Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.625623
Title: Justice and finality in international judgments and awards : the ICJ, the WTO appellate body and ICSID
Author: Tsaroucha, L.
Awarding Body: University College London (University of London)
Current Institution: University College London (University of London)
Date of Award: 2011
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access through Institution:
Abstract:
This thesis addresses the ‘dilemma’ between justice and finality when the validity and effect of a judgment or an award of an international tribunal are challenged, whether by means of appeal, annulment or revision. The tension between the two principles has been misconstrued as a ‘dilemma’, whereas in reality they reflect a dynamic relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of international dispute settlement. Justice is the objective of international adjudication and arbitration, encompassing legality, legitimacy and effectiveness. Finality is a principle invented to support the attainment of justice, and to protect legal certainty against endless challenges. Finality without justice undermines legitimacy of a dispute settlement system. The context for this analysis is recent and conflicting tendencies relating to ICSID annulment proceedings in international investor-State arbitration. The annulment decision in CMS v. Argentina triggered serious concerns on how ‘errors’ and ‘lacunae’ in international judgments are left untreated, at a time when the rule of law has become a prime consideration in the international sphere too. The three jurisdictions examined highlight different aspects of this issue. The ICJ is the birthplace for revision of international judgments, and the principal judicial organ of the international community. The WTO AB is the only appellate mechanism functioning in State-State disputes in the international level. Finally, ICSID is the most prolific institutional arbitration forum in public international law, and its annulment procedure forms the terrain where the relationship between justice and finality is discussed more often. The thesis offers a revised theory of interpretation of the premises of legal recourse against international judgments, in the absence of a ‘World Appellate Court’. It concludes that justice as ‘rule of law’ and as ‘right process’ calls for manifest errors to be addressed by effective legal recourse. The principle of finality can only operate in furtherance of justice, not against it.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.625623  DOI: Not available
Share: