Začasni ukrepi meddržavnega sodišča v Haagu

diplomsko delo

Anže Žunko (Author), Matjaž Tratnik (Mentor)

Abstract

Enkratnost Meddržavnega Sodišča v Haagu si je mogoče razlagati na več načinov. Bodisi v smeri, da je edino sodišče v svetu, ki ima moč odločati med državami kot subjekti mednarodnega prava, torej v sporih, kjer kot stranki nastopata državi bodisi po njegovi sestavi ali po izdajanju začasnih ukrepov. Meddržavno sodišče v Haagu ima torej moč sprejeti ter izdati kakršenkoli začasni ukrep, če meni, da bi se z njim zavarovale pravice ali interesi stranke ali da s sprejetjem le-tega ne bi poslabšali že nastale situacije ter preprečili nadaljnjo škodo. Vprašanje izdajanja začasnih ukrepov je tesno povezano z jurisdikcijo Meddržavnega sodišča v Haagu (pristojnost soditi v konkretnem primeru). Kadar je pred Meddržavnim sodiščem v Haagu vložena tožba s strani tožnika, v kateri tožnik tudi zahteva izdajo začasnih ukrepov, Meddržavno sodišče v Haagu zadevo začne obravnavati prednostno, ker z izdajo začasnega ukrepa ne sme odlašati, saj z vsakim zamujenim dnem eni izmed strank nastaja nepopravljiva škoda, ki bi jo naj preprečili z začasnim ukrepom, dokler ne bi bila izdana dokončna meritorna sodna odločba, ki stranki zavezuje k spoštovanju le-te. Kadar Meddržavno sodišče v Haagu dobi v odločanje zadevo, v kateri bi naj izdalo tudi začasne ukrepe, samo sebi ni dolžno zadostiti vsem strogim kriterijem, po katerih bi bilo pristojno o zadevi odločati meritorno, pač pa je dovolj, da pristojnost utemelji zgolj prima facie, torej na določenem temelju pristojnosti oziroma v pristojnosti na prvi pogled. Na podlagi prima facie pristojnosti, ki v bistvu sploh ni prava oblika pristojnosti, je Meddržavno sodišče v Haagu zaradi nujnosti vseeno pristojno izdati začasni ukrep. Skozi primere sodne prakse Meddržavnega sodišča v Haagu bo moč videti, da temu toženec največkrat ugovarja, torej da Sodišče ni pod nobenim pogojem pristojno izdati začasne ukrepe .

Keywords

diplomska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2016
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[A. Žunko]
UDC:	341.4(043.2)
COBISS:	5349419
Views:	878
Downloads:	90
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	PROVISIONAL MEASURES BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Secondary abstract:	The uniqueness of the International Court of Justice, is possible to interpreted in several ways. Either in the direction that it is the only court in the World, which has power to decide between countries, either by its composition or by its power to issue the provisional measures, which are binding for both of the parties. International Court of Justice therefore has the power to accept and issue any provisional measure, if it considers that provisional measure will protect the rights or interest of the client or in order to deteriorate the situation and prevent the further damage. The issue of provisional measures is very closely linked to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (the competence to judge in the present case). When before the International Court of Justice, the action is brought by the plaintiff, where the plaintiff also requires the issuance of provisional measures, the International Court of Justice, dealt with the case urgently. Urgently whereas the provisional measure must not be delayed, because with each passing day of one of the parties is created irreparable damage that would be prevented with a provisional measure, until a final judgment of merits is not issued. International Court of Justice does not have to necessarily satisfied to all the strict conditions on which the jurisdiction is find. It is enough that the International Court of Justice satisfy the basis on which the jurisdiction might be found (prima facie jurisdiction). Prima facie jurisdiction, is actually not a real form of jurisdiction, however it is enough to start proceeding about the provisional measures because of their urgency. Through the examples of cases of the International Court of Justice it will be possible to see that very often the defendant contends that the International Court of Justice has not the power regardless the prima facie jurisdiction to decides about the case, consequently that the Court has no jurisdiction under any circumstances on which the provisional measures may be issued.
Secondary keywords:	International Court of Justice;ICJ;jurisdiction;competence;ratione;provisional measure;prima facie jurisdiction.;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Bachelor thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages:	28 f.
ID:	9161441