"The expression 'general principles of law' has been given different meanings in the ntext of international law. Traditionally, international legal scholars have employed it in the sense of general principles gener-ally recognized in national law. Some others refer to the general principles of international legal relations, such as the principle of non-intervention and the prohibition of the use of force. In addition there are scholars who employ that term to mean legal principles recognized in all kinds of legal relations, that is, national law, international law, the law of international organizations, etc. Finally, a fourth group of scholars includes the principles of legal logic within the meaning of the term." © 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

ResearchGate Logo

Discover the world's research

  • 20+ million members
  • 135+ million publications
  • 700k+ research projects

Join for free

A preview of the PDF is not available

... Este trabajo parte de la convicción de que tal sistematización es necesaria. En efecto, delimitar las formas de autoría aplicables por la cpi resulta fundamental para cumplir con los principios que constituyen la base del derecho penal: por una parte, el principio de legalidad, que inter alia exige determinar si la contribución estaba efectivamente penada al momento de la comisión (Gallant, 2008); y, por otra, el principio de culpabilidad -a veces también llamado principio de responsabilidad penal individual-, que exige distinguir la actuación de quien cometió el crimen, quien cooperó con este y quien no tuvo una intervención penalmente relevante (Cassese, 2003;Raimondo, 2008). ...

  • Catalina Fernandez Carter Catalina Fernandez Carter
  • Andrea Jiménez Laurence

Este trabajo examina y sistematiza la jurisprudencia de la Corte Penal Internacional en materia de autoría, según se encuentra prevista en el artículo 25.3(a) del Estatuto de Roma. El objetivo es determinar si los criterios y requisitos de esta forma de responsabilidad en sus cuatro variantes (autoría directa, coautoría, autoría mediata y coautoría mediata) se encuentran bien asentados en las decisiones de la Corte Penal Internacional o si, por el contrario, existen aún aspectos en que se identifican imprecisiones o diferencias de criterio dentro de la Corte, que requieren ser aclaradas en los años venideros

... As it is analysed in legal doctrine, international courts and tribunals use two means to ascertain the content of the general principles of law: 1) using previous decisions; 2) in their absence, or if they choose not to rely on those decisions, with the help of comparative law, by appealing to legal doctrine, as well. 12 Comparative law method suggests to use the so-called "representative legal system" approach by applying principles of law which are common to the major legal systems of the world and are suitable for transposition into the international legal system. This process of transposition is inductive by its nature, where a principle found underlies rules in many national legal systems, while discounting the national differences of detail or procedure and isolating the basic uniform principle, which is common to all. ...

  • Hiromi Sato

The structures of international criminal law are especially complex with respect to the general principles of criminal responsibility. Besides the principle of legality, the general principles that may be considered binding on both international and national criminal proceedings are apparently restricted to those regarding command responsibility, superior order defense, and functional immunity of state officials. Customary international law on other general principles is applicable only to international judicial forums. Furthermore, even at the international level, there is a difference that leads the International Criminal Court (ICC) to mainly apply its own statute as a conventional law and ad hoc international criminal tribunals to apply customary international law. The substance of respective applicable laws varies with regard to topics, such as the subjective elements of crimes, the distinction between principals and accessories, command responsibility, attempt, conspiracy, and grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, including intoxication and duress, which appear problematic from the perspective of a systematic understanding of international criminal law. In some cases, however, it is apparently necessary to reflect the difference in the characteristics of applicable laws in the very substance of general principles, as is the case with the principle of mistake of law.

  • Daniel Peat Daniel Peat

The interaction between domestic law and international law is a topic of perennial interest for international lawyers. Domestic law has long been recognised as a source of international law, an inspiration for legal developments, or the benchmark against which a legal system is to be assessed. More often than not, it is simply treated as mere fact, indicative of the legality of a state's actions. Academic commentary invariably re-traces these well-trodden paths, leaving one with the impression that the interaction between domestic and international law has been thoroughly mapped, unworthy of further enquiry. However, a different – and surprisingly pervasive – nexus between the two spheres has been largely overlooked: the use of domestic law in the interpretation of international law. The present thesis fills this gap in the literature. This thesis aims to answer two questions: first, is domestic law used in the interpretation of international law by international courts and tribunals; and, second, is it permissible for courts and tribunals to use domestic law in this way? Despite their deceptively simple appearance, these questions raise issues that go to the very heart of interpretation itself. On what basis, for example, can we say that an interpretation is permissible in a certain context? Do the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) constrain the choice of interpretive methods, and do they provide a framework within which interpretation can – or must – be evaluated? Are there other frameworks for evaluation that more accurately describe when and why a particular interpretation will be accepted by its addressees and others within the legal regime? Only after adequately addressing these questions will it be possible to properly examine the use of domestic law by international courts and tribunals. This thesis is hence not a doctrinal exegesis of the place of domestic law within the Vienna Convention articles, nor does it provide an exhaustive typology of the uses of domestic law by international courts. Rather, it examines the use of domestic law in order to challenge the conventional views regarding the centrality of the Vienna Convention provisions to interpretation, whilst also providing a fresh perspective on the interaction between international and domestic law. It is only when we break free from the 'conceptual straightjacket' of Article 31 that we can truly understand whether domestic law has a place in the interpretation of international law.

  • Yarik Kryvoi
  • Shaun Matos

This article examines the principle of non-retroactive application of law, which prohibits the application of law to events that took place before the law was introduced. The application of this principle has become particularly controversial as states adopt stricter regulations to tackle climate change with retroactive effect, and investors challenge such regulations before international courts and tribunals. In the context of criminal law, the principle is widespread and has become a binding norm of international law. However, a survey of domestic jurisdictions and decisions of international courts and tribunals shows that that there is no general principle of international law which forbids the retroactive application of administrative law. Despite pronouncements of some international courts and tribunals to the contrary, states can conclude treaties and adopt administrative regulations with retroactive effect to pursue legitimate public policy objectives.

  • Christian Djeffal Christian Djeffal

What is the relation between law and time? How do international lawyers conceive law in time? This chapter aims to answer the question of how international law is situated in time in a paradigmatic fashion. Looking at social time—the common perception of time in society as opposed to individual or astronomical time—the law is an institution defining time but also relying on a temporal conception. The chapter establishes three basic paradigms of how international law has been situated temporally: the paradigm of atemporality, depicting law as eternal and unchangeable; the paradigm of temporality, defining law as ascertainable but changeable; and the paradigm of fluxus, defining the law as necessarily changing, unsteady and moving. The chapter shows how the understanding of international lawyers shifted from the paradigm of atemporality to the paradigm of temporality. It reviews the treatises of international legal scholars and the notion of peace in peace treaties from the 17th to the 20th century. The chapter then goes on to discuss whether there has been a second paradigm shift from the paradigm of atemporality to the paradigm of fluxus. For this purpose three cases are explored: the evolutive interpretation of the notion of security, the changing customary law on state immunities and the principle of sustainable development. The chapter concludes with the outlook of transcending the paradigmatic approach with a cubistic look at the relationship between law and time.

  • Md Tabish EQBAL

"Draft conclusion 3" of the first ILC report on the "general principles of law" expounds on two categories: general principles of law derived from national jurisdictions and those formed within the international legal system. This paper explores the drafting history of Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ's Statute to investigate whether the Advisory Committee of Jurists, entrusted to frame a statute for the international court, had conceived the idea that, apart from domestic legal systems, the international legal framework could form general principles of law, or whether they were reluctant to endorse such an open-ended formulation which would give more liberty to judges to apply these principles as per their whims and fancies. The paper argues that the dual categorization of the general principles of law by the ILC has no substantive roots in the preparatory history of the ICJ's Statute and therefore it is purely an innovation by the ILC.

  • Catalina Fernandez Carter Catalina Fernandez Carter
  • Andrea Jiménez Laurence

Este trabajo tiene por objeto analizar las decisiones de confirmación de cargos y sentencias definitivas pronunciadas por la Corte Penal Internacional, con el objeto de identificar los principales criterios que han sido identificados y aplicados por la Corte al momento de analizar la imputación de un individuo de quien se alega la comisión de un crimen de competencia de la Corte, sea como autor o partícipe. Para esos efectos, esta memoria comienza con una descripción de los modelos de responsabilidad individual que han sido aplicados en derecho penal internacional a lo largo de los años teniendo en cuenta que los tribunales penales internacionales han tratado las formas de autoría y participación de manera más bien disímil a lo largo del tiempo, especialmente durante los siglos XX y XXI. A continuación, se describen los criterios identificados que han sido considerados por la Corte Penal Internacional, tanto al momento de confirmar cargos como de condenar o absolver a los imputados de crímenes de su competencia. En esa sección se presenta también un análisis crítico de las decisiones y criterios, a fin de determinar si la Corte se ha atenido a lo dispuesto en su Estatuto, o por el contrario, ha excedido los términos del mismo en su ejercicio interpretativo. Este trabajo finaliza con las conclusiones, que recogen los principales avances logrados por la Corte Penal Internacional, y los desafíos que ésta enfrenta en lo sucesivo.

  • Shuo Feng
  • Wei Shen

This article reviews the major contribution made by Professor Bin Cheng, a leading scholar in international law and air space law in our time. The uniqueness of Professor Bin Cheng was his deep engagement with the international law scholarship as a Chinese scholar in his generation and his tremendous academic contribution in the field. This article revisits his major book – General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals , and connects his book with the time of crisis and anti-globalization faced by us right now. This book is highly relevant to international law scholarship, not only because of its relevance to the application of international law but also because of its methodology.

  • Sonja C. Grover

The full judgment is available at http:// 69. 94. 11. 53/ ENGLISH/ cases/ Gachumbitsi/ judgement/ judgement_ appeals_ 070706. pdf (last accessed February 5, 2009).