|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
International Law and International Organizations
Reference:
Kalamkaryan R.A.
The institution of peaceful resolution of disputes as an inherent element of modern international law. Part one.
// International Law and International Organizations.
2015. № 2.
P. 166-177.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=66477
Kalamkaryan R.A. The institution of peaceful resolution of disputes as an inherent element of modern international law. Part one.Abstract: The subject of this research is the institution of peaceful resolution of disputes in the modern international law. The system of international law represents a construct comprehensive in its form, and complete in content. The institution of peaceful resolution of disputes as an immanent part of world order based on the rule of law integrates a complex of generally accepted procedures: talks, examination, intermediation, resolution, arbitration, and trial. The author notes that a trial from the juridical point of view has full advantages over the other methods. A conclusion is made that the Russian Federation as a statement of its committal to the rule of law, within the framework of its course of foreign policy subsequently supports the elevation of the role of International Court of Justice as the main judicial authority of UN. Subjective positioning of the International Court of Justice defines itself in the format of institutionalized procedures on protection of law. Keywords: rule of law, International Court of Justice, UN, peaceful resolution of disputes, world, modern international law, foreign policy, Russian Federation, obligatory jurisdiction, law
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
References
1. CPJI (1938). Serie. A/B. N. 74. P. 22.
2. CPJI (1939). Serie. A/B. N. 77. P. 81. 3. Hudson M. Twenty-fourth year of the World Court // AJIL. 1946. Vol. 40. P. 34. 4. Sue E. Les actes juridiques unilateraux en droit international public. P., 1962. P. 144. 5. Hambro E. Some observations on the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ // BYBIL. 1948. L., 1948. Vol. 25. P. 140, 141. 6. Zoller E. La bonne foi en droit international public. Paris, 1977. P. 144. 7. CPJI. 1939. Serie A/B. N.77. P. 75. 8. SIJ. Recueil 1957. P. 27. 9. Suy E. Les actes juridiques unilateraux en droit international public. P., 1962. P. 142-147. 10. Rousseau Ch. Droit international public approfondi. P., 1958. P. 46. 11. Maus B. Les Reserves dans les declarations d*acceptation de la juridiction obligatoire de la CIJ. Geneve. P. 59-62. 12. Rosenne Sh. The International Court of Justice. Leiden, 1957. P. 315-318. 13. Waldock H. Decline of the Optional Clause // BYBIL. 1956. L., 1957. Vol. XXXII. P. 250-254. 14. Fitzmaurice G. The Law and Procedure of the ICJ//DYDIL.1957. L., 1958. Vol. XXXIII. P. 230, 231. 15. Guggenheim P. Trait de droit international public. Geneve, 1954-1959. Vol. 1. P. 75, 76. 16. Lauterpacht H. The development of international law by the International Court. L., 1958. P. 345. |
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
