Reflecting “The Abuse of Process Doctrine” in the Statutes of Dispute Settlement Bodies

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Master's student in International Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/law.2025.60127.3359

Abstract

The abuse of process doctrine is an ambiguous concept that the statutes of none of the international dispute settlement bodies have not defined or stated a standard to prove it, only a few of these bodies have specified that it can be applied in their proceedings.However, these bodies have a cautious approach to dealing with this doctrine despite having an explicit provision. However, the European Court of Human Rights, in dealing with the doctrine of abuse of process has tried to explain it more fully than other international dispute settlement bodies. Even though the most cited reference of these bodies in dealing with this doctrine is the statute of the International Court of Justice in its issued judgments, the Court itself does not have an explicit provision in this regard. Therefore, with a descriptive method and by examining various statutes and regulations, especially the practical guide of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not binding, we seek to know as much as possible the concept of the doctrine of abuse of process and the criteria for its application and implementation in dispute settlement bodies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) منابع فارسی

    - مقالات

    1. الهویی نظری، حمید و محمدی، عقیل (1394). تحلیل ابعاد اصل حسن‌نیت در حقوق بین‌الملل در پرتو رویۀ قضایی. حقوقی بین‌المللی، 32 (53)، 99-126.

    Doi: 10.22066/CILAMAG.2016.18535

    1. برزگرزاده، عباس (1400). اعمال مادۀ ۷۹ آیین‌نامۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در رویه قضایی. پژوهش‌های حقوقی، 20 (48)، 59-88.

    Doi: 10.48300/jlr.2021.266126.1568

    1. کدخدایی، عباسعلی و محمدی، محمدرضا (۱۴۰۲)، سوء‌استفاده از حق و فرایند در پرتو رویۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری. حقوق عمومی، (4)، 1-32.

    Doi: 10.22054/qjpl.2024.73433.2899

    1. اکرمی، زهرا؛ حاتمی، علی اصغر؛ پاشازاده، حسن (1402). موانع و حیله‌های دادرسی در اجرای ارادی محکومیت‌های مالی با تاکید بر نظریۀ سوء‌استفاده از حق و رویۀ قضایی. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 14 (32)، 33-63. Doi:22034/law.2023.50976.3117
    2. رضوی طوسی، لیلا؛ سیفی، سید جمال و محبی، محسن (۱۴۰۲). سوء‌استفاده از جریان رسیدگی در داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری. مطالعات حقوق عمومی، ۵۳ (1) 267-286.

    Doi:10.22059/jplsq.2021.319898.2713

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    - Articles

    1. Brabandere, E. D. (2012). Good Faith, Abuse of Process and the Initiation of Investment Treaty Claims. International Dispute Settlement, 3, 609-636. Doi:1093/jnlids/ids008
    2. Branson, J. D. (2021). The Abuse of Process Doctrine Extended: a Tool for Right Thinking People in International Arbitration. International Arbitration. 38, 187-214. Doi:54648/joia2021011
    3. Fukunaga, Y. (2018). Abuse of Process under International Law and Investment Arbitration. ICSID Review, 33, 181-211.

    Doi:10.1093/icsidreview/six032

    1. Kolb, R. (2006). General Principles of Procedural Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 871-908.
    • Lemey, M. (2021). Incidental Proceedings Before the International Court of Justice: The Fine Line between Litigation Strategy and Abuse of Process. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 20, 5-29. Doi:1163/15718034-12341437

    - Documents

    • ECHR, (2022). Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria. Paras 195, 197- 198, 200, 203- 205, 210, 215- 216
    • Human Rights Committee, (2008). General Comment No. 33. Ninety-Forth Session, Geneva.

    - Cases

    1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (the Gambia V. Myanmar) Preliminary Objections, (2022), Judgment, I.C.J, Paras 47-49, 113.
    2. Bekauri v. Georgia, (2012). App no.14102/02, ECHR, Judgment, Preliminary Objections, Para 21.
    3. Bencheref v. Sweden, (2017). App no. 9602/15, ECHR, Decision, Para 39.
    4. Cherintsyn v. Russia, (2004). App no. 5964/02, ECHR, Decision, Paras 25-28. Gggggggggggggggg
    5. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius v. Maldives) Preliminary Objections, (2021). Judgment ITLOS, No 28, Paras 337- 350, 354.
    6. Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) Preliminary Objections, (2018). Judgment I.C.J, Paras 146, 151.
    7. Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, (2008). App no.31013/04, ECHR, Judgment, Para 66-67.
    8. Matasaru v. the Republic of Moldova, (2020). App no. 44143/08, ECHR, Decision, Paras 36-39.
    9. Melnik v. Ukraine,(2006). App no.72286/01, ECHR, Judgment, Paras 58-60.
    10. Povilonis v. Lithuania, (2022). App no.81624/17, ECHR, Decision, Paras 92-101.
    11. A.S. v. France [GC], (2014). App no.43835/11, ECHR, Judgment, Para 67.
    12. L. and J.L. v. Croatia, (2015). App no.13712/11, ECHR, Judgment,
    13. Varbanov v. Bulgaria, (2000). App no.31365/96, ECHR, Judgment, Para 36.
    14. Zhdanov v. Russia, (2019). Apps nos.12200/08, 35949/11, 58282/12, ECHR, Judgment, Paras 82- 86.
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 15, Issue 37
December 2024
Pages 227-250

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics