The Obligations concerning Negotiations Cases and the “Dispute” Requirement in the International Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-397
Author(s):  
Ori Pomson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic

Abstract In the Obligations concerning Negotiations cases, the International Court of Justice (icj) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed to the merits since there was no dispute prior to the filing of the application by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (rmi) against the three respondent states – India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom – respectively. The present article considers more closely the basis of the requirement that a “dispute” exists for the icj to exercise its jurisdiction. It submits that the condition that a “dispute” exists relates to the essence of the Court’s judicial function. It then questions whether the respondent’s awareness of the applicant’s opposition to its views is a requirement for engaging the Court’s judicial function. After answering this question affirmatively, it questions whether reasons of judicial propriety dictate that a dispute must exist prior to the filing of an application. This question is also answered affirmatively.

International Court of Justice

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-217 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.

scholarly journals Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Devesh Awmee
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament. The case concerned three parallel claims brought by the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom for their alleged failure to fulfil obligations concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament under art VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. The Court in all three proceedings dismissed the claims at the preliminary objections phase on the sole ground that a legal dispute did not exist between the parties. In determining whether a legal dispute existed, the Court appears to have deviated from the objective determination taken in its previous jurisprudence by introducing, for the first time, a new requirement of "awareness". The Court also failed to address the other preliminary objections brought by the United Kingdom such as the Monetary Gold principle, which appears to have been a more credible avenue for the Court to dismiss the case. The case illustrates the failure by the Court to yet again confront the issue of nuclear weapons.

International Court of Justice

1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-512 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Administrative Services ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): On May 30, 1961, the government of the Republic of Cameroun filed in the Registry of the Court an application instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom.1 The applicant alleged that the United Kingdom had failed to respect certain obligations of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under British Administration of December 13, 1946. The application stated specifically: 1) that the Northern Cameroons had not been administered as a separate territory within an administrative union, but as an integral part of Nigeria; 2) that the objectives set forth in article 6 of the trusteeship agreement—the development of free political institutions and an increasing share for the inhabitants in the administrative services, as well as their participation in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government of the territory—had not been attained; 3) that the agreement did not authorize the administering power to govern the territory as two separate parts evolving differently politically; 4) that, with respect to General Assembly Resolution 1473 (XIV) of December 12, 1959, (a) provisions relating to the separation of the administration of the Northern Cameroons from that of Nigeria, had not been followed, and (b) conditions laid down for the drawing up of electoral lists had been interpreted in a discriminatory manner; and 5) that the acts of the local authorities in the period preceding the plebiscite authorized by the afore-mentioned resolution and during the subsequent election involved consequences in conflict with the trusteeship agreement.

International Court of Justice

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Royal Decree ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On December 18, 1951 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the fisheries case which had been brought before the Court by the United Kingdom against Norway. By a vote of ten to two the Court established the validity of the Norwegian Royal Decree of 1935 in international law. This reserved to Norway an exclusive fishing zone of four miles based on lines connecting the outermost land points of the jagged coast. Through an eight to four vote the Court sanctioned the Norwegian system of straight baselines and overruled the United Kingdom contention that the four-mile belt should more closely follow coastal contours. This decision ended two years of litigation over a forty-five year controversy.

International Court of Justice

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-118
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
British Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Corfu Channel Case: Following the resolution of the Security Council on April 9, 1947, recommending that the United Kingdom and the Albanian governments should immediately refer the Corfu Channel question to the International Court of Justice, the United Kingdom on May 22, 1947, filed an application with the Registry of the Court instituting proceedings against Albania. By a reply dated July 21, filed July 23, 1947, Albania accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, protesting against the unilateral act of the British government in its application. On December 9, 1947, the Albanian government filed a document entitled “Preliminary Objection”.

Limitations Upon the Judicial Function

1964 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

The case of the Cameroons v. The United Kingdom concerning the Northern Cameroons, described, in a typical understatement, as “almost unique in the annals of international litigation,” has been terminated by a judgment of the International Court of Justice which appears as well to be “almost unique.” In fact, neither the Court nor any of the separate opinions referred to any precedent.

International Court of Justice

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 310-312
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Reasonable Estimate ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Last Stage ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
Sufficient Proof

Corfu Channel Case: At a public hearing on December 15, 1949 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in the last stage of the Corfu Channel Case between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of Albania. The two experts appointed by the Court to examine the figures and estimates of damages produced by the United Kingdom had reported on December 2, 1949 and had been further questioned by the judges. Because the Albanian government had failed to defend its case, procedure in default of appearance was brought into operation. After finding that the figures given by the United Kingdom government for the replacement of the destroyer Saumarez and for the damage sustained by the destroyer Volage were an exact and reasonable estimate of the damage sustained, and after finding the documents produced by the United Kingdom regarding deaths and injuries of naval personnel sufficient proof, the Court gave judgment in favor of the claim of the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay that country a total compensation of £843,947.

Case Analysis: Some Procedural and Substantive Aspects of the Libya/Chad Case

1996 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-183
Author(s):  
Carlos J. Argüello-Gomez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Libya has come three times before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the basis of special agreements. At present, Libya has pending before the Court two cases it has brought by unilateral application, respectively against the United Kingdom and against the United States, concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. For its part, Chad had never come before the Court since its accession to independence in 1960.

International Court of Justice

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-125
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Corfu Channel Case: On November 17, 1949 a public hearing was held on the Corfu Channel Case on the assessment of compensation due by Albania to the United Kingdom. After oral pleadings, the acting president (Guerrero) declared that the Court had decided to appoint two experts to decide whether the figures presented by the United Kingdom were correct. The experts designated were Rear Admiral Berck and M. de Rooy, both of the Netherlands.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document