Gold Principle(黄金原则)研究综述
Gold Principle 黄金原则 - ” This Article argues that what has become known as the Monetary Gold principle conflicts with the Court's obligation to decide cases submitted by consenting parties and should be abandoned. [1] Their “categorical” and mostly doctrinal claim, underpinned by policy concern about “the tensions between the bilateral presuppositions of the Statute and the increasingly multilateral nature of international affairs and international disputes” is “that the Monetary Gold principle is irreconcilable with the ICJ Statute's jurisdictional architecture. [2] ” Mollengarden and Zamir's proposal that the Court should dispense with the Monetary Gold principle feels almost heretical. [3] This paper analyses the monetary gold principle in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice from its introduction in 1954 till the 2016 Marshall Islands cases. [4] In “The Monetary Gold Principle: Back to Basics,” Zachary Mollengarden and Noam Zamir claim that the well-known principle runs against fundamental ICJ statutory provisions. [5] Zachary Mollengarden and Noam Zamir base their conclusion that the Monetary Gold principle should be abandoned on both legal considerations and policy implications. [6]” 本文认为，所谓的货币黄金原则与法院裁决当事人同意提交的案件的义务相冲突，应予以放弃。 [1] 他们的“明确的”且主要是理论性的主张，基于对“规约的双边预设与国际事务和国际争端日益多边性质之间的紧张关系”的政策担忧，是“货币黄金原则与国际法院规约的管辖权不可调和”。建筑学。 [2] ” Mollengarden 和 Zamir 提出的法院应该放弃货币黄金原则的提议几乎是异端。 [3] 本文分析了国际法院从1954年引入货币黄金原则到2016年马绍尔群岛案的判例。 [4] 在“货币黄金原则：回归基础”中，Zachary Mollengarden 和 Noam Zamir 声称，众所周知的原则违背了国际法院的基本法律规定。 [5] Zachary Mollengarden 和 Noam Zamir 基于他们的结论，即从法律考虑和政策影响两方面都应该放弃货币黄金原则。 [6]
Monetary Gold Principle 货币黄金原则
” This Article argues that what has become known as the Monetary Gold principle conflicts with the Court's obligation to decide cases submitted by consenting parties and should be abandoned. [1] Their “categorical” and mostly doctrinal claim, underpinned by policy concern about “the tensions between the bilateral presuppositions of the Statute and the increasingly multilateral nature of international affairs and international disputes” is “that the Monetary Gold principle is irreconcilable with the ICJ Statute's jurisdictional architecture. [2] ” Mollengarden and Zamir's proposal that the Court should dispense with the Monetary Gold principle feels almost heretical. [3] This paper analyses the monetary gold principle in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice from its introduction in 1954 till the 2016 Marshall Islands cases. [4] In “The Monetary Gold Principle: Back to Basics,” Zachary Mollengarden and Noam Zamir claim that the well-known principle runs against fundamental ICJ statutory provisions. [5] Zachary Mollengarden and Noam Zamir base their conclusion that the Monetary Gold principle should be abandoned on both legal considerations and policy implications. [6]” 本文认为，所谓的货币黄金原则与法院裁决当事人同意提交的案件的义务相冲突，应予以放弃。 [1] 他们的“明确的”且主要是理论性的主张，基于对“规约的双边预设与国际事务和国际争端日益多边性质之间的紧张关系”的政策担忧，是“货币黄金原则与国际法院规约的管辖权不可调和”。建筑学。 [2] ” Mollengarden 和 Zamir 提出的法院应该放弃货币黄金原则的提议几乎是异端。 [3] 本文分析了国际法院从1954年引入货币黄金原则到2016年马绍尔群岛案的判例。 [4] 在“货币黄金原则：回归基础”中，Zachary Mollengarden 和 Noam Zamir 声称，众所周知的原则违背了国际法院的基本法律规定。 [5] Zachary Mollengarden 和 Noam Zamir 基于他们的结论，即从法律考虑和政策影响两方面都应该放弃货币黄金原则。 [6]