Dissenting Opinions at International Courts: Doctrine and Practice

  • Aleksey S. Ispolinov Moscow State University
Keywords: dissenting opinion, international courts and arbitrations, judicial independence, Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, judicial proceedings, judicial deliberations, collegiality, confidentiality

Abstract

In the article author critically assesses rile and significance of the dissenting opinions of the international judges and arbitrator pointing out its obvious insufficient coverage by the Russian scholar literature. An absolute majority of the authors looks at the dissenting opinions as either something non-significant or undisputable positive for international justice. At the same time activity of numerous international courts and arbitration provides extensive empirical data allowing to evaluate an impact of the dissenting opinions on the process of judicial deliberation and on the acceptance of the judgment of specific court and of the court itself by the parties of the dispute and by the states that created the court or tribunal in question. Assessing “pro” and “contra” arguments in relation to the dissenting opinions on the international justice, the author argues that the dissenting opinions continues to be a highly controversial feature of contemporary international justice. Obvious procedural uncertainty regarding admissibility of the dissenting opinions results in practical impossibility to separate “good” dissenting opinions from “bad” or “ugly” and true level of influence of the dissents remains to be determine by the inner restraints and a character of every judge discovering itself in a minority, and by the judicial culture and traditions of the courts in questions. Age of the court and its reputation and authority may present an effective shield against bad or ill-fated dissenting opinions. Newly-created courts may be less immune against such dissenters which may bring harm to the authority of the court and its legitimacy. A current practice of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union provide a persuasive example how unrestrained dissenting opinions may undermine integrity and collegiality of international court and thus the use of the dissents shall be either limited or fully forbidden or the dissents shall be used in a very responsible manner.

Author Biography

Aleksey S. Ispolinov, Moscow State University

Associate Professor, Head, Department of International Law, Moscow State University, Candidate of Juridical Sciences. Address: 1 Lenin Gory, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation. E-mail: ispolinov@inbox.ru

References

Anand P. (1965) The Role of Individual and Dissenting Opinions in International Adjudication. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 14, no 3, pp. 788-808.

Baudenbacher C. (2004) Judicialization: Can the European Model Be Exported to Other Parts of the World? Texas International Law Journal, vol. 39, p. 381-400.

Derains Y. (2012) The arbitrators' deliberation. American University International Law Review, vol. 27, p. 915.

Dumbauld E. (1942) Dissenting opinions in international adjudication. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 90 p. 929.

Hambro E. (1957) Dissenting and Individual Opinions in the International Court of Justice. ZoV, vol. 17, p. 229-248.

Kozheurov Ya. S. (2017) Voprosy prava miezhdunarodnoi otvetstvennosti v reshenii Suda EAES 21.02.2017 po delu “Russian Federation protiv Republic of Belarus” [Issues of the International Responsibility in the Decision of the EEU Court of February 21, 2017 in ‘The Russian Federation v. The Republic of Belarus' Case”]. Lex Russica, no 12, p. 94-112.

Laffranque J. (2003) Dissenting Opinion and Judicial Independence. Juridica International, vol. 8, p. 162-172.

Lewis M. (2006) The Lack of Dissent in WTO Dispute Settlement. Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 9, no 4, p. 895-931.

Martinez-Fraga P., Samra H. (2012) A Defense of Dissents in Investment Arbitration. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, vol. 43, p. 445-479.

Mistry H. (2015) The Paradox of Dissent: Judicial Dissent and the Projects of International Criminal Justice. Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 13, p. 449-474.

Neshataeva T. (2017) Sud Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza: ot pravovoy pozitsii k deystvuyushchemu pravu [The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: from Legal Position to the Effective Law]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no 2, p. 64-79.

Smbatian A.S. Resheniya organov mejdunarodnogo pravosudiya v sisteme mejdunarodnogo publichnogo prava [Decisions of International Justice Bodies in the System of International Public Law]. Moscow: Statut, 270 p. (in Russian)

Smbatian A.S. (2012) Osobye mneyia sudei i VTO: upuschennye vosmozhnosti [Dissenting Opinions of Judges and ITO]. Rossiyskiy vneshneeconomicheskyi vestnik, no 5, p. 78-84.

Tolstykh V. (2017) “Nebesnaya” i “zemnaya” zhizn' Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza: Obzor Resheniya ot 21 fevralya 2017 goda po delu o soblyudenii Belorussiey dogovora o EAES [The “Heavenly” and “Earthly” Life of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: A Review of the Judgment of the Court in the Case involving Belarus' Adherence to the Treaty on the EEU]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no 4, p. 18-25.

Van den Berg A. (2010) Dissenting Opinions by Party-Appointed Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration. Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law. Leyden: Brill, pp. 821-843.

Published
2018-03-03
How to Cite
IspolinovA. S. (2018). Dissenting Opinions at International Courts: Doctrine and Practice. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, (1), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2018.1.218.233
Section
Law in the Modern World