지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The LaGrand case was instituted by Germany one day before the scheduled date of execution of Walter LaGrand, whose name is used by the ICJ as the title of the case. This case stemmed from the lack of consular notification by the United States required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in dealing with the crimes of Walter LaGrand and Karl LaGrand. Probably, the significance of this case may be found in the fact that for the first time in the history of the ICJ and its predecessor, PCIJ, the World Court has determined the legal effects of orders indicating provisional measures. However, the other parts of the judgment in this case are so problematic that the above-mentioned significance could be the only one.
First of all, because the Uni ted States admitted its failure to give prompt consular notification, a dispute to be settled does not seem to exist and neither does the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Second, the judgment of the case is based on the premise that the Vienna Convention creates individual rights. It is suggested, however, that no creation of any individual rights independent of rights of States is intended by that Convention. Third, the ICJ decided that the application by the United States of the procedural default rule had viola ted the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention. The present author's opinion is, however, that the United States properly applied that rule as it should be. Moving on to the decision on the legal effects of provisional measures, which the present author thinks is the main feature of the judgment, mentions should be made of the following points: the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to make that decision; this case does not involve rights of States exposed to an imminent breach which are to be preserved by provisional measures; and, given that the provisional measures were indicated only four hours before the scheduled execution of Walter LaGrand, the United States authorities took all steps they could take under such a time pressure.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the main aim of Germany's application in this case appears not to seek a judgment on the questions involving the Vienna Convention but to save the life of Walter LaGrand by means of provisional measures.
First of all, because the Uni ted States admitted its failure to give prompt consular notification, a dispute to be settled does not seem to exist and neither does the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Second, the judgment of the case is based on the premise that the Vienna Convention creates individual rights. It is suggested, however, that no creation of any individual rights independent of rights of States is intended by that Convention. Third, the ICJ decided that the application by the United States of the procedural default rule had viola ted the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention. The present author's opinion is, however, that the United States properly applied that rule as it should be. Moving on to the decision on the legal effects of provisional measures, which the present author thinks is the main feature of the judgment, mentions should be made of the following points: the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to make that decision; this case does not involve rights of States exposed to an imminent breach which are to be preserved by provisional measures; and, given that the provisional measures were indicated only four hours before the scheduled execution of Walter LaGrand, the United States authorities took all steps they could take under such a time pressure.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the main aim of Germany's application in this case appears not to seek a judgment on the questions involving the Vienna Convention but to save the life of Walter LaGrand by means of provisional measures.
목차
1. 사건의 배경
2. 당사국 주장
3. 명령 및 판결
4. 비엔나협약 제36조 위반에 관한 판결 검토
5. 잠정조치명령의 효력에 관한 판결 검토
6. 맺음말
[Abstract]
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
國際私法法院의 假保全措置와 人權의 保護
국제법학회논총
2005 .08
-
영사보호와 관련한 ICJ 관련 판결에 대한 분석 및 검토
국제법학회논총
2007 .08
-
재외국민의 외교적 보호와 영사통지권 : ‘영사관계에 관한 비엔나협약’ 제36조 제1항 (b)호를 중심으로
한양법학
2007 .02
-
Vienna 협약의 해석원칙에 관한 연구
경영경제
1997 .02
-
영사보호에 관한 국내법적 실행 : 미국의 판례와 관행을 중심으로
국제법학회논총
2008 .04
-
국제사법재판소 관할권에 대한 고찰 - 일본의 독도문제 제소 가능성을 중심으로
동북아법연구
2016 .01
-
코소보의 일방적 독립 선언의 국제법상 허용 가능성에 관한 ICJ 권고적 의견에 대한 검토
중앙법학
2010 .12
-
ICJ의 아베나 判決과 부시 대통령의 覺書
국제법학회논총
2007 .08
-
국제사법재판소 잠정조치 명령의 이행강제
국제법학회논총
2011 .06
-
American Decisions on the Korean Provisional Government, 1945
국제정치논총
1982 .12
-
獨島 問題와 國際司法爭訟
국제법학회논총
2005 .08
-
條約에 관한 國家承繼 : 1977年 Vienna協約의 法的 檢討
국제법학회논총
1982 .09
-
‘韓國倂合’전후 미일 간 미국의 한반도 治外法權 廢止交涉과 妥結
법사학연구
2007 .10
-
ICJ의 영토분쟁 사건에서의 입증책임과 입증의 정도
국제법학회논총
2014 .12
-
국제사법재판소와 확대관할권 (forum prorogatum) : 최근 사례로부터의 함의
서울국제법연구
2012 .12
-
1980年 비엔나 協約下에서 EDI에 의한 賣買契約의 成立에 따른 證據問題
무역학회지
1997 .06
-
국제법상 조약관계에서 상호주의에 관한 고찰 : 1963년 「영사관계에 관한 비엔나협약」에 대한 미국의 실행을 중심으로
동아법학
2018 .02
-
차고스 군도의 分離와 후속 상황에 관한 國際法院들의 決定 비교- ICJ의 권고적 의견(2019)을 중심으로 -
홍익법학
2020 .01
-
ICJ의 보스니아 Genocide 판결 및 평가
국제법학회논총
2007 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-016009381