Separate opinions in international justice: doctrine and practice

The article examines the institution of a separate opinion in international courts. Emphasis is placed on activities International Court Justice United Nations and its practice regarding exercise by judges right to opinion. positive approval certain opinions researchers, favor which several arguments are given. First, it argued that very fact leads an improvement style decision made majority judges. Secondly, then makes decisions more responsibly. Third, dissent has effect confidence parties process perception losing party, who sees his have been heard convinced at least minority. After all, development law. In legal sources, three categories distinguished: (1) «good», among he includes short, polite restrained, express reasons, not emotions; (2) «bad» - if states fundamentally erred making or showed ignorance; (3) «unpleasant» dissenting judge accuses misconduct. As European Human Rights shows writing opinions, these may format laid down prescriptions mentioned acts, be marked only as «concurring» «disagreeing» judge, but also «partial concurring, partially dissenting» «partially well «separate joined judge», «joint concurring judges», judges». That is, method presenting chosen decided it.The came justice from countries common law system, although latest studies comparativists prove this far case. Separate first spread commercial arbitration, penetrated into courts arbitrations created resolve disputes involving states. our national recognized tool for ensuring internal independence each Constitutional enshrined Article 93 Law Ukraine «On Ukraine» § 74 Rules Procedure Court. These provisions contain general requirements expression do detail types manner they presented It was concluded realities modern consist there no procedural mechanisms «good» «bad», everything determined restraint character himself, minority, culture traditions court itself. older authoritative court, resistant surprises can bring bad unsuccessful individual higher immunity such opinions. And, contrary, younger damage caused judges, authors (judges) approach issue