International Court of Justice

1953 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-557 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
French Government ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

“Société Électricité de Beyrouth” Case: On August 15, 1953, an application instituting proceedings on behalf of the government of France against the government of Lebanon was filed with the Registry of the International Court of Justice by André Gros, agent for the French government. The French government alleged that the Lebanese government, by a series of acts or omissions dating from the end of 1951 and culminating in placing the Société Électricité de Beyrouth under provisional state control by decrees of March 19 and April 4, 1953, had violated the Franco-Lebanese Treaty of January 24, 1948, and general principles of international law.

International Court of Justice

1958 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-213 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Airline Company

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27th, 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria): On October 16, 1957, Israel filed an application instituting proceedings against the People's Republic of Bulgaria regarding an aerial incident which occurred on July 27, 1955. The application recalled that on that date an aircraft belonging to an Israeli airline company was shot down on Bulgarian territory by the Bulgarian Security Forces, fifty-one passengers and seven crew members being killed. The government of Israel requested the Court to declare Bulgarian responsibility under international law for the damage caused and to determine the amount of compensation.

Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibiuty

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Bederman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Military Forces ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

On July 28, 1986, the Republic of Nicaragua filed an application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Honduras in the International Court of Justice. Nicaragua alleged that Honduras had allowed armed bands, known as contras, to operate from its territory to the detriment of Nicaraguan sovereignty, that Honduran military forces had directly participated in attacks on Nicaragua and that the Government of Honduras had given material aid and logistical support to the rebels. Nicaragua requested that the Court declare the acts and omissions of Honduras to be violations of international law and order it to desist from all such activities and to make reparations to Nicaragua. Honduras objected to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Application. The parties subsequently agreed that the Court should first decide these questions before proceeding to the merits. Relying on the Pact of Bogotá for its jurisdictional rationale, the Court unanimously held: that it had jurisdiction and that the Application could be entertained.

International Court of Justice

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 364-365
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

Following the decisions of the International Court of Justice on November 20 and 27, 1950 on the question of asylum for the refugee, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the government of Colombia (on December 13, 1950) instituted new proceedings before the Court against the government of Peru. The applicationof Colombia requested the Court to adjudge and declare, in pursuance of Article 7 of the Protocol of Friendship and Cooperation of 1934 in force between Colombia and Peru, the manner in which effect should be given to the Court's judgment of November 20, 1950, and in particular whether Colombia was or was not bound to deliver Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, a refugee in the Colombian embassy at Lima, to the government of Peru. As an alternative claim, in the event that the principal claim was disallowed, Colombia requested the Court to declare in exercise of its ordinary competence whether, in accordance with the law in force between Colombia and Peru and particularly American international law, the government of Colombia was or was not bound to deliver Haya de la Torre to the government of Peru.

International Court of Justice

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 584-592
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
General Attitude ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

Following the judgments of the International Court of Justice on November 20, 1950 and November 27, 1950 (the request for an interpretation of the judgment), the government of Colombia filed a new claim requesting the Court to adjudge and declare the manner in which effect should be given to the judgment of November 20, and in particular whether Colombia was bound to deliver to the government of Peru Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. As an alternative claim Colombia requested that the Court declare whether in accordance with the law in force between the parties and particularly American international law Colombia was or was not bound to deliver the refugee to the government of Peru. In a letter the Colombian agent informed the Court that his government relied on the Convention on Asylum signed at Havana on February 29, 1928; under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, the government of Cuba as a signatory to that convention submitted a declaration of intervention which contained Cuba's views on the construction of the Convention of Havana of 1928 as well as its general attitude on asylum. A public hearing was held by the Court on May 15 to determine the admissibility of the Cuban intervention to which the government of Peru had objected on the ground that the Court had given a judgment on the construction of the Havana Convention of 1928, and that it was an attempt by a third state to appeal against the judgment of November 20.

International Court of Justice

1957 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-162 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
French Government ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Case of the Norwegian Loans Issued in France (France v. Norway): In an order of September 28, 1956, the Court fixed December 20, 1056, as the time-limit for the counter-memorial of the Kingdom of Norway, February 20, 1957, as the time-limit for the reply of the government of France and April 25, 1957, for the rejoinder of Norway. In the same order, the Court joined the objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway to the merits in the proceedings instituted by the French government in order that it might adjudicate in one and the same judgment on these objections and, if necessary, on the merits.

International Court of Justice

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-628
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
French Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case: On June 26, 1952, the International Court of Justice fixed October 6, 1952 as the time-limit for the filing of the reply of the government of the United Kingdom and February 6, 1953 as the time-limit for the filing of the rejoinder of the French government in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case. However, at the request of the United Kingdom, and with the acceptance of the extension by France, the Court, on August 27, fixed November 6, 1952 and March 6, 1953 as the time-limits for the filing of the United Kingdom reply and the French rejoinder, respectively.

Introductory Note

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Merrills
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Introductory Note

In 2015 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave three judgments and made a number of orders. In various ways this jurisprudence, although modest in extent, contributed to the elucidation of international law on several procedural, as well as substantive matters. In that year no new cases were begun, but one case was discontinued. At the beginning of 2016 there were therefore ten cases on the Court’s docket. The Court’s work in 2015 demonstrates that through its decisions it continues to assist states to resolve their international disputes peacefully and at the same time to contribute to the clarification and development of international law.

Consolidation of Statehood through Membership in the UN: Some Remarks on Kosovo, Democracy and International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-349
Author(s):  
Iliriana Islami ◽  
Remzije Istrefi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Building ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Building Process

Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008. Subsequently, one of the aims of Kosovo’s foreign policy was to further consolidate this position and to justify Kosovo’s prospective membership in the United Nations. This article examines the issue of recognition, elucidating how Kosovo is different from other countries and comparing it with the case of the former Yugoslavia. Other aspects in the state-building process such as ‘building constitutionalism’ will be presented as a step toward justifying recognition and membership. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 8 October 2008 will be presented as evidence of Kosovo’s strengthening international position in its quest for further recognition. Thus, the article will discuss and analyze the arguments in favor of Kosovo being admitted to the UN.

scholarly journals Remarks by Maria Flores

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 79-82
Author(s):  
Maria Flores
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Small Department ◽  
The University

I first became involved with international law while I was at university. After graduating, I decided to teach public international law. As an undergraduate, I particularly enjoyed this branch of study. I was attracted to it because it helped me to understand the problems, challenges, and breakthroughs in the field of international relations on a global scale. Therefore, after facing a competitive entry process, I joined the international law department of the Universidad de la República. It was a small department, but the university had produced some well-known scholars like Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, who became a judge at the International Court of Justice, and Hector Gross Espiell, who served as a judge at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document