From Advisory Opinions to Binding Decisions: The new Appeal Mechanism of the Un system of Administration of Justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Vargiu
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
International Court ◽  
Tier System ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractIn 2009 the United Nations launched a new two-tier system of administration of justice. The system is composed of two standing bodies, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNApT), the latter acting as an appeals mechanism against decisions of the UNDT. The former system foresaw the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) as the sole body of administration of justice within the UN, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) acted as review mechanism on the decisions of the UNAT. However, this review system was abolished in 1995 and, since then, no option was available to unsuccessful (or partially successful) staff members for having a UNAT judgment reviewed. The lack of any option for review led to criticisms and instances for reform of the whole system, which eventually led to the establishment of a Redesign Panel, which suggested the establishment of a two-tier system of administration of justice, with the aim of meeting the 'basic standards of due process established in international human rights instruments'. The recently established Appeals Tribunal should fill the gap created by the abolition of the ICJ competence to review the judgments rendered by the UNAT. This article evaluates the improvement to the system represented by the establishment of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal in three main steps. The first is the identification of the shortcomings of the previous review mechanism before the ICJ. The second is the overview of the problems of the former system of administration of justice within the UN. The third and final step is the analysis of the scope of jurisdiction of the new UNApT.

Part 4 Adjudication Within the United Nations System, 29 The International Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Rules Committee ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System

This chapter begins by discussing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a principal organ of the UN. The ICJ is the only UN principal organ that has its seat in The Hague. It consists of a Bench, a Registry, and a modest but important staff. All judges, who have to be able to work in French or English, are expected to sit on one of the Court’s two major committees, the Rules Committee, and the Budgetary and Administrative Committee. The chapter covers the Bench of the ICJ, the Court’s functions, the ICJ as distinct from other principal organs; ICJ financing and the UN; the ICJ and other courts and tribunals; methods of work of the ICJ; and ICJ efficiency.

Poland Accepts the Optional Clause of the ICJ Statute

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-375
Author(s):  
Renata Szafarz
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

On September 25, 1990, Poland deposited a declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court. It is the first country from Central or Eastern Europe to have done so and the fifty-second state now maintaining an effective declaration.

‘Killing Three Birds with One Stone’? The Preliminary Objections Judgments of the International Court of Justice in the Legality of Use of Force Cases

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIMON OLLESON
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

The ICJ in its judgments on the preliminary objections in the Legality of Use of Force cases held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims. Despite the unanimous concurrence in that result, it is clear that there were deep divisions within the Court as to the ground on which that decision should have been reached; only a bare majority subscribed to the reasoning that the Court was required to rule on the question of its jurisdiction ratione personae in relation to Serbia and Montenegro's uncertain status within the United Nations prior to 2000. The minority judges were highly critical of the choice of that basis of decision, in particular given its apparent implications for other cases pending before the Court.

The Recommendations Made by the International Court of Justice

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean D' Aspremont
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The United Nations

Any observer of the practice of the International Court of Justice (hereafter the ICJ or the Court) may have noticed the growing tendency of the United Nations judicial body to formulate recommendations to the parties that have appeared before it. Indeed, the Court is more and more inclined to recommend that the parties allay their dispute and alleviate all ensuing human sufferings. This leaning is particularly observable when the Court simultaneously dismisses a request for the indication of provisional measures. For instance, in the recent order rendered by the Court in the case concerning the Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), the Court made the following declaration:

2 Legal Powers, 2.2 Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal Advisory Opinion [1954] ICJ Rep 47

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Kenneth
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Case Note ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

This case note relates to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in which the Court ruled that the General Assembly of the United Nations had the power to establish the Tribunal to decide disputes between UN staff members and the UN Secretary-General, their employer, and that its awards were binding on the General Assembly when it came to adopt the UN budget. Underlying these rulings is the principle of the independence of the international civil service. The case note also records the changes that were made to the Statute of the Tribunal as a consequence, changes which presented procedural issues for the Court which was given a review power in respect of awards of the Tribunal.

On membership of the United Nations and the State of Palestine: A critical account

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Main Driver ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract Against the context of pending judicial proceedings between the State of Palestine and the United States of America (US) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this article critically examines the United Nations (UN) commitment to the international rule of law through an examination of its consideration of Palestine’s 2011 application for membership in the organization. The universality of membership of the UN is a foundation upon which the organization rests. The international law governing UN admission has accordingly been marked by a liberal, flexible and permissive interpretation of the test for membership contained in the UN Charter. In contrast, an assessment of the UN’s consideration of Palestine’s application for membership demonstrates that it was subjected to an unduly narrow, strict and resultantly flawed application of the membership criteria. An examination of the contemporaneous debates of the Council demonstrates that the main driver of this was the US, which used its legal authority as a permanent member of the Council to block Palestine’s membership. The principle argument used against membership was the US’s view that Palestine does not qualify as a state under international law. Notwithstanding, the State of Palestine has been recognized by 139 member states of the UN and has acceded to a number of treaties that furnish it with access to the ICJ. While a number of articles have been written about Palestine’s statehood, little has been written on the UN’s consideration of Palestine’s 2011 application for membership. Palestine v. USA provides a renewed opportunity to do so.

scholarly journals REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: THE URGENCY FOR A MORE ADVANCED SCOPE OF JURISDICTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-78
Author(s):  
Novena Clementine Naomi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Current System ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Friendly Relation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Abstract It can be argued that in facing the paramount problems of the twenty first century, one of the core elements of establishing a world with friendly relation among States is by the constitution of a healthy judicial field considering the fact that disputes among States are in no way can be avoided. For more than seven decades the International Court of Justice has served the world and the Member States of the United Nations in particular with judicial service as it bears the function as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. However, by analyzing the development of international law, while the ICJ has contributed to improving the relation between States by way of providing States with the proper settlement of disputes, the current system—mostly designed at a time of different global challenges and priorities—seems to have exceeded its capacity to be nimble and responsive to the needs of today’s world. This article seeks to offer recommendations on how to optimize the Court’s function by means of reforming its contentious jurisdiction. The purpose of this article is to open more possibilities to optimize the Court, by making the Court’s jurisdiction mandatory and compulsory to all States and offer a possibility of expansion of jurisdiction as to include ratione materiae jurisdiction. Keywords: Jurisdiction, International Court of Justice, Reform   Abstrak Dapat dikatakan bahwa dalam menghadapi masalah terpenting di abad dua puluh satu, salah satu unsur utama dalam menciptakan dunia dengan hubungan baik antar negaranya adalah melalui terciptanya ranah peradilan yang sehat, menimbang sengketa antar negara yang merupakan sebuah keniscayaan. Selama lebih dari tujuh dekade, Mahkamah Internasional telah melayani dunia dan negara anggota dari Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa terkhusus dalam hal penyediaan pelayanan peradilan terkait dengan fungsinya sebagai organ peradilan utama Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa. Bagaimanapun, dengan menganalisa perkembangan hukum internasional, walaupun Mahkamah Internasional telah berkontribusi dalam meningkatkan hubungan baik antar negara dengan cara menyediakan cara penyelesaian sengketa yang memadai, sistem yang ada sekarang ini—sebagian besar dirancang pada masa dengan tantangan dan prioritas global yang berbeda—tampaknya telah tidak efektif dalam menanggapi kebutuhan dunia zaman ini. Tulisan ini bertujuan menawarkan rekomendasi-rekomendasi perihal optimalisasi dari fungsi Mahkamah Internasional dengan cara reformasi yurisdiksi kasus kontensius yaitu diantaranya dengan menjadikan yurisdiksi Mahkamah sebagai wajib bagi setiap negara anggota, serta memperluas jangkauan yurisdiksi Mahkamah berdasarkan prinsip ratione materiae. Kata Kunci: Mahkamah Internasional, Reformasi, Yurisdiksi

The Interpretation of “Treaties in Force” in Article 35(2) of the Statute of the ICJ

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 884-904
Author(s):  
Sienho Yee
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Member State ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

Every member State of the United Nations is a party to the Statute (the Statute) of the International Court of Justice (the Court or ICJ).1 In addition, a non-member State may also become a party to the Statute.2 The Court is open to the States parties to the Statute.3 As to those States that are not parties to the Statute, Article 35(2) of the Statute provides:The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other states shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court.

UN INTERNATIONAL COURT PRACTICE: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Мадина Алиевна Умарова
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Court Practice

В статье анализируется практика Международного суда ООН, определяются проблемные аспекты его деятельности, обусловленные рядом проблем как правового, так и международного характера. The article analyzes the practice of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, identifies the problematic aspects of its activities, due to a number of problems, both legal and international.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document