2990
International Tribunals have a main raison d'être: to rule in contentious cases. The purpose of these courts is not to create law but to apply it. Moreover, judgments are mandatory only for the parties to the controversy -there is no stare decisis or biding precedent- and these decisions are no...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones
2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://www.derecho.uba.ar/publicaciones/pensar-en-derecho/revistas/7/la-creacion-de-derecho-por-parte-de-los-tribunales-internacionales-el-caso-especifico-de-la-corte-interamericana-de-derechos-humanos.pdf http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=pensar&cl=CL1&d=HWA_2990 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/pensar/index/assoc/HWA_2990.dir/2990.PDF |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | International Tribunals have a main raison d'être: to rule in contentious cases. The purpose of these courts is not to create law but to apply it. Moreover, judgments are mandatory only for the parties to the controversy -there is no stare decisis or biding precedent- and these decisions are not a main source of international law. However, reality shows a different picture because the judges end up creating law through their interpretation of the rules they are applying. This paper has two objectives: on one hand, to analyze the historical position that indicates that magistrates are not authorized to create international law and to study whether the interpretation of the law in the judgments is contradicting this rule. On the other hand, the paper will focus specifically on the IACtHR for two main reasons: 1) it has an extremely wide interpretation criteria and 2) the "control of conventionality" doctrine makes any standard established in any decision (judgements, provisional measures, advisory opinions) mandatory for all the States parties to the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), and not only to those who are parties to the specific case. The paper will conclude that even if international tribunals are not supposed to create international law, in the practice, at least the IACtHR is doing it and the States accept this. |
|---|