THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 37

bear a distinctly peculiar character, and have not been clearly defined in
international rulings. These problems cover the following: first, whether
the decisions of local courts may or may not give rise to responsibility;
secondly, the definition and extent of a denial of justice; and thirdly, whether
international jurisdiction is or not dependent upon the exhaustion of local
remedies.
(b) The principle of respecting and abiding by court decisions is usually
 accepted both in theory and in practice. The question is, to what extent
should these decisions be upheld? This principle is not based upon the
autonomy of the judicial system. Neither is it connected with the ancient
and somewhat mystical conception of justice as a supreme majesty. Nor is
it possible to consider it as an extension of the doctrine of judicial guaranties
which establish the binding force of the res adjudicate in the local jurisprudence.
 The international binding force of judicial decisions is sanctioned
by the international jurisdiction which the States recognize. All the civilized
 nations have, or should have, a judicial organization and substantive and
procedural laws sufficient to afford proper protection to the rights of persons
 who reside in their territory, as well as to the rights of foreign States
who are fellow members of the Family of Nations. These rights cannot be
protected by other States. The fact that the governmental functions of the
State are confined to its territory establishes, therefore, the obligation to
provide for the proper administration of justice, and this obligation creates
the right to have the acts incident thereto—which constitute the administration
 of justice—duly respected by the international community. Besides;
this respect towards judicial action is essential to mutual independence and
cooperation. It is due to these legal considerations that the decisions which
the judges render in the national courts should be presumed in international
circles to be regular and just.
Up to this point there is no possible discrepancy; but it is necessary to
determine: (a) when may a court decision be deemed to be the final ruling
of the judiciary; (b) whether the presumption of regularity and fairness
carried by every judicial decision may be set aside in certain cases; and (c)
whenever this presumption is set aside, in what manner would international
jurisdiction be established ?
Both in theory and in practice there is also absolute accord on the fact
that court decisions cannot be considered to give rise to international responsibility
 until all the local remedies available to determine their validity have
been exhausted.
(¢) But once the decision becomes final, would it be possible to challenge
 it in the international community by reason of the so-called notorious
or manifest injustice? This problem is, indeed, both difficult and complicated.
 In this connection the Institute of International Law adopted the