In classical international law, States alone were the makers and subjects of the law. Times have changed. Contemporary international law admits, not only States as its subjects but also individuals and international organisations; it controls not just the needs of States but also the needs of individuals as it continues to venture into areas which, in the classical era, were exclusively reserved to domestic law. The fact that international law now applies to entities other than States is no longer a subject of controversy both in theory and practice. On the contrary, the question relating to whether international law could originate from a source other than through the consent of States in the positivist sense of the law has remained a question of controversy. The question has been made more complex by the multiplicity of international institutions created by States and vested with authority to perform the functions entrusted to them under international law. The functions they perform influence the behaviours and expectations of both States and individuals; but the powers they exercise belong to the States which delegated the powers. Since the powers are delegated by States, it should follow that the powers be confined by the very fact of delegation to the functions for which the powers had been granted. Such powers cannot be used for any other purpose, perhaps. With this in mind, the question sought to be answered in this work is whether the powers granted to International Court of Justice to “decide disputes” – article 38(1) of the Statute of the Court) – implicates the power of judicial lawmaking. In other words, whether rules and principles arising from the decisions of the Court can be properly referred to as rules and principles of international law. The question becomes quite intriguing when placed within the context of article 38(1)(d) and article 59 of the Statute of the Court on the one hand, and the practice of the Court and of the States appearing before it on the other hand. Articles 38(1)(d) provides: “subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” By article 59: “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case”. Notwithstanding the language of the above provisions, it is shown in this work that like judges in municipal law, judges in the ICJ lay down rules and principles having legal implications for the decisions in subsequent cases as well as for the conduct of States, in general, regarding areas within the degrees of the settled case-law of the Court. It is accordingly argued that to the extent that rules and principles in the decisions of the Court are relevant as rules and principles of international law (in subsequent decisions of the Court) to the determination of international law rights and obligations of States, judicial decisions in article 38(1)(d) are a source of international law. This is notwithstanding the unhelpful language of paragraph (d) and the influence of article 59. Concerning article 59, the writer argues that the article has no bearing on the authority of judicial decisions in article 38(1)(d); its real function being to protect the legal rights and interests of States from a decision given in a case to which they were not parties.

This thesis aims to describe a phenomenon of judicial law-making in 21st century. The thesis is concerned with two main issues, specifically the binding effect of prior judicial decisions and the boundaries of judicial authority in law-making. The thesis begins with a description of essential terms and it focuses especially on a type of judicial decisions-making, which results in not following plain and clear language of the applicable statute. A judge is not free in his choice when to avoid the language of the statute. He is limited by values embedded in law by legislator, which he cannot exceed and extend. Therefore this activity is deemed to be a method of selecting an applicable legal norm, not creation of new law. The thesis further explains when not following plain and clear language of the applicable statute can be in reasonable cases justifiable. This part is followed by specific parts dealing with the particular forms of the judicial law-making within the bounds of two legal systems - common law and civil law. In the conclusion the paper draws a comparison between the judicial law- making in mentioned legal systems. The thesis concludes that there is a difference between the systems in the concept of bindingness of prior judicial decisions. Yet, both systems reach the stability of court...

The concept of judicial law-making impacts on the extent, meaning and scope relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It is an integral function of the courts while its shape, meaning and nature seem to lack sufficient formulation and articulation, which results in an inherent problem regarding its legitimacy. This study examines the legitimacy and the working of the South African constitutional judicial law-making concepts. Its effect on the constitutional relationships between all three branches of government is scrutinized. In order to fully probe this concept, its impact and application on the separation of powers, judicial review, constitutional deference and mandatory minimum sentences becomes inevitable. The introductory part of this study looks at origins and historical development of the separation of powers doctrine and its application under the 1996 South African Constitution. The latter part focuses on the nature and the scope of judicial review, judicial law-making, constitutional deference and mandatory minimum sentences with a view establishing the impact of these concepts in our judicial law-making. The development of these concepts by South African courts, and what seems to be the lack of formulation and articulation of South African constitutional judicial law-making which raises questions regarding its legitimacy is probed. This research recommends that it is of the utmost importance that South Africa develops its own unique and comprehensive doctrine of separation of powers. The Constitution further requires reforms in order to clarify the extent to which the courts can go when formulating laws and public policy in the interests of justice, and whether the interests-of-justice test is capable of delivering a well-informed outcome in developing this jurisdiction’s laws. South African jurisprudence also needs to be developed in empowering the legislature to make laws which are constitutionally compliant without making the courts the sole expositor of the Constitution. Lastly, the extent to which the legislature can enact certain laws must be redefined, which on face value might seems to be encroaching into the courts’ independence and authority. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. D. (Criminal and Procedural Law)