Metamorphoses: Judge Shigeru Oda and the International Court of Justice

1996 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 185-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Reisman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Strategic Choices ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Unique Character ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Made In ◽  
The Way

SummaryA series about the judges of the International Court must be based on two postulates: first, that the unique character and, of course, “value-structure” of each judge ü a variable of some importance in the application, if not incremental formation, of international law; and second, that the International Court is an important institution and has played a significant role in “the progressive development of international Law.” While welcoming the idea of thü series, the reviewer has reservations about the way these postulates have been embraced and adopted by the author and outlines his reservations about key jurisprudential assumptions and strategic choices that were made in designing the idea and about the ways those assumptions and strategies have been implemented.

The Place of Treaties in the Codification and Progressive Development of International Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 86-100
Author(s):  
Georgio Gaja
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Codification of international law may be pursued by various methods. This contribution analyzes advantages and disadvantages of codification conventions. Treaties defined as codification conventions express customary rules in a revised form. They often contain provisions that cover matters not previously regulated or that supplement or specify existing rules. Whether a treaty displaces a customary rule in the relations between the states that are parties generally is a matter of interpretation of the relevant treaty. The limited number of ratifications of codification conventions that have entered into force raises problems concerning the relations between these conventions and customary rules. The present contribution also examines the consideration by the International Court of Justice of the relations between codification conventions and customary rules. In many cases, the Court has not provided reasons for concluding that the content of the customary rule corresponds to that of a provision in the codification convention. In recent years, the General Assembly has often chosen not to promote a codification convention, but there is no good reason for abandoning recourse to an instrument that has significantly contributed to the development of international law in several areas.

Review of the Rôle of the International Court of Justice

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 479-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The stagnation in the functioning of the International Court of Justice is only one of several indicators of the neglect by Members of the United Nations of the development and modernization of adjective law. There has been gratifying progress in the codification and progressive development of substantive law through the International Law Commission and other bodies, but substantive law without an adequate adjective law is bound to lack in effectiveness and uniform and predictable application.

The Relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Gowlland-Debbas
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council may be approached from the perspective of the United Nations Charter and the way it delimits competences between two principal UN organs and regulates the exercise of their concurrent powers. The Court, however, has a dual, ambivalent role. It is not only the principal judicial organ of the United Nations under Article 92 of the Charter; it is also an autonomous adjudicative body with the function, under Article 38 of its Statute, of applying international law to such disputes between states as are brought before it. Viewed in the light of Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie, the relationship between the judicial and political organs raises some fundamental questions of general international law that go beyond UN constitutional issues.

Obligations erga omnes and the question of standing before the International Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Priya Urs
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Collective Interest ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Issue Attention

Abstract A number of states have in recent years sought to invoke the responsibility of other states for breaches of their international obligations erga omnes. Their contention is that these obligations are not owed to them bilaterally but in the collective interest, whether as states parties to multilateral treaties or as members of the international community as a whole. This growing interest in the invocation of responsibility for breaches of obligations erga omnes is discussed primarily in relation to the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. The Articles being a statement of principle, and indeed, a progressive development of the law on the issue, attention must also be paid to the decisions and dicta of the International Court of Justice. Of particular interest, and the focus of this article, is the question of a state’s standing to institute proceedings before the Court to invoke responsibility for the breach of an obligation erga omnes even in the absence of any injury on its part. The most recent manifestation of this position is The Gambia’s institution in 2019 of proceedings against Myanmar, solely on the basis that all states parties to the Genocide Convention have a legal interest in compliance with the obligations therein. By scrutinizing the practice of the Court to date, the article examines the limits and consequences of an expansive right of standing for states seeking to enforce obligations erga omnes at the Court.

Lights and Shadows of Immunities and Inviolability of State Officials in International Law: Some Comments on the Djibouti v. France Case

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
GIONATA PIERO BUZZINI
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Way

AbstractThis article examines the reasoning and findings of the International Court of Justice in its judgment in Djibouti v. France on issues pertaining to the immunities and inviolability of state officials. While recognizing the Court's contribution to the clarification of certain aspects of the legal regime of the immunities and inviolability of state officials, the article emphasizes a number of points on which a clear response cannot be found in the judgment. Moreover, some concerns or doubts are raised about the way in which the Court dealt with certain issues regarding, in particular, the classification of immunities, their scope, their implementation, and the acts precluded by their operation. The Court's judgment clearly shows the complexities surrounding the legal treatment of numerous aspects of a topic which continues to be of the highest importance and sensitivity in international law and international relations.

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.

Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 641-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
MASSIMO LANDO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractIn 2009, the International Court of Justice introduced plausibility as a requirement for indicating provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute. Upon its introduction, plausibility was conceived as a test to establish that the rights asserted by applicant states might exist under international law. However, the Court subsequently developed the plausibility test into a higher standard, which requires the Court also to assess that the alleged conduct of the respondent state might breach that applicant state's asserted rights. This development has important implications for provisional measures proceedings before the Court. First, one could distinguish two aspects of plausibility, legal and factual. Second, plausibility has different functions in requests for provisional measures depending on whether the applicant state asserts rights arising under a treaty or under customary international law. Third, the Court's enquiry into plausibility could overlap with the enquiry into prima facie jurisdiction ratione materiae, although these two requirements conceivably entail different thresholds. Fourth, plausibility in provisional measures indicated in interpretation proceedings could be seen to be different from plausibility in provisional measures indicated in ordinary contentious proceedings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document