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.

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.

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?”

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

Participation of Individuals in Advisory Proceedings Before the International Court of Justice: Question of Equality Between the Parties

1958 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Labour Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations Educational ◽  
Cultural Organization ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

In its Advisory Opinion of October 23, 1956, in the matter of Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon Complaints made against the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

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.”

The Legal Status of Namibia and of the United Nations Council for Namibia

1976 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 306-322
Author(s):  
Lawrence L. Herman
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
International Court ◽  
Sovereign Authority ◽  
The United Nations

The issues surrounding the legal status of Namibia and the numerous actions taken within the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council relating to the revocation of the mandate of South Africa, are complex, and even the 1971 Opinion of the International Court of Justice has not simplified them. Much of the difficulty in determining the present juridical status of Namibia and the repository of sovereign authority over the territory revolves around the apparent inconsistencies between the 1950 Advisory Opinion of the Court and its 1971 Opinion. In this regard, the essential factor to be considered is the binding effect of the resolution of the General Assembly in 1966 that purported to terminate South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document