Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:40:00.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Future of International Administrative Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

C. F. Amerasinghe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The prospects for international administrative law and the international administrative legal system in the future and particularly in the next century will be determined to a large extent by how much importance the world attaches to international organisations and particularly to the maintenance of an independent international civil service as a means of securing international peace and security, promoting development and fostering international co-operation. Not only must there be a change in the current attitude of certain governments towards international organisations as a means to this end but there must also be a more sanguine approach to the singular importance of an independent civil service in the process. What can be said about the international administrative legal system and international administrative law in the future must be conditioned necessarily to a large extent by assumptions made about what is going to happen in the future to both international organisations and the civil service.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 773 - 795
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For the LNT, see Amerasinghe, C. F.. Law of the International Civil Service, Vol.1 (1994), pp.49 et seq.Google Scholar

2. See de, Merode, W.B.A.T. Rep. [1981]. Decision No.1. p.13.Google Scholar

3. For the UN Administrative Tribunal see Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.54 et seq.Google Scholar

4. For the World Bank Administrative Tribunal see idem, pp.60 et seq.

5. For the ILO Administrative Tribunal see idem, pp.51 et seq.

6. For the COE Administrative Tribunal see idem, pp.59 et seq.

7. For the OAS Administrative Tribunal see idem, p.62.

8. For the ECJ see idem, pp.58 et seq.

9. See Wattles, G., Administrative Tribunal, Procedures and Unification, UN Doc.CCAQ/PER/R107.Google Scholar

10. See, on the one hand, Stevens and Others, COE Appeals Board, Decision Nos. 101–113 [1985] and. on the other, A brias and Others. CJEC Case 3/83 [ 1985] and Decisions Nos. 174–180, 182, 184–186, 188–195. NATO Appeals Board [1985].

11. Supra n.2, at p.13.

12. See Amerasinghe, C. F. (Ed.), Documents in International Administrative Tribunals (1989), p.46.Google Scholar

13. WBT Statute, Art.IV(2): Amerasinghe. ibid.

14. Idem, Art.VI(2): Amerasinghe, idem, p.47.

15. See e.g. COE Administrative Tribunal Statute, Art.14, para.2: Amerasinghe, idem, p.124; ESA Appeals Board Statute, Reg.40: idem, p.150.

16. See e.g. de Merode, supra n.2.

17. See e.g. COE Appeals Board (now Administrative Tribunal) in Stevens.supra n.10, at p.8.Google Scholar

18. Supra n.2.

19. See WBT Statute, Art.IV(3): Amerasinghe, op. cit.supra n.12, at p.46; UNATStatute. Art.3(2): idem, p.7.Google Scholar

20. See WBT Statute. Art.III(3): Amerasinghe. idem, p.46; OASAT Statute. Art.III(3): idem, p.85.

21. UNAT Judgment No.162 [1972], JUNAT Nos.114–166, p.387. See the discussion in Amerasinghe. op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.140 et seq.Google Scholar

22. The issue has arisen in connection with Yakimetz. UNAT Judgment No.333 [1984].Google Scholar

23. On admissibility see Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.216–240.Google Scholar

24. See Art.II, particularly para.4, of the ILOAT Statute: Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.12, at p.31. See also now the Statute of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Commonwealth Secretariat.Google Scholar

25. See Arts.II and III of the IMFAT Statute, which limit the court's jurisdiction.

26. Supra n.21.

27. See the discussion in Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.140 et seq.Google Scholar

28. See the discussion in idem, pp.14 et seq. and von Stauffenberg et ai, W.B.A.T. Rep. [1987, Part I], Decision No.38.

29. Supra n.2. See also discussion in Amerasinghe, idem, pp.212 et seq.

30. Art.XIIl of the Statute.

31. Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.203 et seq.Google Scholar

32. Idem. pp.342 et seq.

33. Idem. pp.366 et seq.

34. Idem. pp.313 et seq.

35. Idem. pp.402 et seq.

36. W.B.A.T. Rep. [1985], Decision No.24. For “arbitrariness” see also e.g. Apkarian, W.B.A.T. Rep. [1983, Part I]. Decision No.58; Chakra. W.B.A.T. Rep. [1988. Part II], Decision No.70.

37. See Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1, at pp.395 et seq.Google Scholar

38. For the approaches see idem. pp.419–439.

39. See idem, pp.156–157.

40. Apparently the attitude implied in Mullan. supra n.21.

41. See apparently e.g. Artzet, COE Appeals Board, Appeal No.8 [1973].Google Scholar

42. Supra n.2.

43. See Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1, at Vol.11, pp.329 et seq.Google Scholar

44. De los Cobos and Wenger, ILOAT Judgment No.39 [1980] (ILO).

45. See the discussion in Amerasinghe, loc. cit. supra n.43.

46. See e.g. Art.9 of the UNAT Statute: Amerasinghe. op. cit. supra n.12, at p.9: Art.VIII of the ILOAT Statute:Idem., p.33; Art.XII of the WBT Statute: idem, p.48.Google Scholar

47. See discussion in Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1. at pp.444 et seq.Google Scholar

48. See e.g. r.15 of the WBT Rules: Amerasinghe. op. cit. supra n.12, at p.56: Art.12 of the ILOAT Rules of Court: Idem., p.39; Art.15 of the UNAT Rules: idem p.20.Google Scholar

49. See Amerasinghe, op. cit. supra n.1. at pp.80 et seq.Google Scholar

50. See an essay to be published in Liber Amicorum for Krystof Skubiszewski by the present author entitled “International Law and the Concept of Law: Why International Law is Law”.