International Court of Justice: Application of the Government of Malta for Permission to Intervene in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)

1981 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-332
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Intervention in the International Court

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 903-909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip C. Jessup
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

For the first time the International Court of Justice has squarely faced and ruled upon the right of a third state to intervene in a case to which two other states are parties. The litigation was the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application of Malta for Permission to Intervene, Judgment of April 14, 1981. The Court unanimously denied permission to intervene, but three judges appended separate opinions which contain matters of considerable interest.

International Court of Justice

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-217 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.

International Court of Justice

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-658 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): In an order of June 10, 1960, the International Court of Justice, having received the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand to its jurisdiction within the timelimit fixed for the filing of the countermemorial, set July 22, 1960, as the timelimit within which the government of Cambodia might present a written statement of its observations and submissionson the objections.

4. Resolution of the General Assembly Concerning Conditions on which Switzerland may become a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, December 10, 1946.

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 410-410
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Government

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THEREFORE DETERMINES, in pursuance of Article 93 paragraph 2 of the Charter, and upon the recommendation of the Security Council, the conditions on which Switzerland may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, as follows:Switzerland will become a party to the Statute of the Court on the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of an instrument, signed on behalf of the Government of Switzerland and ratified as may be required by Swiss constitutional law, containing:(a) Acceptance of the provisions of the Statute of the Court;(b) Acceptance of all the obligations of a Member of the United Nations under Article 94 of the Charter;

International Court of Justice

1958 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 380-380 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Guardianship of an Infant (Netherlands v. Sweden): In an order of April 17, 1958, the International Court of Justice fixed the following timelimits for the filing of further pleadings in the case concerning the guardianship of an infant: for the reply of the government of the Netherlands, June 18, 1958; and for the rejoinder of the government of Sweden, August 28, 1958.

International Court of Justice

1959 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-463 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27, 7955 (United Kingdom v. Bulgaria): In response to a request from the government of Bulgaria, the International Court, in an order of May 27, 1959, extended the time limit for the deposit of the Bulgarian counter-memorial from June 9, 1959, to August 10, 1959.

The International Court of Justice: Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Riesenberg
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Caribbean Sea ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Outer Continental Shelf ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
International Court ◽  
Western Caribbean ◽  
The Icj

In 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its fourth judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia. The case was first initiated by Nicaragua under the Bogotá Pact in 2001. The fourth judgment affirmed Colombia’s territorial sovereignty over a group of islands in the western Caribbean Sea and delimited a boundary between the two states’ zones of maritime jurisdiction. Even after eleven years of complicated proceedings, however, the parties’ conflicting claims are not yet completely resolved. The ICJ explicitly declined to address Nicaragua’s potential entitlement to the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its coastal baselines, including the portion of Nicaragua’s ‘‘outer’’ continental shelf that allegedly overlaps with Colombia’s maritime entitlements. For the foreseeable future, this aspect of the controversy will likely remain unresolved. One week after the ICJ rendered its fourth judgment, Colombia withdrew from the Bogotá Pact and thereby terminated its consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

The International Court of Justice, the Senate, and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Preuss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Limiting Factors ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
The Government

It has been remarked that the Government of the United States “seldom loses an opportunity to profess its loyalty to international arbitration in the abstract. … The expression of this sentiment has become so conventional that a popular impression prevails that it accords with the actual policy of the United States.” This ambivalent attitude is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in a memorandum addressed by Mr. John Foster Dulles on July 10, 1946, to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “The United States, since its formation,” Mr. Dulles states, “has led in promoting a reign of law and justice as between nations. In order to continue that leadership, we should now accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. If the United States, which has the material power to impose its will widely in the world, agrees instead to submit to the impartial adjudication of its legal controversies, that will inaugurate a new and profoundly significant international advance.” Although the initial step of accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court would in itself be “of profound moral significance,” it would, Mr. Dulles continues, “assume greatly increased practical significance” only when “limiting factors” have been removed, for the “path is as yet so untried that it would be reckless to proceed precipitately,” the Court “has yet to win the confidence of the world community,” and “international law has not yet developed the scope and definiteness necessary to permit international disputes generally to be resolved by judicial rather than political tests.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document