International judicial precedent: features, types, significance

The author’s concept of the essence of international judicial precedent is offered, claiming that international courts perform a law-making function. The author is convinced that 1) “jurisprudence constante” (established jurisprudence) is synonymous with judicial precedent; 2) precedent decisions are created by international courts as a consequence of the settlement of similar disputes, the issues of which are either vaguely regulated or not regulated at all by the norms of international law; 3) judicial precedent, as part of an international court decision, should be considered a formal source of international law; 4) judicial precedents should be included in the list of formal sources of international law, which are subsidiary sources. Given the numerous views on the nature, content, legal force of precedent decisions of international courts, it is proposed the definition of judicial precedent, which takes into account the characteristics of modern international relations. An international judicial precedent is a decision that contains legal positions that either clarify the content of the current rule or formulate a new rule. Such decisions shall be considered by the court which made them or by another court (or arbitral tribunal) in considering such a similar case; they are imperatively binding on the dispute parties, as well as politically binding on third actors of international law. The establishment by the court of a rule in the form of a legal position should be considered as a natural process in international law-making. A legal position can exist as a formula, which is initially a mandatory requirement of the motivating part of a court decision, but if such a legal position is repeated in subsequent decisions, it becomes an international custom, in particular, it becomes legally binding for an indefinite number of similar relations, or such a legal position is included in text of an international treaty. As the law-making function of international courts raises questions, there are offered the author’s definitions of “international judicial law-making”, “soft law”, “international judicial precedent”, “precedent of interpretation”, “vertical international judicial precedent”, “horizontal international judicial precedent”.