Article 60 ICJ Statute, Interpretation Proceedings, and the Competing Concepts of Res Judicata

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREAS KULICK
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

AbstractThe judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 11 November 2013, interpreting its 1962 judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, inspires a reconsideration of the role of interpretation proceedings pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute of the Court. In particular, it invites us to take a closer look at the role and scope of the principle of res judicata in public international law in general and as considered in the case law of the Court in particular. This contribution reveals the competing concepts of the principle in interpretation and consecutive original contentious proceedings, and promotes instead a uniform concept that avoids the conflict inherent in current approaches.Section 1 introduces Article 60 of the ICJ Statute (section 1.1.) and thereinafter views interpretation proceedings before the Court in light of the Court's case law, in particular its 2013 interpretation judgment in the Temple case (section 1.2.). Section 2 constitutes the heart of the analysis and discusses what will be identified as the competing concepts of res judicata. Section 2.1. presents the functions, concepts, and case law of res judicata in public international law in general, whereas section 2.2. focuses specifically on the case law of the ICJ and the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in this regard. Finally, section 2.3. concludes this study by setting out the approach that the author regards as appropriate to reconcile the competing concepts of res judicata.

The International Court of Justice and Cultural HeritageInternational Cultural Heritage Law Through the Lens of World Court Jurisprudence?

2020 ◽  
pp. 223-242
Author(s):  
Gabriele Gagliani
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The International Court of Justice, and its predecessor court, the Permanent Court of International Justice, have dealt with cultural heritage issues in a number of cases extending back over a century. Scholars’ attention to this case law appears fragmentary. This chapter intends to fill this gap and analyze the ICJ jurisprudence involving cultural heritage. Through the analysis of ICJ case law on cultural heritage and cultural heritage-related arguments resorted to by States in ICJ disputes, this chapter wishes to prove the relevance of cultural heritage issues for public international law and the key, often-underestimated role of the ICJ for international law on cultural heritage.

The International Court of Justice in Asia: Interpreting the Temple of Preah Vihear Case

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon CHESTERMAN
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Preference ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

This essay examines the 2013 Decision by the International Court of Justice interpreting its 1962 Judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case between Cambodia and Thailand, situating the more recent decision in the context of the Court's evolving role in Asia. Only eight Asian states have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; only nine have ever appeared before it. The narrowness of the recent decision is of interest in part because of the modest role it ascribes to judicial institutions, but also for what this modesty heralds for the Court's status in Asia. A key conclusion is that Asian states are likely to retain a general preference for bilateral resolution of disputes. For smaller disputes, however, especially those concerning subjects that cannot be divided or traded—such as a temple (and, as we shall see, an island)—the ICJ may play an important role.

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.

scholarly journals Środki tymczasowe w stanach nadzwyczajnych. Uwagi na tle sprawy Gruzja v. Federacja Rosyjska przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Sprawiedliwości

2019 ◽  
pp. 181-204
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Hanna Morawska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
General Nature ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Interim Measure ◽  
And Function

The article deals with some aspects of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction considered in recently decided dispute between Georgia and Russian Federation. The analysis essentially covers the question of provisional measures: the conditions for their indication, their legal nature and function. The article refers to measures indicated under Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ which allows the Court to indicate provisional measures providing interim protection to the rights of either party to a pending dispute. Having regard to the relevant case-law of the ICJ, two issues are discussed, namely the existence of prima facie jurisdiction and risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. In addition to the measures referred to specific measures aimed at preserving specific rights, the article draws attention to the Interim measure of general nature with the view of ensuring the non-aggravation of the dispute between the Parties. As Russia does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, the greater part of the article are dedicated to questions regarding the jurisdictional basis for Georgia’s action before the ICJ and the issues of the procedural preconditions for the sesin of the Court in the compromissory clause, under art. 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). It will also comment on whether the dispute between Georgia and Russia really concerned the issues of “the interpretation or application” of CERD,  or respect for others international law principles, i.e. the legality of the use of force, sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination.

The International Court of Justice and Peoples

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-180
Author(s):  
Timo Koivurova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe article examines how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has dealt with the concept of peoples and peoples' rights in its jurisprudence. Most prominent has been the Court's role with respect to the right of self-determination and it is this issue that forms the core of the article. A second important question dealt with is the role of indigenous peoples in ICJ case practice, as the struggle by those peoples to gain collective rights is a recent development in international law. Drawing on this analysis, the discussion proceeds to consider the role that the ICJ has played in the development of the rights of peoples in general and what its future role might be in this sphere of international law. The article also examines the way in which the Court has allowed peoples to participate in its proceedings and whether and how its treatment of peoples' rights has strengthened the general foundations of international law.

The International Court of Justice and International Organisations

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Brölmann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Legal Personality ◽  
Intergovernmental Organisations

AbstractThis vignette deals with the position of international intergovernmental organisations as non-state actors. In the case law of the ICJ the independent identity of international organisations is addressed in the formal terms of international legal personality. Such personality is undisputed in international practice: for example, international organisations not only have the capacity to conclude treaties but also, although the legal framework is not entirely settled yet, to bear international responsibility for violations of international law. The ICJ arguably has had a central role in the conceptualisation of organisations as independent actors in international law: with the 1949 Reparation Opinion intergovernmental organisations essentially received at one stroke the paraphernalia required by an international legal actor. The framework proposed by the Court was widely adopted to match developing practice and, although organisations figure in the majority of cases subsequently brought before the ICJ, it was considered and to some extent refined only in the 1996 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict Opinion.

Kosovo after the ICJ Advisory Opinion: Towards a European Perspective?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Ingravallo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

Abstract The article deals with the advisory opinion given on 22 July 2010 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the accordance with international law of the declaration of independence from Serbia adopted by Kosovo authorities on 17 February 2008. The advisory opinion is critically examined in the light of international law and of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). The responsibilities of the European Union in Kosovo are also scrutinized, with regard to the mandate of EULEX Kosovo, the role of the EU as a facilitator of the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, and the European perspective for Kosovo and the Western Balkans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document