عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
Over the past two decades, we have witnessed the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. Due to the absence of any hierarchical structure amongst international courts and tribunals, their creation can be described as sporadic and largely uncoordinated with possible overlaps in their ambits. In other words, two or even more courts and tribunals may simultaneously have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same dispute or parts thereof. There is no doubt that sequential or overlapping proceedings before international tribunals do raise concerns and the biggest concern seems to be inconsistent rulings. The jurisdictional conflict that leads to divergent rulings or open ignorance of another court’s jurisdiction undermines the authority of courts and tribunals. Thus, there is a need for regulating conflicting jurisdictions, especially with the recent proliferation of international courts and tribunals and the lack of any formal legally binding institutional coordination among those courts and tribunals. This study attempts to examine the potential of rules of conflicting jurisdictions as well as the general principles of domestic legal systems in settling the jurisdictional conflicts.
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No.ARB 01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, Aug. 6, 2003.