I. Lagrand Case (Germany v United States of America)

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D. Evans ◽  
Martin Mennecke ◽  
Christian J. Tams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

In the LaGrand case, the United States found themselves for the second time within three years before the International Court of Justice dealing with the death penalty imposed on foreign nationals in the United States.1 In contrast to the earlier case filed by Paraguay, the German-sponsored LaGrand case survived the provisional measures phase and went on to the merits stage. In its judgment of 27 June 2001, the Court largely affirmed all four German submissions and ruled that the United States had violated international law.

The Thirty—Third Year of the World Court

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

Impartiality and Neutrality in Humanitarian Law and Practice

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (273) ◽  
pp. 516-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frits Kalshoven
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On 27 June 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua. The case, involving Nicaragua against the United States of America, is remarkable in many respects, and so is the judgment. I should like to single out two special features: it deals with a situation of armed conflict, and it mentions the Red Cross.

International Court of Justice Rules in Favor of Germany and Against the United States in the LaGrand Case

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The U.S

In its judgement from June 27, 2001, in the LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), the International Court of Justice made a number of watershed rulings: (a) The Court established that Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates individual rights for foreign nationals abroad, and not just rights protecting the interests of states that are a party to the Convention; (b) The Court ruled that, beyond the undisputed failure on the part of the U.S. to take the measures required by the Convention, the application of an American provision of criminal procedure in the LaGrand brothers' cases (a provision that prevented the domestic courts from reviewing the implications of the Convention violation admitted by the Americans) itself constituted a violation of Article 36(2) of the Convention; (c) The Court, as a remedy in the case of future violations of the Convention, ordered the United States to provide a procedure for the review and reconsideration of convictions secured in circumstances in which the obligations of the Convention had not been observed; and (d) as a separate matter the Court ruled that its provisional orders, issued pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, have binding effect.

Introduction

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
States Government

The ultimate authority of the International Court of Justice flows from the same source as the ultimate authority of all other judicial bodies. Every court’s decisions are an authoritative source of law in a realistic sense only because they are accepted as such by the community whose controversies the court is charged to resolve. In the case of the World Court, it is the community of nations that confers that authority and under the Court’s Statute, its jurisdiction is conferred solely by the consent of the nations whose disputes it is called to adjudicate. It is for this reason that the case Nicaragua v. United States and the actions of both the Court and the United States Government in connection with it are of special importance to those who are concerned with international law.

Determining U.S. Responsibility for Contra Operations Under International Law

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis A. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Operational Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Significant Point

The only significant point of disagreement this author might have with the June 27, 1986 decision on the merits by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America concerns its failure to hold the United States Government fully responsible for the violations of the laws and customs of warfare committed by the contra forces in Nicaragua. The Court carefully premised this result on the finding that it had insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion on such a delicate matter. Nevertheless, the Court held it established that the U.S. Government largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the contras. Somewhat questionably, in the Court’s estimation, it remained to be proven that the Reagan administration actually exercised operational control over the contra forces.

Legal Issues in the Nicaragua Opinion

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Fred L. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject

The opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case will be of interest primarily because of its general pronouncements on questions of international law. Its impact on the immediate controversy appears slight; the United States Government has strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy, has vetoed subsequent proposed Security Council resolutions on the subject, and is appropriating additional funds for the contested activities, without apparent reference to the Court’s decision. This Comment is limited to the general theoretical and legal issues and will not treat the underlying factual issues, the Court’s disposition of the immediate case or the implications of the opinion for the evolution of the dispute.

scholarly journals Mandatory Multilateralism

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan J. Criddle ◽  
Evan Fox-Decent
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
International Court ◽  
Multilateral Regimes

AbstractThis Article challenges the conventional wisdom that states are always free to choose whether to participate in multilateral regimes. International law often mandates multilateralism to ensure that state laws and practices are compatible with sovereign equality and joint stewardship. The Article maps mandatory multilateralism's domain, defines its requirements, and examines its application to three controversies: the South China Sea dispute, the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement, and Bolivia's case against Chile in the International Court of Justice.

1. Proposals of the United States of America on the Problem of Voting in the Security Council Submitted to the Interim Committee of the General Assembly, March 10,1948.

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 402-404
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

A. The Interim Committee should study the categories of decisions which the Security Council is required to make in carrying out the functions entrusted to it under the Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and should report to the General Assembly those categories of decisions which in its judgment, in order to ensure the effective exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities under the Charter, should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members of the Security Council, whether or not such categories are regarded as procedural or non-procedural. (A provisional proposed list of such categories is attached.)

The ICJ and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Scott ◽  
Craig L. Carr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Evolving System ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Ideal

The refusal of the United States to consider itself bound by the recent decision in the Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, coupled with the earlier termination of its adherence to Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, has sparked a small storm of controversy and concern. Part of this concern involves how the United States, presumably a law-abiding and law-respecting nation, could possibly bring itself to snub the International Court of Justice and, by extension, the ideal of international law. Another part of this concern involves the likely consequences of the United States move on the vitality of the Court as the focal institution of a slowly evolving system of international law. A less obvious concern, but arguably one of paramount importance, calls into question the wisdom of insisting that the ICJ retain its optional compulsory jurisdiction. It is this less obvious concern that we propose to discuss here.

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights; (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 1-83
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

1International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Conditions for the indication of provisional measures — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Whether acts of which Iran complained falling within material scope of the 1955 Treaty — Article XX, 1(c) and 1(d) of the 1955 Treaty — Whether Article XX restricting the Court’s jurisdiction — Plausibility of rights asserted — Whether Article XX making Iran’s asserted rights not plausible — Whether rights invoked by Iran arising under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — Defence available to United States of America — Link between measures requested and rights whose protection Iran seeking — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Evidence of irreparable prejudice — Continuing character of irreparable prejudice — Urgency in the circumstances — Humanitarian concerns — Non-aggravation and non-extension of the dispute — Binding character of provisional measuresEconomics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Sanctions imposed by the United States of America against Iran — Territorial extent — Whether capable of affecting rights under the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Provisional measures jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document