This book contains a collection of essays by leading experts linked to the outstanding characteristics of the scholar in honour of whom it is published, Tullio Treves, who combines his academic background with his practical experiences of a negotiator of international treaties and a judge of an international tribunal. It covers international public and private law related to international courts and the development of international law. Under Article 38 of its Statute, the International Court of Justice can apply judicial decisions only as a “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law”. However, there are many reasons to believe that international courts and tribunals do play quite an important role in the progressive development of international law. There are a number of decisions which are inevitably recalled as the first step, or a decisive step, in the process of the formation of a new rule of customary international law. In these cases, can the judge be considered as a subsidiary of others? Are these cases compatible with the common belief that a judge cannot create law? Is this a peculiarity of international law, which is characterized by the existence of several courts but the lack of a legislator? Do decisions by different courts lead to the consequence of a fragmented international law? This volume provides the reader with an elaboration of various questions linked to the legislative role of courts. In their choices of subjects, some contributors have taken into account the general aspects of the development of international rules through court decisions or specific sectors of international law, such as human rights, international crimes, international economic law, environmental law and the law of the sea. Others have chosen the subject of the rules on jurisdiction and procedure of international courts. The question of the courts’ role in the development of areas of law different from public international law, namely private international law and European Union law, has also been considered. The information and views contained in this book will be of great value to academics, students, judges, practitioners and all others interested in the public and private international law aspects of the link between international courts and the development of international law.

This book, which originated from the broadly held view that there is a lack of Rule-of-law in Mexico, and from the emphasis of traditional academia on cultural elements as the main explanation, explores the question of whether there is any relationship between the system of constitutional review ― and thus the ‘law’ as such ― and the level of Rule-of-law in a given state. To do so, it elaborates a theoretical model for achieving Rule-of-law and compares it to the constitutional review systems of the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Mexico. The study concludes that the two former states correspond to the model, while the latter does not. This is fundamentally due to the role each legal system assigns to ordinary jurisdiction in carrying out constitutional review. Whereas the US and Germany have fostered the policy that constitutional review regarding the enforcement of basic rights is the responsibility of ordinary courts, Mexico has relied too heavily on the specialized constitutional jurisdiction.

This book examines the simultaneous protection of fundamental rights by various norms and jurisdictional organs, focussing on the multilevel protection of the principle of legality in Criminal Law.Written by accredited specialists in criminal law, constitutional law, international public law, and the philosophy of law, the majority of them ex-Counsels of the Spanish Constitutional Court, it addresses various manifestations of the principle of legality: the requirement of precision, the judicial subjection to law and the prohibition of bis in idem. It does so not only from a theoretical perspective, but also through a comparative study of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and state constitutional courts. This practical approach characterizes the book, which culminates in a detailed analysis of the relevant ECtHR Judgement Del Río Prada v. Spain on the retroactivity of unfavourable jurisprudence."Multilevel protection of the principle of legality in Criminal Law" is a useful instrument of reflection for scholars of both the principle of criminal legality and the problems that arise from the concurrency of protective jurisdictions of human rights.

This book provides a reference guide to the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Structured in two parts, it covers the case law on jurisdiction and procedure before the Court and the case law on the scope of particular rights, drawing comparisons with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Government responses to terrorism can conflict with the protection of human rights and the rule of law. By comprehensively looking at all aspects of counter-terrorism measures from a comparative perspective, this book identifies best practices and makes clear recommendations for the future.

The Rome Statute, unlike the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, creates a permanent court whose dormant jurisdiction covers the territory and includes the nationals of States Parties and is universal in cases where the Security Council makes a referral. Besides, unlike the "ad hoc" tribunals, which have jurisdiction over specific crisis situations whose personal, territorial and temporal parameters have been defined in their respective statutes by the UN Security Council, in the case of the ICC it is not possible to determine a priori in which situations the ICC will be involved. As a result, the most relevant activity of the Court is the determination of those situations regarding which the dormant jurisdiction of the Court will be triggered. The book "The Triggering Procedure of the International Criminal Court" constitutes the first comprehensive analysis of the proceedings that, prior to any criminal investigation, aim to make such a fundamental determination.