Практика рассмотрения межгосударственных жалоб в международных судах: история вопроса и перспективы
Present article is a comparative study of the practice of settlement of inter-state disputes in the main international judicial bodies. At the same time, the article aims to show that the activity of international courts to consider inter-state conflicts is historically determined. Moreover, the original conceptual purpose of international justice was exactly to resolve disputes between states.
The article reveals the approaches of the main bodies of international justice – the UN International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, courts of integration associations.
Thus, the UN International Court of Justice has developed the most extensive practice of interstate disputes’ settlement. The article shows the evolution of its law enforcement approaches. Special attention is paid to the comparison of the activities of the International Court of Justice with other international courts – both common features and specifics are shown.
The section on the ECtHR demonstrates that there are no sufficient grounds for conclusions about the politicization of its activities for the inter-state disputes’ settlement. At the same time, special attention is drawn to the somewhat alien nature of the procedure for inter-state applications for a body specializing in the protection of human rights. On the contrary, in the European Union, resolving inter-state contradictions through the Union's institutional mechanism is a top priority. However, the main principle for resolving contradictions is a lengthy pre-trial procedure in dialogue with the European Commission, and only in exceptional cases do member states meet in the EU Court of Justice.