Permanent court of arbitration

      Permanent court of arbitration

Permanent court of arbitration, lists referees established by Convention for the peaceful payment of the international litigations, ratified by twenty-four nations at the time of the first of the conferences of the Hague, in 1899, and amended in 1907. Under the terms of Convention, each contracting nation designated four referees, registered near the Court for a six years mandate. The names of these members were published, and the nations engaged in a litigation used this list in order to compose a court of arbitration intended to regulate it. Court, which did not constitute a jurisdiction since its opinions were not essential on the parts, did not hold of plenary meeting. Its permanent character lay exclusively in the existence of a list of referees renewed periodically.

Before the First World War, the Court took part in the payment of fifteen cases, of which the arbitration on the fisheries of the coast of North America, between the United States and Great Britain (1910), and the arbitration on the deserters of Casablanca between Germany and France (1909). After the First World War, the majority of the nations estimated that the arbitration was not a satisfying mode of payment of the litigations, and the Court was solicited less and less often (the last returned arbitration goes back to 1932). The example and the reputation of the Court however exerted an influence significant on the decision to create the permanent Court of international justice in 1921.

The International Court of Justice of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice of the United Nations

1		PRESENTATION

The International Court of Justice of the United Nations, principal legal body of the United Nations, created in 1945, according to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to succeed the permanent Court of international justice. The Court functions in accordance with a statute which clean, is annexed to him with the Charter of the United Nations. Its principal task consists in ruling on the disagreements of a legal nature between nations; it cannot, so to be seized by a business by the action of a private individual. All the Member States of United Nations (UNO) left to the statute the International Court of Justice, just like the three States not members of UNO who are Switzerland, Liechtenstein and San Marino.A nation which did not leave to the statute the Court can resort to the latter if it accepts, on a purely general or particular basis, to subject itself to the obligations of a Member State of the United Nations.

2

ITS ROLE

In accordance with article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, there are two procedures making it possible to carry a disagreement before the Court. The first consists in resorting to the protocol of tender at the Court of the disagreement by the whole of the parts. The second relates to the unilateral application of the obligations with only one of the parts implied in a litigation. For example, a country can claim that its adversary was constrained by the terms of a treaty particular to yield, in the case of a litigation, with the authority of the Court. A clause stipulated in the statute of the Court can also allow  —without obliging for as much — the States left with the statute to recognize by advance like obligatory the jurisdiction of the Court in certain international disagreements. If two parts in conflict expressed their assent on the matter and that the litigation remains within the framework of the aforesaid agreement, one or the other of the parts can carry the disagreement before the Court.

In October 1985, president Ronald Reagan put officially fine at the followed policy of long date consisting in yielding automatically with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, thus bringing back to 43 the number of nations recognizing like obligatory the jurisdiction of the Court. The American initiative caused to weaken the Court, already handicapped by the refusal of the principal great powers, among which Soviet Union, China, France, West Germany and Italy to yield with its authority. The Court gives its judgements according to general principles' of the international law recognized by the nations civilized like according to the common laws and international payments governing the treaties and conventions accepted by the parts in litigation. The Court also calls upon the former court orders and the conclusions of highly qualified publicists who contributed to establish jurisprudence. The judgement of the Court, which must give a report on the reasons of its decision, is final and irrevocable, without any possibility of recourse. The Security Council of the United Nations is entitled to take measures in order to make apply the decision of the Court if the parts in litigation refuse to carry out the stop. Actually, the International Court of Justice has only few means to make carry out its decisions. As an example, in 1980, when the Court ordered in Iran to release 53 American hostages, its injunction remained without effect.

In addition to the arbitration of the litigations between nations, the Court can give advisory opinions, on legal questions, with the General meeting, the Security Council, and other specialized agencies, authorized by the General meeting to request these opinions.Within this framework, one can quote the judgement of the Court in 1962, according to which the expenditure intended to maintain peace in the popular Republic of Congo and in the Middle East represented the "expenditure of the organization" to pay by the Member States, according to the distribution established by the General meeting.

3

JUDGES

The Court made up of 15 judges, each one is elected in the majority absolute by the Security Council and the General meeting, each one of these two bodies voter without consulting the other. The judges are elected for nine years and can be re-elected. There cannot be two nationals of the same country. A judge can be revoked only by unanimous vote other judges, who do not represent their country but are elected according to their knowledge of the international law. The composition of the Court is supposed to reflect the principal forms of civilization and the great world legal systems. If there is not, at the time of a disagreement, of judge having same nationality as a part in litigation, this country can choose a judge to sit at the lawsuit. Last nine judges constitute a quorum and any question raised before the Court is solved in the majority of the judges present. The Court elects its own civils servant and names its clerks like its other representatives. The seat of the Court is located at the Hague, in the Netherlands.

European court of the humans right [ CEDH ]

European court of the humans right [ CEDH ]

1		PRESENTATION

European court of the humans right [ CEDH ], jurisdictional body international legatee by the European Convention of safeguard of the humans right and of fundamental freedoms adopted within the Council of Europe. Installation in 1959, the CEDH sits in Strasbourg.

The CEDH is charged to examine the complaints based on the violation, by a State signatory, provisions of the Convention of 1950.These actions can be brought as well by another State signatory as by an individual applicant (private individuals, groups of private individuals or nongovernmental organizations). It is in the possibility offered to a citizen to directly seize the Court and to obtain repair which the specificity of this international court resides.

The fields concerned relate as well to the repression of terrorism, the acts of torture, the custody, the respect of the private life, the access to justice, as for example on the safeguard of the natural and architectural inheritance or trade-union freedom.

2

HISTORY

It is at the following day of the Second World war, and in particular after the atrocities made by the mode Nazi, that many European countries get along on the need for subjecting to an international control the actions of the governments with regard to their own citizens. This awakening leads in 1950 to the signature of the European Convention of the humans right  —an international agreement engaging the States having ratified it—, whose principal originality is to institute a mechanism of control guaranteeing the respect by the States signatories of the obligations assumed by them.

With its creation, this mechanism of control is distributed between three bodies: a Commission, which operates primarily a filter while coming to a conclusion about the admissibility of the requests; a Court, which hands down a judgment final on the businesses which are submitted to him; a Committee of the ministers, charged on the one hand to make a final and constraining decision on the businesses which are not carried before the Court, and on the other hand to supervise the execution of its decisions or the judgments of the Court.

However, with the passing of years, this tripartite system appears insufficient and ineffective vis-a-vis an increasing number of complaints. Approximately 400 requests are recorded by the Commission in 1981 against 4 750 in 1997; this same year, the number of not recorded or provisional files opened by the Commission amounts to 12 000. This situation is explained in particular by the massive arrival within the Council of Europe of the Central European country and Eastern at the beginning of the years 1990  —the Council of Europe, which counted only 10 States at the time of its foundation in 1950, gathers 40 in 1998 of them.

In order to reduce the risks of clogging and to shorten the duration of the procedures, a reform is implemented in 1998, whose principal point is fusion in a single and permanent jurisdiction of the Commission and Court, which functioned before part-time. Within this new institutional framework, the Committee of the ministers does not have any more a judicial office and its role is limited to the control of the execution of the decisions of the Court.Moreover, whereas the right of individual petition was in the beginning subjected to certain conditions  —the States were to recognize it — the introduced reform makes this recognition obligatory.

3

ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

The Court is made up of a number of judges equivalent to the number of Member States of the Council of Europe. Completely independent, these judges do not represent any State. They are elected by the parliamentary Parliament of the Council of Europe for a six years mandate and are re-eligible. The procedure before the Court is contradictory and public.

The Court includes/understands three jurisdictional formations:a committee of 3 judges, a room of 7 judges and a Large Room of 17 judges. The committees have as a function to filter the recourse while ruling on their admissibility, i.e. on the conditions which allow the examination of the complaint. The principal conditions of admissibility are as follows: it is necessary to have exhausted all the possible grounds for appeal in front of the internal courts; the Court must be seized in the six months following the final rejection of the complaint brought in the country of origin; finally, the request must have a serious base.

If the request is accepted, it is transmitted to the room, which comes to a conclusion on the admissibility and the bottom and implements a procedure of amicable settlement. In the absence of an amicable settlement, the room hands down its judgment. This one is not final insofar as the procedure envisages, in exceptional cases, a possibility of reference in front of the Large Room.

Lastly, the Committee of the ministers supervises the execution of the judgments of the Court. All the final judgments of the Court are constraining for the States signatories of Convention.

It is following the Kruslin stop and Huvig of 1990 condemning the French State, that the latter worked out a law on the phone-tappings (law of July 10, 1990) which ensures from now on a protection of the right to the private life, such as it is guaranteed by Convention.

Court of Auditors

                   Court of Auditors

1

PRESENTATION

Court of Auditors, made up jurisdiction irremovable magistrates charged supervise the implementation of the budget of the State.

Created in 1807 by Napoleon I ^er, the Court of Auditors has two types of attributions, jurisdictional and administrative. Its jurisdictional mission consists in controlling the regularity of the accounts establish by the public accountants (national State and publicly-owned establishments); its administrative offices relate to the control of the good employment and the good management of the public funds.

2

ORGANIZATION

The Court of Auditors includes/understands seven rooms, specialized by sector (finances, defense, education, health, etc.) ; each room consists of about thirty magistrates and rapporteurs. It freely establishes its checking routine (independently of the executive power or legislative), according to a procedure inquisitoire. Each control is entrusted to one or more rapporteurs, who enjoy a very wide right of investigation. However, the procedure is also contradictory, the work of the rapporteur being submitted to the minority report of a main adviser. 

3

JURISDICTIONAL MISSION

The Court of Auditors is charged to control the accounts of the public accountants in the various services of the State. Except exception, it does not have to appreciate the fault of the accountant, but to note that an irregular expenditure was paid, that a receipt was not recovered. It is the direction of the proverb "the Court judges the accounts, not the accountants". It is moreover a judge of call for the decisions returned by the regional Rooms of the accounts which judge the accounts of the local communities. It returns various categories of stops (stop of discharge, stop of debit balance, stop of final discharge, stop in advance).

4

ADMINISTRATIVE MISSION

The Court of Auditors operates an administrative control on the directors of the budget of the State, on the public companies, the social welfare and in a more general way on all the organizations and associations which profit from financial contests of the State (public subsidies). In the event of irregularities observed, the Court addresses "observations" to the administrative authorities of supervision. Thus the Court of Auditors for example was interested in 1996 in management of the ARC, association of assistance to research against cancer. It thus pointed out that nearly 60 p. 100 of the gifts sent to association were devoted to the administrative expenditures of association and that a small share only went directly to research. It is by this type of reports/ratios that the Court has the most impact near the public opinion.

Each year, the Court of Auditors works out a public report/ratio with the president of the Republic, largely taken again by the press. One finds observations there on the way in which the public funds through significant examples are managed.

Large trade, the Court of Auditors is mainly made up of alumni of the national School of administration (ENA). Jacques Chirac, Michel Jobert or Pierre Joxe, who in were a First president of 1993 to 2001, began their career in the public office at the Court of Auditors. In 2001, it is François Logerot who was named with the head of this jurisdiction. Philippe Séguin succeeds to him in 2004.