Settlement of Disputes and the Treaty of Peace: The Israel Perspective

1980 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-282
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron

The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel contains two provisions (Articles VII and VIII) pertaining to settlement of disputes. The object of this article is to discuss—primarily from the perspective of Israel—obligations arising under these provisions, as well as the relationship between the Treaty of Peace and Israel's obligations by virtue of its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The Joint Commission established under Article IV of the Treaty and under Article IV of the Appendix to Annex I of the Treaty will not be dealt with.

Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter discusses some of the more relevant methods for peaceful dispute settlement. It begins by introducing a number of non-adjudicatory settlement mechanisms and providing a brief overview of the role played by the UN. It then discusses the adjudicatory means of settling disputes, including international arbitration; the competences and powers of the International Court of Justice; issues of access to the Court and the Court's jurisdiction in contentious cases; the power of the Court to issue provisional measures; the effects of the Court's decisions; the relationship between the Court and the UN Security Council; and the Court's competence to issue advisory opinions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-149

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such. The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017 announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018. The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.


2019 ◽  
pp. 235-253
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter discusses some of the more relevant methods for peaceful dispute settlement. It begins by introducing a number of non-adjudicatory settlement mechanisms and providing a brief overview of the role played by the UN. It then discusses the adjudicatory means of settling disputes, including international arbitration; the competences and powers of the International Court of Justice; issues of access to the Court and the Court’s jurisdiction in contentious cases; the power of the Court to issue provisional measures; the effects of the Court’s decisions; the relationship between the Court and the UN Security Council; and the Court’s competence to issue advisory opinions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 232-250
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen

This chapter discusses some of the more relevant methods for peaceful dispute settlement. It begins by introducing a number of non-adjudicatory settlement mechanisms and providing a brief overview of the role played by the UN. It then discusses the adjudicatory means of settling disputes, including international arbitration; the competences and powers of the International Court of Justice; issues of access to the Court and the Court’s jurisdiction in contentious cases; the power of the Court to issue provisional measures; the effects of the Court’s decisions; the relationship between the Court and the UN Security Council; and the Court’s competence to issue advisory opinions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-506
Author(s):  
Alessandro Chechi

On October 22, 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court rendered a decision on the constitutional legitimacy of certain domestic norms that required Italy’s compliance with the rule on state immunity sanctioned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the Judgment Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). The Constitutional Court declared that the international customary obligations on state immunity from jurisdiction can be applied automatically within the Italian legal order only as long as they are in conformity with the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document