The World Bank Administrative Tribunal has begun its second quarter-century with a jurisprudential flowering of extraordinary proportions. Mr. Hansen’s study, which builds on his earlier 25-year retrospective, comprehensively surveys the Tribunal’s numerous doctrinal developments during this time. In this article, which is part two of two, Mr. Hansen revisits two of the four subjects explored in his retrospective: (i) the role of general legal principles as a source of Tribunal law, particularly with respect to the Tribunal’s recent and extensive due process jurisprudence; and (ii) the role of external case law as a source of Tribunal law, including decisions from international courts, international administrative tribunals, international arbitral tribunals and national courts. Extensively footnoted, Mr. Hansen’s study is intended for both academics and practitioners specializing in international administrative law and comparative international jurisprudence.
See Hansensupra note 192 pp. 40–41 notes 155–159 discussing the Tribunal’s importation and use of Latin legal terms during the period 1981–2005.
See Hansensupra note 192 p. 49 note 200 and accompanying text (listing the Tribunal’s explicit statements of obiter dicta during the period 1981–2005).
See Hansensupra note 192 pp. 83–85 notes 343–349 and accompanying text (discussing the Tribunal’s adoption of the English concept of “legitimate expectations”).
See Hansensupra note 192 pp. 64–65 notes 266–273 and accompanying text which discuss the Tribunal’s review of ex gratia payments by the Bank to staff members during the period 1981–2005.
See Hansensupra note 192 pp. 66–73 notes 274–300 and accompanying text which discuss the détournement standards which the Tribunal applied or otherwise addressed from time to time between 1991 and 2004.
See Hansen The Next Chapter Part Isupra note 223 p. 222 note 81 and accompanying text.
See Hansensupra note 192 p. 81 note 339 and accompanying text (noting the Tribunal’s invocation of two arbitral precedents in a case from 2005 and stating that it “remain[ed] to be seen . . . whether the Tribunal will continue to welcome doctrinal contributions from the vigorous tradition of international arbitration and what impact such doctrines will have on the Tribunal’s jurisprudence”). It would appear that the invocation of three arbitral decisions in 2005 and 2006 (see infra note 392) was an isolated event although the door obviously will remain open to this rich source of jurisprudence.
See Hansen The Next Chapter Part Isupra note 223 pp. 233–234 notes 133–136 (discussing the Tribunal’s application of District of Columbia precedents in workers’ compensation cases as intended by the Staff Rules).
See Hansen The Next Chapter Part Isupra note 223 p. 213 note 50 and accompanying text.
See Hansen The Next Chapter Part Isupra note 223 p. 206 note 20 for the context in which the Tribunal’s statement was made.