WEKO3
インデックスリンク
アイテム
米州人権裁判所の勧告的意見に見る課題
https://bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/6826
https://bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/68266a6add46-4744-4298-9079-8e3cdc1b4a70
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
BKSK280203 (613.6 kB)
|
|
| Item type | 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2018-05-01 | |||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||
| タイトル | 米州人権裁判所の勧告的意見に見る課題 | |||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||
| タイトル | Some Issues in the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights | |||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||||
| 資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||||
| 著者 |
齊藤, 功高
× 齊藤, 功高
|
|||||||
| 著者 | ||||||||
| 値 | SAITO, Yoshitaka | |||||||
| 所属機関 | ||||||||
| 値 | 文教大学国際学部 | |||||||
| 内容記述 | ||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||
| 内容記述 | International courts such as the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the African Court of Human Rights have contentious and advisory jurisdiction. With these jurisdictions, courts are given a legal basis to interpret the Conventions, to order and recommend actions in accordance with international law. However, the states have a strong tendency not to accept contentious jurisdiction of international courts. Due to this trend, international courts are unable to adjudicate many cases of litigation. Meanwhile, the advisory jurisdiction is a system in which the court can issue legal opinions without direct disputes between the parties. The judgment of the court has binding power, but the advisory opinion is not binding. Therefore, the states tend to seek advisory opinion rather than the appeal to contentious jurisdiction. Advisory opinions have become an important means of international courts. A court having advisory jurisdiction can hear many cases rather than a court having only contentious jurisdiction can. Even parties who can not submit a case under the contentious jurisdiction can submit it under advisory jurisdiction. The existence of advisory jurisdiction in a court specializing in human rights such as the Inter- American Court of Human Rights is aimed at clarifying applicable laws before a human rights violation dispute occurs between the state and individuals or groups in the human rights court it can. Therefore, it is possible to prevent disputes and to fulfill important law creative functions The advisory opinion provided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also has the significance of developing international human rights law as described above, but some problems are pointed out on the other hand. The problems pointed out are, firstly, whether the advisory jurisdiction is a disguised contentious jurisdiction, especially, whether advisory opinions are substantial adjudication for countries that do not accept the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and secondly, whether the court can choose the option not to issue an advisory opinion in response to a request for an advisory opinion. Chapter 1 describes the differences in the advisory jurisdiction in international courts and Chapter 2 discusses the issues raised by ICJ’s advisory opinion in the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Chapter 3 deals with cases in which the advisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights became an issue as a disguised contentious jurisdiction and its problems. At last, we will evaluate the advisory opinion of the court. |
|||||||
| 書誌情報 |
文教大学国際学部紀要 en : Journal of the Faculty of International Studies Bunkyo University 巻 28, 号 2, p. 21-37, 発行日 2018-01-31 |
|||||||
| 出版者 | ||||||||
| 出版者 | 文教大学 | |||||||
| ISSN | ||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | ISSN | |||||||
| 収録物識別子 | 09173072 | |||||||
| 著者版フラグ | ||||||||
| 出版タイプ | VoR | |||||||
| 本文言語 | ||||||||
| 値 | 日本語 | |||||||
| ID | ||||||||
| 値 | BKSK280203 | |||||||
