The Debate Between Realism and Formalism in Contemporary International Law (Emphasizing the Procedure of the International Court of Justice)

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

10.48300/jlr.2023.393417.2324

Abstract

Legal realism and legal formalism as two methods of judicial decision-making in national and international courts have been hot theoretical and philosophical topics among writers, judges, and lawyers in recent decades. Both methods have supporters and each has presented arguments to strengthen their views. In this research, with a descriptive-analytical method and using the library method and using reliable internet sources to collect data, an attempt has been made to answer the question that contemporary international law is at the crossroads between realism and legal formalism Which way is it going and what method does the International Court of Justice, follow in issuing its opinions? The answer that we got in brief is that the debate between these two methods in contemporary international law and as a result in the opinions of the International Court of Justice, has not had a clearly defined winner. However, the tendency is more towards formalism.

Keywords

References

  1.  

     

    1. Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ Rep 2016(in English)
    2. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime Genocide , Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1996, 595 (Bosnian Genocide) (in English)
    3. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime Genocide (Croatian and Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Report 2008, 412(Croatian Genocide), 85(in English)
    4. Application of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2011, 70(in English)
    5. Arrest warrant 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo Belgium),Judgement 14 February 2002; (in English)
    6. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000(Democratic Republic of Congo Belgium), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002,3,[26] (in English)
    7. Aspremont, Jean ,FORMALISM and the sources of international law, a theory of ascertainment of legal rules, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011(in English)
    8. Blutman, L., “In the Trap of a Legal Metaphor: International Soft Law”, ICLQ59(3)(2010):605-624(in English)
    9. Boyle Alan and Chinkin, C., The Making of International Law , Oxford: Oxford university press, 2007 (in English)
    10. Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Jurisdiction, Judgment, 1925, PCIJ, Series A, No.6,14(in English)
    11. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Van Den Wyngaert (Arrest warrant case) (in English)
    12. Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Schwebel (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case) (in English)
    13. Ehrlich,E.,“Judicial Freedom of Decision: Its Principles and Objects”, in Science of Legal Method: Select essays, H. Drake et.al.(eds.), Boston: boston book corporation ,1969 (in English)
    14. General Assembly Resolution 49/75 K of 15 December 1994. (in English)
    15. Gilmore G. , “The Age of American Law”, New Haven and London , Yale University Press,1977(in English)
    16. Guilaume, Gilbert , “the use of precedent by international judges and arbitrators”, journal of international dispute settlement, vol 2(1)(2011):5-23(in English)
    17. Guzman, A.T. , “The Design of International Agreements”, EJIL, 16(2005): 579–612(in English)
    18. Higgins, R., “Problem and Process: International Law and How We Use It”, Oxford: Clarendon press, 1995(in English)
    19. Holmes , O. W. , “The Common Law”, New York: Dover Publications,1881 (in English)
    20. Hutcheson ,J.C., “The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of The ‘hunch’ in Judicial Decision”, Cornell Law Journal,vol.14(13)(1929):274-288(in English)
    21. International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996(in English)
    22. Koskenniemi, Martti, “International Law in a Post Realist Era”,The Australian Yearbook of International Law,vol.16, issue.1,1995(in English)
    23. Liber F., “Legal and Political Hermeneutics or Principle of Interpretation and Construction in Law and Politics”, California:Little Brown Press,1839(in English)
    24. Mavromatis Palestine Concessions, Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of August 30th, 1924, PCIJ, Series A, No 2 (Mavrommatis Case)34(in English)
    25. Miron, Alina “Establishing the existence of a dispute before the International Court of Justice: Between formalism and verbalism”, QIL, 45(2015):43-51(in English)
    26. Mohebbi ,Mohsen and Latifian mohammadhossein, “The Evolution of the Concept of “Dispute” in Light of the Marshall Islands Case before the ICJ”,international law Review, 61(2019):7-41(in Persian)
    27. Mohebi, Mohsen and Ebrahimi Loye,Soheila, “The New Haven School in International Law: Interaction between Power and International Law Revisited”, Rahbord Journal, 82(2017):181-206(in Persian)
    28. Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) ,Judgment,1974, ICJ Reports 253(in English)
    29. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) ,Judgment,1974, ICJ Reports 457(in English)
    30. Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Committee of Jurists, Documents Presented to the Committee Relating to Existing Plans for the Establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice, April 30, Hmso, London, 1920, Articles 15 Draft Schems Submitted on Behalf of Denmark, Norwegian And 17 Of Swedish And 2 of Neutral powers) (in English)
    31. Phalsaphi Hedayatollah, “the flow of reason in the international legal system”, Tehran:Farhang-e-Nashre No publisher, 2017(in Persian)
    32. Pound, R., “Address to The American Bar Association”, American Law Review, 40(1906) (in English)
    33. Prosecutor v Kupreskic, Case No. IT-95–16-T, 14 January 2000(in English)
    34. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) ,2012, ICJ Reports 422(in English)
    35. Rasekh, Mohammad, “A Critical Appraisal of Legal Foralism”, Legal Research Quarterly, 74(2016):69-84(in Persian)
    36. Rezadoost Vahid, “Passive’ and ‘ Active’ Approaches in the Judicial Policy of the International Court of Justice”, International Law Review, 65(2021): 31-56(in Persian)
    37. Rezadoost, vahid, “international court of justice, judicial procedure, legal policy”,Tehran: Negaah-e- Moaser publisher,2022(in Persian)
    38. Shafer Gregory, “The New Legal Realist Approach to International law” ,Leiden Journal of International Law, (Symposium on New Legal Realism), Vol. 28 (2) (2015):189-210(in English)
    39. Tamanaha, Brian Z., “The Third Pillar of Jurisprudence: Social Legal Theory”, William & Mary Law Review, 56 (2015), Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-04-01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2256622 (in English)
    40. Tumonis, Vitalius, “Legal Realism and Judicial Decision-Making”, Jurisprudence, 19(4) (2012):1361-1382(in English)
    41. Weber, M., “Economy and Society”, Roth, G., Wittich, C.(eds.) Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978(in English)
Journal of Legal Research
Volume 22, Issue 56
February 2024
Pages 85-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics