International Courts Versus National Courts: Finding a Way Out

Conceived by States as subsidiary bodies in relation to their national judicial systems, international courts and quasi-judicial institutions have been instrumental in promoting the judicial cooperation across the globe for the last 50 years. Judges at different levels in different countries have benefited from an enriching judicial dialogue through international adjudication. The cooperation and interaction between national and international courts reached the highest point in the legal history along with the unprecedented level of acceptance of international judgments by national judicial systems. More recent developments have, however, tainted both the authority and credibility of some long respected international judicial institutions, raising doubts at their sustainability and even their raison d’être. The subsidiarity and cooperation left place to strained relationship that States are no longer willing to accept. Accordingly, the acceptance of international judgments by national courts and other actors is likely to fall beyond the critical line. What happened to the checks and balances that had long kept the international adjudication within its statutory and acceptable limits, thus ensuring its positive impact ? What choices are left to national decision-makers when the critical rift is being reached as a result of frivolous attitude by some international courts to international law, let alone their own established jurisprudence ?