Fragmentation is one of the major debates
within international law, but no detailed case studies have been made to show
the problems that it creates, and how they can be addressed. This book asks
whether the growing number of international judicial bodies render decisions
that are largely consistent with one another, which factors influence this
(in)consistency, and what this tells us about the development of international
law by international courts and tribunals. It answers these questions by
focusing on three areas of law, genocide, immunities, and the use of force, as
in each of these areas different international judicial entities have dealt with
cases stemming from the same situation and set of facts. The work focuses on
four main courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International
Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR),
which often interpret, apply, and develop the same legal principles, despite
their different mandates and functions. It argues that judicial fragmentation is
damaging to the international legal system, as coherent and compatible
pronouncements on the law by international courts are vital to retaining the
confidence of the international community. Ultimately, the book makes a plea for
the importance of judicial integration for the stability and reliability of the
international legal system.
