¿PUEDE LA COSTUMBRE DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PÚBLICO FUNGIR COMO UNA FUENTE DE DERECHO SUFICIENTE A LA HORA DE REGULAR LA JUSTICIABILIDAD DE LOS ACTOS IURE IMPERII?

Julio Francisco VILLARREAL, Oscar Cubas BARRUETO

Resumo


Objetivos: El presente artículo provee a acreditar que, a diferencia de lo que sostiene cierta vertiente doctrinaria, no puede entenderse a la costumbre de derecho internacional público como la fuente de derecho principal —y mucho menos exclusiva y excluyente— en virtud de la cual determinar la condición de ser o no justiciable un acto soberano ejecutado en el ejercicio de las competencias iure imperii.


Metodología: A tal fin, el presente trabajo apelará a un examen comparativo de diversos leading cases tanto de la jurisprudencia del derecho continental europeo como del common law, examinándose, en tal sentido, las relaciones entre las disposiciones del derecho interno y el derecho internacional público, especialmente las atinentes a las normas ius cogens.


Resultados: Los resultados indican que, incluso en aquellos sistemas jurídicos que adscriben al monismo, la propia costumbre debe ser interpretada de conformidad a principios de derecho público internos que, en cuanto tales, obstan a entender a tal costumbre como un criterio determinante o unívoco a la hora de aceptarse o excluirse la mentada justiciabilidad del acto del soberano.

Consideraciones: Las consideraciones finales resaltan la complejidad de la relación entre derecho interno y derecho internacional público, enfatizando la necesidad de una interpretación cuidadosa de las normas que rigen la justiciabilidad de actos soberanos, a la luz de los principios del derecho público interno.


Palabras clave: inmunidad soberana de jurisdicción; principios de derecho público; normas ius cogens; common law; derecho continental europeo.


ABSTRACT


Objectives: This article aims to demonstrate that, contrary to what certain doctrinal perspectives hold, customary international law cannot be understood as the principal source of law — much less an exclusive and exclusionary one — by which to determine whether a sovereign act executed in the exercise of its iure imperii competencies is justiciable.


Methodology: To this end, the present work will appeal to a comparative examination of various leading cases from both continental European law and common law jurisprudence, focusing on the relationships between domestic law provisions and public international law, particularly regarding ius cogens norms.


Results: The results indicate that, even in legal systems that adhere to monism, custom must be interpreted in accordance with principles of internal public law which, as such, prevent understanding such custom as a determining or unequivocal criterion when accepting or excluding the justiciability of a sovereign act.


Considerations: The final considerations emphasize the complexity of the relationship between domestic law and public international law, highlighting the need for a careful interpretation of the norms governing the justiciability of sovereign acts, in light of the principles of internal public law.


Keywords: sovereign immunity from jurisdiction; public law principles; jus cogens rules; common law; European continental law.


Palavras-chave


inmunidad soberana de jurisdicción; principios de derecho público; normas ius cogens; common law; derecho continental europeo.

Texto completo:

PDF (Español (España))

Referências


ABASS, A. Complete International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

ACADEMIA DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL DE LA HAYA. Recueil Des Cours. La Haya, 1976. v. 149.

ACOSTA ALVARADO, P. A. Sobre las relaciones entre el derecho internacional y el derecho interno: on the interaction between domestic and international law. Estudios Constitucionales, 2016, v. 14, n. 1, p. 15-60. Disponível em: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-52002016000100002. Acesso em: 12 set. 2024.

Al Adsani v. Government of Kuwait, 107 ILR 536 (1996).

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp, 488 US 428 (1989).

AMBOS, K. The International Criminal Court and the traditional principles of international cooperation in criminal matters. Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 2000, v. 419, n. 9, p. 413-426.

ANZILOTTI, D. Corso di diritto internazionale. Introduzione e teorie generali. Roma: Athenaeum, 1928. v. 1.

Argentinianleihen-Urteil, Frankfurt am Main Landgericht, No. 294/02 (2003). In: FRANCIONI, F. Access to justice, denial of justice and international investment law. European Journal of International Law, 2009, v. 20, n. 3, p. 729-747.

BRADLEY, C. A. International Law in the U.S. Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Bank of United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 904 (1824). In: STORY, J. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 1858. v. 2.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964).

BANKAS, E. K. The state immunity controversy in international law: private suits against sovereign states in domestic courts. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.

BAYITCH, S. A. Florida and International Legal Developments 1962-1963. University of Miami Law Review, 1963, v. 321, n. 18, p. 321-361.

Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S. S. Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562 (1926).

BISHOP JR., W. New United States Policy Limiting Sovereign Immunity. American Journal of International Law, 1953, v. 47, p. 93-106.

BOLAÑOS CÉSPEDES, F. Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Social, 2014, v. 19, p. 5-6.

BRADLEY, C. A. International law in the US legal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Caso Blads, 3 Swan 603/604 (1674). In: ZANDER, M. The Act of State Doctrine. The American Journal of International Law, 1959, v. 53, n. 4, p. 826-852.

Caso de la República de Latvia, Rechtsprechung zum Wiedergutmachungsrecht (1953), Munich, v. 4.

Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez v. Guatemala, Tribunal de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (2004), Serie C: Resoluciones y Sentencias, n. 116.

Caso Honecker v. Alemania, Corte Constitucional, Berlín, 100 ILR 393 (1993).

Contra Prefectura de Voiotia v. República Federal de Alemania, Aerios Pagos (Corte de Casación de Grecia) 129 ILR 513 (2000), n. 1172000.

ÇALI, B. The Authority of International Law: Obedience, Respect, and Rebuttal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

DAMROSCH, L. F. Changing the International Law of Sovereign Immunity Through National Decisions. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 2011, v. 44, n. 5, p. 1185-1200.

DANILENKO, G. M. Application of Customary International Law to Municipal Law. In: TUNKIN, G. I.; WOLFRUM, R. (Org.). International Law and Municipal Law. Berlin: Dunckler & Humblot, 1988.

DEGAN, V. D. Sources of international law. Londres: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997. v. 27.

DEMPSEY, G. T. Reasonable doubt: The case against the proposed International Criminal Court. Cato Policy Analysis, Washington D.C., 1998, p. 311.

DIXON, M. International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

FIFE, R. The International Criminal Court – Whence It Came, Where It Goes. Nordic Journal of International Law, 2000, v. 69, p. 63-85.

GROVE JR., W. R. International Law, Conflict Law and Sabbatino. University of Miami Law Review, 1964, v. 216, n. 19, p. 23-24.

HABERMAS, J. The Divided West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

HALJAN, D. Separating powers: International law before national courts. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

Heizer v. Kaiser Franz-Joseph-Bahn A.G., (1885). Gesetz und Verordnungsblatt für das Königsreich Bayern, v. 1, Munich.

HOPKINS, J. New Zealand. In: SHELTON, D. (Org.). International Law and Domestic Legal Systems: Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

HUSA, J. A New Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015.

Jaffe v. Miller, 95 ILR 446 (1993).

JESSUP, P. C. Has the Supreme Court Abdicated One of Its Functions? The American Journal of International Law, 1946, v. 40, n. 1, p. 168-172.

Jones, UKHL 16 (2006); I AC 136 (2007).

KEITHLY, D. The USA and The World 2016-2017. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2016.

KEITNER, C. I. International Law: A Roadmap for Foreign Official Immunity in US Courts. The Judges' Book, 2022, v. 6, n. 1, p. 14.

KLOTH, M. Immunities and the right of access to court under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. International Studies in Human Rights, 2010, v. 103. Brill.

KUNOY, B. Singing in the Rain - Developments in the Interpretation of Umbrella Clauses. The Journal of World Investment and Trade, 2006, v. 7, n. 2, p. 275-300.

Mabo vs. State of Queensland (No. 2), 175 C.L.R (1992), n. 1, pár. 42.

Luca Borri v. República Argentina, Corte de Casación Italiana Unidad Civil (2005), n. 11225.

MACINTYRE, A. Against the Self-images of the Age. Essays in Ideology and Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.

NAGAN, W. P.; ROOT, J. L. The emerging restrictions on sovereign immunity: peremptory norms of international law, the UN Charter, and the application of modern communications theory. North Carolina Journal of International Law, 2012, v. 38, n. 2, p. 375.

NEY, M. Sovereign Immunities of States: A German Perspective. In: PETERS, A.; LAGRANGE, E.; OETER, S.; CHRISTIAN, T. (Org.). Immunities in the age of global constitutionalism. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014.

NML Capital Limited v. Republic of Argentina, UKSC 31 (2011).

Nulyarimma v. Thompson, 165 ALR 621 (1999).

N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 296 (1875).

Ohio V. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360 (1934).

O’KEEFE, R. The Doctrine of Incorporation Revisited. In: CRAWFORD, J.; LOWE, V. British Year Book of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. v. 79.

OVEJERO LUCAS, F. La quimera fértil: el despropósito de la teoría de la historia. Icaria Editorial, 1994.

POSNER, E. A.; SYKES, A. O. Economic foundations of international law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, IT-95–17/1-T (1998), pár. 153.

Prosecutor v. Delalic y otros, IT-96-21-T (1998).

Reclamo de Alemania v. Imperio de Irán, Tribunal Constitucional de Alemania (1963). In: International Law Reports, 1972, v. 45, p. 57-82.

RODRÍGUEZ, C. Teoría del Derecho y decisión judicial. En torno al debate entre H.L.A. Hart y R. Dworkin. In: RODRÍGUEZ, C. (Org.). La Decisión judicial: el debate Hart-Dworkin. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores, 1997.

SHAW, M. N. International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

SORNARAJAH, M. The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

THE FEDERAL REPORTER. Cases argued and determined in the circuit courts of appeals and district courts of the United States and the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. Washington D.C., 1922. v. 277.

The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. 558 (1874).

The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900).

The Queen v. Keyn, 2 Ex D 63 (1876).

The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812).

Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 13 U.S. 191 (1815).

VILLIGER, M. E. Customary international law and treaties: a study of their interactions and interrelations, with special consideration of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Leiden: Brill, 1985. v. 7.

WANG, G. International investment law: a Chinese perspective. Londres: Routledge, 2014.

WEBB, P. International judicial integration and fragmentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

WEST, T. United States Code Congressional and Administrative News. 1976. n. 8.

WUERTH, I. Pinochet’s legacy reassessed. American Journal of International Law, 2012, v. 106, n. 4, p. 731-768.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26668/revistajur.2316-753X.v3i80.7346

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.




Revista Jurídica e-ISSN: 2316-753X

Rua Chile, 1678, Rebouças, Curitiba/PR (Brasil). CEP 80.220-181

Licença Creative Commons

Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.