Introductory Note

2019 ◽  
pp. 395-406
Author(s):  
John G. Merrills
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Boundary Case ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

In 2017 the International Court of Justice gave one judgment and made a number of orders. The judgment concerned preliminary objections in a maritime boundary case and the orders provisional measures of protection and the admissibility of certain counter-claims. These cases, although not very numerous, made a useful contribution to the development and application of internal law. In that year also no less than six new cases were begun, and one case was partially discontinued. The new cases were concerned with issues ranging from a land boundary question to compliance with two international law conventions, the revision and interpretation of a judgment, and the detention and trial of a national. The United Nations General Assembly also adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion. At the beginning of 2018 there were therefore seventeen cases on the Court's docket. In 2017 the Court also elected five judges to the bench in the regular triennial election.

International Court of Justice

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-256
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Labor Organization ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal: On December 9, 1953, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions: 1) has the General Assembly the right to refuse to give effect to an award of compensation made by the Administrative Tribunal in favor of a United Nations staff member whose contract of service had been terminated without his assent? and 2) if the Court's answer to the first question was in the affirmative, what were the principal grounds on which the Assembly could lawfully exercise such a right? After copies of this resolution were transmitted to the Court by a letter of the Secretary-General (Hammarskjold) dated December 16, the Court fixed March 15, 1954, as the time-limit within which written statements might be submitted by any state entitled to appear before it or any international organization considered by the president as likely to be able to furnish information on these questions, and reserved the rest of the procedure for further decision. Members of the United Nations and the International Labor Organization were then notified that, in accordance with Article 66 (2) of the Statute, the president considered them likely to be able to furnish such information.

The Legal Status of Namibia and of the United Nations Council for Namibia

1976 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 306-322
Author(s):  
Lawrence L. Herman
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
International Court ◽  
Sovereign Authority ◽  
The United Nations

The issues surrounding the legal status of Namibia and the numerous actions taken within the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council relating to the revocation of the mandate of South Africa, are complex, and even the 1971 Opinion of the International Court of Justice has not simplified them. Much of the difficulty in determining the present juridical status of Namibia and the repository of sovereign authority over the territory revolves around the apparent inconsistencies between the 1950 Advisory Opinion of the Court and its 1971 Opinion. In this regard, the essential factor to be considered is the binding effect of the resolution of the General Assembly in 1966 that purported to terminate South Africa’s Mandate over Namibia.

The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases — A first appraisal

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. McNeill
Keyword(s):  
World Health ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinions

There were two requests for advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice — the first from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the second from the United Nations General Assembly.

ICRC statement to the United Nations General Assembly on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 118-119
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

The debate in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (51st Session, 1996) on agenda items 71 and 75 (disarmament and the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention) gave the ICRC the opportunity to make the following brief comment on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice relating to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:This was the first time that the International Court of Justice analysed at some length international humanitarian law governing the use of weapons. We were pleased to see the reaffirmation of certain rules which the Court defined as “intransgressible”, in particular the absolute prohibition of the use of weapons that are by their nature indiscriminate as well as the prohibition of the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. We also welcome the Court's emphasis that humanitarian law applies to all weapons without exception, including new ones. In this context we would like to underline that there is no exception to the application of these rules, whatever the circumstances. International humanitarian law is itself the last barrier against the kind of barbarity and horror that can all too easily occur in wartime, and it applies equally to all parties to a conflict at all times.

Size Matters, Although It Shouldn’t: The ICRW and Small Cetaceans. A Reply to Stephenson, Mooers and Attaran

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Couzens
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Issue Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Size Matter

AbstractWritten as a response to the article ‘Does Size Matter? The ICRW and the Inclusion of Small Cetaceans’ by Sean Stephenson, Arne Mooers and Amir Attaran, this commentary considers how important global and regional biodiversity- or conservation-related conventions have deliberately avoided the issue area of cetacean management. One of the effects of this is that so-called ‘small cetaceans’ – approximately 70 species – are left largely unregulated. This article differs from that of Stephenson and his co-authors, who argue that the ‘only appropriate’ forum for dealing with the issue is the International Court of Justice. Instead, it is argued here that the ‘Future of the IWC’ compromise process may yet represent the best course for bringing small cetaceans under IWC management authority. Another alternative was recently suggested in a draft resolution put forward by Monaco in 2012 – and is likely to be put forward again in 2014 – which advocated involving the United Nations General Assembly in the issue. The issue is both complicated and important, and a solution is needed.

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

scholarly journals The Kosovo Opinion and Secession: The Sounds of Silence and Missing Links

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 881-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Burri
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Profile ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

With the request for an advisory opinion on Kosovo opportunity knocked on the doors of the International Court of Justice. The opportunity was unique for several reasons. First, the case of Kosovo was momentous. It had involved war. International armed forces had intervened to stop ethnic cleansing. Since then, the situation of Kosovo has been politically loaded. It has polarized the entire international community. Second, it is a rare occurrence that such a situation comes to the Court. The regular case, if there is such a thing, before the Court has tended to be a relatively low-profile interstate dispute. The Kosovo incidence had only come to the Court in the first place—like the case of the Wall on the West Bank, the other recent high-profile exception—because the detour via the United Nations General Assembly had been open.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVO, ADVISORY OPINION OF 22 JULY 2010

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dov Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

‘Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?’ It is to answer this question that the General Assembly of the United Nations (‘UNGA’) requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’). The request, adopted in October 20081 and initially sponsored by Serbia, was triggered by the declaration of independence of Kosovo issued on the 17 February 2008.2 Some two years later, on the 22 July 2010, the ICJ delivered its Advisory Opinion.3 By a 10–4 vote, the ICJ found that the declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document