UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

FUNCTIONAL OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: JUDICIAL

This Paper is submitted to fulfill the assignment of

International Organization Law Course

Arian Putra 1806174414

Dara Indirawati Subekti 1806174452
Rafie Juliano Devito 1806174465
Chalisa Jasmine Azhima 1806174490

FACULTY OF LAW
INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
DEPOK
MARCH 2021
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
INTRODUCTION 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
THEORETICAL ASPECT 4
ANALYSIS 6
A. INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS
The International Court of Justice 6
B. INTERNATIONAL QUASI-JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS
The WTO Dispute Settlement Body 10
The Security Council of the United Nations 11
CONCLUSION 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY 14
 I. INTRODUCTION
It cannot be denied that currently there is not a single country in the world that can live
alone without relations with other countries. The social function of one country to another is very
large and therefore the existence of an organization is needed. This organization functions as a
forum for countries to channel their aspirations, interests and influence. There are many
organizations that grow and develop in the world, ranging from organizations between families,
regions, provinces to a wider scope, namely between countries within one region.
As a member of the international community, a country cannot exist without relations
with other countries. Relations between countries are very complex, so regulation is needed. To
regulate it in order to achieve common goals, countries need a forum, namely the International
Organization. The emergence of international relations is essentially a process of developing
relations between countries. By forming organizations, countries will try to achieve goals that are
of common interest and concern a broad field of life.
International Organization is an organization established by a treaty or other instrument
governed by international law and possessing its own international legal personality​1​.
International law is a legal system that regulates relations between the international community.
International organizations are members of the international community. The status of
international organizations in international law is as a subject of international law, assisting in
the formation of international law, as a forum for discussion and looking for ways faced by its
members, and as a means of enforcing compliance with international legal principles​2
The Chart produced by the Projecton International Courtsand Tribunals (PICT) identifies
a substantial number of international judicial bodies in operation. The PICT Chart documents the
rise of the “international judiciary,” spanning an impressive range of jurisdictional mandates and
structural characteristics. This paper will discuss the Judicial International Organization as well
as the Quasi-Judicial International Organization that has emerged over the past few years.​3

II. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the background elaborated above, the writers come up with research
questions as followed:
1. How does the Judicial International Organization form and functions, as well as
the jurisdiction of the said organization?
2. How does the Quasi-Judicial International Organization form and functions, as
well as the jurisdiction of the said organization?

1
“International Organizations - Research Guide International Law: Peace Palace Library,” Peace Palace
Library International Organizations Comments, accessed March 18, 2021,
https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/research-guides/international-organisations-and-relations/international-organizati
ons/​.
2
Aryuni Yuliantiningsih,2012, ​Bahan Kuliah Hukum Organisasi Internasional​, ;Purwokerto. Page 5.
3
​Jose E. Alvares, ​International Organizations as Law-Makers,​ (New York: Oxford University Press,
2006), pp. 458..
III. THEORETICAL ASPECTS
International organizations have a profound effect on the promulgation and enforcement
of international legislation across all of the different subspecialties of international (and some
national) law, and also across the division that ostensibly distinguish the realms of public and
private control. Since the foundation of the United Nations, foreign organizations, and their
members and organs, have sought to meet the demands of UN Charter Article 2 (3). According
to the report, all members must address their “international conflicts respectfully in such a way
that international stability, protection, and justice are not jeopardized.” 4​ Political and
adjudicative peaceful conflict resolution methods are distinguished under Public International
Law. This division is accompanied by two criteria. The first is the constitutional or legal ground
on which the actors resolve their differences.​5 These mechanisms may be governmental,
adjudicative, or a mixture of the two (i.e. quasi-adjudicative).​6
In order to pursue universal peace and justice, international organizations have advocated
and facilitated the use of methods of resolution provided in Article 33 of the UN Charter, such as
dialogue, inquiry, consultation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, recourse to regional
bodies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choosing. In terms of conflict
resolution, international organizations have played two distinct roles: (1) establishing the rule
that, apart from self-defense, states can adhere to negotiated modes of dispute settlement; and (2)
urging, and on occasion forcing, disputants to resolve their disputes by specific means; as well as
(3) to provide fora for the peaceful resolution of all international disputes, including economic or
regulatory disputes that do not pose threats to the international peace.​7
According to a review of this extensive literature, almost no topic within international
law is now immune from at least future adjudicative law-creation. The quasi-judicial and judicial
bodies that are now in operation have a daily effect on one or more of the four areas of law
mentioned below: (1) the fundamental obligations imposed by the treaty system in which the
adjudicator is embedded; (2) “General” public international law (including conventions not
contained in the international organizations of which the adjudicator is a member, customary
international law, and general concepts of law, as well as the different categories of international
administrative law mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3), and (3) other hard and soft forms of future
international responsibility not expressly included in the standard article 38 definitions
(including the several items of international organizations mentioned in Section 4.3); and (4)
national legislation applicable to settling the conflict brought before the international forum.​8
However, the existence of an international organization that isn’t a judicial body but has
judicial capacity is also possible. It is usually mentioned as a Quasi-Judicial International

4
Jose E. Alvares, ​International Organizations as Law-Makers​, (New York: Oxford University Press,
2006), pp. 403.
5
United Nation, ​Charter of the United Nations 1945​, Article 33 Para. (1).
6
Edna Ramirez Robles, “Political & Quasi-Adjudicative Dispute Settlement Models in European Union
Free Trade Agreements: Is the quasi-adjudicative model a trend or is it just another model?”, ​World Trade
Organization working paper​, (November 2006), pp. 3.
7
Jose E. Alvares, ​International Organizations as Law-Makers, p​ p. 403
8
​Ibid​. pp.​ 4​ 65.
Organization. The term quasi-judicial itself is defined as having a partly judicial character by the
possession of the right to hold hearings on and conduct investigations into disputed claims and
alleged infractions of rules and regulations and to make decisions in the general manner of
courts.​9 From that it must be noticed it means the international organization that conforms to the
quasi-judicial function is only partly judicial in character and not fully works as only to clear out
international conflicts.
Administrative agencies in certain parts of the world may be expected to operate in a
quasi-judicial capacity before making policy decisions, and the judiciary may be asked to
regulate the quasi-judicial function of the international organization.​10 Administrative power is
often exercised by a mechanism that is both executive and judicial in nature. We should refer to
the judicial aspect as quasi-judicial, and thus the entire power as quasi-judicial. (Adverbial)
monitor regulatory authority in a quasi-judicial manner.​11 Over the process of the inquiry, the
truth must be shown by the evidence. The investigating Powers must determine if an applicant
state has a government with authority over citizens in a particular region. This ensures that the
fact-finding investigation cannot neglect objective tests of statehood. In other words, a
fact-finding investigation cannot be conducted in a bubble, and such a vacuum cannot be
assumed to exist in the international arena.​12
Such quasi-judicialized conflict settlement mechanisms, such as the WTO's Appellate
Body or ad hoc Commissions of Inquiry under the International Labour Organization, achieve
relative adjudicative discretion or impartiality by appointing arbitrators who are experts in the
legislation implicated by the cases at hand, such as their experience of exchange or labor law,
and not because they are accredited government representatives before the relevant international
organization.​13 The dispute settlers discussed here are “relatively autonomous” of the
governments that create them or the political organs of the IOs of which most are rooted or
associated; this is a comparative judgment that does not mean that quasi-judicial or judicial
dispute settlers are free from political influences or that all such indicators are similarly
independent.

9
Merriam-Webster, “Quasi-Judicial”, ​https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quasi-judicial​,
accessed on 18th of March, 2021.
10
Charles Henry Alexandrowiez-Alexander, “The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and
Governments”, ​The American Journal of International Law Vol. 46 No. 5​, (October 1952), pp. 632
11
​Ibid., p​ p. 640.
12
P. M. Brown, "The Effects of Recognition," ​The American Journal of International Law​, Vol. 36 (1942),
p. 107.
13
Jose E. Alvares, ​International Organizations as Law-Makers​, pp. 459
IV. ANALYSIS
A. INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS
International Court of Justice
The principle of peacefully resolving international conflicts is a very old one. Mediation
and arbitration mechanisms were well-known, but the creation of a permanent bench of judges to
settle disputes using strict judicial techniques was not. The concept of a Permanent Court of
International Justice was given concrete form at the end of World War I, with the establishment
of the League of Nations, under the mandate of Article 14 of the League of Nations Covenant.
Following a peak of activity in 1933, the PCIJ's operations started to dwindle due to the era's
increasing international tensions and isolationism.​14 The Court, which held its last public session
in December 1939 and issued its final orders in February 1940, was effectively abolished by the
Second World War. In October 1944, an Allied conference at Dumbarton Oaks, in the United
States, released a resolution calling for the creation of an intergovernmental body with an
​
international court. 15
In April 1945, a meeting in Washington, D.C. was held with 44 jurists from around the
world to draft a constitution for the proposed court. The draft law was quite similar to the PCIJ's,
and it was debated whether a new court should be formed at all. It was agreed at the San
Francisco Conference, which took place from April 25 to June 26, 1945, and was attended by 50
countries, that a completely new court should be created as the primary organ of the new United
Nations. The statute of this court would be an integral part of the United Nations Charter, which
specifically stated that the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Statute was based on that of the
PCIJ in order to ensure consistency. The judges of the PCIJ all resigned on January 31, 1946, and
the first members of the ICJ were elected the following February at the United Nations General
Assembly and Security Council's First Session. In 1946, the Permanent Court was disbanded,
and the San Francisco Conference decided to create a new International Court of Justice,
modeled after the Permanent Court but serving as the UN's primary judicial organ. In contrast to
the PCIJ's Statute, the ICJ's Statute is an integral part of the United Nations Charter (Article 92
of the UN Charter). Both instruments were signed on June 26, 1945, and went into practice on
October 24, 1945.​16
The ICJ or what is known as the World Court or the International Court of Justice is the
main judicial organ of the United Nations, which consists of 15 judges who are elected by the
General Assembly and the Security Council. The ICJ's procedural rules are entirely outside the
reach of the disputing states. These laws were in place prior to the emergence of conflicts and are
governed by Chapter III of the Statute. Furthermore, Article 30 of the Statute empowers the ICJ
to issue procedural rules to supplement Chapter III. The ICJ has jurisdiction in two types of
cases, the first is in contentious cases which results in binding decisions between the countries

14
​“The Moscow Conference, October 1943,” accessed March 18, 2021,
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/moscow.asp.
15
“History.” History | International Court of Justice. Accessed March 18, 2021.
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history.
16
I​ bid.
that are parties, which have previously agreed to submit to court decisions, and the second is to
issue an advisory opinion.​17 Opinions which provide legal reasons / answers, according to the
questions asked in the scope of international law, but are not binding. Disputed Situation The
agreement of the disputing parties to bring their case before the ICJ determines the ICJ's
jurisdiction over the case. The disputing countries agreement is described in the form of a special
agreement (special agreement), also known as compromis. Apart from the disputing parties
agreement to bring a complaint to the Court, the compromise also includes a determination of the
​
issues in dispute and the questions raised to the Court. 18
Disputes can only concern nations. This is stated expressly in Article 34 paragraph 1
which expresses that only states can be parties in cases before the Court. Individuals,
corporations, international organizations, and even United Nations organs are not permitted to
enter the International Court of Justice.​19 Non-state interests, on the other hand, could become
the focus of the process if one country is involved with another. For example, in the case of
diplomatic security for its citizens, the state brings the case to the ICJ on behalf of the person or
business. If the disputing parties are bound by an arrangement or convention in which they agree
that in the event of a dispute between the parties, the ICJ will have compulsory jurisdiction to
settle the matter, the ICJ will have compulsory jurisdiction. Then, when the disputing parties
declare that they recognize the Court's mandatory jurisdiction, or an optional provision. The
parties to the Statute may announce at any time that they recognize the Court's jurisdiction
without any special arrangement in relation to other countries that accept the same obligations,
according to Article 36 subsection 2 of the Statute, and Any legal conflict involving the
interpretation of a treaty, any question of international law, or the presence of any evidence that,
if proven, would constitute a violation of an international obligation would also subject to the
court’s jurisdiction along with the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of
an international obligation.​20

"The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body
may be approved by or in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a
​
request," according to Article 65 (1) of the ICJ Statute. 21

This explains why the ICJ has a consultative role, which is to provide non-binding
opinions on a legal issue to a body recognised by the United Nations Charter as having the
authority to ask the ICJ questions. The General Assembly and the UN Security Council will
request an advisory opinion on legal matters from the ICJ under article 96 (1) of the UN Charter.
In addition, according to paragraph 2 of the article, the right to request an opinion on a breach of

17
​International Court of Justice, ​ICJ Statute​, Art. 36.
18
​Boer Mauna. Hukum Internasional; Pengertian Peranan Dan Fungsi Dalam Era Dinamika Global.
Second Edition. (2008) p.252
19
​International Court of Justice, ​ICJ Statute,​ Art. 34.
20
​J.G. Starke, ​An Introduction to International Law. 8th Edition​(London, Butterworths, 1977) pg. 527-528
21
​International Court of Justice, ​ICJ Statute,​ Art. 65(1)
an international duty. This declaration can be made either unconditionally or on the condition
that other countries reciprocate. The law can also be given to other UN organs and specialized
organizations, provided that all of them receive prior authorization from the General Assembly.​22
There is a strong distinction between the ICJ's conflict resolution role and its consultative
function. The judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in carrying out its dispute
resolution role are legal decisions that bind the disputing parties. Meanwhile, the ICJ's
recommendations are not legal rulings with binding force, and their adoption is not compelled.
The ICJ's decision is just an advisory opinion, not a decision. As stated in Article 41 paragraph 1
of the International Court of Justice Statute, the Court has the authority to declare interim
measures to safeguard the interests of disputing parties if they are considered to be in need. This
interim measure is a procedure at the International Court of Justice that will be considered by the
Court after one of the parties submits a request for it to be considered by the Court. Following
that, the Court would consider the application as quickly as possible and decide whether or not to
grant it. To elaborate, it is solely dependent on the Court's provisions, the contents of the
International Court of Justice order almost entirely contain new rules, with almost no outside
interference. The situation highlighted in Article 41 paragraph 1 of the International Court of
Justice's Statute has the following goal, any interim steps that should be taken to protect the
respective rights of either group. Meanwhile, Article 41 paragraph 1 of the International Court of
Justice's Statute is designed to protect disputing parties interests until a final decision is
released.​23
It's important to note that this clause gives the Court considerable power by allowing it to
create its own objective provisions on "conditions that necessitate a provisional measure."
Provisional action can be taken under Article 41 clause 1 of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice when the cases handled are very severe and will breach the rights of those in conflict
and trigger substantial losses. These privileges can be lost or rendered null if interim steps are
not taken until the final decision is made. Irreparable prejudice and the importance of something
may be drawn as reasonable provisions of the situation or conditions in granting provisional
steps to be included in the Court's order.​24 Whether a person's life is lost or a person's wellbeing
is threatened, this is considered to be irreparable. This prejudice also underpins the majority of
provisional measures implementation. Previous court rulings have also shown that the most
common cause for interim steps is the influence of human rights. as an irreversible loss that
necessitates the issuance of a very urgent order The Court determines that the possible damage or
failure cannot be repaired, resulting in an urgent situation. Before the Court decides if this
situation needs provisional action, a number of requirements must be met. Since the provisional
measure is a process established by the Court before the main conflict trial process starts, there
must first be a specific dispute before the real trial process begins. Second, there must be a clear
link between the rights that are being protected, namely the subject of the provisional measure

22
​Charter of the United Nations, Art.96(1)
23
Shabtai Rosenne, ​The Law and Practice of International Court​ (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1965). p.33
24
Shabtai Rosenne, ​Provisional Measures in International Law: the International Court of Justice and the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea​ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). p.44
request, and the subject of the main demands made to the Court. Furthermore, before the Court
determines other requirements, the prevailing view necessitates prima facie jurisdictional
certainty of the dispute. If the Court does not have prima facie jurisdiction over the dispute, it
will reject the request as is, regardless of the other elements. Based on the description of the
International Court of Justice order's binding power, it can be concluded that the Court's order
has binding power for the disputing country. Taking into account the terminology of Article 41
of the International Court of Justice's Statute, doctrine, previous judges' opinions, and the
International Court of Justice's decision, it is clear that the order has binding power for the
disputing state, despite the lack of clear sanctions. Because all decisions made by the Court must
be implemented and followed by those involved in the dispute.​25
The Case of the Pulp Mills on the Uruguay River Argentina filed a lawsuit against
Uruguay on May 4, 2006, alleging that the Uruguayan party had violated the Uruguay River
Statute's obligations. The statute is an agreement between the two countries signed on February
26, 1975, for the purpose of cooperating in the maintenance of a river whose territory is divided
between the two countries. Uruguay, on the other hand, built two pulp mills on the Uruguay
River, which Argentina claims will harm the river's aquatic environment and harm Argentina.
Uruguay has requested three interim measures. The first is that Argentina is being pressured to
abandon all efforts to prevent transit disruptions. Second, the provisional measure is aimed at
Argentina in general, instructing it to refrain from all actions that could lead to violence and to
withdraw all other actions that could jeopardize Uruguay's rights. The Court refused to grant the
first provisional measure because there was no threat to the point where Uruguay's rights could
not be improved, according to the Court. The Court notes, as it did in the second provisional
measure, that it is not necessary to grant a provisional measure to prevent the parties from
exercising their rights because the parties are unable to demonstrate which actions are
anti-violent. For the same reason, the Court dismissed Uruguay's third provisional measure. The
Court reasoned that in territorial disputes, the right to independence for both parties is protected
by the provisional measure. The Court is fulfilling its role of maintaining world peace by limiting
each party's military action, according to this rationale. Non-violence (non-aggravation) is a
condition or situation that cannot be stated separately from the implementation of a temporary
measure. Only certain acts of violence against any party whose rights are in jeopardy can be
considered.​26
In the case of Tehran Hostages, the order dated December 15, 1979 at the request of a
provisional measure by the United States was due to the Iranian military occupying its consular
office in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and holding several diplomatic and consular staff in it.
The court ensures that no action is taken that is likely to strain relations between Iran and the

25
Kempen, B., & He, Zen. ​The Recent Development. The Practice of The International Court of Justice on
Provisional Measures,​ (2009) p.925.
26
“Latest Developments: Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay): International Court of
Justice.” Latest developments | Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) | International Court of
Justice. Accessed March 18, 2021. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/135.
United States or make the existing dispute more difficult to resolve. Basically, the content of the
order has the element of preventing violence and ensuring that it does not extend disputes for
ease of solution. As in the case of the Genocide Convention, the Court stated that both
governments must ensure that no action is taken that could cause violence or prolong disputes
and prevent the imposition of crimes for genocide, or make it difficult to reach a solution through
the Order dated April 8, 1993. According to Article 74 of the Rules of Court, a request to enforce
a temporary measure from both parties must be given priority over all other cases. Furthermore,
the Court must state that the purpose of enforcing the order's verdict is due to an extremely
pressing circumstance.​27

B. INTERNATIONAL QUASI JUDICIAL INSITUTITIONS

The WTO Dispute Settlement Body
The World Trade Organization (“WTO”) is a global organization dealing with
international rules of trade between nations. The WTO was established on 1 January 1995 under
the Marrakesh agreement with 123 other nations. The structure of WTO consists of the
Ministerial Conference, the highest decision-making authority; the General Council along with
its subordinate councils; and the Secretariat, responsible in daily management. Within the
General Council, there are three other capacities: the General Council, the Trade Policy Review
Body, and the Dispute Settlement Body. In the event that a dispute arises from the agreement,
the WTO will administer the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) determined under the
Marrakesh agreement at the time of WTO’s establishment, and enforce it through the Dispute
Settlement Body Proceedings. The Dispute Settlement Bodies only has the capacity to accept
dispute among WTO members regarding violations under WTO agreements.
The WTO Dispute Settlement Body incorporates pre-established and detailed legal stages
of dispute settlement, starting with consultations between members, panel review process, and
appellate stage. During the consultation proceedings, conciliation and mediation is also provided,
whereby the Director-General may assist the members in an ex officio capacity.​28 If the members
fail to reach conciliation through mediation, then the proceeding will continue to the panel. In
establishing the panel, the Secretariat shall propose nominations for the panel to the parties in
dispute, and members may select them from the list. be selected.​29 In the event that the members
oppose the panel list proposal, then the Director-General of the WTO will determine the
composition of the panel. With the panel established, the panel will proceed to review the
dispute, rules, procedures, and timeframes.​30 This stage includes fact-inquiry, By the time the

27
​“Latest Developments: United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America
v. Iran): International Court of Justice,” Latest developments | United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in
Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) | International Court of Justice, accessed March 18, 2021, h
ttps://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/64.
28
​Article 5.5, WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding
29
Article 8.5, WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding
30
G. Marceau, "Consultations and the Panel Process in the WTO Dispute Settlement System" in Key Issues in
WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years, R. Yerxa & B. Wilson (eds.) (Cambridge, WTO/CUP, 2005), pg.40
panel sets down the rulings of dispute and the parties or one of the parties do not accept the
ruling, then appeal can be requested to the Appellate Body.

Based on the stages of proceedings, it clearly demonstrates that the Dispute Settlement
Body is greatly influenced by adjudicative elements of arbitration and judicial settlement. The
elements of arbitration are partially reflected in the establishment of panels, whereby the parties
may choose the panelist among the proposed list given by the Secretariat. The arbitration
element is partial, since the members do not have absolute freedom in choosing the panelist, and
the Director-General may have the authority to choose it on behalf of the parties. Furthermore,
the panel consists of well-qualified governmental and/or non-governmental individuals as
adjudicators, not judges. In addition to that, part of the judicial settlement can be seen in the
existence of the Appellate Body, which is a pre-constituted permanent body vesting the
procedure of appeal.​31 This indicates the adoption of the quasi-adjudicative model in settling
disputes into their free trade agreements (FTA).​32
Furthermore, the Dispute Settlement Body possesses compulsory jurisdiction for all
WTO members. This illustrates that if a member brings a dispute against another member, the
respondent party cannot refuse to be present upon a panel and the Appellate Body. In addition,
rulings that have reached the Appellate Body become automatically final and binding to the
Members. A member can only challenge a ruling if the member manages to convince all of the
other members of the WTO to be in favor. This type of decision-making is referred to as negative
consensus. This decision making also applies to other matters such as the establishment of a
panel, and authorization of retaliation.

Security Council of the United Nations

Upon hearing the United Nations mentioned in this section, one would automatically
think that the organ which will be discussed is the International Court of Justice, as it is within
the scope of judicial power. However, the ICJ actually possesses the judicial function, in which
has been elaborated in the aforementioned. The organ which possesses the quasi-judicial
function in the United Nations is actually the Security Council. Although the Security Council is
often familiarized with having the executive and administrative function, it should not be
surprising that it also possesses the quasi-judicial function. As can be seen in Article 24 of the
UN Charter, the functions and powers of the council covers the responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security. In order to achieve that, not only executive or
administrative measures could be enforced, it can also be achieved through investigations,
fact-finding inquiry, and determinations. Nevertheless, the word quasi in quasi-judicial means

31
G. Abi-Saab, "The WTO Dispute Settlement and General International Law" in Key Issues in WTO Dispute
Settlement: The First Ten Years, supra (note 107), p.10.
32
​Edna Ramirez Robles, “Political & Quasi-Adjudicative Dispute Settlement Models in European Union Free Trade
Agreements: Is the quasi-adjudicative model a trend or is it just another model?”, ​World Trade Organization
working paper​, (November 2006), pp. 3
having resemblance with the judicial function, which means that a body can possess other
functions as well other than the quasi-judicial.
The council’s “conversion” into a quasi-judicial body has sparked protests throughout the
years, as the Council is a body that holds no hearings, more often operates in confidentiality,
hears no argument from disputing parties, and does not present any substantial grounds for its
determination.​33 Moreover, these kinds of determinations lack due process of law. However,
there are cases where the council is put in a position where it acts as a defacto dispute settler. For
instance, in the circumstances that there are actions with respect to threats of peace, it is provided
in Chapter VII Article 48 of the UN Charter that the action required to carry out the decisions of
the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all
the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Furthermore, such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly
and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
In this regard, it is often brought to question how the council could exercise a
quasi-judicial function in a political matter.​34 The problem that arises from this question is the
matter of legal responsibility of the decision. However, a complex institutional system has
always been brought upon as a justification for such decisions. Additionally, the factor of
political urgency plays a major role in making such decisions. Actions involving threats towards
peace cannot be easily postponed, therefore the council would have a degree of authority in
asserting legal decisions to ensure prompt and effective action against extensive deliberation​35
For instance, throughout the years, the council has made legal determinations such as branding
the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war as a violation of humanitarian law.​36 These
pronouncements are findings of law decisions that would normally be left to a court to decide but
because they were directed at governments and deemed necessary to restore peace with respect
to a particular crisis, it was as if tolerated.

33
​Jose E. Alvares, ​International Organizations as Law-Makers​, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pg.
421
34
​Oscar Schachter, “The Quasi-Judicial Role of the Security Council and the General Assembly”, ​The American
Journal of International Law Vol. 58 No. 4​, (October 1964), pp. 960
35
​Ibid., pp. 964
36
Legislation and Adjudication in the Un Security Council: Bringing down the Deliberative Deficit, pg. 254
V. CONCLUSION
International organizations have called for and facilitated the use of methods of resolution
set out in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, such as dialogue, inquiry, consultation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, recourse to regional bodies or arrangements, or other
peaceful means of their own choice, in order to achieve universal peace and justice.The term
quasi-judicial is defined as having a partly judicial character by the possession of the right to
hold hearings on and conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of rules
and regulations and to make decisions in the general manner of courts.
The International Court of Justice is one of the examples of an International Judicial
Institution. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is one of the
United Nations' main judicial organs. The International Court of Justice was created by the
United Nations Charter in June 1945 and started operations in April 1946. The Court's function
is to resolve legal disputes presented to it by States in compliance with international law, as well
as to provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations
organs and specialized agencies. The Court resolves international disputes based on the mutual
consent of the parties involved.
World Trade Organization (WTO) is a Quasi-Judicial Institution and is the only
international organization dealing with the global rules of trade. Its primary goal is to keep trade
going as efficiently, predictably, and freely as possible. The Dispute Settlement Body is
influenced by adjudicative elements of arbitration and judicial settlement, as shown by the stages
of proceedings. It indicates that WTO adopted the quasi-adjudicative model in settling disputes
into their free trade agreements (FTA).
The organ which possesses the quasi-judicial function in the United Nations is the
Security Council. The council's functions and powers include the responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security, as stated in Article 24 of the UN Charter. Regarding this, it is
often brought to question how the council could exercise a quasi-judicial function in a political
matter.​37 Furthermore, the factor of political urgency plays a major role in making such
decisions. Since, actions involving threats towards peace cannot be easily postponed, the council
would have a degree of authority in asserting legal decisions to ensure prompt and effective
action against extensive deliberation.​38

37
​Oscar Schachter, “The Quasi-Judicial Role of the Security Council and the General Assembly”, ​The American
Journal of International Law Vol. 58 No. 4​, (October 1964), pp. 960
38
​Ibid., pp. 964
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
Alvares, Jose E. ​International Organizations as Law-Makers​. New York: Oxford University
Press. 2006.

Boer Mauna. Hukum Internasional; Pengertian Peranan Dan Fungsi Dalam Era Dinamika
Global.​ Second Edition. (2008)

Kempen, B., & He, Zen. ​The Recent Development. The Practice of The International
Court of Justice on Provisional Measures​, (2009)

Shabtai Rosenne, ​Provisional Measures in International Law: the International Court of Justice
and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea​ (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005).

Shabtai Rosenne, ​The Law and Practice of International Court​ (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1965)

Starke, J.G. ​An Introduction to International Law​.​ 8th Edition.​ (London:Butterworths 1977)

A​ryuni Yuliantiningsih,2012, ​Bahan Kuliah Hukum Organisasi Internasional​, ;Purwokerto.

Page 5.

ARTICLES
Alexandrowiez-Alexander, Charles Henry.“The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States
and Governments.” ​The American Journal of International Law Vol. 46 No. 4 (October
1964).
Brown, P. M. "The Effects of Recognition," ​The American Journal of International Law​, Vol. 36
(1942).

Robles, Edna Ramirez. “Political & Quasi-Adjudicative Dispute Settlement Models in European
Union Free Trade Agreements: Is the quasi-adjudicative model a trend or is it just another
model?.” ​World Trade Organization Working Paper​ (November 2006)

Marceau, G. "Consultations and the Panel Process in the WTO Dispute Settlement System" ​Key
Issues in WTO Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years ​(2015)
Abi-Saab, G. "The WTO Dispute Settlement and General International Law" Key Issues in WTO
Dispute Settlement: The First Ten Years,​ supra (2015)

WEBSITES

“History.” History | International Court of Justice. Accessed March 18, 2021.

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history.

“The Moscow Conference, October 1943,” accessed March 18, 2021,

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/moscow.asp​.

“UN Charter.” United Nations. United Nations. Accessed March 18, 2021.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.

“Quasi-Judicial”, ​https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quasi-judicial​, accessed on 18th

of March, 2021.

“International Organizations - Research Guide International Law: Peace Palace Library,” Peace
Palace Library International Organizations Comments, accessed March 18, 2021,
https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/research-guides/international-organisations-and-relations/inter
national-organizations/​.