Settlement of Disputes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

This chapter considers the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes as discussed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As a general rule, disputes over the interpretation or application of the Convention must be resolved speedily by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other authorities of the receiving State in determining whether criminal proceedings may be brought, by national courts when diplomatic immunity is pleaded, or by governments in deciding on whether a member of mission should be recalled or more generally on the level at which they wish to maintain diplomatic relations. According to the protocol, disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.

Immunities and Criminal Proceedings; (Equatorial Guinea v. France)

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 219-373
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Diplomatic relations — Immunity of State officials and State property — Prima facie jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, 2000 (“Palermo Convention”) — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Plausibility — Article 22 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Inviolability of diplomatic premises — Whether building located at 42 Avenue Foch could plausibly be regarded as housing diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea — Irreparable prejudice — Urgency — Link between provisional measures requested and rights sought to be protected International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Palermo Convention — Whether references to customary international law incorporate those rules of customary law into the Convention — Sovereign equality of States — Whether dispute regarding alleged breach of customary law principle within jurisdiction of the Court under the Palermo Convention — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Optional Protocol — Dispute regarding status of buildings claimed as premises of diplomatic mission International Court of Justice — Admissibility — Abuse of process — Abuse of rights — Whether reasons not to exercise jurisdiction under Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations — Matter for preliminary objections — Whether exceptional circumstances existing — Whether Application inadmissible on that basis — Abuse of rights — Whether ground of inadmissibility when establishment of rights claimed properly a matter for merits Treaties — Palermo Convention — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Article 35(2) of Palermo Convention — Scope of jurisdiction ratione materiae under Palermo Convention — Article 4 of Palermo Convention — Incorporation of customary rules of international law on State immunity by reference to principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs of other States — Alleged overextension of jurisdiction by France in implementing provisions of Palermo Convention 220Diplomatic relations — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1961 — Subject matter of dispute — Procedural preconditions to Court’s jurisdiction under Articles II and III of Optional Protocol — Meaning of “premises of the mission” under Article 1(i) of Vienna Convention — Whether definition of “premises of the mission” falling within scope ratione materiae of Vienna Convention — Whether a dispute concerning inviolability of the building at 42 Avenue Foch State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Head of State immunity — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Basis for any claim to immunity — Customary international law — Whether incorporated into Palermo Convention

scholarly journals Immunities and Criminal Jurisdiction (Equatorial Guinea v. France): Preliminary Objections (I.C.J.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70
Author(s):  
Martins Paparinskis
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Equatorial Guinea ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Transnational Organized Crime ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

On June 6, 2018, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered a judgment on preliminary objections in the case of Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France). France had made three preliminary objections: two related to the Court's jurisdiction on the basis of, respectively, United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention) and the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Protection (VCDR) concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol), and the third challenged admissibility for abuse of process and abuse of rights. The Court accepted the first objection regarding jurisdiction on the basis of the Palermo Convention and rejected the other two. This judgment is an important contribution to the development of international law, both regarding the particular instruments at issue and broader questions of law of treaties and international dispute settlement.

scholarly journals Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-Palestinian Relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Relationship

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such. The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017 announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018. The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Announces Withdrawal from Four International Agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-141
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
International Court ◽  
Trump Administration

In October of 2018, the Trump administration announced that the United States would withdraw from four international agreements. On October 3, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would withdraw from the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights with Iran. Later that day, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that the United States was also withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). Both withdrawals were triggered by pending International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases grounded in these treaties that were recently brought against the United States. Two weeks later, in an escalation of the ongoing trade dispute with China, the United States gave notice of withdrawal from the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the international body charged with overseeing the international mailing system. Finally, on October 22, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would be terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. Unlike other withdrawals undertaken by the Trump administration, this latest round involved three Article II treaties to which the Senate had provided its advice and consent. In addition, the international commitments withdrawn from in this round were long-standing ones, with U.S. participation in the UPU going back as far as 1875.

Final Clauses

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
The Other ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Article 50

This chapter looks into Articles 48 to 53 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 48 states that the Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the UN or any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the Convention. Article 49 on the other hand states that the present Convention is subject to ratification, while Article 50 expresses that the Convention shall remain open for accession by any State. Article 51 enumerates the date of the enforcement of the ratifications submitted to the UN, and Article 52 states that the Secretary-General shall inform all States the deposit of instruments of ratification and the date of enforcement. Lastly, Article 53 states that the original texts of the Convention shall be deposited with the Secretary-General, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

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

ICJ—prohibition against the use of force—self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter—duty of vigilance—IHR and IHL under belligerent occupation

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
James Thuo Gathii
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). At <http://www.icj-cij.org>.International Court of Justice, December 19, 2005.In its December 19, 2005, judgment in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo v. Uganda (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Uganda to have engaged in grave violations of the prohibition on the use of force and of its international humanitarian and human rights obligations during its occupation of Congelese territory. The Court also found that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for its treatment of Ugandan diplomats and also for the destruction of their diplomatic premises and the associated archives and records.The train of events leading to this case originated in May 1997 with President Laurent-Desire Kabila's deposition of Zairean dictator Mobutu-Ssese Seko. Having come to power with Ugandan and Rwandese military assistance, Kabila was unsuccessful in his effort to remove Ugandan and Rwandese troops from the DRC (paras. 48–50). The DRC alleged that in August 1998, Ugandan armed forces invaded (para. 29) and then captured and occupied Congolese towns and territory in defiance of Kabila's decision that Ugandan and Rwandese forces should leave the DRC (para. 29–31). Further, the DRC contended that Uganda recruited, funded, trained, equipped, and supplied armed Congolese groups opposed to the Kabila government (para. 32).

Certain Criminal Proceedings in France; (Republic of the Congo v. France)

2021 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 172-218
Keyword(s):  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Investigation

International Court of Justice — Provisional measures of protection — Criteria — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Forum prorogatum — State consent to jurisdiction of International Court of Justice — Rules of the Court, Article 38 — Risk of irreparable prejudice — Link between risk of prejudice and rights claimed in the Application — Relevance of full extent of possible harm — Relevance of wider political consequences — Urgency — Non-extension and non-aggravation of dispute — Whether provisional measures required to prevent aggravation or extension of dispute — Removal of case from List State immunity — Head of State — Senior officials — Sovereign equality of States — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials violating principle of sovereign equality — Whether risk of irreparable prejudice to immunities Diplomatic relations — Risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations — Whether judicial investigation of foreign State officials constituting risk of irreparable prejudice to diplomatic relations between States Relationship of international law and municipal law — Head of State immunity — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with principle of head of State immunity — Sovereign equality — Compatibility of domestic criminal powers with the principle of sovereign equality

scholarly journals TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES: APPLICATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

2019 ◽  
pp. 144-152
Author(s):  
S. Karvatska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Law ◽  
Text Context ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The article is devoted to the analysis of the nature, essence and mechanism of the application of travaux preparatoires by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the process of interpreting the international law. It is proved that the interpretational practice of the ICJ shows the extension of the doctrinal approaches of the traditional perception of travaux preparatoires as an auxiliary tool. It has been established that the ICJ uses travaux preparatoires 1 to identify the intent of the legislator; 2 to provide advisory opinions; 3 to clarify the intentions of the parties to the treaty; 4) to determine the jurisdiction of the ICJ; 5) to identify the true intentions of the parties to the dispute; 6) to decide questions regarding the text, context, purpose and object of the treaty as a general rule of interpretation, fixed in Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document