Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case Seen in Particular From the Perspective of the Law of International Watercourses and the Protection of the Environment

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan G. Lammers
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Succession ◽  
The Law

The subject-matter of this article is the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case. Following an exposition of the relevant facts, it continues with a critical analysis of the Judgment of the Court. In addition to a brief analysis of the issues involving the law of treaties, the law of state responsibility, the law of state succession, and the treaty obligations of Hungary and Slovakia relating to the use of Danube water and the protection of its environment, it focuses on the rules and principles of general international law concerning the use of international watercourses and the protection of the environment that were applied by the Court in this case.

Case Analysis: The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project and the Law of State Responsibility

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Lefeber
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Clear Line ◽  
Legal Consequences

In the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros proceedings, the parties, viz. Hungary and Slovakia, defended their conduct, amongst others, with arguments derived from the relationship between the law of treaties and the law of state responsibility, and from the law of state responsibility itself. In its judgment, the International Court of Justice disentangled the mixture of arguments derived from the law of treaties and the law of state responsibility advanced by Hungary, and drew a clear line between these two branches of international law. Second, it rejected several circumstances that were advanced by the parties to preclude the wrongfulness of their conduct. On both these accounts, the author opines that the declaratory dicta of the Court have contributed to the development of the law of state responsibility. Third, the Court decided on the legal consequences of the intersecting internationally wrongful acts committed by Hungary and Slovakia. According to the author, the Court erred in its reasoning on this account by confusing the award of cessation of the internationally wrongful acts with the award of reparation for these acts.

scholarly journals Theoretical and Practical Significance of the Issue of Maritime Delimitation in the Law of the Sea

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Lakićević-Đuranović
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

This paper aims to show the significance of maritime delimitation in the Law of the Sea, as well as the contribution of international jurisprudence to the creation of the rules of maritime delimitation. The decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the awards of arbitration tribunals are especially significant in the part of the Law of the Sea dealing with maritime delimitation. Based on the analysis of the principle of equity and the method of equidistance, the jurisprudence of the courts is shown to have established precedents and to have an irreplaceable role in the development of the international Law of the Sea, particularly in the segment of maritime delimitations.

Sources of International Organizations’ Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Klabbers
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

This chapter reflects on the uncertainties regarding the question of why international organizations would be bound by international law. It places these uncertainties in the broader framework of a vague and ill-defined ‘turn to accountability’. As the chapter shows, international organizations are often held to account for wrongdoing without it being clear whether they have also violated an international legal obligation resting upon them. The chapter then discusses in some detail the 1980 WHO–Egypt advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding whether the WHO could close their Alexandria office and move it to Jordan. Afterwards, the chapter reviews several recent attempts to overcome the ‘basis of obligation’ problem in the law of international organizations, such as the putative constitutionalization of international law or international organizations, the adoption of accountability models, and the emergence of Global Administrative Law.

The Resilience of the Restrictive Rules on Self-Defence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joerg Kammerhofer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Institutional Practice ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the resilience of the treaty, and perhaps also customary, law on self-defence since 2001. It first considers ‘resilience’ in the context of the jus ad bellum and how law can be resilient vis-à-vis changing circumstance, opinions, interpretation, and state practice. It then looks at the indicators for and against resilience by analysing post-2001 developments, paying particular attention to three areas: jurisprudence, scholarly literature in international law, and state and institutional practice. The chapter also explains what ‘resilience’ can and cannot be, and how the law and its perceptions change—or remain the same. Two avenues on the question of what is resilient are evaluated: either the norm or its interpretation (perception) change. Finally, the chapter considers a number of cases in which the International Court of Justice has made pronouncements on and partial clarifications of important aspects of the law on self-defence since 2001.

scholarly journals Conceiving International Law’s Normative Order beyond the ‘Residual Negative Principle’

2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-484
Author(s):  
Graham Melling
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
The Law ◽  
Normative Order

Due to the nature of the international legal system, the International Court of Justice (icj) is regularly presented with new questions about which international law is unclear or to which it does not yet extend – and is thereby incomplete. The approach of the icj when faced with such gaps raises some fundamental questions about the nature of the international legal system and the judicial function of the icj. The purpose of this article is to revisit and the critically evaluate the issue of how the icj responds when faced with a gap or lacuna in the law.

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.

Down the Danube: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Case Concerning the GabcïKovo-Nagymaros Project

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 837-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Reichert-Facilides
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law

Over the last 30 years, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties1 has emerged as one of the most influential instruments of modern international law. The Convention, which was adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980 and has meanwhile been ratified by more than 80 States.2 Yet, as it does not operate retroactively,3 the scope of application is growing only slowly and its practical importance stems, rather, from the fact that the Convention is widely considered a restatement of customary international law. As early as 1971 the International Court of Justice referred to the articles governing termination for breach of treaty as a codification of the existing law on the subject.4 Since then both international tribunals and national courts have more and more habitually relied on the material provisions of the Convention to ascertain traditional rules of the law of treaties.5

The main approaches to the definition of the international courts’ competence

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Yu. Klyuchnikov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Interpretative Framework

The rules on the competence of international courts determine the nature of the cases they resolve and the conditions for their admission to proceedings. The possibility composition of the court considers each case individually following the principle of jurisdiction to decide the jurisdiction due to the lack of a clear regulatory framework. Each international court of justice, relying on the international law, is solely competent to resolve doubts as to its own jurisdiction. This study aims to identify the approach of courts to solving jurisdictional problems in practice. The material for the study includes the cases of international courts, doctrinal comments, and legal positions of prominent researchers of international justice. The author describes the basic interpretative framework procedure, restraint, activism in the justification, and the lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, if the international court of justice has no confidence in the existence of competence on the subject of the dispute, it will not take measures to justify it. The brevity of the position on the issue will be due to interpretative restraint. Activism arises when the international court of justice seeks to achieve a procedural result, substantiate the rationality of the result of interpretation or the impossibility of achieving it. Science has not resolved the issue of factors that may affect the limits of interpretation by international courts of their own competence.

All’s Well That Ends Well. Or Is It? More on the Publications of the International Court of Justice

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-592
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
American Society ◽  
Advisory Opinions

In 1987 I drew attention to a report published in 1986 by a member of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) of the United Nations, recommending a number of changes, some of them fundamental, in the presentation by the International Court of Justice of its judgments and advisory opinions. I indicated the principal objections that the Court had expressed on those recommendations, and pointed out that the implementation of some of them could constitute violations of the Charter, of which the Statute of the Court is an integral part. The matter was also the subject of a resolution adopted on April 9, 1987, by the American Society of International Law, reproduced in part in note 30 on page 695 of my Note. It is now possible to bring the story up-to-date and close an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Joint Inspection Unit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document