The Role of ICJ Procedure in the Emergence and Evolution of Erga Omnes Obligations

2020 ◽  
pp. 211-242
Author(s):  
Ravindra Pratap
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) procedure has been, within and across contentious cases and advisory opinions, both a catalyst for, and a constraint on, the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations. Clarification, interpretation, and affirmation of the law have most frequently worked as catalysts for the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations. Judicial propriety and/or judicial discretion have most frequently tended to constrain the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations. Judicial propriety and/or judicial discretion, evidence, consent, and standing before the Court have been other catalysts. Formalism, jurisdiction, fact-finding, and interpretation have been other constraints on the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations.

The Absence of State Consent to Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice: Judicial and Political Restraints

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-207
Author(s):  
Mahasen Aljaghoub
Keyword(s):  
Main Role ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Integral Role ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Advisory Opinions

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, (UN) and its Statute is an integral part of the UN's Charter. The court's integral role within the UN has largely been misunderstood especially in the way the court has viewed its advisory jurisdiction. The ICJ always asserts that the delivery of an advisory opinion represents its participation in the UN's work and thus, in the absence of compelling reasons, a request for an opinion ought not to be refused. Some commentators note that the principle that the ICJ must participate in the work of the Organisation might sometimes conflict with its judicial character, which might result in not embracing the philosophy of “judicial restraint” in the court's advisory jurisdiction. They also contend that the absence of consent in advisory cases has led the court to overlook its judicial restraint. This article argues that those commentators have overlooked the main role of the ICJ's advisory function in clarifying the law and providing guidance for future action by the UN organs, and has consequently called for applying the principle of consent as a condition for giving an advisory opinion on questions relating to disputes pending between States. In the present article, the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory opinion is analysed to see whether the absence of Israeli consent has undermined the ICJ's judicial character. The author is of the view that the court, as the principal judicial organ of the UN, should, by a cautious judicial policy, provide enlightenment to the UN and participate to achieving its goals while at the same time adhering to its judicial character.

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.

Reflections on the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 909-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
YOSHIFUMI TANAKA
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

AbstractOn 19 November 2012, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. This judgment includes several important issues which need serious consideration, such the as legal status of maritime features, the interpretation and application of Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the methodology of maritime delimitations, the role of proportionality in maritime delimitations, and the impact of the judgment upon third states and effect of Article 59 of the ICJ Statute. Focusing on these issues, this contribution aims to analyse the judgment of 2012 from a viewpoint of the international law of the sea, in particular, the law of maritime delimitation.

scholarly journals Review of the advisory role of the international court of justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-640
Author(s):  
Senad Ganic
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Advisory Opinions ◽  
Advisory Role

This paper presents a brief review and analysis of advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice as well as an explanation of the nature and importance of advisory opinions as specific decisions of the International Court of Justice. The intention was to make the public more familiar with the nature of these proceedings drawing attention of the professional public to some specific elements that characterize advisory procedures, which in a sense make them closer to the proceedings in resolving disputes between states. Although not binding by their nature as are decisions of the Court, advisory opinions have, however, some weight and importance that primarily stem from the importance and authority of the body that provides them. A non-binding effect of advisory opinions is just a starting point in explaining them. Actually, it is the fact that opinions have a great authority and this requires some further explanations.

Reappraising the Role of Experts in Recent Cases Before the International Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 337-370
Author(s):  
James Gerard Devaney
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Conceptual Clarity ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Fact Finding

Abstract: Experts have played a prominent role in recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice (the Court). Against the backdrop of high-profile criticisms of the Court's fact-finding process, recent cases before the Court have produced a number of notable developments which can be seen as responses to these concerns. However, some issues persist, largely due to a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the role that both party- and Court-appointed experts should play in proceedings, a consequence of the rudimentary procedural provisions in the Court's constitutive instruments. This article advances a number of proposals for reform in the form of two Practice Directions that set out modalities for the examination of party-appointed experts and the appointment of the Court's own experts, as well as providing reasoned guidance on the independence of experts. These proposals not only flesh out the role of the expert, but also show how the Court can accommodate the principles of party autonomy and the proper administration of justice which operate upon it.

International Court of Justice: The Role of Consent in the Context of Judicial Propriety Deconstructed in Light of Chagos Archipelago

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-218
Author(s):  
Ksenia Polonskaya
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Relevant Element ◽  
Advisory Opinions ◽  
Chagos Archipelago ◽  
Advisory Function

Abstract This article examines the notion of consent as an element of judicial propriety as defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the context of its advisory function. The article situates the issue of judicial propriety within a broader conversation on the Court’s normative outlooks in international law, and examines the most recent advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago to understand how the Court itself views its role in international law. The article concludes that the Court’s advisory opinions do not provide much clarity as to the circumstances in which a lack of consent will become a compelling enough reason to justify a refusal to give an advisory opinion. The Court appears to ritually recite consent as a relevant element in its assessment of judicial propriety, however, it continues to limit such relevance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document