Criação de regras secundárias pelo Tribunal Internacional de Justiça: Um estúdio de “caso relativo a atividades militares e paramilitares na Nicarágua e contra a Nicarágua”

O presente capítulo aborda a temática de criação do direito por parte do Tribunal Internacional de Justiça na sua função contenciosa, desde a análise do caso relativo às atividades militares e paramilitares na Nicarágua e na Nicarágua. Em especial, descreva a determinação do nível de controle efetivo para a atribuição de responsabilidade por ações particulares, e a relevância das regras secundárias denominadas no direito internacional. Mediante um estúdio de doutrina e jurisprudência, a autora evidencia a importante função das regras secundárias no direito internacional, por tanto, as implicações que ele tem para atribuir as regras secundárias sean creadas, em grande medida, jurisprudencialmente.

1. Aguiló, J. (1990). Sobre Definiciones y normas. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, (08), Recuperado de: 273-282. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA1990.8.13
2. Aspremont, J. d’. (2011). Formalism and the sources of international law: a theory of the ascertainment of legal rules. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Ballesteros, V. (2013). La atribución al Estado del comportamiento de los particulares en el ámbito de la responsabilidad internacional (Doctoral). Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete. Recuperado de: https://ruidera.uclm.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10578/3793/TESIS%20Ballesteros%20Moya.pdf?sequence=1
4. Corte IDH. Caso de la «Masacre de Mapiripán» Vs. Colombia. Sentencia de 15 de septiembre de 2005. Serie C No. 134. Recuperado de: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_134_esp.pdf
5. Crawford, J. (1998). State Responsibility: First report on State Responsibility. Recuperado de http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_490.pdf
6. Crawford, J. (s. f.). State Responsibility. Recuperado de: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1093
7. Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries - 2001. (s. f.). State Responsibility, 114.
8. Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. (s. f.). Recuperado de http://www.un.org/es/documents/icjstatute/chap2.htm
9. Farré, J. A. (1991). Dos guerras en Nicaragua. 1978-1988. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, S. V, H." Contemporánea, 291-312.
10. Fenrick, W. (1998). Development of the Law of Armed Conflict through the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, The The Law of Armed Conflict: Into the Next Millenium: IV. International Law Studies Series. US Naval War College, (71), 77-118.
11. General Assembly of United Nations. (2001). Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8367-9_22
12. Higgins, R. (2003). The ICJ, the ECJ, and the Integrity of International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52, (1), 1-20
13. International Court of Justice. Case concerning United States diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran (1980). Recuperado de: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/64/064-19800524-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
14. International Court of Justice. Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua Vs. United States of America) (1986). Recuperado de: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
15. International Court of Justice. Case concerning the Gabc̆íkovo-Nagymaros project (Hungary/Slovakia): judgment of 25 September 1997 (1997). Recuperado de: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/92/092-19970925-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
16. International Court of Justice. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (1999). Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472563859
17. International Court of Justice. La Grand Case (Germany v. United States of America) (2001). Recuperado de: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/104/104-20010627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
18. International Law Comission. (s. f.). Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, 2011, 16.
19. International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the territory of the Former Yugoslavia - Appeals Chamber. Prosecutor Vs Dusko Tadic (1999). Recuperado de: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acjug/en/tad-aj990715e.pdf
20. Jamil, H. (2016). Classification of Armed Conflict: An Analysis of Effective Control and Overall Control Tests. ISIL Year Book of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law, (16) 17, 185-211.
21. Kalshoven, F. (1991). State Responsibility for Warlike Acts of the Armed Forces. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, (40), 827-858.
22. Kurtz, J. (2010). The Paradoxical Treatment of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility in Investor-State Arbitration. ICSID Review, 25(1), 200-217. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/25.1.200
23. Linderfalk, U. (2009). State Responsibility and the Primary-Secondary Rules Terminology – The Role of Language for an Understanding of the International Legal System. Nordic Journal of International Law, 78(1), 53-72. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181009X397081
24. Mačák, K. (2016). Decoding Article 8 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Attribution of Cyber Operations by Non-State Actors. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 21(3), 405-428. Recuperado de:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw014
25. C. (2016). Derecho internacional público / Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. Recuperado de: http://unisabana22.gsl.com.mx:80/F?func=service&doc_library=CNA01&local_base=CNA01&doc_number=000001861&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
26. Olleson, S. (2013). Internationally Wrongful Acts in the Domestic Courts: The Contribution of D... Leiden Journal of International Law, 615-642. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156513000277
27. Permanent Court of International Justice. Case concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits) , Germany v. Poland (1925). Recuperado de: http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1926.05.25_silesia.htm
28. Perot, P. (2003). Tipos de reglas y el concepto de obligación jurídica. Isonomía, (19), 197-219.
29. Vázquez, M. (2005). Derecho Internacional Público. México: Editorial Porrúa, (22.a ed.). Recuperado de: http://cordovaluis.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dip_fuentes-del-dip_modesto_seara_vazquez2.pdf
30. Skordas, A. (2002). ICJ: Guardian of Sovereignty or Catalyst for Integration Comment. International Legal Theory, 8, 49-74.
31. Teresita Mastaglia, G. (2016). Jurisdicción de La Corte Internacional De Justicia: Análisis De Los Casos Entablados Contra Chile. Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: analysis of the cases against Chile., 12(1), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.23854/07192568.2016121Mastaglia147
32. Vallarta Marrón, J. L., & Serrano Migallón, F. (2014). Derecho internacional público / José Luis Vallarta Marrón ; presentación, Fernando Serrano Migallón. Recuperado de http://unisabana22.gsl.com.mx:80/F?func=service&doc_library=CNA01&local_base=CNA01&doc_number=000137196&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
33. Villanueva Flores, R. (2018). Activismo judicial y límites del Derecho en la actuación de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, (41). https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2018.41.08
34. von Staden, A. (2010). Towards Greater Doctrinal Clarity in Investor-State Arbitration: The CMS, Sempra, and Enron Annulment Decisions (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1689872). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Recuperado de https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1689872