International Court of Justice (ICJ): Case Concerning Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France) Request for the Indication of a Provisional Measure

2003 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 852-879
Keyword(s):  
Provisional Measure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

IMMUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES: A REAFFIRMATION OF TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Yang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Head Of Government

InArrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), decided on 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs was immune from criminal proceedings before a foreign domestic court, even if the charges involved crimes against humanity. Human rights advocates might well regard this decision as a serious setback. Decided against a widespread euphoria brought forth by, and largely due to a neglect of an important dictum in, the historic holding in Pinochet No. 3 [2000] 1 A.C. 147, the case serves further to clarify a crucial point of State immunity in current international law. The Pinochet case dealt with the immunity of a former, as opposed to a serving, Head of State. While the majority of the Law Lords only mentioned in passing that the immunity enjoyed by a serving Head of State ratione personae was absolute, the International Court of Justice stated, in unambiguous language, that: … in international law it is firmly established that, as also diplomatic and consular agents, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal.

Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) (I.C.J.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-96
Author(s):  
Péter Kovács
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Equatorial Guinea ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Charles De Gaulle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
De Gaulle

On December 11, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) delivered by majority its judgment on the merits of the litigation between Equatorial Guinea and France concerning the legal status of a building at 42 Avenue Foch, situated in Paris, in the very elegant 16th district, close to the Arc de Triomphe (Place de l'Étoile/Place Charles de Gaulle).

Forum Prorogatum Returns to the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIENHO YEE
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
National Interests ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The ICJ interpreted Article 36(1) of its Statute – more specifically, the phrase ‘all cases which the parties refer to it’ – as permitting it to adopt the doctrine of forum prorogatum as a jurisdictional principle and to adapt this doctrine to the circumstances of international judicial process, as an informal way of founding its jurisdiction over the merits of a dispute. The resort to this doctrine has given rise to some concerns and has not received the general acceptance of states. The Certain Criminal Proceedings in France case marks the successful return of the doctrine to the ICJ and shows that the doctrine is a valuable tool for nationalists seeking to protect national interests and for internationalists seeking to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

scholarly journals Criminal Proceedings Against Albers

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-638
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In August 2012, the First Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court or Court), the highest Italian domestic court, issued a judgment upholding Germany’s sovereign immunity from civil claims brought by Italian war crime victims against Paul Albers and eight others in the Italian courts (Albers). In so doing, the Court overruled its own earlier decisions and also reversed the judgment of April 20, 2011, by the Italian Military Court of Appeal (Military Court), which had upheld such claims relating to war crimes committed by German forces in Italy during World War II. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation put an end to its decade long effort to find an exception to the well-known rule of customary international law providing for sovereign immunity from foreign civil jurisdiction for actsjure imperii. Thisrevirementresulted from the Court’s decision to give effect to the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) inGermany v. Italy.

The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Crook
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Boundary Issues

During 2002, countries from all regions, especially Africa, resorted to the International Court of Justice; only one of the Court's 2002 judgments involved an OECD countiy. The Court's work during the year also shows the continued importance of boundary issues for states and for the Court.The Court again completed a substantial program of work, resolving three cases with final judgments. In February, it triggered substantial controversy by finding that a Belgian court's warrant for the arrest of the then foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“Congo”) violated international law. In October, it resolved a complex of boundary disputes between Cameroon and Nigeria, although by year-end Nigeria had not yet implemented the Court's key requirement—withdrawal from the Bakassi Peninsula. In December, comparing sparse effectivités, it concluded that Malaysia, and not Indonesia, had sovereignty over two small disputed islands.

scholarly journals Critical remarks on the International Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 3(g) of the “Definition of Aggression”(UNGA Resolution 3314/1974)

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taciano Scheidt Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Case Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Serbia And Montenegro ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine whether and to what extent the Article 3(g) of the General Assembly Definition of Aggression (Resolution 3314/1974 XXIX) can be interpreted using the case-law of the International Court of Justice. Three judgments delivered by the Court are analyzed: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) and Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro). Special attention is given to the connection between international norms on the use of force and the law of international responsibility, as well as to the meaning and status attributed by the Court to the expressions “sending” and “substantial involvement,” both present in Article 3(g).

The 2005 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 629-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Mathias
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

In 2005, the International Court of Justice issued three judgments.l In February, the Court upheld an objection to its jurisdiction in Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany). In July, a chamber of the Court issued its judgment on the merits in Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger). In December, the full Court issued its judgment on the merits in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda).

The Recommendations Made by the International Court of Justice

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean D' Aspremont
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The United Nations

Any observer of the practice of the International Court of Justice (hereafter the ICJ or the Court) may have noticed the growing tendency of the United Nations judicial body to formulate recommendations to the parties that have appeared before it. Indeed, the Court is more and more inclined to recommend that the parties allay their dispute and alleviate all ensuing human sufferings. This leaning is particularly observable when the Court simultaneously dismisses a request for the indication of provisional measures. For instance, in the recent order rendered by the Court in the case concerning the Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), the Court made the following declaration:

II. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, CASE CONCERNING AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO (REPUBLIC OF GUINEA V DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO) JUDGEMENT OF 30 NOVEMBER 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 810-819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Opening Paragraph

This is the first time in its history, to the best of my knowledge, that the International Court of Justice has established violations of the two human rights treaties at issue, together, namely, at universal level, the 1966 UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, at regional level, the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, both in the framework of the universality of human rights.This is the opening paragraph of Judge Cançado Trindade's Separate Opinion in the Diallo case. The ICJ's judgment is a remarkable decision contributing to the widening and deepening of international law and has consequences for several fundamental questions, including the role of the ICJ and international law in making human rights effective, erga omnes and jus cogens rules, customary law, evidence, and several substantive rules. In bringing the transformation of international law one step further, the Diallo judgment develops the ICJ as ‘the principal judicial organ of the United Nations’1 at the top of an open international law system. To achieve this, the Court had to overcome a series of jurisdictional and procedural hurdles.2 All the permanent judges of the ICJ agreed that Congo had violated the prohibition on arbitrary detention and expulsion and that the violations gave rise to a right of compensation. The ICJ's use of sources from other international and regional bodies as sources of authority, indicates solutions to fragmentation problems.

II. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda) Provisional Measures, Order of 1 July 2002

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 782-787
Author(s):  
Malcom D Evans ◽  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
History Of

Since 1998, a war has ravaged one of Africa's largest countries, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (‘DRC’). Africa's ‘Great War’ is said to have involved nine national armies and an unknown number of militia groups, and has reportedly claimed more lives than any other in the last four years. Estimates of the death toll range from 3 to 3.5 million. On 28 May 2002, the DRC instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (‘the Court’) against Rwanda alleging ‘massive, serious and flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law’, and requested certain provisional measures.2 On 10 July 2002, the Court rejected the DRC’s request for provisional measures, as it considered that it did not have prima facie jurisdiction to determine the merits of the case.3 However, the Court also rejected Rwanda's request that the case be removed from the list, as the Court considered that its lack of jurisdiction was not ‘manifest’.4 This note reviews the history of the conflict and the litigation, before considering the DRC's request for provisional measures and the grounds of jurisdiction upon which it sought to rely. The Order is then analysed, and this note concludes that the Court was right to reject the DRC's request, but it should have gone further and removed the case from the list.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document