The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Principle of Res Judicata In International Law

Authors
Ali Qhasemi 1
Victor Barin Chaharbakhsh 2
1 at University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services
2 Payame noor of Tehran
Abstract
The legal system of any given society, whether national or international, requires that legal disputes between the parties must be finally concluded and settled. Abiding by judgments made by international courts and prevention of contradictory judgments are related to international public order. Variety of international courts, arbitration tribunals and commissions increases the possibility of conflict of jurisdiction and issue of different and sometimes conflicting judgments at the international level. Such a situation, instead of final settlement of disputes will widen and intensify the international disputes and therefore is not desirable considering the fact that certain unsolved and outstanding international disputes may threaten international peace and security. The principle of Res Judicata is one of the valuable principles of civil and criminal procedure of national legal systems. Today increase and plurality of judicial and quasi-judicial international arbitration mechanisms may serve as appropriate arrangements in international proceedings and to attain legal stability and reinforcement of peace and security in international arena.

The present article will conclude that the principle of res judicata is well-recognized in international proceedings and arbitration and relied upon in numerous disputes. This reality may effectively decrease the existing concern regarding increase of international courts and issue of conflicting judgments.
Keywords
Res judicata
parties to dispute
quasi judicial
umpire
Compensation
restitution in integrum
matter of fact
- Amco v. Indonesia, Decision on Jurisdiction, (1983), 1 ICSID Reports. 8. Barnett, P.R., (2001), Res Judicata, Estoppel and Foreign Judgments, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2- Bower, G.S. & Turner, A.K., (1969), The Doctrine of Res Judicata, London: Buttenvorths, 2d edn. 3- Brownlie, I., (1998), Principles of Public International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 4- Casad, R.C. & Clermont, K.M., (2001), Res Judicata: A Handbook on its Theory, Doctrine and Practice, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press. 5- Case Concerning the Arbitral Award Made by the king of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua), I.C.J. Reports 1960. 6- Cheng, B., (1987), General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge: Grotius Publications Limited. 7- Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libya) I.C.J. Reports 1982. 8- Curzon, L.B., (2002), Dictionary of Law, Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited, 6th edn. 9- Delimitation of the Continental Shelf (UK v. France), 18 UNRIAA (1977). 10- Dodge, W.S., (2000), "National Courts and International Arbitration: Exhaustion of Remedies and Res Judicata under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA", Hasting Int'l & Comp. L.Rev., No.23.
11- Dow Chemical France et al. v. Isover Saint Gobain, ICC Case No.4131 (1982), 9 Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration (1984). 12- Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, I.C.J. Reports 1954. 13- European Commission of Human Rights, Application 16358/90, Martin v. Spain on Admissibility (1992) available under www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc2doc/hfdec/sift/948.txt. Last Visited on 22/October/2010. 14- Helfer, L., (1999), "Forum Shopping for Human Rights", U.Penn.L.R, No.148. 15- Interpretation of Judgments Concerning the Case of the Factory at Chorzow, (1927), P.C.I.J. (Ser.A) No.11, dissenting opinion of Judge Anzilotti. 16- James, Jr.F.et al., (2001), Civil Procedure, Boston: Little Brown & Co., 5th edn. 17- Lange, D.J., (2004), The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada, Ontario: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2d edn. 18- Machado Case, International Arbitrations to which the United States Has Been a Party 2193 (Spain- U.S.Claims Commission 1881). 19- Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, (Qatar v.Bahrain), Mertis (Diss. OP. Torres Bernardez), I.C.J. Reports 2001. 20- Martin, E.A.& Law,J., (2006), A Dictionary of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 6th edn. 21- Parry, C.et al., (1986), Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, Ref. Desk KZ 1161. 22- P.C.I.J., Advisory Committee of Jurists, Proces – Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, (The Hague, 1920)
23- Reinisch, A., (2004), "The Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting Dispute Settlement Outcomes", The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, No.3. 24- Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameron and Nigeria (Cameron v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J.Reports 1999. 25- Shahabuddeen, M., (1996), Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 26- Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 39 I.L.M. (2000). 27- Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Canada), 3 UNRIAA (1941).