Roughly 90% of all international judicial decisions have been issued after 1990. The increasing activity of international courts over the past two decades is one of the most significant developments within the international legal order. It has repercussions on all levels of governance and unsettles received understandings of the nature and legitimacy of international courts. An important and once even dominant understanding used to hold that international courts are but instruments of dispute settlement whose activities are justified by the consent of the states that created them and in whose name they decide. This understanding eclipses other important judicial functions, underrates problems of legitimacy, and stands in the way of a full assessment of international adjudication. It is modelled around the eminent International Court of Justice and is out of step with recent developments. But what should be put in the place of this received understanding? The book proposes a public law theory of international adjudication, which sees international courts as multifunctional actors who exercise public authority and need democratic legitimacy. The book’s theory’s three main building blocks are: multifunctionality, international public authority, and democracy. The book thus wish to cut to the core of debates about the legitimacy of international adjudication with the driving question: In whose name do international courts decide?
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.