Case Analysis: The Nicaragua Case and the Denunciation of Declarations of Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan José Quintana
Keyword(s):  
Case Analysis ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Impact

This paper is concerned with the denunciation of declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the Optional Clause and the impact that the 1984 Judgment of the Court in the jurisdictional phase of the Nicaragua case may have had upon it. In this decision the Court found that the principle of good faith is of paramount importance in the legal regime of the Optional Clause and introduced in that regime the element of a ‘reasonable time’ for the denunciation of declarations of indefinite duration and silent as to termination. The relevant passage of the Judgment is discussed with a view to determine the contours of this requirement and the ways it may operate in practice.

The Danube: Damned or Dammed? The Dispute Between Hungary and Slovakia Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project.

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Hoenderkamp
Keyword(s):  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Joint Project ◽  
Power Stations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Treaty Law

AbstractThis article deals with the legal aspects of the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia concerning a joint project of locks and power-stations, which had to be constructed in the Danube at Gabc ikovo and Nagymaros. Rules of treaty-law, environ-mental protection, good faith, reprisal and contributory negligence will be applied to assess whether Hungary was entitled to terminate the treaty and whether Slovakia could lawfully construct a provisional solution. Furthermore the significance of the case and its submission to the International Court of Justice is addressed.

Additional Opinions and Judicial Diversity at the International Court of Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 246-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemi Mistry
Keyword(s):  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact

Additional opinions—that is, dissenting opinions, separate opinions, and declarations—are, by definition, the primary institutional mechanism through which judges can express their individual views on a particular decision, as distinct from the judgment or decision proclaimed on behalf of the institution. Therefore, within the public sphere they are the principal institutional manifestation of the individual—and thus the individuality—of the judge. Consequently, for those who seek to understand the impact of certain personal characteristics upon how a judge discharges their professional functions and, in turn, the wider institutional and systemic implications of the participation of individuals bearing those characteristics, the study of additional opinions would seem a useful analytical enterprise. Using gender diversity at the International Court of Justice as a case study, the purpose of this chapter is twofold: first, to explain the relationship between diversity and additional opinions, and second, to explore the methodological potential, and challenges, that the study of additional opinions entails.

The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Law on the Use of Force: Missed Opportunities or Unrealistic Expectations?

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McKeever
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unrealistic Expectations

AbstractIn recent years, the International Court of Justice has been presented with opportunities to pronounce on important dimensions of the law on the use of force. An assessment of the court's handling of these issues must consider first the role attributed to the Court within the international legal regime for preventing and mitigating the use of force, and thus what exactly would amount to 'success' for the Court in such cases. Notwithstanding the inherent limitations on the Court's capacity in this area, this article argues that the Court has largely failed to provide clear guidance on pressing legal questions. An unwarranted caution in utilising the judicial tools at its disposal is one important factor in this regard. Finally, this article highlights some potential consequences of the Court's recent work for the development of international law on the use of force.

Case Analysis: Comment on the Genocide Case (Preliminary Objections)

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-172
Author(s):  
Paul C. Szaz
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On 11 July 1996, the International Court of Justice, in its third Substantive decision and first Judgment in respect of the dispute brought before it by Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia or BH) against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia or FRY) under Article IX of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, dismissed all the preliminary objections that had been raised by Yugoslavia, as well as several additional bases of jurisdiction invoked by Bosnia. The Court also found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and that the application filed by Bosnia on 20 March 1993 was admissible. It thus positioned itself, over three years after the application had been filed, to resume the proceedings to consider the case on its merits, though still on an somewhat lcisurely schedule.

Case Analysis: To Review or Not to Review? The Lockerbie Cases Before the World Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel White
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Uk

On 27 February 1998, the International Court of Justice rejected the preliminary objections of the US and of the UK in the cases concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. The arguments made to the Court, and its decisions on jurisdiction and admissibility, are examined with a view to ascertaining the issues facing the Court, as well as the possible outcomes, if the cases reach the merits stage. The disputes over the Montreal Convention are considered, but particular attention is paid to the legal effects and, more widely, the legality of the relevant Security Council resolutions (Resolutions 748 and 883). The underlying question to be considered is whether there are any indications in the judgments that the Court is moving towards review of those resolutions.

The Protection of Diplomatic Correspondence in the Digital Age

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricio Grané Labat ◽  
Naomi Burke
Keyword(s):  
New Technology ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Actors ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Impact

This chapter considers the impact of new technology on compliance with obligations under the VCDR. It focuses on the provisions of the VCDR that establish the inviolability of diplomatic archives and correspondence and considers the challenges posed by technology that was not available at the time of the drafting of that treaty but which is now commonplace. It evaluates the ever-present risk of unauthorized digital access to diplomatic correspondence and archives, including by non-State actors (eg WikiLeaks), and examines whether the framework of the VCDR is still adequate to deal with those challenges. The chapter also addresses the submission of protected information obtained in violation of the VCDR as evidence in proceedings before international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The chapter analyses the admissibility of that evidence and offers answers on how international courts should deal with that information.

Bolivia-Chile border issue will benefit Morales

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Good Faith ◽  
Water Usage ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Subject

Significance Oral hearings regarding the dispute begin at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 19 and will last for nine days. The case is unusual in that the plaintiff (landlocked Bolivia) wishes to oblige the defendant (Chile) to negotiate a territorial settlement ‘in good faith’ to restore its access to the sea. Chile, which has long sought to prevent the issue becoming the subject of international jurisdiction, asserts the matter is purely bilateral. Impacts Peru is likely to play a role in any eventual scheme to give Bolivia access to the Pacific. International opinion will remain sympathetic to Bolivia’s claim but, ultimately, unable to force a solution. With Chile also taking Bolivia to the ICJ over water usage, any territorial resolution may depend on that issue’s progress.

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile): Preliminary Objection (I.C.J.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian G. Ku
Keyword(s):  
Pacific Ocean ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Pacific Ocean

On September 24, 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its judgment on the preliminary objection filed by Chile in Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean.1 Chile had objected to the ICJ’s jurisdiction arguing that Bolivia’s application raises a dispute that had already been settled by the 1904 Peace Treaty Between Bolivia and Chile. The ICJ, however, rejected this jurisdictional objection and agreed to consider the merits of Bolivia’s claim that Chile has an obligation to negotiate in good faith the issue of Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document