ScholarWorks@숙명여자대학교

초록

Qatar, faced with collective sanctions by member States of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, has adopted a multi-pronged legal strategy of seeking justice in international fora. As part of its efforts, Qatar submitted an inter-state communication with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “Committee”) and also instituted a proceeding before the International Court of Justice (“Court” or “ICJ”) against the United Arab Emirates, claiming that the departure order and travel ban for Qatari nationals are racial discrimination under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “Convention”). This article examines whether parallel proceedings for the same dispute are allowed, and how the resultant fragmentation of interpretation is achieved, based on the order and judgment of the Court and the decision of the Committee. First, the international legal principle of avoidance of duplicative litigation was not invoked in the two procedures of this case. Instead, each authority made an independent determination of applicability of the jurisprudence on lis pendens and electa una via. The Committee observed that such principles applicable to judicial bodies making binding judgments do not apply to expert monitoring bodies. Second, the Committee and the Court presented conflicting interpretations on whether the term “national origin”, which is an element of the definition of racial discrimination in Article 1(1) of the Convention, includes “current nationality”. The Committee adopted an evolutionary interpretation, underlying the object and purpose of the Convention, but the Court made a strict interpretation in accordance with the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Third, the Court has discretion of cross-reference to the interpretive opinions of the Committee as a judicial dialogue to overcome the fragmentation of interpretation. In the observation of the Court, it was not obliged to conform its interpretation of the Convention to that of the Committee while giving great weight to the interpretive opinions of the Committee. In conclusion, there is room for parallel proceedings in international dispute resolutions, and the resulting fragmentation of interpretations remains. Thus, the need and importance of interpretive cross-referencing between international institutions to overcome the fragmentation of interpretations will also continue to be stressed.

키워드