The Asymmetric Judicial Dialogue Between the ICJ and the IACtHR: An Empirical Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Structural Differences ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The One ◽  
The Empirical Analysis ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract This article evaluates the judicial dialogue between the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). It aims to discuss, on the one hand, the use of the ICJ jurisprudence in the case law of the Inter-American Court and the use of the IACtHR jurisprudence in the case law of the ICJ, on the other hand. Being aware that the ICJ and the IACtHR are placed in different levels and possess structural differences, the judicial dialogue between these two courts is inevitably marked by asymmetries. The empirical analysis of the interaction between the ICJ and the IACtHR aims to identify the functions of the judicial dialogue, which encompass the general cross-fertilization function and the function of enhancing the persuasiveness, authority or legitimacy of individual judicial decisions.

The Obligation to Undertake an Environmental Assessment in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ: A Principle in Search of Autonomy

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-169
Author(s):  
Elisa RUOZZI
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe practice of carrying out an environmental impact assessment (EIA) has gained strength in international law and jurisprudence, finding application in the case law of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). If, on the one hand, the ICJ has recognized the customary nature of this principle, on the other its application poses a set of challenges, mainly linked to the autonomy of this obligation from other international environmental law norms. More precisely, the obligation at issue has been applied in connection with the due diligence and notification principles, creating uncertainty about its scope, as well as about its substantive or procedural nature. Likewise, the autonomy of the obligation to perform an EIA has been challenged in relation to the definition of the content and scope of the obligation itself, which in turn is linked to the existence of applicable treaty provisions or of soft law. This article discusses the impact of these elements on the reasoning of the Court in the cases at issue, in order to demonstrate how such lack of autonomy can undermine the coherence of the reasoning itself and, therefore, an effective application of the principle.

10. Peaceful settlement of disputes

2019 ◽  
pp. 128-143
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The One ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter examines the means and methods relating to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UN Charter obliges States to resolve peacefully their disputes and suggests certain means for such settlement: on the one hand, diplomatic means, like negotiation, mediation, conciliation, or the ‘good offices’ of the UN Secretary-General and, on the other, legal methods, such as arbitration and recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which are binding. The ICJ exercises its jurisdiction over contentious cases only upon the consent of the parties to the dispute, which may be expressed through various forms (e.g. compromis or optional clause declaration). The ICJ may also render advisory opinions to questions of international law posed by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, or other competent organs and organizations. The chapter also explains dispute settlement in the context of international investor–State arbitration and in the World Trade Organization.

scholarly journals The Power of the International Court of Justice to Indicate Provisional Measures to Prevent the Aggravation of a Dispute

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAOLO PALCHETTI
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Irreparable Harm ◽  
The Icj

AbstractThe article aims at examining, in the light of the practice of the International Court of Justice, some issues concerning the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures to prevent the aggravation or extension of a dispute. While the existence of a power to indicate non-aggravation measures appears to be well established in the Court's case law, the scope of this power has proved to be a more controversial issue. This study argues that, by attaching relevance to the element of aggravation, the Court has been able to indicate measures that are not strictly needed to prevent a risk of irreparable harm but which at any rate contribute to a greater protection of the rights of the parties; at the same time, however, the Court has so far refrained from regarding the risk of aggravation as a circumstance which may justify a less stringent evaluation of the other conditions that normally need to be satisfied for the granting of interim protection under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute.

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.

scholarly journals Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 8)—Interim Accord (FYROM v. Greece) and the Settlement of the Macedonian Name Dispute: Knowing and Seizing upon Many Things or One Big Thing in Treaty Interpretation and International Dispute Settlement in General

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-502
Author(s):  
Sienho Yee
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
Final Agreement ◽  
The One

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.

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.

A Lauterpachtian Affair: Security Exceptions as ‘Self-Judging Obligations’ in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice and Beyond

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-560
Author(s):  
Momchil Milanov
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Entire Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Although Sir Hersch Lauterpacht never dealt with security exceptions during his time at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), his entire body of work formed the intellectual premise for the approach of the Court towards security exceptions and the way in which the ICJ manoeuvers in the larger debate on the relationship between law, politics and the proper discharge of the judicial function. The Lauterpachtian approach is understood as a particular attitude towards the judicial function in which the Court serves as an instrument for the protection of peace, as a guardian of the coherence and unity of the international legal system and as a driving force for the development of international law. However, in some other important elements of its reasoning, the Court seems to remain more Lauterpachtian in spirit than in letter. Despite these inconsistencies, the Court arguably exerted significant (albeit somehow uneven) influence over World Trade Organization panels and investment tribunals.

10. Peaceful settlement of disputes

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The One ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter examines the means and methods relating to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The UN Charter obliges States to resolve peacefully their disputes and suggests certain means for such settlement: on the one hand, diplomatic means, like negotiation, mediation, conciliation or the ‘good offices’ of the UN Secretary-General and on the other, legal methods, such as arbitration and recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which are binding. The ICJ exercises its jurisdiction over contentious cases only upon the consent of the parties to the dispute, which may be expressed through various forms (e.g. compromis or optional clause declaration). The ICJ may also render advisory opinions to questions of international law posed by the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, or other competent organs and organizations. The chapter also explains dispute settlement in the context of international investor-State arbitration and in the World Trade Organization

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.

Sources in the Meta-History of International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Weston Janis
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
International Law ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Case Law ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of International Law

This chapter introduces a ‘meta-theory’ of international law. It employs the insights of Thomas Kuhn, who argued that once a paradigm has been accepted by a scientific community, most scientists accept it without much question. When the paradigm is overwhelmed, a ‘scientific revolution’—a new paradigm—emerges. The paradigm for the sources of international law is Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute, which emerged during and after World War I when international lawyers, faced with the horrors of that awful conflict, lost faith in their old discipline, thereby initiating Kuhn’s scientific revolution. Nowadays, Article 38 remains an attractive paradigm: first because the ICJ and its Statute are almost universally accepted; secondly, because it is neatly formulated; thirdly, because the paradigm has been confirmed in case law and commentary; and fourthly, because it is widely taught.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document