Comparative Study On Subjects Of "Friend Of The Court" In International Proceedings

A "friend of the court", which translates as amicus curiae in Latin, is considered to perform a useful role in judicial proceedings. Since the90s, last century, amici curiae have become more active under international jurisdictions. With the increased influence of non-state actors on the international plane, this trend is likely to continue. While the subjects of amici curiae are not quite clear all the time, the questions who can be an amicus curiae and what are the differences of the amici in various jurisdictions appear as the main topics discussed in this article. In light of the rules and practice of international proceedings, there are general and special actors of amici as two levels accordingly. On one hand, a state, international organization, NGO or individual who isn’t a party to a case, may participate international proceedings as amicus curiae. On the other hand, the special actors include quasi-states, separate custom territories and supranational bodies. Due to their distinctive, general actor are more prominent in practice. However, differences also exist among general actors in judicial rules and practice. Generally speaking, states and international organizations are more popular with international courts and tribunals, while NGOs and individuals are more likely to be in controversy. In practice, NGOs are so enthusiastic to intervene that the institution of amicus curiae is largely enhanced. Looking back it’s short history, the establishment of amicus curiae strikes us a "spiral track" in which most courts and tribunals are likely to deny applications from persons or entities at the beginning, and accept them over times in respect of the causes that the number of applicants culminates and the NGO global movement upsurges. Under conmen pressures, international courts and tribunals then open the door to amici through law-making or cases. Of course, the rules of procedure under different jurisdictions vary to some extent, especially in clarity. While some are definite and clear, the others are indefinite and ambiguous, amici consequently face unequal justifications of acceptance. In addition to this diversity, amici also bear all kinds limits since the scopes of actor under each jurisdiction aren’t always identical. The ICJ and WTO only welcome states and international organizations as amici in principle, hence they are called "alternative acceptance" jurisdictions in this article By contrast, the ECHR, ICC, ICTY, ICTR and other specialized agencies are called "universal acceptance" jurisdictions for their doors are open not only to states, international organizations, but also to NGOs and individuals. With regard to their judicial practice, it indicates that persons or entities tend to leave to be amici before "universal acceptance" jurisdictions, while the "alternative acceptance" jurisdictions hear few cases with amici. Moreover, recent international judicial practice manifests that amici curiae have found, and will continue to perform useful roles, particularly in international human rights and international criminal proceedings, but the ICJ and WTO ought to continue to be reluctant to let civil society participate. In order to demonstrate all discussed above, empirical and competitive perspectives are employed in this article, the first part of which shows the subjects of amicus curiae on the whole level; the second part researches the scope of actors before international courts and tribunals respectively; and the third aim to analyze the research to reveal the present situation of amicus curiae and then make a prospect.