Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): So Far, So Good?

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-407
Author(s):  
Udoka Ndidiamaka Owie

Abstract International law has a long history of dealing with racial discrimination, including its involvement in the perpetration of racial discrimination. However, in establishing a body of norms to tackle the problems of racial discrimination, several multilateral instruments have been adopted under the auspices of the United Nations addressing this malaise to various extents with the most extensive being the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) of 21 December 1965. While lauded for its singular and dedicated focus on racial discrimination, the Convention is challenged, at least interpretatively, as to the grounds for racial discrimination within its remit. Events occurring between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017 have afforded the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, an opportunity—the third since the coming into effect of the Convention—to interpret this landmark treaty.

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-592
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne

In 1987 I drew attention to a report published in 1986 by a member of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) of the United Nations, recommending a number of changes, some of them fundamental, in the presentation by the International Court of Justice of its judgments and advisory opinions. I indicated the principal objections that the Court had expressed on those recommendations, and pointed out that the implementation of some of them could constitute violations of the Charter, of which the Statute of the Court is an integral part. The matter was also the subject of a resolution adopted on April 9, 1987, by the American Society of International Law, reproduced in part in note 30 on page 695 of my Note. It is now possible to bring the story up-to-date and close an unfortunate chapter in the history of the Joint Inspection Unit.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-268
Author(s):  
David Keane

Abstract The ‘living instrument’ doctrine has emerged as a key vehicle for evolution and innovation within the International Convention on the Elimination of  All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Originating in the case law of the European Court of   Human Rights, the doctrine has been adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and, it is argued, all the United Nations treaty bodies. Yet its origins and meaning under ICERD have not been explored. This article investigates its first invocation in an individual communication, Hagan v Australia. It contrasts regional case law, where individual judgments set key interpretive standards, with an international individual communications system that has evolved asymmetrically across the United Nations treaties and does not perform the same standard-setting role. The significance of concluding observations and general recommendations in understanding ICERD as a living instrument is detailed. The living instrument approach in recent inter-State complaints before the International Court of Justice and the Committee is discussed. In conclusion, the need to map ICERD as a living instrument across the multiplicity of its supervisory mechanisms is emphasised.


2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 973-1030
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hofer

On July 23, 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) issued its Order on Qatar's request for provisional measures in the Qatar v. United Arab Emirates (UAE) case in which Qatar claims the UAE is responsible for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD or the Convention). The Court has previously ordered provisional measures under CERD in the context of the Ukraine v. Russia case and in the Georgia v. Russia proceedings. As is already apparent in the Order and the dissenting and separate opinions, the Qatar v. UAE case raises important issues pertaining to the interpretation of racial discrimination on the basis of “national origin” under Article 1(1) CERD as well as to the reading of the procedural conditions under Article 22 CERD.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Musiał

The essay compares selected Kantian ideas stated in The Perpetual Peace with the institutions established by the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The concept of a nation and its position in international law in view of the Charter will be presented and linked with the Kantian theory of sovereignty of Nations. The core of the paper is an afterthought on the supremacy of three separate powers over the Nations, hence the question of the rules of procedure held by the International Court of Justice will be regarded as the consequence of the idea of sovereign equality. The Kantian concept: "Nations, as states, may be judged like individuals”: (Kant, 1917, p. 128) is observed from the perspective of state’s demand for independence. The institution of the International Court of Justice is presented as a universal supreme body. The key issue of the essay is the federative character of union as a guarantee of eternal peace seen as common point in both of the documents discussed.


1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Louis B. Sohn

In declaring the period 1990–1999 as the United Nations Decade of International Law, the General Assembly of the United Nations listed among the main purposes of that decade the need “to promote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, including resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice”.


1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Gowlland-Debbas

The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council may be approached from the perspective of the United Nations Charter and the way it delimits competences between two principal UN organs and regulates the exercise of their concurrent powers. The Court, however, has a dual, ambivalent role. It is not only the principal judicial organ of the United Nations under Article 92 of the Charter; it is also an autonomous adjudicative body with the function, under Article 38 of its Statute, of applying international law to such disputes between states as are brought before it. Viewed in the light of Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie, the relationship between the judicial and political organs raises some fundamental questions of general international law that go beyond UN constitutional issues.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Gamarro González

The companies dealing with military and security matters are on the rise, and today they provide services to a very wide client list, which includes states and international organizations (IOs). It is well known that these companies have been deployed in a large number of armed conflicts, and indeed, some of them have become prominent in the sector not only for their military results but also for their abuses of international humanitarian law and human rights. Surprisingly, it is lesser known that the United Nations (UN) has also had recourse to private military and security companies in the context of United Nations military operations with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security.The engagement of private military security companies in UN peace operations entails multiple legal questions. This dissertation is especially intended to shed some light over the extent to which PMSCs deployment in UN peace operations is compatible with international humanitarian law and how the law of institutional responsibility deals with the violations of international humanitarian law committed by such companies when providing services to the UN. For that purpose and to that extent due recourse has been made to the most relevant international law sources on the matter, such as the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and other relevant instruments such as the ILC Articles on State and IO responsibility, and the Montreux Document. Jus cogens and international custom, including the practice of international organizations and states, and opinion juris as ascertained by legal scholars and the International Court of Justice, play an essential role in this dissertation, since the United Nations has not become yet a party to any IHL treaty, thus employing an inductive methodology. A comparative approach was adopted in regard to the observations of the most eminent institutions and jurists, and domestic and international courts, including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights for the purpose of ascertaining the different rules of attribution of conduct existing in international law. Besides, certain decisions of the latter Court were analysed in order to clarify by analogy whether the application of international humanitarian law and the imputation of acts can function under the same degree of control test.


The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations is an authoritative, one-volume treatment of sixty years of history of the United Nations, written by over forty scholars, analysts, and practitioners writing sometimes controversially, but always authoritatively on the key topics and debates that define the institution. Citations and suggested readings contain a wealth of primary and secondary references to the history, politics, and law of the world organization. This Handbook includes a clear and penetrating examination of the UN's development since 1945 and the challenges that it faces in the twenty-first century. The Handbook also contains appendices of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Stature of the International Court of Justice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Atul Alexander ◽  
Anushna Mishra

Abstract The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ under the United Nations (UN) competent to decide cases submitted by the States. The Jurisdiction of the ICJ is derived from Article 36 of the ICJ statute; further, the ICJ is competent to render advisory opinions when requested by the organs and specialised agencies of the UN. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, the ICJ has to satisfy that it has jurisdiction to decide upon the case. Moreover, the decisions of the ICJ are binding without appeal, except in cases involving revision. This article briefly analyses the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the International Civil Aviation Organisation Council (ICAO Council) under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar).


Author(s):  
Erika de Wet

This chapter questions whether there is a hierarchy among the sources of international law and whether such a hierarchy is important for resolving norm conflicts stemming from the different sources of international law. It first examines whether the order between the sources listed in Article 38 (1) (c) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute is an indication of a hierarchy in accordance with the order and form in which the sources are listed or moulded. Thereafter, the chapter examines whether peremptory norms represent a substantive hierarchy. It also questions whether peremptory norms can be categorized in accordance with the sources listed in Article 38 (1) (c), or whether they constitute a separate source in international law. The chapter further engages in a similar analysis of obligations under the United Nations Charter. It concludes that peremptory norms and obligations under the Charter are indicative of a substantive hierarchy in international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document