The ICJ Advisory Opinion

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

Download Full-text

House Approves Proposal Permitting ICJ to Advise Domestic Courts

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2200866 ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 77 (2) ◽

pp. 338-340

Author(s):

Jack M. Goldklang

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

National Court ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Domestic Courts ◽

The Icj ◽

Advisory Opinions

On December 17, 1982, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting an expansion of the advisory opinion jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The resolution (H.R. Con. Res. 86) urges the President to explore the appropriateness of establishing a United Nations committee to seek advisory opinions from the ICJ. The committee would act when asked by a national court seeking advice regarding any international law question under the national court’s jurisdiction.

Download Full-text

5 Obligations of International Organizations, 5.2 Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt , Advisory Opinion, [1980] ICJ Rep 73

10.1093/law/9780198743620.003.0026 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Brölmann Catherine

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

International Organization ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Legal Obligations ◽

The Icj ◽

Legal Character ◽

First Time ◽

The Relationship

The 1980 WHO Advisory Opinion elaborates on the general legal obligations (grounded in the duty of co-operation and good faith) that are part of the relationship between an international organization and its host state. In this opinion the ICJ possibly for the first time articulated this relationship as a set of mutual obligations between legal equals. The opinion moreover enunciates the sources of international legal obligations binding upon international organizations (IOs): the treaties they conclude (uncontroversial); I customary international law; their constitutions. The Court uses the proverbial reassurance of UN member states in saying that the WHO is not a ‘super-state’. Finally, in accepting jurisdiction the Court explicitly separated the legal character of the question from the political considerations motivated by that question.

Download Full-text

He Got It Almost Right

AJIL Unbound ◽

10.1017/s2398772300001987 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 108 ◽

pp. 116-117

Author(s):

Frederic L. Kirgis

Keyword(s):

Security Council ◽

General Assembly ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

International Peace ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Peace And Security ◽

The Icj

Larry Johnson’s answer to his own question is a qualified “no.” Surely he is correct when he says that the General Assembly does not need the Uniting for Peace resolution in order to consider a matter that is on the UN Security Council’s agenda. The International Court of Justice made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. It is only when the Security Council is actively pursuing the matter that UN Charter Article 12(1) requires the General Assembly to defer to the Council.Johnson is also correct when he says that Uniting for Peace does not serve to enhance the authority that the UN Charter itself supplies to the Assembly to adopt non-binding resolutions intended to keep or restore peace. The ICJ also made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. Without relying on the Uniting for Peace resolution, the ICJ in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its Opinion approved the practice of the General Assembly to deal with matters concerning maintenance of international peace and security. The Court turned to the Uniting for Peace resolution only in the ensuing paragraphs of its Opinion, dealing with procedural matters related to the Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion.

Download Full-text

Modesty Can Be a Virtue: Judicial Economy in the ICJ Kosovo Opinion?

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156510000646 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 24 (1) ◽

pp. 127-147 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

MARC WELLER

Keyword(s):

Central Government ◽

The State ◽

Legal Order ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Territorial Integrity ◽

Declaration Of Independence ◽

The Icj ◽

Judicial Economy

AbstractThe Kosovo Advisory Opinion reaches its conclusions in what is admittedly a very condensed and swift way of reasoning. The Court did not expand upon the question that was put to it. However, it is unfair to criticize the Court for failing to address the very issues the drafters of the question carefully and deliberately did not ask. Moreover, the Court did in fact clarify a number of important points that go beyond the narrow question of the lawfulness of Kosovo's declaration of independence. In particular, the Court confirmed that a state is a matter of fact in the first instance. It can come into being in consequence of unilateral secession when attempts to negotiate a separation have been frustrated by the central government. The doctrine of territorial integrity operates among states and furnishes no legal bar in such instances that applies to the seceding entity. Moreover, a decision on independence by such an entity cannot be evaluated according to the domestic legal order of the state from which it secedes. In this instance, Kosovo's secession was in any event not quite as unilateral as it may have seemed. Its declaration of independence and new constitution fully incorporate the entire package of measures proposed by the UN mediators in the final status talks. Hence, Kosovo has implemented what was in fact developed and proposed under the UN mandate for final status talks contained in Resolution 1244. Rather than overturning that resolution, it has acted in accordance with its terms.

Download Full-text

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVO, ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589311000340 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 60 (3) ◽

pp. 799-810 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Dov Jacobs

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

International Law ◽

General Assembly ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Declaration Of Independence ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Unilateral Declaration ◽

The Icj

‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’ It is to answer this question that the General Assembly of the United Nations (‘UNGA’) requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’). The request, adopted in October 20081 and initially sponsored by Serbia, was triggered by the declaration of independence of Kosovo issued on the 17 February 2008.2 Some two years later, on the 22 July 2010, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion.3 By a 10–4 vote, the ICJ found that the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.

Download Full-text

Individuals in Advisory Proceedings Before the International Court of Justice: Equality of the Parties and the Court’s Discretionary Authority

The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals ◽

10.1163/157180312x640679 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 253-279 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Eric De Brabandere

Keyword(s):

International Organizations ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Review Procedure ◽

The Icj ◽

Obvious Inequality ◽

Standing Question

Abstract The recent IFAD Advisory Opinion of the ICJ has resuscitated the long-standing question of the access of individuals to the Court in advisory proceedings when the Court is acting as a ‘review’ body for judgements rendered by administrative tribunals of international organizations. Under such circumstance, the ICJ is confronted with the existence of an actual underlying dispute between two parties, although only one of the parties to the original dispute may appear before the Court, thus creating an obvious inequality before the Court. This article examines the review procedure before the ICJ, and the position of the individuals before the ICJ in such proceedings. In particular, this article discusses the different inequalities resulting from such procedures, and how the ICJ has remedied these in order not to use its discretion to not reply to the request for an advisory opinion.

Download Full-text