Alguns casos de extradição julgados pelo STF possuem especial relevância por apreciarem a ocorrência dos crimes internacionais. Assim, o estudo dessas decisões mostra-se importante para que se possa averiguar o efetivo exercício do direito internacional penal, que regula o tratamento especial dado a estes crimes. A presente Tese tem por objetivo averiguar a incidência das normas de direito internacional penal nos julgamentos do STF de pedidos de extradição. Apresenta-se, ainda, o impacto que o entendimento firmado nesses casos tem surtido no julgamento de outras ações, inclusive por outras esferas do Poder Judiciário brasileiro. Também é possível realizar um comparativo com o quanto decidido no julgamento da ADPF nº 153, em que se reafirmou a validade da lei de anistia brasileira, que, por sua vez, extinguiu a punibilidade dos crimes internacionais cometidos durante o Regime Militar no Brasil. Por fim, a partir desses estudos, enfatiza-se a necessidades de dar efetiva aplicação ao direito internacional penal nos julgamentos realizados no âmbito do STF. / Some extradition cases trialed at Brazil Supreme Court of Justice show special relevance because they deal with international crimes. Therefore, the study of these judicial decisions is important so that it can be possible to verify the effectiveness of International Criminal Law, which regulates the special treatment given to those crimes. The present Thesis aims to examine the incidence of the rules and principles of international criminal law by Brazilian Supreme Court at extradition trials. It also presents the impacts of the understanding exposed in those trials on other cases and actions, subjected to other organs of Brazils Judiciary system. It is either possible to create a comparative between the jurisprudence of extradition cases and what has been decided at the ADPF nº 153, reaffirming Brazilian amnesty law, which has granted amnesty to international crimes committed during Brazils military regime. Finally, trough these reviews, it emphasizes the need to give real enforcement to international criminal law when Brazils Supreme Court analyzes extradition requests.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Heidelberg, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references and sources (p. 463-500).

<p>The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long been recognized as a major engine behind the European integration project for its role in passing judgments expanding the powers and scope of the European Community, while member states have consistently reacted negatively to judgments limiting their sovereignty or granting the Community new powers. It is this interplay between the Court and member state interests that cause the ECJ to pose a threat to the future of integration. Using a combined framework of neofunctionalism and rational choice new institutionalism, six landmark cases and the events surrounding them are studied, revealing the motivations behind the Court’s and member states’ actions. From the analysis of these cases is created a set of criteria which can be used to predict when the ECJ will make an activist decision broadening the powers of the Community at the expense of the member states as well as when, and how, member states will respond negatively.</p>

<p>The European Court of Justice, the ECJ, has the governing function in the Union as a guardian of law and justice. Even today, with a Union of 15 memberstates, statistics show that the ECJ and the Court of First Instance have increasing difficulties in fulfilling their tasks. This situation is chiefly a cause of an increasing number of cases raised. Due to this, profound changes have to be made in order to preserve common lawagreements in a future expansion of the Union. The purpose of this paper is to exam which changes the Courts have to make in order to meet an increased amount of cases that an enlarged Union would mean.</p>

The European Court of Justice, the ECJ, has the governing function in the Union as a guardian of law and justice. Even today, with a Union of 15 memberstates, statistics show that the ECJ and the Court of First Instance have increasing difficulties in fulfilling their tasks. This situation is chiefly a cause of an increasing number of cases raised. Due to this, profound changes have to be made in order to preserve common lawagreements in a future expansion of the Union. The purpose of this paper is to exam which changes the Courts have to make in order to meet an increased amount of cases that an enlarged Union would mean.

This paper comparatively compares compliance to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court and the ECJ by the state/member state courts. Besides comparing the compliance to the two courts judgements, the paper also tries to establish how to increase compliance with these rulings in the future. This is done because compliance is an important aspect of a functioning judicial system, and a comparison might reveal solutions from one side that could be utilized on the other. The main resources used in this book are: articles, books, webpages and statistics on the subject. The main focus lies on the legal approach, but as a comparative study, elements of political science have been used as well. The results of the comparison show that although statistical compliance is quite high, the actual compliance might be lower due to lack of knowledge or political divisions. Increasing the actual compliance is then a good strategy to be sure that lower courts follow the rulings correctly. The conclusion of this paper is that political and policy divisions in a country, or between an organization and its members results in non- compliance. Reducing this kind of friction will help increase compliance to decisions, not only statistically but also in practice, as the lower courts will feel more comfortable with the rulings. An increase of knowledge of the subject, and the development of efficient judicial mechanisms in a state will also help assure correct interpretation of the rulings.

Šiame magistro baigiamajam darbe nagrinėjama dviejų teismų – Tarptautinio teisingumo teismo ir Europos teisingumo teismo daroma įtaka tarptautinių teisės normų kūrimui. Tarptautinė teisė šiuo metu apima labai plačias ir sudėtingas tarptautinio pobūdžio sferas. Tačiau tarptautinėje teisėje nėra institucijos, kuri priimtų visuotinai privalomus tarptautinius teisės aktus. Šioje sistemoje tarptautinės teisės subjektai patys kuria tarptautines teisės normas ir principus, ir patys jų laikosi. Nemažą, nors ir netiesioginę įtaką kuriant bei plėtojant tarptautinės teisės normas turi ir tarptautiniai – pasauliniai bei regioniniai – teismai. Daugeliu atvejų minėtų tarptautinių teismų priimami sprendimai turėjo įtakos sprendžiant panašias bylas ir ateityje bei įtvirtinant tarptautinius visuotinai pripažįstamus teisės principus. Be to, tiek Tarptautinis teisingumo teismas, tiek Europos teisingumo teismas ne tik sprendžia ginčus tarp šalių, bet taip pat „užpildo“ egzistuojančias parlamentinės kontrolės spragas. / Influence on creation of international law rules by two courts – the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice is analyzed in this master’s final job. The international law covers wide and difficult range of the international spheres. But there is no institution in the international law, which would enact the international acts. Subjects themselves create law rules and principles at the same time sticking to them. The international courts – global and regional have quite big although indirect influence on development of the international law rules. In many cases, judgments made by the international courts, had the influence on solving similar cases in the future and on assessing internationally conventional law principles. Furthermore the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice not only solve issues between sides, but also “fill” the gap in the parliamentary control.

Magistro baigiamojo darbo pavadinimas „Nacionalinių teismų teisė ir pareiga kreiptis į Europos Teisingumo Teismą“. Darbą sudaro įvadas, keturios dalys, išvados ir pasiūlymai. Magistro darbe nagrinėjami teisės ir pareigos kreiptis dėl preliminaraus nutarimo probleminiai aspektai, didžiausią dėmesį skiriant kreipimosi į ETT ir asmens iš Bendrijos kilusios teisės apsaugos santykio analizei. Autorė darbe remiasi Lietuvos ir užsienio šalių autorių moksliniais darbais, konferencijų medžiaga, ETT jurisprudencija. / The title of the thesis is “The Right and Obligation of the National Courts to Apply to the European Court of Justice”. The thesis consists of introduction, four parts, conclusions and suggestions. The work includes the analysis of the problematic aspects related to the right and obligation to apply for the preliminary ruling. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the relation between the cases of appeal to the ECJ and the protection of a person’s right arising from the Community. The author of the work refers to the scientific works of Lithuanian and foreign authors, conference material, the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

One unusual aspect of recent American foreign policy is the Tom Connally Amendment, the eight words appended to provision "b" of Senate Resolution 196 (1946): "as determined by the United States of America." In its final form the complete reservation provides that the International Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction over anything the United States considers essentially domestic.Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon introduced Senate Resolution 196 (1946). The italicized Amendment to the Resolution was offered by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Tom Connally from Texas. The so-called Connally Amendment to Senate Resolution 196 (1946), pertaining to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, reserved the right of the United States to deny jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice in cases involving the United States' self-interest. The reservation is self judging: a party to a justiciable dispute reserves the right to say whether or not a case exists.Using Senate Resolution 196 (1946), this study attempted to show how governmental policy and public opinion changed from a militant ideological-isolationist position before World War II to one which advocated the United States' taking a leading role in post-war planning for peace and security. This change in public opinion and the leadership of the popular President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration forced Congress to reassess the traditional American foreign policy of unilateralism.This study of Senate Resolution 196 showed how Congress, and particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Tom Connally, tried to assert itself and take a leadership role in the Senate in the development of post-war planning. This study also shows the difficulties that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee encountered in taking a leadership role. The Committee and its leadership were under constant pressure. In the end the Committee's leadership role was successfully challenged by its own chairman, who, ironically, worked so hard to build the Committee's leadership role in the Senate of the United States Congress.