Judging Judges: Do Judges Meet Their Constitutional Obligation to Settle Disputes in Conformity with 'Principles of Justice and International Law'?

Abstract

This contribution argues that the universal recognition of human rights requires judges to take human rights more seriously their settlement of disputes in conformity with the principles of and international law, prescribed the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Preamble VCLT) well the UN Charter (Article 1). Section I explains the duty of judges to interpret law and settle disputes conformity with principles of increasingly defined by human rights. Section II argues that the governance Europe - notably between the European Community (EC) Court of Justice and its Court of First Instance, the EC courts and national courts, the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) Court and national courts, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and national courts - was successful due to the fact that this cooperation was justified multilevel protection of citizen rights and, mainly for this was supported just by judges, citizens and parliaments. Section III concludes that the European solange-method of cooperation long as other courts respect principles of should be supported by citizens, judges, civil society and their democratic representatives also cooperation with worldwide courts and dispute settlement bodies. As explained Section IV, a world that continues to be dominated by power politics and by reasonable constitutional pluralism, it is easier for international judges to meet their obligation to settle disputes in conformity with principles of justice if courts cooperate and base their judicial discourses on public reason, respect for human rights and protection of the principles underlying human rights law.