La Cour internationale de justice et la problématique des droits de l'homme

B- Effects of opposed judgments

The XIXe century was the century of the development of the right and the international arbitration. International justice was born at the XXe century with the permanent Court from international justice, become in 1945 the International Court of Justice. The international courts since then multiplied. This phenomenon translates a confidence increased in justice and makes it possible the international law to grow rich in increasingly various fields. It does not make any less run risks of race to the courts, sometimes called « forum shopping » and of contrariety of jurisprudence^139(*). The international jurisdictional overlappings increase moreover the risks of contrarieties of judgments, two courts being able to be seized jointly by the same question and to make decisions contradictory.

The systems of national laws for a long time had to face such problems. They solved them essentially by creating authorities of call or cassation. The international system is in this respect deprived fort. Thus, as we saw, the penal court for ex-Yugoslavia, while ruling at the bottom of the Tadic business, recently drew aside the jurisprudence created by the International Court of Justice in the disagreement having opposed in front of it Nicaragua to the United States of America.

Whatever the appreciation which one can carry on this solution, contradiction thus raised shows the risks obviously that the unit of the international law court because of multiplication of the jurisdictional authorities. Judge Gilbert GUILLAUME estimates, to avoid these contradictions that before creating a new jurisdiction, the international legislator should wonder whether the functions which it intends to entrust to the judge could not advantageously be filled by an existing jurisdiction. As for the magistrates themselves, they must become aware of the danger of fragmentation of the right, even of jurisprudential inconsistency born from the multiplication of the courts. A dialog interjudiciaire is essential. The International Court of Justice, legal body principal of the United Nations, is ready to get busy there if the means are given to him. One sometimes suggested entrusting to the Court the responsibility to know in call or cassation of the judgments given by all the other courts. Such a solution would however imply a strong political good-will of the States of which it is not certain that it exists. Or, would not be advisable it to encourage the various jurisdictions to ask in certain businesses of the advisory opinions for the Court via the Security Council or of the General meeting ? ^140(*)

* ¹³⁹ Gilbert GUILLAUME  : Speech in front of the General meeting of the United Nations on October 30, 2001.

* ¹⁴⁰ Gilbert GUILLAUME  : Speech in front of the General meeting of the United Nations on October 26, 2000.

See also for more information  : Daniel SOULEZ-LARIVIERE and others,  «  Progress and limits of international justice  », Our justice. The book of French justice, ED. Robert LAFFONT, 2002, p. 385  ; Gilbert GUILLAUME  :  «  The International Court of Justice at the dawn of the XXe century. The glance of a judge  », ED., A. PEDONE, 2003, p. 26.