国际法庭管辖权研究
|
摘要
管辖权确立是国际法庭行使裁判职能解决国际争端的前提。本文以国际争端法律解决办法为背景,对国际仲裁机构和国际司法机构(包括全球性及区域性、一般性和专门性司法机构及国际组织行政法庭)管辖权概念、权限等基本理论作了论述,对其管辖权范围及属性进行了比较分析,对管辖权争议中诸抗辩理由以及国际法庭管辖权的冲突与协调进行了研究,对国际法庭管辖权发展趋势作了较为深刻的探讨。全文除去前言和结论之外,共分六章,其中导论一章,即第一章,分论部分共五章。主要内容如下:
总论部分与第一章,即基本理论。在本章中,作者首先对国际公法意义上的国际争端进行了界定,简要分析了国际争端解决办法;接着分析了国际争端法律解决办法之第三方介入方法——国际法庭的建立,对国际法庭建立的合法性问题进行了分析,强调以条约方式创设国际法庭具有管辖设定明确、科学性的优点,从而一定程度上保证了国际法庭公正与独立;随后,本章着重分析了国际法庭管辖权的概念及确立根据,对管辖权内涵与外延进行了界定,指出管辖权既具有程序法上的意义,也具有实体法上的意义,几乎贯穿了国际法庭司法程序的全过程。此处对管辖权涵义的界定,有助于对该问题作出全面、完善的认识。国际争端参加者要达到使争端在特定国际法庭解决之目的,应提供据以证明国际法庭对所涉争端具有管辖权的根据,本节对此也进行了分析研究;最后一节,对影响和促进国际法庭管辖权发展的主要因素——国家主权进行论述,分析了国家主权与国际法庭管辖权的辩证关系,强调了国家主权仍是当今国际法律秩序的基础,而国际法庭基本文件对其管辖权性质与范围的设定,正是二者折衷调和的产物。明确这一关系,对于在分论部分研究国际法庭管辖权的权限、范围、性质等诸问题具有重要意义。
在第二章,作者研究了国际法庭管辖权的取得基础——同意接受原则。首先,从国际法庭实践角度对该原则进行实证分析,案例分析方法可以加深对该原则的理解,这是关于该原则必要性的研究;接着对同意的有效法律要件,包括作出同意接受表示的不同阶段及不同方式进行了论述;下面对同意撤回及同意原则例外情形进行了分析,结论是国际法庭管辖权与国家主权总体上是相容的。从该章分析可以把握主权国家接受国际法庭管辖、让渡主权的动态过程,主权国家同意接受管辖是国际法庭管辖权取得的基础,强调了主权国家同意对于国际法庭管辖权取得的重要性。
第三章是关于国际法庭管辖权权限的分析。在第一节,作者分析了国际法庭诉讼管辖权,主要论述了主管辖权与从管辖权区别,并结合临时保全措施来着重分析从管辖权的性质,指出从管辖权是基于国际法庭诉讼程序而派生,是为维护正常诉讼活动
The determination of its jurisdiction is the precondition for international tribunals to resolve international disputes. This paper explores the preliminary role of the jurisdiction of international tribunals in the legal resolution of international disputes; analyses the nature and scope of the jurisdiction of international arbitration and justice institutions (both global and regional ones), general and special justice institutions and international administrative tribunals; studies the various demur in jurisdiction disputes and the jurisdiction disputes and their settlement between international tribunals; and anticipates the future development of the jurisdiction of international tribunals. Besides the preface and the conclusion, there are altogether six chapters, with an overview as the first chapter and the remaining five devoted to detailed analysis.The first chapter is devoted to basic theories. First, the definition of international disputes according to international law and a brief analysis of the settlement of international disputes are given. Second, the third party dispute settlement, or the establishment of international tribunals, is studies as a way to resolve international disputes. Analysis has also been done for the legitimacy and the jurisdiction of international tribunals. The importance of creating international tribunals on the basis of treaties is stressed as the key to their scientific and well-defined jurisdiction, and thus crucial to their independence and impartiality. Third, detailed analysis of the definition of the jurisdiction of the international tribunals and sources or titles of jurisdiction is made. With the connotation and extension of jurisdiction clarified, it is pointed out that jurisdiction is of great significance in both procedural and substantive law, reflected throughout the legal procedures in an international tribunal. The definition of jurisdiction given by this paper is aimed at presenting a comprehensive and improved understanding of this important concept. In order for a certain case to be heard by the international tribunal, it has to be proven to be within the jurisdiction of the international tribunal, which is also studied by this paper. Finally, sovereignty as the most important factor behind the development of the jurisdiction of international tribunals is analyzed, and so is the interactive relation between state sovereignty and the jurisdiction of international tribunals. It is emphasized that sovereignty is still the basis of international legal framework and that the identification of the scope and nature of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal usually represents a compromise between the two. With this clarified, the following detailed study on the competence to settle disputes, scope and nature of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal will not be accused of being unfounded.The second chapter studies consent as the basis of jurisdiction of the international tribunals. First of all, a case analysis is made to gain a better understanding of this
principle and to confirm its necessity. Then, the essential valid legal elements, including the steps and forms, of consent is analyzed. In addition, the withdrawal of consent and exceptions to the consent is examined. The conclusion drawn is that generally speaking the jurisdiction of the international tribunal and the state sovereignty are compatible. This chapter examines the close relation between the acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal by the sovereign state and the transfer of sovereignty. It is stressed that the sovereign state's consent is very important to the jurisdiction of the international tribunals.The third chapter analyzed the scope of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal. The first part looks at its contentious jurisdiction, with focus on the difference between principle jurisdiction and incidental jurisdiction. The nature of incidental jurisdiction is studied with a view of interim measures. It is pointed out that incidental jurisdiction is a by-product of the legal proceedings in an international tribunal, which is aimed at safeguarding the proceedings and the judicial functions as well as the authority of the international tribunal. The second part deals with the scope of advisory jurisdiction, the legal binding of advisory opinion, and the reform and innovation of such a system. It is the writer's view that advisory jurisdiction, as another way to provide legal rationale for international dispute settlement, is complementary to contentious jurisdiction. But because of its lack of legal binding and the narrow scope in some international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice, advisory" jurisdiction only plays a very limited role. Therefore, two suggestions have been made to address this issue. In the third part, the writer examines the other major function of the international tribunal, that is, competence to competence or jurisdiction to determinate its own jurisdiction. The writer argues from three perspectives, namely, the practices of the international tribunal, the relation between competence to competence and clause contraire, and the relation between competence to competence and automatic or self-judging reservation, and arrives at the conclusion that whether or not it is specified in the constitutive instruments of the international tribunal, competence to competence is an implient and inherent power of the international tribunal. At the end of this chapter, a new power, that is, jurisdiction of other tribunal to decide on the competence of a tribunal, is also discussed.As an emphasis of this paper, Chapter Four vertically compares and analyses the scope and the attribute of international courts of different types. Focusing on the analysis of new characteristics and development of jurisdiction rationae personae, jurisdiction rationae materiae, jurisdiction in time and jurisdiction territoriale of each type of international courts, this chapter studies the tendency of the enlargement of jurisdiction and the increase of compulsory jurisdiction of international courts. This chapter consists of seven sections to analyse the characteristics of jurisdiction of different type of international courts. With the development of international laws and international legal relations, the scope of international court jurisdiction is continuously enlarging. For example, as we have analysed in Section
One, the scope of PCA jurisdiction has been enlarged from arbitration between countries to arbitration between countries, international organizations, legal persons and individuals after a series of optional rules were made. Section Two analyses two special international economic dispute settlement procedures—jurisdiction scope of ICSID and DSB models. Both of the two procedures have their own jurisdiction scopes. On the jurisdiction scope of ICSID, we mainly analyse the breakthrough in the jurisdiction scope of individuals, i.e. the citizen of the signatory state to a treaty (the investor, including the natural person and the legal person) can submit arbitration to ICSID as a proper party in the dispute, which is an attempt to settle international investment dispute with international laws. As for the jurisdiction scope of DBS, we mainly analyse the evolution of the jurisdiction scope of panels events, i.e. from the fragmentation and diversity of the GATT 1947 rules to the agreements of WTO and DSU, all the disputes originating from specific agreements and those from the rights and duties prescribed by the WTO and DSU items alone or combined are in the jurisdiction scope of DBS. Thus, all the disputes are discussed with a unified dispute settlement procedure and a comprehensive and perfect jurisdiction system is established. We also analyses the limitation on the jurisdiction scope of DBS permanent appeal mechanism. Section Three mainly studies the jurisdiction scope of PCIJ and ICJ. Their uniqueness of person jurisdiction (Only states may be parties in cases before the Court) is comparatively narrow, which reflects the subject theory of traditional international laws. As a common international judicial organ, an international court has the broadest event jurisdiction and has the right to adjudicate all the cases that a country accepts. Section Four analyses the enlargement of person jurisdiction scope of ITLOS. The person jurisdiction scope of ITLOS contains not only signatory states but also Namibia, self-governing dominions, international organizations and bodies besides signatory states. The jurisdiction scope of seabed dispute is enlarged to International Seabed Administrative, state-run enterprises and natural persons or legal persons that have the nationality of the signatory state. Under this specific condition, natural persons and legal persons have the right to present before the international court, which suits the condition that international sea activities have multi-level participants. Compared to state courts, the prescription of jurisdiction of ITLOS has made great progress in the settlement of maritime dispute. This section also analyses the exclusive jurisdiction of Item 287 of UNCLOS, which prescribes the choice of binding procedures and seabed tribunal, on the disputes listed in Item 187 and analyses the compulsion of the jurisdiction. Section Five studies the jurisdiction of international administrative tribunals. Concerning the characteristics of the legal relation between international organizations and their employees, we study the unidirection of person jurisdiction and limitation of event jurisdiction. Section Six divides area international courts into general ones and special ones for analysis. Here we analyses the process how the jurisdiction of CJEC is enlarged. It is pointed out that the broadness and compulsion of their
总论部分与第一章,即基本理论。在本章中,作者首先对国际公法意义上的国际争端进行了界定,简要分析了国际争端解决办法;接着分析了国际争端法律解决办法之第三方介入方法——国际法庭的建立,对国际法庭建立的合法性问题进行了分析,强调以条约方式创设国际法庭具有管辖设定明确、科学性的优点,从而一定程度上保证了国际法庭公正与独立;随后,本章着重分析了国际法庭管辖权的概念及确立根据,对管辖权内涵与外延进行了界定,指出管辖权既具有程序法上的意义,也具有实体法上的意义,几乎贯穿了国际法庭司法程序的全过程。此处对管辖权涵义的界定,有助于对该问题作出全面、完善的认识。国际争端参加者要达到使争端在特定国际法庭解决之目的,应提供据以证明国际法庭对所涉争端具有管辖权的根据,本节对此也进行了分析研究;最后一节,对影响和促进国际法庭管辖权发展的主要因素——国家主权进行论述,分析了国家主权与国际法庭管辖权的辩证关系,强调了国家主权仍是当今国际法律秩序的基础,而国际法庭基本文件对其管辖权性质与范围的设定,正是二者折衷调和的产物。明确这一关系,对于在分论部分研究国际法庭管辖权的权限、范围、性质等诸问题具有重要意义。
在第二章,作者研究了国际法庭管辖权的取得基础——同意接受原则。首先,从国际法庭实践角度对该原则进行实证分析,案例分析方法可以加深对该原则的理解,这是关于该原则必要性的研究;接着对同意的有效法律要件,包括作出同意接受表示的不同阶段及不同方式进行了论述;下面对同意撤回及同意原则例外情形进行了分析,结论是国际法庭管辖权与国家主权总体上是相容的。从该章分析可以把握主权国家接受国际法庭管辖、让渡主权的动态过程,主权国家同意接受管辖是国际法庭管辖权取得的基础,强调了主权国家同意对于国际法庭管辖权取得的重要性。
第三章是关于国际法庭管辖权权限的分析。在第一节,作者分析了国际法庭诉讼管辖权,主要论述了主管辖权与从管辖权区别,并结合临时保全措施来着重分析从管辖权的性质,指出从管辖权是基于国际法庭诉讼程序而派生,是为维护正常诉讼活动
The determination of its jurisdiction is the precondition for international tribunals to resolve international disputes. This paper explores the preliminary role of the jurisdiction of international tribunals in the legal resolution of international disputes; analyses the nature and scope of the jurisdiction of international arbitration and justice institutions (both global and regional ones), general and special justice institutions and international administrative tribunals; studies the various demur in jurisdiction disputes and the jurisdiction disputes and their settlement between international tribunals; and anticipates the future development of the jurisdiction of international tribunals. Besides the preface and the conclusion, there are altogether six chapters, with an overview as the first chapter and the remaining five devoted to detailed analysis.The first chapter is devoted to basic theories. First, the definition of international disputes according to international law and a brief analysis of the settlement of international disputes are given. Second, the third party dispute settlement, or the establishment of international tribunals, is studies as a way to resolve international disputes. Analysis has also been done for the legitimacy and the jurisdiction of international tribunals. The importance of creating international tribunals on the basis of treaties is stressed as the key to their scientific and well-defined jurisdiction, and thus crucial to their independence and impartiality. Third, detailed analysis of the definition of the jurisdiction of the international tribunals and sources or titles of jurisdiction is made. With the connotation and extension of jurisdiction clarified, it is pointed out that jurisdiction is of great significance in both procedural and substantive law, reflected throughout the legal procedures in an international tribunal. The definition of jurisdiction given by this paper is aimed at presenting a comprehensive and improved understanding of this important concept. In order for a certain case to be heard by the international tribunal, it has to be proven to be within the jurisdiction of the international tribunal, which is also studied by this paper. Finally, sovereignty as the most important factor behind the development of the jurisdiction of international tribunals is analyzed, and so is the interactive relation between state sovereignty and the jurisdiction of international tribunals. It is emphasized that sovereignty is still the basis of international legal framework and that the identification of the scope and nature of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal usually represents a compromise between the two. With this clarified, the following detailed study on the competence to settle disputes, scope and nature of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal will not be accused of being unfounded.The second chapter studies consent as the basis of jurisdiction of the international tribunals. First of all, a case analysis is made to gain a better understanding of this
principle and to confirm its necessity. Then, the essential valid legal elements, including the steps and forms, of consent is analyzed. In addition, the withdrawal of consent and exceptions to the consent is examined. The conclusion drawn is that generally speaking the jurisdiction of the international tribunal and the state sovereignty are compatible. This chapter examines the close relation between the acknowledgement of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal by the sovereign state and the transfer of sovereignty. It is stressed that the sovereign state's consent is very important to the jurisdiction of the international tribunals.The third chapter analyzed the scope of the jurisdiction of the international tribunal. The first part looks at its contentious jurisdiction, with focus on the difference between principle jurisdiction and incidental jurisdiction. The nature of incidental jurisdiction is studied with a view of interim measures. It is pointed out that incidental jurisdiction is a by-product of the legal proceedings in an international tribunal, which is aimed at safeguarding the proceedings and the judicial functions as well as the authority of the international tribunal. The second part deals with the scope of advisory jurisdiction, the legal binding of advisory opinion, and the reform and innovation of such a system. It is the writer's view that advisory jurisdiction, as another way to provide legal rationale for international dispute settlement, is complementary to contentious jurisdiction. But because of its lack of legal binding and the narrow scope in some international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice, advisory" jurisdiction only plays a very limited role. Therefore, two suggestions have been made to address this issue. In the third part, the writer examines the other major function of the international tribunal, that is, competence to competence or jurisdiction to determinate its own jurisdiction. The writer argues from three perspectives, namely, the practices of the international tribunal, the relation between competence to competence and clause contraire, and the relation between competence to competence and automatic or self-judging reservation, and arrives at the conclusion that whether or not it is specified in the constitutive instruments of the international tribunal, competence to competence is an implient and inherent power of the international tribunal. At the end of this chapter, a new power, that is, jurisdiction of other tribunal to decide on the competence of a tribunal, is also discussed.As an emphasis of this paper, Chapter Four vertically compares and analyses the scope and the attribute of international courts of different types. Focusing on the analysis of new characteristics and development of jurisdiction rationae personae, jurisdiction rationae materiae, jurisdiction in time and jurisdiction territoriale of each type of international courts, this chapter studies the tendency of the enlargement of jurisdiction and the increase of compulsory jurisdiction of international courts. This chapter consists of seven sections to analyse the characteristics of jurisdiction of different type of international courts. With the development of international laws and international legal relations, the scope of international court jurisdiction is continuously enlarging. For example, as we have analysed in Section
One, the scope of PCA jurisdiction has been enlarged from arbitration between countries to arbitration between countries, international organizations, legal persons and individuals after a series of optional rules were made. Section Two analyses two special international economic dispute settlement procedures—jurisdiction scope of ICSID and DSB models. Both of the two procedures have their own jurisdiction scopes. On the jurisdiction scope of ICSID, we mainly analyse the breakthrough in the jurisdiction scope of individuals, i.e. the citizen of the signatory state to a treaty (the investor, including the natural person and the legal person) can submit arbitration to ICSID as a proper party in the dispute, which is an attempt to settle international investment dispute with international laws. As for the jurisdiction scope of DBS, we mainly analyse the evolution of the jurisdiction scope of panels events, i.e. from the fragmentation and diversity of the GATT 1947 rules to the agreements of WTO and DSU, all the disputes originating from specific agreements and those from the rights and duties prescribed by the WTO and DSU items alone or combined are in the jurisdiction scope of DBS. Thus, all the disputes are discussed with a unified dispute settlement procedure and a comprehensive and perfect jurisdiction system is established. We also analyses the limitation on the jurisdiction scope of DBS permanent appeal mechanism. Section Three mainly studies the jurisdiction scope of PCIJ and ICJ. Their uniqueness of person jurisdiction (Only states may be parties in cases before the Court) is comparatively narrow, which reflects the subject theory of traditional international laws. As a common international judicial organ, an international court has the broadest event jurisdiction and has the right to adjudicate all the cases that a country accepts. Section Four analyses the enlargement of person jurisdiction scope of ITLOS. The person jurisdiction scope of ITLOS contains not only signatory states but also Namibia, self-governing dominions, international organizations and bodies besides signatory states. The jurisdiction scope of seabed dispute is enlarged to International Seabed Administrative, state-run enterprises and natural persons or legal persons that have the nationality of the signatory state. Under this specific condition, natural persons and legal persons have the right to present before the international court, which suits the condition that international sea activities have multi-level participants. Compared to state courts, the prescription of jurisdiction of ITLOS has made great progress in the settlement of maritime dispute. This section also analyses the exclusive jurisdiction of Item 287 of UNCLOS, which prescribes the choice of binding procedures and seabed tribunal, on the disputes listed in Item 187 and analyses the compulsion of the jurisdiction. Section Five studies the jurisdiction of international administrative tribunals. Concerning the characteristics of the legal relation between international organizations and their employees, we study the unidirection of person jurisdiction and limitation of event jurisdiction. Section Six divides area international courts into general ones and special ones for analysis. Here we analyses the process how the jurisdiction of CJEC is enlarged. It is pointed out that the broadness and compulsion of their
引文
1.《周鲠生国际法论文集》,王铁崖、周忠海编,海天出版社1999年1月第1版。
2.《王铁崖文集》,邓正来编,中国政法大学出版社1993年3月第1版。
3.王铁崖著:《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年11月第1版。
4.王铁崖、田如萱主编:《国际法资料》,法律出版社1986年6月第2版。
5.王铁崖、田如萱主编:《国际法资料》(续编),法律出版社1993年5月第1版。
6.《和平、正义与法——王铁崖先生八十寿辰纪念文集》,周忠海编,中国国际广播出版社1993年5月第1版。
7.李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社1987年第1版。
8.《李浩培文集》,法律出版社2000年10月第1版。
9.倪征礇著:《国际法中的司法管辖问题》,世界知识出版社1985年版。
10.《奥本海国际法》,王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年第1版(两卷)。
11.[美]凯尔逊著:《国际法原理》,王铁崖译,华夏出版社1989年9月第1版。
12.周忠海等著:《国际法学述评》,法律出版社2001年第1版。
13.周忠海主编:《皮诺切特案析》,中国政法大学出版社1999年3月第1版。
14.[英]伊恩.布朗利著:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年月第1版。
15.雪瑞尔著:《国际法》,陈锦华译,云南图书出版公司1999年第1版
16.[奥]阿.菲德罗斯等著,李浩培译:《国际法》(上、下册),商务印书馆1981年中文版。
17.[英]阿库斯特著,汪暄等译:《现代国际法概论》,中国社会科学出版社1981年中文版。
18.[澳]斯塔克著,赵维田译:《国际法导轮》,法律出版社1984年中文版。
19.[韩]柳炳华著,朴国折等译:《国际法》(上、下卷),中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
20.马呈元著:《国际犯罪与责任》,中国政法大学2001年版。
21.马呈元等著:《国际法律问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1999年1月第1版。
22.《国际法资料》,中国国际法学会、外交学院国际法研究所编,法律出版社1988—1993年版,第1—7辑。
23.李双元主编:《国际法与比较法论从》,中国方正出版社2003第1—6辑。
24.黄进、肖永平主编:《展望二十一世纪国际法的发展》,湖北人民出版社2001年12月第1版。
25.柳华文主编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》,北京大学出版社2002年1月第1版。
26.陈致中编著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社1988年10月第1版。
27.陈致中等译:《国际公法百科全书》,第1—4辑,马克斯.普朗克比较公法与国际法研究所主编,中山大学出版社1988-1992年版。
28.陈荣杰:《引渡之理论与实践》,台湾三民书局印行1985年版。
29.[法]狄骥:《宪法伦》,钱克新译,北京商务印书馆1959年版。
30.贺其治著:《外层空间法》,法律出版社1992年版。
31.许光建著《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版。
32.高燕平:《国际刑事法院》,世界知识出版社1999年版。
33.王秀梅著:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
34.国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会[联合国资料],第一届会议正式记录,2002年9月3日至10日,联合国,2002.1—4
35.邹克渊著:《国际法院审判案例评析》,安徽人民出版社1991年5月版。
36.于华译:《国际法院》[联合国资料],联合国编,中国对外翻译出版公司1985年版。
37.吴慧著:《国际海洋法法庭研究》,海洋出版社2002年版。
38.万鄂湘主编,欧洲人权法院判例评述》,湖北人民出版社1999年版。
39.陈焕文著:《国际仲裁法专论》,陈焕文著,台北五南图书出版公司1994年版。
40.中国政法大学国际法教研室编:《国际公法案例评析》,中国政法大学出版社1995年版。
41.邓烈著:《国际组织行政法庭》,武汉大学出版社2000年版。
42.凌岸:《距世纪的海牙审判——论联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,海事出版社2001年版。
43.曹建明、陈治东、朱榄叶编:《国际公约与惯例》,国际经济法卷,华东理工大学出版社1994年6月版。
44.曹建明、周洪均、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1998年版.
45.谢觉怀著:《国际法院》,苏州大学出版社1993年版。
46.陈安主编:《国际经济法学》,北京大学出版社,1994年12月版。
47.(46)李居迁著:《WTO争端解决机制》,中国财政经济出版社,2001年版。
48.江国青著:《演变中的国际法问题》,法律出版社2001年版。
49.[美]詹宁斯·瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》第1卷第1分册,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第95页。
50.岛田证夫著:《国际法》,弘文堂1996年3月版。
51.[德]P.A.施泰尼格尔编:《纽伦堡审判》(上卷),北京商务印书馆,1985版。
52.林欣主编:《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
53.赵秉志、王秀梅:《批准与执行国际刑事法院罗马规约手册》,中信出版社2002年版。
54.陈治世著,《国际法院》,台湾商务印书馆1980年版。
55.江国青著:《演变中的国际法问题》,法律出版社2001年版。
56.高明暄、王秀梅译:《普林斯顿项目普遍管辖原则及其评论》,《中国刑法杂志》2002年第3期。
57.中国国际法学会:《中国国际法年刊》(1996),法律出版社。
58.国国际法学精粹》2002卷,机械工业出版社2002年出版。
59.秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版.
60.杨永明著:《国际法中主观观念的地位与演变》,《台大法学论丛》第25卷,1997。
1. Bruce Broomhall, International justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press, 2003).
2. Patrick Cappes, Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Approaches(Hart Publishing Ltd, 2003).
3. Luc Reydams, Universal jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. (Oxford University Press, 2003).
4. Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of Jnternational Courts and Tribunals..(Oxford University Press, 2003).
5. John J. Barcelo and Kevin M. Clermont (Editor), A Global Law of Jurisdiction and Judgments: Lessons From The Hague, (Kluwer Law International, 2002).
6. Erik Franckx (Editor), Vessel-Source Pollution and Coastal State jurisdiction: The Work of the ILA Committee on Coastal State Jurisdiction Relating to Marine Pollution (1991-2000).
7. Asrat, Belatchew., Jurisdiction in USA v. Noriega: with Special Reference to the Honecker case, Belatchew Asrat. Uppsala [Sweden]: Justus Forlag, 2000.
8. Jurisdiction in Jnternational Law, Edited by W. Michael Reisman. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1999.
9. Molenaar, Erik Jaap. Coastal State Jurisdiction Over Vessel-source Pollution/by Erik Jaap Molenaar(Kluwer Law International, c1998).
10. Rosenne Shabtai, The Law and Practice of The International Court(1920-1996) (The Hague/Boston/M. Nijhoff, 1997).
11. Thomas M. Franck & Gregory H. Fox Irvington-on-Hudson, International Law Ddecisions in National Courts(N. Y. Transnational Publishers, 1996).
12. Karl M. Meessen(Editor),Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice(Kluwer Law International, 1996).
13. Athens,Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law: Reports to the ⅩⅣth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
14. Peter Byrne, The European Union and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments, (Baikonur, 1994).
15. Iain Cameron, The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (USA: Dartmouth, 1994).
16. M. M. Cohen, (Melvin M.), Admiralty: Jurisdiction, Law, and Practice: With an Appendix Containing rules, Statutes, and Forms (F. B. Rothman, 1993).
17. Luxembourg, Court of Justice of the European Communities, Selected Instruments Relating to the Organization, Jurisdiction, and Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1993).
18. Charles Platto, Michael Lee, Obtaining Evidence in Another Jurisdiction in Business Disputes(London: International Bar Association, 1993).
19. Edward McWhinney, Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: Jurisdiction, Justiciability, and Judicial Law-making on the Contemporary International Court(Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991).
20. by Gary B. Born with David Westin, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts: Commentary and Materials(Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1989)..
21. Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction ((The Netherlands; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1989).
22. Patricia M. Barlow, Deventer, Aviation Antitrust: the Extraterritorial Application of the United States Antitrust Laws and International Air Transportation(Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1988).
23. A.D. Neale and M.L. Stephens, International Business and National Jurisdiction (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
24. Ved P. Nanda, David K, Litigation of International Disputes in U.S. courts (N.Y.: Clark Broadman Co., Ltd., 1989)..
25. Stuart James Whitley, Jurisdiction in Criminal law (Carswell Legal Publications, 1985).
26. Leyden, Permanent Court of International Justice. Ten Years of International Jurisdiction (1922-1932), (A. W. Sijthoff, 1932).
27. Maicolm N. Shaw: International Law, Fourth Edition(Cambridge University Press, 1997).
28. Karl M.Meessen, Exterritorial Jurisdiction in Theroy and Practice(Kluwer Law International, 1996).
29. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Encyclopia of Public International Law(Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1981).
30. Htional Kelsen, Sovereinty and International Law(New York Oxford University Press, 1969).
31. Richard Shapcoott., Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations(Cambridge University Press, 2001).
32. Richard Shapcoott, The Power of the International Court to determine its own jurisdiction. (Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague).
33. Albert Jan VAN Den Berg(.General Editor), Internayional Dispute Resolution: Towards an International Arbitration Culture(Kluwer Law International. The Hague/London/Boston, 1996).
34. Kenneth James Keith., The Extent OF The Advisory Jurisdiction of The Intrmational Court of Justice(A.W.Sijthoff, 1971).
35. Christine D.Gray, Judicial Remedies in International Law.(Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1987).
36. Shabtal Rosenne. The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-1996. (Third Edition.Volume2).(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. The Hague/Boston/London, 1997).
37. Taslim O.Elias,The International Court of Justice and Some Contemporary Problems(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The London/boston/Hague,1983).
38. C. F. Amerasinghe, Jurisdiction of International Tribunals. Kluwer Law International(The Hague/London/Newyork, 2003).
39. Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty Years of The International Court of Justice. Grotius Publications(Cambridge University Press, 1988).
40. William A.Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court(Cambridge University Press, 2004).
41. Knut Dormann, Elements of War Crimes Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
42. Mohamed Sameh M. Amr, The Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations( Kluwer Law International, 2003)
43. Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones ,The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a Commentary(Oxford University Press 2002).
44. Martine Hallers, Chantal Joubert, Jan Sjocrona, The Position of the Defence at the International Criminal Court and the Role of the Netherlands as the Host State : Including the Proceedings of the Conference Held in The Hague, 3-4 November 2000 (Amsterdam : Rozenberg Publishers 2002).
45. J.G Merrills, Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and the Discipline of International Law : Opinions on the International Court of Justice(1961-1973)(Kluwer Law International, 1998).
46. A.S. Muller, D. Raic and J.M. Thuranszky, The International Court of Justice : Its Future Role After Fifty years (The Hague ,Martinus Nijhoff, 1997).
47. Connie Peck and Roy S. Lee, Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice : Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court(The Hague, Nijhoff 1997).
48. J.P. Gardner and Chanaka Wickremasinghe,The International Court of Justice : Process, Practice and Procedure (B.I.I.C.L 1997).
49. Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice : Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings( Cambridge University Press, 1996).
50. Edward Mc Whinney, Judge Manfred Lachs and Judicial Law-making : Opinions on the International Court of Justice 1967-1993( The Hague Nijhoff 1995).
51. Edward Mac Whinney, Judge Shigeru Oda and the Progressive Development of International Law : Opinions (Declarations, Separate Opinions, Dissents) on the International Court of Justice, 1976-1992( Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).
52. Nagendra Singh Dordrecht, The Role and Record of the International Court of Justice( Nijhoff ,1989)
53. Ruth Dormer, International adjudication : using the International Court of Justice : with special reference to Finland( Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia 1988).
54. Lori Fisler Damrosch Dobbs Ferry, The International Court of Justice at a crossroads(Transnational Publishers 1987).
55. Edward McWhinney, The International Court of Justice and the Western Tradition of International Law: the Paul Martin Lectures in International Relations and Law (Nijhoff 1987).
56. Shabtai Rosenne, Procedure in the International Court: a Commentary on The 1978 Rules of the International Court of Justice (The Hague, Nijhoff 1983).
57. Taslim O. Elias, The International Court of Justice and Some Contemporary Problems: Essays on International Law(The Hague; London: Martinus Nijhoff 1983).
58. Taha, Majed Mohammed Ali, P.H.D., International Law and the International Court of Justice(The Claremont Graduate University,1983).
59. Pomerance,Michia, P.H.D.,The Advisory Function of The International Court in League and United Nations Eras.(Clumbia University, 1968).
60. Jhabvala, Farrokh,P.H.D., The development and Scope of Individual Opinions in The International Court of Justice( Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Tufts University, 1977).
61. Alice, Todd Layton, P.H.D., Going to Geneva? Trade Protection and Dispute Resolution Under the GATT and WTO.(University of Michigan 2003).
62. Juyal, Anshumala,P.H.D.,Towards a More Effective International Criminal Court: An Examination of the Problems and Prospects of Its Complementary Jurisdiction(Dalhouse University 2000).
63. Kim, Young Sok. P.H.D.,The International Criminal Court: A commentary of the Rome Statute(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2000).
64. Leo Gross, The Future of the International Court of Justice(Oceana Publications 1976).
65. Leiden, The Case Law of the International Court: A Repertoire of the Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice Including Dissenting and Separate Opinions(Sijthoff 1976)
66. Hermann Mosler, Rudolf Bernhardt, Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: International Court of Justice, Other Courts and Tribunals, Arbitration and Conciliation: An International Symposium. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.(Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer, 1974).
67. Shabtai Rosenne Leiden. Documents on the Intemational Court of Justice(Sijthoff 1974).
68. Leiden, The Case Law of the International Court: A Repertoire of the Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice Including Dissenting and Separate Opinions(Sijthoff 1974).
69. Kenneth James Keith Leyden, The Extent of the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice(A.W. Sijthoff 1971).
70. Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, Order and Justice in Jnternational Relations(Oxford University Press 200).
71. Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, The Hague, International Centre of Justice and Peace. (The Hague : Jongbloed Law Booksellers 2003).
72. Georg Cavallar Aldershot ,The Rights of Strangers : Theories of International Hospitality, the Global Community, and Political Justice Since Vitoria( Ashgate 2002).
73. Chris Brown, Sovereignty, rights and justice : international political theory today( Cambridge : Polity 2002).
74. Nigel D. White, The United Nations System : Toward International Justice. Boulder(Rienner 2002).
75. James E. Hickey, Jr. Technology, Social Justice and International Law ( Sanders Instituut 2002).
76. Richard Shapcott . Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations. Cambridge University Press 2001
77. David Schweigman .The authority of the Security Council under chapter VII of the UN Charter : Legal Limits and the Role of the International Court of Justice. Schweigman 2001.
78. France Winddance Twine and Kathleen M. Blee. Feminism and antiracism : international struggles for justice . New York University Press 2001
79. Leo McCarthy Basingstoke , Justice, the State and International Relations ( St. Martin's Press 1998).
80. Lode Walgrave, Restorative Justice for Juveniles : Potentialities, Risks and Problems for Research : A Selection of Papers Presented at the International Conference(Leuven University Press ,1998).
81. Stephen M. Schwebel, Justice in International Law : Selected Writings( Cambridge Grotius Publications 1994).
82. Robin A ttfield and Barry Wilkins, International Justice and The Third World : Studies in The Philosophy of Development(Routledgem 1992).
83. Ruha Raikka, An essay on international justice. Ruha Raikka.( University of Turku 1992).
84. J.G Merrills, International dispute settlement(Cambridge University Press 1998).
85. P. Hamilton ,The Permanent Court of Arbitration : International Arbitration and Ddispute Resolution : Summaries of Awards, Settlement Agreements and Reports(Kluwer Law International 1999).
86. Clive M. Schmitthoff Deventer., Extrajudicial Dispute Settlement(Kluwer Law and Taxation 1985).
87. K. Venkata Raman,Dispute settlement through the United Nations(Oceana Publications 1977).
88. Guillaume,"The Future of International Institutions",44 International and Comparative Law Quarterly(1995).
89. Rudiger Jutte and Annemarie Grosse-Jutte.,The Future of International Organization(New York; London : St. Martin's Press ; Frances Pinter Ltd., 1981),
90. G Schwarzenberger,International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Volume 4th(International Judicial Law, London, 1986).
91. G Fitzmaurice,The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice .Volume 2nd,(Grotius Publications Limited, 1986).
92. A. Bloed and P. Van Dijk, Forty Years International court of Justice: Jurisdiction ,Equity and Equality (Europa Instituut Utrecht 1989).
93. A.O. Adede, The System for Settlement of Dispute under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(Martinus Nijholf Publishers, 1987).
94. Shatai Rosenne and Louis B.Shon, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, A Commontary Vol( Martinus Nijholf Publishers, 1989).
95. Beaumont: European Court of Justice and Jurisdiction and Enforcement of the Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters(48 ICLQ 1999).
96. Renta Szafarz: The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ, 1993 Kluwer Acadamic Publishers.
97. Tanimir A.Alexandrov, Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ(1995 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).
98. Stanimir A.Alexandrov, Reservation in Unlateral Delarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ( The Hugue,1989).
99. Michael Akehurst(1974),"Jurisdiction in International Law",British Yearbook of International Law 46, at P.145-257.
100. Hessel E. Yntema(1953),"The Historic Bases of Private International Law",American Journal of Comparative Law",2,at P.297-317.
101.F.A.Mann(1984), Legislative Jurisdiction,The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction,3.Chapter I-V,ATP.19-115
102. D.W.Bowett(1983),"Jurisdiction:Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources",British Yearbook of International Law,53,at P. 1-26.
103.R.Higgins(1993),Allocating Competence: Jurisdiction, General Cource on International Law,5,Chapter IV,at P.89-114.
104. Arthur Taylor Von Mehren(1983),"Adjudicatory Juridiction:General Theories Compared and Evaluated",Boston University Law Review,63.pp.279-340.
105. Harold GMaier and Thomas R.McCoy(1991)"A Unifying Theory for Judicial Jurisdiction and Choice of Law", American Journal of Comparative Law,39,pp.249-92.
106. Karl M. Meeseen(1984),"Antitrust Jurisdiction Under Customary International Law", American Journal of International Law,78,pp.783-810.
107. Andrew L. Strauss(1995),"Beyond National Law:The Neglected Role of the International Law of Personal Jurisdiction in Demestic Courts",Harvard International Law Journal,36,pp.373-424.
108. Joseph Halpern(1983),"Exorbitant Jurisdiction and the Brussel Convention: Toward a Theory of Restraint", Yale Journal of World Public Order,9,pp.369-87.
109.J.W.Bridge(1984),"The Law and Politics of United States Foreign Policy Export Controls",Legal Studies,4,pp.2-29.
110. Patric J.DeSouza(1984),"The Soviet Gas Pipeline Incident: Extention of Collective Security
2.《王铁崖文集》,邓正来编,中国政法大学出版社1993年3月第1版。
3.王铁崖著:《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年11月第1版。
4.王铁崖、田如萱主编:《国际法资料》,法律出版社1986年6月第2版。
5.王铁崖、田如萱主编:《国际法资料》(续编),法律出版社1993年5月第1版。
6.《和平、正义与法——王铁崖先生八十寿辰纪念文集》,周忠海编,中国国际广播出版社1993年5月第1版。
7.李浩培著:《条约法概论》,法律出版社1987年第1版。
8.《李浩培文集》,法律出版社2000年10月第1版。
9.倪征礇著:《国际法中的司法管辖问题》,世界知识出版社1985年版。
10.《奥本海国际法》,王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年第1版(两卷)。
11.[美]凯尔逊著:《国际法原理》,王铁崖译,华夏出版社1989年9月第1版。
12.周忠海等著:《国际法学述评》,法律出版社2001年第1版。
13.周忠海主编:《皮诺切特案析》,中国政法大学出版社1999年3月第1版。
14.[英]伊恩.布朗利著:《国际公法原理》,曾令良、余敏友等译,法律出版社2003年月第1版。
15.雪瑞尔著:《国际法》,陈锦华译,云南图书出版公司1999年第1版
16.[奥]阿.菲德罗斯等著,李浩培译:《国际法》(上、下册),商务印书馆1981年中文版。
17.[英]阿库斯特著,汪暄等译:《现代国际法概论》,中国社会科学出版社1981年中文版。
18.[澳]斯塔克著,赵维田译:《国际法导轮》,法律出版社1984年中文版。
19.[韩]柳炳华著,朴国折等译:《国际法》(上、下卷),中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
20.马呈元著:《国际犯罪与责任》,中国政法大学2001年版。
21.马呈元等著:《国际法律问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1999年1月第1版。
22.《国际法资料》,中国国际法学会、外交学院国际法研究所编,法律出版社1988—1993年版,第1—7辑。
23.李双元主编:《国际法与比较法论从》,中国方正出版社2003第1—6辑。
24.黄进、肖永平主编:《展望二十一世纪国际法的发展》,湖北人民出版社2001年12月第1版。
25.柳华文主编:《北大国际法与比较法评论》,北京大学出版社2002年1月第1版。
26.陈致中编著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社1988年10月第1版。
27.陈致中等译:《国际公法百科全书》,第1—4辑,马克斯.普朗克比较公法与国际法研究所主编,中山大学出版社1988-1992年版。
28.陈荣杰:《引渡之理论与实践》,台湾三民书局印行1985年版。
29.[法]狄骥:《宪法伦》,钱克新译,北京商务印书馆1959年版。
30.贺其治著:《外层空间法》,法律出版社1992年版。
31.许光建著《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版。
32.高燕平:《国际刑事法院》,世界知识出版社1999年版。
33.王秀梅著:《国际刑事法院研究》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
34.国际刑事法院罗马规约缔约国大会[联合国资料],第一届会议正式记录,2002年9月3日至10日,联合国,2002.1—4
35.邹克渊著:《国际法院审判案例评析》,安徽人民出版社1991年5月版。
36.于华译:《国际法院》[联合国资料],联合国编,中国对外翻译出版公司1985年版。
37.吴慧著:《国际海洋法法庭研究》,海洋出版社2002年版。
38.万鄂湘主编,欧洲人权法院判例评述》,湖北人民出版社1999年版。
39.陈焕文著:《国际仲裁法专论》,陈焕文著,台北五南图书出版公司1994年版。
40.中国政法大学国际法教研室编:《国际公法案例评析》,中国政法大学出版社1995年版。
41.邓烈著:《国际组织行政法庭》,武汉大学出版社2000年版。
42.凌岸:《距世纪的海牙审判——论联合国前南斯拉夫国际法庭》,海事出版社2001年版。
43.曹建明、陈治东、朱榄叶编:《国际公约与惯例》,国际经济法卷,华东理工大学出版社1994年6月版。
44.曹建明、周洪均、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1998年版.
45.谢觉怀著:《国际法院》,苏州大学出版社1993年版。
46.陈安主编:《国际经济法学》,北京大学出版社,1994年12月版。
47.(46)李居迁著:《WTO争端解决机制》,中国财政经济出版社,2001年版。
48.江国青著:《演变中的国际法问题》,法律出版社2001年版。
49.[美]詹宁斯·瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》第1卷第1分册,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第95页。
50.岛田证夫著:《国际法》,弘文堂1996年3月版。
51.[德]P.A.施泰尼格尔编:《纽伦堡审判》(上卷),北京商务印书馆,1985版。
52.林欣主编:《国际刑法问题研究》,中国人民大学出版社2000年版。
53.赵秉志、王秀梅:《批准与执行国际刑事法院罗马规约手册》,中信出版社2002年版。
54.陈治世著,《国际法院》,台湾商务印书馆1980年版。
55.江国青著:《演变中的国际法问题》,法律出版社2001年版。
56.高明暄、王秀梅译:《普林斯顿项目普遍管辖原则及其评论》,《中国刑法杂志》2002年第3期。
57.中国国际法学会:《中国国际法年刊》(1996),法律出版社。
58.国国际法学精粹》2002卷,机械工业出版社2002年出版。
59.秉志主编:《国际刑事法院专论》,人民法院出版社2003年版.
60.杨永明著:《国际法中主观观念的地位与演变》,《台大法学论丛》第25卷,1997。
1. Bruce Broomhall, International justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press, 2003).
2. Patrick Cappes, Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Approaches(Hart Publishing Ltd, 2003).
3. Luc Reydams, Universal jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. (Oxford University Press, 2003).
4. Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of Jnternational Courts and Tribunals..(Oxford University Press, 2003).
5. John J. Barcelo and Kevin M. Clermont (Editor), A Global Law of Jurisdiction and Judgments: Lessons From The Hague, (Kluwer Law International, 2002).
6. Erik Franckx (Editor), Vessel-Source Pollution and Coastal State jurisdiction: The Work of the ILA Committee on Coastal State Jurisdiction Relating to Marine Pollution (1991-2000).
7. Asrat, Belatchew., Jurisdiction in USA v. Noriega: with Special Reference to the Honecker case, Belatchew Asrat. Uppsala [Sweden]: Justus Forlag, 2000.
8. Jurisdiction in Jnternational Law, Edited by W. Michael Reisman. Aldershot, Hants, England; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1999.
9. Molenaar, Erik Jaap. Coastal State Jurisdiction Over Vessel-source Pollution/by Erik Jaap Molenaar(Kluwer Law International, c1998).
10. Rosenne Shabtai, The Law and Practice of The International Court(1920-1996) (The Hague/Boston/M. Nijhoff, 1997).
11. Thomas M. Franck & Gregory H. Fox Irvington-on-Hudson, International Law Ddecisions in National Courts(N. Y. Transnational Publishers, 1996).
12. Karl M. Meessen(Editor),Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice(Kluwer Law International, 1996).
13. Athens,Declining Jurisdiction in Private International Law: Reports to the ⅩⅣth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).
14. Peter Byrne, The European Union and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments, (Baikonur, 1994).
15. Iain Cameron, The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction (USA: Dartmouth, 1994).
16. M. M. Cohen, (Melvin M.), Admiralty: Jurisdiction, Law, and Practice: With an Appendix Containing rules, Statutes, and Forms (F. B. Rothman, 1993).
17. Luxembourg, Court of Justice of the European Communities, Selected Instruments Relating to the Organization, Jurisdiction, and Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1993).
18. Charles Platto, Michael Lee, Obtaining Evidence in Another Jurisdiction in Business Disputes(London: International Bar Association, 1993).
19. Edward McWhinney, Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: Jurisdiction, Justiciability, and Judicial Law-making on the Contemporary International Court(Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991).
20. by Gary B. Born with David Westin, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts: Commentary and Materials(Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1989)..
21. Rutsel Silvestre J. Martha, The Jurisdiction to Tax in International Law: Theory and Practice of Legislative Fiscal Jurisdiction ((The Netherlands; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1989).
22. Patricia M. Barlow, Deventer, Aviation Antitrust: the Extraterritorial Application of the United States Antitrust Laws and International Air Transportation(Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1988).
23. A.D. Neale and M.L. Stephens, International Business and National Jurisdiction (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
24. Ved P. Nanda, David K, Litigation of International Disputes in U.S. courts (N.Y.: Clark Broadman Co., Ltd., 1989)..
25. Stuart James Whitley, Jurisdiction in Criminal law (Carswell Legal Publications, 1985).
26. Leyden, Permanent Court of International Justice. Ten Years of International Jurisdiction (1922-1932), (A. W. Sijthoff, 1932).
27. Maicolm N. Shaw: International Law, Fourth Edition(Cambridge University Press, 1997).
28. Karl M.Meessen, Exterritorial Jurisdiction in Theroy and Practice(Kluwer Law International, 1996).
29. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Encyclopia of Public International Law(Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1981).
30. Htional Kelsen, Sovereinty and International Law(New York Oxford University Press, 1969).
31. Richard Shapcoott., Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations(Cambridge University Press, 2001).
32. Richard Shapcoott, The Power of the International Court to determine its own jurisdiction. (Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague).
33. Albert Jan VAN Den Berg(.General Editor), Internayional Dispute Resolution: Towards an International Arbitration Culture(Kluwer Law International. The Hague/London/Boston, 1996).
34. Kenneth James Keith., The Extent OF The Advisory Jurisdiction of The Intrmational Court of Justice(A.W.Sijthoff, 1971).
35. Christine D.Gray, Judicial Remedies in International Law.(Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1987).
36. Shabtal Rosenne. The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-1996. (Third Edition.Volume2).(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. The Hague/Boston/London, 1997).
37. Taslim O.Elias,The International Court of Justice and Some Contemporary Problems(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The London/boston/Hague,1983).
38. C. F. Amerasinghe, Jurisdiction of International Tribunals. Kluwer Law International(The Hague/London/Newyork, 2003).
39. Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty Years of The International Court of Justice. Grotius Publications(Cambridge University Press, 1988).
40. William A.Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court(Cambridge University Press, 2004).
41. Knut Dormann, Elements of War Crimes Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
42. Mohamed Sameh M. Amr, The Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations( Kluwer Law International, 2003)
43. Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta, John R.W.D. Jones ,The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a Commentary(Oxford University Press 2002).
44. Martine Hallers, Chantal Joubert, Jan Sjocrona, The Position of the Defence at the International Criminal Court and the Role of the Netherlands as the Host State : Including the Proceedings of the Conference Held in The Hague, 3-4 November 2000 (Amsterdam : Rozenberg Publishers 2002).
45. J.G Merrills, Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and the Discipline of International Law : Opinions on the International Court of Justice(1961-1973)(Kluwer Law International, 1998).
46. A.S. Muller, D. Raic and J.M. Thuranszky, The International Court of Justice : Its Future Role After Fifty years (The Hague ,Martinus Nijhoff, 1997).
47. Connie Peck and Roy S. Lee, Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice : Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court(The Hague, Nijhoff 1997).
48. J.P. Gardner and Chanaka Wickremasinghe,The International Court of Justice : Process, Practice and Procedure (B.I.I.C.L 1997).
49. Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty years of the International Court of Justice : Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings( Cambridge University Press, 1996).
50. Edward Mc Whinney, Judge Manfred Lachs and Judicial Law-making : Opinions on the International Court of Justice 1967-1993( The Hague Nijhoff 1995).
51. Edward Mac Whinney, Judge Shigeru Oda and the Progressive Development of International Law : Opinions (Declarations, Separate Opinions, Dissents) on the International Court of Justice, 1976-1992( Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).
52. Nagendra Singh Dordrecht, The Role and Record of the International Court of Justice( Nijhoff ,1989)
53. Ruth Dormer, International adjudication : using the International Court of Justice : with special reference to Finland( Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia 1988).
54. Lori Fisler Damrosch Dobbs Ferry, The International Court of Justice at a crossroads(Transnational Publishers 1987).
55. Edward McWhinney, The International Court of Justice and the Western Tradition of International Law: the Paul Martin Lectures in International Relations and Law (Nijhoff 1987).
56. Shabtai Rosenne, Procedure in the International Court: a Commentary on The 1978 Rules of the International Court of Justice (The Hague, Nijhoff 1983).
57. Taslim O. Elias, The International Court of Justice and Some Contemporary Problems: Essays on International Law(The Hague; London: Martinus Nijhoff 1983).
58. Taha, Majed Mohammed Ali, P.H.D., International Law and the International Court of Justice(The Claremont Graduate University,1983).
59. Pomerance,Michia, P.H.D.,The Advisory Function of The International Court in League and United Nations Eras.(Clumbia University, 1968).
60. Jhabvala, Farrokh,P.H.D., The development and Scope of Individual Opinions in The International Court of Justice( Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Tufts University, 1977).
61. Alice, Todd Layton, P.H.D., Going to Geneva? Trade Protection and Dispute Resolution Under the GATT and WTO.(University of Michigan 2003).
62. Juyal, Anshumala,P.H.D.,Towards a More Effective International Criminal Court: An Examination of the Problems and Prospects of Its Complementary Jurisdiction(Dalhouse University 2000).
63. Kim, Young Sok. P.H.D.,The International Criminal Court: A commentary of the Rome Statute(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2000).
64. Leo Gross, The Future of the International Court of Justice(Oceana Publications 1976).
65. Leiden, The Case Law of the International Court: A Repertoire of the Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice Including Dissenting and Separate Opinions(Sijthoff 1976)
66. Hermann Mosler, Rudolf Bernhardt, Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: International Court of Justice, Other Courts and Tribunals, Arbitration and Conciliation: An International Symposium. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.(Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer, 1974).
67. Shabtai Rosenne Leiden. Documents on the Intemational Court of Justice(Sijthoff 1974).
68. Leiden, The Case Law of the International Court: A Repertoire of the Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice Including Dissenting and Separate Opinions(Sijthoff 1974).
69. Kenneth James Keith Leyden, The Extent of the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice(A.W. Sijthoff 1971).
70. Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, Order and Justice in Jnternational Relations(Oxford University Press 200).
71. Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, The Hague, International Centre of Justice and Peace. (The Hague : Jongbloed Law Booksellers 2003).
72. Georg Cavallar Aldershot ,The Rights of Strangers : Theories of International Hospitality, the Global Community, and Political Justice Since Vitoria( Ashgate 2002).
73. Chris Brown, Sovereignty, rights and justice : international political theory today( Cambridge : Polity 2002).
74. Nigel D. White, The United Nations System : Toward International Justice. Boulder(Rienner 2002).
75. James E. Hickey, Jr. Technology, Social Justice and International Law ( Sanders Instituut 2002).
76. Richard Shapcott . Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations. Cambridge University Press 2001
77. David Schweigman .The authority of the Security Council under chapter VII of the UN Charter : Legal Limits and the Role of the International Court of Justice. Schweigman 2001.
78. France Winddance Twine and Kathleen M. Blee. Feminism and antiracism : international struggles for justice . New York University Press 2001
79. Leo McCarthy Basingstoke , Justice, the State and International Relations ( St. Martin's Press 1998).
80. Lode Walgrave, Restorative Justice for Juveniles : Potentialities, Risks and Problems for Research : A Selection of Papers Presented at the International Conference(Leuven University Press ,1998).
81. Stephen M. Schwebel, Justice in International Law : Selected Writings( Cambridge Grotius Publications 1994).
82. Robin A ttfield and Barry Wilkins, International Justice and The Third World : Studies in The Philosophy of Development(Routledgem 1992).
83. Ruha Raikka, An essay on international justice. Ruha Raikka.( University of Turku 1992).
84. J.G Merrills, International dispute settlement(Cambridge University Press 1998).
85. P. Hamilton ,The Permanent Court of Arbitration : International Arbitration and Ddispute Resolution : Summaries of Awards, Settlement Agreements and Reports(Kluwer Law International 1999).
86. Clive M. Schmitthoff Deventer., Extrajudicial Dispute Settlement(Kluwer Law and Taxation 1985).
87. K. Venkata Raman,Dispute settlement through the United Nations(Oceana Publications 1977).
88. Guillaume,"The Future of International Institutions",44 International and Comparative Law Quarterly(1995).
89. Rudiger Jutte and Annemarie Grosse-Jutte.,The Future of International Organization(New York; London : St. Martin's Press ; Frances Pinter Ltd., 1981),
90. G Schwarzenberger,International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Volume 4th(International Judicial Law, London, 1986).
91. G Fitzmaurice,The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice .Volume 2nd,(Grotius Publications Limited, 1986).
92. A. Bloed and P. Van Dijk, Forty Years International court of Justice: Jurisdiction ,Equity and Equality (Europa Instituut Utrecht 1989).
93. A.O. Adede, The System for Settlement of Dispute under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(Martinus Nijholf Publishers, 1987).
94. Shatai Rosenne and Louis B.Shon, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, A Commontary Vol( Martinus Nijholf Publishers, 1989).
95. Beaumont: European Court of Justice and Jurisdiction and Enforcement of the Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters(48 ICLQ 1999).
96. Renta Szafarz: The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ, 1993 Kluwer Acadamic Publishers.
97. Tanimir A.Alexandrov, Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ(1995 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).
98. Stanimir A.Alexandrov, Reservation in Unlateral Delarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ( The Hugue,1989).
99. Michael Akehurst(1974),"Jurisdiction in International Law",British Yearbook of International Law 46, at P.145-257.
100. Hessel E. Yntema(1953),"The Historic Bases of Private International Law",American Journal of Comparative Law",2,at P.297-317.
101.F.A.Mann(1984), Legislative Jurisdiction,The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction,3.Chapter I-V,ATP.19-115
102. D.W.Bowett(1983),"Jurisdiction:Changing Patterns of Authority over Activities and Resources",British Yearbook of International Law,53,at P. 1-26.
103.R.Higgins(1993),Allocating Competence: Jurisdiction, General Cource on International Law,5,Chapter IV,at P.89-114.
104. Arthur Taylor Von Mehren(1983),"Adjudicatory Juridiction:General Theories Compared and Evaluated",Boston University Law Review,63.pp.279-340.
105. Harold GMaier and Thomas R.McCoy(1991)"A Unifying Theory for Judicial Jurisdiction and Choice of Law", American Journal of Comparative Law,39,pp.249-92.
106. Karl M. Meeseen(1984),"Antitrust Jurisdiction Under Customary International Law", American Journal of International Law,78,pp.783-810.
107. Andrew L. Strauss(1995),"Beyond National Law:The Neglected Role of the International Law of Personal Jurisdiction in Demestic Courts",Harvard International Law Journal,36,pp.373-424.
108. Joseph Halpern(1983),"Exorbitant Jurisdiction and the Brussel Convention: Toward a Theory of Restraint", Yale Journal of World Public Order,9,pp.369-87.
109.J.W.Bridge(1984),"The Law and Politics of United States Foreign Policy Export Controls",Legal Studies,4,pp.2-29.
110. Patric J.DeSouza(1984),"The Soviet Gas Pipeline Incident: Extention of Collective Security