“Transformation linked to globalization and states’ sovereignty crises have brought forth new courts with misshapen jurisdiction.” In her book I Tribunali internazionali tra globalizzazione e localismi, Professor Angela Del Vecchio examines the evolution of international jurisdictional bodies, charged with resolving conflicts that single states cannot face, that affect the international community either directly or indirectly.”
As Professor Del Vecchio explains, at the international level, we are not only experiencing globalization, but a different, and in some ways, opposite dynamic: localization. States are no longer the sole actors in the international community. Alongside them are new “international organizations, multinational corporations, NGOs, and other private groups that create diverse forms of localization from the ground up within the current international community, contributing to a gradual superseding of the concept of the nation-state.
From this fragmentation of interests arises the need to establish ad hoc tribunals, based on ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, ratione loci according to the set of problems, particular cases and events. “Both globalization and localization have led to the creation of tribunals capable of applying and interpreting laws and treaties that are not subject to internal jurisdictional bodies as well as applying sanctions. New jurisdictional bodies are made up of international judges that apply international laws. However, there are also courts and tribunals made up of internal and international judges that apply internal regulations and international regulations (the so-called hybrid tribunals).”
“In some regions of the world,” explains the professor, “there are several international tribunals that cause frequent overlapping jurisdiction. This is particularly common in Africa where we have gone from an initial lack of interest in international law to the institution of a series of regional and sub-regional tribunals, which, in many cases have similar jurisdictions. This has given rise to a sort of forum shopping, or search for the jurisdictional body most favorable to one’s side.”
This plurality of courts can produce conflicting jurisdiction and even contrasting rulings, but this should not create doubts or uncertainties. “It is possible that there are diverse interpretations of the same law, depending on the chosen court. This could seem wrong, but it reflects a natural process that we already see in internal systems: each judge has a vision, and nobody can guarantee that laws are always interpreted in the same way.”
In the new edition of her book, the International Jurisdiction professor analyzes recent cases decided by international juridical bodies and concludes with an observation: “Following the evolution of the international community, the concept of international jurisdiction has changed over time, separating itself from traditional role as arbitrator of inter-state controversies. It now seeks to create new solutions to new problems within the international community or those once resolved by states’ internal court systems. Today international jurisdiction has become more intertwined with internal jurisdiction, replacing it ever more frequently. Even when it retreats, it still creates a significant transformational processes in international society."