We speak legal English. Matters at law. Материалы межвузовской научно-практической конференции (Москва, 27 ноября 2015 г.)

to make sure that legal cases are brought to trial in a reasonable length of time. In civil law (legal system) systems, similar provisions are typically part of their civil or criminal codes and known collectively as periods of prescription. The cause of action dictates the statute of limitations, which can be reduced (or extended) to ensure a fair trial. When a statute of limitations expires (runs out) in a criminal case, the courts no longer have jurisdiction. After that time has run out a person can no longer be placed on trial for that cause. However, once filed, cases do not need to be resolved within the period specified in the statute of limitations.

I chose this topic because this phenomenon often occurs in criminal law, but not many people can give an exact legal definition. For me, it is a very interesting topic, but unfortunately, statutes of limitations are inevitable in some criminal law. I’d like to tell you about the statute of limitations, their purposes, how it works and what are the limitation periods in different countries.

Statutes of limitations, which date back to early Roman Law, are a fundamental part of European and U.S. law. These statutes, which apply to both civil and criminal actions, are designed to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become obscure through the passage of time or the defective memory, death, or disappearance of witnesses.

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their existence:

•A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.

•A defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim.

•A long-dormant claim has ”more cruelty than justice” (Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition).

Different countries deal with statues of limitations differently, but in most places the law is roughly the same. In Canada, for example, statutes of limitation apply only to minor crimes, known as summaries. These crimes include trespassing and indecency, and always have a statute of limitations of 6 months. In the United States, statutes of limitation vary depending on the crime and the state in which that crime was committed but the general rule is that all crimes which are not decidedly ”heinous” have a statute of limitations.

In Russia, the concept of a Statute of limitations first appeared in the Manifesto of Catherine II of March 17, 1775, which stated that a crime of any kind, not made public, should be subjected to oblivion, if the date of its Commission has been 10 years.

There are the following time scales in Russia within which an investigation should be carried out:

•2 years, if the offence is committed with the infliction of slight injury.

•6 years if the offence qualified as a crime of medium gravity.

•10 years, if the crime is of severe nature.

•15 years if the offence is of a particularly serious nature.

Hence, we see that the heavier the crime, the longer time must have passed since it was committed.

This term itself is questionable in value. For example, a statute of limitations is a law that prevents the prosecution once a specified amount of time has passed. For instance, a rape was committed in 2020 in a jurisdiction that prosecutions for rape is limited by statute to ten years after the crime (or possibly ten years after charges were first filed against a suspect), no charges could be filed after 2030. Limitations statutes vary by jurisdiction and tend to scale up based on the graveness of the crime. Recently, accusations of child molestation and sexual assault by religious ministers have led to a number of proposals

11

that law systems with statutes of limitations lift them and allow prosecutions to proceed irrespective of how long ago in the past an alleged crime occurred.

On the one hand, many types of cases intrinsically have long periods of time during which evidence arises. For instance, in cases of child molestation often an evidence may be suppressed due to long term institutional failings, protracted family abuse or continued proximity between an offender and an isolated, intimidated victim. Children may be reluctant to speak out against individuals who are held in high regard in their communities, or they feel embarrassed about what has happened to them. There also exists the possibility of repressed memory, where the brains of the individuals who were abused actually cause them to forget such a traumatic event that had occurred until years later, often well into adulthood.

On the other hand, while the plight of these victims is lamentable, when we are balancing the individual and public interests in retribution on the part of the victims against defendants’ right to a fair trial and the protection of the innocent, we take the part of innocent. If something happened thirty years ago, there is no real way to know exactly what happened, and ”repressed memory” sounds like a fairly dubious thing to base a conviction on when the events in question are likely hazy. At best these trials will likely simply tie up court resources for inconclusive results and acquittals based on insufficient evidence, and at worst they are at risk of putting innocent people in prison. Better ten guilty men go free than a single innocent person be punished unjustly.

В. В. Андреева

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 is an Act of the Parliament of England passed during the reign of King Charles II. This law is still on the British statute books, and a version of it is used in the United States, where the law is regarded as such an important guarantee that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution declares that ”Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended expect in cases of rebellion or invasion”.

The Act is often wrongly described as the origin of the writ of habeas corpus. But the writ of habeas corpus had existed in England for at least three centuries before and traces its origin back to the Magna Carta in 1215, whose article 39 reads: ”No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land”. The Act of 1679 followed an earlier Habeas Corpus Act of 1640, which established that the command of the King or the Privy Council was no answer to a petition of habeas corpus. Further Habeas Corpus Acts were passed by the British Parliament in 1803, 1804, 1816 and 1862, but it is the Act of 1679 which is remembered as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day.

Content

In criminal matters other than treason and felonies, the act gave prisoners or third parties acting on their behalf the right to challenge their detention by demanding from the Lord Chancellor, Justices of the King’s Bench, and the Barons of the Exchequer of the jurisdiction a judicial review of their imprisonment. The act laid out certain temporal

12

and geographical conditions under which prisoners had to be brought before the courts. Jailors were forbidden to move prisoners from one prison to another or out of the country to evade the writ. In case of disobedience jailers would be punished with severe fines which had to be paid to the prisoner.

Parliamentary history

The Act came about because the Earl of Shaftesbury encouraged his friends in the Commons to introduce the Bill where it passed and was then sent up to the House of Lords. Shaftesbury was the leading Exclusionist — those who wanted to exclude Charles II’s brother James, Duke of York from the succession — and the Bill was a part of that struggle as they believed James would rule arbitrarily. The Lords decided to add many wrecking amendments to the Bill in an attempt to kill it; the Commons had no choice but to pass the Bill with the Lords’ amendments because they learned that the King would soon end the current parliamentary session.

The Bill went back and forth between the two Houses, and then the Lords voted on whether to set up a conference on the Bill. If this motion was defeated the Bill would stay in the Commons and therefore have no chance of being passed. Each side — those voting for and against — appointed a teller who stood on each side of the door through which those Lords who had voted ”aye” re-entered the House (the ”nays” remained seated). One teller would count them aloud whilst the other teller listened and kept watch in order to know if the other teller was telling the truth. Shaftesbury's faction had voted for the motion, so they went out and re-entered the House. Gilbert Burnet, one of Shaftesbury’s friends, recorded what then happened:

Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers: Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing: so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him as ten, as a jest at first: but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten: so it was reported that they that were for the Bill were in the majority, though indeed it went for the other side: and by this means the Bill passed.

The clerk recorded in the minutes of the Lords that the ”ayes” had fifty-seven and the ”nays” had fifty-five, a total of 112, but the same minutes also state that only 107 Lords had attended that sitting.

The King arrived shortly thereafter and gave Royal Assent before proroguing Parliament. The Act is now stored in the Parliamentary Archives.

Thus, the Habeas Corpus Act is one of the most important guarantees of rights and liberties in the UK and the USA.

Д. В. Артюх

Violation of ethical and moral standards in journalist society

Journalism is the actualization of the outlook of social group by means of facts, evaluations and comments which are topical and considerable at this time.

The press language is still rather monotonous, journalists with any individualized style is worth its weight in gold. Newspapers dominated by a mixture: it is the language

13

of former ages, heavily diluted with Anglicisms, and it is the language of younger generation.

Charlie Hebdo is the French satirical weekly, comes on Wednesdays. It publishes cartoons, stories, discussions and anecdotes of non-conformist nature, occupying the leftwing and secular positions, makes fun of politicians, far rightists, Islam and Christianity. It is the daring, ruthless newspaper. Editorial line is a satire. Its slogan is irony. Charlie Hebdo spares no one: neither politicians, nor religion, nor culture, nor society.

What a joke is in Charlie Hebdo? The editors of Charlie Hebdo follow an extremely anti-religious and left-leaning publishes cartoons, columns, articles and other satirical materials of social and political orientation. At different times on the front page of the newspaper almost all religions, from Catholicism to Islam, and politicians, especially the French ones, were derided.

Why are they doing this? In Charlie Hebdo believe that there are not taboo topics for jokes, and religion is no exception. In 2008, the newspaper won the trial on the claim from the representatives of the Muslim community, angered by the reprinting of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The editors explained that the weekly had published a variety of provocative materials on various topics, but only the cartoons of the prophet had touched off a negative reaction.

In addition, in spring 2006, Charlie Hebdo published a ”Manifesto of the twelve”, in which Islamism has been called the ”new totalitarianism”. ”Defeating fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world faces a new global totalitarian threat type — Islamism. We... call for resistance to religious totalitarianism, the assertion of liberty, equality of opportunity and secularism for all”, the article said. The authors of the Manifesto have stated that ”it is not about a clash of civilizations or about the antagonism between the West and the East, but a global struggle in which the Democrats oppose theocrats”.

In November 2015, the magazine published two cartoons of the disaster of the Russian aircraft A321 over the Sinai Peninsula, which caused a negative reaction of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Duma; the cartoons were seen as ”cynical”, ”blasphemy” and ”mockery of the memory of the dead”. The reaction followed on the French side.

Journalist Alla Yaroshinskaya said about this :

”I’m certainly in favour of a freedom of speech, and I did a lot to make it finally appeared in the USSR and in Russia in my day. However, I am dead set against such a ’freedom‘ of speech, which is used by the Charlie Hebdo magazine for decades. It is a pity that the authorities and the leaders of some countries, instead of condemning the murder, Islamic radicals and expressing social solidarity by assessing such a provocative ’journalism‘, went on stirring up sectarian strife and false understanding of freedom of speech”.

Cultural anthropologist, historian and art critic Grigory Revzin believes that the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo magazine have nothing to do with freedom of speech, relating them to the phenomena of ”much more ancient freedom — the freedom of the shackles of civilization, the emancipation of the animal nature in itself”.

Supreme mufti of Russia Talgat Tadjuddin, commenting on the publishing of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo, said that he considers unacceptable to print any cartoons defaming saints, either Islamic or Christian or Jewish: ”In Europe it have lead to murders. Such provocations should be really blamed by any society”.

Russian politician, the Deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg Vitaly Milonov called to put Charlie Hebdo in the list of extremist materials, which are banned in Russia:

”This magazine is fueling sectarian strife, and its publication, therefore, lead to the escalation of violence. By this ban we want to forestall the issue of the Russian version

14

of the magazine. Such ideas and images will not meet with support of the vast majority of Russians”.

Russian Ombudsman called the creativity of the editors of the French magazine ”public necrophilia”.

”Cartoons of Charlie Hebdo magazine have a scent of sulphur and the underworld, and their ’creativity‘ is more like a public necrophilia. These guys found a way to dance even on the blood and bones of their own colleagues and employees, and earned considerable royalty for that. Our shaming will hardly impress people who voluntarily turned themselves in dirty immoral perverts, laughing and deliberately sneering where normal people grieve. Nothing remains but to pray for their salvation, if they still have souls...”

I recall that the famous French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published some cynical cartoons that were dedicated to the crash of the Russian airliner in the Sinai Peninsula. The one depicts the crouching terrorist who tries to escape from the wreckage and falling corpses. The picture is signed: ”The Russian air force has escalated the bombardment”.

Another image was more cynical: in among the burning aircraft wreckage there is a skull with molten sunglasses in the company of other such skulls. The skull in the picture feels bad about choosing Russian airlines.

I have only negative associations. In my opinion, a true journalist has to create his own masterpieces and link them with defined moral values.

Of course, you can laugh at politicians, artists and other figures, but they are ALIVE! To laugh at death is a sin!

Death is the worst thing that awaits each person. People mourn for their relatives, children, mothers and fathers! It is very terrible and severe grief of losing children and grandchildren.

I sympathize with all parents, without exception, who have lost their babies. Yes, despite its age, each person will always be a baby for its parents.

Now these so-called people began to laugh at other people’s sorrow.

Russian families met with death, and these base creatures are laughing at them! Don’t let the mother who have lost not only children, but grandchildren to know that somebody mocks of it.

We don’t think the authors of the Charlie Hebdo are people at all! They deserve everybody’s condemnation and curse! They can’t be let in public places and halidoms.

They need to be judged! To bear international liability at the international tribunal!

So, it is clear that not every person is entitled to the proud name of man.

Р. А. Асатрян, М. В. Шахдинарян

The European Union (EU)

The European Union (EU) is the most economically and politically successful association of countries in the world. This sort of union affects not only the countries within the EU, but also those outside it. The European Union is most likely the wisest

15

and most reasonable union ever. The idea of the EU creation aimed not only to cement an economic union for the advantage of the member states which formed it but also to stop the constant cycle of wars in Europe between its great nations. We would suggest that both these objectives have been achieved.

Member-states of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom.

The EU is the largest community with common ideas, plans, democratic regimes, economies, etc., where people successfully cooperate with each other. All of these are positive factors. Even though there surely must be difficulties of living in such a huge society; these can be overcome with tolerance and understanding.

Actually, some of the EU countries were formerly from the USSR proper or from the socialist block. Back at that time they were completely separated from the rest of Europe by the so called Iron Curtain and had undemocratic regimes of a backward nature. Whereas now, twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, all countries of the EU are considered democratic. Never mind the past and its problems, people in Europe are free, happy, satisfied and can expect a decent salary, medical care and social services.

Citizens of the EU can travel freely from one country to another. The movement of a work force in this manner is good for the economy. Of course, a union of so many countries is also very profitable when it works properly.

A key activity of the EU is the establishment and administration of a common single market consisting of a customs union, a single currency adopted by 12 of the 25 member states, a Common Agricultural Policy, a common trade policy, and a Common Fisheries Policy. This we have seen recently, different governments have acted like one in order to promote their growth and come out of the recession. These attempts were successful and we see the European economy growing again as national and central authorities support each other.

Nevertheless, there are some disadvantages of the EU. For example, since the EU is a cosmopolitan society, people may find it hard to put up with each other’s behavior, languages, customs, traditions etc. However, European citizens are given protection of the charters of human rights and social security provisions, so this makes them really free to live their lives in peace and security.

The European Union (EU) is a group of democratic European countries, joined by the common goal of peace and prosperity. The members of the EU have assigned some of their powers to joint bodies in order to ensure specific matters of joint interest can be settled democratically with the best interests of the EU as a whole in mind.

В. Ю. Бабынина

Euthanasia: solution or not

A question of euthanasia on a par with the question of death penalty is being discussed in society during a long period. Speaking about euthanasia, first of all we speak not about the question of death in general but about the human who suffers from incurable

16

disease. Euthanasia is an issue that affects a major human value — his life. There are a lot of definitions of term ”euthanasia” but from my point of view the most considerable are:

1)Euthanasia is a forcing of one’s death not to let him suffer from incurable disease.

2)Euthanasia is an artificial death to free the patient from hurt.

Francis Bacon was the first who used this term in 16th century to define ”easy penalty”. There are two forms of euthanasia: active and passive.

• Active euthanasia can be carried out under the joint action of the patient and the doctor.

The forms of active euthanasia:

Mercy killing — the doctor, at the request of a patient suffering from a severe illness, helps him to die by administering a specific medicine.

Active euthanasia — the patient activates the device given to him by another person, by means of which comes easy and painless death.

• Passive euthanasia is refraining from taking any action in relation to the terminally ill, aimed at maintaining his life, with the aim of getting rid of his misery.

The idea of euthanasia was widely spread in Europe before the beginning of the First World War. It is well known that on September 23, 1939, because of the incurable form of cancer Sigmund Freud used an euthanasia with the help of doctor Shura in his house in London.

In most of countries of the world, euthanasia is banned. At the same time, there are countries that allow it and even give it their preferences. In the 21st century, euthanasia was first used in the Netherlands in 2002. The Netherlands became the first country where euthanasia has been legally approved. Also, euthanasia is allowed in the Benelux, which includes Belgium, Luxembourg and also Netherlands. In turn, the Swiss legislation allows free interpretation about this type of death. In the USA, the euthanasia is allowed only in three states: Oregon, Washington and Montana. In Scotland, it addresses the issue of the legalization of euthanasia. In Australia, promotion of euthanasia is punishable by law. In the Russian Federation, euthanasia is not allowed by law and is a crime that is qualified as premeditated murder. But what happens if you ask the citizens of our country how they apply to euthanasia? What will be their answer? After a small sociological survey, I found out that 90% out of 100% vote for the legalization of euthanasia, but only under certain conditions. The reason for the use of euthanasia must be a disease that is incurable. People think that the time spent on life support for those who die in six months and still suffers, can be spent on those who really need it. At the same time, the decision about killing should be taken only by patient, and nobody else.

But if you imagine that euthanasia is legal in Russia, then we will be faced with a number of problems. Firstly, how it should be organized? With the agreement of the patient? We must remember that in the last stages of the disease, the patient does not understand what is going on, many of them are under drug. In this case, the sin of killing would be taken by relatives, who sign the documents on euthanasia. Those relatives who hate the patient or want his death will be the serious problem. Which relatives can make a decision on killing the patient? The third, who exactly will execute this decision? Not every doctor wants voluntarily to ”kill” the person. Relatives who take this decision will not be able to do it, and to force them is immoral. If you create a new public agency that will take responsibility for the performance of euthanasia, then the question of how it will work arises. You must open the hospital, which will be based on these patients, and nobody will know when the family will take a decision. On the other hand, representatives of the public agency will work on call. The fourth problem is the development of medicine. The fact that the medicine does not stand still, and every day scientists invent new medicine for incurable diseases. Then, what will

17

be the feelings of people who have taken this difficult decision, and the next day will discover the invention of the drug for this disease?

From my point of view, euthanasia gives freedom from relatives which cannot be cured, but on the other hand, it is murder. Answering to a question, some people using ”yes’ or ”no” do not even think about this problem. Taking a ”pro” position we will meet with not only the people who do not agree with our opinion, but also with the death of people which will apply the procedure, and with problems of its execution. Taking a ”contra” position, we will meet with a dissatisfied people who demand the legalization of euthanasia. To my mind, the ”contra” policy adopted by our state is the most correct on the basis of the above. Perhaps many people believe that it is a SOLUTION, but for me it is a PROBLEM.

Э. В. Балаева

Assassination

Despite a rather wide range of crimes committed in the country, they may be combined into groups of similar crimes that, for all the identity of each of them, may have a number of features in common, and therefore general methods of investigation can be used.

Assassinations are difficult to detect as they are carefully planned and committed by professionals. There is usually no trace of killers at the scene of the crime. Detection and investigation of assassinations is a complex and multifaceted activity where the investigator must demonstrate considerable managerial skills. It is also a cognitive and continuous process.

The majority of scientists divide the process of investigation into three stages: initial, subsequent and final though different scientists have isolated a different number of stages.

The investigation must start immediately upon receipt of the news of the murder or seriously injured victims. The effectiveness of these actions largely depends on the organization and systematization of the investigative team. It should include: 1) investigator/investigators; 2) employees of the Criminal Investigation Department; 3) the local police inspector working in the residential district where the murder was committed; 4) the forensic expert / scientist; 5) inspector-canine.

Members of the investigation group should immediately do a few things:

1) interrogate witnesses to find traces of mercenaries, transport and other evidence necessary for the disclosure of the murder hot on the heels;

2) inspect the scene of the crime (with the participation of forensic experts). In a particularly difficult case several investigators and specialists should take part in the inspection, then one of the investigators (usually the most experienced one) takes over the entire operation;

3)arrange the external examination of the corpse. If necessary, besides a forensic scientist, other experts (in the field of judicial ballistics, for example, bomb experts, etc.) may be invited;

4)appoint a forensic examination of the corpse;

5)organize hot pursuit of the killers with the use of search dogs in the direction indicated by eye-witnesses. This involves the inspector-canine and operational staff;

18

6)examine the area adjacent to the site of the murder (with the help of operatives) where important clues and material evidence can be found. Afterwards this area is to be expanded;

7)lock the possible ways of the mercenaries’ escape with the help of the operational staff of the law enforcement bodies;

8)find witnesses and gather information about the assassins done by operatives. The most common steps in the subsequent investigation are questioning of witnesses,

detention and interrogation of suspects and accused persons, search of the places associated with the murder, carrying out various examinations.

В. П. Барулина

The effectiveness of law

The society always develops dynamically, its structure becomes more complicated, that is why the law system changes. Therefore, the problem of effectiveness of the law is always up to date. All of the changeable social relations must be legally controlled. This regulation in one’s turn must be effective.

In case of the significant weight of law’s effectiveness in the modern world, many scientists do a lot of researches in this sphere. They have different and often opposite points of view on definition of the effectiveness of law.

Themainconceptsoflaw’stheoriesarebasedontheformalapproachoftheeffectiveness of law. They regard it as a correspondence of law’s realization and law’s provisions and achievement of the law’s aims. However, individual true interests and values of citizens and groups are not taken into account. The same situation takes place with social costs, which are necessary to reach the goal.

The effectiveness of legal norm (one should not mix up with the effectiveness of law) can be evaluated based only on data about facts of norm’s work after passing any law and other legal acts, documents and its realization. Nevertheless, if we do it, probably we will have to make changes and additions practically in every legal document.

Let us try to make our own suitable and reasonable definition of the effectiveness of law.

The effectiveness of law is a correlation of the general actual result of all legal norms work and those aims of legal act’s passing, which correspond to social interests including social costs.

The effectiveness of law has complex structure consisting of some elements. The effectiveness of law can be evaluated based on analysis of the practice of law’s use.

Some other things should be added to it. Among them:

1)The researches on the effectiveness of law and legal norms are impossible outside the personality.

2)The results of the legislation’s work, which influence on its effectiveness, can be achieved only by the activity of people.

3)Legal awareness and its peculiarities are the main factors, which influence on the result and successful realization of legislation.

4)The researches on psychological factors of law’s effectiveness come from permanent development and change of personality and legal system.

19

In conclusion, it is important to mention that any scientists are trying to find perfect legal documents, which are effective and up to date. It is also necessary for these documents to comply with the time. We must make more efficient method of legal regulation. For these aims people should continue researches on effectiveness of law. If the legal system works more effectively, we can get closer to realization of civil society’s and jural state’s ideas.

А. М. Бирюкова

The International Court of Justice

When our rights are violated, we appeal to the court. One of the most influential is the International Court of Justice. The role in the changing world, the prospects for its development in order to increase its performance in the fight for the establishment of international peace and security now are of primary interest in terms of the science and practice of contemporary international law.

The International Court of Justice is one of the six principal bodies of the United Nations, established by the UN Charter to achieve one of the main objectives of the United Nations ”by peaceful means, in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach in the world”.

Brief history. The Court started working in 1946, replacing the Permanent Court of International Justice, which had been established in 1920 under the auspices of the League of Nations, and in October 1945 made a decision on the succession of its archives and property of the Court, which also had to be in session at the Peace Palace in The Hague (the Netherlands).

The first Chairman of the Court was Judge Jose Gustavo Guerrero (El Salvador). Today it is Ronny Abraham (France).

I’d also like to give a general description of the body. The International Court consists of 15 independent judges elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council by an absolute majority, for a term of nine years. In accordance with Article 19 of the Statute, the members of the Court in the performance of the court shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. The Court is served by a Secretariat, its administrative body. The International Court has become a key component in the strategy of peaceful resolution of disputes and disagreements between States and the rule of law in the world. The International Court of Justice also carries out judicial and advisory functions. It functions in accordance with the Statute, which is part of the UN Charter, and its Rules. The International Court of Justice is the only international court with general jurisdiction. The Court has a dual function: resolution, in accordance with international law, of legal disputes submitted by states, and advisory opinions on legal issues. Under Article 96 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly or the Security Council and other bodies and specialized agencies of the UN may request the International Court of Justice an advisory opinion on any legal question.

The judicial procedure is also interesting. The official languages of the proceedings are English and French. Each case usually has two stages — written and oral. The written stage usually lasts several months, as required to provide each of the parties with written explanations. Usually, the case begins with a sent to the court agreement to a compromise between the two states for a hearing.

20