Fragmentation is one of the major debates within international law, but no detailed case studies have been made to show the problems that it creates, and how they can be addressed. This book asks whether the growing number of international judicial bodies render decisions that are largely consistent with one another, which factors influence this (in)consistency, and what this tells us about the development of international law by international courts and tribunals. It answers these questions by focusing on three areas of law: genocide, immunities, and the use of force, as in each of these areas different international judicial entities have dealt with cases stemming from the same situation and set of facts. The work focuses on four main courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which often interpret, apply, and develop the same legal principles, despite their different mandates and functions. It argues that judicial fragmentation is damaging to the international legal system, as coherent and compatible pronouncements on the law by international courts are vital to retaining the confidence of the international community. Ultimately, the book makes a plea for the importance of judicial integration for the stability and reliability of the international legal system.

In recent decades there has been a considerable growth in the activities of international tribunals and the establishment of new tribunals. Furthermore, supervisory bodies established to control compliance with treaty obligations have adopted decisions in an increasing number of cases. National courts further add to the practice of adjudication of claims based on international law. While this increasing practice of courts and supervisory bodies strengthens the adjudicatory process in international law, it also poses challenges to the unity of international law. Most of these courts operate within their own special regime (functional, regional, or national) and will primarily interpret and apply international law within the framework of that particular regime. The role of domestic courts poses special challenges, as the powers of such courts to give effect to international law, as well as their actual practice in applying such law, largely will be determined by national law. At the same time, both international and national courts have recognised that they do not operate in isolation from the larger international legal system, and have found various ways to counteract the process of fragmentation that may result from their jurisdictional limitations. This book explores how international and national courts can, and do, mitigate fragmentation of international law. It contains case studies from international regimes (including the WTO, the IMF, investment arbitration and the ECtHR) and from various national jurisdictions (including Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the UK), providing a basis for conclusions to be drawn in the final chapter.

Exploring the role of the International Court of Justice in the re-convergence of international law, this book contends that the court's jurisprudence is transforming traditional concepts such as sovereignty, rights and jurisdiction and in so doing is leading a trend towards the reunification of international law.

This volume deals with the tension between unity and diversification which has gained a central place in the debate under the label of ‘fragmentation’. It explores the meaning, articulation and risks of this phenomenon in a specific area: International Criminal Justice. It brings together established and fresh voices who analyse different sites and contestations of this concept, as well as its context and specific manifestations in the interpretation and application of International Criminal Law. The volume thereby connects discourse on ‘fragmentation’ with broader inquiry on the merits and discontents of legal pluralism in ‘Public International Law’.

International courts are called upon to decide upon an increasingly wide range of issues of global importance, yet public knowledge of international judges and the process by which they are appointed remains very limited. Drawing on extensive empirical research, this book explains how the judges who sit on international courts are selected.

Beyond Fragmentation assembles a unique team of expert practitioners and leading scholars to explore and advance the study of cross-fertilization among international courts and tribunals. Using an inter-disciplinary and multi-method approach, contributors analyse how international courts and tribunals interact and why it matters in practice. After a thorough review of prior assessments of cross-fertilization and fragmentation, the editors offer a new take on competition and cooperation across courts and tribunals, exploring both substantive and procedural elements as well as the diverse agents of cross fertilization. Contributors engage with procedural issues, identifying a “procedural cross-fertilization pull” and why and how procedure is converging in international courts and tribunals. Case studies on the convergence in the law of the sea and at the European Court of Human Rights provide contrasting experiences of substantive cross-fertilization. The volume also identifies a variety of agents of cross-fertilization, including judges, litigants, counsel, and international organizations.

This book explores the role and status of local and regional authorities (also referred to as 'subnational authorities' or 'SNAs') in European Union law, and reveals the existence of two parallel yet opposed constitutional imaginations of the supranational legal order. Through a survey of various areas of EU law, including primary and secondary legislation, case law as well as various soft law instruments, Finck introduces two narratives. These are the 'outsider narrative' and the 'insider narrative' that frame these constitutional imaginations. According to the outsider narrative, the structure of the legal order is bi-centric, composed of the member states and the EU only. This narrative envisages SNAs as outsiders of EU law, whose interactions with Union law are merely of an indirect nature. However, in addition to this well-known account of EU law, a parallel yet distinct narrative can be identified according to which SNAs are insiders that entertain direct relations with the European Union and contribute to the substantive development of EU law. It is illustrated that the coexistence of both narratives has wider implications as it points towards a shift in the structure of the European legal order itself, which is transitioning from bi-centricity to polycentricity --Dust jacket.