| Popis: |
The article provides for an overview and analysis of the UN ICJ’s practice on implementation of the implied powers doctrine. Main Court’s cases (judgments and advisory opinions) related to this doctrine were examined (Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN (1949), Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the UN Administrative Tribunal (1954), Certain Expenses of the UN (1962), Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (1996), and Fisheries Jurisdiction (1998)). It is noted that the implied powers doctrine became an implementation of the principle of efficiency, which is well known in international judicial practice as the principle interpretatio fiеnda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. It allows to interpret the charters of international organizations in a more ‘dynamic manner’. The implied powers doctrine, on the one hand, expands the limits of such interpretation, and on the other hand, it limits it. Its antipode is the doctrine of inherent powers that allows to make more broadly interpretation of the charters of international organization based only on its goals. In this connection a comparative analysis of two competing doctrines – of implied powers and inherent powers – is made. The author of the article examined the legal positions of the International Court of Justice that allow to the supporters of the inherent powers doctrine to assert that it has wide application. But, based on the methods of interpretation used by the ICJ in making these judgments and advisory opinions, he come to the conclusion that the Court fully supports exactly the implied powers doctrine. |
