Let’s (Not) (Dis)Agree to Disagree!? Some Thoughts on the ‘Dispute’ Requirement in International Adjudication

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-106
Author(s):  
Andreas Kulick
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Adjudication

Abstract International courts and tribunals only enjoy jurisdiction to settle a ‘dispute’. ‘Dispute’ requires disagreement. However, what if the parties disagree over whether there actually exists such disagreement? What if, before the International Court of Justice, the respondent argues that there is no ‘dispute’ because it declined to react to the applicant’s contentions? In other words, can a disputing party avoid a dispute by playing dead? On the other hand, where does one draw the line in order to prevent the applicant from seizing an international court or tribunal where there is in fact no real disagreement between the parties? This article critically assesses the Court’s case law on the ‘dispute’ requirement and argues for a fragmented approach to ‘dispute’ in international adjudication that carefully defines this jurisdictional requirement along the lines of the judicial function of the respective international judicial dispute settlement forum.

Part III The Major Cases and Controversies: A Survey of State Practice, 6 The Major Cases

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
McCaffrey Stephen C
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The World ◽  
International Profile

This chapter explores cases bearing on the field of international watercourses that have been decided by the International Court of Justice or its predecessor. States have submitted only a few disputes concerning international watercourses to the International Court of Justice or its predecessor, though the pace is clearly picking up. There are doubtless many factors that explain this phenomenon, including reluctance to give a dispute a high international profile, reluctance to trust dispute resolution to a third party over whom states have no control, hesitancy about submitting a dispute to a tribunal composed of judges, the expense of litigating before the World Court, and the like. On the other hand, states are bringing an increasing number of cases of all kinds, including those concerning international watercourses, to the Court, indicating that it is becoming a more popular forum for the resolution of disputes.

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the fourth of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2007 was the busiest year for dispute settlement in the law of the sea for some time. The main developments under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname Case and two prompt-release-of-vessel judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Outside the framework of the Convention, the International Court of Justice gave judgments in two maritime boundary cases—one on the merits (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and the other on jurisdiction (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

scholarly journals The Power of the International Court of Justice to Indicate Provisional Measures to Prevent the Aggravation of a Dispute

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAOLO PALCHETTI
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Irreparable Harm ◽  
The Icj

AbstractThe article aims at examining, in the light of the practice of the International Court of Justice, some issues concerning the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures to prevent the aggravation or extension of a dispute. While the existence of a power to indicate non-aggravation measures appears to be well established in the Court's case law, the scope of this power has proved to be a more controversial issue. This study argues that, by attaching relevance to the element of aggravation, the Court has been able to indicate measures that are not strictly needed to prevent a risk of irreparable harm but which at any rate contribute to a greater protection of the rights of the parties; at the same time, however, the Court has so far refrained from regarding the risk of aggravation as a circumstance which may justify a less stringent evaluation of the other conditions that normally need to be satisfied for the granting of interim protection under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute.

6. The Practical Working of the Law of Treaties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malgosia Fitzmaurice
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines key structural questions and fundamental problems relating to the law of treaties. These structural matters include: the concept of a treaty; the anatomy of treaties (including the making of treaties; authority to conclude treaties; expression of consent to be bound; invalidity of treaties (non-absolute grounds for invalidity of treaties, absolute grounds for invalidity of treaties, amendment, and modification); suspension and termination). The key issues addressed include the scope of legal obligation (the principle pacta sunt servanda, treaties, and third States); interpretation and reservation to treaties (including interpretative declarations); and finally, problems concerning the grounds for termination (supervening impossibility and material breach). The chapter also considers the theory and practice of the law of treaties, with broad analysis of the case law of various international courts and tribunals, with special emphasis on jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice.

Voting Behavior of National Judges in International Courts

1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Il Ro Suh
Keyword(s):  
Voting Behavior ◽  
International Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Adjudication

It has been assumed in international adjudication that each state in the litigation should be permitted to have a judge of its own nationality on the bench. This practice of employing national judges in international courts is deeply rooted in the history of arbitration and judicial settlement. Responding to a demand for it, the Committee of Jurists in 1920–1921 embodied the plan in Article 31 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. This article was transferred intact to the Statute of the present International Court of Justice in 1945. Whether judges of the nationality of the parties, either in arbitration tribunals or in courts of justice, can be counted upon to be as “independent” as the processes of justice require, and as Article 2 of the present Statute stipulates, is a question of some moment to present-day international justice. It has been suggested as an alternative that a judge on the International Court of the nationality of the litigant should abstain; thus a state with no judge of its nationality on the Court would not be at a disadvantage.

Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthea Elizabeth Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relative Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Constituent Elements

The demise of custom as a source of international law has been widely forecasted. This is because both the nature and the relative importance of custom’s constituent elements are contentious. At the same time, custom has become an increasingly significant source of law in important areas such as human rights obligations. Codification conventions, academic commentary, and the case law of the International Court of Justice (the Court) have also contributed to a contemporary resurrection of custom. These developments have resulted in two apparently opposing approaches, which I term “traditional custom” and “modern custom.” The renaissance of custom requires the articulation of a coherent theory that can accommodate its classic foundations and contemporary developments. This article seeks to provide an enriched theoretical account of custom that incorporates both the traditional and the modern approaches rather than advocating one approach over the other.

Equity in International Law

1987 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth
Keyword(s):  
Burkina Faso ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

In its judgment concerning the frontier dispute between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali (1986), the Chamber ot the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) summarized its opinion on the applicability of equity as follows:It is clear that the Chamber cannot decideex aequo et bonoin this case. Since the Parties have not entrusted it with the task of carrying out an adjustment of their respective interests, it must also dismiss any possibility of resorting to equitycontra legem. Nor will the Chamber apply equitypraeter legem. On the other hand, it will have regard to equityinfra legem, that is, that form of equity which constitutes a method of interpretation of the law in force, and is one of its attributes. As the Court has observed: “It is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution but an equitable solution derived from the applicable law”.

Beyond Compliance: Law-Making through Latin American Cases before the World Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-263
Author(s):  
Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
American States ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Traditional Function ◽  
International Adjudication

Abstract Departing from a contemporary approach to international adjudication, this article aims to evaluate, firstly, the limits of compliance and its residual character when assessing the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice with regards to Latin American states. Secondly, it deals with the importance of going beyond the traditional function of inter-state dispute settlement to assess the contribution of Latin American states to international law through cases submitted to the Court, independently from case-specific compliance. This is because a judgment that has not been complied with may substantially contribute to international law and produce important impacts on domestic authorities. Latin American cases constitute an example of this phenomenon.

National Judges and Judges Ad Hoc of the International Court of Justice

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 889-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Schwebel
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
International Justice ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World

When the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was drafted by an Advisory Committee of Jurists in 1920, a paramount question was, should a judge of the nationality of a State party to the case sit?The sensitivity of the issue was encapsulated by a report of a committee of the Court in 1927 on the occasion of a revision of the Rules of Court. It observed that: “In the attempt to establish international courts of justice, the fundamental problem always has been, and probably always will be, that of the representation of the litigants in the constitution of the tribunal. Of all influences to which men are subject, none is more powerful, more pervasive, or more subtle, than the tie of allegiance that binds them to the land of their homes and kindred and to the great sources of the honours and preferments for which they are so ready to spend their fortunes and to risk their lives. This fact, known to all the world, the [Court's] Statute frankly recognises and deals with.”1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document