The Neutrality of International Courts and Tribunals: Why and to What Degree?

Abstract

It goes without saying that the principle of separation of powers leads to an independent judiciary imposing the rule of law and thereby assurance for the society so as to be prevented against any abuse of power, which is an integral part and a must of democratic values. This independence and impartiality crystallize as to the degree the judiciary (as an institution) and individual judges are able to hold responsibility without being influenced or intervened by any other source. The confidence of the society and the maitenance of justice can only be ensured provided that this independence and impartiality is taken under guarantee by binding instruments and that the manner in which jurisdiction is performed is carried out in accordance to such requirement. Nevertheless, the author of this paper claims that if meant to remain pretty much uncontested, such rhetoric holds true merely for domestic law, since I believe there is reasonable ground to state that this idea –and “ideal” too, since it has also reached such a level-, is relevant mainly for the domestic laws, dissenting from international law; like the title of the article provocatively illustrates. Likewise, there has been theoretical objections asserting that independence, impartiality and neutrality of international courts and tribunals is not required for fair decisions, justice or the court’s effectiveness.