Menu Expand

Cite BOOK

Style

Martin, E. (2021). The Application of the Doctrine of Intertemporality in Contentious Proceedings. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58186-3
Martin, Edward. The Application of the Doctrine of Intertemporality in Contentious Proceedings. Duncker & Humblot, 2021. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58186-3
Martin, E (2021): The Application of the Doctrine of Intertemporality in Contentious Proceedings, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-58186-3

Format

The Application of the Doctrine of Intertemporality in Contentious Proceedings

Martin, Edward

Schriften zum Völkerrecht, Vol. 245

(2021)

Additional Information

Book Details

Pricing

About The Author

Having commenced his studies in Hamburg in 2007, Edward Martin has spent an exchange year in Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne in 2010, where he attended the specialization courses in international law. After returning to Germany, he attended the specialization course in International Law at the Humboldt University of Berlin from 2011-2012, where he also had the privilege of working as a student assistant at the chair of Prof. Dr Georg Nolte. After an internship at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Edward Martin returned to Hamburg, where he completed his first and second state examination.

Abstract

The doctrine of intertemporality prohibits the retroactive application of norms of international law in contentious proceedings and obliges the deciding court to positively ascertain the applicable historic rules. In situations in which the historic interaction between a European and a non-European entity needs to be litigated, problems arise. International law is lacking a universally recognised methodology, particularly regarding its unwritten rules. Also, the historic non-European peoples were often relied on oral tradition and did not produce any documentary evidence of their historic legal orders.

Historically, different regions of the world produced independent legal regimes. »Meta law« governing the interactions between entities of different regimes was non-existent since no regional order did claim global rule. Hence there were no rules governing the interactions between European and non-European entities.

The applicable historic law is presently ascertained by recourse to specific European phenomena. In contentious proceedings, this methodology leads to a situation of »différend« - a situation in which the method of solving the dispute already vindicates the position of one of the parties to the dispute.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Preface 5
Inhaltsverzeichnis 7
List of Abbreviations 10
A. Introduction 11
I. Intertemporality as a Problem 13
II. Distinguishing the Principle of Non-Retroactivity from Positively Ascertaining Historic Rules 14
III. Outlining the Research Thesis 15
IV. Current Relevance of the Doctrine of Intertemporality 19
B. International Courts and History – The Problem of “Différend” 20
C. The Problem of Method in International Law 23
I. General Methodology in International Law 23
II. Methodology of International Legal History 23
D. Preconceptions in the History of International Law 25
I. Subjects 26
II. Sources 28
III. Genealogy 29
IV. Conclusion 30
E. Problems Ascertaining Historic Law from the Viewpoint of Historiography 32
I. General Problems in Historiography 32
1. “Ideengeschichte” and its Methodology 33
a) Selection of Material 34
b) Interpreting the Material 34
c) The Problem of Context 36
d) The Problem of Oral Tradition 38
aa) Oral Tradition as a Source 39
bb) Oral Tradition as the Foundational Framework of a Society 42
2. Conclusion 44
II. The Problematic Historiography in Cameroon v. Nigeria 45
III. Conclusion 47
F. Juridical Difficulties Ascertaining Historic Law and the Problem of Normativity 48
I. Problems in the Ascertainment Process 48
1. The Problem of Historic Subjects 49
a) General Problems of Identifying Historic Subjects of International Law 49
b) International Legal Personality in the Cameroon v. Nigeria Case 52
c) Conclusion 56
2. The Problem of Historic Legal Sources 56
a) General Problems in Identifying of Historic Legal Sources 57
b) The Peculiar Relationship between Historic Sources, the Doctrine of Intertemporality and Art. 38 (1) ICJ-Statute 60
c) Legal Sources in the Cameroon v. Nigeria Case 62
d) Mitigating the Non-Existence of “Meta-Sources” 64
3. Conclusion 66
II. Burden of Proof and Intertemporality 67
1. Fact-Finding in International Litigation 67
a) The Procedure of Fact-Finding and Producing Evidence 67
b) Burden of Proof and Standard of Proof in International Litigation 68
c) Problems in Finding Historic Facts 69
aa) Indistinguishability of Fact and Law 69
bb) The Reoccurring Problem of Oral Tradition 70
cc) Presumptions and the Burden of Proof 72
2. The Fair-Trial-Principle 76
III. The Futility of the Doctrine of Intertemporality 76
G. The Doctrine of Intertemporality and its Relation to Non Liquet 78
I. Lacunae, Non Liquet and International Law 78
1. The (In-)‌Completeness of International Law 79
2. Historic International Law and Non Liquet 81
II. The Duty to Prevent Non-Liquet 83
III. Conclusion 85
H. Reconceptualising the Intertemporality 86
I. The Basis for Reconceptualising the Doctrine of Intertemporality 86
II. Reconceptualising the Underlying Assumption of the Doctrine of Intertempor‍ality 89
III. Shifting the Relationship Between Intertemporality and Equity 90
1. Equity in International Law 91
2. Equity in Time 93
a) Filling the Gap with Equity 93
b) The Point in Time from which Equity is Assessed 94
3. The Argument for Applying Equity in Contentious Proceedings with an Intertemporal Dimension 97
4. Conclusion 98
IV. The Possibility of Choosing a Legal Order 98
I. Conclusion 100
Bibliography 102
I. Books and Monographs 102
II. Journal Articles 107
III. Other Publications 109
IV. Table of Cases 109
V. Documents 110
VI. Online Sources 110
Subject Index 112