International Court of Justice
Поможем в ✍️ написании учебной работы
Поможем с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой

The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1946, its main functions are to settle disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by the UN General Assembly or General Assembly or UN Security Council or Security Council, or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court.

This court is different from the International Criminal Court and the War Crimes Law (Belgium), both of which have been confused with the International Court of Justice.
The seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands or the Netherlands. It is composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is elected every three years. Each of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, the People's Republic of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court. Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges present. Article 38 of the Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations". It may also refer to academic writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions. If the parties agree, the Court may also decide ex aequo et bono, or "in justice and fairness", in which the Court makes a decision based on general principles of fairness rather than specific law.

 


Text 7

Foreign "long arm" Laws Can Reach Out to U.S Clients

By Clayton J. Joffrion

Most American lawyers know that extraterritorial jurisdiction began with Pennoyer v. Neff, which prohibited state courts from asserting personal jurisdiction over persons not within the territory. Sixty seven years later in International Shoe v. Washington the Supreme Court held that state courts could exercise jurisdiction over persons located outside the state if the defendant possessed "minimum contacts" with the state "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice".

The first "long arm statute" in the common law experience was in Great Britain's Common Law Procedure Act of 1852 which gave English courts discretionary power to summons absent defendants whether English or foreigners. The important fact is that Great Britain had what we call long arm statutes 93 years before the Supreme Court would recognize them. Furthermore, most former British colonies adopted the same principles into their laws.

The early history of long arm jurisdiction (called "exorbitant jurisdiction" elsewhere) in the United States was based upon Due Process analysis under the Constitution, but not so other countries. Does this make any difference? You bet your malpractice insurance it does! In order to appreciate this potential problem a real case out of Australia is offered for illustration.

HOW CAN A MISSOURI ACCOUNTANT BE SUED IN AUSTRALIA?
Consider the High Court case of Voth vs. Manildra Flower Mills PTY. Limited which was an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Donald Voth was an accountant who resided in Missouri (U.S.A.). The plaintiff, Manildra Flower Mills, had sold products to a related company in the U.S. with payments to include interest. Donald Voth rendered professional services to the related company and was alleged to have failed to "draw the attention of the related company" to the fact that it had to withhold taxes on interest paid by it to the company in New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that it was liable to reimburse the related company for the taxes, penalties, and interest, and that it had paid more Australian taxes than it would have if the withholding taxes had been paid on time.

 


Text 8

Дата: 2019-02-02, просмотров: 164.