International Court of Justice

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-522
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Additional Condition ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
In Virtue Of

Advisory Opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations: A General Assembly resolution of November 17,1947, requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question: “Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to theadmission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?”

Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations

1949 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuen-Li Liang
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Additional Condition ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
In Virtue Of

The International Court of Justice, on May 28, 1948, gave an advisory-opinion concerning the conditions of admission of a state to membership in the United Nations. By nine votes to six it held: that a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, is not juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article;and that, in particular, a Member of the Organization cannot, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State.

2. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice Concerning Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations, May 28, 1948

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 568-573
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
In Virtue Of

On November 17, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following Resolution:“The General Assembly,Considering Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations,Considering the exchange of views which has taken place in the Security Council at its Two hundred and fourth, Two hundred and fifth and Two hundred and sixth Meetings, relating to the admission of certain States to membership in the United Nations,Considering Article 96 of the Charter,Requests the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question:Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?Instructs the Secretary-General to place at the disposal of the Court the records of the above-mentioned meetings of the Security Council.”

International Court of Justice

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-256
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Labor Organization ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal: On December 9, 1953, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions: 1) has the General Assembly the right to refuse to give effect to an award of compensation made by the Administrative Tribunal in favor of a United Nations staff member whose contract of service had been terminated without his assent? and 2) if the Court's answer to the first question was in the affirmative, what were the principal grounds on which the Assembly could lawfully exercise such a right? After copies of this resolution were transmitted to the Court by a letter of the Secretary-General (Hammarskjold) dated December 16, the Court fixed March 15, 1954, as the time-limit within which written statements might be submitted by any state entitled to appear before it or any international organization considered by the president as likely to be able to furnish information on these questions, and reserved the rest of the procedure for further decision. Members of the United Nations and the International Labor Organization were then notified that, in accordance with Article 66 (2) of the Statute, the president considered them likely to be able to furnish such information.

4. Resolution of the General Assembly on Reparation for Injuries Incurred in the Service of the United Nations, December 1, 1949.

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

The General Assembly,Considering its request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, formulated in resolution 258 (III) of 3 December 1948 concerning reparation for injuries incurred in the service of the United Nations,Having regard to the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice on 11 April 1949.Considering that it is highly desirable that reparation be secured for injuries incurred in the service of the United Nations,Considering that the Secretary-General has submitted in his report of 23 August 1949 (A/955) a number of proposals relating to the aforementioned advisory opinion,

1. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice Concerning Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, April 11, 1949.

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-579
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The United Nations

On December 3rd, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following resolution:“Whereas the series of tragic events which have lately befallen agents of the United Nations engaged in the performance of their duties raises, with greater urgency than ever, the question of the arrangements to be made by the United Nations with a view to ensuring to its agents the fullest measure of protection in the future and ensuring that reparation be made for the injuries suffered; andWhereas it is highly desirable that the Secretary-General should be able to act without question as efficaciously as possible with a view to obtaining any reparation due; thereforeThe General Assembly

2 Legal Powers, 2.2 Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal Advisory Opinion [1954] ICJ Rep 47

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Kenneth
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Case Note ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

This case note relates to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in which the Court ruled that the General Assembly of the United Nations had the power to establish the Tribunal to decide disputes between UN staff members and the UN Secretary-General, their employer, and that its awards were binding on the General Assembly when it came to adopt the UN budget. Underlying these rulings is the principle of the independence of the international civil service. The case note also records the changes that were made to the Statute of the Tribunal as a consequence, changes which presented procedural issues for the Court which was given a review power in respect of awards of the Tribunal.

Expenses of the United Nations for Peace-Keeping Operations: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Simple Process ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice adopted by 9 votes to 5 on July 20, 1962, affirmed that the expenditures authorized for operations in the Congo (ONUC) by General Assembly resolutions from December 20, i960, to October 30, 1961, and the expenditures authorized for the operations of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Middle East from November 26, 1956, to December 20, 1960, constitute “Expenses of the Organization” within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations. Though the Court, for reasons discussed below, refrained from declaring it explicitly, the opinion had the effect of holding that Members of the UN were legally bound to pay the assessments made by the Assembly to defray the costs of the two operations. The Court arrived at this conclusion by a relatively simple process of reasoning: first, it found that the text of Article 17, paragraph 2, related to expenses incurred in carrying out the purposes of the Organization; second, it examined the expenditures referred to above, and found that they were incurred with that end in view; thirdly and finally, it examined arguments which had been advanced against its conclusion and found them without merit. Some of these arguments will be examined later.

scholarly journals Comment on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996: التعليق على فتوى محكمة العدل الدولية في مدى مشروعية التهديد  باستخدام الأسلحة النووية عام 1996م

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Elden Mohammed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to establish the principles of international humanitarian law and restrict the use or threat of nuclear weapons, on the occasion of its fatwa, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after realizing that the continued development of nuclear weapons exposes humanity to great risks, and its request It states, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permissible under the rules of international law" (Atalm, 1996), (Shahab, 2000), Therefore, the comment seeks to answer the question: What is the legality of possession, production and development of nuclear weapons? What is the extent of the legality of the threat to use it in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in this regard? Was the decision of the International Court of Justice in favor of documenting the principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law? Or was it biased in its decision to the interests of a particular class itself? The researcher used in that descriptive, descriptive and critical analytical method, and the results that lead to criticism of the work of the International Court of Justice in this regard were reached on the premise that they tended towards tipping the political nature of the issue presented to it under the pressures and directions of the major nuclear states and this strengthens my criticism to the United Nations that I see It only works for the benefit of the major powers under the auspices of the Security Council by veto (right to veto) at a time when the Security Council itself is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, just as it can be said that the United Nations does not work for the benefit of mankind but works for the five major countries Even with regard to nuclear weapons Regardless of whether or not there was a threat to international peace and security. From this standpoint, the researcher reached several recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of the independence of the International Court of Justice in its work from the political considerations of member states, especially the major countries, as a step to establish and support international peace and security in a practical way in practice. The United Nations should also reconsider what is known as a veto, which is and it is rightly one of the most important and most important measures that truly threaten international peace and security.

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
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

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.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document