Freshwater Boundaries Revisited

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-89
Author(s):  
María Querol
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Rivers ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Rivers And Lakes ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Subject ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Legal Consequences

Although boundaries, including freshwater ones, are generally set by treaties concluded by the states concerned, interpretation of such agreements by the different states has varied, resulting in a number of disputes before international tribunals. The aim of this monograph is to describe and analyze the different methods applied in the delimitation of international rivers and lakes and the recent developments in this field. The monograph reassesses these diverse methods of boundary delimitation in view of the latest and abundant jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the tribunals under the aegis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the subject. The monograph also focuses on the influence of human considerations in the field under study and the legal consequences ensuing therefrom, in addition to drawing some conclusions regarding freshwater boundaries.

Decisions of International Tribunals: The International Court of Justice

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 709-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D Evans
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Principal Elements

On 16 March 2001 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in what was then its most longrunning case. It was in 1987 that Qatar and Bahrain had begun a process of attempting to agree upon the submission of their differences to the Court, but although they were able to agree upon the subject matter in dispute, they could not agree upon its legal characterization and the manner in which the dispute should be placed before the Court. That notwithstanding, and basing itself upon the agreed minutes of a meeting held at Doha in December 1990, Qatar unilaterally instituted proceedings against Bahrain on 8 July 1991. Bahrain raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the case which were first addressed by the Court in its judgment of July 19941 and, following a reformulation of elements of the Qatari application in November 1994, the application was declared admissible in February 1995.2 During the course of the subsequent written pleadings a further dispute arose concerning the authenticity of 82 documents annexed to the Qatar Memorial and, following exchanges on the matter, Qatar announced that it would not rely on the disputed documents.3 Oral hearings were held in May 2000 and judgment given some ten months later. The two principal elements of the case concern, first, the disputed title to, and status of, a number of islands, maritime features and a portion of the Qatar peninsula and, secondly, the course of the maritime boundaries between them. The case was extremely complex, with disputed characterizations of the physical and legal

Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (I.C.J.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Riesenberg
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Pacific Ocean ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Pacific Ocean ◽  
The Subject

In 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in a maritime boundary dispute between Peru and Chile (Judgment). The subject of the dispute was an area of maritime space in the Pacific Ocean comprising nearly seventy thousand square kilometers, or roughly “an area the size of Sri Lanka or Georgia.”

Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel’s Security Wall

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Folk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a security wall on occupied Palestinian territory, declaring that the wall was in violation of international law. The advisory opinion also indicated that Israel should forthwith cease construction of the wall, dismantle what had been so far constructed, and make reparations to the Palestinians for all damages caused by the project. On July 20, 2004, at the Tenth Emergency Session of the General Assembly, Resolution ES-10/15 was adopted by a vote of 150 in favor, 6 opposed, and 10 abstentions, demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations as specified by the advisory opinion.

scholarly journals Advisory opinion of the international court of justice in the “wall case” in the service of a possible solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 338-352
Author(s):  
Senad Ganic
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Beneficial Impact ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Surprising Fact ◽  
The Way

The Arab-Israeli conflict even today represents one of the most complex problems facing the international community. The biggest controversy of the problem lies in the conflicting interpretations of the reasons offered by both sides. The way to overcome this impasse, is precisely the way recourse to international institutions. For this reason, the surprising fact is, that one very important decision of The International Court of Justice, it seems, remained unjustly neglected, especially if we take into account the importance of the issues which the Court dealt and the beneficial impact that this decision may have in the process of resolving the conflict in the Middle East. We believe that Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory hides the way to a possible solution of this exhausting conflict. To consider because it comes to a legal analysis of the situation, which was given by the authorities in whose objectivity we supposed not to suspect as we supposed not to doubt on the objectivity of international law. Therefore, we consider it important to once again remind the decision, believing that in this way we can help to better understand the nature of this conflict, but also the reasons which indicate its possible peaceful solution.

The Temporal Jurisdiction of International Tribunals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gallus Nick
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Second World

The period of an international tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction is the span of time during which an act must have occurred before the tribunal may consider if the act breached an obligation. There are many questions concerning this particular aspect of an international tribunal’s jurisdiction. Does a tribunal have power over acts that occurred after the entry into force of the obligation allegedly breached but before the tribunal’s jurisdiction was accepted? What about acts that began before the tribunal’s jurisdiction was accepted but continued after? To what extent can acts before the period of the tribunal’s jurisdiction affect its decision on whether or not there is a breach through acts afterwards?This book examines these questions in depth. Despite its importance, the temporal jurisdiction of international tribunals is not well understood. Tribunals often confuse different aspects of their jurisdiction and refuse to hear cases they should have heard, or agree to hear cases they should not. This book reduces this confusion by clarifying the different limits on the temporal jurisdiction of international tribunals and the important distinctions between those limits. The book examines the temporal limits resulting from the entry into force of the obligation allegedly breached, from the acceptance of the tribunal's jurisdiction, and from the period of limitation, as well as the effect of acts that occurred before these limits. The book comprehensively compares decisions from a wide variety of sources including the International Court of Justice Human Rights Courts World Trade Organization panels and investment treaty tribunals. It comments on decisions that arose from some of the most notorious events of the twentieth century including the ‘Katyn Massacre’ of the Second World War the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the ‘forced disappearance’ of American political opponents. It reviews these decisions and identifies common principles that help define the temporal jurisdiction of tribunals to decide breaches of international law.

The Protection of Diplomatic Correspondence in the Digital Age

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricio Grané Labat ◽  
Naomi Burke
Keyword(s):  
New Technology ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Actors ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
The Impact

This chapter considers the impact of new technology on compliance with obligations under the VCDR. It focuses on the provisions of the VCDR that establish the inviolability of diplomatic archives and correspondence and considers the challenges posed by technology that was not available at the time of the drafting of that treaty but which is now commonplace. It evaluates the ever-present risk of unauthorized digital access to diplomatic correspondence and archives, including by non-State actors (eg WikiLeaks), and examines whether the framework of the VCDR is still adequate to deal with those challenges. The chapter also addresses the submission of protected information obtained in violation of the VCDR as evidence in proceedings before international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The chapter analyses the admissibility of that evidence and offers answers on how international courts should deal with that information.

Bolivia-Chile border issue will benefit Morales

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Good Faith ◽  
Water Usage ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Subject

Significance Oral hearings regarding the dispute begin at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 19 and will last for nine days. The case is unusual in that the plaintiff (landlocked Bolivia) wishes to oblige the defendant (Chile) to negotiate a territorial settlement ‘in good faith’ to restore its access to the sea. Chile, which has long sought to prevent the issue becoming the subject of international jurisdiction, asserts the matter is purely bilateral. Impacts Peru is likely to play a role in any eventual scheme to give Bolivia access to the Pacific. International opinion will remain sympathetic to Bolivia’s claim but, ultimately, unable to force a solution. With Chile also taking Bolivia to the ICJ over water usage, any territorial resolution may depend on that issue’s progress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document