Metodi di Soluzione di Conflitti fra Giurisdizioni Internazionali

Abstract

In the Genocide Convention case the ICJ seemed to adopt a twofold attitude towards the findings of the ICTY. Whereas it tended to show a certain deference to these findings, in matters of common concern, it radically denied the relevance of findings allegedly adopted by that judicial body outside the scope of its jurisdiction. Although both kind of references can be traced back to a principle of judicial propriety, the conclusions of the ICJ might lend some element of support to the idea that findings of the ICTY in proceedings before the ICJ might be relevant not qua judicial decisions but rather as international law rules binding for the parties of these proceedings. This unusual approach seems to shape a normative methodology, which can be of some avail in the study of overlapping international jurisdiction. The article engages in a technical analysis of this methodology and tries to shed some light on some of its far-reaching implications. The paper closes with some cursory remarks on the role of this methodology in the debate on the unity of international law, and, in particular, on the possible use of substantive law as a remedy to the incoherence which ensues from the proliferation of international jurisdictions.