Search Results

applies to normative systems targeted at well-functioning justice systems, sensitive to the protection of human rights and the need to defend commonly accepted values. 3 At a time of increased globalisation, examples of a judicial dialogue appear on the one hand inevitable and on the other highly

In: International Community Law Review
The Practice of International Criminal Tribunals
Judicial Dialogue on Human Rights offers a critical legal perspective on the manner in which international criminal tribunals select, (re-)interpret and apply the principles and standards formulated by the European Court of Human Rights. A part of the book is devoted to testing the assumption that the current practice of cross-referencing, though widespread, is incoherent in method and erratic in substance. Notable illustrations analysed in the book include the nullum crimen principle, prohibition of torture, hearsay evidence and victims’ rights. Another section of the book seeks to devise a methodologically sound ‘grammar’ of judicial dialogue, focussing on how and when human rights concepts may be transferred into the context of international criminal justice.

various type and level, I do not exclude the input of other participants in this type of discussion fora. Thus, it is a rather common perception, but I believe it to be more beneficial for the protection of human rights. Therefore, the leading motive of “a judicial dialogue in the human rights domain

In: International Community Law Review

in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR ), when addressing the subject of responsibility for hyperlinks, indirectly established a judicial dialogue with the CJEU . However, this was also done

In: International Community Law Review

1 Introduction This article argues that scholars and judges interact in what may be termed “scholarly-judicial dialogue” and that this “dialogue” contributes to the development of international law. “Dialogue” is taken to mean a back-and-forth process whereby one actor proposes an idea

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

1 Introduction Though judicial dialogue is identified mainly with cooperation between the European courts it is worth discussing its aspects at the international judiciary level, which also involves third countries. International law was developed through global dialogue and cooperation

In: International Community Law Review

Much has been written on the increasing significance of domestic courts in the international realm. However, the role of the Turkish constitutional judges in determining and orienting the relationship between international law and Turkish domestic law has rarely been subject to legal analysis. Literature on the involvement of the Turkish judges in transnational judicial dialogue is also almost non-existent. As far as the existing Turkish literature is concerned, much of the contemporary writing on the subject tends to focus on the hierarchical position of international agreements in the Turkish legal order. This paper intends to fill an important gap in the scholarship by providing an analysis of the decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) and by illuminating the TCC’s role as implementers or non-implementers of international law, and the scope of their participation in transnational judicial dialogue. Relevant sub-questions concern the extent to which the stance of the TCC’s judges may or may not alleviate concerns of the international community on the rule of law in Turkey, and whether their engagement in international law is substantial enough to limit and moderate the excesses of different political forces, including those in power, engaged in the domestic power struggle.

In: The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online

hand; and the existing horizontal ‘dialogue’ between Mercosur judges and international judges, on the other hand ( iii ) . 2 For the purposes of this article, ‘judicial dialogue’ can be broadly understood as judicial interaction, and encompasses not only an exchange of views between courts on a

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

It is on this background that we in this article study the judicial dialogue between the cjeu and ECtHR as it takes place in the form of one Court citing the other Court’s judgments as part of its legal reasoning when deciding cases. This is spurred by the question: how much are the two judiciaries

In: Nordic Journal of International Law
Standards on Judicial Scrutiny and Evidence in International and European Asylum Law
Author: Dana Baldinger
What do international and EU law require from the national asylum judge with regard to the intensity of judicial scrutiny to be applied and evidentiary issues? To answer that question, an analysis is made of the provisions on national judicial proceedings contained in the Refugee Convention (RC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Convention against Torture (CAT), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In addition, the assessment as performed by the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning the expulsion of asylum seekers is analysed.