International Court of Justice: Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France) Order Concerning Interim Measures of Protection

1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 749-773
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
Interim Measures

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

scholarly journals Investigating the Petition of Marshall Islands against Britain in the International Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Sahar Asadi Moghadam ◽  
Abu Mohammad Asgar Khani
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
First Time

The international court of justice was established by Charter of the United Nations and is considered as one of its integral parts in which only experienced and knowledgeable judges and lawyers can be employed. In fact, it consists of several independent judicial institutions. Marshall Islands, a country which was cruelly imposed to nuclear tests, was brave enough to sue powerful countries with nuclear weapons. In 1996, nuclear weapons case was considered by the international court of justice for the first time. All the court’s members came to this conclusion that these countries should stop their nuclear activities and they are not permitted to use any nuclear weapon. As a result they ratified a bill. Then, Marshall Islands’ petition was considered by the international court of justice in The Hague. This country also took legal action against U.S.A. and the federal judiciary of the United States accepted to take it into consideration. This paper aims at analyzing the petition of Marshall Islands against Britain in the international court of justice. According to the content of this petition, countries can’t develop their nuclear weapons which threat men and the world. As a result, the destruction of present nuclear weapons is the only effective way to achieve this goal.

The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred P. Rubin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
Future Policy

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and its judgments are usually considered highly persuasive as to propositions of international law. Thus, when the ICJ formulates a rule of international law giving binding force to a unilateral declaration of a state’s future intentions, statesmen may be expected to refer to that formulation for guidance whenever they consider the possibility of issuing a declaration of future policy. Moreover, the ability of the ICJ to support its formulation of a rule of international law in terms of the international legal order and legal logic affects the perceptions of statesmen as to the probity of the Court, as well as the willingness of states to refer real cases to it. The Judgment of the ICJ in the Nuclear Tests cases raised both these issues in a particularly pointed way.

International Court of Justice

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 780-782
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Minister ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Iranian Government ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Oil Company ◽  
Domestic Law

In a cable dated July 9, 1951, from Foreign Minister Bagher Kazemi to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Iran withdrew its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. Referring specifically to the Court's order on interim measures (issued on July 5), the cable stated that the Court “had shaken the confidence” which the Iranian government and people had always had in international justice. The Iranian note made four specific points: first, the Iranian declaration (ratified on September 19, 1932) accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, and extended to the International Court of Justice under the latter's Statute, extended such jurisdiction only to disputes relating to the application of treaties and conventions. The Declaration excluded questions within the exclusive jurisdiction of Iran. Agreements or contracts under private and domestic law (such as concessions to work certain sources of natural wealth, commercial matters, and matters relating to Iran's sovereign rights) “were and still are excluded” from compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Second, the note pointed out that the concession granted the “former Anglo-Iranian Oil Company” in 1933 did not mention the United Kingdom in any capacity and reserved no rights or powers to that government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document