Cambridge University Press
0521851181 - Denial of Justice in International Law - by Jan Paulsson
Frontmatter/Prelims
Since the last comprehensive work devoted to denial of justice in international law was published in 1938, the possibilities for prosecuting this offence have evolved in fundamental ways. It is now settled law that States cannot disavow international responsibility by arguing that their courts are independent of the government. Even more importantly, the doors of international tribunals have swung wide open to admit claimants other than states: non-governmental organisations, corporations and individuals.
A vast number of new treaties for the protection of investment allow private foreign investors to seise international tribunals to claim denial of justice. This has given rise to intense controversy. There are those who consider that the very prospect of an international tribunal passing judgment on the workings of national courts constitutes an intolerable affront to sovereignty. Others believe that such must precisely be the role of international tribunals if the rule of law is to prosper.
The proponents of imperial might once found it convenient to drape the exercise of power in virtuous shrouds, as in the Don Pacifico affair in 1850, when Palmerston justified the seizure of all ships in the harbour of Piraeus (in retribution for the failure of the Greek government to grant redress to a British subject) by his Civis Romanus Sum oration in the House of Commons. Today gunships have been replaced by international tribunals, and so even those who have no might may have the right to seise international jurisdictions to question the conduct of courts in the most powerful countries. The tables may therefore be turned, as when the US in 2002 found itself taken to task on account of alleged denials of justice suffered by two Canadian investors at the hands of the courts of Massachusetts and Mississippi.
This book examines the modern understanding of denial of justice.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521851183
© Jan Paulsson 2005
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2005
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN-13 978-0-521-85118-3 hardback
ISBN-10 0-521-85118-1 hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for
the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third-party internet websites referred to in this book,
and does not guarantee that any content on such
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Acknowledgements | page viii | |
Authorities | ix | |
Abbreviations | xxv | |
1 | The renaissance of a cause of action | 1 |
2 | The historical evolution of denial of justice | 10 |
Absence of a universal standard | 10 | |
Right and might in the law of nations | 13 | |
Objections of weak states | 18 | |
The Calvo Doctrine and Clause | 20 | |
The impulse to limit the scope of denial of justice | 24 | |
Modern political realities | 26 | |
Summary | 36 | |
3 | Three fundamental developments | 38 |
State responsibility for the conduct of the judiciary | 38 | |
Denial of justice by non-judicial authority | 44 | |
Extension of locus standi | 53 | |
4 | The modern definition of denial of justice | 57 |
Overview | 57 | |
The difficult emergence of a general international standard | 59 | |
An evolving standard | 68 | |
Relationship with specific rights created by international law | 69 | |
No responsibility for misapplication of national law | 73 | |
Demise of substantive denial of justice | 81 | |
Judgments in breach of international law | 84 | |
Judgments in breach of national law | 87 | |
Confirmation of the distinction | 90 | |
State responsibility for subdivisions | 90 | |
Attempts at codification | 93 | |
Summary | 98 | |
5 | Exhaustion of local remedies and denial of justice | 100 |
The case for exhaustion | 100 | |
Loewen and the problem of waiver | 102 | |
Exhaustion as a substantive requirement of denial of justice | 107 | |
The qualification of reasonableness | 112 | |
Application of the reasonableness qualification in Loewen | 120 | |
No fresh starts at the international level | 126 | |
Effect of forks in the road | 127 | |
Summary | 130 | |
6 | Denial of justice by outside interference | 131 |
Jurisprudence under human rights treaties | 133 | |
Denial of access to justice | 134 | |
Absolute denial of access through state immunity | 138 | |
Targeted legislation | 147 | |
Repudiation by a state of an agreement to arbitrate | 149 | |
Governmental interference | 157 | |
Manipulation of the composition of courts | 163 | |
Excessive public pressure | 164 | |
Failure to execute judgments | 168 | |
Inadequate measures against perpetrators of crimes against foreigners | 170 | |
Wrongful measures of physical coercion | 173 | |
7 | Denial of justice by the decision-maker | 176 |
Refusal to judge | 176 | |
Delay | 177 | |
Illegitimate assertion of jurisdiction | 178 | |
Fundamental breaches of due process | 180 | |
Discrimination or prejudice | 192 | |
Corruption | 195 | |
Arbitrariness | 196 | |
Retroactive application of laws | 199 | |
Gross incompetence | 200 | |
Pretence of form | 202 | |
Summary | 204 | |
8 | Remedies and sanctions | 207 |
General principles: restitutio, damnum emergens, lucrum cessans | 207 | |
Vicarious damage and deterrence | 212 | |
Illustrative precedents | 215 | |
Amco II and proximate cause | 218 | |
The time value of money | 226 | |
Summary | 226 | |
9 | The menace of ‘obscure arbiters’? | 228 |
Anti-international challenges | 228 | |
Responses to the anti-international critiques | 232 | |
The urgency of prudence | 241 | |
Respect for the ‘obscure arbiter’ as a test of commitment to the international rule of law | 252 | |
The early American example | 256 | |
Conclusions | 261 | |
Summary | 265 | |
Bibliography | 266 | |
Index | 274 |
This study grew out of the three Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures given in Cambridge in November 2003. I thankfully acknowledge the encouragement and support of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, the founder of Cambridge University’s Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, and his successors as directors of the Centre, Professor James Crawford SC and Daniel Bethlehem QC.
I have benefited immensely from the constructive criticism and wise counsel of friends who have commented on the lectures and on their development into this volume. Since some of them prefer anonymity, all my expressions of gratitude will remain private.
Bilateral treaties and conventions | |
1667 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Great Britain and Spain, 13 May [1667–1668] Consolidated Treaty Series 63 | 13 |
1794 Jay Treaty between Great Britain and United States, 19 November, 8 Stat. 116 | 131, 258 |
1839 Convention for the adjustment of claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico between United States and Mexico, signed 11 April, ratified 7 April 1840, Moore, Arbitrations 4771 | 162, 202 |
1863 Convention for the settlement of claims between United States and Peru, signed 12 January 1863, ratified 18 April, Moore, Arbitrations 4786 | 169, 213 |
1866 Convention for a re-opening of the claims of citizens of the United States against Venezuela under the treaty of April 25, between the United States and Venezuela, signed 5 December 1885, 3 June 1889, Moore, Arbitrations 4810 | 23 |
1869 Convention for the settlement of claims between Mexico and the United States, signed 4 July 1868, ratified 1 February, Moore, Arbitrations 4773 | 23, 131 |
1871 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 8 May, J. B. Davis, Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of America and other Powers since July 4, 1776, at p. 678 | 262 |
1880 Convention concerning settlement of certain claims of the citizens of either country against the other between France and the United States, signed 15 January 1880, ratified 23 June, Moore, Arbitrations 4715 | 131, 260 |
1892 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Italy and Colombia, 27 October, reprinted in Ubertazzi, Galli and Sanna, Codice del diritto d’autore Article 21 | 21 |
1913 Treaty of 1913 between Honduras and Italy, 8 December, Trattati Convenzioni vol. XXII at p. 391 | 22–3 |
1991 Agreement between Argentina and France for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, July | 128 |
1999 Treaty concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment between the United States and Bahrain, 29 September, (2000) 39 ILM 252 | 70 |
Multinational treaties and conventions | |
1899 Convention for the Peaceful Resolution of International Disputes, adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference, The Hague, 29 July, [1898–1899] Consolidated Treaty Series 410 | 23 |
1902 Convention relative to the Rights of Aliens, Mexico City, 29 January | 24 |
1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Porter Convention), adopted at the Second Hague Peace Conference, The Hague, 18 October, [1907] Consolidated Treaty Series 234 | 22–3 |
1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Montevideo, 26 December 17 Article 8 | 17 |
© Cambridge University Press