Part I The Human Rights Mandate of the Principal Organs, 4 The International Court of Justice

Author(s):  
Simma Bruno

This chapter evaluates the International Court of Justice, which is one of the United Nation’s principal Charter bodies, and its principal judicial organ. As such, it hears cases brought by states against others and can render advisory opinions sought by certain organs of the UN and international organizations authorised to do so, both of which bear on a wide range of international legal issues. The ICJ is not specifically a human rights body, but its jurisprudence may have, indeed has had, an impact on international human rights law. The chapter then looks at the interpretation and application of human rights by the ICJ. It also assesses the linkage of the Court and human rights, identifying two phases in the engagement of the Court with human rights matters.

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-340
Author(s):  
Jack M. Goldklang

On December 17, 1982, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting an expansion of the advisory opinion jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The resolution (H.R. Con. Res. 86) urges the President to explore the appropriateness of establishing a United Nations committee to seek advisory opinions from the ICJ. The committee would act when asked by a national court seeking advice regarding any international law question under the national court’s jurisdiction.


2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Andenas ◽  
Thomas Weatherall

This case1 marks the first pronouncement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) in international law. It is the second contentious case in which the ICJ has held the defendant country in breach of its obligations under a human rights convention. The ICJ both added to the corpus of norms it has formally recognized as peremptory norms (jus cogens) and also reinforced the principle that former heads of state are subject to universal jurisdiction for grave violations of international law.


2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 607-625
Author(s):  
ANNEMARIEKE VERMEER-KÜNZLI

AbstractOn 30 November 2010, the International Court of Justice issued its decision in the merits phase of the Ahmadou Sadio Diallo case. This decision turned on the questions of whether the DRC had violated Mr Diallo's human rights and his rights as a shareholder and manager in two corporations he owned in the DRC. This paper analyses the decision of the Court in the light of the choices it made and the methodology it applied, and demonstrates that both issues raise fundamental questions. The Court's decision on Mr Diallo's human rights is often ambitious to the detriment of clarity, whereas the part of the judgment dealing with corporate rights does not seem to move beyond its 1970 predecessor in Barcelona Traction. While understandable, this is also regrettable and the consequences for individuals doing business and/or residing in foreign countries may be substantial.


Author(s):  
O’Boyle Michael ◽  
Lafferty Michelle

This article examines influence of general principles of law and constitutions in the formulation of human rights standards and in their interpretation and application by international courts, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It describes and compares the application and interpretation of human rights by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This article also highlights the fact that majority of human rights instruments and provisions subsequently adopted at the national and international levels have built upon the guarantees elaborated by the UDHR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document