Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 7)—The Upcoming Separation of the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion: Between the Court’s Participation in the UN’s Work on Decolonization and the Consent Principle in International Dispute Settlement

Abstract During the lead-up to the Final Agreement settling the Macedonian name dispute, apparently no or scant mention was made of the Interim Accord (FYROM v. Greece) case that FYROM brought in 2008 and won overwhelmingly in 2011 against Greece at the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or the “Court”). This paper highlights the structure and main points of the ICJ judgment in the Interim Accord case and analyzes the part of the judgment on the main substantive issue. The paper argues that, even on its own terms, the Court’s judgment did not conduct the interpretation exercise to the full and further that the experience with the Court’s judgment in this case does flash a warning light to any decision-maker that it must not lose sight of “the one big thing”, which may vary from case to case, in a dispute settlement endeavor if it wants to have its decision implemented. This experience also teaches any State party in a dispute that it may have to know and unyieldingly seize upon the one big thing in the dispute settlement effort in order to achieve its goal.

Download Full-text

On the International Court of Justice and the Determination of Rules of Law

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156513000022 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 243-251 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

SANTIAGO VILLALPANDO

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Mission Statement ◽

Legal Theory ◽

General Nature ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

International Dispute

In the process of selection of articles for the International Court of Justice section at the Editorial Board of the Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL), we tend to be seduced by those manuscripts which are effective in making use of the jurisprudence of the Court as an instrument to engage in an in-depth examination of substantive legal issues of a general nature. This reflects our conviction – hardly an original one, since it appears to be shared by our entire legal community – that the Court has a fundamental role to play in the advancement of international law as a legal system. It also echoes an idea that is present in the mission statement of our journal, which is conceived as ‘a forum for two vital areas, namely international legal theory and international dispute settlement’, thus establishing an intrinsic link between them. But how is the Court's contribution to the development of international law to be assessed? And what do we expect from a scholarly piece examining its case law in this respect?

Download Full-text

12. International dispute settlement and the ICJ

International Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198748830.003.0012 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 299-322

Author(s):

Gleider Hernández

Keyword(s):

United Nations ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Third Party ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Principal Characteristics ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

Prior Consent ◽

International Dispute ◽

The Icj

This chapter examines the various political or diplomatic methods available for international dispute settlement. These methods include negotiation, mediation or ‘good offices’, inquiry, and conciliation. The array of diplomatic techniques available to parties to resolve a dispute is complemented by various means of settling disputes through the application of binding solutions based on the law. Two in particular, arbitration and adjudication, principally developed from earlier forms of non-binding settlement. Though these are different, they are linked by two principal characteristics. Foremost, they allow for a third party to issue a decision that is binding on the parties. Second, resorting to these methods requires the prior consent of the parties. The chapter then considers the International Court of Justice, the ‘principal judicial organ’ of the United Nations. The ICJ’s structure was frequently utilized as a model for later judicial institutions, making an enormous contribution to the development of international law.

Download Full-text

32. Third party settlement of international disputes

Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198737445.003.0032 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 692-716

Author(s):

James Crawford

Keyword(s):

Dispute Settlement ◽

International Investment ◽

Third Party ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

The Third ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Wto Dispute Settlement ◽

International Court ◽

International Dispute ◽

The Third Party

This chapter discusses the third party settlement of international disputes. It covers arbitration and the origins of international dispute settlement; the idea of judicial settlement of international disputes; the International Court of Justice, interstate arbitration, dispute settlement under UNCLOS, the WTO dispute settlement body, and international investment tribunals.

Download Full-text

7 Immunity, 7.3 Difference relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights , Advisory Opinion, [1999] ICJ Rep 62

10.1093/law/9780198743620.003.0042 ◽

2016 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Wickremasinghe Chanaka

Keyword(s):

Dispute Settlement ◽

International Organization ◽

Advisory Opinion ◽

Special Rapporteur ◽

Legal Process ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

National Jurisdiction ◽

Advisory Opinions

The advisory opinion is one of the relatively few cases that have required the International Court of Justice to consider directly issues related to the immunity of an international organization (in this case the UN). It provides important guidance on how to delineate between activities that are pursued by the UN and its officials in an official capacity, which are therefore entitled to immunity, and activities which are pursued in some other capacity and therefore are subject to national jurisdiction. At a procedural level the case is significant as the first occasion on which the process of so-called ‘binding advisory opinions’ under art. VIII, Section 30 of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations has been invoked, leading in itself to some interesting questions about the adaptation of the Court’s advisory jurisdiction to a more formal mode of dispute settlement.

Download Full-text

International Dispute Settlement

10.1093/law/9780199684601.003.0019 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Roda Verheyen ◽

Cathrin Zengerling

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

International Law ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Future Climate Change ◽

Marine Resources ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

International Dispute ◽

International Climate

This chapter discusses international dispute settlement in the context of climate change. It looks into where international disputes that relate to climate have been heard and those, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which have the potential to hear such disputes. As it forms as the backbone of the international climate change regime, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is also analysed. The chapter gives special attention to the ITLOS as among its main potentials of becoming a forum for future climate change litigation are its jurisdiction on substantive international law with comparatively strong rules on use and protection of marine resources and the marine environment.

Download Full-text

Conceptions of State Jurisdiction in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of International Justice

The Oxford Handbook of Jurisdiction in International Law ◽

10.1093/law/9780198786146.003.0019 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 454-480

Author(s):

Daniel Costelloe

Keyword(s):

Dispute Settlement ◽

Legal Issues ◽

International Justice ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

State Immunity ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

International Dispute ◽

Domestic Jurisdiction

This chapter traces the manner in which the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have understood and applied notions of state jurisdiction in response to a variety of legal issues in international dispute settlement. These have notably included the so-called ‘reserved domain’ of domestic jurisdiction, which certain states have invoked in an effort to challenge the jurisdiction of an international court or tribunal or the admissibility of claims. They have also included the foundational question, invariably associated with the PCIJ’s judgment in the case concerning the SS Lotus, whether a state must invoke a permissive rule before it may lawfully territorial adjudicatory jurisdiction. Finally, these issues have involved international legal limitations on the exercise of such jurisdiction in the context of state immunity.

Download Full-text