finds that the Italian Republic must, by enacting appropriate legislation, or by resorting to other methods of its choosing, ensure that the decisions of its courts and those of other judicial authorities infringing the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law cease to have effect; […] (5) Unanimously, Rejects all other submissions made by the Federal Republic of Germany. [...]

  26. Durchsetzung des Urteils Artikel 94 Charta der Vereinten Nationen (1) Jedes Mitglied der Vereinten Nationen verpflichtet sich, bei jeder Streitigkeit, in der es Partei ist, die Entscheidung des Internationalen Gerichtshofs zu befolgen. (2) Kommt eine Streitpartei ihren Verpflichtungen aus einem Urteil des Gerichtshofs nicht nach, so kann sich die andere Partei an den Sicherheitsrat wenden; dieser kann, wenn er es für erforderlich hält, Empfehlungen abgeben oder Maßnahmen beschließen, um dem Urteil Wirksamkeit zu verschaffen.

More Related