The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Enforcement of Its Judicial Decisions

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-804 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutlaq Al-Qahtani
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

Together with the Security Council and the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice is one of the most important guarantors of peace, security and co-operation among states. The role of the ICJ in the enforcement of its decisions has received little attention in the existing literature. Although international courts, regional courts and national courts do not physically enforce their decisions, they have various levels of enforcement mechanism procedures. Nevertheless, it has been widely and mistakenly believed that it is not the business of the ICJ to enforce its decisions, but rather this is the business of other political bodies of the United Nations. It is argued in this paper that this proposition is not accurate and, instead, the ICJ has at its disposal various enforcement procedures and is, moreover, under statutory obligations to participate actively in policing and enforcing its decisions.

scholarly journals He Got It Almost Right

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Frederic L. Kirgis
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Icj

Larry Johnson’s answer to his own question is a qualified “no.” Surely he is correct when he says that the General Assembly does not need the Uniting for Peace resolution in order to consider a matter that is on the UN Security Council’s agenda. The International Court of Justice made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. It is only when the Security Council is actively pursuing the matter that UN Charter Article 12(1) requires the General Assembly to defer to the Council.Johnson is also correct when he says that Uniting for Peace does not serve to enhance the authority that the UN Charter itself supplies to the Assembly to adopt non-binding resolutions intended to keep or restore peace. The ICJ also made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. Without relying on the Uniting for Peace resolution, the ICJ in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its Opinion approved the practice of the General Assembly to deal with matters concerning maintenance of international peace and security. The Court turned to the Uniting for Peace resolution only in the ensuing paragraphs of its Opinion, dealing with procedural matters related to the Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion.

The Continuing Impact of French Legal Culture on the International Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilde Cohen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

This chapter proposes a reflection on comparative international courts rather than comparative international law more broadly understood. International courts are approached differently by various legal actors who may be influenced by their own national legal environments. Though there is a long tradition of scholarly thinking about the role of particular national traditions in shaping international law, be it substantive or procedural law, little attention has been paid to the influence of domestic legal cultures and languages on the design and internal organization of international courts. Yet, is there such a thing as a specifically international way of designing and running courts tasked with resolving international disputes? Focusing on the ICJ and its predecessor court, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), this chapter aims to make the reach of domestic norms, in particular French legal culture, in the design and daily operation of international courts more salient.

19. The International Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Thirlway
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is defined in the UN Charter as the ‘principal judicial organ’ of the United Nations, is a standing mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. It may also give advisory opinions on the law, at the request of the Security Council and General Assembly, or of other UN organs and specialized agencies that are so authorized by the General Assembly. No dispute can be the subject of a decision of the Court unless the States parties to it have consented to the Court’s jurisdiction over that specific dispute. This chapter discusses the history, structure, and composition of the Court, the ways in which jurisdiction is conferred upon it, its procedure, and the nature and effect of decisions (judgments and advisory opinions) of the ICJ.

Vacancies on ICJ Filled by Election

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-200
Author(s):  
T. M. F.
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On February 5, 1991, the terms of five members of the International Court of Justice expired: those of President J. M. Ruda (Argentina) and Judges K. Mbaye (Senegal), Sir Robert Jennings (United Kingdom), G. Guillaume (France) and R. S. Pathak (India). In conformity with Articles 4 and 13 of the Statute of the Court, the General Assembly and the Security Council, on November 15, 1990, elected five persons to nine-year terms of office. Judges Mbaye, Ruda and Pathak did not stand for reelection. Judges Jennings and Guillaume were reelected. The newly elected judges are Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley (Venezuela), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) and Christopher Gregory Weeramantry (Sri Lanka).

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

Innate Cosmopolitan Dialectics at the ICJ: Changing Perceptions of International Community, the Role of the Court, and the Legacy of Judge Álvarez

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-330
Author(s):  
GEOFFREY GORDON
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Public Order ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Dialectical Process ◽  
The Right

AbstractTraditional conceptions of the international community have come under stress in a time of expanding international public order. Various initiatives purport to observe a reconceived international community from a variety of perspectives: transnational, administrative, pluralist, constitutional, etc. The perspectives on this changing dynamic evidenced by the International Court of Justice, however, have been largely neglected. But as the principal judicial institution tasked with representing the diversity of legal perspectives in the world, the Court represents an important forum by which to understand the changing appreciation of international community. While decisions of the Court have been restrained, an active discourse has been carried forward among individual judges. I look at part of that discourse, organized around one perspective, which I refer to as innate cosmopolitanism, introduced to the forum of the ICJ by the opinions of Judge Álvarez. The innate cosmopolitan perspective reflects an idea of the international community as an autonomous collectivity, enjoying a will, interests, or ends of its own, independent of constituent states. The application of that perspective under international law is put most to test in matters of international security, in particular where the interest in a discrete, global public order runs up against the right to self-defence vested in states. The innate cosmopolitan perspective has not, in these cases, achieved a controlling position – but, over time, it has been part of a dialectical process showing a change in the appreciation of international community before the Court, and a changing perception from the bench of the role of the Court in that community.

The International Court of Justice During the Battle for International Law (1955–1975)

2019 ◽  
pp. 235-256
Author(s):  
Ingo Venzke
Keyword(s):  
West Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Independent States ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Newly Independent States

This chapter investigates the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the battle for international law circa the years of 1955–1975. It first draws attention to newly independent states that saw the Court in its role of reinforcing international law’s colonial imprints. The chapter then focuses on the Court’s captivating highpoint during the battle for international law: its 1962 and 1966 Judgments in South West Africa, and the jarring 1966 decision which, in the eyes of many states, presented the ICJ as a ‘white man’s court’ in a white man’s world. The chapter then shows the effects of the 1966 decision in judicial elections and the quest to change the composition of the bench. Finally, the chapter argues that the present inquiry serves as a vivid reminder that international law and its institutions are the product of a veritable struggle, then as now.

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.”

Part 2 The United Nations: What it is, 14 The Financing of the United Nations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Early Years ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Working Capital ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Social Council ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations

This chapter discusses the regular budget of the UN. The UN’s regular budget includes the expenses of its principal organs—the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council, and the Secretariat—as well as subsidiary bodies. From tens of millions in the early years of the organization, the regular budget has grown to billions of dollars. It is composed of various parts, sections, and programmes. No funds may be transferred between different appropriation sections without the authorization of the General Assembly. The remainder of the chapter covers the authorization of programmes; formulation and examination of estimates; approval and appropriation; implementation and the Contingency Fund; audit; the Working Capital Fund; financing of peacekeeping; international tribunals; voluntary contributions; self-support; apportionment of expenses of the organization; and administrative and budgetary coordination between the UN and specialized agencies.

The 1987 Elections to the International Court of Justice

1988 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 379-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward G. Lee ◽  
Edward McWhinney
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

The Statute of the International Court of Justice specifies that the nominations of candidates for election to the Court shall be made by “national groups” constituted either by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PGA), or by national groups appointed for this purpose “under the same conditions” as those prescribed for members of the PCA under the Hague Convention of 1907. As of May 1987, about half the member states of the United Nations — seventy-six out of one hundred and fifty-eight — were members of the PCA, but among these only sixty-two had functioning national groups. Official United Nations documents show that a great many national groups from other states, perhaps created on an ad hoc basis for the regular elections to the Court, submit nominations as provided under Article 4(2) of the Statute. Once a candidate has been nominated by one or more national groups, the state of which he is a national is free to decide whether formally to sponsor his candidacy and to seek the support of other states in the elections to be held in the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document